Sitting of 22 March 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DISQUALIFICATION OF A MEMBER
  Madam Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received a letter from the judge in the case relating to Mrs. Fiona Jones, which ended on Friday 19 March in Nottingham Crown court. A copy of the letter will be entered in the Journal of the House. Mrs. Jones was found guilty of the corrupt practice of making a false declaration as to election expenses. Under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983, the seat is vacated with effect from 19 March.
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  DEFENCE

    Recruitment and Retention
    Mr. Julian Brazier: If he will make a statement on the impact of current military operations on recruitment and retention in the armed forces. [75964]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Although the current level of operational commitment of our armed forces is high, recruitment remains buoyant, particularly in the Army. However, retention remains a concern—although there does not appear to be a direct link between retention and commitment. Retention remains a key priority for this Government and we are pursuing a number of important initiatives to address the issue.
    Mr. Brazier: Does the Secretary of State agree with the recent remarks by the Chief of the Defence Staff? He said that, even if recruitment and retention were at target levels, we could sustain only
    "two medium level operations, such as we are doing in Bosnia … one … with fighting ending in six months."
    The Chief of the Defence Staff continued:
    "I do not think we could sustain two for longer than that."
    Does the Secretary of State agree with his principal professional adviser? Would we give up our operations in Bosnia or in Kosovo after six months?
    Mr. Robertson: My senior military adviser gives me guidance all the time and he is happy with the current proposals. Clearly, our commitment in Kosovo—which is considerable—involves a number of troops serving for only the first six months if they are deployed as part of an implementation force into Kosovo as members of the allied Rapid Reaction Corps. We are already seeing a reduction in the number of troops in Bosnia and I hope that that trend will continue as progress is made in that country.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend think that recruitment and retention in the armed forces might be affected if we do not take action and send a clear message to President Milosevic that he must sign the Rambouillet settlement or face the prospect of air strikes? Although military action is

    3
    difficult and unpalatable, does my right hon. Friend believe that it is better to take that action rather than to risk further bloodshed in the Balkans?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am well aware of the strain that our troops are under at present, and never a day goes by without our considering how best to deal with that problem.
    My hon. Friend is right: we are perhaps on the brink of a real humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo. Our choice is either to stand by as the blood and the refugees flow or to take on the aggressor with determination and with a will to stop the carnage. As to the number of troops potentially committed to the operation in Kosovo, the House may wish to note that the Government have decided to make HMS Splendid—the Royal Navy's first submarine to be equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles—available for operations in connection with the Kosovo crisis. That is a further measure of the Government's resolve.
    Mr. John Maples: It was good of the Secretary of State to give us that information, but his Department told the press before the weekend. So it was kind of him, but we knew already. Does the Secretary of State agree that, as a consequence of deploying about 8,000 British troops to Kosovo, it will be impossible for him to deal with the overstretch problem, which will inevitably worsen recruitment and retention?
    Mr. Robertson: First, my Department did not tell the press about HMS Splendid. A Pentagon spokesman inadvertently made that information available before I could tell the House. That was perfectly clear from all the newspaper stories about the issue. I intended to tell—and have told—the House of Commons before anyone in the press received confirmation of that story.
    Secondly, soldier recruitment to the Army has increased by 17.6 per cent. compared with this time last year. Although retention levels are still disturbing, they are better than they were in any of the years of the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Maples: In fact, an answer to a parliamentary question reveals that retention rates deteriorated in 1998–99 for the first time in several years. Another answer tells us that 86 per cent. of land command personnel are currently committed to operations or warned to deploy. Is not an inevitable consequence of this—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State questions that figure. However, information was provided that 55 per cent. of land command personnel are committed to operations and 31.3 per cent. are warned to deploy, which totals 86 per cent. As a consequence, is it not inevitable that tour intervals will get shorter, periods spent abroad will get longer, training will suffer and retention rates will get worse? If we are to commit 8,000 troops to Kosovo, is it not time to review the assumptions underlying the strategic defence review?
    Mr. Robertson: The assumptions underlying the strategic defence review have not been altered because they are global assumptions that will allow us to do less or more for specific periods. Although senior military commanders in the Ministry of Defence recognise the strain on individuals and the price that must be paid in
    4
    short-term training, they are content that we can discharge our responsibilities without paying too heavy a price. I am conscious of overstrain, and I will be aware if it becomes a serious factor in training.
    I visited our troops in Macedonia two weeks ago, and morale is high and training is going ahead. I hope that they will be there for a limited time, but while they are there they will be doing a job that can be done by few others in the world. They are proud of what they are doing and the country is proud of them.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Having been in Kosovo last week—I left on Friday—I must ask the Secretary of State whether, in the absence of a settlement, we have the option of walking away and saying that the situation is none of our business, or whether we are willing to consider the costs that would be involved in a military operation with our allies, opposed or unopposed, that would save tens of thousands of lives that, without us, would be lost.
    Mr. Robertson: I read the articles that were written by the hon. Gentleman when he came back from Kosovo. I have strong views about the situation there, and he makes good points about it. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spent so much time at Rambouillet bringing the two sides together and getting close to agreement. That is why, last week, the Kosovar Albanians signed up to the Rambouillet text and why the Yugoslav Serbs have been told that they, too, must sign up to it. There is no question of our walking away from a part of our continent that, if it goes up in flames, will burn many people far from the immediate surroundings. That is why we have put President Milosevic and those who make decisions in Belgrade on notice that, unless they heed the demands of the international community, swift and determined action will be taken.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the Secretary of State ensure that, if troops are sent into Kosovo, they will not have redundancy notices tucked into their top pockets—which is what happened to the Cheshires when they went into Bosnia?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. We are trying to increase the strength of the Regular Army because they have a job to do and, under the strategic defence review, we have reconfigured our forces to make sure that they can do it. Partly because of the revitalisation of our forces, which is thanks to the defence review, Army soldier recruitment has risen by 17.6 per cent. since the same time last year. I know that those who are in that part of the world are determined to make sure that the potential catastrophe is averted and that the majority of the people of Kosovo are given the chance to get on with their lives in the political framework that was so ably negotiated at Rambouillet and which the Kosovar Albanians have signed up to.

    Strategic Airlift Capability
    Mr. John Bercow: What progress his Department is making in acquiring strategic airlift capability. [75965]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): We received bids at the end of January for competing aircraft to meet our requirements for both short and longer-term strategic airlift capability. MOD officials are now assessing those bids. We will announce the outcome to the House once decisions have been made.
    Mr. Bercow: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that was a lamentably complacent response to my question. Given that it is now several months since Ministers described the need for four Boeing C17s as "urgent", will the hon. Gentleman tell the House today when those aircraft will be in service with the RAF, or whether he envisages that the country will be forced into the ignominious position of having to lease old Russian Antonovs?
    Mr. Spellar: One wonders who the Government were before May 1997 and why the hon. Gentleman displays mock indignation on this issue. We are considering possible alternatives—C17 or its equivalent. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Antonov, among others, is being considered by potential industrial participants. We are conducting a proper evaluation to find out which fits our need and which would fulfil our longer-term requirements. A little less fake indignation and a little more examination of the facts would serve the hon. Gentleman well.
    Mr. Robert Key: Can the Minister confirm that the delay in the lease of the C17s is because of problems with military exports from the United States? Is he now looking more favourably on the Airbus A400M option, which appeared at one time to be shelved? Can he not rule out at least some of the Antonov aircraft, which would be particularly ancient and really not equivalent to the C17s?
    Mr. Spellar: The B52 could be described as ancient, but it seems still to be a very effective aircraft in its particular field of operation. Our short-term requirement is for out-size airlift. We are also considering our longer-term requirement for major airlift. We are examining synchronisation between the two requirements and whatever degree of commonality is possible if that will provide the best mix. We are examining the best possible outcomes and we hope as a result to remedy the deficiencies in heavy lift, in the air and at sea, that we took over when we came to office.

    Gulf War Illnesses
    Mr. David Kidney: How much the Government are currently spending on research into the illnesses of Gulf war veterans. [75966]
    Mr. Ben Chapman: How much the Government are spending on research into the illnesses of Gulf war veterans. [75970]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): The Ministry of Defence's research into Gulf veterans' illnesses currently comprises two major epidemiological studies, a neuromuscular symptoms study, an independent review of research literature, and a
    6
    programme to investigate possible interactions between the medical counter-measures which were used during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. So far, £1.9 million has been spent on these studies and we estimate that they will cost a further £4 million to complete.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is reassuring to hear of the money that is spent on research. I am sure that it is welcome to all the Gulf war veterans, including those to whom I spoke in my constituency, who still do not have a definite diagnosis of their illness, let alone any hope of a cure. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Royal British Legion that, for these veterans, time is of the essence if they are to benefit from the results of the research? Given the resources that are available to my hon. Friend, does he look to sharing information in the context of the results of research done in other countries, especially the United States?
    Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I much agree with the Royal British Legion's view that time is of the essence for the individuals who are suffering from illness which they believe they contracted in the Gulf. That is why the Government have increased the resources that are committed to research to try to get to the bottom of what happened, to try to ascertain the illness or illnesses that they have suffered from, the cause, how similar illnesses could be prevented, and what sort of treatment is appropriate.
    We recognise that many people in the United States are suffering from similar illnesses. We want to enter into discussions with the US Government to determine how best we can combine our research resources.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. However, does he understand that Gulf war syndrome, if that is the right expression—it seems that there is a plurali—a plur—[Laughter.] It seems that there are lots of conditions. Does my hon. Friend understand that that is worrying generally, but particularly to those who are suffering? It is essential that the present level of research be continued so that a cause or causes are found. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if the Government are found to be at fault, compensation will be paid?
    Mr. Henderson: If my hon. Friend had trouble with "plurality", he would have had even greater trouble with "epidemiological". I can assure him that we are doing everything we can to try to get to the bottom of what is wrong with people who are suffering from illnesses that were contracted in the Gulf, and that we shall commit any necessary resources—we have already committed three times more than the previous Government—to trying to find out what is wrong with personnel who served in the Gulf.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: I think I am the only current Member who served in the armed forces in the Gulf, although I may be wrong. I welcome the Minister's remarks about investigating the causes of the illness. It is self-evident that some members of the armed forces have suffered severe illness, possibly from organophosphate poisoning, and they deserve swift compensation. Can the Minister tell us whether any evidence of a syndrome has yet emerged from the research in the United Kingdom or the United States?
    Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that further question. It has not been possible to

    7
    determine whether there is a specific illness called Gulf war syndrome or any other name. Much research has already been undertaken. Much research is currently being undertaken, and we await the results. We want any necessary additional research to be carried out, if possible, in conjunction with our allies in the United States. If, at the end of that—I should have mentioned this in response to the previous question—it is shown that there is an illness and that there was negligence, compensation will be paid in accordance with the normal procedures.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that none of those research programmes, many of which were started when the previous Government were in power, should duplicate the work done in the United States of America? Does he agree that it will add greatly to the credibility of those programmes, which have been undertaken by distinguished scientists, if it is clearly seen that they do not overlap with any American studies?
    Mr. Henderson: Yes, I very much agree. As I said during the previous Defence Question Time, I went to Washington three weeks ago. I spoke to the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the White House about the kind of research that was considered a priority. The Americans are coming back next Monday, I think, and I will have further discussions with White House officials about how we can co-ordinate the research. It is crucial that there should be no opportunity for one group of experts to argue against another group, simply because they come from different sides of the Atlantic. We must get the experts together to give us the best medical and scientific opinion, in the hope that we can resolve the outstanding problems.

    Recruitment
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What level of recruitment he expects for (i) regulars and (ii) reserves to (a) the Marines, (b) Special Air Service, and (c) RAMC over the next five years. [75967]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): The recruiting targets for Royal Marines, Special Air Service, and the Royal Army Medical Corps are set to maintain current and known future staffing requirements, for both regular and reserve forces.
    Soldiers and officers for the Regular SAS are recruited as required from among serving personnel.
    The Regular Royal Marines recruiting targets for 1999–2000 are 1,155 other ranks and 38 officers, reducing to 800 other ranks and 38 officers in 2003–04.
    The Regular Royal Army Medical Corps recruiting targets for 1999–2000 are 398 other ranks and 69 officers, rising to 625 other ranks and 78 officers in 2003–04. I am placing fuller tables of the targets for the Royal Marines and the Royal Army Medical Corps in the Library of the House.
    The Royal Marine Reserve adjusts its recruitment to maintain a trained strength of 592 reservists.
    8
    Following the strategic defence review, the Reserve Royal Army Medical Corps is to increase by more than 2,000 personnel, and we aim to recruit those additional reserve personnel as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for a full and helpful reply. I believe that we are still a little below establishment in each of those forces. Can we increase the number of women and of black and Asian recruits? Will the Minister reflect on the benefit of trying to pull from the reserves in the Marines, the RAMC Corps and the SAS into the regulars? There is a link, but the numbers going from the reserves to become full-time service personnel are still relatively small. All the evidence and anecdotes that I hear suggest that there is potential there for further recruitment.
    Mr. Henderson: I agree that it is important to tap into all the potential resources for recruitment to our armed forces. The reserves are a key area for that, as are the cadets. That is why the Government put so much emphasis on building up the resources and the capabilities of the cadets.
    The hon. Gentleman also identified two important areas of recruitment. Although women are obviously not so important in respect of the Royal Marines, they are important in the other parts of the armed services and we must tap into such a major section of the population. Female recruitment has been improving significantly, especially for officers. About one in five such recruits are women and not many organisations in this country could claim that one in five of their middle management are women. It is a tribute to our armed forces that they have been able to achieve that.
    It is also important that we recruit from the widest base of the population. So many people in the black and Asian communities would offer so much to our armed forces if they could be convinced that they had a first-choice career there. It is our aim to make sure that that is the case.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not the crucial test, particularly for the commando course of the Royal Marines and the selection course for the Special Air Service Regiment, whether people going through those courses have the mental and physical toughness to pass and to be fully operational thereafter? On the RAMC, do not the needs of the wounded and the sick transcend the racial divides in our society: therefore, should we not forget any notion of ethnic quotas for any arm of the armed forces and judge applicants only on their ability to do the job?
    Mr. Henderson: There is no question of quotas in our armed forces and no question of anyone joining our armed forces who does not have the qualifications—whether mental agility or toughness—to join. If we are to fulfil our recruitment targets, we have to make sure that an awful lot of people with mental agility and toughness who currently are not taking the opportunity to join our armed forces get that opportunity.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Howard Flight: What impact his review of the Territorial Army has had on recruiting and retention levels. [75968]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): As we expected, the numbers leaving the TA have risen since we announced the restructuring in mid-November and there has been a small decrease in those joining, by comparison with the previous year. None the less, we fully anticipate that many new young people will take up the many opportunities that there are to serve in the TA, and we launched a new TA recruitment campaign last month to make those opportunities widely known.
    Mr. Flight: I am sure that the Minister acknowledges that the TA is an important area of recruitment for regulars, as has been said. Does he not expect some commensurate fall in recruitment from the TA as numbers fall by 12,800? Is he concerned about the infantry, where the TA is being cut in particular and where there is the biggest under-recruitment in the Regular Army.
    Mr. Henderson: No, I do not expect that. With the restructuring of the TA so that it is in the kind of shape to be able better and more effectively to reinforce the Regular Army, there will be more people in the TA who have those qualifications and that background. It will be more attractive to them to join our Regular Army.
    Bill O'Brien (Normanton): There is still substantial support for the TA from about 6,000 companies. The relevant company in Wakefield is still as interested in recruiting and retaining members of the TA, and it is supported by local organisations. I commend my hon. Friend for the campaign that his Department is organising. Will he continue to make sure that local companies, such as mine in Wakefield, are retained to strength?
    Henderson: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's support, and he makes an important point about the TA. The restructuring is not only about taking people from companies and using them in our armed forces; it is about giving people better skills, better qualifications and more experience while they are in the TA so that they return to their normal civilian employment with greater aptitude—and, often, greater commitment—which is why so many employers welcome the opportunity for their staff to serve in the TA.
    Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk): The Minister has expressed disappointment about recruitment and retention in the Territorial Army. Does he not think that part of the problem of retention is due to the restructuring of the TA, which now constitutes a major disincentive? Following the amalgamation of the 10th and 4th Battalions Parachute Regiment, an horrendous organisation will spread between Glasgow and London. What possible motivation is there for young men and women to join such an organisation, or to remain in it? Some of those valuable men and women are probably to be deployed in Kosovo.
    Henderson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, parachute units are already spread among a number of geographical locations. Nor do I accept that the restructuring of the TA has led to greater retention difficulties. On the contrary, I believe that, following the restructuring, people will be more inclined to join, feeling that they can make a real contribution to the reinforcement
    10
    of the Regular Army, and to stay to make that contribution. They will eventually return to civilian life with better qualifications, better able to contribute in civilian employment.

    European Defence Industry
    Mr. Barry Jones: What progress has been made towards the consolidation of the European defence industry. [75973]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Governments in Europe are making good progress in their work to facilitate defence industrial restructuring, as set out in the letter of intent signed by the Defence Ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom on 6 July 1998. Industry in Europe is responding to the initiative with its own commercial developments, most recently last week's announcement by GKN and Finmeccanica of a merger between Westland Helicopters and Agusta.
    Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that European consolidation can be enhanced if we speedily settle the requirements of the seven European air forces, including our own—specifically with regard to the A400M, formerly described as the future large aircraft? Is it the case that some 288 airframes are required by 2006? We had hoped for an order for 50 future large aircraft from the Ministry. My constituents—3,700 of them—are quite good at making wings for Airbus.
    Mr. Robertson: Few Members are as assiduous as my hon. Friend in promoting their constituents' interests. I pay tribute to those who make some of the best wings in the world for Airbus. There is no doubt that Airbus Industrie has been a huge commercial success, and its bid for the future large aircraft will deserve a lot of attention.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Secretary of State has spoken of the importance of the defence industry. Does he accept that many companies have grown over the past 20 years especially because of their defence links? Does he recognise the enormous success of Admiral, an information technology company in my constituency—I visited it only this morning—which, having been founded by just two people in 1979, now has nearly 2,500 employees worldwide, and five offices in the constituency? It is now the 190th most successful company in the FTSE 250, and is heavily involved in Ministry of Defence work.
    This morning, representatives of the company told me that they wanted a successful future for the symbols of British defence. To that end, will the Secretary of State rule out any prospect of the conversion and ruining of the original, listed staff college buildings in Camberley, immediately opposite Admiral's headquarters, which I saw this morning and which his officials have been threatening to convert to luxury flats, ignoring the fact that there is a war memorial in that historic listed building?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman had a good try with his bid for attention for his constituents, but he still came in second behind my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones).

    11
    I recently met the chairman of Admiral, and I know that the company's record is very good. I am sure that the chairman will be delighted to read the tribute in Hansard that may well have been intended by the hon. Gentleman.
    We have not yet come to a decision on the future of the fine buildings at Camberley, but it is something that I feel strongly about. The hon. Gentleman may be assured that we have not lost sight of the issue.
    Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend is aware, there is considerable interest in the House in arms exports, particularly those to countries with bad human rights records. When are we to get the annual report on arms exports, so that we can see precisely what licences have been granted for such exports? I realise that my right hon. Friend's Department is not the only one responsible—three other Departments are involved—but the report is now one year overdue. Why has there been a delay? When the report is released, will a statement be made in the Chamber, so that we may question Ministers precisely on it.
    Mr. Robertson: On the issue of when, my answer is soon. On the question of delay, it has arisen in order that we get all the statistics right. Whether there will be a statement on the report depends on my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, whose Department has responsibility for it.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that, to have a European defence policy, we must have an integrated European defence industry? Does he also agree that that European defence industry integration must include the activities of illegitimate arms dealers in Europe? Will he assure the House that the Government will support the German Government's proposals to control arms brokers in Europe?
    Mr. Robertson: I welcome the hon. Lady to the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench team in the absence of her two colleagues, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), one of whom wrote to me in advance and whose reason for being absent is perfectly understandable.
    I am not entirely certain what question the hon. Lady is asking. She calls for an integrated defence industry—the Government are working towards further consolidation in that sector, but, clearly, it must be driven by the industry itself. If I got her question right, I believe that she said that integrated defence industry is to include illegitimate arms dealers. We have absolutely no intention of including the activities of such dealers in that industry. If they are illegitimate, by definition, they have no place in our future consolidation or rationalisation of the industry.
    Ms Rachel Squire: I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the latest example of European defence consolidation, namely, the merger of GKN-Westland and Italy's Agusta, both highly successful industries in their own right. Does he agree that further consolidation of European defence industries is essential if they are to be efficient and competitive and to have a
    12
    future role to play? Does he believe that progress is being made throughout Europe in achieving that consolidation and speeding it up?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on about the necessity for consolidation and about the fact that, at present, European industries lack the scale to be globally competitive. That must be a clear priority for all those who are employed in the industry and who depend on it. I assure her that we will continue to put in the maximum effort to ensure that the companies recognise that their salvation and, indeed, the industry's survival depend on further moves towards consolidation being made.

    Joint Carrier-borne Air Group
    Mr. Michael Colvin: What assessment he has made of requirements for new aircraft to equip the joint carrier—borne air group. [75974]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): The new aircraft to equip the joint carrier-borne air group is known as the future carrier-borne aircraft. No decision has yet been made on the choice of aircraft to meet that requirement. A strong contender is a variant of the United States joint strike fighter. We are participating in the concept demonstration phase for that aircraft. We are also assessing a number of other options, including a navalised Eurofighter, Rafale-M, F18 and an advanced Harrier variant.
    Mr. Colvin: I thank the Minister for that reply, but will he bear it in mind that the acquisition of aircraft with short take-off and vertical landing capabilities could considerably reduce the capital cost of the two aircraft carriers that the Government have promised to order, because such aircraft do not require the long flight-decks needed by conventional aircraft? Does he see an opening for the Harrier, with its STOVL capabilities, in a sale to the French—whose new aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, was at sea undergoing trials when it was discovered that her flight-deck was too short for conventional French aircraft to take off from?
    Mr. Spellar: I would just correct the hon. Gentleman, who said that the Government have promised the aircraft carriers. We are accomplishing the stages, however, exactly on the time scale that we predicted, and I am sure that he will welcome that. Moreover, as I said in my answer, an advanced Harrier variant was one of the options being considered. He will understand the need to evaluate all the technical options, as those carriers will be considerably larger and much more capable than the current ones. We have to have consider all the options—including, as I said, not only the joint strike fighter, but others.

    Trident Targets
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What targets the UK's Trident submarine missiles are aimed at. [75975]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): As I have made it clear before, our Trident missiles are de-targeted.
    Mr. Corbyn: If the missiles are not targeted at anyone, will the Secretary of State explain what they are for? Why

    13
    is it necessary to spend billions of pounds on building and maintaining a nuclear submarine fleet when there is no enemy against which to target it, and when launching Trident would cause a global explosion and the extermination of most of the human race? Furthermore, many people think that the whole issue of nuclear weapons is fundamentally immoral and—within the terms of the International Court of Justice judgment of two years ago—illegal. Is it not time that we decommissioned them, took them out of service and cancelled the whole programme?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to take that point of view, but should always remember that he fought the previous general election on retaining Trident. A pledge to do so was in both the general election manifesto and the draft manifesto, which was endorsed by 95 per cent. of the Labour party. Insurance is the answer to his simple question about why we need the missiles—which, today, are de-targeted. In the future, neither we nor anyone else can tell what dangers will exist in an increasingly unstable world. That is why we have those missiles. My hon. Friend also says that a growing opinion holds that nuclear arms should be done away with and that they are illegal. I tell him that, at the weekend, in Newcastle, I attended a Labour party policy forum, at which only one question about nuclear weapons was asked. The party member said that we had not got enough of them, and that one submarine on patrol was not enough. No one demurred.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State put my mind at rest? Is the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) a lone voice in the wilderness, or does the Labour party in government still insist on its campaign for nuclear disarmament?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Lady clearly prepared that question in advance. She was therefore unaware of what I would say, and did not bother listening to my answer. The Labour party fought the general election on the basis that we would keep Trident. We are committed also to further reductions and to moving towards a world without nuclear weapons. We are fulfilling both those objectives in what we have said and in the proposals that we have made in the strategic defence review.

    European Defence Co-operation
    Mr. Peter Bradley: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards further European defence co-operation. [75976]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Our aim is to ensure a strong common foreign and security policy, so that Europe can speak with authority and act with decisiveness in international affairs. To achieve that, we need to provide the tools to allow the European Union nations to make decisions collectively on military matters, including the political control and strategic direction of Europe-led military operations. We also want more effective European military capability so that we are able, when necessary, to back up our policies with military action, both for Europe-led military operations and as a means of strengthening NATO.
    Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, does he agree that, just as there is a need
    14
    for greater co-operation in Europe, there is a need for greater co-operation in our own domestic market? Does he recognise that, with a contracting and diminishing United Kingdom defence sector, interdependence between the Ministry of Defence's procurement strategy and the private sector is all the greater? Does he share my concern that companies with healthy long-term order books, and the jobs that underpin them, are at risk when they have no short-term work? Will he therefore consider the benefits of better and closer integration between the armed forces' procurement strategies and the needs of private contractors in order to predict their business, and thereby to underpin their capacity and the jobs that they provide?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. That is precisely why the Government have evolved a close partnership with the industry in this country. I do not think that I would be contradicted in the industry if I said that the co-operation between us in dovetailing our requirements and its demands is at an historically high level. My responsibility is to ensure that the budget that I have is spent in the most cost-effective way, but I am always conscious of the fact that we have a big industry with a huge export potential and a great record at the forefront of our manufacturing cutting edge. We cannot neglect our industrial responsibilities either.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: When deciding on European defence and security co-operation issues, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that there are six European NATO countries that are not members of the European Union and that five of the 15 European Union countries are not members of NATO? Does that not lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Western European Union should take the initiatives on such matters, rather than the European Union?
    Mr. Robertson: What matters is that NATO's integrity and strength remain undiminished. We in Europe should have the political will and the determination to act when it is in our interests. It is also vital that we have the military capability to act when we come to policy decisions. There are plenty of ways to design and redesign the security architecture of Europe. There are wiring diagrams by the thousand, but a wiring diagram cannot be sent to a crisis. That is where we have to put our principal efforts and energies. The Western European Union has shown how we can weld together all the nations that are involved in that common endeavour, but we need to concentrate much more on the political will and the military capabilities and allow institutional relationships to be developed thereafter.
    Laura Moffatt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence co-operation in the European Union will benefit our relationship with the United States? With a more grown-up relationship, the European Union would be able to deal with certain difficulties without being compelled to go to the United States for assistance. That would be better and more sensible.
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. Europe can and should do more. In many ways, that will strengthen the alliance. The European security and defence identity inside NATO was developed at the 1995

    15
    NATO summit, when the Secretary of State for Defence was one Michael Portillo. The development of the European capability inside NATO was not dreamed up by this Government, but the process of making that capability real, strengthening NATO and giving Europe more control over its destiny has come to fruition only since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched that major and significant initiative.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State is in danger of confusing me. At one moment, he is trying to downplay the significance of the development, talking about it as merely wiring diagrams, but he told the Select Committee on Defence that the importance of the St. Malo agreement could not be understated. If I understand it correctly, it represents the most fundamental shift in British defence policy for decades. Bringing defence policy within the remit of the European Union would change the policy that informed the Government's approach to the treaty of Amsterdam. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is an enormously significant change for British defence policy? Why were we not able even to get the French to join the integrated administrative structure of NATO as part of the St. Malo deal? That would be a small price for them to pay for a fundamental change in British policy.
    Mr. Robertson: There is a danger that I am misleading the hon. Gentleman, but that does not seem to be too difficult. Let me spell it out in simple terms for him.
    The concept of a European defence identity inside the European Union was not born in the Amsterdam treaty; it came into existence in the Maastricht treaty, signed by the previous Government. We are moving towards a European security and defence identity with the office of high representative, and all the responsibilities that go along with that for establishing the policy and making sure that that policy can be put into practice.
    The St. Malo declaration—which brought France and the United Kingdom much closer together in terms of being able to do things in Europe, rather than talk about them—was backed by a practical example, the extraction force based in Macedonia to relieve the Kosovo verification force, had it got into trouble. That force is French led, and has double the number of French to British troops; however, the French Government decided to put it under the command and control of the NATO commander.

    The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

    Redundant Churches
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What discussions he has had with English Heritage regarding that body's support for bell towers of redundant churches. [75998]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Redundant churches are the responsibility of the relevant diocese pending a decision
    16
    on their future. They then become the responsibility of the new owner if an alternative use is agreed, or the Churches Conservation Trust, if they are to be preserved by that body. It follows from this that we have had no discussions with English Heritage.
    Mr. Robathan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a recent newspaper report stated that English Heritage was placing such strict criteria on the repair of bell towers that some—redundant or otherwise—would not be able to ring in the millennium because the repairs would cost too much? I know from my church in Leicestershire that English Heritage is so strict as to be absurd. English Heritage does a good job, but will he and the commissioners ensure that the merits of a building are not judged at such an absurd level that the building can no longer operate in the way intended?
    Mr. Bell: The Church does not wish to prevent anyone from ringing their church bells for the millennium, and English Heritage has regular meetings with the Central Council of Church Bell Ringers to discuss matters such as those raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    I could not let this opportunity pass without referring to the bell ringing exercise in Aston, Birmingham yesterday, during a football match at Aston Villa—not too far from your constituency, Madam Speaker. We are always happy to announce that more people attend church services over the weekend than attend football matches. We like church bells to be rung, whether from redundant churches or otherwise.

    Church Income
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What plans they have to use opportunities afforded by the millennium to increase the income of the Church. [76000]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): As we move into the new millennium, the Church Commissioners will continue to manage the endowment funds entrusted to them to maximise their support for the Church's ministry over the long term. Any initiative to increase the income of the Church of England as a whole would be the responsibility of the recently created Archbishops Council.
    Mr. Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman talk to the Church Commissioners and to the Archbishops Council to see if they would look at three ways of bringing more money in to the Church? First, those of us who go—particularly those who are well off—could be encouraged to pay a tithe from their income, as people used to do. Secondly, those who do not normally go to church could be invited to go at least once next year, because many who do not go still value it hugely. Thirdly, those who do not want to go to worship could be encouraged at least to visit the physical church in this country, and possibly contribute to its work—which, again, such people often value, even if they do not want to be members.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions, and I never miss an opportunity of talking to the two archbishops. It is one of my little privileges in

    17
    life to go to Lambeth palace and, when I next do so, I will raise those three matters. The Church Commissioners' balance sheet shows that there are £3.5 billion of assets, and a press conference to be held shortly to announce our results for the financial year will be encouraging to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people think that there is a spiritual lack in society? People of all faiths think that the spiritual dimension of the millennium should be recognised and that the Church Commissioners have a unique opportunity to put in place long-term resources to work for the wider community.
    Mr. Bell: The Church is celebrating the millennium in many ways: with candles, with the millennium resolution and with the presence of the spirit zone in the dome at Greenwich. The Church and others greatly regret the fact that insufficient publicity is given to those measures. The Church of England remains the fifth largest Church in the world, and we have a huge membership in many forms and varieties. Propagating the Christian message in the millennium year will encourage people to come to worship and will renew and enhance our Christian spirit.

    Ethical Investment
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What proposals he has to enlarge the ethical element in the commissioners' portfolio. [76001]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners and their investment managers are advised by the ethical investment working group on ethical issues that concern the central bodies of the Church of England. The portfolio will reflect those concerns, which means that, at the moment, about 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom stock market is excluded.
    Mr. Flynn: I am grateful for that reply, as far as it went, but it did not answer the question whether the commissioners propose to enlarge their ethical investment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the new threats to the world come from companies that are indifferent to the environmental effects of their activities? Could not the commissioners, who were trail-blazers in ethical investment as far back as 1948, consider excluding from their portfolio companies that failed to support the multilateral agreement on investment, which was proposed last year?
    Mr. Bell: The Church in its investments is not indifferent to those who are unfriendly to the environment. We note, for example, that the commissioners have shares in Shell, which very much regrets the pollution of the Manchester ship canal with refined oil from the Stanlow manufacturing complex in Ellesmere Port. The company has given an assurance that it will take the measures necessary to ensure that such an incident never happens again. The commissioners are fully advised on ethical investment through the working group. They continue to keep the matter under review and will take into account the suggestions made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. John Bercow: In view of its Government's adventurist foreign policy and disregard for human rights at home, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the ethical element in the Church Commissioners' investment portfolio would not be increased if they decided to invest in Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Bell: The commissioners have a strong ethical investment policy. We certainly take the view, in relation to our investment in companies in this country, that nations have a right to defend themselves and to engage in peacekeeping initiatives. The ethical investment working group believes in the legitimacy of an indigenous defence industry supplying equipment under Government licence. We are bound by the criteria set by the working group, and we will seek to advance that policy if that is in the interests of the Church.

    Parochial Finances
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current level of financial support for the parochial ministry to prevent any long-term interregnums in clerical living. [76002]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners put £20 million a year into parochial ministry support. That amount was agreed after detailed discussion with dioceses. A guaranteed annuity is payable for the overwhelming majority of benefices when the incumbent is present. Long interregnums are not encouraged, but their length can be affected by various factors, including the availability of a suitable incumbent.
    Mr. Lansley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the support available to the parochial ministry is agreed to be adequate to avoid long interregnums, it is undesirable for such interregnums to occur as an instrument of Church policy? I hope that, through the medium of this question, the Church authorities will take that view and seek to implement it.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The Church of England does not generally encourage long interregnums. After nine months, the right of patronage and the legal rights of parochial church council representatives pass to the archbishop of the province, who then has nomination rights.

    Redundant Churches
    Mr. John McDonnell: What representations the Church Commissioners have made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the exemption from VAT of charges for building repair works and security measures for redundant churches. [76003]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): [Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I lost my place. The commissioners were co-signatories to a submission in November 1997 on behalf of the Church of England's national bodies to the Government's review of the taxation of charities which highlighted as a particular concern the VAT treatment of works to church buildings.
    Mr. McDonnell: I am tempted to say:
    "seek, and ye shall find".
    Through my hon. Friend, may I request the Church Commissioners to reinvigorate their campaign and join other charitable organisations to ensure that the
    20
    Government's review of the regulation of charitable and Church bodies results in all repairs on community buildings and churches being zero-rated for VAT?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his biblical advice. VAT on repairs to listed churches and cathedrals is estimated to have totalled about £16 million in 1993, of which the Church of England paid about £12 million. The question of VAT on church repairs has been raised ever since the introduction of VAT more than 25 years ago and it has met with a negative response from every Administration. I shall end with a biblical quotation:
    "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
    Perhaps my hon. Friend's point will be heard.

Education (Excellence in Cities)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Madam Speaker, with permission, I wish to make a statement on education excellence in cities.
On 11 March, I announced to the House that, with the extra investment in public services from the Budget, we would provide much wider access to information technology—with a clear focus on the inner cities. In our White Paper "Excellence in schools", we promised to modernise the comprehensive principle. Today, I can announce a major new framework for our inner-city schools—taking those principles forward in the six largest cities in England. It means shifting the focus decisively from the institution to the individual, irrespective of geography or birth, so that every gifted pupil will be stretched and special needs met. It means a substantial expansion of specialist and beacon schools promoting diversity and excellence. It means that every youngster who would benefit will have access to a learning mentor, with extra help available for those who need it most. This strategy will give every pupil an entitlement to new and more challenging opportunities.
There are particular problems in inner cities which have created a long-standing culture of low expectation. Today's action plan—which will be backed by £350 million over the next three years—will build on measures already taken to raise achievement. Sure start and expanded nursery education will give every child the best possible start in life. The daily literacy hour is teaching children to read, write and spell effectively for the first time in 30 years. From September, our numeracy strategy will restore mental arithmetic—including speed in performing it—to maths teaching. That is underpinned by a rapid reduction in infant class sizes.
Many teachers and pupils are already performing very well in difficult circumstances. We must build on and spread their success. Just as the city multiplies the barriers, we have to multiply the opportunities. Initially, our action plan will be taken forward in six areas—inner and north-east London; Manchester and Salford; Liverpool and Knowsley; Birmingham; Leeds and Bradford; and Sheffield and Rotherham.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): What about Bolsover?
Mr. Blunkett: Not the first time around. As the programme develops, we will link into other initiatives for regeneration and spread success.
We will strengthen leadership in our inner-city schools and provide gifted pupils with new opportunities to succeed. That means setting pupils into appropriate groups in their own schools as well as extra classes linked to specialist schools. If a child with a talent for languages wishes to study German or Italian, but their own school offers only French, that child should be able to do so.
All of us want to ensure that those who have the ability to go to university can do so. We will establish new university summer schools for 16 and 17-year-olds in inner-city schools and post-16 colleges. They will build on links already developed by individual schools and colleges with some universities.
22
Many youngsters in our inner cities lose out because they drop out. All secondary school pupils in those areas who need one will have access to a learning mentor to assist in overcoming barriers—someone who can cut through red tape to offer support. That will benefit those who have traditionally been failed by the system, especially children from minority ethnic and disadvantaged backgrounds. This year, we will make a start, with £17 million to employ more than 800 mentors in our schools. Mentors will guide pupils towards extra help and tuition when they are falling behind.
Nor can we allow disruptive pupils to wreck the chances of others. Excluded youngsters miss out on education and often turn to crime. Seventy-five per cent. of those on remand have a reading age of 10 or below. We are already acting to tackle those problems. I propose that every secondary school should have access to a learning unit for disruptive youngsters, who will receive a full timetable and will return to class only when they can do so without disruption.
Turnover and the use of supply teachers are major challenges to the continuity of education in our cities. We will introduce new measures to attract and retain good teachers through enhanced retention bonuses and targeted training and development programmes.
Alongside today's measures, we are strengthening diversity and excellence across the education system. I can announce the expansion of our existing target for specialist schools from 500 to at least 800 by 2002. That will mean that nearly one in four secondary schools in England will offer a specialism linked to neighbouring schools and colleges.
Our new network of learning centres will include specialist schools with strong information and communication technology and a focus on adult computer learning. The first 80 centres will be placed in our inner-city areas, at a cost of £100 million. I can also announce a fivefold increase in our beacon school programme, from the current planned number of 200 by September to 1,000 by 2002.
There has been great enthusiasm for education action zones, and we will invest up to £24 million to extend the programme to support an additional 40 smaller zones. We will also accelerate inspections by the Office for Standards in Education of inner local education authorities.
I am pleased to say that, to spearhead this drive, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has today appointed my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards to hold special responsibility for inner-city education. She will lead a strategy group that will include successful heads.
For too long, the specific educational characteristics of inner cities have been ignored. Today, I believe that we have set in train action that will lead to a step change in aspiration and expectation. Our ambition is real diversity and excellence, from world-class primary education to a comprehensive system that works for all our children, whatever their background.
I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. David Willetts: I begin by asking the Secretary of State to clarify some important aspects of his statement. What does it mean when we are told that the networks for more able pupils will sometimes be based in

23
beacon schools and that extra classes will be linked to specialist schools? Are Ministers seriously suggesting that more able pupils should be bussed to other schools for special lessons? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is telling the House?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that the Government ban specialist schools from selecting by ability? Such schools can specialise in music, but not in maths. Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that one can be bussed to a specialist or beacon school because of one's ability in maths, but one cannot be enrolled there for that reason? Is the right hon. Gentleman not simply tying himself up in knots because of his record of hostility to selection?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he promised the Labour party that there would be no selection by examination or interview? So what procedure will be used to identify for special treatment the most able 5 or 10 per cent. of pupils referred to in his document?
As for the special classes that are to take place in pupil's own schools, but after hours or on Saturday mornings, why can those special lessons not take place during the school day? If they do, we will be back to setting in existing schools. We support setting, which should be spread further, but, on its own, it hardly constitutes the transformation of inner-city education.
The Secretary of State famously remarked:
"I'm having no truck with middle class left wing parents who preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area."
Who was he thinking of and is it now all right to do that, provided it is on a bus to a learning centre?
We welcome university summer schools and commend the work that Mr. Peter Lampl and others have already done in establishing them. Mentoring can also be a useful way to help pupils, and we welcome that too. But what qualifications will mentors have? Will they be members of the teaching staff? Will they be responsible to the governing body and the head teacher? How are 800 mentors to take responsibility for every child in every secondary school in the target areas.
What about access to a learning unit? How many places will there be? Will they be in each school or will they be external units? Will existing pupil referral units be closed.
The Secretary of State makes great play of the money that will go to inner-city schools, but will he confirm that it is part of the education settlement that has already been announced? How will the money get to schools? Is the Secretary of State aware of the frustration and anger in schools when they hear yet another announcement from the Government, but know that it is financed out of money that should have gone to them as part of their core funding? Instead, that money is held back for another departmental initiative.
Is there not hopeless confusion at the heart of the Government's education policies? The Government have spent two years attacking any attempts by schools to specialise in more able pupils. Schools are losing power over their admissions policies, they will no longer be able to select pupils by ability and, of course, grammar schools are under threat. Now, the Government have suddenly come up with this scheme for selecting more able pupils
24
in inner-city comprehensives. Why is that form of selection by ability imposed, whereas all existing forms are banned?
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the warm welcome that the hon. Gentleman gave to the statement about raising standards and giving real opportunity to inner-city children. I am only sorry that the Opposition have not got any ideas of their own, other than returning to the policy of taking some children out of the area to grammar schools and leaving the other 80 per cent. to sink. We are proposing not bussing children, but giving them enhanced opportunities based on the fact that the majority of children are rooted in and will go to their local schools. The very nature of supply and demand ensures that that is the case. Therefore, we have to deal with that reality.
It is essential that we build on the after-school study centres, the university of the first age, which has been pioneered in Birmingham, the summer and Easter school programme and the Saturday schools, which are so popular, in particular, with ethnic minority children, to ensure that we do what the rich have always taken for granted—give children extra tuition when they need it, whether they need special needs support or are gifted. The rich buy tutors for themselves, provide crammers at Easter and in the summer, and condemn anyone else who seeks to have such provision at public expense. Instead of bussing a handful of children into successful selective schools somewhere else, we are going to transform the level of education for the majority of our children in the schools that they have to attend. Everyone can benefit from the programme in those areas and, if the programme is successful, we shall spread it across the country. Selection was an anachronism; providing excellence in the schools to which children actually go is common sense.
The hon. Gentleman asked how we would identify pupils who had particular talents. As I described in my statement, teachers know that, when there is setting rather than streaming, those children who are in the top set and have a particular gift for a particular subject need extra support to stretch them. Giving them additional classes or extra help, perhaps through new technological links between schools—that is now being done not only within this country, but between countries—and using our imagination to develop real diversity makes sense to everybody. If we can make this programme work, sending children outside their area will be a thing of the past. We can ensure that children who are rooted in their neighbourhood can have the standard of education that others have taken for granted.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about mentors and learning units. The initial trawl of 800 for the coming year will be full-time professionals recruited from teaching and educational welfare officer posts and elsewhere. They will organise volunteers, as well as give direct help to pupils and their families. They will provide a link between the school and the home and will form a network giving extra support to pupils in and out of school. The learning units for disaffected children will be in-school units and will ensure that children return to the classroom if and when they are in a position to do so. There will be a full timetable—which never happened under the Conservative Government.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about new money. As I pointed out in my statement, £100 million of the £350 million is indeed money that was announced on

25
11 March as part of the investment in learning centres. The remaining £250 million over three years is money that was not previously announced; it is being taken from our reserves—because each Department now has reserves—and has been identified within our budget to take the programme forward. I am pleased that agreement has been reached with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to make the programme possible.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks (Croydon, North): Unlike the gifted shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), I welcome the emphasis on highly able children. We must acknowledge that we have neglected the highly able for too long in our education system, under the comprehensive approach. The Select Committee report on highly able children will be published shortly after Easter.
May I ask my right hon. Friend what he thinks about the relationship between inner-city schools and disadvantaged schools, given that not all inner-city schools are disadvantaged and not all disadvantaged schools are in the inner city? Will it be possible for the extremely disadvantaged schools in outer-London boroughs, such as my own, and those in rural areas and out-of-town housing estates to be brought into the next phase of this excellent programme?
Mr. Blunkett: The document that we are publishing this afternoon addresses those issues throughout the country, as well as in the six identified areas. The specialist school programme, the expansion to 1,000 of beacon schools and the support necessary for them, including the mini education action zones, will deal with those issues and will include a specific concentration on the 200 schools across the country that face the greatest challenge. We are monitoring those schools, which will receive special support and help. The programme is targeted on the six areas outlined, but is available to support the work of those schools facing disadvantage wherever they are in England.
Mr. Phil Willis: Liberal Democrats welcome anything that addresses the damage that took place over the past 18 years. Primarily, we welcome the recognition that in our inner cities, especially in failing schools, there is a host of very bright and gifted children. It is sad that the Education Acts of 1981 and 1996 failed to recognise such children under the category of special needs. Unlike the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), I spent a lot of time in Leeds in an inner-city school of exactly the sort that will benefit from the initiative. We saw the effects of pupils drifting away and of staff being unable to get to grips with gifted children because of a host of problems.
However, I have to tell the Secretary of State, with all humility, as one who has worked in that area, that the thrust of his argument today is wrong. By saying that children can succeed only if they move to specialist schools or into EAZs, we are telling the rest of those schools and their teachers that they are failing—that is the reality of what has been said today. Will the Secretary of State make clear how schools are to be selected, and how pupils within those schools are to be selected to comprise the 10 per cent. who will gain? Will he rule out another bidding process, which I see on the horizon? Will he
26
consider the 1996 legislation on special educational needs and include gifted children as a category, so that all gifted children, whichever school they attend, can gain from new legislation?
Mr. Blunkett: First, I applaud the hon. Gentleman for his work in Leeds; we are aware of the excellent contribution that he made and the lessons that he learned, so I am happy to take on board his suggestions about the programme, whether he makes them here or at another time. However, I have to disabuse him of a misunderstanding: we do not intend to select individual schools which will then have their pupils picked out as gifted children; rather, we are talking about all gifted children who have the ability to be stretched being able to benefit from the programme after having been identified by teachers through the setting and grouping process, which I described earlier. The children will not be taken out of their schools, and the schools that will benefit are not confined to those in EAZs; this is a universal programme.
Learning centres and the development of specialist schools will provide a network which can be drawn on by all schools, which will be able to link into neighbouring schools. The fact that one in four schools will be specialist schools will enable that linkage to take place easily, without disruption, and it will ensure that staff, equipment, materials and expertise can be shared. The beacon schools programme will enable schools to link with other schools. It is about sharing and working co-operatively, and about having a family of schools, not the market that was created by the Conservatives. It is about the system as a whole being geared to developing and supporting the needs of the individual.
Yes, I believe that gifted children should be included in the special needs category. In the foreword to the Green Paper "Excellence for all children: Meeting Special Educational Needs", I said:
"Good provision for SEN does not mean a sympathetic acceptance of low achievement. It means a tough-minded determination to show that children with SEN are capable of excellence."
Children, whatever their background and whether or not they have a disability, will get the education that they need and deserve.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the response of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who, in a refined use of the verb, wants understanding of the issue, validates the statement made by Mr. Michael Portillo that, when one hears the word "teacher", one knows that that individual will not vote Conservative?
We who represent inner-city schools are well aware of the huge reservoir of talent among all children; it exists in the 14,000 children who attend state schools in my constituency, as well as in those who attend the three assisted places schools in my constituency. Their talents require encouragement at every level, and that is what my right hon. Friend is doing. Is he aware that schools that assist such striving for excellence should be encouraged?
My right hon. Friend speaks, rightly, about the inclusion of information and communications technology in his programme, so will he take account of the fact that Spurley Hey high school in my constituency, which he

27
has just reprieved from closure but whose future remains in doubt, has a superbly equipped information and communications technology department, which should be allowed to continue its work indefinitely?
Mr. Blunkett: I knew that my right hon. Friend would get around to Spurley Hey high school. My hon. Friends and I will be happy to take account of the facilities and resources at that school. I agree entirely with the thrust of my right hon. Friend's contribution. I shall never forget the introduction to the Loyal Address when my right hon. Friend outlined clearly the disadvantages suffered by pupils in his constituency and the fact that so few of them were able to benefit from the resources available to Manchester grammar school.
Sir Teddy Taylor: May I offer my full and enthusiastic support to the Secretary of State and his statement and sincerely congratulate him on his courage in facing up to the nightmare of class segregation education, which is the inevitable consequence of having comprehensive schools in inner-city areas? Is the Secretary of State aware of the one problem associated with having mini grammar schools on each subject within comprehensive schools—pupils will feel that they have been excluded unfairly? If there is to be no 11-plus exam or something like it, will the Secretary of State at least ensure that there is some kind of appeal mechanism to help parents who believe that their children have been excluded unfairly from special education?
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The admissions policy, which was agreed last Thursday, endeavours to square the circle when supply and demand are out of kilter and it is necessary to ensure that there are fair and transparent methods of allowing parents to allocate a preference in the face of competing demands. We face a real challenge in ensuring that specialist schools do not become the preferred beacon, but are able to share their resources with neighbouring schools, so that we may link schools together. School collaboration will overcome the inevitable demand on scarce resources that arises when parents perceive one school as being better than another.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this afternoon's statement, combined with the Government's other education initiatives, will be very welcome in inner-city Liverpool, where talent has been ignored for far too long? Will he explain how the initiatives announced today will further assist schools such as Windsor Street and Shorefield, which have already been identified as schools that are working hard to give added value to pupils in inner-city Liverpool? How will the scheme work? Will my right hon. Friend provide guidance on how proposals submitted for education action zones may be affected by this afternoon's statement?
Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to answer that question. The policy paper that we are publishing today provides further answers—although I appreciate the fact that right hon. and hon. Members have not yet had an opportunity to read it.
28
We will ensure that the mini-zones encompass a secondary school and a cluster of primary schools in an area. We will provide an additional £250,000 a year for three years, plus a matching pound for pound for the next £50,000 of sponsorship money that is raised by the schools. This is a mini-version of the broader education action zones, and it will benefit many schools when it is appropriate to focus on a group of schools.
The mentoring programme will be available directly to schools, as will the in-house units for disruptive and disaffected students. Pupils will be able to draw on the expertise of other schools through the linkage with beacon schools, which I described this afternoon. Excellence and experience will be spread to other schools—in the case of my hon. Friend, to schools in the Liverpool and Merseyside area. Much good work is going on. I celebrate it, and I applaud the teachers who are doing that work. This is an opportunity to back those teachers by ensuring that they are able to work better.
Mr. David Prior: Will the Secretary of State put a little more flesh on the bones of the issue of how the ability of the 10 per cent. of gifted children will be assessed?
Mr. Blunkett: I must stress that the initiative is not about a rigid figure of 10 per cent.; it is about recognising the particular talents or needs of individual children and saying that the historic situation arising from geography or birth will no longer restrain a youngster's ability to flourish. Wherever children are, they should be given the support that they need to be able to stretch their talent and do better.
If a school believes that, to develop a talent—whatever the subject—a child would benefit from extra help, it will be able to use the additional after-school facilities that we shall extend, the weekend and summer schools that we shall develop and the links with the expertise that might exist in another school. For example, only one state school in Sheffield, which has a population of 500,000, offers Latin. I should like other children in the city who think that they had an aptitude for Latin to be able to benefit from being taught it.
Mr. Bernie Grant: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Inner-city kids have long deserved such initiatives. However, I have a few words of caution for my right hon. Friend. On disruptive pupils, the proposals remind me of the old sin bins syndrome, against which a number of us fought. I hope that we are not returning to that situation, in which many black kids were put into sin bins because they were classed as disruptive.
Will my right hon. Friend pay attention to supplementary schools, such as Saturday and evening schools, many of which are provided by the black community? Those schools are financed by parents and, sometimes, by local authorities. Will he consider whether he can assist those schools in any way?
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House after his period of illness. It is good to hear him speaking out and contributing once again on this important subject. I can make the absolute commitment that we shall not return to the use of sin bins, where students did not even receive an educational timetable and had no opportunity to improve their education, regain confidence or develop the ability to be reassimilated.

29
We shall, first of all, prevent children from being excluded. There is a need to prevent black, and particularly Caribbean, boys from being excluded from our education system. Secondly, where there is a problem of disruption and disaffection, we shall enable pupils to be helped and supported on site, rather than in external units, which inevitably divide them from the school.
Thirdly, I celebrate supplementary schools. It is precisely that model that I have been describing this afternoon. We shall now be able to help parents who have previously raised the money themselves to become, over time, part of the system of giving the extra help that supplementary schools have sought to provide. I know that people, not only those from the ethnic community but those from the most disadvantaged parts of our country, will welcome this statement irrespective of whether it is condemned by extremely well-off people in leafy suburbs who seek a return to divisiveness.
Mr. Michael Colvin: I am interested to hear the Secretary of State's announcement, but I want to question him about the provision of a learning mentor for every young person who needs one. Where will those mentors come from? He said that he would recruit 800 mentors, who would then find volunteers.
I want to make a suggestion to the Secretary of State that we have been working on in Southampton. One of the less-favoured areas of the city, the so-called "Flowers" estate, is next to a university, where the students, like all students, are short of money and could earn extra by working part-time. Would there be merit in seeking part-time volunteers in universities and twinning them with schools? Young people who have not long left school and remember what it was like would be in a good position to help the disadvantaged children to whom the Secretary of State has referred and whom his scheme is designed to help. Will he consider that suggestion?
Mr. Blunkett: We rejoice in that. We are glad that the hon. Gentleman has had the decency or the courage to ensure that he is able to welcome and put forward positive ideas. We welcome his ideas entirely. We think that there is a positive role in developing such links. There is an argument taking place around me, with some occupants of the Opposition Front Bench saying that the shadow Secretary of State welcomes my statement. Lord help me if the hon. Gentleman had opposed it. However, I welcome the suggestion of the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), and we will build on suggestions of that sort. If postgraduate students are able to engage with inner-city schools, that will help not only the child or youngster direct, but will inspire them to believe that they, too, can go to university and succeed.
Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Will he congratulate and commend the very many teachers who achieve year-on-year improvement among pupils from deprived families in Birmingham and in every other big city in the country? Will he clarify whether the welcome extra assistance that he has announced this afternoon will depend not on geography, but on levels of deprivation, so that out-of-city schools in deprived areas will also benefit?
Mr. Blunkett: The assistance will be for schools in the areas that I have described, and how to accelerate and
30
provide initial support will be a matter for local determination. It is not about geography, in the sense of proximity to a central shopping centre; instead, it is about levels of deprivation in areas, including out-of-city estates, which are often the most deprived and least gentrified of all.
Clearly, we shall want to celebrate the excellence of the heads and teachers, who often do a tremendous job against the odds. We shall want to reward that success, and we shall want to celebrate it by spreading it. Above all, we want to ensure that that success is rewarded through the proposals in the consultative Green Paper, which I hope teachers will read, rather than reading views about it from those who have been against it from the word go.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We spent 10 years working in Brixton and Peckham with some of the most educationally disadvantaged young people, who were suffering from the socialist ideology of the Inner London education authority and its lowest common denominator philosophy. There were then 10 years during which the Labour party bitterly resisted the introduction of a national curriculum and tests of attainment. It is strange now to hear the Secretary of State trying to square the circle to satisfy the socialist chattering classes.
Surely the dilemma that the right hon. Gentleman faces with his statement is that he is proposing an entirely arbitrary system of endless selection of which schools and which pupils will or will not participate in the scheme. Diversity was provided by assisted places, grammar schools and the changes that were set in place. Is the right hon. Gentleman surprised that so many head teachers despair at the level of announcements, the glitz, the glamour, the documentation and the bossiness of the approach? Is it not time now to let the schools get on and deliver the results themselves, rather than introduce a highly complicated scheme where children will be hurrying and scurrying from school to school and centre to centre, unable to settle down and achieve results?
Mr. Blunkett: Having condemned the lowest common denominator approach in the opening part of the right hon. Lady's statement, she went on to condemn measures that ensure that we do not have that approach, and instead celebrate diversity and accelerate the meeting of the child's individual needs. There is no suggestion of hurrying and scurrying between schools, because, unlike the system that offered real opportunity only if we took children out of their neighbourhood school and their area through selection or assisted places, the scheme that I have announced is about helping children who remain in their neighbourhood schools. They would do so under any system, because selection and assisted places took only a tiny fraction of children out of the state system, out of the normal system, and left the rest to manage for themselves. The proposal is for real diversity within the school that a child attends, where the necessary support will be provided. The scheme, if I may say so to the right hon. Lady, is free of dogma, which is why her hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) had the decency to welcome it.
Mr. Eddie O'Hara: It ill behoves Opposition Members to be so critical of such an important announcement for the state education system, where the

31
vast majority of our children receive their education, given that, during the entire discussion, the maximum number of hon. Members that the Opposition have been able to raise on the Back Benches is 12.
I welcome the fact that my borough, Knowsley, has been included in the project. I seek clarification of various aspects. Will my right hon. Friend advise me whether, in the areas that have been identified, attention will be given to the range of subjects that are currently available? For example, I can think of only one school in Knowsley where Latin—a subject that my right hon. Friend mentioned—may be available. I can think of none where Greek is available, and none where Russian is taught, except possibly at the same school that offers Latin. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that, within the zones, the full range of opportunities will be available?
In that connection, does my right hon. Friend envisage pupils crossing the borders within the zones—for example, from Knowsley to Liverpool? That may solve some of the problems of provision in Knowsley, but even in Liverpool, in schools that are still in the state system, some of the subjects that I would like to be available are not taught in any school.
Finally, will my right hon. Friend clarify how the mentoring system will work? As a former chairman of education, I have had some experience of trying to get schools to co-operate in sharing their resources, when not every school could offer the full curriculum. I was disappointed to see how schools were prepared to give up their pupils to another school for enrichment.
Mr. Blunkett: On the final point, the mentoring system will enable the red tape, obstruction and difficulty to be unwound more easily, as the individual will have an advocate working on his behalf, supporting him directly and unravelling the bureaucracy.
On the question of working across boundaries, that will be important not only in Merseyside, but in other conurbations, particularly London, where it will be necessary and beneficial for local authorities to share expertise and resources.
It is indeed a challenge to provide scarce specialisms such as Latin. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has offered to assist with that, because, every time I mention Latin, he gives me the—
Mr. Skinner: Amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant.
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful. At this point, the late Derek Enright would have sung "Yellow Submarine" in Latin. I deeply regret that he is no longer with us to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Time is moving on, and there is the business of an Opposition day to safeguard. Questions and answers are far too long. I shall not be able to call many more hon. Members, as it has taken such a long time to get through the few questions that we have had.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Secretary of State knows well that the family of schools
32
in the borough of Trafford achieves the best results in Greater Manchester—indeed, the best results in the north-west of England. Perhaps he will reflect on the fact that that is not just because 35 per cent. or more of the children go to grammar schools and get a good academic education, but, perhaps more important, because the others who go to good high schools get a good technical or vocational education, as was recognised by the Secretary of State in response to a sedentary remark from the Government Benches. The right hon. Gentleman has made one of those schools a beacon school. Is he not concerned that the proposals that he outlined may give some academic benefit to a fraction of pupils, but will sacrifice the vast majority, for whom there will be no improvement in the technical or vocational education that they should have?
Mr. Blunkett: Exactly the reverse. I commend those schools for being excellent; precisely because they are so excellent, the bulk of parents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, should they vote for a non-selective system, would want their children to continue to attend them.
Ms Diane Abbott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be widely welcomed in the inner cities? He will be aware that one of the distinguishing characteristics of many inner-city areas is a high number of black and ethnic minority children. He will know that, last month, I held a conference in Hackney on black children in schools, which attracted more than 500 people from all over the country. I do not want to prolong my question; will my right hon. Friend build on the positive work that is being done in the community, exemplified by the Saturday school movement, and listen to what black parents are saying? They, too, want excellence for their children.
Mr. Blunkett: The answer is yes.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Would it not have been so much better to have kept the assisted places scheme in place, because it would have had universal benefit throughout the country? As for the leafy suburbs, of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks so disparagingly, will he turn his attention to how local parents would be better able to secure a place in their local school for their children? That really concerns them.
Mr. Blunkett: Those children need a local place—an excellent local place. They do not need a system that allows a few to escape from a local place that they do not find acceptable.
Mr. Skinner: The many, not the few.
Mr. Blunkett: As my hon. Friend once again says, so rightly, that is why we are in favour of the many, not the few.
Mr. Terry Rooney: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement—which, on top of his wise decision to support the Bradford schools review with £170 million, is good news—but will he clarify whether the money for gifted pupils will be awarded per pupil, per school or per local education authority?
Mr. Blunkett: The resources will be allocated in relation to the needs of an area as a whole and will be

33
discussed with those areas so that we can ensure that we can get the initial programme off the ground as quickly as possible.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Does the statement not show that the Government are suffering from a serious split personality? I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, especially as it endorsed the policies being pioneered in Conservative-controlled Wandsworth, but can he explain why the Government are still undermining the grammar school system if they are now committed to selection on the basis of ability?
Mr. Blunkett: I thought that I had just explained that we are helping children, whatever their ability, in the school that they attend. The hon. Gentleman described the excellence in Wandsworth, but it also seems to have passed me by that we have adopted such a system. There seems to be a degree of schizophrenia here; either we are adopting such a system, which he would welcome, or we are not adopting such a system, which he would oppose. I heard both in his question.
Helen Jackson: My right hon. Friend will know how welcome his statement will be in Sheffield and in Rotherham. May I pick out two matters? First, I particularly welcome the widening of choice on foreign languages. My right hon. Friend will remember when Ecclesfield school, for example, offered a number of languages, including excellent provision of Russian, which was whittled down to nothing during the 18 years of Tory rule. Secondly, I welcome provision for the awkward squad coming back into schools and getting some education. However, both those areas require good specialist teachers. Will he say a bit more about how many extra teachers he expects to be involved with that provision, which will be so welcome in the inner cities?
Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased that my hon. Friend recalls her time teaching at Ecclesfield school, where she did an excellent job with special needs pupils. Not only will we seek to recruit and to accelerate those who have a specialism that is not readily available, but, as I have described, we will use technology to link up with schools that do not have those specialisms available. The experiment carried out in the Strathclyde region before the change in structure in Scotland was very interesting, because it linked small island and highland schools into a provision that was available only in a handful of urban schools in Strathclyde. That allowed pupils to link into classes and to teachers with such expertise. Although we need to do a great deal more, we can link up not simply across our country and across Britain, but across Europe and the world.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about the pursuit of excellence for children with academic abilities in our inner cities. Some of those whom he despises—constituents of mine who live in "leafy suburbs"—go to school in Birmingham, alongside Birmingham children who are socially deprived and from ethnic minorities, because they attend the city's excellent grammar schools, which his Government want to abolish.
In the light of today's statement, and of what I believe to be his intention to raise standards for all, will the Secretary of State tell the people of Birmingham—the
34
politically correct left-wing loonies, perhaps, who still want to use the mechanism introduced by his Government to abolish state grammar schools—to desist from doing so, in the interests of everyone, not just those in leafy suburbs?
Mr. Blunkett: In the interests of brevity, I shall not comment on that rant—except to say that, far from despising the hon. Lady's constituents, I want them to have the excellent education that some of them are seeking through the selective process which enables them to attend grammar schools in Birmingham, rather than the schools available to them in her constituency. This is the essence of our disagreement: at the heart of what we are doing is our wish for children to have confidence in local schools, rather than trying to escape from them.
Ms Gisela Stuart: I welcome the statement, as does everyone in Birmingham. I thought that I had heard the end of Conservative Members' referring to left-wing loonies and Birmingham in one breath—especially as I seem to remember a libel action some time ago which was most embarrassing for the then Secretary of State.
I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend refer to mobility. When he mentioned it first, I thought that he meant pupil mobility, which is a great concern of mine, but I welcome what he said about the need to reduce the number of supply teachers, and to provide more stability among teaching staff. Will he elaborate on that, and explain how we can work together to provide such a stable environment in schools?
Mr. Blunkett: I take to heart the need to ensure that teachers are attracted to, and retained in, the schools that face the biggest challenge. Pupils at a primary school that was referred to in our document had 25 teachers in one year, which caused immeasurable disruption to their education. If, by means of retention bonuses, special development programmes and the attachment of mentors to teachers and pupils, we can avoid such disruption, we shall do a great service not just to pupils and parents, but to teachers, enabling them to fulfil their desire to take on the challenge to teach in the inner cities, knowing that they have the necessary backing.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that two improvements are necessary if the parents of bright children who live in inner cities are to feel more confident, and if more of them are to send their children to non-fee-paying, non-selective inner-city schools? First, more transparent application arrangements are required, involving a fair appeals system in every school—including, independently, city technology colleges, which are not yet required to have such arrangements. Secondly, rather than issuing directives to local authorities for the prospective contracting-out of services—such a directive was issued to Hackney on Friday—the Secretary of State should ask local parents what sort of management of their schools they want, and, if they want a change of management, let them, rather than Ministers, lead the debate.
Mr. Blunkett: We are digressing slightly, but, in any event, I am not going to organise a referendum on school

35
management in Hackney or anywhere else. I shall ensure that there are proper structures enabling us to achieve the management and leadership that we need. Of course—as the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning—we need to get the arrangements right for individual children, and I should be happy for the hon. Gentleman to tell us, on the basis of his constituency experience, what he would like to see that is not mentioned in the document.
Ms Hazel Blears: A young man who attends Windsor high school in the inner city of Salford wants to be a civil engineer. For the past year, he has had a mentor who has helped to shape and focus his ambitions, and I believe that, as a result, he will succeed in having a career that previously he did not dream of having. The proposals will help thousands of children just like him to flourish. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that those children have support not only in school, but at home in their communities? Will he confirm that the support for educational excellence will be linked to inner-city regeneration, to ensure that our success is long term and sustainable?
Mr. Blunkett: I can indeed. It will be rooted in the regeneration programme. Let me make it clear that, like everyone else, I accept that unemployment, poor housing, poor health and a poor environment have a dramatic impact on the life chances of children and on the schools and teachers who teach them. We need to compensate for and to overcome that disadvantage, not to excuse it. I take entirely the point that my hon. Friend makes. We will do that. We will provide those mentors. We will provide that support in Salford as part of ensuring that pupils such as the one whom she has mentioned have the aspiration and expectation that we take for granted.
Mrs. Theresa May: Earlier, the Secretary of State described selection as an anachronism. Will he confirm that, under the Government's policy, not only will some pupils be selected for their specific talents, but each school will be required to select 5 or 10 per cent. of pupils by ability, and to provide those pupils with a different teaching and learning programme from other pupils in the school?
Mr. Blunkett: No, I will not confirm that. I will confirm that the existing programme, which all pupils will go through, will remain, that those pupils will take that programme, but that it will be accelerated and extended where appropriate. This morning, I was at St. Paul's Way community school in Tower Hamlets, one of the most deprived areas of the country. Fifteen-year-olds there are taking A-levels, developing alongside their normal programme the ability to stretch and to extend their talent. I want every child to be able to do so, not just those who can buy private education.

Points of Order
4.27 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. As you will recall, the House received a serious admission from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 16 March by written answer that his Parliamentary Private Secretary had received, before its publication, a draft copy of the report by the Select Committee on Social Security on taxing child benefit. However, at the time, the Chancellor had not answered other questions about the involvement of his political adviser, or possibly his officials. Therefore, I asked that question again. However, on 19 March, the Chancellor's answer to that specific question was simply to refer me back to his answer of 16 March; in other words, he refused to answer the question.
My point of order is to refer the House to the clear guidelines that are set down in paragraph 1 of the ministerial code. The paragraph is taken from a resolution of the House, which says:
"It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament".
It goes on to say that Ministers may refuse to provide information
"only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".— [Official Report, 19 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 1047.]
As the code is at one with the resolution that was passed by the House, is not the Chancellor abusing the House and the public whom Parliament serves by refusing to answer that question? Do you agree that the Chancellor should now come before the House, apologise for his failure to uphold that code—which the Prime Minister stressed in his opening remarks in the code—and answer, once and for all, the question whether his advisers or officials were involved in that leaked draft report?
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you guide us on what redress is available to the House of Commons if we find, as we increasingly do—the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) seems to exemplify it yet again—that Ministers refuse point blank to answer a question that has been accepted by the Table Office, and refuse on a second or subsequent occasion to give any further information? Is the House of Commons then simply left completely lost? Is there nothing that we can do? Are the Government now able, as they never were in the past, to stonewall and to refuse the House any information after a question has passed through the Table Office?
Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a member of the said Select Committee: the Select Committee on Social Security. The facts are clear. The Chancellor has admitted that his Parliamentary Private Secretary received a draft report. I have tabled a question to ask from whom he received the draft report. I await the answer to that question anxiously.
Surely the answer is simple. It is inconceivable that one of your Clerks, Madam Speaker, gave the PPS that Select Committee report. It is unlikely that a Conservative Member provided the report. However, someone must

37
own up to providing it. If the Executive received a draft report from the Select Committee and no one owns up to providing it, it is difficult to see how the system will be able to continue operating. The system will simply collapse. We therefore do need your help and guidance on the matter.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): On a different point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Let me deal first with the first point of order.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) for giving me a little notice of what guidance he was seeking. As the House knows, Ministers take responsibility for the answers that they give, and I cannot comment on the specific answer to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
In general, the House is entitled to expect—as I do—that all Ministers will comply with the resolution on ministerial accountability. Enforcement of that resolution, however, is a matter for the House and not for the occupant of the Chair. I am sure that hon. Members, using our procedures, will find further ways of pursuing questions. Moreover, Ministers will have heard the points of order that have been raised and will take note of my response to them.
I call Mr. Bercow.
Mr. Bercow: Thank you, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the implications for the House following a report—on page 2 of The Sunday Times yesterday, by Jonathan Carr-Brown—of a transport conference being organised by Professor David Begg, which is due to take place tomorrow and to be addressed by, among others, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions? The report states—the Department has not contradicted it—that the Secretary of State will make what is described as a "keynote speech" on bus policy, and that he is billed as launching the Government's White Paper on buses.
As the conference is advertised on that basis, and as charges—of between £175 and £275—are levied for attendance, is it not a matter of the utmost seriousness? Given that you have made very clear your views on the importance of informing the House first—and as Ministers might be hard of hearing—would you care to reiterate your views on this important matter?
Madam Speaker: I pay little attention to such newspaper reports, and am not in the least bit interested in keynote speeches made outside the House by Ministers. It is not a matter for me. Ministers know my views on the matter, and certainly the Deputy Prime Minister has an excellent record in coming to the House first before making announcements outside it. He also knows full well my views on the matter. If there is any new policy or a policy change, he is a Minister who usually comes to the House first before announcing the policy outside it.

Opposition Day
[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Council Tax Increases
Madam Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
4.33 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I beg to move,
That this House notes that the prime determinant of council tax levels is the amount of funding allocated by central government to local authorities; further notes that as a consequence of inadequate financial settlements for local government in recent years there has been a substantial real-terms year-on-year increase in council tax; and calls on the Government to improve the funding of local services and abolish budget capping within the lifetime of this Parliament.
Shortly before the 1997 general election, the House debated the then Conservative Government's last local government settlement. During the debate, the then shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, now the Secretary of State for Health, declared:
"The incoming Labour Government will be based on the supposition that democracy depends on the people who take the decisions carrying the can".
That is absolutely right. It is what this debate is all about—that those who take the decisions should carry the can for them. As our motion clearly states, the Government's responsibility is plain and clear when it comes to the increases that councils are now having to foist upon their citizens.
In the same debate, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
"We shall not roam around the country blaming local councillors for decisions that we have taken in the House of Commons."—[Official Report, 3 February 1997; Vol. 289, c. 701.]
That, too, is absolutely right.
Two years on, is Labour taking responsibility? Last November, the Deputy Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box to announce Labour's second local government settlement. We were treated to much of the usual display of smoke and mirrors. We were told that council tax need rise by no more than 4.5 per cent., and Ministers spent the day going around television and radio studios underlining the positive message of only a 4.5 per cent. council tax increase. Moreover, we were told that the settlement was the most generous since council tax was introduced.
We know now how wrong those claims were. Council tax bills are rising by 6.8 per cent.—an average increase of £51 on band D in England alone. The Government have to take responsibility; they must stop blaming local authorities and councillors for the consequences of Government decisions taken in the House with the support of Back-Bench Labour Members.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Why is the average council tax per dwelling so much higher in Liberal Democrat areas than in Labour or Conservative areas?
Mr. Burstow: If this is going to be one of those debates when we trade variations of statistics, we can cite with the band D average, which shows a 6 per cent. increase for Liberal Democrat authorities.

39
The issue is not what local authorities decide, because more than 75 per cent. of what councils spend comes from central Government. The decisions of central Government overwhelmingly dictate council tax levels. We can all come up with spurious statistics, or even factual ones—I am sure that those referred to by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) were factual—but we have to recognise that all the statistics are shaped by the decisions of Ministers on the distribution of grants and non-domestic rates.
Mr. John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is right to point the finger of responsibility at the Government Front Bench, but I hope that he agrees that it is important that he should approach the debate with clean hands. Will he tell the House the average saving achieved by Liberal Democrat-run authorities from competitive tendering and market testing?
Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I shall give him a straight answer. I cannot give him the figure today, but I shall happily write to him with it in due course. I shall be interested to hear his speech later, when I am sure that he will try to give us every detail of the savings arising from compulsory competitive tendering by Conservative councils. The figure will be much smaller, because there are so few Conservative councils these days. Compulsory competitive tendering, which is referred to in the Government amendment, has produced inefficiencies because of the way in which it has been delivered. The crude and ineffective mechanism of CCT might have produced artificial savings, but they came at the expense of quality of service. The Conservatives never understood that when they were in government. That is why they lost so many seats in local government throughout the country.
The lion's share of what councils spend is provided by the Government in the form of grants and business rates. That means that small changes in the way in which the Government distribute the cash have large consequences for council tax bills. An essential qualification for being a Minister in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions seems to be a willingness to live in a world of fantasy figures—a fantasy based on the pseudo-science of standard spending assessments. Ministers place great store on the standard spending assessment. Education Ministers seem to believe that it is a true measure of what councils should spend on education.
In reality, the formula is nothing more than a means for delivering and distributing a cash-limited budget. Minor changes in the algebraic formula that underpins the standard spending assessment can have profound effects on the level of council tax, as we are seeing as bills start to be printed and delivered to council tax payers. As the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy recently said:
"Because the financing of local authority spending depends so heavily on central government support, raising relatively small amounts of additional local revenue results in exaggerated increases in council tax levels."
Standard spending assessments are only part of the story. The sleight of hand is more subtle than that. The gap between what local authorities are spending and what
40
the Government are funding is growing. It stands at £2.3 billion and is set to widen further. As the Government withdraw support from local spending, the council tax payer has to pay more. During the debate before the election, Labour exposed that as a scandal, but the Labour Government have continued with the same policy. As a consequence, for every pound that the Government fail to fund, council tax goes up by an average of £4.
In the Government's fantasy world, we are told by Ministers that a 4.5 per cent. increase is all that is needed, and that no cuts will be necessary in front-line services. I have been watching closely and listening to Ministers and their advisers, and that is not what is happening on the ground. In the real world of inflation, an ageing population and an increasing number of school children, councils have already endured two years of Labour austerity; two years of Labour sticking to Tory spending plans; two years of cuts and council tax rises.
Labour would like us to think that year zero started with the comprehensive spending review. We are to forget the first two years of a Labour Government, and focus on the next three. "Cash for change" is the cry, but that ignores the cumulative effects of years of inadequate settlements under the previous Government, and now under this Government. In the real world, Labour's spending commitments are being oversold and underfunded. Over the lifetime of this Parliament—not just the last three years—compared with the last full Parliament, current real annual spending growth has halved: 1.4 per cent. versus 2.7 per cent.
On education spending, there is the much-vaunted £19 billion extra. The number of times that this figure, and sub-sets of it, has been launched and relaunched would place the Government well at the top of the Audit Commission's league table on recycling. Apart from being a three-year cumulative figure—rolling up total spending compared with current years—it is conveniently forgotten that the figure includes three years' worth of inflation and all aspects of education funding, including colleges, universities, Ofsted inspectors and special grants.
Nearly half the Government's promised increase is not an increase in funding, but comes in the form of standard spending assessment increases. That is not cash from the Government, but cash from council tax payers. Councils taking up the Government's so-called generous SSA increase will have to cut other budgets or increase council tax—or, in most cases, both. Last year, the Government left councils to find £562 million for local education in that way. The result was that class sizes went up, not down—which was an early Government pledge.
The total increase in central Government funds to local authorities is set to rise by an average of £1.5 billion over each of the next three years, and education's share of that is likely to be no more than £600 million a year. Those figures take no account of the teachers' pay award this year and the Government's failure—again—fully to fund the award leaves councils having to find an extra £68 million in the coming year.
It is not just in education that cuts in other budgets or increases in council tax will be needed to bridge the gap. A closer inspection of figures provided by the Library reveals that the social services standard spending assessment for England will rise by just 1.3 per cent. after

41
changes in the grant and special grant regime that provided for community care in the past have been taken into account.
Even on the Government's own fantasy figures, that will leave a £100 million gap, simply to meet inflation, for social services to pick up. A lower inflation increase for social services will make cuts in current services inevitable. Undermining current social services by underfunding makes no sense at a time when the Government, rightly, are setting targets and directing a host of specific grants at social services to secure change and improvement. Ultimately, that is self-defeating.
To make matters worse this year, local authorities have been left waiting for the Department of Health to publish the conditions for all the new grants, turning the planning and budgeting exercise into a nightmare. Only last Tuesday, the conditions for the three biggest grants were finally published—well after most local authorities will have set their budgets and made their decisions about council tax.
It is not just the levels of council tax funding that make a difference, or the way in which money is distributed; it is also the capping system itself. The Government amendment applauds the abolition of crude and universal capping—and we, too, would applaud that. However, capping is still with us this year. The only difference is that the Deputy Prime Minister is keeping the figures to himself; he is not sharing them with anyone else. As a result, councils are forced to play Russian roulette with school budgets, meals-on-wheels charges and other services.
Just in case councils do not get the capping message from the Government, there is new Labour's own brand of crude and universal capping. Council tax benefit subsidy limitation gives the Government the power to claw back council tax benefit from councils increasing their council tax by more than 4.5 per cent. The result is a further increase in council tax or a budget cut to pay for the loss of council tax benefit subsidy.
The Labour manifesto promised an end to crude and universal capping, but with reserve powers to control council tax rises. The clawing back of council tax benefit is not a reserve power: it is crude and it is universal. A council with an 8 per cent. council tax increase will receive no further funding for council tax benefit for the poorest in its community, so the nearly poor will have to pay for the benefits of the really poor in their communities. So much for ending crude and universal capping.
For Liberal Democrats, local accountability means greater financial independence. As a first step, we would return to local councillors the power to determine local business rates, which would increase the amount raised locally for council expenditure from a quarter to nearly half. That would begin to rebuild financial independence, creating greater transparency and accountability to local people.
The figures are clear—the average council tax increase is 6.8 per cent., which will result in an average band D increase of £51 a year. That is more than the Government claimed, and more than people were led to believe.
Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend has been very accurate in his general observations, but I want him to answer a
42
particular question which may be of interest to the Minister, who lives in the borough that I represent. When my constituents complain that the Labour council is closing day centres for the elderly and for adults with learning difficulties, and wants to sell off housing estates because it does not have enough money to repair other estates, is that more the local Labour council's fault, or more the Labour Government's fault? Which manifestation of Labour should people blame?
Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Every single council tax payer faces that dilemma because accountability is even more blurred now than under the previous Government. Labour councils implement Labour Government council tax increases and cut services to try to keep council tax down a bit. Of course, individual councils have to set priorities, but in my hon. Friend's area a Labour council is making decisions that cut local services.
I have a final quotation:
"It is no good the Government complaining that councils blame central Government. Central Government have so constructed the system of local government finance that they tell it how much it can have, what it can spend it on and how to spend it. The country has rumbled that and knows that central Government are taking decisions and deciding how those decisions will impact in every area."—[Official Report, 3 February 1997; Vol. 289, c. 760.]
How very true were those words, spoken by the current Minister for Local Government and Housing; and they are truer today than when she first spoke them. The Conservatives may have engineered the local government finance system, but Labour has fine-tuned it to give Ministers even more power to direct what councils can or cannot do. The Government, more than local councils, have taken the decisions that have determined council tax increases, because so much of the money comes from the centre.
The people have indeed rumbled what has happened, and have seen that, as a consequence of decisions taken by the Government, there will be a massive back-door increase in taxation. Labour should carry the can for that.
4.49 pm
The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"notes that the 1999–2000 local government settlement was the most generous since the introduction of the council tax; further notes the Government's commitment of an extra £40 billion for schools and hospitals; and welcomes the introduction of Best Value, the abolition of crude and universal capping, the reform of political management structures and the new ethical framework, set out in the local government White Paper."
This debate is interesting. Hon. Members may already know that it is little more than a fig leaf to cover the embarrassment caused by the Liberal Democrats' confused and contradictory local government policies. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) is a prisoner of his own party activists. He knows that the interests of Liberal councillors are not the same as the interests of local people.
Jackie Ballard: He is a party activist.
Ms Armstrong: Perhaps the hon. Lady has given us the truth.

43
The interests of Liberal Democrat Members are not the same as the interests of the general public. Liberal councillors want higher taxes from local people, while local people want best value for their money. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam knows that he cannot take a responsible and grown-up attitude to local government policy and please both—so he has chosen to put party before people. Because the hon. Gentleman cannot reconcile the interests of his councillors with the interests of the electorate, he has this afternoon tried to shift the blame for council tax rises, many of which have been the direct decision of his party, away from councils and on to the Government.
Liberal policy is muddled: the Liberal Democrats say that they want the Government to grant more money to local councils, but councils to raise more of their money for themselves. The Liberal Democrats say they want lower council tax rises, but want to abandon all controls on local government spending. They say they support public services, but want to do nothing to ensure best value for local people. Much of local government has moved on from the old politics of spend and blame; it seems that the Liberals have not. They have become apologists for old-style municipal tax and spend, high taxation and low efficiency.
Jackie Ballard: If the Minister thinks that Liberal Democrat councillors and activists are so out of touch with the wishes of local people, will she explain why the Labour party—especially in the north-west of England—has lost council seat after council seat to the Liberal Democrats over the past year or two?
Ms Armstrong: If the hon. Lady revealed the turnout at those by-elections, she might not be so gung-ho. The Tories craved too much control over councils, but the Liberals propose out-of-control councils—with taxes as high as they like, spending as much as they want, service standards as low as they get—with the Government taking no responsibility for improving public services or protecting local taxpayers. The Government reject both those approaches.
Mr. Burstow: The Minister asserts that our policy is to release local government from central Government control, and she is right. However, much of what Liberal Democrats have said for many years is also the policy of the Local Government Association, including returning business rate control to local councils and a local income tax. The LGA has long campaigned for those policies.
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman will wish to retract that statement, because I have never known the LGA to propose a local income tax. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm will take him down the right road. The LGA has argued for the return of business rates to local control, but it also accepts that redistribution would be needed if that were to happen, from those authorities—
Mr. Burstow indicated assent.
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman did not make that point clear. Such redistribution moves away from the
44
relationship between central and local funding. We believe that central Government should work alongside local councils to get the best for the local taxpayer and encourage local democracy. Central government should not seek to control too much or to abandon responsibility for what happens.
It is in the national interest that local communities should take more decisions for themselves; that local councils should be more responsible to local people than to central Government; and that responsible councils should set their own levels of taxation. It is also in the national interest that central Government should ensure that national standards of public service are set and met, and major failures in service delivery are halted and reversed. It is the responsibility of central Government to make resources available to local councils to provide and enable the provision of modern public services, at a price people are prepared to pay, and it is right for the Government to ensure that those resources are spent wisely and well.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam tried to pretend in his peroration that the Government had not been generous to local government. In fact, in the five years of the previous Parliament, standard spending assessments fell by 3 per cent. in real terms, while the Labour Government have already increased SSAs by 2.6 per cent. During the first four years of the Government, SSAs will increase by 6.9 per cent.
When the Conservatives exercised central control through crude and universal council tax capping and pre-announced spending limits for every council in the country, it could fairly be claimed that they took responsibility for every council tax rise. The capping threshold ceased to be a maximum spending limit and increasingly became the norm. Conservative Governments enjoyed the right to limit every budget increase, and they must therefore take responsibility for every council tax rise. As we said we would in our manifesto, we have ended crude and universal council tax capping. This year, there have been no pre-announced capping limits.
Mr. Simon Burns: The hon. Lady said during her flight of fantasy that it was the responsibility of central Government to provide money for local authorities to provide local services. [Interruption.] She now says that she did not say that, but that was certainly the impression that she gave in her speech. How, then, would she respond to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who said that, as a result of the Government's settlement, £2.4 million would have to be cut from education in Brent? In addition, the hon. Gentleman said that provision of care for the elderly would be cut, that libraries would close and that children and the disabled in care would suffer. What would the hon. Lady say to her hon. Friend?
Ms Armstrong: It is not my job to account for the meanderings of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East. I am not responding to his electioneering; I am here to deal with the electioneering of the Liberal Democrats, and with the feeble attempts of the Tories.
Councils have set their tax and spending levels for themselves this year. They are responsible to their electorates for them, and they must now account for their decisions. Such decisions include that in Torbay—I am

45
pleased to see the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) in the Chamber—where responsibility for the council tax increase of 17 per cent. lies with the Liberal Democrat council. Those decisions include that taken in Herefordshire, where responsibility for the council tax increase of 10.8 per cent. lies with the Liberal Democrat council. The biggest council tax rises among unitary councils are by Liberal Democrat councils. The Liberal Democrats can duck and dive, but they cannot escape their own responsibilities for council tax rises. It is little wonder that the average council tax bill per dwelling in Liberal Democrat areas is higher than in Labour areas.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: Which Government were responsible for reducing the formula for bed nights, which has affected tourist areas; which Government reduced weighting for elderly people; and which Government have caused problems for areas with rising numbers of school pupils because of the time lag in the head count in standard spending assessments? Can the Minister name a council affected by all three of those factors? I can give her an answer: Torbay, where those characteristics account for a large proportion of the tax rise.
Ms Armstrong: I wish that that were true. However, the truth is that Torbay is raising the council tax, not because it has taken SSA changes into account, but because it is raising its budget by 6.7 per cent., which is somewhat above inflation. That is why there is a council tax rise of 17 per cent. The Liberal Democrats are responsible for the rise in that budget and they are responsible for the consequent council tax rise.
The Conservatives are no better. Conservative councils have higher than average increases in council tax at 7.6 per cent. In shire districts, Conservative councils have higher average rises than Labour councils.
Mr. Sanders rose—
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to put his point in his speech.
In the 1980s, the Conservatives were proud of Wandsworth—their flagship borough. Last year, ahead of the local government elections in London, which may have been incidental, Wandsworth cut its council tax substantially. This year, when there are no elections, Wandsworth has the highest increase of any council in London, with a massive tax hike of 21.5 per cent. Compare that record with the rest of inner London
All inner-London authorities were treated similarly in this year's settlement. There are only three Conservative councils in inner London. The top three increases in council tax in inner London are in those same three Conservative councils. In Conservative Kensington and Chelsea, council tax is up 7.5 per cent.; in Conservative Westminster, it is up 8.7 per cent.; and in Conservative Wandsworth, it is up 21.5 per cent.
By contrast, other councils—Islington, Greenwich, Hackney and Lambeth—are cutting council tax this year. In the London borough of Redbridge, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats combined to vote through a total council tax rise of 11.3 per cent. in the face of opposition from the minority, but ruling, Labour group.
46
It is little wonder that, across London, councils run by Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have higher average council tax rises than Labour councils.
Mr. Sanders: The Minister attacked Torbay council for a 16.4 per cent. rise, which she blamed on the Liberal Democrats. Will she explain why the Labour group on Torbay council wanted a 20 per cent. tax rise?
Ms Armstrong: I am not responsible for Labour group decisions and I do not support all of them, as I will make clear in my speech.
I do not make these points for partisan reasons. While it is the case that Labour councils have lower than average increases in council tax, I readily acknowledge that, in some Labour councils, council tax rises are higher than I would have argued for had I been a councillor. Those rises and the increases by Conservative councils—which are higher than average—are the responsibility not of the Government but of local decisions taken by local councilors.
It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that those decisions do not bear too harshly on the public purse, either locally or centrally. To protect the local taxpayer, we will shortly announce whether and how we propose to use existing capping powers for 1999–2000. To protect the national taxpayer, we have made local councils responsible for the extra costs of council tax benefit caused by large council tax increases.
The national interest demands that, where councils are proving irresponsible, the Government should have the power to intervene. The Local Government Bill, which is before Parliament, creates a reserve power for the Secretary of State, so that excessive council tax decisions can be judged over time, measured against expressions of support by local people and, if necessary, restrained. The Liberals oppose any restraining powers on local government. So, while they are prepared unfairly to blame the Government for higher council tax bills, the Liberals would stand back and let those tax bills rocket out of control.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Given what the Minister has said, will she explain, for the benefit of our constituents, the answer to the question that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). If our local council, which is Labour run—for the first time in its history, Labour now has control only through the vote of the mayor—cannot raise the money that it wants because it is capped and the Government are setting a limit, and if the Government do not give it the money that it is asking for, whom should the council blame? It has been told that its day centres are to close—some have closed and the day centres for adults with learning difficulties are to close in the next few days. It has also been told that some of the council estates will have to be sold because there is not the money to repair them. Whom should the council blame?
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman's problem is that he does not understand local government finance; it has nothing to do with the housing account. The Government have put substantial new money into housing and that is a separate matter from this debate. As I understand it, that is not the argument that Southwark council is putting about its estates.

47
In respect of the other issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, he said that the Government were capping councils. The Government are not capping councils. Councils have the opportunity to set their council tax at a level that they believe will deliver the quality of services for which people are prepared to pay. It is important that councils take responsibility for those decisions, and that they discuss them and argue them through with local people. Under current legislation, they are not supposed to do that; that is why we are changing the legislation in the way that will be announced tomorrow.
The Tories, who for years were hooked on centralisation, are today reformed "capoholics", slowly emerging from their blue haze, trying desperately to come to terms with the reality of their past, not quite certain whether to control their addiction by an occasional fix or to give up the cap for good. In contrast to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, the Government recognise our responsibility to ensure that local services are well resourced and well delivered.
Best value will sweep away the outdated over-regulation of compulsory competitive tendering and usher in a new era of rising standards of public service, greater involvement by local people in setting and monitoring standards and an emphasis on year-on-year improvement, innovation and public-private partnership. Best value provides the best means for keeping council tax rises down over the medium term. It is a fact that this year's local government settlement has been the most generous since the introduction of the council tax, with substantial extra money for education and social services.
As we have said, if council tax had increased in line with the increase in SSAs, bills need not have risen by more than 4.5 per cent. However, councils have decided to increase their spending by more than that, so council tax bills will rise on average by 6.8 per cent.—less than £1 a week, and a lot less than the double digit increases predicted by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.] We made no predictions, but said that, if council taxes rose in line with the increase in SSAs, the rise would be 4.5 per cent. Those council tax rises have occurred despite the extra resources we have committed this year: an extra £2 billion of Government grant, which is an increase of 5.5 per cent., well above the rate of inflation. No local authority has received less grant this year than last year, and all education and social services authorities have received more grant this year than last.
Of course, the Liberal Democrats have today repeated their usual mantra: tax more, spend more. However, it is based on a false boast. The Liberals say that the Government have not put enough money into health and social services. At the election, they promised an extra £3.5 billion; we have put in an extra £21 billion. They say that we have not put enough money into education. They promised £9.5 billion; we are putting in £19 billion. This debate has been called by Liberal Democrat Front Benchers for no other reason than to curry favour with the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors—one might almost imagine that a leadership contest was in the offing.
The debate has not been called to hold the Government to account, because we know that this year's settlement is the most generous for seven years and more generous than
48
anything offered by the Liberals or the Conservatives at the election. The Liberals keep telling me, and Paddy Ashdown reaffirmed it—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The Minister must refer to parliamentary colleagues in the correct form.
Ms Armstrong: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who is still a Member of Parliament, reaffirmed last September that the Liberals would have stuck with the financial memorandum that accompanied their election manifesto throughout this Parliament. The figures I am using are drawn from that document and, if hon. Members do not like it, I am sorry for them.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Minister be objective and non-partisan, just for a moment? From her remarks, it appears that she regards as irresponsible any local authority, whatever the colour of its controlling group, that has exceeded the 4.5 per cent. increase. Is that really what she is saying to the Local Government Association and to a large number of Labour-controlled local authorities?
Ms Armstrong: I have certainly not said that. That is why I have emphasised that we never set 4.5 per cent. as a figure above which councils should not go. We said that, if they went above that figure, they would have to share with Government the burden in terms of council tax benefit—
Mr. Tyler: The Government penalise them.
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand that it is the taxpayer who funds council tax benefit, so the penalty is paid by the taxpayer. The Government are concerned about that, even if the hon. Gentleman is not.
Today's debate has not been called to highlight how responsible Liberal councils are. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam appeared almost embarrassed to mention Liberal councils.
Mr. Burns: She wrote that before the hon. Gentleman had even spoken.
Ms Armstrong: It is not written down here, so there you go.
We know that the average council tax per dwelling in Liberal areas is higher than in Labour areas, just as the average increase in Labour councils is lower than in Conservative councils. The debate has not been called to draw attention to the shires, because average council tax per dwelling in shire areas is lower in Labour areas than in either Liberal or Conservative areas. The debate has not been called to demonstrate how responsible Liberal Front Benchers are, because we know that they would let council tax rise faster and further without trying to protect the taxpayer, while their hare-brained local income tax scheme would cost millions to introduce and lead to a massive increased burden on business in implementing it.

49
Local councils such as Wandsworth, Torbay and Herefordshire are responsible for pushing council taxes up, just as local councils such as Bristol, Lambeth and Greenwich are responsible for keeping average rises down.
Jackie Ballard: Liverpool.
Ms Armstrong: Liverpool, I grant the hon. Lady.
The Government are responsible for putting in place the necessary resources for local services, and we have done just that; the Liberals would have done even less. The Government are responsible for protecting the taxpayer, and we shall do so through our new reserve powers; the Liberals would do nothing. The Government are responsible for driving the modernisation of local government, just as we are doing through the introduction of elected mayors and a new ethical framework—the Liberals and the Conservatives simply do not know what to do.
It would do the House some good and do local government a great deal of good if we moved away from the yah-boo politics of spend and blame. It is time for a grown-up relationship, where councils take responsibility for their decisions and central Government intervene only in the national interest. Today's debate has been called by the Opposition, but they would do better to join the Government in taking a mature approach to the politics of local government. That is the Government's approach, but it is clearly not shared by the Opposition. I hope that, over the next few years, we can foster such an approach and demonstrate that there can be a fruitful relationship between the centre and the localities, in which both accept their responsibilities and work to ensure that local people get the best for their money.
5.15 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate the Minister on her Alice-in-Wonderland speech. The only thing that I can say in her defence is that at least she could not keep a straight face for most of it.
I listened to Labour spokesmen making speeches from the Opposition Dispatch Box during the previous Government. They would have been horrified to think that, only two years after its return to Government, Labour's approach to local government spending would be turned on its head and changed so dramatically. I thought for a moment that it was a Conservative rather than a Labour Minister speaking—let alone an old Labour Minister from an old Labour Department.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point: it sounded more like a right-wing Conservative speech than a new Labour speech. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why no more than three Tories have been present for the debate so far? At one stage, only one Conservative Member was present. If they are so concerned about local government elections and council tax rises, where are the massed ranks of the Tories?
Mr. Burns: There is a simple answer to that question. I will go down the same road as the Minister and say that I suspect that the Liberal Democrats called today's debate not simply to discuss local government finance. I think
50
that several Liberal Members have other agendas. It is sad to see that three prospective leadership candidates have now left the Chamber. No doubt, when more electors are present, they will return to their rightful places—as they now do every morning in the Tea Room at breakfast.
The first sentence of the Liberal Democrats motion reads:
"That this House notes that the prime determinant of council tax levels is the amount of funding allocated by central government to local authorities".
That is such a truism that I suspect that no hon. Member disagrees with it. In fact, it is almost as straightforward and simplistic as the statement that the battle of Hastings was in 1066—as every schoolboy knows.
When announcing the local government finance settlement last December, the Deputy Prime Minister declared, in his normal rumbustious way, that he expected council tax to increase by an average of 4.5 per cent this year. In a flight of hyperbole, he described it as
"the best deal for years for local people."—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 886.]
In the cold light of day, with council tax levels set for next year, the Deputy Prime Minister's view is not shared by most people around the country who are receiving their council tax benefits on their doormats.
Ms Armstrong: Council tax bills.
Mr. Burns: Many people will receive benefits as well—I shall come to that later.
If the Deputy Prime Minister's comments had been included in a prospectus designed to sell a commercial product or service, I suspect that the Serious Fraud Office would want to interview him. The situation that he described is far removed from reality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) rightly said, the Deputy Prime Minister is a bit like a used car salesman. As we know from the figures released by the Government this morning, the average council tax increase in England is 6.8 per cent.—which is significantly more than his overly optimistic forecast. On band D precepts, Buckinghamshire faces an increase of 9.8 per cent.; Oxfordshire, 11.8 per cent.; Worcestershire, Nottinghamshire and Cambridgeshire, 9.9 per cent.; Hertfordshire and Norfolk, 9.8 per cent.; Shropshire, 9.7 per cent.; North Yorkshire, 9.6 per cent.; and Northumberland, 9.5 per cent. Even my county of Essex faces an increase of just under 7 per cent. Those figures do not include council tax increases for borough and district councils, which will have to be added to them, or certainly amalgamated into them.
Unitary authorities, especially in London, face horrific rises. Brent will experience an increase of 15.2 per cent.; Kingston, 12.7 per cent.; Redbridge, 10.9 per cent.; and Bromley, 9.9 per cent. Wandsworth, which the Minister mentioned, faces a increase, when the figure is rounded up, of 16 per cent. Outside London, to mention only a few, Torbay faces a rise of 16.5 per cent.; Rutland, 9.4 per cent.; Milton Keynes, 10.7 per cent.; and Telford and Wrekin, 9.5 per cent. So much for the Deputy Prime Minister's statement last December and his forecasting skills. It is no wonder that no one outside Millbank and Blair's on-message babes thinks that this is the best deal for local people for years.

51
Will the settlement, which the Government claim is so wonderful, enhance local services? Sadly, the evidence from budget setting throughout the country is that it will not. All over the country, there are cuts in crucial services, such as the police, due to budgetary pressures. In Essex, the mounted police section is to close down. [Interruption.] The Minister may laugh, but that is not funny for the people of Essex, who want a decent police force to combat crime.
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman should know that Durham had to close its mounted police section some time ago, but such policing is necessary only in certain areas and at certain times, and that is frequently an operational, rather than a budgetary, decision.
Mr. Burns: I suspect that the right hon. Lady is, to coin a phrase, speaking on the hoof. The police authority in Essex has made it clear that, due to the lack of £7 million for funding the police this year, it is having to close down the mounted police for budgetary, not operational, reasons. The same is true of cuts in the motor cycle section of the Essex police and the closure of several rural police stations.
Mr. David Watts: Does the hon. Gentleman think that his speech has any credibility, when the previous Government slashed public services for 18 years and, at the same time, jacked up the council tax and the poll tax to unheard-of levels? St. Helens council faces a 1.9 per cent. increase in council tax this year, which is in stark contrast to the cuts that it experienced under the previous Administration.
Mr. Burns: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention is yes, but I am sure that his Whip has noted his remark and that, when the reshuffle occurs, his bid will be fully considered. In answer to his second remark, I shall deal later with areas such as St. Helens and the fiddling that has occurred this year in the setting of the amount of money that local authorities have received. If he would care to wait a little, I will explain why certain parts of the north have done considerably better than certain parts of the south, due to the Government's allocation of funding.
As I was saying, the effect of the settlement in Essex has been particularly difficult for the police and has resulted in 36 fewer bobbies on the beat compared with two years ago. The pledge "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime" seems to be rather hollow in my county because, despite the tremendous work that the police are doing, they have found themselves financially squeezed, with their resources and equipment reduced year on year and fewer bobbies on the beat.
The settlement has had a similar effect in Barnsley. In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) told the House about the £2 million-worth of cuts in services there. There have been redundancies among teachers in Somerset, cuts in social services in Oxfordshire and education cuts in Brent. If the Deputy Prime Minister wants to join the real world to discover what is really going on as a result of his settlement which he thinks is so wonderful, I can recommend no better
52
person for him to talk to than his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who wrote in the Evening Standard on 29 January:
"How has it all gone so sour so quickly?"
I asked the Minister during her remarks what her answer to that question would have been if she had had the pleasure of meeting her hon. Friend. I am not sure whether it was out of nervousness because she did not know the answer or the result of in-fighting within the Labour party, but she dismissed her hon. Friend in fairly rude terms. I hope for her sake that the hon. Member for Brent, East does not read Hansard every day.
Ms Armstrong: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Brent still has the 18th highest standard spending assessment in the country?
Mr. Burns: If the right hon. Lady were to go to the main street in Brent to give that message to pensioners who are facing cuts in provision for their care, if she were to meet children in children's homes who are facing cuts in services and if teachers in Brent who are facing redundancies and cuts were to hear what she has said, I think that—to put it politely—they would laugh her out of court.
It is not the SSA that is of interest to the people of Brent. They are interested in the services that are provided and whether there is enough money for an effective, efficient service, and the hon. Member for Brent, East does not believe that that is the case. He has made it clear in the Evening Standard that he is appalled.
I am trying to tell the right hon. Lady—this is only one example—that the wonderful financial statement that has been spun round every studio in the country is not quite so wonderful in the real world with real people who are receiving real council tax bills and who have to pay them.
One of the well-rehearsed arguments about the current settlement is that the Government have penalised the south of England, and possibly London, to the benefit of the north. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts), in an intervention that was designed to be helpful to the Government, referred to the wonderful situation in St. Helens. As St. Helens is a beneficiary of the settlement, I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's intervention as I promised.
Given that shire counties and district councils increasingly have to raise more of their revenue themselves, it is fair to ask whether all such councils are treated equitably by the Government or whether there is a geographical bias in favour of one part of the country over another. To my mind, that can best be considered by examining which councils face the best and the worst changes in their total external support and percentage of SSA between 1998–99 and 1999–2000.
Of the 10 shire counties with the most favourable change in TES relative to SSA, six are in the north-east or the midlands, while, of the 10 with the least favourable, change, nine are in the south-east. If, on the same basis, we consider what is happening to the shire districts, we find that, of the 25 districts with the most favourable change, 15 are in the north of England and two are in the midlands. Out of the 25 districts that have done least favourably, 10 are in the south-east, eight are in the south-west and one is in East Anglia. Only three are in the east midlands, with only three in the west midlands.

53
Interestingly, there are no shire districts from the north of England in those figures. That analysis shows categorically that, of both shire counties and shire districts, there is a geographical bias in the 1999–2000 settlement against councils in the south of England. The logical conclusion to be drawn is that that area of England has fared particularly badly compared with the rest of the country in this year's settlement.
Mr. Brian White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burns: No, I shall not for the moment.
Consequently, the pressures on council tax increases and service cuts will be the greatest in this area—hence the litany of examples that I gave earlier.
In total, over the past two years, shire counties have lost about £250 million and London £140 million, while metropolitan areas have gained about £365 million. I am sure that any hon. Member, particularly from a constituency in the south, south-west or south-east, will recognise how skewed the settlement has been.
I am delighted to see that there are three Liberal Democrat Members in—
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Four.
Mr. Burns: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was a Scottish nationalist. He has obviously made a great impression since he entered the House.
I am pleased to see four Liberal Democrat Members in the Chamber, especially as their hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) commented earlier in the debate about the number of hon. Members present.
Mr. Stunell rose—
Mr. Burns: I will give way, as I was wrong about the hon. Gentleman's party.
Mr. Stunell: I am a Liberal Democrat and I do not come from Scotland, although I am called Andrew. Perhaps that explains the link in the hon. Gentleman's mind. May I point out to him that there are in the Chamber at present more Liberal Democrats than Conservatives, as there are in local government in the country?
Mr. Burns: I accept that there are more Liberal Democrats in the Chamber, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong about local government. Following the local elections last May and by-elections since, the Liberal Democrats are no longer the second party of local government. They are the third party, and no doubt they will be even more so in about eight weeks.
I shall deal briefly with council tax benefit. The full bill for council tax benefit is met by central Government. However, despite vigorous opposition from local authorities, the Government have decided to proceed with the reforms that they outlined in their White Paper "Modernising Local Government" which will transfer to local authorities some of the responsibility for meeting the cost of council tax benefit above a certain threshold from
54
the beginning of the next financial year. That is the wrong way to proceed, as it will have a disproportionate impact on council tax payers in areas where an above-average proportion of residents receive council tax benefit. As the Local Government Association rightly said, that will mean that the nearly poor are paying for the really poor. That is an extraordinary philosophy for any Government, let alone a Labour Government, to adopt unashamedly.
Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burns: No, I am not giving way.
That is an arbitrary and unfair system. I urge the Government to think again and to take account of the effect on people just above benefit level.
Finally, I shall deal with capping. In their manifesto at the last election, the Government promised to end what they described as "crude and universal" capping. However, they have not lived up to their promise or the expectations that they raised before the general election. The changes that they have made for the coming year could best be described as arbitrary and retrospective capping, especially as the changes further blur accountability in local government and reduce transparency.
By deciding not to announce provisional capping limits, but retaining the power to cap budgets if they exceed what they deem appropriate, the Government have given themselves the opportunity to decide the capping criteria that they eventually use on the basis of which councils they wish to affect. That is a ridiculous and unfair way to proceed. It is clear that the Government have no intention of changing their policy at this late date, but I warn them that there will be severe repercussions in the coming year, which they will find it extremely difficult to justify to the people who will be so badly penalised as a result of that policy. It is unfair to have left local authorities effectively in limbo without laying down some criteria in advance of then setting their budgets.
I can only reiterate that the Deputy Prime Minister's expectation that the average council tax increase would be 4.5 per cent. has turned out to be a hollow sham. As council tax bills land on people's doormats, they will see clearly that the claim that the settlement is the best deal for local people is patently false—a myth which cannot be justified—and, in the coming six to eight weeks, Labour candidates up and down the country will rue the day in December last year when expectations were raised so high. The bills that council tax payers will have to pay in April will not live up to what they were led to believe would happen.
5.36 pm
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I support the Government amendment to the motion. I am a strong supporter of local government and am absolutely convinced that local government working at its best can respond to local needs and wishes in a way that no other layer of government can. Local government working properly meets the needs of its communities; acts as a community leader; shows imagination, flexibility and initiative; and looks ahead as well as reacting to immediate difficulties.
I also understand the enormous damage that was inflicted on local government and on our communities in the 18 years before the Government came to power.

55
Attacks were made on local government's financing and powers and on the whole principle of local government and local accountability itself. A start has been made on changing that in the two years since the Government came to power, but it is not feasible to imagine that those 18 long years of consistent attacks, consistent cuts and consistent denigration can somehow be ignored.
I consider what the Government have delivered to be the beginning of a new start for local government. Although I want a great deal more progress to be made in future years, that necessary beginning has been achieved, in the face of great difficulty and against that record of cuts and denigration.
The motion has been tabled by the Liberal Democrats, who are nothing if not opportunistic; indeed, they are everything to everyone. They are all in favour of public spending, as long as others are responsible for the bills. They hide away from responsibility, claiming that they want to spend public money, but blaming others if they are concerned that the public will not like the cost of meeting those bills.
Liverpool, the city that I represent, will benefit from next year's local government settlement; it is the most generous for many years and, at long last, recognises the needs of the city, which is in an objective 1 area—one of the poorest areas in Europe. The city has acute needs and tops the list of areas of urban deprivation in this country. For the first time, the real needs of the city are being addressed—by this Government; indeed, the settlement that they have delivered for next year has made it possible for a council tax freeze to be imposed.
Meanwhile, what are the Liberal Democrats doing in Liverpool? When the Government are delivering a revenue support grant settlement that starts to meet the needs of the people of Liverpool, the Liberal Democrats are mounting a major assault on pre-school services, on the youth service and on the voluntary sector. They are cutting funds for Lark Lane play association, and at Lodge Lane East residents association. They are cutting funds provided for children's services—after-school and pre-school services. They have threatened to close youth clubs, including Dehon youth club in Dingle, which is much used and much needed, and they are cutting funds for the pre-school education resource centre. While the Government are delivering money to Liverpool, the Liberal Democrats are mounting an assault on the voluntary sector and youth and pre-school services. That is what the Liberal Democrats mean, in practice.
Mr. Sanders: I feel rather confused. The Minister blames councillors for council tax rises, but the hon. Lady is giving the Government credit for a council tax freeze in Liverpool. Can she explain?
Mrs. Ellman: Certainly, I give the Government credit for increasing Liverpool's standard spending assessment for next year by 5.1 per cent.; increasing its education SSA by 3.7 per cent.; and increasing its social services SSA by as much as 11.3 per cent. It is right for the Government to be given credit for that, and for the Liberal Democrats to be deplored for cutting spending on the voluntary sector, the youth centre and pre-school services. That is a disgrace, and shows the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats.
56
The Liberal Democrats say a great deal in the Chamber about their support for public spending. I agree that public spending is critical to the existence of a civilised society which can attempt to achieve equity, but what we hear from the Liberal Democrats is simply a call for more spending on education. That, too, is important, but only infrequently do we hear about the need to spend on the health service, social services and transport.
Incredibly, only a few days ago, the Liberal Democrats voted against the introduction of working families tax credit, which will put an extra £22 a week or so into the pockets of the families who need it most. Their pragmatism allowed them to vote with the Conservatives against a measure that will benefit people. I bear that in mind when I hear them criticise what the Government are trying to do, and I shall always remember that they found it painless to vote with the Conservatives against a credit designed specifically to deliver extra cash to those in the greatest need. That may eventually be their epitaph.
At the beginning of my speech, I spoke of the legacy inherited by the Government—a legacy of local government cuts in particular, but of cuts across the range of public services. I do not pretend that, in their second Budget, the Government redressed the wrongs of 18 long years; indeed, I do not think that it is possible to do that. The Government have, however, delivered an extra £2.6 billion directly to local government for next year, on top of more than £42 billion extra for, in the main, education and health. That is a creditable beginning, although it is only a beginning.
One of the deficiencies and inequalities of what we have inherited from the last Government is the inequity of local government settlements, which we have now begun to address in Liverpool and elsewhere. The Government have also imposed a three-year freeze while there is proper study and consideration of how to put right those inequities. At long last, we are having a pause, so that a proper assessment can be made of the needs of various local authorities throughout the country.
That is an important initiative—indeed, I urge everyone with a view to make representations during the three years. I hope that, at the end of that time, we will do something to right the inequitable gearing effect, which was inherited and means that the poorer a local authority is, the harder it is for it to raise additional money to support local services. In Liverpool, where 67 per cent. of properties are in band A, compared with about 24 per cent. nationally, the gearing effect is drastic. I hope that the Government will use the three-year freeze to examine gearing, the area cost adjustment, equity, differing needs and a poverty index, so that we can have a fairer settlement at the end of that time.
Mr. White: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in examining the area cost adjustment, we should meet the legitimate aspiration of councils such as Liverpool, yet not penalise councils such as mine in the south-east of England that would lose up to £7 million if the area cost adjustment were taken away just like that? There must be a way in which to satisfy the needs of both.
Mrs. Ellman: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The purpose of having the three-year freeze is to allow proper consideration of the point that he has raised. That is the purpose of having time for assessment—for consideration of various points that have been made and of new points that are being made.

57
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) condemned the Government for what he described as a period of austerity. The Government's first two years in power have been not about austerity but about bringing stability to the inherently unstable situation that they inherited. That has allowed public sector deficits to be turned into surpluses. It has meant that we have the lowest long-term interest rates—and the lowest long-term mortgage rates—for more than 30 years. It means that we can look forward to a period of stability, where we can start to grow and move further on righting the wrongs of the past. In that economic climate, we will be able to continue to make progress and to look at the needs of varying communities throughout the country.
We must strike a balance between the need to spend more to protect public services and to promote higher standards, ensuring that there is efficient spending, and the problem of raising funds to pay those bills. I support public service. I have supported it for many years. When I was the leader of a major local authority, I took great pride in public spending—efficient public spending to promote high standards of service—working with the private sector to promote economic growth and economic development to support the needs of the community that I represented.
The Government are at a new beginning. Eighteen years of decline is a difficult basis from which to start, but, in the two years for which the Government have been in power, they have shown good faith and made a significant start in righting the wrongs of the past. They should be praised for that. They should be encouraged to do much more. That is why I support the Government amendment.
5.49 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders: As hon. Members will know, the history of council tax is really the history of the 1980s income tax cutting agenda. An unfair rating system—which people increasingly thought to be unfair, and which was certainly spotted by a previous Prime Minister as being particularly unfair—led to the introduction of the poll tax. However, the poll tax had a different consequence, enabling Chancellors in the 1980s to shift the taxation burden on to local government.
The poll tax proved to be unwelcome to many people. I think that probably all Labour Members—certainly all Liberal Democrat Members—fought long and hard to get rid of that tax. The Government of the day decided that they would get rid of it, but replaced it with another regressive tax—the council tax. Granted, that tax was slightly more fair. Nevertheless, it was a regressive tax and was not related to ability to pay.
With the council tax came two other things: the uniform business rate, and the standard spending assessment—with which I shall deal in a moment. Before and during the period for which the poll tax operated, about 40 per cent. of local government finance came from local taxpayers and about 60 per cent. came from central Government. After the poll tax was ended, there was a shift, when about 80 per cent. of finance came from central Government and only about 20 per cent. came from local sources.
Mr. Burns: I do not want to spoil the hon. Gentleman's train of thought, but I should like to correct him on his
58
facts—in case it might make a difference to the conclusions that he is about to reach. The uniform business rate was introduced with the community charge, not the council tax.
Mr. Sanders: I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting me, but the uniform business rate was operated with the council tax. It was a part of the shift, which was not reversed, of the taxation burden from central Government to local taxpayers. The consequence has been that local authorities are now more dependent for financing on central Government than they were, and the tax burden has been shifted from central Government to local taxpayers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said that the most recent local government settlement was a "smoke and mirrors" settlement. I should describe the most recent Budget as a "smoke and MIRAS" Budget. The Red Book for this year—and the one for last year, if one was sensible enough to keep it, as I did—shows the problem with the Budget, by showing the amounts that the Government expected to receive in council tax receipts from 1996 to 1999.
In 1996–97, council tax receipts were expected to be £10.2 billion. In 1997–98, they were expected to be £11.3 billion. The next year, they were expected to be £11.8 billion. This year's Red Book—under the chart explaining "where taxes come from"—shows that council tax is expected to be £13 billion. In the past two years, therefore, there has been a shift in the taxation burden of approximately 20 per cent. from central Government to council tax payers.
The 20 per cent. increase is equivalent to 1p on income tax—which would have been a progressive tax, related to ability to pay. Council tax is not a progressive tax; it is a regressive tax. However, the Chancellor will be able to blame local councillors for any increase, rather than accounting for it in the Budget.
Although all councils are affected by those Budget changes and by the shift in taxation from the centre to council tax payers, some councils are more affected than others by the changes to the grant formulae.
The standard spending assessment is a guideline and is not necessarily the sum that will be paid to councils. A table listing the assessment of needs for 82 similar councils—both metropolitan and unitary councils—across Britain places my own local authority's SSA assessment of need at 34. Therefore, the Government's own SSA totals show that we are the 34th most needy local authority. However, in grants, my local authority is 50th out of 82 councils. Had we been treated as 34th in both tables, my local authority would have received £44 more per person, or a total of £5.4 million. It is no wonder that our council tax will have to rise this year.
A number of factors in the grant formulae adversely affect—or benefit—local authorities. The factors are essentially political decisions about which formula changes to allow.
There is within the formula a calculation of the assets sold by councils. However, the calculation is based on the interest that councils derive from investments—which presupposes that councils have investments. Moreover, it is based on an average, not on a council's actual investments. Therefore, a local authority that has sold off its assets will be quids in, whereas a local council in

59
which people have said, "No, we don't want to sell off our assets," will be penalised. My local authority is in the latter position.
The grant formula for tourist areas is vital. In previous grant formulae, it was recognised that local authorities with many visitors have to provide facilities 52 weeks of the year, although the facilities may be used for only a short summer season. Such authorities may have to spend money on cleaning the beaches and streets, for example, or on providing more public conveniences for a population that rockets at some times of the year. Those are all big expenses for such local authorities. However, last year, the Government reduced the weighting for tourist nights. The reduction not only affected us last year but will affect us again this year.
The minimum wage will affect my local authority. The effects of the minimum wage will be greater in low-income areas than in other areas. This year, because of the minimum wage, contracts previously agreed with private sector contractors will have to ratchet up much more quickly in low-income areas than they will in other areas with higher incomes.
Mr. Burns: Did the Liberal Democrats not support it?
Mr. Sanders: We did not vote for a national minimum wage; we are in favour of a regional minimum wage.
Torbay, Plymouth and Devon, which are low-wage areas, have been hit particularly hard by the minimum wage, particularly in social services.
Mr. Andrew George: Cornwall has been hit, too.
Mr. Sanders: Yes, Cornwall also.
Weighting for elderly people has been reduced. Areas with a high percentage of elderly people will lose out from that part of the formulae, too. Moreover, as I said in an earlier intervention, rising pupil numbers are another important factor, as the head count in the education SSA is 18 months behind current pupil numbers. Although councils have to provide money to schools for current pupils, the money councils receive lags 18 months behind. If pupil numbers are declining, one will be quids in in current cash flow, although one will lose out in future years. However, the effect of the changes on councils with rising pupil numbers will be a greatly increased education bill and, with £2,300 for primary school pupils and £3,000 for secondary school pupils, it does not take many new pupils to cause a significant percentage increase.
Until 1 April, my local authority had the lowest council tax in the south-west. After the rise, only two of the 10 local authorities in Devon will have a lower council tax than Torbay. Torbay's council tax will still be £100 below the national band D average. However—in an area with some of the lowest incomes in the United Kingdom, and with GDP per capita equal to that in Cornwall—we face a massive 16.4 per cent. increase.
I know that councillors of all parties were concerned when setting the council's budget. The Labour group thought that a 20 per cent. increase was required to protect services and to fill the gaps created by changes to the formulae and the overall grant settlement for local
60
government. I saw a councillor in tears at having to make a choice between cutting social services, care for elderly people and care for people with disabilities, or increasing council tax by 16.4 per cent. That percentage on the lowest council tax is not as great as a smaller percentage rise on a larger initial council tax, but in an area that has such low wages and is so economically disadvantaged as a result of 18 years of Conservative government, it is more than many will be able to bear. Coming on top of a 10 per cent. rise in water charges—the highest water charges in the country—it is causing great difficulty.
One could say that things were worse when we had the poll tax. We had the highest poll tax in the south-west when the Conservatives ran the council. The poll tax was significantly higher, even without adjusting for inflation, than the council tax is today for a two-adult household in a band A or band B property.
There are three factors involved. First, we have an unfair tax. The Government should be looking for a fairer system of taxation for local services. It should be truly related to ability to pay and should bring in accountability and transparency. It should be clear to people who is to blame for tax rises or poor services. Secondly, there is Treasury chicanery. The burden of tax has been shifted on to council tax payers. Thirdly, the shift in formulae has made a difference, hitting councils in the south-east and the south-west and those with particular circumstances hard, while those in other parts of the country have gained. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said that it was wrong of the previous Government to fiddle the figures to benefit councils in London and the south—the flagship authorities to which the Conservatives used to refer—but that it was all right for this Government to tweak the formulae in a similar fashion and for the Chancellor to play around with the budget and the overall settlement.
I should like to hear a recognition from the Government that council tax is an unfair tax. They should look at the areas that have suffered particularly from the changes in the formulae—areas whose local circumstances resulted in their being hit by a big stick. The Government should look sympathetically on such councils and work with them to do something about the problem. I should like to hear less from Ministers about league tables. It is funny that, when the Conservatives are in government, Conservative councils normally deliver the lowest rises in local taxes, whereas when we have a Labour Government, it seems to be Labour councils. The people of this country are not fooled by that. They know that Governments use the local government system for political ends.
6.3 pm
Mr. Brian White: When I read the first sentence of the Liberal Democrat motion about
"the prime determinant of council tax levels",
I thought, "Yes, I am happy to agree with that." When I read the words about the inadequate financial settlements of recent years and the substantial rise in council tax, I thought, "Yes, I am quite happy to agree with that." The motion then
"calls on the Government to improve the funding of local services and abolish budget capping".
If this were 1997, I would say that that was entirely fair, but the motion fails to recognise what the Government have done in the past two years.

61
Failing to take account of the context is typical of the Liberal Democrats. They carry on making the same statements after the reality has changed. They asked for a penny on income tax, and they are still demanding it even after more money than they would have dreamed of has gone to public services. It is unacceptable to table such a motion without recognising the fact that the context has changed over the past two years. The Local Government Bill, which will receive its Third Reading tomorrow, will abolish crude and universal capping. That is a key manifesto commitment which we shall deliver on in this Session, never mind this Parliament.
Many people talk about local government finance, but I have yet to find anyone who can truly say that they understand it.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: indicated dissent.
Mr. White: My hon. Friend is the exception.
The Liberal Democrats did not compare like with like, but quoted meaningless statistics for different councils. For example, they took no account of the fact that some councils deliver nursery services and others do not.
It is important to recognise that the Government have introduced stability in the system. For many years, in the Local Government Association and previously in the Association of District Councils, I argued strongly that one problem with the system was that we did not know what was happening from one year to the next. The settlement provides stability for three years. Councils know what will happen. They can plan for three years because the formula has been set and they have stability. The comprehensive spending review has put billions of pounds into public services. Education services will get massively increased sums. That can be seen coming through into schools now.
I accept that this year's settlement does not rectify the legacy of 18 years of under-investment and a lack of decent settlements. One good settlement will not solve all the problems of local government, but ignoring the fact that there has been a good settlement, as the Liberal Democrats have, misses the point.
The Liberal Democrats are like Oliver, always asking for more, but they are not prepared to put in place the modernisations that are required to improve services. The Government have rightly said that the extra money is for improvements to services. The White Paper on modernisation of local government, the extra money, the best value pilots throughout the country and other schemes will stand local government in good stead. As a supporter of local government, I think that it is important to recognise what is good. One reason why I do not support the Liberal Democrat motion is that it does not recognise what is going on in local government.
My local authority has been going through a series of modernisations. The most recent was a referendum. I shall not go into details, but, if it had been left to the Liberal Democrats on the council, we would not have had a referendum and we would probably have had a 15 per cent. council tax rise.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) talked about fiddling. I suppose that the Tories know all about fiddling. He said that money was going to Labour councils, and then complained that Brent, a Labour council, was not getting it. He cannot have it both ways.
62
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) talked about the changes to the area cost adjustment over the next three years. It is important that those changes should start early. Negotiations and discussions with the Local Government Association should take place as early as possible to ensure the best chance of securing a consensus. If we get a consensus, there will be an opportunity to move forward. The worst thing for local government would be to waste the three years of stability and have a row at the end of it. We should use the opportunity that the Government have given with the three-year plan to get the right benefits for local government.
I was interested in the ability of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) to rewrite history. He seemed to blame this Government for the nationalisation of business rates, for the switch from council tax to VAT and for centralisation. To cap it all, he said that, even if there were a shift back to council tax, that would be wrong as well. Yet again, the Liberal Democrats are trying to have it both ways, condemning centralisation and condemning giving local authorities a greater say over larger amounts of money. I am a great supporter of the view that we should increase the amount that local government can decide, including returning business rates to local control. The Liberal Democrats fail to realise that it is not as simple as just wishing it to happen—their normal policy. It does not work that way.
How many Liberal Democrats have talked to their local business community to get them onside in a campaign for the return of business rates to local authorities? Merely saying it will not achieve it—nor will it tackle the difficult issues involved in the redistribution of business rates.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Local Government Association is pressing for business rates to alter because, in seaside resorts, it is an unfair tax which needs to be changed? The British Resorts Association has said that the tax is not progressive, but vies against the homelessness and the elderly people in seaside resorts. The LGA feels that that is wrong.
Mr. White: I am a strong supporter of the return of business rates to local authorities. However, Liberal Democrats must recognise that it is not as simple as that—they must get businesses to go along with that policy. It is important that we achieve a consensus. Many businesses want the business rate returned to local authorities, not least because there are large numbers of economic partnerships up and down the country where businesses and local authorities work closely together. It would be an incentive to have the business rate set locally, where it could result in changes in parking and other policies in which businesses, the voluntary sector and local authorities have a vested interest.
Jackie Ballard: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that the Government need to get businesses onside before changing the business rate. Does he agree, therefore, that the Government should get local authorities onside before introducing council tax benefit subsidy limitation, as all 189 responses to the consultation were opposed to that? Is there one law for business and another for local councils?
Mr. White: The hon. Lady will know that that matter has been discussed in previous debates. Liberal

63
Democrats simply want to turn on the taps, and they have learned nothing. We want to make sure that the extra money starts to improve local services.
In my local authority, we have received the best ever settlement of 6.4 per cent. To counter the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, I should like to say that my authority is in the south-east of England and we received our best ever settlement.
The Government are right to put the case for modernisation. One of the problems with the motion is that the Liberal Democrats do not accept the massive changes that have been made by the Government. I find the opportunism of this debate rather depressing, but I should not be surprised by that. The Liberal Democrats say one thing to one person and another thing to someone else.
When my local unitary authority was created, the Liberal Democrats from the county were used to working with Labour, whereas the Liberal Democrats from the district were used to attacking Labour. The Liberal Democrat group meetings could not agree on whether to attack or support Labour—and they ended up doing both.
This debate shows the difference between the Liberal Democrats and Labour. Labour is about taking issues seriously and delivering services—it is not about protest votes, wishful thinking or whingeing from the sidelines. Labour is about delivering, and I commend the amendment to the House.
6.14 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: This has been an interesting debate. One of the key points of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman)—who is no longer here—was that the Government have introduced stability. I was reminded of the political phrase "in the long run, we are all dead". When we are screwed down in the coffins, we have stability—and that is exactly what the Government have introduced for local government this year.
Before this year, Liverpool had the highest council tax in the country. Even after its freezing, under Liberal Democratic control—for the first time—it will still be the highest in the country. The hon. Member for Riverside did not make it clear whether she thought that the council tax should go even higher in Liverpool, or whether she had another solution—perhaps a more generous grant from the Government, which is, after all, the thrust of what is said today. There has been a tendency in the debate for Members to try to have their cake and eat it.
Stockport metropolitan borough council has had a 5.2 per cent. increase in its council tax, which is modest in comparison with the national statistics. However, it is faced also with cutting services by £4 million. It is a paradox that, in the year when the Government claim to have been so generous with their funding—with a three-year, long-term bonanza of money showering on us from the Treasury—Stockport is unable to set council tax at the rate that the Government predict unless there are massive and fundamental cuts to services.
64
Even in an attempt to reach the Government's guideline figure, the council is faced with cuts of £4 million. I am a serving member of Stockport borough council and, therefore, familiar with the financial problems there.
Ms Armstrong: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the actual budget increase for Stockport is 4.7 per cent.—which is not a cut of £4 million? The £4 million is what Stockport would have liked to spend.
Mr. Stunell: We could have an interesting rerun of the budget debate in Stockport, where Labour Members claimed that we should be increasing spending to a greater extent to protect education. There are so many funny figures and phoney funds that Ministers often confuse themselves about the situation that they are imposing on councils.
Historically, Stockport has, year after year, spent significantly more on education than the SSA allocated by the Government for education. In other words, we have been spending more on our schools, pupils, books and education services than the Government have felt we should. This year, we have had the paradox of the £20 billion injected into education, which has resulted in an above-average percentage increase in our education SSA. However, that increase has not even brought the current SSA figure up to the level of spending on education last year. In our case, the £20 billion is illusory; it is a phoney increase, which nearly catches up with the spending that the council was already making.
To make the situation more difficult to comprehend for the council, the Government have made strong play of the need to passport all the extra money into education. We have been asked to demonstrate that we have transferred all the extra money into our education service. The paradox is that we have had the money allocated, almost bringing the notional figure up to the actual figure, but we have had to raise the actual figure to demonstrate passporting, so the gap between what the Government say we should be spending and what the council is actually spending has been increased, not reduced.
The overall allocation to the council is insufficient to meet the needs created by inflation and by factors such as the increased number of pupils and elderly persons. We have indeed put extra money into education, but just by cutting £2.8 million in social services. The Government ask us to spend more on supporting and developing children's potential, but force us to make cuts in children's services.
There are such astonishing discrepancies between adjacent authorities with similar needs that it is hard to take seriously what Ministers say. For instance, the education SSA for Stockport is £260 a pupil, but for the adjacent authority of Manchester it is more than £600. For certain neighbouring schools serving the two boroughs, the discrepancy is more than £1,000 a pupil. That is difficult to justify or to understand.
Unfortunately, there is also now a prospect of Stockport social services contributing to the problem of bed blocking in local hospitals as well, which an excellent partnership between the health authority and social services has up to now prevented.
The problem is not solely a matter for individual councils. In the metropolitan areas, various residual bodies and authorities have the power to levy a precept on

65
the metropolitan councils. The Greater Manchester waste disposal levy, which covers 10 metropolitan authorities, has caused a great deal of grief in Stockport this year. The unfairness of the system was so fully recognised that the Government announced the intention of changing it this year, and the draft budgets in Stockport were drawn up in that expectation.
It might be thought that the most obvious way of imposing a levy for the disposal of waste would be in relation to the volume or tonnage of material removed, and we hope that the levy will eventually move to that basis. Alternatively, one might levy a certain amount per head. In reality, the levy in Greater Manchester is imposed in relation to council tax values, which are completely irrelevant. There is a major disincentive to any of the borough councils to pursue a vigorous recycling policy.
Stockport's recycling rate is just a little above the national average of about 8 per cent., and we find it irksome that other—Labour—local authorities in Greater Manchester that have managed rates of only about 2 per cent., or a quarter of the national average, are getting away with it because the levy has not been adjusted.
We discovered in December, after the draft budgets had been drawn up and were being discussed by committees, that the levy would not, after all, be changed for the next financial year. An additional burden of £1.5 million was imposed on Stockport by the simple failure of central Government to implement a decision that they had already notified to the authorities concerned. There are therefore detailed, practical reasons why I am sceptical about what Ministers say.
The Greater Manchester police authority can also raise a precept on the boroughs, and properly so. Last autumn, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police announced that, on his forecast of what he would receive from the Government and the budget that he thought he could set, there would have to be a cut of £15 million for the coming year. He said that, were that cut to be implemented, 400 jobs would be lost in the police service.
Things have not turned out to be quite as dire as those first predictions suggested. The cut was £12 million, not £15 million. The chief constable has written a detailed brief confirming that the result will be 123 fewer police officers serving at the end of the coming financial year than at present, despite a levy on the boroughs of about 12 per cent. Councillors may be criticised for failing to take the right decisions or to be brave—Labour Members have a tendency to criticise Liberal Democrats in those terms—but they could do nothing about that. The police committee in Greater Manchester consists of nine Labour-controlled authorities, plus Liberal Democrat Stockport.
That cut comes on top of a drop of 34 police officers since the general election, so there will be 150 fewer police officers available in Greater Manchester next April than when Labour came to power in May 1997. I regard that as absolutely unacceptable. The basis of financing the police is clearly wrong. Conservative Members should not be cheered up by that news, because almost exactly the same number of police officers were lost between the 1992 and 1997 general elections. Greater Manchester will have lost 300 serving officers since 1992, under both Tories and Labour.
Stockport has the lowest SSA of all the metropolitan boroughs. The formula is wrong, and the leverage is wrong. For every £1 supplied locally, £9 is supplied by
66
the national non-domestic rate and Government grant. The Government have made a rod for their own back. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said, we want to return the non-domestic rate to local control and, in the long term, to make the council tax a local income tax.
Mr. Watts: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that returning the business rate to local councils will automatically increase budgets? That may not be the case. The way in which the Government set up the redistribution network would determine whether local councils receive more cash to provide services.
Mr. Stunell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, which brings me neatly to my next point. The Liberal Democrats believe that the proper role of central Government financing for local government is to achieve equalisation of resources, not to support the fundamental service. A significant fraction of the non-domestic rate is generated in the City of London and the fundamental task of central Government is to arrange an appropriate redistributive formula. In another life, I wrote a paper on how that redistribution should be organised.
Jackie Ballard: It makes good reading.
Mr. Stunell: I thank my hon. Friend for that remark, and I would be happy to forward a copy to the Minister, if she would undertake to read it.
Dr. Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman send me a copy?
Mr. Stunell: I am happy to put a copy in the Library, if that would suit hon. Members.
I have been critical of the Government because, while they have said the right words, they have done the wrong things. It is possible to make a speech from the Dispatch Box that sounds plausible and looks good in Hansard, but unfortunately bears no relationship to reality. Councils of every political persuasion face further reductions in the services they can provide and higher rises in council tax than the level nominated by the Government. The problem is not incompetence on the part of local councils, as I have demonstrated. It is not that local government cannot manage; it is that Government are bungling and fudging.
Mr. Andrew George: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only is the council tax regressive, but so are the powers associated with it? In my constituency, council tax payers in mobile homes have to pay sums well above their ability to pay, while wealthy second-home owners get a 50 per cent. reduction in their council tax. If the system is to reflect ability to pay, that issue must be addressed.
Mr. Stunell: I agree with my hon. Friend. If the council tax is to be retained, it needs major surgery, including the introduction of a band below A that deals with the situation that he mentioned. Some of us would also argue that we also need another upper band to deal with some of the discrepancies at the top end. However, in the long term, the council tax should be replaced by a fair and progressive tax, based on ability to pay.

67
The brave words of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) should not be taken at face value. His party introduced the current financial regime under which we suffer. His party swore blind that the regime would not lead to capping, but subsequently introduced universal, brutal and ridiculous capping for many local authorities. His Government planned to make the system more transparent, but introduced standard spending assessments whose complexity and folly concern anyone who considers the system. His Government enforced, in some cases with considerable glee, cuts on many services provided by local government, year after year. In the police service, as I mentioned, in education—which I could have mentioned—in social services and in many other services provided by local government, standards are worse than before the Conservatives began their attack on local government. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford pretends that, somewhere along the road to Damascus, something amazing has happened to the Conservative party. To me, it sounds less like Damascus and more like deceit. On the streets, many people know the truth about the Tories' legacy in local government, and they will show what they think of it on 6 May.
6.36 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I apologise for not being present for the beginning of the debate. I wish to point out the apparent contradiction in the motion. The Liberal Democrats claim that they want more financial autonomy for councils, but the motion also calls for more money from the centre for councils, which logically means a higher gearing ratio when councils come to set their council taxes and, therefore, possibly less financial autonomy for councils.
I understand why the Liberal Democrats have advanced that position today. As a result of the collapse of the Tory vote in the shires, several authorities are under Liberal Democrat control, especially in the south of England. The Liberal Democrats find life difficult being in control, because they are more familiar with holding the balance of power. When they have to make the budget all by themselves, it can be a difficult process for them. It is also more difficult to write "Focus" leaflets when in control than when in opposition.
I can see the "Focus" leaflets being ground out as we speak. They will say that the Liberal Democrats raised the iniquity of the local government settlement with the Government in Parliament and did not get a satisfactory answer. However, I have some sympathy with the Liberal Democrats. The SSA system has been manipulated in the past by Government. It is also true that the conjoining of the SSA system to the idea of universal capping has meant that, increasingly, councils have spent up to their SSA limits. That has meant a decreasing amount of discretion on spending available to local government.
In recent years, local councils have invested large sums of money in commissioning reports and lobbying Government to tweak various measures in the SSA to the councils' advantage, possibly at the expense of examining the services they provide. In the past, we have seen outrages, such as the time when the Conservative Government tweaked the indicator on tourist bed nights to assist a particular local authority, which shall remain
68
nameless. Its name begins with "W", which gives hon. Members a choice. Local councils believe that it can be worth their while undertaking complicated exercises to petition Government about the SSA system.
For various reasons, the SSA system does not achieve a transparent and fair distribution of money to local government. The Government have introduced a three-year freeze on the methodology of SSAs, so that the basis of the distribution can be considered. However, it is difficult to introduce a system of local government funding that does not produce winners and losers.
Not everyone can be a winner all the time. Our standard spending assessment system is the most complex system of evaluating the distribution of local government funding anywhere in the world, except the state of Victoria, Australia. One may regard that fact as good or bad: a system perceived to be fair is likely to be complex, and a system that is simple and transparent is likely to lose out on perceived fairness of equalisation. We have, however, an immensely complex system that is also not perceived to be terribly fair. We must consider distribution.
I favour putting a greater proportion of local government spending at the discretion of local authorities. Among other things, that would lower the gearing effect, creating a more genuine relationship between what local government says it raises from local taxpayers and the outcomes of local taxation. I hope that the review will consider that point.
I, too, have written a paper on the subject; I will swap it with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). The system is devilishly complex, and there is no easy, fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden solution, as the Liberal Democrats sometimes pretend. We must take the matter seriously and spend time getting the system right. I hope that the Government can come up with a solution that the Local Government Association and local authorities will agree provides fair distribution.
Every year, some people will believe that they have not got the best deal, and they will complain about it. I doubt that we can create a system that will entirely rid us of that, but we must have a system that is transparent and fair. A combination of that intention and of this year's local government settlement—a good one by any reckoning—will pave the way towards such a system.
6.42 pm
Jackie Ballard: I spoke earlier with some visitors from the United States of America who are examining the United Kingdom system of government on a Hansard Society scheme. Those visitors expressed surprise at the level of centralisation in our structures of government. They had noticed that local government did not have the freedom to do whatever it thought was in the best interests of local communities. They had noticed, too, local government's lack of financial freedom either to determine local taxation or to introduce different methods of taxation, such as the sales taxes or tourist taxes applied by many states of the USA.
Mr. Sanders: We don't want a tourist tax.
Jackie Ballard: We may not want those particular taxes, as my hon. Friend says, but the point is that local government in other countries has freedom to decide on the taxes appropriate in local areas. What may not be

69
appropriate to Torbay may be suitable in some other part of the country. Local authorities should be able to decide, as happens in many other countries, including European states that would not recognise our system, as the best example of a pluralist democracy.
Pluralism is not only about having the choice of which political party to vote for. It is also about having many centres of power within a democracy. Clearly, the Government are not particularly familiar with that concept.
Tomorrow, we shall debate the Bill that introduces best value. The Local Government Bill gives an extra 23 or 24 powers to the Secretary of State—I lost count of the exact number because one power was removed during the Bill's previous proceedings, a fact for which we are incredibly grateful. The Labour Government are continuing the process begun by the Conservatives of weakening local democracy and bringing more power to the centre.
The Minister has said, however, that she wants local government to be more accountable to local people. How can it be, when the local government funding system is so opaque? Is it thanks to Liberal Democrat councillors, for example, that Liverpool has had a 0 per cent. council tax rise this year? Or was that thanks to the Government's settlement? Is council tax above average in Buckinghamshire because of Conservative failure, or is that the fault of the mean Government settlement?
Who is to blame for service cuts in many local authority areas across the country? Is it the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who says that all increased funding should be passported to schools? Or is it the fault of local councillors, of whatever political persuasion? How can a local citizen know whom to thank or to blame? [HON. MEMBERS: "Blame the Liberal Democrats."]
It is incredibly easy for each of us to say, "If in doubt, blame this party or that party." My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked earlier whether the Labour council or the Labour Government were to blame for service cuts in his area. He is lucky: in his area, the answer is obviously Labour. Voting decisions for people in his constituency are easy, but the answer is not so easy for people in other constituencies.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) gave credit for the freeze in council tax in Liverpool to the Government, but she blamed service cuts on Liberal Democrat councillors. Of course, Liberal Democrat Members will say exactly the opposite, which makes my point precisely. [Interruption.] If the Minister wants to intervene, I should be happy to allow her to, but as she keeps mumbling from a sedentary position, I find it difficult to understand her.
The Minister said that central Government were responsible for preventing excessive rises in council tax, and for ensuring delivery of local services. What is the point of local elections if central Government are to take all responsibility away from local government? She said, too, that the Tories had responsibility for every council tax rise because of universal capping. However, capping remains crude and universal. The only difference is that it is not preannounced. Local authorities have to guess what the Government will allow them to spend.
Ms Armstrong: Is the hon. Lady saying that there is no national interest for central Government in what local government does?
Jackie Ballard: The Minister will know my answer to that because we have had that debate many times during our happy hours on the Local Government Bill. Liberal Democrats believe that local authorities have their own electoral mandates and that they should be able to carry them out without being clobbered by national Government.
The Minister, and Labour Back-Bench Members who have spoken, may bandy about statistics. We have heard them repeat words about the same pot of funding over and over in the hope of fooling people into believing that they are generous to local government. However, local people will see the real impact on their services, not the fantasy figures put out by the Government. For example, in a survey conducted by Liberal Democrats in Brecon and Radnorshire—
Mr. Burns: Oh, yes.
Jackie Ballard: It is a very good survey, and surveys are one of the many ways in which we keep in touch with local people. In that survey, 90 per cent. of schools said that they were struggling with a standstill budget this year. They said that that was putting strain on staff, and that schools were having to cut back on books, equipment and staffing.
Mr. Richard Livsey: I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has mentioned my constituency. One factor there is that the Government and the Welsh Office failed to take account of the number of small schools. They did not calculate the impact that the number of head teachers would have on a standstill budget for education in the county. It is a classic example of centralised control.
Jackie Ballard: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In the survey, 70 per cent. of schools said that they had to rely on fund raising by parent-teacher associations to finance delivery of the curriculum. We are talking not about extras, but about the basic curriculum. [Interruption.] I should tell the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) that that is the reality on the ground. Nothing has changed with the change of Government.
Mr. White: The reality in many schools up and down the country is extra money for books. In my constituency, a secondary school that has campaigned for years for a library finally has one. That is the reality: schools are getting the extra services and capital investment that they need.
Jackie Ballard: Is the hon. Gentleman telling my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) that the 90 per cent. of schools that responded to our survey by telling us their reality did not know what they were talking about?
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) attacked the council tax benefits subsidy limitation, as did Conservative members of the Standing Committee on the

71
Local Government Bill, but they forget that their 1992 legislation enabled the Government to introduce the scheme. Indeed, the Conservatives thought up the housing benefit subsidy clawback, which was opposed by Labour Members when in opposition, but now that they are in government they have done nothing to end it.
In her opening speech, the Minister queried why we had called this debate. We did so to call the Government to account. That is one of the main purposes of opposition. The debate has been called to demonstrate that this Government are as centralising as the previous Government, that they do not believe in local democracy and that the local government finance system does not help to make local authorities accountable to their electorate. It has also been called to persuade the Government to reject new Labour dogma and to get back in touch with their local activists and local people who want their locally elected representatives to decide on the priorities of their communities.
We Liberal Democrats are optimists. We had hoped that the Minister would listen to the debate and take note of it. We still hope that she will take the shackles off local government and reverse the years of Conservative centralisation. If she does not do so, she knows that her party will suffer in the ballot box in May and she also knows that, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, Liberal Democrats will continue to expose the difference between what the Government say and what they do.
6.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): Contrary to what the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) said, my right hon. Friend and I have listened carefully to the points raised in the debate. My colleagues and I sometimes wonder whether Opposition Members, in particular the Liberal Democrats, have taken any notice whatsoever of the facts.
First, on the 1999–2000 settlement for local government, I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing said—this is the most generous settlement for years. I commend the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), who used the example of Liverpool to illustrate that point.
I agree with Liberal Democrat Members who say that, to some extent, local services have been underfunded for years, but that was not the fault of this Government—it was due to 18 years of misrule by the previous Administration. Total standard spending for 1999–2000 is up by 5.5 per cent. That is more than twice the average increase under the previous Government. Last year, we put an extra £835 million into education, over and above the spending planned by the previous Government.
Until the hon. Member for Taunton referred to education, the whole debate had been lacking any mention of that important subject—perhaps one of her hon. Friends referred to it briefly. As right hon. and hon. Members know, the Government have made education a priority. We want to improve the education of all children in the country. Funding is one important strand in achieving that aim. We have increased local government funding for
72
education. Every council with responsibility for education will receive at least 1.5 per cent. more grant than last year—most will receive much more.
Furthermore, we are working closely with local government, so that it can improve and deliver best value to local people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) stressed so avidly, that must be a continuing process. He said that the discussions, the debate and the help must continue. We are working closely with local government because we realise that local authorities want best value to work and they know that they can deliver better services. We are providing the funding that they need to do just that.
However, it is not merely about funding, but about improvements to local services. Throwing money at services will not improve them—indeed, it can and often does encourage waste. As my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East said, the Government considered carefully how much the country could afford to spend on local services when we carried out our comprehensive spending review last year. We will provide real increases in funding in the next three years, as well as stability in council funding to help local authorities to plan their spending.
Therefore, we do not accept that local services are underfunded.
Mr. Tony Baldry: When will counties such as Oxfordshire know whether they will be capped this year?
Mr. Meale: My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to that matter and said that we had only just received all the various calculations today. I can only advise the hon. Gentleman that it will be in due course. I know that he will not appreciate that answer, but it is the only one that he will get at the moment.
We do not accept that local services are underfunded and that there is any need for large increases in council tax. Furthermore, the figures that were published this morning bear that out. Indeed, the average increase is 6.8 per cent., which is down from last year. We gave local authorities the freedom to decide their budgets and we asked them to behave responsibly—most of them have done so. Most authorities will be considering how to use the increased funding to improve the services that they provide to local people—the people to whom they are accountable.
For those authorities that do not behave responsibly, we have said that we will take action. By that, I do not simply mean capping. We will certainly consider this year and in future whether we need to use our capping powers. However, contrary to what Opposition Members seem to think, we do not want to cap councils. We believe in local responsibility. Hon. Members must recognise that the Government also have a responsibility to the taxpayer. There is even more to it than that, as my right hon. Friend the Minster stated. Under best value, councils will have to review their performance and publish their plans to improve. Those plans will be audited and, where local authorities are not delivering best value, the Secretary of State will have the power to take the appropriate action. That combination of measures will ensure the best use of the additional resources that we are providing to deliver

73
high-quality services. I was asked for a direct answer about building on the settlement to achieve future consensus. I can assure the House that that work will continue.
Opposition Members raised a number of queries. First, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said that the shire areas had done badly out of the settlement. We have treated all authorities fairly, whether urban or rural and in whatever part of the country. I cannot accept that we are biased against shire areas. In fact, they have had an overall increase in SSA of 4.9 per cent. compared with 4.8 per cent. in England as a whole. Shire counties did better than the average—they had a bigger than average increase in both SSA and Government grant. Their SSAs were increased by 5.2 per cent. Therefore, I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's argument that they needed particularly large council tax increases. They have taken decisions locally and come up with an 8.3 per cent. average increase, which is well above the English average. I also find it hard to reconcile the good settlement for shire counties with the large increase in council tax there. I realise that they do not have any elections this year, but I am sure that the electorate will give their resounding response if the counties carry on in that way.
In response to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, I should like to say that we promised to end crude and universal capping, and we have done so. Even the hon. Gentleman has admitted that we have not pre-announced capping limits. That is not arbitrary and retrospective. It has given councils an opportunity to consider carefully their local needs and resources when setting their budgets.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) illustrated all too clearly the Liberal Democrats spend-and-blame mentality. As he knows, most councils have disposed of surplus assets to the benefit of the people and of local taxpayers. Torbay council decided not to sell assets and has forgone the income that that would have generated in the belief that Ministers would increase grant distribution for the higher taxes that someone would pay in Torbay. We have not agreed to that at all.
The hon. Gentleman asked us to reconsider grant distribution. We made it clear from the outset that we do not intend to alter the distribution formula over the next three years, and that decision will stand. Although I am more than willing to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit Torbay and meet local representatives, I am not prepared to discuss that subject. He referred to changes in the standard spending assessments; those changes were justified by extensive research—some of which was tested and refined over three years—and will give fairer distribution. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that point into account.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) implied that there would be cuts in policing and that the numbers of bobbies on the beat would be reduced. That is not the case. I have been given local information by the chief constable of Greater Manchester, who assures me that those numbers will not be cut.
As the Liberal Democrats took up so much time in the debate, I have gone slightly beyond the allotted time, and I formally close the debate.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 309.

Division No. 123]

[7.1 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Baker, Norman

Keetch, Paul

Ballard, Jackie

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Kirkwood, Archy

Brake, Tom

Livsey, Richard

Brand, Dr Peter

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Breed, Colin

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Burnett, John

Moore, Michael

Burstow, Paul

Oaten, Mark

Cable, Dr Vincent

Öpik, Lembit

Chidgey, David

Rendel, David

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Cotter Brian

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

Cunningham, Ms Roseanna(Perth)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Tyler, Paul

Feam, Ronnie

Wallace, James

Foster, Don (Bath)

Webb, Steve

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Willis, Phil

Hancock, Mike

Harris, Dr Evan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Harvey, Nick

Mr. Andrew Stunell and Mr. Adrian Sanders.

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Ainger, Nick

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Clwyd, Ann

Alexander, Douglas

Coaker, Vernon

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Coleman, Iain

Austin, John

Colman, Tony

Barnes, Harry

Connarty, Michael

Battle, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Bayley, Hugh

Cooper, Yvette

Beard, Nigel

Corbett, Robin

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Corbyn, Jeremy

Begg, Miss Anne

Cousins, Jim

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Cox, Tom

Bennett, Andrew F

Crausby, David

Benton, Joe

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Bermingham, Gerald

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Berry, Roger

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Best, Harold

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Betts, Clive

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Dalyell, Tam

Blizzard, Bob

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Boateng, Paul

Darvill, Keith

Borrow, David

Davidson, Ian

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Bradshaw, Ben

Dean, Mrs Janet

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon(Dunfermline E)

Denham, John

Dismore, Andrew

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Dobbin, Jim

Browne, Desmond

Donohoe, Brian H

Buck, Ms Karen

Doran, Frank

Burden, Richard

Dowd, Jim

Burgon, Colin

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Butler, Mrs Christine

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Cabom, Richard

Efford, Clive

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Ennis, Jeff

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Etherington, Bill

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Fisher, Mark

Cann. Jamie

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Caplin, Ivor

Fitzsimons, Loma

Caton, Martin

Flint, Caroline

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Flynn, Paul

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Follett, Barbara

Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Foulkes, George

75

Fyfe, Maria

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Gapes, Mike

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Lepper, David

Gerrard, Neil

Leslie, Christopher

Gibson, Dr Ian

Levitt, Tom

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Godsiff, Roger

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Golding, Mrs Llin

Linton, Martin

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Lock, David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Love, Andrew

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McAvoy, Thomas

Grocott, Bruce

McCabe, Steve

Grogan, John

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McDonnell, John

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hanson, David

Mclsaac, Shona

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Mackinlay, Andrew

Healey, John

McLeish, Henry

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

McNamara, Kevin

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

McNulty, Tony

Hepburn, Stephen

MacShane, Denis

Heppell, John

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hesford, Stephen

McWalter, Tony

Hill, Keith

McWilliam, John

Hinchliffe, David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hoey, Kate

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Home Robertson, John

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hood, Jimmy

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hope, Phil

Martlew, Eric

Hopkins, Kelvin

Maxton, John

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Meale, Alan

Howells, Dr Kim

Merron, Gillian

Hoyle, Lindsay

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Miller, Andrew

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Mitchell, Austin

Humble, Mrs Joan

Moffatt, Laura

Hutton, John

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Iddon. Dr Brian

Moran, Ms Margaret

Illsley, Eric

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Morley, Elliot

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Mountford, Kali

Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

Mullin, Chris

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

O'Hara, Eddie

Olner, Bill

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

O'Neill, Martin

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Palmer, Dr Nick

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pearson, Ian

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Pendry, Tom

Keen, Ann (Brenfford & Isleworth)

Perham. Ms Linda

Kemp, Fraser

Pickthall, Colin

Khabra, Piara S

Pike, Peter L

Kidney, David

Plaskitt, James

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Pollard, Kerry

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Pond, Chris

Kingham, Ms Tess

Pope, Greg

76

Pound, Stephen

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Stinchcombe, Paul

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Stott, Roger

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Primarolo, Dawn

Stringer, Graham

Prosser, Gwyn

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Purchase, Ken

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Quinn, Lawrie

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

Radice, Giles

Rapson, Syd

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Raynsford, Nick

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Timms, Stephen

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Tipping, Paddy

Rogers, Allan

Todd, Mark

Rooker, Jeff

Touhig, Don

Rooney, Terry

Trickett, Jon

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Truswell, Paul

Rowlands, Ted

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Roy Frank

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Ruddock Joan

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Ryan Ms, Joan

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Salter, Martin

Vaz, Keith

Savidge, Malcolm

Ward, Ms Claire

Sawford, Phil

Wareing, Robert N

Sedgemore, Brian

Watts, David

Shaw, Jonathan

White, Brian

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Shipley, Ms Debra

Wicks, Malcolm

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

Singh, Marsha

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Skinner, Dennis

Wills. Michael

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Wilson, Brian

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Winnick, David

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Wood, Mike

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Woolas, Phil

Soley, Clive

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Spellar, John

Wyatt, Derek

Squire, Ms Rachel

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Tellers for the Noes:

Steinberg, Gerry

Mr. David Clelland and Jane Kennedy.

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that the 1999–2000 local government settlement was the most generous since the introduction of the council tax; further notes the Government's commitment of an extra £40 billion for schools and hospitals; and welcomes the introduction of Best Value, the abolition of crude and universal capping, the reform of political management structures and the new ethical framework, set out in the local government White Paper.

EU-US Trade
7.16 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the failure of the USA and the EU to resolve the trade dispute arising from the so-called banana war; recognises the serious impact which the US retaliatory measures are having on British industries, in particular the devastating impact on the cashmere industry in the Scottish Borders; is concerned that these actions are a precursor of further major trade disputes over the importation into the UK of genetically and hormonally modified food products from the USA; and urges the Government to step up its diplomatic and other efforts to ensure that all parties work together to first reform the WTO regime to ensure compatibility with international biodiversity agreements, environmental and animal welfare objectives, and then to ensure compliance with the WTO objectives of free and fair trade.
The motion stands in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and other right hon. and hon. Friends—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House and hon. Members must come to order.
Mr. Moore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A vital part of world trade has entered a mire and, to an increasing extent, the very principles of free and fair international trade are at stake. A dispute about the world banana trade has got out of hand and now threatens the jobs of thousands of people employed in industries throughout the country, ranging from cashmere in the Scottish borders to candles in north Cornwall. Today we learned that not even the Scottish Tunnock wafer is safe.
To ensure the freedom and fairness of world trade, there have to be rules that are agreed by the participants and overseen by a credible international body. Painfully and painstakingly, over several decades, moves were made toward a consensus on that matter, leading only a few years ago to the establishment of the World Trade Organisation. Yet, as the WTO prepares for the new round of trade negotiations later this year, the whole trading edifice is on the verge of collapse.
The origin of the current dispute between Europe and the United States lies in a row over bananas that has rumbled on for many years. At the heart of that dispute is the European Union import regime, which offers special preference to former colonies in the Caribbean and elsewhere. The main points of today's debate relate to the manner in which the dispute has been handled by Europe and America and to the consequences of our failure to resolve it, but there are many other issues—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) hopes to speak about genetically modified organisms.
It is worth remembering that, although the United States is much exercised about the problems affecting the export of Latin American bananas into Europe, the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries have only 20 per cent. of the European Union market, whereas three north American multinationals—Chiquita, Dole and Del Monte—control two thirds of the world banana market between them. The questions have to be asked, exactly how much do they think they need and how much do they think is fair? Ensuring fairness to African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the resolution of the dispute will be one of the keys to a decent solution.
78
It is evident that there is great animosity between both sides in the dispute. At different stages, my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), and I have lobbied various people and organisations, including American ambassadors and the WTO itself. It has been apparent throughout that the WTO is caught in the middle as Europe and the United States flex their diplomatic muscles rather than try to find a solution. The situation is out of hand.
Mr. John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman mentioned three United States companies that he accused of controlling 60 per cent. of the market. Am I mistaken in thinking that the Liberal Democrats used to believe in free trade? Would the hon. Gentleman care to say instead that those companies won that share of the market?
Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman may advance the cause of those multinationals later if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In response to his point, some of the practices of those multinational companies in different parts of the world are entirely questionable. I pointed out that the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that import to the European Union have only 20 per cent. of the European market. So Conservative Members have ignored the fairness argument, which is surely as important as the free trade argument.
Moving away from bananas, the immediate and painful consequence of this dispute is the loss of thousands of jobs in the cashmere industry, in both small and large operations in Hawick and Innerleithen, and in the candle industry in operations such as Art Candles in Bodmin and Eclipse Candles in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter). In the medium and long term, the very principles of international trade may be damaged irrevocably if there is no solution soon.
For months, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and I have been putting the case for an early resolution of the dispute to both the European Union and the United States on behalf of our constituents in the cashmere business. The situation was summed up for us when we travelled with my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) to the World Trade Organisation in Geneva just over a week ago. When we visited the European Union ambassador to the WTO, he was very patient. He took his time and explained that it was all the fault of those nasty Americans. We then travelled around the city of Geneva to meet the American ambassador. She was also patient and energetic. She expressed sympathy with our cause, but explained that it was all the fault of those nasty Europeans.
It is clear that the WTO can resolve the dispute only if both sides make a serious effort to sort out the basic differences. The organisation is under-resourced and under-staffed, and many would say that it is being asked to solve an impossible problem. There is no point in the European Union or the United States blaming each other, because that ignores the real pain endured by our constituents in the borders, where thousands of jobs have been lost in the textile, electronics and farming industries in the past two years.
There can be little doubt that the European Commission has been sleepwalking through this crisis. It has failed at every stage to recognise the seriousness of the American

79
Government's intention to sort out the dispute on their own terms. For at least the past six months, the European Commission has been more interested in name calling than in serious diplomatic efforts. In this area—as in so many others recently—the European Commissioners have clearly not been earning their pay.
In the wake of the Commission crisis, nobody knows who is in control. It could not have come at a worse time for these industries and for the jobs that are in jeopardy across the country. The House must send a strong signal to Sir Leon Brittan: although he may be tempted to campaign for another job, he must remain firmly focused on securing a resolution to this dispute before it is too late. We do not want him to get a new job if thousands of others lose theirs.
While the Commission is in limbo, Sir Leon has an opportunity to devise a scheme that will resolve the dispute fairly and equitably and to present it to the President of the European Union, Chancellor SchrÖder. The President could discuss the issue on his shuttle trips around the capitals of Europe and provide some impetus for a solution. Every day counts. The seasonality of the business—particularly the cashmere industry—means that, if producers do not sort out their orders in the next month, job losses will follow almost immediately.
For its part, the United States has earned little credibility. Notwithstanding the merits of its case, its unilateral response is completely illegal in international law and outwith the framework of the WTO, which the US claims to support. The list of targeted goods is openly cynical and is clearly targeted at the most vulnerable European work forces. The tactics are those of the international bully boy, and our constituents up and down the country are entitled to question whether our special relationship with the United States—of which we hear so much—is worth very much. Both sides in the dispute must recognise that the World Trade Organisation alone is the judge of the merits of the case and must be respected.
The United Kingdom Government clearly appreciate what is at stake. They have been keen throughout to highlight the role of the European Commission and the fact that it is the lead authority in the negotiations. It is also clear that, in choosing the list of goods to target, the Americans wanted to influence the British Government, whom they believe have not tried seriously to solve the problem. Ministers will have an opportunity to respond to that point later, and I recognise that they have made serious efforts in the past few months. However, that is not the perception of the American Government.
The meetings with American officials and ambassadors to which I referred have illustrated an awareness of the seriousness of the situation. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Office have been keen to listen to our views and those of others. However, the Government must be seen to be getting behind a fair and equitable solution to the banana crisis that Britain actively supports and encourages. While not employing the bully boy tactics of the United States, this Government must be seen to be interested in finding a solution. If they do so, British goods may come off the American hit list.
On 4 March, in response to a private notice question from my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, the Secretary of State announced that the
80
Government would introduce a guarantee scheme for the cashmere industry. My hon. Friend and I welcomed that announcement, which recognises the special conditions that pertain in the cashmere industry and the importance of the American market. However, we face a real problem because the scheme's detailed requirements are not yet in place. Although we accept in principle that the Government intend to introduce the scheme and keep it in place until the dispute is resolved, the problem is that every day without a scheme sees the erosion of the confidence of US customers and of carriers such as DHL and Federal Express. It is critical that we retain that confidence and ensure that we get the orders.
Speed is of the essence. On 4 March, in response to my question, the Secretary of State said:
"I agree that time is of the essence and that we have to get the scheme in place as a matter of urgency."—[Official Report, 4 March 1999; Vol. 326, c. 1226.]
The statistics of the order book in the past fortnight vividly demonstrate that point. Two weeks ago, the United States' order book for cashmere was worth £4 million. Since then, that amount has doubled. This is a fast-moving situation. Perhaps more tellingly, however, although the amount on the order book has doubled, the same amount again has been lost because people are not prepared to gamble and take on board what the Government have been saying.
Murray Allan, a company in Innerleithen in my constituency, told me today that the latest visit to the United States by one of its sales representatives had resulted in two major US department stores declining to do business. One demanded a personal guarantee and disclaimer and another said that the risks were not worth taking. Those who work at Murray Allan, Ballantyne, Barrie and other companies in the cashmere industry want to know when the scheme will be up and running and the details known. For now, the clouds of uncertainty surround the industry and people are deeply worried. I hope that the Minister, in his response, will be able to give us an assurance and a reason to be optimistic.
As I have said, thousands of people are on the brink of losing their jobs because of macho diplomacy in the capitals of Europe and the United States which is divorced from the world of those whom it affects. Whatever the motivations of the different parties in the dispute, it is clear that one issue is a warm-up for the next set of issues to arise between America and Europe, whether they relate to bovine somatotropin, hormones in beef or genetically modified organisms.
Whatever else we learn from the dispute, it is clear that the macho tactics of the Europeans and the Americans do not work. The only way that we can hope to build up the credibility of the international trading order is to give the WTO full support. The Government have a major responsibility in that and must take the lead. We are in an awful mess and we need to get out of it as soon as possible.
7.33 pm
The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"recognises the significance of the EU/US relationship and notes that the majority of that trade relationship runs smoothly; commends the efforts of the Government to secure the Transatlantic Economic

81
Partnership Agreement last year; acknowledges the efforts of the Government to find a way through the bananas dispute so as to minimise the impact on British industry and in particular the cashmere industry; notes the current position on the hormones dispute; welcomes the Government's commitment to sustainable development; and endorses the Government's support for comprehensive multilateral trade negotiations to be launched in Seattle at the end of this year."
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on the subject of the EU-US trade relationship, the Government's efforts to strengthen that relationship, our efforts on the dispute about the EU's banana regime and, among other matters, our wider ambitions for the Seattle World Trade Organisation ministerial conference at the end of the year.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) has put a reasonable case to the House about his local concerns and he expresses a view that is shared by hon. Members on all sides of the House, especially in relation to Scotland. However, it is important to remember early in the debate that this is an issue not only for Scotland, but for the United Kingdom and the European Union.
The EU-US trade relationship is substantial and strong. The EU and US are the world's largest two economies, and together they account for about 54 per cent. of world income. Even excluding trade within the EU, together they account for around 38 per cent. of world exports and 39 per cent. of world imports. In 1997, EU goods exports to the US were worth $160 billion, compared with imports from the US worth around $156 billion.
The bilateral trade balance has fluctuated between surplus and deficit over the previous five years. The US is by far the most important external export market for EU firms, accounting for nearly 20 per cent. of exports. In 1997, direct investment flows from the US to the EU amounted to $24 billion. The US is the most important source of external investment into the EU, accounting for over 50 per cent. of the total. In 1997, EU investment flows to the US were worth $42 billion, with the US accounting for over 40 per cent. of total EU direct investment overseas.
Those figures demonstrate the depth and significance of the relationship between the EU and the US, but the bilateral relationship is not the only reason why the EU and the US matter so much in the world trading system. Together, the EU and US are the twin pillars of that world trade system, and co-operate to advance our many shared interests in world trade, some which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale.
All in all, it is important to bear it in mind that the vast majority of that trade and investment between the EU and the US takes place freely and without any difficulty whatsoever. Although there are a number of important disputes, it is vital to keep those in their proper context, and to ensure that the relatively few—although admittedly important—disagreements do not colour the nature of the relationship as a whole.
The transatlantic economic partnership was negotiated under the UK presidency of the EU last year, and agreed at the EU-US summit in London in May 1998. The TEP builds on an already strong transatlantic trading relationship. It provides a range of opportunities to improve the bilateral trade relationship between the EU and the US. It provides also a formal opportunity for an
82
on-going dialogue to remove trade frictions and build confidence between the EU and the US. In addition to bilateral benefits, it provides a means of maintaining open markets and promoting the expansion of trade through the continued development and strengthening of the multilateral trade system.
The bilateral aspects of the TEP include substantial elements relating to services, where there is an opportunity for addressing sector-specific obstacles, and to agriculture, environment, food safety and biotechnology, with an agreement to establish proper dialogues to provide a system of early warning for potential disputes in each of those areas. Although those initiatives are at an early stage, they are important and we must build on them.
On electronic commerce, there will be further dialogue to ensure the elimination of unnecessary legal and regulatory barriers and the continued duty-free treatment of electronic transmissions. The TEP deals also with technical barriers to trade, and there is agreement to identify and implement jointly defined general principles for effective regulatory co-operation and to extend the current mutual recognition agreements to new sectors.
The issue highlighted by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale is the banana dispute, which is faced by the UK, along with many other EU member states. Acting through the European Commission, we have made a great effort to seek a solution to the banana dispute through the World Trade Organisation. I say again to the House—emphasising what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said on 4 March—that we view the US action of withholding liquidation on a range of EU products as deplorable. That action was completely unauthorised by the WTO and ignored the WTO arbitrator's appeal for discussions to continue without premature action. We have raised our objections at the highest levels. Only last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland lobbied the US Administration and the US Congress during his visit to Washington.
It is particularly unfortunate that the US action is directed against industries that are in no way connected with bananas. That is the source of the irritation that most people feel on this issue. There can be no justification for inflicting great damage on small, vulnerable businesses and communities, as the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale pointed out. The US action has already stalled American orders for Scottish cashmere, and there is a real threat of job losses in the textile-dependent borders region. Of course, it is not only cashmere that is affected; biscuits, batteries, plastics, packaging, candles—to which the hon. Gentleman referred—bed linen and many other products are also on the US list.
Although the US argued that its higher tariffs will not apply until the WTO arbitrator rules and it is granted authorisation by the WTO, the effect of its action of 3 March is the same as if the higher duties were in place now. In view of the highly seasonal nature of the cashmere industry, where a high proportion of the industry's annual orders are being placed now for delivery later in the year, the Government announced that we would implement a scheme to guarantee the bonds requested by US customs in respect of cashmere knitwear.

83
I am pleased that the announcement was warmly welcomed by the industry and hon. Members on all sides of the House and, later in the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will give details of the way in which we shall implement that commitment. The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale sought clarification on that, and I pleased to say that my hon. Friend will provide that.
Even now, it is not too late for the US to reverse its decision on retaliation in the interests not only of the EU-US relationship but to safeguard the WTO. Recognising the importance of resolving this dispute and of safeguarding the WTO' s dispute settlement system, the Government are, first, fully committed to implementing the WTO panel and arbitration outcomes, whatever they may be, without delay.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Minister understand that there is an opportunity between now and the dispute resolution panel's finding being published on 12 April to seek an accommodation between the United States and the European Union that would be acceptable to all parties, and that would be the end of the matter? Are the Government using every capable power that they have to hand to obtain for the EU a sufficient mandate to enable a deal to be struck with the US before 12 April?
Mr. McLeish: I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. I think that everything that can be done is being done by the Government to bring this matter to a conclusion. Clearly, we await the arbiter at the end of the process. There is then a meeting of the panel, and 12 April is a pretty important day. In the meantime, every conceivable step is being taken because of the importance of the issue not only to the cashmere industry, but to the principles that lie behind what is happening. Obviously, we expect our EU partners and the United States to take the same approach. We are hoping that, in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, there will be positive moves to try to resolve the matter.
We are encouraging the European Commission to discuss options with the US. For example, the WTO lays down that compensation is a preferable alternative to retaliation. If the WTO rules against the EU, compensation would be preferable in this, as in other cases.
I assure the House that we are also very concerned to safeguard the interests of traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific banana suppliers. Both the United Kingdom and the EU have long-standing political and legal obligations, which we shall respect. The UK also remains fully committed to safeguarding the WTO's dispute settlement system, and we shall do all that we can to make it work effectively.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Could my hon. Friend get over a fairly straightforward message to our American cousins, which is that, if they wipe out the one-crop export from very poor Caribbean islands, the people on those islands will certainly grow other products? In the end, the United States will be the recipient of those various products. If that is not so, the
84
Caribbean islands may very well act as gathering points for other people's drugs. If that is a message that cannot be understood, will my hon. Friend please try to put it in simple terms or picture language, or something, that will get over to our American cousins what they are doing?
Mr. McLeish: I am grateful to my hon. Friend's contribution. I can reassure her that what she says is being done by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade day in and day out, given the implications of what is happening. It is important also to acknowledge the importance of bananas to the countries that we are talking about. They are part of the wider and complicated matters with which we are dealing. I can reassure my hon. Friend that every step will be taken in a straightforward way to impress on the United States the importance of the matter being resolved.
I was talking about the WTO's dispute settlement system. It has already served us well, for example, in opening Japan's market to Scotch whisky, and it will continue to do so in future.
The European Union's ban on hormone-treated meat has been in place for more than 10 years. In 1998, the WTO found that the EU ban was inconsistent with WTO rules because it did not follow from a properly conducted risk assessment based on science. The EU was given until 13 May 1999 to comply with the ruling. It now seems that the EU will not meet that deadline.
The rules of the WTO require that trade measures put in place to protect human, animal and plant health must have a sound scientific basis. Governments can and do apply restrictions to protect their consumers, but they must be in line with international standards or justified by a risk assessment where they are more stringent than international standards. If those rules were not in place, countries could impose restrictions simply designed to protect their own domestic industries, but disguised as consumer protection measures.
We are encouraging the Commission to explore constructive solutions with the US and Canada, particularly ideas on labelling, and temporary compensation to avoid further escalation of the hormones dispute into a damaging trade war. I hope that those discussions will find a way forward in this dispute.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale raised the issue of sustainable development, to which the Government are committed. All Governments need to consider their trade and environmental policies together. Protecting the environment and maintaining an open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system are essential to achieve our objective of sustainable development. There are many effective, internationally recognised measures which aim to protect the global environment. There is more to be done, however, although significant progress has been made in the past 20 years or so with a number of multilateral environmental agreements. Liberalising trade helps to ensure that resources are used efficiently; it helps generate the wealth necessary for development and environmental improvement, and it encourages the spread of clean technology.
The world trade system should not be undermined. To do so would put at risk our aim of achieving sustainable development. That in turn would, of course, have negative environmental impacts.

85
It is clear that trade and environmental policies must accommodate each other to be fully effective. They are less in conflict than some might claim, but that does not mean that potential conflicts do not exist. Governments have a duty to balance the objectives of protecting the environment and of upholding the multilateral trading system, whether they are negotiating in a trade forum or an environment forum. It is therefore for parties to both existing and new agreements to ensure individually and collectively that they do not sign up to conflicting requirements. At the most recent WTO ministerial meeting in Geneva, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
"Governments need to consider the environmental impact of everything they do, including in the trade sphere. Trade rules should not be used to impose unfair standards on developing countries, nor to discriminate against their exports."
I shall make some brief points about comprehensive multilateral trade negotiations. This is a welcome and timely opportunity to say something about the Government support for a comprehensive round of trade negotiations, which will be launched at the WTO ministerial conference in Seattle at the end of the year. The Seattle ministerial will be the third ministerial conference. The first meeting in Singapore in December 1996 put in place a work programme on new issues such as investment, competition, procurement and trade facilitation. The second meeting in Geneva last May agreed the process of preparation for Seattle. The UK believes that a comprehensive round would allow all countries, including developing countries, to secure an overall package that would reflect their broad interest, largely because of political impetus and because it would allow trade-offs across a range of areas.
Some have questioned the wisdom of pushing ahead with trade liberalisation proposals at a time of difficulties in the global economy. Trade policy was not the cause of the Asia crisis, nor does it provide a complete solution. However, it can help the world on the road to recovery. Freer trade has brought substantial gains to the global economy in the post-war era. Most recently, the Uruguay round brought a significant boost to world trade and incomes. One of the key lessons from the 1930s is that a protectionist response to a global crisis makes matters much worse. So far, there has been relatively little protectionist backlash. However, there are some signs of growing pressures, especially in the US. It is therefore essential that momentum for further liberalisation is maintained. That is why—I repeat the reassurance—the UK and the EU have pledged to resist protectionism, and are at the forefront of efforts to secure a new round of multilateral trade negotiations.
Mr. Terry Rooney: The House may know that the largest cashmere manufacturer in Britain is in my constituency. Part of the settlement under the Uruguay round was that British textile goods sent from the United Kingdom to the United States carried a 37 per cent. tariff, reducing by 1 per cent. a year over 10 years. Can we have that issue on the agenda at the Seattle conference at the end of the year? It is not free trade, but protectionism.
Mr. McLeish: The first priority is to resolve the outstanding issues that we face in that regard. I think that my hon. Friend acknowledges that. I am sure that my hon.
86
Friend the Minister for Trade has acknowledged my hon. Friend's contribution and that he will make some reference to it in terms of the agenda for the next round in Seattle later this year.
I shall identify briefly some of the subjects that are particularly important to the UK. They include further tariff reductions, reducing the burden on business and barriers to trade represented by industrial standards and technical regulations, opening up Government procurement markets in third countries, simplifying import and export procedures, seeking substantial progressive reductions in support and protection for agriculture and developing better regimes to cover issues such as food safety, deepening and broadening the liberalisation of trade and services and establishing a liberal rules-based framework for international investment. Those are all issues that are very important for the UK and, of course, for the EU.
The Government are conscious of the fact that not all WTO members support a comprehensive round: many are more focused on market access than on new rules issues, and others stress the need to stick only to those negotiations to which we are already committed—those on agriculture and services. President Clinton's recent signal, in his state of the union address, of support for a new round was a welcome development.
It is too early to say what package will emerge from the ministerial conference this year. Discussions in Geneva have so far been necessarily general, in order to avoid pre-negotiation. As with all issues in the WTO, decisions on the scope and shape of those negotiations will be taken on the basis of consensus.
New issues, including new work on the environment, are likely to be the most difficult in the new round. Developing countries in particular are saying that those issues are not ready for substantive negotiation. Although we must be realistic about what is achievable in the circumstances and within the time constraints, we see value in such issues being included.
Clearly, there will be a strong focus on agriculture. The WTO negotiations will put added pressure on EU common agricultural policy reform. Agriculture liberalists are making it clear that they will want major liberalisation of tariffs, quotas and export subsidies. That is an important issue for developing countries.
Concerns are being expressed in Geneva about the implementation of existing agreements. A more coherent focus will be needed on technical assistance and capacity building. That is not, of course, for the WTO alone—the United Nations conference on trade and development, the World bank and the International Monetary Fund will have a part to play.
Developing countries make up the majority of the membership. Decisions in the WTO must be taken by consensus, and there is every sign that developing countries will articulate a clear agenda of their own interests, including implementation issues, anti-dumping rules, textiles liberalisation and agriculture. They will not be silent partners. The UK is doing all that it can to encourage their active participation. That is vital. Trade liberalisation is, of course, essential for economic growth, development and raising living standards.
Mr. James Wallace: Hon. Members in all parts of the House would agree with much that the Minister has said. He acknowledged that my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) was constructive in the way in which he moved the motion and gave credit to the Government where it was due. Is there anything in the motion that the Minister finds objectionable? If not, would it not be better for the House to speak with one voice?
Mr. McLeish: It is always a pity to undermine consensus by making a thought-provoking suggestion to a Minister at the Dispatch Box. I am in a mood, in a jocular way, to resist the hon. Gentleman's invitation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We will find out later. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will continue in our easy-going style at the Dispatch Box.
In summary, we are clear that free trade has never meant a free-for-all. That is always a danger. There is plenty of scope for reflecting particular concerns about health and so on in any country's actions. However, a system of international rules must have objective reference points. That is why it is important to rely on scientific justifications, to avoid a free-for-all.
The WTO has the difficult task of balancing the interests of all its members, which are at different stages of development. That fact, together with concerns about access to third-country markets on a non-discriminatory basis and the ability of member countries to develop and improve living standards, will influence the future as it has the past.
The subject is complex. I hope that, in the House, we can co-operate to ensure that we move quickly to resolve the issues globally and for the communities that each of us represents in the United Kingdom.
7.53 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: This is indeed an important debate. We heard interesting contributions from the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), who introduced the debate, and from the Minister.
Global free trade must be in our economic and political interest. We as a nation have more to lose from protectionism and trade wars than the Americans or most of the continental Europeans. As we have heard, there are innocent victims in any trade war.
I was disappointed that the Minister did not say what would happen after 12 April. If the World Trade Organisation rules against the revised EU regime, what will be the approach of the EU and of the British Government? If the WTO rules in favour of the retaliatory action that the United States said it will undertake, what will be the approach of the EU and of the Government? I was worried when the Minister seemed to imply that compensation was a better option than compliance. Surely, if we are to make the WTO rules work, we should look for compliance before we look for compensation.
The Government have not taken the matter as seriously as they should have done, certainly in the earlier stages. When, on 23 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who speaks for the Conservatives on constitutional affairs, asked what contacts the Government had made directly with counterparts in the
88
United States, and what contacts the Prime Minister had made with President Clinton on this serious subject, he was effectively told that there had been no contact at all.
We know that the Prime Minister is prepared to talk turkey with the President of the United States on issues affecting the President's personal life. It is a pity that the Prime Minister has not used his working relationship with the President to pursue the United Kingdom case in this important trade dispute. It was not until 4 March that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did anything.
Some Liberal Democrat Members have tended to simplify the issue. It is simplistic to say, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) did, that
"United States companies have 78 per cent. of the European banana market, compared with the Caribbean's 9 per cent, and that none of the bananas about which there is a dispute are actually grown in the United States",
but where does that take us in the context of global trading rules?
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale called the United States an international bully-boy engaged in macho diplomacy. Such comments are hardly designed to improve relations. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the WTO must be respected. As the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), said,
"The European Union banana regime is designed to comply with the World Trade Organisation regulations while honouring our commitments to those countries in Africa, the Pacific and the Caribbean with which we have relations through the Lomé agreement. We stand by those commitments.—[Official Report, 23 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 162–63.]
It has been common ground among British Ministers both before and since the change of Government that the commitment to traditional ACP suppliers, as confirmed in the current Lomé convention, should be honoured, but there has always been a recognition that there might be different mechanisms for honouring that commitment.
As we know, the dispute goes back many years. Under the new WTO regime, unanimity is required for the report of a disputes panel to be overruled. The ruling of a disputes panel cannot be ignored. The WTO can justify retaliatory action against a country against which a ruling has been made. That is the problem facing us.
The WTO disputes panel reported as long ago as May 1997 its finding that the EU's banana import regime violated free trade rules on 19 counts. Significantly, as emphasised at the time by the Financial Times and other newspapers, the report did not target EU tariff preferences for Caribbean banana-producing countries, but focused on the EU licensing regime. The proportion of bananas that are coming from the Caribbean countries is irrelevant. The US and the WTO have accepted the tariff preferences that the EU has in place for the Caribbean banana producers.
In May 1997 the WTO panel ruling was confirmed, and in September 1997 it was confirmed on appeal. The EU was required to make its banana regime compatible with WTO rules by 1 January this year—quite a long period in which to do so. On 26 September 1997 the EU announced

89
that it accepted the WTO ruling. It is important to remember that. As the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said,
"We have obligations under the WTO. We must find ways of revising the EU arrangements so that they conform with the rules."
The issue is whether that has been done.
We have not heard anything about the consumer, but the World bank estimates that the EU banana regime is costing consumers $2 billion a year and, that for every dollar, only 7.5 cents goes to the benefit of the former colonial producing countries. Going for a compensatory rather than a compliant regime would, I fear, result in the burden on the consumer becoming even greater.
In June 1998, a deal was agreed in the Council of Ministers. It was announced to the House on 3 July by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The United States and five Latin American countries argued that the EU' s changes were merely cosmetic and that the WTO should reopen its disputes panel on that issue. The United States announced its intention to impose duties on products exported from Europe, arguing that that was justified under the WTO rules. The EU argued that the matter should be referred again to a disputes panel, to determine whether the revised EU regime was incompatible with those rules. As we know, in January 1999 Ecuador called for a disputes panel to rule on the compatibility of the revised regime.
The United States agreed not to impose duties before 3 March and the EU went to the WTO arbitrator for a ruling on whether the level of retaliation proposed by the United States was appropriate. We know that 12 April is decision day and we will find out then whether the revised EU banana regime is compatible with WTO rules, but we do not know what will be the reaction of the EU, or of the Government, to any findings which emerge. More information has been asked for and, I understand, is being provided, but, from a United Kingdom perspective, it is important to realise that those Caribbean arrangements are not the issue of dispute.
It is also worth reminding individuals in the United Kingdom who are caught up in the dispute—not least those people in the cashmere industry in Scotland—that two European countries, Denmark and the Netherlands, voted against the revised banana regime in summer 1998. As a result, they have earned themselves exclusion from the list of retaliatory duties proposed by the United States. If the Government had done likewise, the threat to the Scottish cashmere industry would never have materialised. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my hon. Friend know why the Netherlands and Denmark voted against the regime? The reason, if I may suggest it to him, is that the subsidiaries of Chiquita, which distribute central American bananas, have the entire Danish and Dutch markets to themselves.
Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend implies that there is something unjust about a large number of bananas being produced for market by three United States-controlled companies. I have to disagree with him if he is implying that there is something inherently unfair about that; in itself, it is not against the WTO rules. This dispute is not about those particular companies. My hon. Friend
90
suggests that the behaviour of two other members of the EU is wholly motivated by their connections with those companies. Although I understand his concerns on that point, I certainly would not jump to such a conclusion without clear evidence.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman is displaying a great deal of interesting expertise. Does he know the typical daily wage of a worker on a plantation owned by Chiquita and of a worker on a Fair Trade plantation in any of the relevant nations? I am concerned about knitwear workers in the borders and other workers in this country, but, like many people in this country and in the United States, I am also concerned about fair pay for people who grow the bananas in the first place.
Mr. Chope: I fear that the hon. Lady's intervention is depressing, because it shows that Labour Members are willing to engage in irrelevancies in the context of a world trade dispute. How much people are paid to produce bananas in any particular country is not the issue in dispute, and the WTO rulings do not take it into account at all.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Did not the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) reveal a split between herself and her Front Benchers? We heard an impassioned plea for free trade from the Minister, but the hon. Lady seems to be in favour of free trade only where she is in favour of the wages paid by the producers.
Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; one either believes in global free trade or one does not. Disputes will arise if any individual nation starts to interpret global free trade on the basis of whether it thinks that trade is fair from its perspective. That is why we have the WTO, which has—
Mr. Phil Woolas rose—
Ms Tess Kingham rose—
Mr. Chope: I shall not give way any more; I will make my point.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: He is needled.
Mr. Chope: I am not needled in the least. I am sure that Labour Members will want to ask Ministers why their views have not been reflected. Conservative Members have always been somewhat suspicious about the commitment of some hon. Members to global free trade; I hope that the Minister will reaffirm that the Government are unequivocally in favour of it.
Mr. McLeish: It is interesting to see how the consensus in the House is breaking down. The costs of employing people in third-world countries have been dismissed as "irrelevancies". If that is official Conservative policy, let us have it on the record. The hon. Gentleman referred to "those people" in the cashmere industry. They are workers with families and commitments and they want their products to be exported. Are costs in the third world

91
irrelevant and is he dismissing the concerns of people in the borders, the east midlands and elsewhere as the concerns of "those people"? That would be outrageous; he should make clear what he means.
Mr. Chope: I am glad that I gave way to the Minister, because he has had the opportunity to try to wriggle on the issue of what will happen on 12 April. What will be the response of the EU and of the Government when the ruling comes? We have made it clear all along that we sympathise with people in the cashmere industry, who are the innocent victims of this trade dispute, but what will be done on 12 April to ensure that the cashmere industry is able to survive in the way that it has under the regime of free world trade?
The wages that people receive for producing goods in different parts of the world is not a world trade issue. I hope, as a lot of Labour Members may hope, that one of the outcomes of the Seattle meeting in November this year will be that China becomes a member of the WTO, which would be good for global free trade. We cannot emphasise enough the fact that we in this country depend more than the Americans and the European continentals on the concept of global free trade, which means that people should be able sell their labour in the marketplace and market their goods without facing unfair tariff barriers.
World free trade is in the best interests of the third world and the developing countries. It is a shame that the EU and the United States cannot negotiate a deal on bananas, but it is also unfair to put the blame for that failure largely on the Americans, as Liberal Democrat Members seem to be doing. If one looks at the facts, one can see that the Americans have complied with past WTO rulings.
I understand that this is the first occasion on which a WTO member that has lost a case has failed to eliminate its measures altogether or to change them after consultations with the complaining parties. The United States has made such changes in three cases, but the EU is the first WTO member to fail to do so. That was the response of the United States representative.
Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman has been at pains to characterise some of the Liberal Democrat arguments as simplistic. Are we to believe that the fault in this whole dispute relates entirely to Europe, and that the Americans are for some reason devoid of responsibility?
As for simplistic arguments, surely it is utterly simplistic to suggest that American multinationals should have carte blanche to do what they wish in world trade, with no regard for the fairness of that trade or the way in which the work forces are protected.
Mr. Chope: I do not suggest that the Americans are without fault. Certainly, they were offside in introducing a retaliatory regime while the issue was still before the World Trade Organisation; we have never advanced a contradictory view. I think we are naive, however, if we do not understand some of the frustration that is felt in the United States about the long time that it has taken to resolve the matter in the European Union. There was a ruling in its favour back in May 1997; now, in March
92
1999, it hopes that the issue will be resolved. Meanwhile, the European Union seems to have been delaying the issue. I hope that it will not delay further beyond 12 April, and that, notwithstanding the demise of the European Commission, there is a clear policy, worked out on a contingency basis, for an immediate response to the rulings that will be made on 12 April. If not, it is a serious matter.
Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is right: we should not engage in a blanket condemnation of the Americans. May I point out that the American labour movement is actively engaged in a campaign to improve the terms and conditions of employment of those employed by American multinationals in central and south America, and elsewhere?
Mr. Chope: I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out.
I have responded to a number of interventions. Let me now deal with the next issue on the horizon—the issue of hormone-treated beef, to which the Minister has referred. He told us, in a very matter-of-fact way, that he does not expect the European Union to comply with the World Trade Organisation ruling, which it must by 13 May, but he did not say why the EU would not comply with the ruling by that date. Is it surprising, in the light of that behaviour, that Richard Rominger, United States Deputy Agriculture Secretary, announced on Friday that the United States was drawing up a list of products that could face retaliatory sanctions if the EU failed to comply with the ruling? He is at pains to avoid such sanctions, but he has come to Europe seeking meetings with European Commission representatives, and, according to newspaper reports, has been told that it is not even possible to see officials at Cabinet level, let alone Commissioners, to discuss the crisis relating to hormone-treated beef. Moreover, only last week two European Commissioners missed a biotech conference at which they were to share a platform with Mr. Rominger.
That shows, on the part of the European Union, a disdain for the importance of world trade issues. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that the Government are putting all possible pressure on the European Union to pull its finger out and get to grips with these important matters.
Another issue on the horizon—not mentioned in the motion—is that of hushkits. The EU is scheduled to put into effect, on 29 March, a law freezing the use of the aeroplane mufflers called hushkits, under which companies would be forbidden to add hushkitted aeroplanes to their fleets. A meeting is due to take place on 23 March between the United States Transportation Secretary and the European Union Transport Commissioner. It seems likely that the dispute will exacerbate the issue of EU-US trade, and it appears to be related very much to European Union protectionism. The only people who produce the hushkits are the Americans, and for the most part it is American airlines that use them. The European Union is saying that an arbitrary interpretation is being placed on an International Civil Aviation Organisation agreement, which seems to be being used to prevent the import and use of hushkits in the EU. That is another potential disaster for global trade. I hope that, as a Brit, the Commissioner responsible will realise that it would be counter-productive to proceed in the way proposed by the EU.

93
I shall end my speech now, so that others can speak, but I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. The Government have clearly recognised the importance of the debate, given that they have asked two Ministers to speak.
8.16 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope): this is an important debate. The issue of hushkits is also important, but I shall leave it to the Minister to respond to a pertinent question put by the hon. Gentleman, which was also touched on by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood): what will happen on 12 April?
If, on 3 March, the arbitrator had come forward with a resolution of the dispute between the United States and the European Union on whether the new regime conformed with WTO rules, or had made it clear that he had fixed the amount of compensation in some other way, it might not have been necessary for all this to happen. It might not have been necessary to withhold the liquidation of entries for products such as cashmere. What will happen on 12 April? The United States has taken its action because it believes that it will be given a compensatory amount in damages of some $500 million—possibly $520 million.
That being the case, what will be the EU's response? Will it accept that the amount should be paid by the EU overall in compensation, after which the withholding of liquidation of entries on the products that we are discussing will disappear? The question is pertinent; we shall have to await the outcome. The United States has clearly stated that it will accept any arbitration result. If the arbitration favours the US, it will accept that; if it favours the European Union, and the EU has followed WTO rules in relation to bananas, it will accept that, as is proper.
The House moves through many moods. Not long ago—two weeks ago, perhaps—we were all deriding the European Commission, and applauding the fact that all the Commissioners had resigned en bloc. We were all calling them incompetent. Now, we are having to try to defend the way in which they have handled a dispute with the United States that goes back for at least six years, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said.
When we speak of the United States, there is a point that we often overlook. The Minister touched on it when he said that 38 per cent. of world exports come from America, and that 39 per cent. of imports go into America. America remains the largest trading nation in the world. It is also self-sufficient. If it ever decided that free trade was not the policy that it wished to follow, the rest of the world would go bust. We ought to bear that in mind, and be grateful for the fact that the United States follows free trade policies. In January this year, it had a $17 billion deficit on its trade. It took in other countries' washing to the tune of $17 billion against its own exports.
We in the European Union vaunt ourselves because we have a surplus on our exports, rather than a deficit. The largest bilateral trade deficit that the United States has is with China—$4.88 billion, up from $3.98 billion.
The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned China's involvement with the WTO, and hoped that it would happen in the autumn, when the Seattle conference would take place. It is a pious hope that China will be able to
94
come into the WTO at that time, but I do not think that it is ready as a nation state to meet the obligations placed on it because of the WTO' s free trade and fair trade rules.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) talked of the Uruguay round and its impact on textiles. For 12 years, we all followed the route of the Uruguay round—it went from Uruguay to Marrakesh—before the agreement was signed. The question of the entire Uruguay round was: how can free trade in the world be rules based? That touches on the point that was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). There have to be rules not only on trade through the WTO, but on labour through the International Labour Organisation.
There has to be free and fair trade for goods and services. There have to be rules under the International Labour Organisation. There have to be financial rules through the World bank and International Monetary Fund, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to bring about, but there cannot be free and fair trade in the world unless it is based on rules. In that sense, the hon. Member for Christchurch is right. It is a dispute about rules and about the interpretation of rules. It is important that we keep that fact in mind.
The issue of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and the European Union has been raised. The so-called Lomé convention is being renegotiated. In a few months, the 10-year agreement on issues such as bananas will come to an end. It is time for a renegotiation.
Dr. Godman: What my hon. Friend says makes much sense, but may I point out that many of the small producers in the Windward islands, for example, are deeply concerned about the massive lobbying power that Chiquita and others have on Capitol hill? The Caribbean producers feel at a distinct disadvantage because of that massive lobbying campaign.
Mr. Bell: Of course. We have heard much tonight about the various brands—Chiquita and the rest. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of the situation in the Windward islands of Dominica, St. Lucia and St. Vincent, where bananas provide over half all export earnings. In St. Lucia, for example, the industry contributes about 16 per cent of GDP. In St. Vincent and Dominica, the figure is 17 per cent. Notwithstanding that, over the past year, production in St. Lucia has dropped by 7 per cent. because of drought and poor prices.
I take up the point about the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and the negotiation with the EU. It may be an appropriate time for the two sides in the convention to design a specific and long-term aid package for banana growers that reconciles the need of those producers to continue to export to the EU, and ensures that agreement is reached between the United States and the EU on the implementation of WTO rulings. We come back to the rulings and to resolution of the dispute on bananas.
When we talk about the conclusion of the Uruguay round, I am reminded of the terrible difficulty that the EU had with the United States in resolving agricultural issues. There was a conference at Blair House in Washington in the United States. There were huge demonstrations in Paris by French agriculture workers and farmers, yet the issue was resolved in such a way that the Uruguay round

95
could be signed. As we come up to 12 April, it is important for the EU and United States to resolve the issue of bananas in such a way that we can continue with our rules-based trade and with the type of conference that is to be held in Seattle, to which the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office referred.
It is interesting and significant that the United States declined to enter into a new Uruguay-type round. It wished to tie up all the fine pieces of string that had been left lying around after the Uruguay round. In the end, it agreed that there should be a new comprehensive round that took into account trade, the environment and other issues.
Therefore, the United States is making an effort in that area. That effort should be welcomed and commended, but this is the beginning of a series of major trade disputes. The question of beef hormones has been referred to. I understood from the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) that genetically modified foods might be raised by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) before the evening is out. All that is significant and important. It means that the rules of the WTO become even more important.
The President of the United States has received telephone calls from the Prime Minister on the issue. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made his views known. The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office has done so, and so will my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, but I agree with the recent statement by the President of the United States:
"This dispute is not really about bananas, it is about rules.
We cannot maintain an open trading system which is essential to global prosperity unless we also have rules that are abided by".
As I have said, in terms of finance, the rules should be through the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. In terms of workers, they should be through the International Labour Organisation.
If we can develop those rules over time, the world can look forward to the next millennium with some confidence that the disputes can be resolved for the benefit of all. There is no question that we should let the banana producers in the Caribbean go to the wall. When he was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made it clear in a statement in October 1997 that we would not do so. We have their interests at heart. We will seek to maintain their interests. We will do it within the compass of the WTO and the Lomé convention. We will do it in such a way that their interests are defended and protected, but world trade rules are supported.
8.27 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: It is a great pleasure to speak in support of the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). I do so from two standpoints. One is a constituency interest and the other is a long-standing interest in trade policy, particularly the current dispute, which has rumbled on in different forms for the best part of a quarter of a century.
The constituency issue is not textiles, unless it is well concealed in Twickenham. Other industries are affected. One in particular, the sweet biscuit industry, touches base
96
in south-west London. I have heard from the companies concerned about the problem, but the major issue is the fundamental one of principle that underlies the whole subject: the idea of the rule of law applied to international trade.
We should not underestimate the achievements of the early 1990s when the Uruguay round produced a dispute settlement agreement under the WTO. For the best part of 40 or 50 years, there had been semi-anarchy in international trade, with disputes being settled largely by force. Now we have a system of law. Independent panels apply the rule of law principle, which is of value, above all, to small and weak countries.
There have already been several examples of the system's value. In cases brought by Costa Rica, which is a very small country, and by Venezuela, the United States has been obliged, for example, to accept rulings based on the principles by which the World Trade Organisation disputes settlement panels operate. We should be concerned with upholding that principle. Both the major powers involved in the current dispute, in roughly equal measure, have done violence to that principle.
I do not think that it is helpful for us to be picking sides between the United States and the European Union. In their different ways, they have each added to the dispute and aggravated it. The United States has, for example, acted unilaterally, and the current case is not an isolated example. For a very long time, the United States has fallen into the habit of acting unilaterally and without warning in trade disputes. Throughout the 1980s, it used the so-called section 301 powers to bully countries into opening their markets.
The US's behaviour has been curbed somewhat by the World Trade Organisation, but its habits are still there. The US Congress has passed the Helms-Burton and D'Amato legislation, which are all about using power unilaterally to force other countries to open their markets. Its habits are now returning.
The European Union also has had serious faults. Although the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was at the receiving end of some barracking in doing so, he was quite right in how he catalogued the way in which the dispute has evolved, and the fact that, for the best part of two years, the European Union has dragged its feet in implementing an international legal agreement.
There is a feeling—I am sure that some hon. Members will echo it in the debate—of some sympathy for the European Union, which is acting in the interests not of its own producers, but of producers somewhere else. However, we have to get the issue in balance. In many ways, I have some emotional sympathy for the Caribbean producers. In the 1980s, I worked for some time in the Commonwealth Secretariat and helped in negotiating the Lomé convention, and I saw the force of feeling in the Windward islands about the vulnerability of their economies. However, I do not think that we should be over-sentimental about the issue, as there is another side to it.
The main banana producer in Latin America is Ecuador. Producers in Ecuador are not in large multinational plantations; they are small-scale peasant producers. Honduras is another major Latin American producer. It has just been devastated by a hurricane, in which the northern city of San Pedro Sul, the banana

97
capital of Honduras, was virtually destroyed. They are very poor people who are trying to earn a living in the world market. They, too, have legitimate interests.
I think that the European Union has been seriously negligent in not appreciating sooner the problem that has been building, and has been around for a very long time. In the mid-1970s, I worked for some time in the diplomatic service, in London, and the section that I headed dealt with Latin America. We were perpetually on the receiving end of missives from the Ecuadorian and other Governments complaining about the dollar-area quota, which discriminated against them. The reply that we always gave was that it was a temporary measure.
The British Government—the Colonial Office—had invested a lot of money in the Windward islands, and, having given them that aid, we could not abandon them. That was 25 years ago. Consequently, we went out to the Caribbean islands and talked to people at St. Lucia, Dominica, St. Vincent and the other producing islands, and agreed with them that they had to diversify. That was a quarter of a century ago.
Mr. Dorrell: I have been listening with great care to the hon. Gentleman's comments; he is making a powerful case very well. His point on the alleged temporariness of protectionist controls is not unique to bananas, as the argument is used to justify almost every protectionist measure that is introduced. The "temporary" nature of the controls almost always proves to be much longer than people imply at the time.
Dr. Cable: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right—protectionism always generates its own vested interests. Although, as I said, the European Union has an important historical reason for wanting to be protective, it could have, and should have, thought much earlier about the need to switch quotas to tariffs, for example, and gradually to level out the tariffs. Those issues were discussed more than a decade ago, but no action was taken on them.
It is important to stress that the British Government have a particular responsibility in the current dispute, as they are in a uniquely advantageous position to influence the outcome. Britain is generally recognised, both within the European Union and outside it, to be a relatively free-trading country. We also have the confidence of the United States, in a way in which most other European Union countries do not. We also have an historic responsibility for the Caribbean islands. Combining the three factors, it is an issue on which the British Government should be giving leadership. Although the Minister for Trade made sympathetic noises, I feel that such leadership has, so far, been absent from the dispute.
The Minister was quite right to put the dispute in its wider context. If the dispute is not dealt with quickly and properly, we are on a conveyor belt to a very serious international trade conflict. Other disputes are brewing. Only the other day, the House of Representatives passed very serious protectionist measures on steel, and many other measures are coming. The old principle applied by Jacques Delors in the context of the European Union applies also in the current context: trade is like a bicycle, we have to keep pedalling or fall off.
Truly proactive action has to be taken to keep the trading system open and free of disputes and discrimination. That is why I strongly support current
98
initiatives to launch another round of trade negotiations. That is partly to clear up some of the backlog of problems from the past, notably the limited progress on agriculture, but it is also to introduce new and difficult ideas. For example, international monopolies now apply not just in the banana trade, but in software and the media. The competition policies of individual countries are hopelessly inadequate and often incompatible. We need a global competition regime to manage the situation.
We have also seen an initially commendable effort to eliminate discrimination on foreign investment collapse pitifully in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, because it did not have full participation from all developing countries. The system has collapsed as a fiasco, and the World Trade Organisation has to take it on.
As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and others have said, another key issue is bringing into the World Trade Organisation key countries such as China and perhaps Russia, which are currently outside it. Probably the most difficult issue, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) intends to refer, is the very tricky problem of reconciling different health and sanitation standards. We know from our experience of the single market in Europe that that is not easy. Either standards have to be harmonised or there has to be mutual recognition of standards; both involve a surrender of sovereignty, which is difficult, but there will be great friction unless the issue is dealt with.
Unless the problem that we are facing is dealt with properly and quickly, it could destroy the rule of law in international trade, which has been carefully built up. I appeal to the Government, partly on behalf of the industries that have been affected, but also on behalf of a wider constituency, to act proactively and positively for a resolution to the dispute.
8.36 pm
Mr. Alan Simpson: I have listened with amusement and sadness to the way in which the debate has unfolded. It reminded me of the parallels with a recently released film called "This Year's Love" which has had wonderful reviews. It is a film with Kathy Burke about a series of disastrous relationships, in which people hop in and out of bed with each other to no purpose and pursue ultimately futile and unsatisfying relationships into their common and individual disasters. The current obsession—this year's love for free trade—is embodied in the Uruguay GATT agreement that we have signed up to. We should take the fundamental issues that underpin the disputes about this agreement more seriously.
The Liberal Democrats' motion is sunk by the fact that it is based on the oxymoron of free and fair trade. There is nothing fair about free trade and there is precious little free about it. It is worth reflecting on the state of the world markets in some of the commodities that have been mentioned: three global corporations control 80 per cent. of world trade in bananas; three companies control 83 per cent. of world trade in cocoa; five companies control 77 per cent. of world trade in cereals; and fewer than 10 companies control 94 per cent. of the market in agrochemicals.
A corporate agenda of trade is increasingly overriding any notions of free trade. The powerful preside over the global economy. There is precious little that the weak or

99
those with a commitment to social equity can do to redress the imbalance when the rules are governed by such powerful vested interests.
History will judge the Uruguay round either as a corporate charter or—perhaps more appropriately—as a crooks' charter. It allows for the serious undermining of lines of democratic accountability within and between democratic states, in terms of what suits the needs of their citizens and the framework of internationalism that they wish to pursue. To those who say that the Uruguay round was a wonderful achievement that opened up world trade, it is worth reflecting on a comment from the World Wide Fund for Nature, which said:
"the current pattern of trade and investment liberalisation has been accompanied by a worsening of all unsustainable trends—greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, biodiversity loss—as well as growing inequality, both within and between nations."
What follows is not only huge social undermining, but huge social protest.
Against all measures of sustainability, the regime has failed lamentably to have made the world a better place. It is driving us recklessly towards the illiberal, the irresponsible and the unsustainable. The disputes that we are addressing tonight deal with which corporations happen to control the biggest slice of today's markets; markets which themselves are riven by overcapacity, inequality and insecurity. The human and environmental casualties in the process simply do not matter. It is merely a matter of which corporate giants have their way today in relationships that they will abandon tomorrow.
The dispute strikes at the core of big questions that we must address about democracy and sustainability. The banana dispute is not about the shape or size of bananas, and it was a travesty for it to be misrepresented in that way when the dispute between the European Union and the United States emerged. It is about the right of countries to act individually or collectively to protect those who live and work in vulnerable economies.
Some think that free trade will bring the best of all worlds to all people. Anyone who has looked at the vulnerable Caribbean banana-growing economies knows that, if the US has its way and the dollar bananas dominate the whole market, those economies will be virtually destroyed.
It is tongue-in-cheek for the Conservatives to sing the praises of such free trade, because they never want to accept the consequences of it. When an economy is devastated by having all the rules removed, the only thing that can be guaranteed is what the UN consistently warns us about—that destroying the basis of sustainable economies in any one part of the world will mean that the people who live there flee in search of somewhere to survive.
It always amuses me to hear rallying cries about the free movement of capital, but when we have to deal with the consequences—the free movement of labour which goes in search of survival—the first thing that we hear, particularly from the Conservatives, is, "Not to our shores. These are just economic migrants. Let them fend for themselves somewhere else." Yet, time after time, we have been the ones who have removed the barriers that allowed those people to have sustainable economies and gave them a breathing space within which they could
100
produce a sense of diversity. Those who want to take away the trade barriers also want to throw up higher and higher human barriers against the floodtide of refugees that those policies create.
Mr. Wells: If the small Caribbean islands cannot export bananas, the islanders' only other way of earning a living is to grow drugs, which they are increasingly doing because of the dispute. Is that a desirable outcome?
Mr. Simpson: No, but it is a predictable outcome. Susan George, a social scientist, wrote in "The Debt Boomerang" about the way in which the poorest nations repay us in kind for all the damage that we do. We shift those countries from sustainable subsistence agricultures to industries that destroy the lives of many in our own northern industrial towns and cities. The hon. Gentleman is right to caution us about the hidden consequences of going recklessly down that path.
There is also a massive threat to democracy. Why should the United States threaten a trade war over banana regimes? The United States does not grow bananas, but it may well be a relevant factor that Carl Lindner, the head of Chiquita, just happens to be one of the biggest bankrollers of the American political process. Post-Uruguay, the corporate view is that one can expect the best democratic decisions that one is prepared to pay for. At every level of governance, corporations are increasingly insinuating themselves into the channels of democratic decision making, subverting accountability to the electorate and establishing a financial line of accountability to the corporation.
The history of Monsanto's interests in bovine somatotropin milk and genetically modified crops is littered with the company buying its way into public policy decisions in its favour. Last week, evidence was published to show that the science on BST milk is wretched, the politics corrupt and the consequences for human and environmental health potentially devastating. Monsanto faces a ruling either from us or from the European Union collectively that says that we are deeply unhappy about removing the ban on BST milk, because of the damage to livestock and the potential damage to human beings.
There are public movements against genetically modified crops. When Monsanto threatens to take us and the EU to the World Trade Organisation in pursuit of the free trade rights that it claims, it overlooks the fact that it has systematically sought to hide from politicians and the public the downside of all the magic science that it is sailing past us.
Monsanto has failed even to conduct the necessary broader-based research on environmental damage. It wants the right to pursue new monopolies in monocultures that it controls and that will be fundamentally self-destructive. It is an irony that, in the pursuit of free trade rights, Monsanto does not happily own up to the fact that it is invoking the part of the Uruguay agreement that gave it closed markets: the TRIPS agreements on trade in intellectual property rights. Those agreements allow the company to take out patents on the crops that it modifies and, in some parts of the developing world, it slaps patents on crops that it has found. Its rights to patent life are attempts to remove from common ownership things that we have had since civilisation has existed. The

101
company also seeks to take away rights from democratically elected Governments to protect the diversity of their environments and adequately to protect the health needs of their citizens.
If Monsanto obtains the rights to introduce the terminator technology as part of any WTO ruling, it will have the right not only to take ownership of life itself, but to take out a patent on death. The company says that it has encountered no problems in its experiments in the United States, but one should look at the vast acreage of GM crops on the prairies of Arizona where, apart from the Monsanto crops, the land is sterile. It has been soaked in the company's herbicide. It does not have a weed problem because nothing else can grow. When Monsanto is asked about the impact of its actions on biodiversity, its representatives throw up their hands and say that it is not an issue for them.
The company has manipulated the rules of the vetting agencies in a way that is technically brilliant, but ethically corrupt and degrading for humanity. We have to be prepared to make a stand against that. We easily forget, in this country and in Europe, that there is no public demand for GM foods and no agricultural need for them. The GM process has been driven past the advisory committees on the basis that it is the science that will save humanity, but it is the science that will turn bad research into huge corporate profits at huge social cost.
As a Parliament, we have been slow to catch up with the public's understanding of the issue. They know, in ways that we are only beginning to acknowledge, that Monsanto's claims about safety are bogus. The public know now that Monsanto's research on milk was fiddled. They know that the inclusion of GM soya with the rest of the soya crop was the result of calculated efforts by Monsanto to discover whether the public would buy GM produce if it were clearly identified. The company knew that the public would not do so, and it manipulated the regulatory regime in the USA so that it did not have to meet the obligation to identify it. The environmental damage falls outside the terms of the monitoring agencies in the USA.
As we debate the relationship between Britain, Europe, the USA and the World Trade Organisation, we must understand that people have given up waiting for a parliamentary lead. There are good reasons for that: we have a 200-year history of the public taking food safety disputes into our own hands. It was about 200 years ago when the first of Britain's food riots was caused by the adulteration of food. Farmers adulterated flour with sawdust and supplied the flour as part of the workers' wages. The riots were about whether anyone had the right to adulterate food in that way and I say with some pride that that was the momentum behind the Rochdale co-operative. The people wanted to be able to provide food that was safe for themselves and their children to eat. The same is happening now in the riots in India.
The "Cremate Monsanto" campaign is not waiting for a Government lead before burning the fields of GM crops that it does not want. The campaign is led by farmers and villagers who foresee the destruction of biodiversity in pursuit of corporate greed. It is echoed by the coalition of developing world countries who, at the Cartagena biosafety convention, said that they wanted the right to say no to such produce in order to protect their biodiversity.
102
Any international trade agreement that fails to deal with workers' rights or environmental and food sustainability will not be worth adhering to. Social movements in France and Canada are attempting to take direct action to challenge the corporate rights assumed by today's global giants.
When I talked to my family about this problem, it was lovely to discover that my mother had been a food freedom fighter during my childhood. She put me in a shopping trolley when we went around supermarkets when there was a food scare about Argentinean corned beef. My mother insisted that nothing should cross the front line of her fully loaded trolley that might poison her children, and she was absolutely right.
We should bear in mind the public movements staking similar claims in relation to genetically modified foods in today's supermarkets. If the United States of America and the food corporations are to threaten us with a trade war and World Trade Organisation rulings that define our actions as illegal, we must reply that the British public would probably deem a trade war to feed safe food to ourselves and our children a war worth fighting.
Those who want to open up the market without ethical or safety constraints are backing a horse that the public will not bet on. Rulings may go in their favour, but, if Monsanto and the USA win the right to dump unsafe foods in United Kingdom markets, we can overrule that right with a civic right to dump those products in the sea or leave them stockpiled at supermarket check-outs. We can assert our right not to buy something that we believe to be endangering our health, the environmental viability of our country and the international sustainability of relationships in vulnerable economies.
The challenge before us is not whether we vote for or against the Liberal Democrat motion, which contains a huge contradiction. We must support a call for a new round of trade rules that are not driven by freetrade fundamentalism. The Government must face the challenge of whether we are prepared to make different statements about the importance of the Seattle meeting.
We must say that today's free trade rules are self-destructive and unsupportable. They must be replaced by a set of global and sustainable policies that protect vulnerable environments. They must set down terms and conditions for employment rights and pay. There must be a right not to be saturation-sprayed while on the Chiquita banana plantations or anywhere else. Are we to have a set of trade rules that are ethically driven and environmentally sustainable? I have no doubt that the public in the UK, across Europe and internationally already want that. The question is: does the House have the courage to join them?
8.59 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I shall briefly remind the House of the history of the banana dispute. In 1947, the islands of the Caribbean were given the exclusive right to export bananas to the United Kingdom. That right was given in compensation for the fact that, during and before the second world war, the European nations, including our own, had been subsidising the production of sugar beet.
Sugar beet is not an efficient convertor of sunlight into sugar. In fact, it has one tenth the efficiency of sugar cane. We wanted to produce sugar beet to make us more

103
self-sufficient in sugar, rather than simply relying on cane production, principally from the West Indies but also from other Commonwealth nations. Similarly, sugar beet was also introduced in the United States of America. In both Europe and north America, sugar beet production was severely subsidised to enable it to compete in the market against sugar cane imports and, in the United States, against sugar cane production. Sugar beet is still heavily subsidised in Europe, the United States and most developed countries. As a result, sugar cane production was reduced or eliminated from many Caribbean islands.
In 1947, the then Labour Government were faced with trying to find some way in which the Caribbean islands could earn their own living. At the time, we did not have much money to give them—there was no aid budget available. As Michael Foot, luminary of this House, reminded me, the Government gave Britain's banana market to the Caribbean to enable the islands to grow bananas and diversify—we have heard that word already this evening—out of sugar.
That is why bananas became a major export of Caribbean islands that are undoubtedly, geographically and topographically, unsuited to their production. In contradistinction to central America, the land in the islands is mountainous. The soil is not the deep soil that the central American banana producers enjoy. In the Caribbean islands, bananas are produced by small farms in precipitous and inhospitable conditions. None the less, farmers there have managed to work the system and the plantations, many of which are as small as two or three acres, to produce a viable industry.
Importantly, the production of four tiny islands was combined and a shipment of bananas left the Leeward and Windward islands every week. In recent years, other diversified tropical products have been shipped on the same boats to be consumed in this country by West Indians and others who enjoy tropical fruits and vegetables. Unfortunately for the West Indies, without the banana trade the cost of transporting the other products would be prohibitive.
Therefore, in our arguments on the subject when we call for diversification, we must ask what the islands can diversify into. The answer is that, without bananas, they cannot hope to compete on any tropical vegetable or fruit with other major and efficient producers from the tropical countries of the world. The House should understand that the Caribbean islands can diversify their agriculture, but at a price.
Therefore, blocked as they are from coming to this or other countries to work, the islanders have to turn to something else, and that is undoubtedly happening. Perhaps you will be lucky enough, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to go on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association trip to one of the islands. In St. Vincent in particular, there are empty banana fields because banana production has decreased by 50 per cent. Fields of marijuana are being destroyed by US helicopters with the permission of the Prime Minister. Let there be no doubt in the House that Caribbean farmers have no alternative other than to grow drugs if this ridiculous dispute continues.
I shall quickly remind the House of what the dispute is about. The banana protocol is protected by World Trade Organisation rules under waiver. Section 34 permits
104
arrangements to be made, for poor developing counties, for preferential trade that is offensive to WTO rules under section 1. The banana protocol is protected in that way and the United States does not dispute that. However, that protection will last only until 2000, when regimes such as the banana protocol of the Lomé convention will have to be renegotiated.
The dispute is not over the protocol, but over the proposed banana framework agreement that the European Union now accepts was offensive to WTO rules. It was the hope of the EU that central America would agree, because only an extremely small percentage—less than 3 per cent. and falling—of the whole banana market in the EU enjoys the preferential arrangements given to the Caribbean, and in terms of the world banana trade, the percentage is less than 1 per cent. Incidentally, that trade is dominated—by more than 90 per cent.—by Chiquita, Dole and Del Monte. Those companies are in dispute with those tiny islands so that they can dominate the whole EU market, and they are making a huge trade war out of that dispute.
I do not want to go into the complicated details on which the WTO will opine in April. I appeal for sense and pragmatism to prevail. I give way to no one in my support for free trade, but free trade must be tempered with sensible arrangements for countries such as those small Caribbean countries for which special arrangements must be made. The alternatives are wholly unacceptable. I ask to the Government negotiators to appeal to the United States on the matter; indeed, I have asked the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for International Development to intervene with President Clinton to call off this absurd trade war, which should not continue among sensible and pragmatic people.
9.7 pm
Barbara Follett: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, although I deplore the necessity for doing so. The United States is a giant on the world trading stage and it is a pity, to say the least, that the United States should be taking retaliatory action against another giant, the European Union, for giving a few of the poorest Afro-Caribbean countries preferential access to our markets for a single crop—bananas.
I must declare an interest. I was born in the Caribbean and spent most of my early life in Africa. The disputed bananas come from struggling countries in those two regions and, from personal experience, I know how important it is to the people of those regions that what for many of them is their sole export crop should have access to our markets. For the tiny Windward islands of Dominica, St. Lucia and St. Vincent, bananas provide more than 70 per cent. of foreign exchange earnings and 60 per cent. of agricultural employment. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has so eloquently described, the banana trade is the lifeblood of those islands.
Unlike the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I do not think that it is simplistic to point out that Caribbean bananas account for only 3 per cent. of the world market and only 10 per cent. of the European market. That point makes it clear that we are arguing about crumbs from the giant's table. If that giant cared about the development of his fellow human beings, he would be glad to allow them those crumbs.

105
As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) pointed out, the world banana market is dominated by three companies—Chiquita, Dole and Del Monte—whose turnover accounts for more than 64 per cent. of world trade, whereas the total earnings of the Afro-Caribbean countries from bananas accounts for only 4 per cent. of the turnover of those three huge companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) pointed out that working conditions in those three companies cannot be described as fair. I am aware that the problem is difficult and that there is no prescription for fair trading rules, but we must bear that in mind when we consider the merits of the case.
Chiquita—formerly known as the United Brand Company and, before that, as the United Fruit Company—dominated my teenage years and my 20s. The company came into existence in 1899, since when it has completely dominated banana production in the United States, Europe and Japan. It made an attempt to take over banana production in Jamaica in the 1930s. It is controlled by the American Finance Company and its assets total $25 billion. It has little to fear from tiny family farms of the Windward islands, where wage costs are higher and the terrain and climate less friendly. In the Windward islands, an estimated 27,000 producers scratch out a living on farms of less than five acres each. Such producers can never compete on equal terms with the vast plantations on the flat and friendly terrain of south America—they simply do not have the economies of scale.
When giants fall out, it is always the small people and the small countries that suffer; in this case, those are the African and Caribbean banana producers and the cashmere producers of Scotland. As the EU Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan said, the United States has acted in an "unacceptable and unlawful fashion". It has violated the rules of the WTO's disputes procedure. As hon. Members have pointed out, that establishes a dangerous precedent, which could extend to the 10-year long dispute between the EU and the USA over hormone-treated milk, or to the potentially explosive issue of genetically modified crops and food.
The United States has displayed a singular lack of interest in the needs of the people of the developing world, where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford pointed out, the consequences of the Americans' actions could be diversification into the sort of crops that could harm the youth of the United States far more than the sale of Caribbean bananas at a preferential tariff to the EU could harm Chiquita, Dole and Del Monte. I hope that the Americans bear that in mind in the coming round of world trade talks, which hold out the hope of a solution to the problem.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is doing to promote diversification in Caribbean countries, but, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford pointed out, that is not as easy as it sounds. In fact, it is extraordinarily difficult to achieve within the trading blocs of today's world. In the next millennium, we must do all that we can to solve such problems and ensure that everyone in the world gets a fair share of the world's trade. That is our task and the task that today faces the two giants—the USA and the EU.
9.14 pm
Mr. Norman Baker: I shall curtail my comments to allow other hon. Members to speak. As a result, my speech will be slightly less balanced that it would otherwise have been— [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Believe it or not, it is true.
The issue is not whether the rules have been interpreted properly—although that is a cogent argument, which has been advanced by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and other hon. Members—but whether the rules are right. In my view, the rules are not right because there is inherent conflict between the World Trade Organisation rules and the convention on biological diversity.
The World Trade Organisation is a powerful organisation with rules that can be enforced, but the environmental arm of international agreements is not so powerful and cannot be enforced. The biosafety protocol negotiations broke down because, as the Financial Times reported:
"The US has warned that hundreds of billions of dollars of agricultural trade could be at stake in a controversial international agreement on the safety of genetically modified organisms".
Although the Americans were not a party to the agreement, it got Canada to scupper it for them. The consequences of the World Trade Organisation being more powerful than the CBD are significant.
I draw the attention of the House to what can happen if one multinational company seeks to abuse its position in the international market in order to cajole its friends in power to use the WTO to maximum effect. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said, that is what has happened with Monsanto. The company does not have a proud record. We have had problems with bananas and knitwear, but, as someone at the WTO meeting I attended said, GMOs will make bananas look like peanuts. We will have to address GMOs and bovine somatotropin further down the line. It is not simply about bananas, but about what we will do in the future. If we do not resolve this dispute properly, we will sell the pass. We will have not free trade, but trade on the terms of a small number of multinational companies that happen to be in a position to influence trade arrangements.
Is the system free and fair? No, it is not—Monsanto and other companies are making sure of that. Monsanto has said that we must accept BST. However, an independent European Union veterinary investigation was undertaken by Professor Donald Broom, who said that the drug should remain banned because claims for its safety are flawed. He said:
"There is too much mastitis, leg disorders, reproductive disorders and injection site problems—and this is not a medicine, this is a substance that doesn't have to be used, and we think it shouldn't be used."
Those are the views of professionals in the European Union. Whatever happened to the precautionary principle?
The fact is that the World Trade Organisation does not take sufficient account of the environment and trade. Both those elements must be considered when the Government renegotiate the rules of the World Trade Organisation in Seattle later this year. I want the Government to confirm tonight that they will seek to include environmental, social and animal welfare issues in the discussions and will give them proper status within the WTO rules. We cannot

107
enforce the rules regarding the shrimp-turtle case or leg-hold traps and, as it stands at present, WTO means "welfare taken out".
Monsanto has made itself public enemy No. 1. It has bulldozed elected Governments across the world and forced its wretched products on to the world's population, whether we want them or not. Monsanto must be brought urgently under democratic control. If the WTO rules permit such activities, they are wrong and must be changed. If we are not careful, Monsanto will become the bad news story of the 21st century. The company must be stopped.
Monsanto has deliberately refused to segregate GM and non-GM crops in order to deny consumer choice—something to which all hon. Members are committed. Monsanto also wishes to introduce GM crops, regardless of the possible environmental consequences. We know from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, other Government advisory bodies and the EU that there are significant environmental concerns about GM crops. Monsanto does not want to wait: it wants to steamroller those crops through and give us no alternative. When the crops are planted and problems arise, Monsanto will say, "Never mind, let's deal with it now."
The company wants to undermine alternative sources of non-GM crops. It is trying to stop us buying non-GM soya from Brazil by buying up Brazil and halting alternative supplies from that country. Monsanto is the antithesis of democracy. It is not worried about labelling; it is trying to persuade us that it is not necessary and that it is somehow a barrier to free trade. What nonsense. We are entitled to know what we are buying. To be fair, the Government have accepted that. They have always been committed to labelling. Monsanto does not want labelling: it wants its products to carry as little information as possible. It knows that if its products are labelled accurately—and they are not, because most GM material is not labelled under the present regulations—people will not buy them, and it does not want that.
Monsanto has been forcing crops into India and on to the developing countries of the third world. It has intimidated farmers in the United States by hiring private investigators and then fining farmers when a Monsanto seed is found in their soil.
In this country, Monsanto has been condemned by the Advertising Standards Authority, which found it guilty of making
"wrong … unproven, misleading and confusing claims"
in a £1 million campaign.
How does Monsanto manage to do all that? It uses the revolving door policy, and makes sure that personnel from Monsanto and Government agency advisory bodies frequently switch positions. Marcia Hale, the former adviser to the US President, is now the director of international government affairs for the Monsanto corporation. Michael Kantnor, the former secretary to the US Department of Commerce is now a member of the Monsanto corporation board. Josh King, the former director of production for White House events, is now the director of global communications for the Monsanto corporation. Margaret Miller, the former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto, is now the deputy
108
director of the new animal drug evaluation office in the US Food and Drug Administration. We have seen confidential European Union documents that have been passed to Monsanto by Dr. Nick Weber of the FDA, and a former Monsanto analyst.
Monsanto is abusing and twisting the system and getting from it as much as it can. It is getting the Food and Drug Administration on board and it is getting the US to fight its corner. I am in favour of free trade and the World Trade Organisation, but I am not in favour of one company so using its muscle and contriving matters for its own ends that the opportunity for consumer choice and Government decisions by democratic bodies is effectively removed.
Dan Verakis, the public relations manager for Monsanto in the UK, has said, "Everybody here hates us." I have to tell Monsanto that I hate it. It is the antithesis of democracy and it needs to be stopped.
9.21 pm
Mr. Phil Woolas: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) on raising this issue and giving us all an opportunity not only to express the concerns of the UK cashmere industry and others, but to have a fascinating debate about world trade and its future prospects.
I disagree with everything that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said in his speech, but particularly his earlier remarks. I say that not to win the sycophant of the week competition—I note that the diary sketchwriters are not with us this evening, perhaps because this is an important debate—but because the hon. Gentleman criticised the Government for their alleged inaction until the statement of 4 March. The work of the clothing and textiles all-party group has brought me into contact with employers, trade unions and hon. Members from both sides of the House. Since before Christmas, the industry has been supporting the Government in their actions and saying how well they have been doing, given the huge obstacles that they face. Those points were made by hon. Members from all parties in an Adjournment debate raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
The speech of the hon. Member for Christchurch contained a paradox in his tendency to attack the European Union for whatever it does and his wish to stand up for British industry. He is trapped in a cleft stick because he realises that, if he attacks the EU, his constituents will think that he supports the United States in this dispute. This debate has helpfully brought into the public domain the relationship between our industry and the EU on the one hand and the broader context of the US and the World Trade Organisation on the other.
I agree that the pay of workers in the developing world is not only a moral issue for Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, which the hon. Member for Christchurch dismissed it as being, but a part of world trade negotiations. The multi-fibre arrangement is, in part, premised on considerations of pay rates in China, north Africa and the Indian sub-continent. These issues are very important when considering the future of talks.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Is it not significant that the motion does not refer to social issues such as pay? It refers to
"environmental and animal welfare objectives"
and
"international biodiversity agreements".
Those objectives and agreements are very important, but the motion exposes the extent to which the Liberal Democrats are divorced from the real life conditions of working people in this country and throughout the world.
Mr. Woolas: I agree with my hon. Friend but, to be fair, his point does not negate the points that are set out in the motion, as I think he would admit.
Another interesting feature of the contribution of the hon. Member for Christchurch was his failure to recognise our responsibility to our Commonwealth partners. The responsibility which France and we in the United Kingdom recognise to our partners in the Caribbean and Africa has, in part, led to the dispute.
The cashmere industry—I highlight also the threat to the unembroidered cotton industry, which concerns Lancashire in particular—faces a vicious attack. I believe that the Americans knew full well the seasonal nature of the cashmere industry not only in marketing, but in buying and shipping. The position is made worse by the knowledge that if, as is happening, we lose this trade, it will go to China, which is the only other significant producer of cashmere in the world. It will be extremely difficult to get that business back.
It is worth pointing out on behalf of the United Kingdom clothing and textile industry that, if cashmere were not under attack, it could be Nottingham lace, Savile Row suits or Axminster. It could be any of the high-skilled, value-added sectors in the clothing industry on which that industry's future depends.
In this context, it is a very good thing that we are members of the European Union. Without the protection of that trade bloc, that single market, we would be vulnerable to the United States. I hope that no one will draw the conclusion from this trade dispute that membership of the EU is anything other than a good thing.
I shall conclude my remarks by drawing the attention of the House to one particularly important line in the motion. It sets out the fear that the dispute could be, or is, a precursor to future world disputes. However, since the beginning of the banana dispute, there has been a change, in that between the European Union and the United States we have two roughly equal trading blocs. I urge on the Government the importance of recognising the danger of mutually assured destruction between the two blocs.
9.28 pm
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I shall not detain the House for longer than a couple of minutes. I begin by declaring an interest as a director of, and shareholder in, a clothing company that is not directly involved in the dispute that we are discussing. However, like virtually all modern clothing companies, it is actively involved in international trade.
This is an important debate. It has been occasioned by bananas and by the implications for the banana trade in the Caribbean and for our domestic cashmere industry of
110
the actions that the Americans have taken as a result of the dispute. The significant point that the House should draw from the circumstances in which we find ourselves is the central importance, not only to the United Kingdom and other countries in Europe, but to poorer countries throughout the rest of the world, of following through the progressive liberalisation of trade that we have seen over the past half-century, since the end of the second world war.
The real debate this evening has been fascinating. It is the one that has taken place among the occupants of the Government Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on the Opposition Front Bench and at least some Liberal Democrat Members. Liberal Democrats have argued the case for progressive liberalisation, while the forces that I think those on the Government Front Bench would recognise as old Labour, who are ranged behind them—at least they were—are still instinctively seeking to control, or to plan to safeguard, very proper concerns. Of course we are all anxious for living standards to be improved. Of course we should all be concerned to protect biodiversity and the environment.
Surely the history of the development of trade over the past half-century should persuade us that the best way of improving people's living standards, and of providing resources for reinvestment in the environment and other desirable social policy objectives—the best way of underwriting the improvement not only of standards of living, but of quality of life—is to create the wealth that allows those options to be open. The progressive liberalisation of trade makes that possible.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that the great gain that we have made in recent years is a decisive move towards rules-based trade. That is why the UK, every other member state of the European Union and the United States share essential national interests in strengthening rules-based trade, and in respecting judgments when they are handed down by the World Trade Organisation—the organisation that we have jointly set up to deliver that generality in the particular.
9.31 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) on the powerful way in which he opened the debate. He made a strong case for the plight of his constituents, the thousands of people who run the risk of losing their jobs. He rightly pointed out the shortcomings in the diplomatic efforts of the European Union and the United States so far. We need a fair resolution and respect for the World Trade Organisation and its rule base, as the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said.
I am pleased that, when he spoke on behalf of the Government, the Minister recognised that my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale had put up a reasonable case. There is all-party agreement on the matter. The Minister pointed out that we in the EU and the USA are the two key players on the world trade stage. We should all remember that. We are intertwined, and our economies are locked together. The Minister told us a great deal about our trade successes. With all due respect to him, we all knew that. The issue is what we are to do about the unwieldy and unbelievable dispute about bananas.

111
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who led for the Conservative party, made some interesting comments about his preference for compliance rather than compensation, and about his complete faith in market forces and the unfettered exploitation of the most vulnerable. I have always believed that trade should be not only free, but fair.
The debate has shown that the so-called banana war has all the makings of a Whitehall farce. It is a throw-back to 19th-century gunboat diplomacy, but it is a farce with deadly serious implications for sensibly regulated world trade, and for safely harnessing the science of genetic modification and hormone additives in the food chain—something about which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) spoke so eloquently.
Neither the EU nor the USA is blameless in the present fiasco. By using loopholes in the WTO compliance rules, the EU has tinkered with its banana import regime, stalling over the day when it must change the system whereby it protects its former colonies. Very few, if any, independent observers believe that the EU is acting legally, but the EU claims that it cannot be sure about that until the WTO rules again. On that basis, the EU could carry on tinkering with the rules and never comply with the WTO judgment.
America is also flouting WTO rules. By retaliating with trade sanctions through 100 per cent. duties on EU products targeted at the UK, it is effectively stopping trade. Not only will that destroy the livelihoods of thousands of workers in the Scottish borders, but the US is acting in direct contravention of WTO rules on free trade.
At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental clash of different obligations to different parties. The EU has obligations to WTO trade rules and obligations under treaty to former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. To American eyes, those colonial links might appear to be relics of the past, but it is time for America, as today's super-power, to accept the responsibilities of its dominant position and to think and act beyond the interests of short-term commercial advantage.
The dismantling of the EU banana regime would only marginally increase the profits of the multi-billion dollar American banana distributors, but it would destroy at a stroke about 25 per cent. of the economy of a string of Caribbean islands. America's response appears to be that the EU should replace preferential trade with economic aid. Nobody can imagine that destroying the fragile economies of small island states, and throwing thousands of people out of work and into benefit dependency, is a constructive policy. It flies in the face of America's own claims to social justice and Bill Clinton's claim that he would give America's poor a hand up, not a handout. However, he wants us to hand out aid in the Caribbean rather than have those economies prosper.
There is a darker side to the banana war—the blatant manner in which corporate America can corrupt political thinking in the Senate and in the White House. It would be far fetched to say that it was mere coincidence that the American banana distributors donated $500,000 to the Democratic party coffers only 24 hours before America lodged its latest complaint over the banana regime. Their actions show that the producers are more bent than the bananas that they sell.
112
A still darker side to the banana war could be the reaction in the Caribbean to massive job losses on the banana plantations. America has spent billions of dollars in Latin America trying to turn fanning communities away from drug production to producing legitimate cash crops, and forcing a collapse in the Caribbean banana industry would only increase the likelihood of more illegal drug production. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) spelled that out early in the debate during an intervention. If more drugs are produced, they will go to the most profitable and readily accessible market. That is the United States of America.
The escalation of the banana war would bring a host of casualties—thousands of job losses in the Scottish borders, the destruction of island economies throughout the Caribbean and an increase in illegal drugs production and trade, targeted on America—but even more damaging in the longer term would be the signalling of a crisis of confidence in the WTO, which is the supposed arbiter of world trade disputes.
There is real danger that trade hostilities with America will escalate into other areas, and measures to protect its steel industry are before the Senate. America is angry about subsidies for Airbus, EU directives on data privacy and proposed rules on aircraft noise—the hushkits, which discriminate against American firms. Most worrying is American pressure on the EU to accept food produced from genetically modified crops and to lift the EU ban on American hormone-treated beef. At stake are the rights of the individual nation states, which have put the interests of public safety before access to the food chain for modified products.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes pointed out, there are alarming reports from leading scientists in Europe about the drinking of milk laced with hormones increasing the risk of cancer. The bovine somatotropin hormone is the favoured method of American producers for increasing yields massively and reducing costs. In our view, the EU is right to ban those products in the face of scientific uncertainty over long-term public safety.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Scare tactics by the Liberals.
Mr. Chidgey: I see that some genetically modified Members have entered the Chamber, but perhaps we can keep them under control until the end of the debate.
It cannot be right for America to use WTO rules against trade discrimination to force those products on to the European market; our farmers are banned by law from competing with such products. We are faced with growing conflict between regulation of biodiversity in environmental science and commercial exploitation of modified food. There is a conflict between harnessing the benefits of science, maintaining public safety and reassuring public opinion. It is clear that present international structures for regulating trade and the environment are not able to respond adequately to those new environmental and social challenges.
The World Trade Organisation's rules are designed to be flexible and not prescriptive, but fears are growing that the WTO seems to be incapable of enforcing its own rules, and that could prove to be a fatal flaw. If countries feel that the WTO does not work, more and more will be tempted to bypass and ignore it. The major trading

113
powers—America and the European Union—will be tempted to act unilaterally. Already, there are worrying signs that America is negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with China, shutting the door on the European Union and on established convention.
We are in danger of losing a predictable and fair rules-based system under the WTO, and gaining instead arbitrary arrangements based on power. That can lead only to more protection, more trade wars and, eventually, trade anarchy, which would inevitably stifle any response to the global, environmental and social challenges that we face. We must change the WTO's commitment to untrammelled, purist free trade to embrace the wider goals of achieving a sensible balance between free, fair and sustainable trade. We need to build mechanisms to resolve free trade and environmental arrangements—mechanisms that simply do not exist at present.
If anything, the process is moving into reverse. The collapse of the recent talks in Colombia, aimed at establishing a biosafety protocol, is a serious setback. The implications for trade, the environment and food safety are of major concern. It is now becoming clear that America and Canada are attempting to present us with a fait accompli on genetically modified organisms, first, by overriding legitimate concerns in the European Union about the environmental health aspects of genetically modified crops and food products and, secondly, by preventing consumer choice through the segregation of supplies and comprehensive labelling.
Even more alarming is the stance taken by the United States and Colombia that rules to protect the environment must be subordinate to trade rules. That will only heighten fears that trade liberalisation and environmental protection are mutually incompatible—and there is a real fear that the United States will try to overcome EU resistance to GMOs by using WTO dispute processes.
There is clearly a political conflict between the rights and obligations of the WTO and those arising from multilateral environmental agreements. It is vital for all WTO members to reach binding understandings, both political and legal, that will ensure that the trade provisions of the MEAs are accommodated within WTO rules.
This is where our Government must take a leading role. I am disappointed that their amendment merely "notes the current position". We could have done that before we started; what we want is a commitment, and some action. It is simply not good enough to "note the current position"; nor are the signals being sent by the Prime Minister—signals that he supports the American position—good enough. He appears to be backing the Americans' multi-billion-dollar GM commercial and industrial interests. I hope that he is not, but that is the signal that is sent.
The Government are failing to give a clear lead in suggesting that, while tremendous benefits can be gained from the science of genetic modification, it must be regulated and controlled in the interests of public health and the environment. As a result, we see shock-horror tabloid headlines, and widely conflicting claims about the supposed danger, or benefits, of GM technology. What is needed now is a breathing space for rational public debate. We need to find a sensible way of proceeding that will command widespread public support.
114
The Government should ask the royal commission on environmental pollution to look at all the evidence. It examined the issues in 1989, and is well placed to produce a balanced and authoritative review in the shortest possible time. The Government must also take the lead internationally. They must stand firm with our partners in the European Union, and must use their influence with the United States Government to reduce the possibility of a trade versus environment conflict. They must step up efforts to reform the WTO to ensure compatibility with multinational environmental agreements and compliance with the aims of free, fair and sustainable trade.
9.45 pm
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): It is something of a cliché to say that we have had an excellent debate, but, more than usually, it is accurate. There have been some extremely well-informed contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. It has been an evening of serious speeches on serious matters.
It is an unusual debate in a sense. It involves some extremely localised issues, which I am obviously expected to—and will seek to—address, but I do not want that to take away from the fact that it also involves global issues and important questions that affect every country and every citizen of this country. I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on raising the matter as a subject for debate.
I welcome the degree of common ground in the House. There has been recognition of the problems, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) pointed out, there has also been recognition of the scale and importance of the European Union-United States trade relationship. Although there are a number of problems in that relationship, we bear it firmly in mind that such disagreements are the exceptions to the rule and that the vast majority of trade and investment between the EU and United States takes place without difficulty. It is in no one's interest to upset that arrangement unduly. Let us address the problems, but keep a sense of perspective.
Much remains to be done to develop the bilateral relationship and to identify further common objectives for the multilateral trade system, so we must work urgently to enhance the dialogue for better management of disputes that develop between us. That is necessary not only for the better handling of individual disputes, but to avoid those relatively few disagreements that are colouring the wider relationship at such a crucial time for world trade.
I do not want to discuss the merits of the banana dispute. I will follow my advice to the Americans and to anyone else who will listen—await the outcome of the WTO panel arbitration process, which we expect to come to a head by 12 April—so it is not for me to get into the merits of the case tonight and to beat the drum about who is right and who is wrong in the banana dispute. That will not be productive. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) pointed out in his interesting and well-informed speech, the dispute has been going on for more than 50 years, so it is improbable that we will sort it out tonight with another dose of rhetoric.
Having said that, there can be no avoiding the reality that the action that the United States announced on 3 March was wrong. Irrespective of the merits of the dispute, that can be said because it took the resolution of the dispute outside the procedures of the WTO. As many Members recognise—I have had contact with them over

115
the past few months on the issue—it must be resolved quickly, without causing serious harm to many unrelated industries, particularly cashmere knitwear. That statement lies outside the issue of bananas. First, it is wrong to act before the WTO procedures come to a conclusion. Secondly, it is wrong to take action against unrelated products. I can make both those statements categorically without going into the merits of the dispute itself.
I come to the passage of my speech that will be of particular interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent areas with cashmere interests. On 4 March, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced to the House that he would put in place arrangements to guarantee bonds paid in respect of exports of cashmere knitwear to the United States. I am delighted to be able to announce the details of that scheme.
The scheme will be operated by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. The guarantee will indemnify exporters of United Kingdom-manufactured cashmere knitwear against losses on exports to the United States as a result of conditions arising from the unilateral action of the United States. The scheme will apply to those contracts placed before midnight on the date of the World Trade Organisation panel rulings on the European Union banana regime—expected to be on or before 12 April—under which delivery to the United States is due to be made by 30 November 1999. The Export Credits Guarantee Department will be open for business as soon as a direction can be issued in the light of this announcement.
I make it clear that the decision to set up the scheme was not taken lightly. As I know that hon. Members who have been involved in the matter will realise, it is an exceptional response to a unique set of circumstances. The cashmere knitwear industry is highly specialised and concentrated in areas that face difficult economic challenges. Although the borders area of Scotland is certainly the main centre of the cashmere industry, it is not the only centre of the industry. Cashmere is important in other parts of Britain, and those areas, equally, will benefit from the announcement and welcome it.
The main market for the industry is the United States. Moreover, we are right in the middle of the ordering season. If we had not taken that action, the United Kingdom cashmere knitwear industry, and its upstream suppliers, would have been devastated, and there would have been a very real risk that it would never recover.
Under normal trade conditions, the United Kingdom cashmere knitwear industry can—and does—beat the world. In recent weeks, I have seen that at first hand. It is a superb industry, and we should back it. In the measures that I have just announced, we are doing so. We have had to take that action so that the industry will still be there to compete when trade conditions return to normal.
I look forward with great optimism to the industry's future success. I wish everyone involved in the industry well, and thank them for their forbearance, understanding, and calm and rational negotiation and discussion in the midst of a very difficult time in recent months.
116
On the wider dispute, the Government will continue to do all that we can to press for alternatives to retaliation and—when we know the result of the rulings from the WTO arbitrator and panel—for immediate and positive action. We must safeguard the WTO's dispute settlement system, as it has served us well in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.
I should like to try to deal with some of the other subjects that have been touched on in the debate. Hormones were the next most topical issue. In that case, as in all cases, we must recognise the importance of sticking to scientific principles. In this case, the WTO found that the risk assessments that the European Union had conducted were deficient. The EU is now conducting new assessments. The view of the United Kingdom Government is that those should have been done well before now, as the WTO itself has said. Meanwhile, however, we must continue to engage in serious dialogue with both the United States and Canada to find a satisfactory way through the dispute.
The United Kingdom is encouraging the United States to discuss compensation—as an alternative to retaliation—and labelling options, taking into account on-going scientific assessments.
Events in the hormone issue have been moving rapidly. Just today, European Union Foreign Ministers agreed in Brussels to negotiate compensation. Meanwhile, the United States has been publishing a list of products for retaliation in the potential dispute. The list—which has just reached me—is rather eclectic, including products such as
"bellies (streaky) and cuts thereof of swine, salted, in brine, dried or smoked".
The list moves on to oats, and
"sugar confectionary cough drops, not containing cocoa".
Then again, it includes "lingonberry and raspberry jam". Prepared mustard also is included. The list on this matter is much longer than it was, the last time around, on the other matter.
The House should understand that the United Kingdom Government's position on the two sets of circumstances is that they are not directly comparable. We believe very strongly that the hormones issue should be settled by compensation, not retaliation. Once again, however, I deplore even the concept of going outside the trade disputes procedures, into the sphere of a retaliatory list. Once the list is published tomorrow, another set of industries throughout the United Kingdom and the European Union will be worrying about their future well-being and the livelihoods of the people who work in them. That is not the way to proceed. There should be negotiation on hormones. We have stressed the importance of scientific principles and we believe that the United States should back off from retaliation to settle the dispute.
Mr. Chope: Does the Minister accept that the situation is the fault of the European Union in failing to meet the WTO deadline?
Mr. Wilson: I have set out the Government's position on hormones clearly. We agree with the World Trade Organisation that the new assessments on scientific grounds should have been carried out sooner. I have made my comments without the prompting of the hon.

117
Gentleman. The way forward is through compensation, if appropriate—as the EU Foreign Ministers agreed today—not through retaliation, which drags in many industries, of which I have mentioned only a few.
Trade in genetically modified organisms is a matter of much discussion. Strong feelings have been expressed on the subject in the House tonight. We have enough problems in world trade without talking up trade wars that do not exist. Although the United States has expressed some concerns about the European regulatory system and the time that it can take to grant an approval for a new product, there is no trade dispute between us. The United States clearly recognises that the European Union has a right to determine whether genetically modified products are safe. The United States also recognises that consumers need to be able to make an informed choice. That is why we have labelling of products that contain GM ingredients.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to hushkits. The way through the problem is discussion. There have been intensive negotiations between the EU and the US in the past few days to reach a compromise that addresses the concerns that the United States believes that it has on technical and trade policy. A solution to the dispute would be welcome and would prove that it is possible to resolve difficulties through serious, bilateral negotiations designed to recognise the concerns of each side.
That may not be a bad point at which to draw my comments to a conclusion.
Mr. Baker: Irrespective of applying the rules as they stand, does the Minister accept that the rules have to be changed in Seattle to take more account of environmental, animal welfare and social issues?
Mr. Wilson: I am glad to have an opportunity to comment on Seattle. Uniquely and unprecedentedly, from the outset of discussions about the agenda, the Government have called in trade unions, non-governmental organisations and representatives of business and industry across the spectrum of opinion and interest. That will enable us to proceed with complete transparency about our position and allow it to be influenced by representations from interested parties and by the maximum discussion. I do not have time to prejudge what the opposition on the issues will be, even if I wanted to. Negotiations on trade cannot carry all the world's concerns on their back. It is not the developed countries but the less-developed ones that have to be persuaded on many issues, because they see in them the spectre of protectionism in another guise. Consultation is taking place. That is unprecedented, but it is the way in which the Government do business on such issues.
The issues can be resolved through discussion. It is vital that we do not start grandstanding or—
Mr. Paul Tylerrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put,put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 314.

Division no. 124]

[10 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Keetch, Paul

Baker, Norman

Kennedy, Charles(Ross Skye)

Ballard, Jackie

Kirkwood, Archy

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Livsey, Richard

Brake, Tom

Michie, Mrs Ray(Argyll & Bute)

Brand, Dr Peter

Moore, Michael

Breed, Colin

Oaten, Mark

Burnett, John

Öpik, Lembit

Burstow, Paul

Rendel, David

Cable, Dr Vincent

Russell, Bob(Colchester)

Cotter, Brian

Sanders, Adrian

Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

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

(Perth)

Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

Davey, Edward(Kingston)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Fearn, Ronnie

Tyler, Paul

Foster, Don(Bath)

Wallace, James

George, Andrew(St Ives)

Webb, Steve

Hancock, Mike

Willis, Phil

Harris, Dr Evan

Harvey, Nick

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

Mr. Andrew Stunell and Mr. David Chidgey.

Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clwyd, Ann

Ainger, Nick

Coaker, Vernon

Anderson, Donald(Swansea E)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Coleman, Iain

Atkins, Charlotte

Colman, Tony

Austin, John

Connarty, Michael

Bames, Harry

Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

Battle, John

Corbett, Robin

Bayley, Hugh

Corbyn, Jeremy

Beard, Nigel

Cousins, Jim

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Cox, Tom

Begg, Miss Anne

Crausby, David

Bell, Stuart(Middlesbrough)

Cryer, John(Homchurch)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bennett, Andrew F

Cunningham, Jim(Cov'try S)

Benton, Joe

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Bermingham, Gerald

Dalyell, Tam

Berry, Roger

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Best, Harold

Darvill, Keith

Betts, Clive

Davidson, Ian

Blizzard, Bob

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(Llanelli)

Boateng, Paul

Davis, Terry(B'ham Hodge H)

Borrow, David

Dean, Mrs Janet

Bradley, Keith(Withington)

Denham, John

Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

Dismore, Andrew

Bradshaw, Ben

Dobbin, Jim

Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

Donohoe, Brian H

Browne, Desmond

Doran, Frank

Buck, Ms Karen

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Burden, Richard

Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

Burgon, Colin

Efford, Clive

Butler, Mrs Christine

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Cabom, Richard

Ennis, Jeff

Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

Etherington, Bill

Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

Fisher, Mark

Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Cann, Jamie

Flint, Caroline

Caplin, Ivor

Flynn, Paul

Caton, Martin

Follett, Barbara

Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David(S Shields)

Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings)

Clark, Dr Lynda

Foulkes, George

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Fyfe, Maria

Clarke, Eric(Midlothian)

Gapes, Mike

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom(Coatbridge)

Gardiner, Barry

Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

George, Bruce(Walsall S)

Clelland, David

Gerrard, Neil

119

Gibson, Dr Ian

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Lepper, David

Godman, Dr Norman A

Leslie, Christopher

Godsiff, Roger

Levitt, Tom

Golding, Mrs Llin

Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

Linton, Marlin

Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

Livingstone, Ken

Grocott, Bruce

Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

Grogan, John

Lock, David

Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

Love, Andrew

Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

McAvoy, Thomas

Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

McCabe, Steve

Hanson, David

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

McDonagh, Siobhain

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

McDonnell, John

Healey, John

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

McIsaac, Shona

Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Hepburn, Stephen

Mackinlay, Andrew

Heppell, John

McLeish, Henry

Hesford, Stephen

McNamara, Kevin

Hit, Keith

McNulty, Tony

Hinchliffe, David

MacShane, Denis

Hoey, Kate

Mactaggart, Fiona

Home Robertson, John

McWalter, Tony

Hood, Jimmy

McWilliam, John

Hoon, Geoffrey

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hope, Phil

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Hopkins, Kelvin

Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

Howarth, Alan(Newport E)

Marshall, David(Shettleston)

Howarth, George(Knowsley N)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Howells, Dr Kim

Martlew, Eric

Hoyle, Lindsay

Maxton, John

Hughes, Ms Beverley(Stretford)

Meale, Alan

Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

Merron, Gillian

Humble, Mrs Joan

Michie, Bill(Shef'ld Heeley)

Hutton, John

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Iddon, Dr Brian

Miller, Andrew

Illsley, Eric

Mitchell, Austin

Jackson, Ms Glenda(Hampstead)

Moffatt, Laura

Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Johnson, Alan(Hull W & Hessle)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Morgan, Rhodri(Cardiff W)

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Morley, Elliot

Jones, Barry(Alyn & Deeside)

Mountford, Kali

Jones, Helen(Wamngton N)

Mullin, Chris

Jones, Ms Jenny

Naysmith, Dr Doug

(Wolverh'ton SW)

O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

Jones, Dr Lynne(Selly Oak)

O'Hara, Eddie

Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

Olner, Bill

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

O'Neill, Martin

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Osbome, Ms Sandra

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pearson, Ian

Keen, Alan(Feltharn & Heston)

Pendry, Tom

Keen, Ann(Brentford & Isleworth)

Perham, Ms Linda

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Pickthall, Cohn

Kemp, Fraser

Pike, Peter L

Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

Plaskitt, James

Khabra, Piara S

Pollard, Kerry

Kidney, David

Pond, Chris

Kilfoyle, Peter

Pope, Greg

King, Andy(Rugby & Kenilworth)

Pound, Stephen

King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Kingham, Ms Tess

Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

120

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

Primarolo, Dawn

Stinchcombe, Paul

Prosser, Gwyn

Stoate, Dr Howard

Purchase, Ken

Stott, Roger

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Quinn, Lawrie

Stringer, Graham

Radice, Giles

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Rapson, Syd

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Raynsford, Nick

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John(Hamilton N)

(Dewsbury)

Robinson, Geoffrey(Cov'try NW)

Taylor, Ms Dan(Stockton S)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Taylor, David(NW Leics)

Rogers, Allan

Temple-Morris, Peter

Rooker, Jeff

Timms, Stephen

Rooney, Terry

Tipping, Paddy

Ross, Ernie(Dundee VV)

Todd, Mark

Rowlands, Ted

Touhig, Don

Roy, Frank

Trickett, Jon

Ruane Chris

Truswell, Paul

Ruddock, Joan

Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

Russell, Ms Christine(Chester)

Turner, Dr Desmond(Kemptown)

Ryan Ms, Joan

Turner, Dr George(NW Norfolk)

Salter Martin

Twigg, Derek(Halton)

Savidge Malcolm

Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

Sawford, Phil

Vaz, Keith

Sedgemore, Brian

Ward, Ms Claire

Wareing, Robert N

Shaw, Jonathan

Watts, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

White, Brian

Shipley, Ms Debra

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

Wicks, Malcolm

Singh, Marsha

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Skinner, Dennis

(Swansea W)

Smith, Angela(Basildon)

Williams, Alan W(E Carmarthen)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris(Islington S)

Wilson, Brian

Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

Winnick, David

Smith, John(Glamorgan)

Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

Wood, Mike

Snape, Peter

Woolas, Phil

Soley, Clive

Wright, Anthony D(Gt Yarmouth)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Wright, Dr Tony(Cannock)

Spellar, John

Wyatt, Derek

Squire, Ms Rachel

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Tellers for the Noes:

Steinberg, Gerry

Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Jim Dowd.

Stewart, David(Inverness E)

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the significance of the EU/US relationship and notes that the majority of that trade relationship runs smoothly; commends the efforts of the Government to secure the Transatlantic Economic Partnership Agreement last year; acknowledges the efforts of the Government to find a way through the bananas dispute so as to minimise the impact on British industry and in particular the cashmere industry; notes the current position on the hormones dispute; welcomes the Government's commitment to sustainable development; and endorses the Government's support for comprehensive multilateral trade negotiations to be launched in Seattle at the end of this year.

Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time,put forthwith, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATIONM
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the Questions on motions Nos. 3 and 4.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.
  That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Social Security (New Deal Pilot) Amendment Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
  question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
  That the draft Ordnance Survey Trading Fund Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 24th February. be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) (No. 1) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

  WELFARE OF LAYING HENS
  That this House takes note of the European Union Document No. 6985/98 on the protection of laying hens kept in various systems of rearing; and of the progress of negotiations; and supports the Government's intention to continue to work for the adoption of a Directive which sets a clear phase-out date for the battery cage, improved standards in the interim and robust and practical standards for the welfare of birds in non-cage systems.—[Mr. Hill.]
  Question agreed to.

  Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of any compensation scheme made under the Act.—[Mr. Hill.]
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: On these occasions, I always say at the beginning of my remarks how unfortunate it is that the Minister never seeks to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to set out—however briefly—the reasons behind the money resolution. I say that because it would be helpful to the House. It might even avoid the need for speeches, during the brief 45 minutes that we are allowed, if the Minister were to do the courtesy of setting out for the House the reasoning behind the money resolution.
  Even in our rather full Second Reading debate, we were unable properly to explore the financial implications of the Bill. Tonight's debate gives us a chance to do so. In the absence of any explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I shall simply ask a few questions so that the House may judge whether it wishes to approve the money resolution.
  The resolution is intended
  "to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of any compensation scheme made under the Act."
  That is fair enough as far as it goes. The Bill does, indeed, in clause 5, make provision for a compensation scheme, and sets out in helpful detail its likely nature.
  I do not want to dwell on that because one or two of my hon. Friends wish to concentrate on the specific nature of the compensation scheme. Given the brief nature of the debate, I certainly do not want to take up too much time.
  Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Why not?
  Mr. Forth: So that my all hon. Friends may speak. Whether the House will wish to divide on the matter will of course depend on the Minister's replies.
  Mr. David Davis: During my time dealing with private Members' Bills, I have always been led to believe that they are not allowed to be primarily for the purpose of spending money. My right hon. Friend has referred to the compensation scheme, on which, it seems to me, the Bill depends. Would my right hon. Friend give us his views on that point?
  Mr. Forth: I hate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but my reading of the Bill is rather different from his. I am reasonably satisfied that the main purpose of the Bill is to ban the practice of fur farming, although, as I said on Second Reading, I do not agree with that. My right hon. Friend has made an important point, however, about whether the ban comes before the compensation or vice versa.
  124
  I cannot imagine that the Government wanted to provide compensation and therefore introduced the ban in order to do so, which is almost what my right hon. Friend suggests. However, we need a clear explanation from the Minister of the nature and basis of the compensation regime and the mechanism that he envisages for paying compensation. At least one of my right hon. Friends will pursue just that point in a moment.
  I read out the words of the resolution a moment ago to show that it refers only to the compensation mechanism. Yet, when I read clause 5(3) of the Bill, I found that it talked about the mechanism by which to resolve disputes, stating:
  "Any dispute as to…entitlement to payments under a scheme…shall be referred by the Minister to, and determined by"
  the Lands Tribunal.
  It strikes me that it is entirely possible that the extra burden of work that may be laid on the Lands Tribunal could give rise to additional expenditure by the tribunal, possibly on additional staff or training, or even on a further appeals mechanism. We must know whether the Minister agrees that that is so, and whether the money resolution may therefore be defective.
  Can the Minister give an absolute guarantee that the Lands Tribunal will incur no additional expenditure in fulfilling the responsibilities laid on it? My view is that either the resolution may be defective or the Minister must give that guarantee. Then we will be able to watch carefully to see that the use of the Lands Tribunal by those who find themselves in dispute over compensation takes place within a tight financial regime, because the tribunal may not be able to spend any more money. There is a possibility of real difficulty owing to inadequate drafting of the money resolution.
  Those are my main points. I am anxious to give my right hon. and hon. Friends time to raise further matters before we decide whether we wish to agree the resolution.
  10.20 pm
  Dr. Peter Brand: I am grateful that this issue is being discussed. I fully support the Bill to ban fur farming, but I am extremely concerned that people who have been carrying out what was a legitimate occupation should be adequately compensated. In the past few years, they have had an extremely difficult time. They have had to spend a great deal of money to maintain the security of their premises, to protect not only their livelihoods but the environment from the irresponsible actions of some animal welfare activists. Fur farmers have been spending money—
  Madam Speaker: Order. We are dealing with the money resolution, which is very narrow, not the Bill.
  Dr. Brand:: I fully appreciate that, Madam Speaker. The importance of the money resolution is that it will allow the Minister to make a statement on compensation before Third Reading. It is important that, before we vote on Third Reading, we hear from the Minister what compensation arrangements are being put in place.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: Two out of the 11 remaining fur farmers in this country are in my constituency. They will be affected by the Bill if it is enacted. Therefore, they have a keen interest in the terms of the money resolution.

  125
  In my initial remarks, I shall deal with one point of concern. The resolution invites Parliament to agree to effect payment
  "in consequence of any compensation scheme made under the Act."
  That would give the Minister broad scope to invent whatever compensation scheme he felt was appropriate.
  Fur farmers are worried because many of them hoped that the compensation scheme covered by the resolution would be sufficiently flexible properly to compensate them for the losses that they will inevitably incur if the Bill is enacted and their present legitimate form of business has to cease.
  I want to know from the Minister whether any discussions have been held with the Treasury about the amount of money that could be agreed under the terms of the resolution. The House is invited to agree the payment of money out of funds provided by Parliament, but that is almost an open-ended commitment. We do not know whether the Treasury has agreed a cash-limited sum with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that it can use in framing the scheme. Estimates of about £400,000 were suggested in the explanatory notes that were issued in connection with the Bill.
  The Minister has made it clear in discussions that he is contemplating a minimalist regime to compensate farmers solely and wholly for the loss of assets. That is his opening proposition. I hope that he will explain in his reply whether that is the opening position, the only position, or whether there will be opportunities for further discussion with fur farmers, who face the end of their legitimate trade. They want to know whether the terms of the money resolution can give them comfort to discuss the way in which the Minister might approach the powers that it will give him—namely, being able to use "any compensation scheme". I hope that that would give the Minister the flexibility to design a fair compensation scheme because the measure would end what is currently fur farmers' legitimate activity. When they consider the estimates that have been published so far, many of them may think that £400,000 is a grossly inadequate sum of money for the losses that their businesses will occur.
  Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend have any sense at this stage of whether those people who are involved in their currently legitimate trade are worried more about compensation for loss of revenue and profits in their on-going businesses or about the possible loss of asset value? Are they concerned about compensation on the capital side as well as on the revenue side? Does my right hon. Friend have anything to say about that?
  Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend asks the question that fur farmers themselves are asking. They are concerned about the compensation for business assets to which the Minister referred, but they are equally concerned that it seems that no further money will be available for consequential losses when they have to cease trading, or to give funding to enable them to re-establish businesses in other agricultural operations. Many of those farms are located in sparsely populated areas where other activities might be hard to get off the ground.
  The farmers would like to hear some certainty on compensation from the Minister when he winds up the debate. I should like to know—and I am sure that the fur farmers would like to know—how the Minister calculates
  126
  the figure of £400,000 which is put about. Is he willing to consider further representations on that matter? Those issues will determine the fate of the principal Bill in its passage through the House. My duty this evening is to represent the interests and concerns of those fur farmers. They have had some indications of what their future might hold, but it is only right that, if Parliament takes away the legitimate livelihood of that group of people, there should be proper compensation. I hope that the Minister will give them some satisfaction.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Why did those considerations not apply under the previous Government when head de-boners were put out of business and received no compensation whatever?
  Mr. Jack: That may be a perfectly legitimate point to raise. However, my task is not to discuss yesterday's business; it is to discuss the terms of compensation under this measure. We are discussing that, not a previous event.
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Unless I am seriously provoked, I do not intend the detain the House for long. However, the fact that my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Fylde (Mr. Jack) have come to the House to speak on the measure this evening shows that it is one that needs a few moments' consideration.
  If I attempted to revisit the arguments made on Second Reading, you would rightly pull me up, Madam Speaker, but I think that I am entitled to make the point that in the Bill we are dealing not with the suppression of an illegal activity, or even the curtailment of a legal activity, but with an activity that was once legal and that will be removed at a stroke. In that context, the case for proper rates of compensation is overwhelming.
  When the Minister addressed the matter briefly on Second Reading, he said in reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that the Government could not
  "provide any open-ended commitment on income that could or could not be forgone in future."
  That is a perfectly fair point and I am sure that my right hon. Friends would accept it. However, the Minister continued:
  "To a certain extent, we have accepted the principle of income loss."
  He went on:
  "We are prepared to deal with that. I hope that that goes some way towards meeting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. The details will be addressed after the Bill has been passed."—[Official Report, 5 March 1999; Vol. 326, c. 1378.]
  It is very new Labour to say that things will be addressed after the Bill has been passed, but it is not quite good enough for this House. There is a middle way; no one is asking for compensation on income.[Interruption.] Labour Members have pinched so many other ideas over the years that it is not surprising that they should have pinched that language as well. There is a middle way between open-ended and perpetual compensation in respect of income and the profoundly unfair circumstances in which people find their source of income destroyed at a stroke. Even if Labour Members cannot bring their minds, such as they are, to bear on the

  127
  arguments, I want the Minister to tell the House that he is prepared to accede to the perfectly fair points that my right hon. Friends and I have put to him. The House is entitled to nothing less.
  10.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): First, let me make it clear to the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who is the Bill's promoter, would like to have been here tonight, but she has had a tooth removed, so it would have been difficult for her to attend.
  The money resolution is tabled as a matter of course once a private Member's Bill has received its Second Reading. Details of compensation and how it is to be applied have been addressed in the explanatory notes to the Bill. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke about the Lands Tribunal, but it should be recognised that the Lands Tribunal mechanism is an appeal mechanism. Under the formulation for compensation, if an individual farmer feels that the compensation is unfair or has not been properly dealt with, an appeal procedure is available that is independent of Government.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out the obvious fact that the Lands Tribunal provides an appeal mechanism. However, the question that I wanted answered was whether the Minister would give an undertaking that there would be no additional expenditure by the Lands Tribunal in fulfilling its role as an appeal mechanism. My point is that the money resolution contains no provision for extra money for the Lands Tribunal.
  Mr. Morley: The Bill relates to a relatively limited number of people. The Lands Tribunal is already established and is funded to deal with such matters, so I do not believe that additional burdens will be imposed on the tribunal as a result of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) raised the issue of security. We had proposed and had put out for consultation a proposal to increase security measures on all fur farms as a licence condition. However, because the Bill has now been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston, I have announced that we shall defer
  128
  a decision on increased security measures. Additional expenditure that could have been incurred by fur farmers has therefore been deferred.
  Dr. Brand: Does the Minister agree that responsible fur farmers have already considerably increased their perimeter security in response to the risk of illegal break-ins? Should they not be compensated for such expenditure over the past few years?
  Mr. Morley: We are talking about an acceptable standard of compensation for all fur farmers. It may well be that some fur farmers have implemented security measures. However, the fact that mink are now indigenous to the UK wildlife population is a result of escapes from fur farms. There is a fur farm in the hon. Gentleman's constituency; given the vulnerability of fur farms, he will appreciate the importance of proper security measures being instituted to ensure that there are no releases.
  I understand the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) in respect of compensation; he made a reasonable case. The way in which compensation is to be calculated has been laid out. The estimate of what the overall cost will be comes from MAFF's professional advisers and is based on calculations of fur farmers' current income and their assets.
  Mr. Jack: Can the Minister satisfy me on one small point? As far as MAFF is concerned, is the total sum available for that purpose cash-limited, or is it open-ended?
  Mr. Morley: Open-ended is ambitious. If the right hon. Gentleman fears that the £400,000 estimate is set in stone and cannot change one pound either way, I can give him an assurance that that is not the case.
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) talked about compensation for income forgone. On Second Reading, I made it clear that, because the three-year breeding cycle of mink might be interrupted by the cut-off date of 2001, in such cases, we would be prepared to consider income lost or forgone. That has been made quite plain.
  Mr. Nicholls: Was the figure of £400,000 based on the assumption that there might be a two-year income loss? I cannot relate the £400,000 to the Minister's present comments; I cannot see the tie-in.
  Mr. Morley: The calculation was made on the basis of a one-year income loss. However, the details can be considered properly in Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (i)any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of the Act, and

  (ii)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which by virtue of any other Act are payable out of money so provided;

  (b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of—

  (i)any sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the provisions of the Act, and

  (ii)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into that Fund under the Road Traffic Act 1988.—[Mr. Hill.]

  10.35 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: This is an interesting measure, which received a brief consideration at Second Reading. The brevity was such that the House did not have time to assess adequately the implications of the measure's financial aspects. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), the Bill's promoter, hinted that it had some not insignificant implications that we should explore briefly in the context of this money resolution.
  One might have expected a Ways and Means resolution. Will the Minister explain to the House why there is no such resolution, but a two-part provision under the terms of the money resolution? I shall explore that matter in a moment. Are any significant initial set-up costs anticipated as a consequence of the considerable measures in the Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said—albeit briefly in reply to a question on Second Reading—that he expected some increase in the charge made for MOT testing of vehicles. He said that he thought that the increase would be about £1 per test and that that would go some way towards—or would completely cover—the additional cost of the measures in the Bill.
  That may or may not be so. First, I seek the Minister's assurance as to whether she believes the additional revenues raised will cover the total costs. Secondly, does she have anything to say about an undertaking regarding limits on the increase in the charge for MOT testing as a consequence of the Bill's provisions? That information would be useful. I want to know what initial set-up costs will be involved. Will they be covered entirely by the Treasury under this money resolution or will there be an attempt to recover those moneys on behalf of the taxpayer through additional charges for MOT testing? That would involve not just the equipment required, but staff training and perhaps even the recruitment of additional staff. I seek the Minister's assurances.
  My main question is what will be the relationship between A and B: the payment out of money provided by Parliament for any expenditure incurred, and the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of provisions of the legislation. In other words, would moneys coming in be expected fully to cover the costs or would there be a limitation on the charges and the incoming moneys?
  130
  I can put that another way. Let us suppose that both the initial set-up costs and the running costs associated with the Bill's provisions were much greater than those envisaged initially. Would the Minister expect the additional charge for MOT tests to go up and up limitlessly in order to cover the costs, no matter what they were? Will the hapless motorist, who is obliged to submit his vehicle for an MOT test every year, be expected to pay any additional costs arising from the requirements of the Bill?
  That is a very important question because it goes to the heart of the matter. Will the measure be a burden on the motorist for virtually no return, or do the Government expect to pay for it so long as the initial costs remain as they estimated?
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Has my right hon. Friend noticed, as I have, that the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill use the word "corresponding" to describe the relationship between the increased expenditure and the charges that are levied for the MOT fee? The Government's view seems to be that there is a direct, "corresponding" relationship between Government expenditure and charges.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. That worries me. We want to hear from the Minister, as do tens of millions of motorists, whether all the costs—initial and running—of the measure will be passed on to the motorist by additional charges for MOT testing or whether she will give protection to motorists by saying that the Government will absorb some of the costs.
  That point is particularly apposite now, given the difficulties in which the Government find themselves on additional costs for motorists and users of commercial vehicles. The Government are already embroiled in that argument, and there was a demonstration today by road hauliers. Hidden within this money resolution is the potential for yet further increases in charges on the motorist for compulsory annual MOT testing. We seek reassurance on that.
  I take this opportunity to give the Minister a chance to reassure the country's motorists about the likely outcome of this measure. It would not be going too far to say that the answers that we receive to our questions on the money resolution will read across into the Bill's later stages and considerably influence hon. Members' decision whether to give it a fair wind when it returns to the House after its consideration in Committee. There is a degree of importance attached, as ever, to the information that we seek on the money resolution.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I shall follow the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) with one or two specific points because I agree with his general proposition about the money resolution.
  First, the legislation is designed not to achieve the computerisation of the MOT vehicle testing system, but to allow the Secretary of State to use the material generated through that system to a greater extent. The money resolution and the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill make it clear that £22 million will be transferred into the MOT test certificate charges annually. That is where

  131
  the figure of an extra £1 per test comes from, because there are about 22 million tests a year. That expenditure is, of course, directly consequent not on the Bill, but on the computerisation project. Yet the Bill and its money resolution are designed to give the Government a licence to increase the expenditure on the computerisation project and, as a consequence, obtain a "corresponding"—I use that word because it is used in the explanatory notes—increase in the fee that is charged to motorists.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has, typically, closely studied the Bill and its provisions. Is he satisfied that the figures mentioned are a limit on the likely expenditure and would, therefore, give a guarantee to motorists, or does he suspect that they are merely indicative and, if the costs were significantly higher, they would be passed on to the motorist?
  Mr. Lansley: The latter rendition is more accurate, and the figures in the explanatory notes are indicative. It would be interesting if the Minister were to say that she is sure that the expenditure on the computerisation project will not exceed £22 million, and motorists might find that reassuring.
  I fear, however, that the measure effectively gives the Government carte blanche to spend money and recover it through the fees. Of course, if Ministers wanted to do so, they would have to introduce amending regulations to raise the limit of £30.87 on the cost of an MOT certificate. They might well do so by statutory instrument at a later stage. They would have relied on the fact that the measure had been passed earlier without the proper scrutiny of the House, which clearly would have happened in the absence of this debate.
  My second point is that the £22 million that motorists will have to pay is not the sum total. Although it does not constitute public expenditure, the Bill makes it pretty clear that a cost will be imposed on the estimated 19,000 garages that will have to undertake training activity. That will amount to another £5 million in start-up costs.
  These matters are set in an unfortunate context, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred. I shall not elaborate on it because that would be outside the strict confines of the debate. However, the total level of taxes on motorists is an estimated £33,000 million. As the House will know, only a small proportion of that sum is spent directly on roads and the maintenance and administration of the road traffic system.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Having just said that he would not stray beyond the bounds of the debate, the hon. Gentleman is starting to do so. I ask him to come within the bounds of the debate.
  Mr. Lansley: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I ask whether it is beyond the bounds of the Government to accept that the cost of the computerisation project of £22 million, or whatever it turns out to be, could not be accommodated within the enormous sums that are already raised from the motorist by one route or another.
  It is clear that one of the purposes of the proposed legislation is to allow the Secretary of State to provide the data generated for such persons as he sees fit. It is—
  132
  [Interruption.] The Government Whip, who is normally silent on these matters, seems to understand what I am saying. He will know that clause 2(6) makes the necessary provision. Presumably he will be able to enlighten the House on the terms on which the Secretary of State is proposing to make the data available. We know that he will be selling the information. However, it appears from the explanatory notes that the Government do not foresee a reduction in the cost to motorists of the MOT test certificate, although the Secretary of State will be able to generate income through the selling Of data that are generated through the MOT testing system.
  The money resolution is required not to generate money to support the Bill, but to support the computerisation project, which could proceed by way of secondary rather than primary legislation. Motorists will have to pay the bill for the project although they pay enormous bills in any event. This is just one of so many computerisation projects that are presumably intended initially to reduce costs but result in increasing them.
  Finally, the Government are proposing through the proposed legislation to exploit a money-making opportunity. However, nowhere in the explanatory notes or the money resolution is there an indication that the Government could raise money and defray the costs to the motorist of the MOT testing system. I suspect that rather the opposite is the case and that more money will be put into the pocket of Government in addition to whatever is asked of the motorist.
  10.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I begin by addressing the concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), which are exclusively about the costs of the computerisation of the MOT test. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman entirely ignored the benefits that will accrue to motorists from the modernisation that will come from the scheme. These are benefits that relate to reducing crime and the potential for crime, including fraud. There is the possibility that in future we shall be able over the telephone, for example, to make the relevant arrangements that apply to our vehicles.
  It is not unusual for Opposition Members to be concerned exclusively with the cost of everything and the value of nothing, and their overriding consideration is the cost of computerisation. As I am sure the House is aware, computerisation is being procured under a private partnership contract. We hope that the cost will be less than £22 million a year. However, we wish to ensure, as is par for the course with the Government, that the best possible value is gained from the contract. The taxpayer will not foot the bill. The costs will be met in their entirety through a moderate increase in the cost of obtaining an MOT test. It is estimated that the fee will increase by no more than £1 a test, which is one thirtieth of the existing cost.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister. She seems to be saying that the fees will be increased to cover whatever the costs may be. That is an important aspect of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire

  133
  (Mr. Lansley) and I were asking. If the Minister is saying that, as I think she has just said, that means that she cannot guarantee that the increase in the MOT will be only £1. It could end up being considerably more than that, if the costs were more than are now estimated.
  Ms Jackson: Given the record of the Conservatives, I have no doubt that, if they proposed a computerisation project, the charges would be open-ended and would run for ever. As I have made abundantly clear, the Government are driven by the ethic—I believe it is an ethic—of best value.
  It is proposed, rightly, that after computerisation it will be possible for information to be sold. Of course the Government will ensure conformity to data protection legislation. In no case would information about vehicle presenters or vehicle keepers be available for sale, as such information cannot and will not be held on the database. In response to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, the selling of such data to prescribed persons will be under regulations. The income from the sale of information will be used to offset the costs of the computerisation scheme.
  Another concern raised by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire was what he perceived as increased starting-up costs for MOT testing centres and costs for training inspectors. We estimate that the average start-up costs will be no more than £500.
  The first part of the financial resolution dealing with expenditure is a standard provision authorising any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of any provision in the Bill. In response to questions from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, I have already touched on why such expenditure will arise. No new net public expenditure burdens are forecast to arise as a result of the establishment and running of the proposed MOT database. The costs will be passed on to the consumer, as I have said. We perceive the costs as being very small.
  The increase will apply to vehicles run by local authorities as well as by private motorists, although many local authorities run their own MOT testing stations and therefore test their own vehicle fleets.
  The second part of the provision dealing with expenditure reflects the possibility that local authorities may consequently incur additional expenditure. Another head of expenditure likely to arise as a result of the Bill's provisions will in future require organisations and people involved in MOT testing to meet the costs to the Vehicle Inspectorate of providing MOT training and authorisation for them. As I said, we estimate such start-up costs as being no more than £500.
  As an increase in local authority spending could mean an increase in revenue support grant, and, as the grant is payable under local authority legislation rather than under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the provision needs to be included in the Bill. However, as I have made clear, any new burdens arising are likely to be extremely small in the context of local authority spending generally.
  The first part of the provision dealing with potential sums likely to be received by the Secretary of State mirrors the existing provision in section 84(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as regards the destination of sums received arising in pursuance of sections 45 and 46 of the
  134
  Act, among others, as currently drafted. The destination of sums received by the Government in such circumstances is generally to the Consolidated Fund, and that is provided for in the Bill.
  In practice, the income streams arising from the Bill—the most significant of which will simply be the replacement of income from the sale of blank pads of MOT certificates to testing stations with income from the notification by them of results of tests to the MOT database—will pass into the Vehicle Inspectorate's trading fund. It is standard practice for that to happen in respect of Government agency trading funds, in accordance with the Government Trading Funds Act 1973.
  The second part of the provision dealing with sums that are likely to be received by the Secretary of State is directed to potential new sources of income. I have already touched on the most significant of those, and that income will, in turn, be used to offset the costs of introducing computerisation into the MOT scheme.
  I regret that the promoter of the Bill is not present in the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Ernie Ross be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Dr. Phyllis Starkey be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

  Palace Theatre (Westcliff)
  10.56 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I beg the leave of the House to present a petition, which has been signed by 6,000 of my constituents in Southend, West and surrounding areas.
  Mr. Steve McCabe: Basildon?
  Mr. Amess: Yes, perhaps including areas of Basildon.
  My constituents wish to express their distress at the closure of the Palace theatre in Westcliff. That beautiful Edwardian theatre was given to the town by Gertrude Emily Mouliott in 1943, and the 6,000 petitioners are very distressed that, having enjoyed productions for many years, the theatre remains in darkness.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons.
  The Petition of the association known as the Palace Theatre (Westcliff)
  Declares that the Palace Theatre (Westcliff) is closing and may not operate in the future as a predominantly producing theatre.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to take steps to ensure that theatres such as the Palace Theatre are able to remain open as predominantly producing theatres.
  And the Petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Contaminated Land (Barton upon Humber)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
  10.57 pm
  Shona McIsaac: This debate centres on contaminated land in the town of Barton upon Humber on the south bank of the River Humber. That market town has a rich history and boasts 200 listed buildings. On part of the riverbank, the Far Ings nature reserve attracts many visitors from all over the world, but a shadow has been cast over the local council's plans to regenerate the town and promote its wealth of attributes. That shadow is cast by a 35-hectare contaminated site. The soil and ground water are contaminated by heavy metals, following the closure of agrochemical factories on the site. The leaching of those metals into the River Humber is a cause of serious concern.
  Although what is known as the BritAg site was owned by ICI, it has absolutely no responsibility for cleaning it up. That responsibility lies with North Lincolnshire council which, through no fault of its own, has fallen foul of the "polluter pays" principle. The crux of my case is, should that principle be extended to the council tax payers of North Lincolnshire because of indemnities signed many years ago by Glanford borough council, which no longer exists?
  I hope to show my hon. Friend the Minister that my repeated requests for assistance for North Lincolnshire council to decontaminate the land are warranted. He and other Ministers in the Department have heard about this case many times, through my persistent representations. There have been equally persistent representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber.
  Let me explain how North Lincolnshire ended up in such an invidious no-win position. Following the closure of the BritAg factory, Tory-controlled Glanford borough council purchased part of the site from ICI in 1991. The other part was purchased from MTM, which also operated on the site. The council paid £335,000 for the site, and almost £140,000 was paid in consultancy and administration fees. Some superficial works were carried out at the time to make the site secure.
  In purchasing the site, Glanford indemnified ICI from any clean-up costs. ICI tells me that it will seek such indemnities wherever it can. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that he will do all that he can to end such practices. They may be legally binding, but, in this day and age, we should not be letting polluters off the hook.
  Having purchased the site, Glanford came up with an expensive plan for after-use, which would have cost £34 million. We are talking about hard after-use, involving more expensive reclamation and centred on industrial units. At the time, Glanford's existing industrial units were running at a vacancy rate of about 70 per cent., but it presented its plans with no firm guarantee of where the money would come from to carry out the work. A scheme existed enabling councils to bid for derelict land
  136
  grants to clean up such sites, but Glanford did not know whether it would qualify in connection with the £34 million scheme.
  Worry set in. Glanford began sending letters to the office of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in Leeds, asking whether the site would qualify for a 100 per cent. reclamation grant. A reply dated 19 August 1993 stated:
  "We have been advised by colleagues…that the withdrawal of assisted area status can have no effect on a local authority's entitlement to grant at 100 per cent. where schemes have already been approved."
  That is crucial to the argument, because the £34 million scheme had never actually been approved. A reply that I received today from my hon. Friend the Minister stated that, when English Partnerships was established in 1994, it took responsibility for the derelict land grant scheme, including projects such as this.
  Glanford thought that it would get the money, but, in fact, no one had ever approved the project. Local government reorganisation also came into the equation. Glanford was to be abolished; Humberside, the county council, was to go; and four new unitary authorities were to be created, including North Lincolnshire. Following the May 1995 council elections, Labour won control of the new authority, and, following a "shadow year", the new council was due to "go live" in April 1996.
  Back at the ranch, Glanford purchased a further six acres of contaminated land on the site—the former MTM works which I mentioned earlier. It purchased the land for £1 in December 1995. Again, the polluters were indemnified. It astounds me that the council purchased the land knowing that its days were numbered, and that nothing was likely to be done on the site before the new authority took over about 12 weeks later. Such activities merit an inquiry to discover what Glanford was getting up to in the early 1990s. I reiterate that we must put a stop to indemnities that absolve polluters from paying for decontamination.
  In April 1996, North Lincolnshire council inherited severely contaminated land and found itself—through no fault of its own—in the shoes of the polluter, and hence subject to the "polluter pays" principle. Wanting to get stuck in and to sort out the mess, North Lincolnshire deemed the former Glanford plans to be expensive and unsustainable, and devised a more practicable scheme for after-use. The current proposals will create a more attractive environment in Barton upon Humber by removing the contaminated land and water to create a country park known as Water's Edge. That is the key to the regeneration of the whole waterside area and crucial to single regeneration budget bids in the area.
  Water's Edge park will mirror the attractive and popular Far Ings reserve further along the riverbank. Reedbeds will be restored, and woodlands and hedgerows established. Essentially, it will provide for a continuous Humber wetland environment on the riverbank at Barton upon Humber—a unique visitor attraction. It will provide a focus for nearby sites of historic interest in the town. The scheme is sustainable. For example, a windmill will act as a source of energy and the energy needs of the visitor centre will be met through solar power.
  The council has good working relations with the many partners involved. For example, Anglian Water will assist with the after-use by using its new deal environment task force on the site. I praise the current council for its efforts to resolve the mess that it has inherited.

  137
  The stumbling block, of course, is decontamination of the land. What assurances can the Minister give me and my residents that assistance is available? Again, I assert that council tax payers in North Lincolnshire are not the polluters and, thus, should not have to foot the bill for decontamination. The residents of the area should not have to pay for the incompetence of a council that no longer exists, or have to pay to let a multinational firm off the hook. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer my constituents, and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe and for Brigg and Goole, some guarantees that he will be able to assist North Lincolnshire council.
  11.6 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) for raising the important issue of contaminated land at Barton upon Humber. She mentioned persistence; persistent she is. She has raised the issue with me and with my predecessor on a number of occasions. It is to her credit that she has done so. Many new Members could learn from the persistent manner in which she has carried out her role as the local Member of Parliament. I also pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who for many years has raised this and other issues of contamination in the region, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey).
  As we have heard, the Water's Edge site at Barton upon Humber represents bad news. The site is part of the unfortunate side of our industrial past. It was first used as a clay-pit and then as a chemical factory. That has left the land seriously contaminated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes has rightly pointed out. That contamination is leaching off site into the Barton haven and River Humber and threatens the chalk aquifer underneath the site. It "neuters" the site and prevents it from being returned to a worthwhile use.
  Further bad news is that the potential cost of reclaiming the site runs into several million pounds. The complexity of the technical and legal issues involved makes reclaiming the site that much harder. However, I hope to give the House some better news in respect of that dilemma.
  We have systems in place to stop the creation of such problems. Many of the current problems on the site are the result of unregulated dumping of chemical by-products and wastes. I am pleased that such practices are no longer allowed. Furthermore, the Environment Agency enforces a stricter system of waste management licensing, which ensures that waste materials are properly treated and disposed of.
  The chemical factories that were once on the site would have been subject to environmental controls under the system of integrated pollution control. That system will be enhanced later this year under the European directive on integrated pollution prevention and control. The House will be pleased to learn that my Department has recently carried out a third round of consultation on how to implement the directive and a Bill is under discussion in another place.
  The key aspect of IPPC is that, when a licensed installation closes, operators will not be able simply to walk away from the site—as they have done in the case
  138
  that we are debating—but will be under a legal obligation to clean up any decontamination and to restore the site to a satisfactory condition, which definitely did not happen at Water's Edge.
  I am sure that the House will join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes in saying that we hope that not many sites are as bad as Water's Edge. The Deputy Prime Minister himself has, in very strong terms, commented to me that even one contaminated site is one too many, and that it is important that we continue identifying such sites and taking the necessary action to deal with contamination at them. The sentiment is particularly apt in the case of Water's Edge, as the Deputy Prime Minister represents a constituency that is not very far from it.
  Later this year, we shall bring into force a new statutory regime for contaminated land, implementing provisions in the Environment Act 1995. The provisions will place on local authorities and the Environment Agency a clear duty to find problem sites and will provide real teeth in ensuring that proper remediation is done. We are also working on improving the availability of technical solutions to the problems of land contamination.
  My Department—with the Environment Agency, English Partnerships, its Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland counterparts, industry and the science research councils—is launching a new initiative, entitled CLAIRE, which stands for contaminated land applications in real environments, which will build a network of demonstration sites for innovative remediation technologies.
  Although all that may be better news for the future, and we should not be creating any more Water's Edges, we still have to contend with the task of dealing with Water's Edge itself. On that matter, I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes—for her persistent and very hard work on the issue—some good news.
  North Lincolnshire council, which owns the site, has been working up proposals on sorting out the problems at the site: to deal with water pollution; to create—as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes mentioned—new wildlife habitats; and to open the site for public amenity use. Like her, I think that those proposals are very imaginative and worth while, and that they will create a major new environmental asset out of a currently horrible environmental liability.
  The proposals have been in gestation for some time. As my hon. Friend said, part of the site was purchased, in 1991, by Glanford borough council. The purchase was funded by the derelict land grant, provided by the former Department of the Environment. More recently, English Partnerships has provided further grant support for site investigation and design work. In the 1997–98 financial year, £150,000 was paid for the work to be done.
  We are now able to make real progress. Last week, North Lincolnshire council submitted to my Department a formal bid for funding support, under our contaminated land supplementary credit approval programme. SCAs give local authorities permission to borrow money to fund specified capital works. The cost of servicing the debt is taken into account in local authorities' revenue funding in subsequent years.

  139
  The contaminated land SCA programme exists to support work by local authorities in dealing with the environmental risks caused by sites for which local authorities themselves are responsible. That might apply when they own the site or contaminated it themselves.
  Funding support is available also for orphan sites, where a local authority or the Environment Agency has to deal with a site from which the original polluters have long since disappeared and at which the current owners are not able to pay for remediation.
  In the case of Water's Edge, as my hon. Friend said, the site is owned by North Lincolnshire council. The council's bid has been for the first stage of works—to stop current pollution of the Barton haven and the River Humber, and to protect the aquifer under the site. It is a three-year programme which is expected to cost £5.7 million, with £1.2 to be spent in the next financial year.
  Discussions are continuing with English Partnerships on funding for the next stage of works—which will be to improve the site's natural habitats, and to open the site, as a water park, to public access. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that, in consultation with my colleagues in the Department, I have approved the bid for the supplementary credit approval to fund work at Water's Edge in the coming financial year. My officials will write to North Lincolnshire council tomorrow to confirm that.
  Shona McIsaac: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I am delighted that the SCAs have been
  140
  made available. That is excellent news for my local authority. Will he confirm that the SCA is not borrowing and will not be a debt landed on the council, as some people wrongly assume?
  Mr. Meale: My hon. Friend is correct. It is borrowing, but it is set against and taken into consideration with other money from central sources. Anyone who tries to give the impression that yet another debt is being laid on the community has misinterpreted the reason for such funding, which is to clear up contamination in special circumstances or to deal with extra needs that an area may have to sort out for its constituents. I understand that some people have been making false allegations about the credit approvals that the Government have allocated. Those in North Lincolnshire council are the best people to judge such a decision. There are many other sites around the country for which local authorities want SCAs. If they were given approval, there would be a clapping of hands and joyous sounds coming from those directions.
  I hope that the work can start without further delay. If we debate contaminated land at Barton upon Humber again, it will be to trumpet the success of the reclamation project.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on her persistence and endeavour. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe, who is on the Front Bench, for all their hard work to start the process of remediation and clear-up of the contaminated land.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what involvement fleet managers have had in drawing up her Department's Green Transport Plan. [77969]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) has three official cars which are supplied by the Government Car Service. We have no fleet manager. We are in the initial stages of formulating a Green Transport plan.

  Bilateral Aid (Dependent Territories)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list all bilateral aid to each of the dependent territories in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [78037]

  Clare Short
  UK Bilateral Gross Public Expenditure on Aid (GPEX) to UK Overseas Territories in the specified years was as follows:

  £000

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Anguilla

  1,810

  1,367

  2,520

  Bermuda

  30

  57

  30

  British Virgin Islands

  678

  1,096

  604

  Cayman Islands

  46

  26

  13

  Falkland Islands

  19

  4

  2

  Gibraltar

  118

  163

  192

  Montserrat

  6,568

  14,452

  38,317

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  2,788

  3,198

  2,569

  St. Helena and Dependencies

  9,267

  7,991

  8,765

  Pitcairn Islands

  203

  160

  76

  Total, UK Overseas Territories

  21,527

  28,513

  53,087

  People in residential care homes by age, local authority supported residents and income support claimants with preserved rights in residential care

  People in residential care

  Local Authority supported residents

  Income support claimants1

  Age band

  31 March 1996

  31 March 1996

  31 March 1998

  February 1996

  August 1998

  18–64

  59,983

  37,047

  43,396

  37,000

  32,000

  65–74

  27,420

  13,655

  14,949

  10,000

  8,000

  75–84

  82,503

  42,595

  48,095

  18,000

  10,000

  85 and over

  130,358

  59,867

  73,100

  30,000

  17,000

  1 Numbers do not include claimants in nursing homes or those income support claimants who are paid a residential allowance and have their fees met by the local authority or themselves.

  Source:

  DH annual statistical returns (RAC5, SR1) and DSS Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry

  Restraint Techniques
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 March 1999,Official Report,
  2
  GPEX is expenditure by all official UK sources i.e. Government Departments and public bodies including the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which meets the criteria for developmental official flows agreed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Assistance Committee.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Freemasons (CPS)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General what progress has been made in the establishment of a register to record membership of the freemasons in the Crown Prosecution Service. [78051]

  The Attorney-General
  In accordance with Government policy, in October 1998 the Crown Prosecution Service invited its lawyers to declare their masonic status for the purposes of a public register. The CPS is considering the format of a register in conjunction with other departments affected by the Government's policy. The CPS has also invited those recently selected for the new Chief Crown Prosecutor posts to declare their masonic status for the purposes of a public register.

HEALTH

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people aged between(a) 16 to 64, (b) 65 to 74, (c) 75 to 84 and (d) over 85 years were in residential care homes in the most recent year for which figures are available; and in each of those age groups how many were funded by (i) local authorities on a means tested basis, (ii) the individuals themselves and (iii) the Department of Social Security. [76491]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: Information on the numbers of people in residential care at 31 March 1996, the latest year for which complete information on residents is available, together with figures for local authority supported residents at 31 March 1996 and 1998 and on people in residential care who are funded by income support at February 1996 and August 1998, is given in the table. Information on the number of individuals who found themselves is not available centrally.

  column 373, on restraint techniques, what responsibility (a) the Mental Health Commissioner has and (b) other official bodies have to collect information on deaths that occur in mental health institutions. [77690]
  3
  Mr. Hutton
  The Mental Health Act 1983 does not place a specific duty on the Mental Health Act Commission to collect information on deaths that occur in mental health institutions. However, since February 1997, with Ministerial agreement, the Commission has gathered data on the deaths of detained patients and reviewed those from non-natural causes. The Commission has now completed the second year of data collection and is in the process of drawing general conclusions from the information available which it intends to present in the form of a report, drawing attention to general issues identified and making recommendations for action. It is intended to publish the report this year and to circulate it widely to mental health services in England and Wales.

  The Office for National Statistics collects information on all deaths that occur in England and Wales through the death registration system. This information included "place of death" which may give details of a communal establishment, such as a mental health institution, if that is where the death occurred.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what systems his Department require to be in place in mental health institutions to deal with medical emergencies resulting from the use of(a) control and restraint techniques and (b) drugs. [77629]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is for each trust to ensure that appropriate staffing level and policies for responding to emergencies are in place.

  Social Services Grants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he published the conditions for spending each of the new grants announced in his White Paper for social services. [77954]

  Mr. Hutton
  The White Paper "Modernising Social Services" announced a range of new grants as part of a three year social services modernisation fund. In addition to these, as part of our carers strategy my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced a Carers Grant on 8 February. The conditions for spending each of the new grants were published on the following dates:

  Promoting Independence: Partnership Grant 16 March 1999

  Promoting Independence: Prevention Grant 16 March 1999

  Promoting Independence: Carers Grant 16 March 1999

  Children's Services Grant 11 November 1998

  Mental Health Grant 26 February 1999

  Training Support Grant 4 March 1999.

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what involvement fleet managers have had in drawing up his Department's green transport plan. [77970]
  4
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is drawing up green transport plans for all headquarters buildings and main buildings by executive agencies by the end of this month and for all other key buildings by March 2000. The Department does not have a fleet.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the local authorities to which Ministers have written urging greater spending on local services within their portfolio area. [77958]

  Mr. Hutton
  Ministers have extensive correspondence with local authorities which includes advice on additional resources for personal social services. However, I am not aware of any letters specifically urging greater spending on local services.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the(a) professional and (b) other relevant background of lay members of primary care groups. [77953]

  Mr. Denham
  None. Health Authorities are responsible for appointing a lay member to each Primary Care Group board. Apart from excluding practising general practitioners, practising nurses, non-executive directors of National Health Service trusts or health authorities and staff working in the NHS, the Department or NHS Estates, the only qualification we have stipulated is that the lay member must live in the geographical area for which the primary care group is responsible.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to commission a national epidemiological study into chronic fatigue syndrome/ME. [77854]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are currently no plans to commission a national epidemiological study into chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME). A number of definitions, disease descriptions or diagnostic criteria have been proposed to describe CFS/ME and there is no general agreement as to which should be used. This makes the results from studies on the prevalence of CFS/ME difficult to interpret and there is no agreement on the incidence of the illness.

  The heterogeneity of the definitions for CFS/ME was an issue that was raised at the first meeting of the CFS/ME Working Group and is likely to be a topic for further discussion as work progresses. If a definitive diagnostic criteria for CFS/ME can be defined requests for a national epidemiological study would need to be considered in line with other competing priorities.

  Departmental Budget
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was his Department's budget in cash terms and at 1998–99 prices for(a) 1992–93 to 1998–99 and (b) his estimate for 1999–2000 to 2001–02. [77333]
  5
  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  At 1998–99 prices

  1992–93

  27,826

  32,291

  1993–94

  29,762

  33,645

  1994–95

  31,593

  35,212

  1995–96

  32,933

  35,666

  1996–97

  33,769

  35,479

  1997–98

  35,297

  36,180

  1998–99

  37,643

  37,643

  1999–2000

  40,345

  39,361

  2000–01

  43,271

  41,186

  2001–02

  46,172

  42,875

  Mental Health Institutions (Deaths)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) guidelines and (b) regulations his Department has regarding (i) the notification of relatives and (ii) the information, support and guidance offered to relatives after a death in a mental health institution. [77338]

  Mr. Hutton
  Support and guidance offered to relatives after a death are contained in Health Service Guidelines (92)8 issued in January 1992. This guidance covers the procedures National Health Service trusts should have in place for dealing with patients who die in hospital and with a patient's relatives before and after the death.

  Organ Transplants
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those countries from which organs for transplant have been received in the past 12 months. [78001]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the period 1 March 1998 to 28 February 1999 a total of 99 organs were received from France, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, the Republic of Ireland, Eurotransplant (comprises Germany, Austria, Netherlands and Luxembourg) and Skandiatransplant (comprises Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden).

  Fuel Duty Increases
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the additional costs to ambulances and other medical vehicles in West Sussex resulting from fuel duty increases in the Budget; [77914]

  (2) what provisions he has made to compensate health authorities for the additional costs resulting from fuel duty increases in the Budget; [77915]

  (3) what estimates he has made of the additional costs to ambulances and other medical vehicles resulting from fuel duty increases in the Budget. [77913]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1996–97, the last year for which information is available, the cost of motor fuels as a proportion of total hospital and community health service spending, which includes ambulance trusts, was 0.12 per cent. The additional cost resulting from the Budget increase would have raised that figure to less than 0.13 per cent. Because of boundary factors it is 6
  not possible separately to identify figures for West Sussex. It is, however, clear that the effect of the increase will be very small relative to the other price inflation factors affecting the National Health Service each year. Any additional costs will be absorbed within the very significant real-terms increases in health authority allocations for 1999–2000 announced in November 1998.

  NHS Vehicles (Road Fuel Gas)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many road vehicles deployed in the NHS are fuelled by road fuel gases; and what plans he has to encourage the use of more such vehicles. [77916]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Road vehicles deployed in the National Health Service satisfy a diverse range of requirements. Vehicle operators include ambulance services, NHS Supplies, fleet vehicles for staff (including medical/nursing and support services etc.), and contractors working on behalf of the NHS.

  NHS transport/fleet officers do consider environmental aspects in the procurement and operation of the vehicles they manage. These decisions will be determined at local level taking into account availability of environmentally friendly road fuels and cost effectiveness in relation to the service to be provided.

  This has been reinforced by the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" and the NHS is well aware of the need to take its requirements on board. NHS Estates (an executive agency of the Department) has also issued a "Healthy Transport Toolkit" to inform and commend green transport plans to the NHS. The Department intends to continue to encourage green transport initiatives within the NHS, including the use of environmentally friendly road fuels.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the President of the Council how many civil servants in her Department have been invited to waive the Working Time Directive requirement to work less than 48 hours a week on 17 consecutive weeks; how many civil servants in her Department have refused to waive the requirement; and what is the total cost of compliance with the Directive. [76802]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Nine members of the staff of the Privy Council Office have signed an agreement to disapply the 48-hour limit. None has refused to do so. The cost of compliance with the Directive is negligible, in view of the small size of my Department.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council what guidelines have been agreed concerning the composition of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council when sitting to determine the vires of Acts of the Scottish Parliament. [76950]
  7
  Mrs. Beckett
  It will be for the Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary to determine which members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sit to hear and determine cases under the Scotland Act 1998. However, the Government would expect a convention to develop along the lines of Scottish appeals to the House of Lords, where there would always be at least one Scottish judge, and in practice perhaps more, sitting on the Judicial Committee for Scottish devolution cases.

  Millennium Compliance
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the President of the Council what provision has been made for millennium compliance-related problems for 9 September 1999; and if she will make a statement. [77131]

  Mrs. Beckett
  9999 was sometimes used as a close down, halt or standby code by programmers and some people think that September 1999 may be confused with this code. Action 2000 advise me that they have not found any cases where 9/9/99 will cause equipment to fail, and do not expect that date to have a significant impact.

  On a wider point, there are many dates which may cause computers problems. Such problem dates should be tested for as appropriate. All companies should be aware of the key dates when the year 2000 will first hit their systems: for many it will be 1 April 1999 with the new financial year. Government Departments and Agencies have included testing for other relevant dates in their own programmes. The preferred dates which should be used for testing are included in the relevant British Standards Institution (BSI) advice.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the President of the Council when she was first informed of the existence of a leaked copy of the draft report of the Foreign Affairs Committee Sierra Leone Inquiry. [73934]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: On the morning of 23 February 1999.

  Early Day Motions
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the cost of the processing and publication of Early Day Motions in each of the last three years; how many staff were employed to administer them; and at what cost. [77568]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Claim Forms (Production Costs)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Council what was the cost of the production of claim forms for (i) the Members' Car Allowance Scheme, (ii) the Members' constituency mileage continuation sheets, (iii) C1 reimbursement, (iv) C2 direct payment and (v) C3 direct 8
  payment secretarial claim forms; how many staff are employed to administer them; and at what cost in the last year for which figures are available. [77625]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The cost of the production of the forms in the 1998 calendar year were as follows:

  C1 forms £230.23

  C2 forms £342.36

  C3 forms £368.11.

  No copies of the Members Car Allowance Scheme and Mileage booklets were produced in the period as existing stocks were used.

  All staff who are employed on the administration of these forms have other duties and so it is not possible to give completely accurate salary costs. However, total staff costs of paying car allowances and expenses paid in respect of forms C1 and C2 is in the region of £175,000.

PRIME MINISTER

  Overseas Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 1999,Official Report, columns 642–43, on overseas publications, if he will place copies of the articles he wrote for the foreign newspapers listed in his answer in the Library. [76459]

  The Prime Minister
  My office does not keep copies of articles written for foreign newspapers.

  However, the House of Commons Library does provide a cuttings service for Members. The right hon. Member may wish to contact the staff in the Library, who will endeavour to assist him in obtaining copies of the articles.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the relationship between the No. 10 Policy Unit and the Social Exclusion Unit. [76675]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The Units work together closely.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the working groups which report to the Social Exclusion Unit. [76676]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: There are no specific working groups which formally report to the Social Exclusion Unit. Civil servants and others from outside work with the Social Exclusion Unit as necessary to prepare reports and act on their recommendations. For example, eighteen policy action teams from across Government are carrying forward work identified in the Unit's report "Bringing Britain Together: a National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal" (Cm 4045).

  Ministers Code of Conduct
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will amend the Code of Conduct for Ministers to include a prohibition against attempting to procure the(a) appointment, (b) promotion and (c) dismissal of

  9
  individual journalists, and an obligation to make any complaints about journalists in writing, and to place them on public record. [77615]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: Decisions on the employment of journalists are a matter for the media organisations concerned.

  European Union Fraud
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his letter dispatched to the Head of the European Socialist Party concerning the January motions of confidence in the European Parliament on fraud and the Commission; who else received copies; and if he will make a statement. [78396]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) on 17 March 1999,Official Report, column 706.

  Lord Advocate
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement regarding the functions and responsibilities of the Lord Advocate in connection with the implementation of the Scotland Act 1998. [78277]

  The Prime Minister
  As a consequence of the new constitutional arrangements under the Scotland Act 1998, I have approved a reallocation of certain functions and responsibilities of the Lord Advocate to the Secretary of State and the Advocate-General for Scotland.

  The overall intention of these transfers of functions and responsibilities is to ensure the appropriate distribution of the Lord Advocate's functions during the transitional period up to 1 July 1999 and after the Scottish Executive takes up its full powers on 1 July 1999. I am placing in the Library of the House a short paper which sets out the background to these transfers.

  Copies of the Transfer of Functions (Lord Advocate and Secretary of State) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/678) and the Transfer of Functions (Lord Advocate and Advocate-General for Scotland) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/679), which were made by Her Majesty in Council on 10 March, have been laid before both Houses.

  In addition to the transfer of statutory functions which would be effected by these transfer of functions orders, it is proposed that ministerial responsibility for the general oversight of certain branches of the law of Scotland will pass from the Lord Advocate to the Secretary of State on 19 May 1999, when the statutory functions are also transferred to them. No formal order is required to give effect to this transfer, which will be carried out by administrative arrangement.

  The matters concerned are connected in whole or in part with the administration of justice in Scotland. They include the matters for which responsibility was transferred to the Lord Advocate in 1972, as referred to in a statement made by the then Prime Minister on 21 December 1972, Official Report, column 456, namely:

  (a) the jurisdiction and procedure of Scottish courts in civil proceedings;

  10

  (b) the law relating to the enforcement of the judgments of Scottish courts in civil matters and the recognition and enforcement of judgments of foreign courts, other than orders for the payment of maintenance;

  (c) the law of evidence;

  (d) the law relating to prescription and the limitation of actions;

  (e) the law relating to arbitration;

  (f) the law relating to fatal accident inquiries.

  In addition, there will also be transferred to the Secretary of State the responsibilities of the Lord Advocate for various matters which are related to the matters mentioned above, namely;

  (a) the private international law of Scotland including functions in relation to the Hague Conventions dealing with International Child Abduction, Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Obligations, Taking of Evidence Abroad and Service of Process;

  (b) the jurisdiction and procedure of tribunals; and

  (c) mediation and

  (d) alternative dispute resolution.

DEFENCE

  Learning Forces Initiative
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards establishing the learning forces initiative announced in the strategic defence review. [75969]

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards establishing the learning forces initiative announced in the strategic defence review. [75978]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We are making good progress with our learning forces initiative. At home and abroad, our Service personnel are already benefiting from increased educational opportunities. The learning forces initiative is also a powerful tool which will aid recruiting and retention.

  Racism
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to combat racism in the armed services. [75977]

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to combat racism within the armed services. [75971]

  Mr. Spellar
  I place the highest priority on tackling racism within the Services. Our equal opportunities policies are ensuring that racism is challenged and that our Services more truly represent—and benefit from—our multi-cultural society.

  We are now working to develop a culture which welcomes racial diversity. I have agreed a new corporate framework for equal opportunities which will encourage this. I commend it to the House. A copy is being placed in the Library.
  11

  Cadets
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many air, army and sea cadets there were(a) at 1 May 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [75979]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The number of cadets is calculated at the end of the financial year.

  Therefore, on 31 March 1997 there were:

  12,011 Sea Cadets—excluding junior members of the Corps,

  39,827 Army Cadets,

  33,196 Air Cadets,

  and 39,716 members of the Combined Cadet Force.

  On 31 March 1998, the latest date for which figures are available, there were:

  11,762 Sea Cadets, again excluding junior members,

  40,773 Army Cadets,

  32,807 Air Cadets,

  and 39,460 members of the Combined Cadet Force.

  Dr. Gwyn Prins
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about(a) the recruitment of Dr. Gwyn Prins to the office of the Secretary-General of NATO, (b) the role, responsibilities and degree of security clearance given to Dr. Prins in that office and (c) the vetting procedures applied prior to his appointment. [75980]

  Mr. George Robertson
  These are matters for NATO.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on staffing levels in the Defence Medical Services. [75981]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We have made improving the current serious manpower shortfalls in the Defence Medical Services a top priority. Following the Strategic Defence Review we have provided additional funds to address both personnel and equipment shortfalls in the Medical Services. We have put in place a number of initiatives to rectify the staffing situation, but recognise that restoration of full staffing will take some time.

  Iraq (Bombing Damage)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the extent of collateral damage inflicted during the recent bombing of Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [75982]

  Mr. George Robertson
  US and British aircraft act only in self-defence, in response to Iraqi aggression. They attack only legitimate military targets which pose a real threat to coalition forces and use only precision guided munitions wherever there is a danger of collateral damage. However, military action is never without risk and I deeply regret any civilian casualties or damage to civilian infrastructure. There would be no such risk if Saddam stopped threatening coalition forces. It is Saddam' s continued aggression which potentially puts innocent civilians in harm's way.
  12

  Rations
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on rations for the armed forces while they are on manoeuvres. [75984]

  Mr. Spellar
  The food supply arrangements for our Armed Forces deployed on operations or exercises will depend on the specific circumstances prevailing. Our aim is always to establish the supply of fresh rations at the earliest opportunity. Where this is not practicable, or in the period before a fresh food supply chain can be established, our personnel will normally be fed on Operational Ration Packs. These Packs have been developed specifically to provide a balanced, varied and nutritional diet suitable for use in a wide range of different field conditions.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military personnel have been deployed in Macedonia. [75985]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Some 4,800 UK military personnel have been deployed to Greece and Macedonia, mainly consisting of the UK contribution to a possible NATO-led peace implementation force in Kosovo, but also including our contribution to the NATO-led Extraction Force, the NATO Verification Mission and the UK contribution to the OSCE Verification Mission, now withdrawn from Kosovo.

  Cleaners' Pensions
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the pension arrangements for cleaners employed by(a) the NAAFI and (b) the Ministry of Defence. [75986]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have a meeting planned with the Chief Executive of the NAAFI this week, at which I expect to raise this issue.

  As for those cleaners employed by the MoD as civil servants, they would be eligible to join the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS).

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the announcement by the Environment Agency that plutonium deposits are being washed from the Pangbourne pipeline at AWE Aldermaston into the River Thames. [76051]

  Mr. Spellar
  All discharges from AWE through the Pangbourne pipeline are authorised by the Environment Agency. Scaling may occur when water passes down any pipeline. The potential for subsequent descaling is taken into account in the management of discharges which remain at 10–15 per cent. of the currently authorised limits. Details of these discharges are made available to the public through AWE' s Environment, Safety and Health reports which are published annually and distributed widely including regulatory and Local Authorities.

  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on safety at AWE Aldermaston. [76019]
  13
  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 18 March 1999,Official Report, columns 801–02.

  Training and Education
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect that improved training and education within the armed forces will have on recruitment. [75988]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We want the Services to be a career of first choice. Our learning forces initiative is designed to improve training and education in the Armed Forces and increase opportunities for Service personnel to acquire academic vocational and professional qualifications. This should have a very positive impact on Armed Forces recruitment and retention.

  Operation Desert Fox
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet his American counterpart to discuss Operation Desert Fox in Iraq. [75989]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I keep in regular and close contact with William Cohen, the US Secretary of Defense, and we frequently discuss a wide range of issues of mutual interest, including coalition activities in respect of Iraq. I next plan to meet him during a visit to the US between 16–18 April and again at the NATO Summit on 23–25 April.

  Trident Warheads
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department has made in implementing strategic defence review commitment that Trident submarines would carry only 48 warheads. [75990]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We implemented the reduction in warhead numbers announced in the Strategic Defence Review by December 1998. All our Trident submarines on deterrent patrol now carry only 48 nuclear warheads.

  Gulf War Illnesses
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the Government are spending on research into the illnesses of Gulf war veterans. [75991]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) today,Official Report columns 5–6.

  TA Centres (Disposal)
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings his Department plans to achieve by the disposal of TA centres. [75992]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Disposal of TA Centres is expected to generate net receipts of some £40 million, excluding those that may be realised by disposing of the Duke of York's headquarters in Chelsea. We expect also to achieve savings in running costs and costs of refurbishment.
  14

  Women
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women were employed in Her Majesty's armed forces(a) in the year before May 1997 and (b) since May 1997. [75993]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Date

  Number of women employed in the armed forces

  Total strength of the armed forces

  1 May 1996

  15,596

  220,988

  1 May 1997

  14,834

  210,269

  1 May 1998

  15,732

  203,739

  1 January 19991

  16,119

  208,763

  1 Latest data available

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women were employed in Her Majesty's armed forces(a) on 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 March 1999. [75995]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  On 1 May 1997 14,834 women were employed in the armed forces. Figures for 1 March 1999 are not yet available but on 1 January 1999, the latest date for which data are available, there were 16,119 women employed in the armed forces.

  Cadets (Solihull)
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future arrangements for the training of sea, army and air cadets in Solihull. [75994]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As I have announced, any cadet unit that is currently accommodated in a TA centre that is to close under the restructuring of the TA, will be re-provided with accommodation at least as good as they currently occupy. I have also announced that no TA centre that houses cadets will be closed until alternative accommodation for the cadets is in place. This will be the case for the cadets in Solihull. The future accommodation for the cadets in Solihull is currently under consideration.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his international counterparts on(a) the disposal of stocks of land mines and (b) the destruction of mines which have been laid. [75996]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Government use every appropriate opportunity to press other Governments to ratify the Convention and fulfil all their international obligations under the Ottawa Convention. As I announced to the House on 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 7, we have now destroyed the last of the Army's operational stocks of APM, four years in advance of the requirement laid down under the Ottawa Convention. Destruction of all UK operational stocks of APM will be completed by 1 January 2000. This is another instance of the UK leading international efforts to achieve a world-wide ban on these weapons.
  15
  On the vital issue of the destruction of mines already in the ground, the lead for humanitarian de-mining rests with the Department for International Development. But the MOD has established the Mine Information and Training Centre at Minley in Surrey to provide expert, professional advice. I have also recently approved the attachment of a senior British Army Colonel to the Geneva Centre for Humanitarian De-mining to support the international effort. My Department continues to keep under review all opportunities for further assistance where this would be appropriate and useful.

  European Defence Co-operation
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's policy in relation to promoting further European defence co-operation. [75997]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) today,Official Report, column 13.

  Imphal Barracks, York
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the contribution made by Imphal Barracks, York to local employment levels. [73086]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are 385 civilian staff employed within Imphal Barracks, of whom 143 are on the establishment of the headquarters 2nd Division. Imphal Barracks also makes an indirect contribution to local employment levels through employment by local contractors on property management within the barracks, which this financial year will cost some £1.1 million. For the future, the announced move of the Defence Vetting Agency when implemented will more than compensate for the loss of civilian posts caused by the closure of the divisional headquarters at Imphal Barracks.

  Defence Secondary Care Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Defence Secondary Care Agency published its report for the year 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76635]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. G. Callow to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 22 March 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the date that our Annual Report for 1997/98 was published and its cost of production. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency.
  The Annual Report was published on 17 September 1998 at a cost of £7,398.)

  Departmental Budget
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was his Department's budget in cash terms and at 1998–99 prices for(a) 1992–93 to 1998–99 and (b) his estimate for 1999–2000 to 2001–02. [77334]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The information requested is as follows:16

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  1998–99 prices

  1992–93

  22,910

  26,587

  1993–94

  22,757

  25,726

  1994–95

  22,562

  25,146

  1995–96

  21,517

  23,303

  1996–97

  22,345

  23,476

  1997–98

  21,610

  22,151

  1998–99

  22,549

  22,549

  1999–00

  22,280

  21,737

  2000–01

  22,815

  21,716

  2001–02

  22,972

  21,332

  The figures for 1992–93 through to 1997–98 reflect outturn adjusted to take account of major definitional changes in defence spending and of major transfers of responsibility to and from other Government Departments. The figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98 exclude the element of receipts arising from the sale of the married quarters estate in England and Wales that were appropriated onto Defence Votes. The figures for 1998–99 is the estimated outturn that underlay the Spring Supplementary Estimates. The totals shown for 1999–2000 to 2001–2002 are the Ministry of Defence's Departmental Expenditure Limits. These differ slightly from the figures published in the Comprehensive Spending Review (Cm 4011) and the Strategic Defence Review (Cm 3999) White Papers last July, and more recently in the Ministry of Defence's Public Service Agreement (which forms part of "Public Service for the Future: Modernisation, Reform and Accountability" (Cm 4181, December 1998)) because of adjustments arising from Public Expenditure Systems transfers to other Government departments.

  Further details of the Ministry of Defence's expenditure plans will be published in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1999–2000 to 2001–2002" (Cm 4208) on 26 March 1999.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recruitment to the Territorial Army. [75983]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) today,Official Report, column 9.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to maintain the footprint of the Army in those areas of the country where there will be no regular or TA units. [74860]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: The future footprint of the Army is defined by the location of Regular and Territorial Army units and facilities and will remain widespread following the SDR and the reform of the TA.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the reduction in civilian posts from his review of the TA. [74861]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: We expect that the reform of the Territorial Army will result in an overall loss of some 900 civilian posts spread throughout the United Kingdom. These numbers are, however, subject to Trade Union consultation.
  17

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times Ministers in his Department have met their counterparts in the US Government since 1 June 1998; and if he will list the

  Minister

  Counterpart

  Date

  Location

  Secretary of State

  William Cohen

  3 June 1998

  Washington

  Secretary of State

  William Cohen

  19 November 1998

  Washington

  Secretary of State, Minister (Defence Procurement), and Under-Secretary of State

  John Hamre

  19 January 1999

  London

  Minister (Armed Forces)

  John Hamre

  1 March 1999

  Washington

  In addition, we have regular exchanges and contacts at other meetings and conferences.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by country the number of non-UK citizens who have been recruited to each of the armed services in each of the past three years for which figures are available. [77485]

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

  NATO Subventions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the level of payments from NATO to cover the salaries of UK armed forces personnel on NATO missions, (b) the level of salaries and allowances paid to UK armed forces on NATO missions and (c) the reasons for differences between the amounts at (a) and (b). [77621]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: NATO does not make any payment to cover the salaries of UK (or any other nation's) armed forces personnel on NATO missions. Normal levels of salary, together with allowances appropriate to location and circumstances, are paid from Ministry of Defence funds to UK Armed Forces personnel while on NATO or other missions. It is accepted by NATO nations that the salary costs of troops deployed will lie where they fall, on the defence budgets of the contributing nations.

  Iraq
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times allied aircraft have fired at(a) Iraqi aircraft and (b) Iraqi installations from outside the no-fly zones since the conclusion of Operation Desert Fox. [77226]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Allied aircraft have not fired at either Iraqi aircraft or Iraqi installations from outside the no-fly zones since the conclusion of Operation Desert Fox.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Biwater Company over targeting sites in the area of the Al Taji factory in outer Baghdad. [78030]

  Mr. George Robertson
  None.
  18
  dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministersinvolved on each occasion, and the name of the US counterpart at each meeting. [77148]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Since 1 June 1998, MOD Ministers have had bilateral meetings with our US counterparts on the following occasions:

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the approximate weight of ordnance fired against targets in Iraq on Monday 15 March. [78054]

  Mr. George Robertson
  UK forces did not launch or drop any ordnance against Iraqi targets on 15 March.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answers of 16 February 1999,Official Report, column 739, and 15 March 1999, Official Report, column 511, from whom he received the account of the episode relating to the 16-year-old Iraqi youth. [77353]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The information came to me from my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement who was told of the case at a private occasion by a reliable source who had been in Baghdad at the time. I am withholding further details under Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, relating to the privacy of an individual. The account is consistent with other accounts of the repressive brutality of Saddam' s regime. For example, the Iraqi National Accord has reported that in 1991 a six-year-old boy was accused, together with his father, of participating in an uprising against Saddam. The boy and his father were both shot. Similarly, in 1996, a 12-year-old boy was arrested and imprisoned for three months because his brother was an opponent of Saddam's.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the targets attacked by British aircraft in the northern and southern no-fly zones of Iraq, together with relevant battle damage assessments since he last wrote to hon. Members with the details of earlier engagements. [77976]

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

  Aircraft Carriers (Contractors)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department has made in selecting contractors for completion of the future aircraft carriers. [75972]

  Mr. Spellar
  Invitations to Tender for the Assessment Phase of the Future Carrier programme were issued to 6 contractors on 25 January 1999. Up to 3 contracts will
  19
  be awarded towards the end of this year. We anticipate further down selection during the course of the Assessment Phase leading to the selection of a prime contractor in 2004.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will name the Ministers in his Department who are regular users of electronic Red Boxes. [76168]

  Sponsored body

  Role

  Tide

  Remuneration

  Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites

  Member

  Mr. Robin Daniels

  No

  British Library Board

  Member

  Viscount Runciman of Duxford CBE

  Yes

  British Tourist Authority

  Chairman

  David Quarmby

  Yes

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Ms Sally O'Sullivan

  Yes

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Mr. Uday Dholakia

  Yes

  Crafts Council

  Member

  Mr. David Field MBE

  No

  Crafts Council

  Member

  Professor Jeremy Myerson

  No

  Crafts Council

  Member

  Dr. Jennifer Harris

  No

  Crafts Council

  Member

  Ms Cynthia Cousens

  No

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Councillor Philip Davis

  Yes

  English Sports Council

  Member

  Ms Brigid Simmonds

  No

  English Sports Council

  Member

  Ms Tessa Sanderson

  No

  Independent Television Commission

  Deputy Chairman

  Lord Holme of Cheltenham

  Yes

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Professor Mel Collier

  No

  National Film and Television School

  Governor

  Ms Ann Beynon

  No

  National Film and Television School

  Governor

  Rupert Gavin

  No

  National Film and Television School

  Governor

  Mr. Marc Samuelson

  No

  National Film and Television School

  Governor

  Ms Floella Benjamin

  No

  National Film and Television School

  Governor

  Mr. Clive Jones

  No

  National Film and Television School

  Governor

  Ms Andrea Calderwood

  No

  National Film and Television School

  Governor

  Viscount Chandos

  No

  National Film and Television School

  Governor

  Ms Joyce Taylor

  No

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member Northern Ireland

  Ms Sheila Jane Malley

  No

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member Wales

  Mr. Jeff Carroll

  No

  National Lottery Commission

  Commissioner

  Mr. Robin Squire

  Yes

  National Lottery Commission

  Commissioner

  Ms Harriet Spicer

  Yes

  National Lottery Commission

  Commissioner

  Dame Helena Shovelton

  Yes

  National Lottery Commission

  Commissioner

  Mr. Brian Pomeroy

  Yes

  National Lottery Commission

  Commissioner

  Ms Hilary Blume

  Yes

  Public Lending Right Advisory Committee

  Member

  Mr. Roger Palmer

  No

  Radio Authority

  Member

  Mr. David Witherow

  Yes

  Radio Authority

  Member

  Mr. Feargal Sharkey

  Yes

  Radio Authority

  Member

  Mrs. Sheila Hewitt

  Yes

  Reviewing Committee on the Exports of Works of Art

  Member

  Mr. Alistair Laing

  No

  Reviewing Committee on the Exports of Works of Art

  Member

  The hon. Georgina Sonor

  No

  Royal Armouries

  Member

  Mrs. Ann Green

  No

  Royal Armouries

  Member

  Professor John Childs

  No

  United Kingdom Sports Council

  Member

  Ms Zahara Hyde-Peters

  No

  United Kingdom Sports Council

  Member

  Miss Tanni Grey MBE

  No

  United Kingdom Sports Council

  Member

  Mrs. Diana King

  No

  United Kingdom Sports Council

  Member

  Mr. Adrian Metcalfe

  No

  United Kingdom Sports Council

  Member

  Prof. Myra Nimmo

  No

  United Kingdom Sports Council

  Member

  Mr. Gavin Stewart

  No

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many times Ministers in his Department have met their counterparts in the US Government since 1 June 1998; and if he will list the dates and locations of each meeting, the ministers involved on each occasion, and the name of the US counterpart at each meeting. [77124]
  20
  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 16 March 1999,Official Report, columns 651–52.

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 November 1998, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and if they receive remuneration. [76412]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The appointments made are as follows:

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Under the US political system there are no exact counterparts for DCMS Ministers. However, since 1 June 1998 my Ministers and I have met the following key individuals from those organisations most closely linked to my Department's responsibilities and to the US Government:

  On Wednesday 16 September 1998 in Washington DC I met Ellen Lowell, White House Millennium

  21
  Co-ordinator; William Kennard, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission; and, Harriet Fullbright, Chair, President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities.

  On Thursday 25 February 1999, in New York, Alan Howarth, Minister for the Arts, met Ms Scott Shanklin-Preston, Senior Deputy Chair, National Endowment for the Arts; Ed McBride, President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities; and, Malcolm Richardson, White House Millennium Council.

  Commonwealth Games Headquarters
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he is taking to retain the headquarters of the Commonwealth Games Federation in England; and if he will make a statement. [R] [77977]

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will take steps to ensure that the Commonwealth Games headquarters remain in London; and if he will make a statement. [77774]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: This Government place great importance on retaining in the UK the headquarters of all international sports federations based here, including the Commonwealth Games Federation. That is why, in addition to on-going financial support from the English Sports Council Trust for the Federation, I have welcomed the UK Sports Council's strategy to assist the retention of international federations in this country. Part of this strategy will include financial support for the CGF's accommodation in London and a secondment to the Federation in the lead up to the 2002 Commonwealth Games.

  I have reassured the Chairman of the CGF of our commitment.

  Sports Meetings
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the chief executives of the international sporting bodies resident in the United Kingdom whom he has met since 1 May 1998. [77773]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: Since May 1998, I have had formal meetings with senior representatives from two international sports federations based in this country, namely, the Commonwealth Games Federation and the International Tennis Federation. I should stress that, through the Sports Councils as well as regular meetings and correspondence, both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have close links with the national governing bodies of sport and are well informed of developments and issues surrounding international sport federations based in this country.

  This Government are fully committed to encouraging international sports federations to locate in the UK and to retaining those bodies which are already based here.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Disestablishment
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will assess the financial consequences of disestablishment of the Church of England. [76004]
  22
  Mr. Stuart Bell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 25 January 1999,Official Report, column 17.

  Disestablishment would not lie with the Commissioners to initiate and, without formal instructions and definitions, any estimates of costs are impractical.

  Clergy Pensions
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergy and clergy widows' pensions are currently contributed to by the Church Commissioners; what is the annual funding involved; and what these figures were(a) five and (b) 10 years ago. [76005]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  I have arranged for this information to be placed in the House of Commons Library. In order to assist the hon. Member, however, he should note that at 31 December 1998 the Commissioners were contributing to the pensions of 7,341 clergy and 4,298 widows. The total cost for the year was £82.3m. In addition, funding of 1.3m was used to subsidise the cost of retirement housing.

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the policy of the Church Commissioners towards redundant churches. [76006]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  When a Church of England church is closed for public worship under the Pastoral Measure it is the policy of the Church Commissioners to assist and encourage the diocese to seek a suitable alternative use for the building. If no such use can be found, the Commissioners usually have to decide in the light of the advice of their statutory advisers, the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches, between preservation by the Churches Conservation Trust and demolition.

  Church Risk Management Group
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the work of the Church Risk Management Group. [76007]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church Risk Management Group has recently been established in the diocese of Leicester and is available to give practical advice to all Church of England churches in the diocese on all matters relating to security and risk management. The Group includes representatives from the diocesan office, the City and County Councils, fire brigade, police and the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group and will visit churches to assess and advise on risks that might not be immediately recognisable to the untrained eye. It works closely with the diocesan advisory committee and appropriate outside agencies to improve fire safety, crime reduction levels and risk management in all church property. The scheme has received an enthusiastic response from the local church and central church authorities and may be offered to other dioceses.
  23

HOME DEPARTMENT

  European Asylum System
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Government policy towards the establishment of a single European asylum system. [76289]

  Kate Hoey
  A single European asylum system is a theoretical possibility. It could conceivably take a number of different forms. We have formed no particular view at present, but will consider the matter further in the light of the study to establish the merits of such a system which is a feature of the Council and Commission's Action Plan on the implementation of the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of freedom, security and justice, which was deposited on 17 November 1998.

  Sergeant Gurpal Virdi
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions and for what reasons the Metropolitan Police have applied for delay in determining Sergeant Gurpal Virdi's Employment Tribunal application. [77237]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the Metropolitan Police have twice applied for a delay in determining Sergeant Gurpal Virdi's Employment Tribunal application. On both occasions, the reason was to await the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service on whether charges should be brought against Sergeant Virdi.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Sergeant Gurpal Virdi was suspended from the Metropolitan Police; and when the Metropolitan Police advised his Department of the Employment Tribunal case relating to Sergeant Gurpal Virdi. [77235]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that Sergeant Gurpal Virdi was suspended from duty on 15 April 1998.

  The Metropolitan Police had not previously had reason to advise me of the Employment Tribunal relating to Sergeant Virdi. The Commissioner tells me that a directions hearing of the tribunal has been arranged for 5 May 1999.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what disciplinary charges the Metropolitan Police plans to lay against Sergeant Gurpal Virdi. [77236]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that on 23 February 1999 the Metropolitan Police Complaints Investigation Branch was asked to consider whether any disciplinary action should be taken against Sergeant Gurpal Virdi and if so what the disciplinary charges should be. No decision has yet been taken on these matters.

  EU Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Brussels on 12 March; and if he will make a statement. [77249]
  24
  Mr. Straw
  My hon. Friends the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and I represented the United Kingdom at the Council. The main matters dealt with were as follows:

  'A' points

  The Council agreed as 'A' points, among other things: draft rules on the Europol pension fund; an extension of the mandate of the Europol Drugs Unit (EDU) management team; draft rules governing the transmission of personal data by Europol to third states and bodies; a report on the activities of EDU/Europol in 1998; and a Regulation determining those nationals of third countries who require a visa when crossing the external borders of the European Union.

  Europol: Preparation for taking up activities

  The Presidency sought information from individual member states on the progress they had made on agreeing the mandates for the appointment of Europol Directors, and on completing the exchange of bilateral notes with the Dutch Government which will govern the position of Europol Liaison Officers.

  The Presidency also reported the latest state of play concerning the draft rules of procedure to be adopted by Europol's Joint Supervisory Body. This matter will be considered again at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in May.

  On the issue of the extension of Europol's mandate to cover forgery of money and means of payment, the Presidency confirmed that Coreper would re-examine an outstanding issue relating to the legal definition of the term
  "forgery of money and means of payment".

  Eurodac

  The Council reached political agreement to freeze the text of the draft Protocol to the Eurodac Convention (adding illegal immigrants to the fingerprinting database for asylum seekers), pending the introduction of a First Pillar instrument after the coming into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. It was noted that the opinion of the European Parliament on the draft Protocol was still outstanding and that a number of member states still had national Parliamentary scrutiny reservations.

  Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in criminal matters

  The Presidency noted continuing reserves on issues relating to territorial application and data protection. One member state was urged to join agreement with the others on the "remote approach" to satellite network interceptions of telecommunications within the member states. In the absence of agreement, the Presidency concluded that this issue would go back to Coreper and the relevant working group.

  Effect of the transition from the Maastricht to the Amsterdam Treaty on civil law conventions

  The Council discussed opinions by the Commission and the Council Legal Services arguing that, after entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, ratification of the Brussels H and Service of Documents Conventions should be suspended as soon as Community instruments to replace them had been tabled. The Commission confirmed its intention to table replacement proposals reflecting exactly the content of the current conventions. The United

  25
  Kingdom with support from another Member State took the position that suspending ratification as soon as the Commission tabled a proposal, rather than when the instrument was adopted by the Council, risked leaving a legal vacuum.

  The Presidency sought, and achieved, political agreement that member states should be free to continue the ratification process until any superseding Community instruments were adopted by the Council.

  Revision of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions

  The Presidency reported on the current state of play. They hoped to make swift progress on the negotiation and to ensure proper arrangements were made for the Lugano countries in the context of any Community instrument. The United Kingdom took the position that there were strong political and legal arguments for continuing to discuss revision of the Brussels Convention as a convention, and that freezing discussion would send the wrong signal to the non-European States concerned.

  Internal Market and Consumer Protection

  The Presidency reported on the current position in respect of draft Directives on late payments, electronic signatures, consumer guarantees and distance selling of financial services.

  Definition and integration of the Schengen Acquis

  Under this agenda heading, I announced the United Kingdom's intentions regarding future participation in the incorporated Schengen provisions, the Free Movement Chapter of the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Justice and Home Affairs matters generally. I made it clear that, while we would maintain our frontier controls in line with the Amsterdam Treaty Protocol, we wished to co-operate in all other Justice and Home Affairs areas which did not conflict with this objective, and notably police, customs and judicial co-operation in criminal matters.

  Other Business

  Asylum procedures

  The Commission introduced a paper on harmonised procedures and called for discussion in the coming months. The paper stresses the importance of balancing the efficiency of the asylum process with fairness to the applicant. The Commission will submit formal proposals after further consultations.

  The Ocalan case

  One member state welcomed the General Affairs Council Declaration of 22 February and said further work was needed to ensure respect for human rights and a fair trial for Ocalan, including the presence of international observers and avoidance of the death penalty. There was no discussion.

  Readmission clauses in association agreements

  There was a call for the Council to adopt a common position on the inclusion of a standard clause on readmission in all third country agreements. It was agreed that comments on this item would be passed to the General Affairs Council.

  Mutual recognition/access to justice

  I gave notice of the United Kingdom's intention to table two papers for the Council's attention, one dealing with mutual recognition of court decisions and judgments, the other with access to justice in civil matters.
  26
  Second Protocol to the Customs Information System Convention

  This protocol was signed by members of the Council.

  Meeting with the Central and Eastern European countries (CEEs) and Cyprus

  In the afternoon, Justice and Home Affairs Ministers met their counterparts from the CEEs and Cyprus. There was an exchange of views between the CEEs and Cyprus, and European Union member states, on the adverse effects of corruption, and on the steps necessary to combat corruption in both the public and private sectors.

  EU General Affairs Council
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, consequential on the conclusions of the General Affairs Council of the European Union meeting on 7 December, he will list(a) the adaptations necessary to the working structures in justice and home affairs, and for what purposes, (b) when the changes were discussed at the Meeting of the K4 Committee and who represented Her Majesty's Government and (c) what instructions he has given to United Kingdom Permanent Representatives on COREPER in respect of its remit to prepare for the necessary changes. [77217]

  Mr. Straw
  I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the conclusions of the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 7 December 1998 relating to preparation of the implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty.

  It has been recognised for some time that the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam have legal and practical implications for Council working structures in the field of justice and home affairs (JHA). While the JHA Council will maintain political oversight over all JHA areas, including those transferring to the First Pillar, adjustments will need to be made to working structures below the level of the Council. The main change arises from the fact that the co-ordinating committee under Article 36 of the revised Treaty on European Union which will replace the present K4 Committee will, unlike that Committee, have no responsibility for the matters transferring to the First Pillar. In the interests of ensuring effective co-ordination of future work on immigration, asylum and border controls, and on civil judicial co-operation, it has been decided to create new groups to assure such coordination. The opportunity has also been taken to review lower level working structures, with a view to achieving greater coherence and efficiency and to incorporating Schengen working structures into the Council structures. A number of changes to working groups have now been agreed, for implementation when the Amsterdam Treaty enters into force.

  These matters have been discussed in the K4 Committee on a number of occasions, most recently at the meeting on 23–24 February, where the United Kingdom was represented by Mr. John Warne, Director of the Organised and International Crime Directorate at the Home Office.

  The Presidency's proposals were approved by the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper) on 17 March. It was also agreed that Coreper would review the new working structures at the end of the year 2000.
  27

  Emergency Calls (Accidents)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department collects comparative data on accidents involving police, ambulance and fire service vehicles responding to emergency calls. [77343]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No comparative data are collected but the Home Office monitors accident rates arising from both police responses to emergency calls and pursuits. We are supporting the Association of Chief Police Officers in all its work to reduce the casualties which regrettably arise from time to time in these situations.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the proportion of computer systems in (i) his Department, (ii) public services for which his Department is responsible and (iii) departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible, which will be millennium compliant by December; and if he will make a statement. [77294]

  Mr. Straw
  All business critical Information Technology systems in the Home Department are expected to be Millennium compliant well before December 1999.

  All Police Forces and Fire Brigades in England and Wales report that their business critical IT systems will be Millennium compliant by December 1999. Programmes of independent assessment of these reports are currently under way.

  All the Non-Departmental Public Bodies for which the Home Department is responsible report that their business critical IT systems will be Millennium compliant by December 1999.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total expenditure by his Department and by each of the public services for which he is responsible on ensuring that computer systems are millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [77295]

  Mr. Straw
  The projected total expenditure on Year 2000 work up to the end of March 1999 in the Home Department is £22.584 million. In addition, total expenditure on Year 2000 work up to the end of December 1998 in Police Forces was £17.2 million and in Fire Services was £1.756 million.

  A projection, undertaken in January 1999, of cumulative expenditure on Millennium compliance work up to March 2000 in the Home Department was £25.326 million; in the Police Forces, £56.233 million; and in the Fire Services, £8.605 million.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons in England and Wales currently have drug free wings; how many have specialised drug addiction treatment programmes and staff; and if he will make a statement. [77281]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is estimated that there are now approximately 4,000 voluntary testing places covering one third of prisons. There are currently 73 centrally funded 28
  drug treatment/rehabilitation programmes being delivered by prison and specialist staff. The Prison Service is committed to the expansion of treatment programmes and to providing access to voluntary testing for all prisoners considered suitable by 2001.

  Prisons (Seconded Probation Staff)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many seconded probation staff were working in HM prisons in England and Wales on 31 December in each of the last four years; what plans he has to change numbers of seconded staff over the next two years; and if he will make a statement. [77291]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The numbers of seconded probation staff in prison establishments for the last four years ending 31 December, are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1995

  1639

  1996

  1568

  1997

  590

  1998

  657

  1 Figures for 1995 and 1996 include probation seconded officers but not probation service officers which have been recorded only since 1997

  The Prison and Probation Services have a joint commitment to the effective delivery of throughcare. The number of seconded probation staff in establishments is dependent on an annual contract between the Governor of the establishment and the Chief Probation Officer for the area. Staffing levels need to be flexible, to meet changing requirements.

  Governors must adhere to the principles of the National Throughcare Framework Document—signed by the Prison and Probation Services—in determining the number of seconded probation staff needed to prepare ex-offenders adequately for post-release supervision.

  Home Detention Curfew
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders are currently on a home detention curfew; and if he will make a statement. [77282]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On 17 March 1999, there were 2,031 offenders on home detention curfew in England and Wales. Since the commencement of the scheme on 28 January 1999, 2,403 offenders have been placed on Home Detention Curfew. Of this number, 298 have successfully completed their curfew and 71 have been recalled.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the use of electronic tagging of young offenders; and if he will make a statement. [77283]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Curfew orders backed by electronic monitoring for young offenders aged 10 to 15 are currently being piloted in Norfolk and Greater Manchester. These are due to run until 31 March 2000. Information on the pilots is being collected and analysed
  29
  by the Research Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office. A final report is due early in 2000 and a decision will then be made on whether to extend the use of this provision.

  Communications Interception
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if individuals who have mistakenly had their communications intercepted by statutory agencies, owing to an error by a public telecommunications operator or for any other reason, are informed of the mistake and given details of the communications which have been intercepted; how many individuals mistakenly had their communications intercepted in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [77275]

  Mr. Straw
  Whenever a person's communications are intercepted in error a report explaining the reason for the error and the action taken in response is submitted to the Secretary of State and to the Commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. All product obtained from the interception is destroyed. The Commissioner reports on errors, in such detail as he considers appropriate, in his annual reports. The numbers of errors in the last five published reports are as follows:

  Report for (year)

  Number of errors

  1993

  9

  1994

  14

  1995

  7

  1996

  8

  1997

  18

  I would refer the right hon. Member to the annual reports themselves—copies of which are in the Library—for a description of the errors. In accordance with long established policy and consistently with the statutory provisions, people are not notified when their telephones are intercepted under warrant. This policy also applies in relation to cases where a person's communications are intercepted in error.

  Fire Engines (London)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a decision on the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority's proposal to reduce the number of fire engines in London. [77315]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On 1 March my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary received the application by the Authority, under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, for his approval to the removal of five fire appliances and associated firefighting posts.

  Where an application is straightforward and uncontentious my right hon. Friend aims to reach a decision within six weeks. However, it is important that hon. Members, organisations and members of the public who wish to make representations about a section 19 application have the opportunity to do so. In a case such as this, where it is already clear that there will be a significant number of representations to consider, my right hon. Friend will normally take much longer than six weeks to reach his decision. I can assure the hon. Member that the application will not be approved unless we are
  30
  entirely satisfied, in the light of advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Fire Services, that the national standards of fire cover will be maintained.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the procedure by which convicted prisoners may apply for permission to visit close relatives in other penal institutions in England. [77639]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Inter-prison visits may, on application, be allowed between prisoners who are close relatives when both parties are inmates at separate establishments, subject to the requirements of security and the availability of transport and accommodation. The procedures for convicted prisoners to apply for permission to have such visits are set out in Prison Rules 33 and 34, Standing Order 5A and Circular Instruction 11/1991, copies of which are held in the Library.

  Fire Research
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has spent in each of the last three years on funding research into fire-related issues. [77610]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Home Office fire research expenditure for the period 1995–96 to 1997–981.

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  845,745

  1996–97

  590,490

  1997–98

  541,437

  1 Figures supplied by the Fire Research and Development Group, FEPD.

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish forecasts of asylum applications and details of how the cost of supporting asylum seekers is calculated. [78426]

  Mr. Straw
  A note entitled 'Estimates of public expenditure on asylum seeker support' has been placed in the Library and circulated to interested parties. I am also today publishing an Information Document which sets out further details of the proposed asylum support arrangements. I am arranging for copies to be sent to every Member and placed in the Library.

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what involvement fleet managers have had in drawing up his Department's Green Transport Plan. [77971]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department is drawing up green transport plans for its headquarters buildings including those occupied by its Executive Agencies by the end of this month and for all other key buildings by March 2000. My Department's fleet managers have been fully involved in developing the policy.
  31

  Local Authority Spending
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the local authorities to which Ministers have written urging greater spending on local services within their portfolio area. [77959]

  Mr. Straw
  Home Office Ministers have not written to any local authorities in those terms.

  Fire Service (Staffing)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on staffing levels in each Fire Service area. [77693]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on staffing levels in each fire authority area is included in the annual Reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services for England and Wales. The report for 1997–98 was presented to Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in October 1998.

  Prisoner Deaths (Notification)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) guidelines and (b) regulations his Department has regarding (i) the notification of relatives and (ii) the information, support and guidance offered to relatives after a death in (1) prison and (2) police custody. [77337]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service issued revised instructions to staff last autumn under Prison Service Order 2710—'Follow Up To Deaths In Custody'. These instructions give guidance on the notification of the next of kin and how the bereaved can be helped and supported in a sensitive manner during this difficult period.

  The decision on how to inform the next of kin should take into account individual circumstances. Wherever possible, notification is made by a governor grade and chaplain from the appropriate denomination. However, in some instances notification via the police is necessary. Supporting relatives and keeping them informed of developments following a death are of paramount importance. A senior member of staff is appointed as the named point of contact (a second person will be available in the first person's absence) for the family, who are invited to visit the prison.

  The Prison Service has reviewed its practice in relation to disclosing information about investigations into deaths in prison custody. As a result, it proposes to investigate any death occurring on or after 1 April on the basis of disclosure before the inquest to persons whom the Coroner believes to have a proper interest in preparing for it. This disclosure must not compromise the inquest or any criminal proceedings or infringe the legal rights of witnesses. Each case will be reviewed in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The position in the police service is that all police officers early on in their service are given training on dealing with all sudden deaths, which includes notifying relatives of a sudden death. Where the death occurs in police custody, it would be for the senior officer in charge
  32
  to decide on the appropriate way of informing the relatives of the death. It is normal practice for the next of kin to be informed by a police officer in person. Practice on the provision of written information varies among forces but in the Metropolitan Police Service they normally provide the family with a leaflet on the role of the coroner and a leaflet by the independent Police Complaints Authority on investigating serious incidents. They may also appoint a family liaison officer of above inspector rank at local level.

  Home Office guidance is shortly to be issued to chief officers of police about the disclosure of documentary evidence to interested parties in advance of inquest hearings which concern deaths in police custody. The guidance advises that disclosure should be the normal practice in all cases of death in police custody, as well as deaths arising from fatal road accidents involving the police.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will update his answer of 9 July 1998,Official Report, column 590, on strip searches; if he will list the conclusions and recommendations of the review of strip searching procedures; and if he will place a copy of the final report in the Library. [78175]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 9 February 1999,Official Report, column 137. I will write to him when the report is complete.

  Data Protection Act 1998
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he is making towards bringing the Data Protection Act 1998 into force. [78411]

  Mr. Straw
  We are making good progress in preparing the large amount of subordinate legislation needed to complete the regime created by the 1998 Act. We intend to make the drafts of the instruments available on the Internet in due course. We hope to bring the new regime into force by the end of June or as soon thereafter as we can.

  Metropolitan Police (Objectives)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the Metropolitan Police Committee's advice on proposed objectives for the Metropolitan Police, and on an Efficiency Plan, in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [78412]

  Mr. Straw
  Yes. Following consultation with the Metropolitan Police Committee and the Commissioner, I have approved the following objectives for the Metropolitan Police in 1999–2000:

  Dealing with Young Offenders
  To deal speedily and effectively with young offenders and to work with other agencies to reduce offending and re-offending.

  Reducing Crime and Disorder
  To provide corporate support for local partnerships to reduce local crime and disorder
  To reduce the incidence of repeat victimisation, specifically in respect of burglary, racial incidents, homophobic attacks and Domestic Violence.
  33
  Reducing Drug Related Crime
  To target and reduce drug related crime in partnership with other local agencies.

  Diversity
  To increase the MPS's commitment to become an anti-racist organisation and the awareness and confidence of minority ethnic communities and groups in the MPS's ability to deal convincingly with Racially Motivated Crime.
  These objectives are set out in the Metropolitan Police Policing Plan 1999–2000 which the Commissioner is issuing with my approval.

  Again with my approval, following consultation with the Metropolitan Police Committee, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is publishing at the same time an Efficiency Plan for 1999–2000 which aims for efficiency gains of 3.5 per cent.

  Minister

  Number of civil servants accompanying minister

  Destination

  Date

  Purpose of visit

  Return cost per passenger £

  Civil Service grade of passenger

  Adam Ingram

  None

  Japan/Taiwan

  February 1998

  IDB Trade Mission

  6,379.00

  Not applicable

  Secretary of State

  3

  Boston/Washington/New York

  March 1998

  Brief opinion formers on NI political development

  5,278.00

  1 senior civil servant, 1 special adviser, 1 grade 7

  Secretary of State

  2

  Washington/New York

  July 1998

  Post Agreement briefing

  5,048.25

  2 senior civil servants

  Secretary of State

  1

  New York

  October 1998

  Eleven city tour

  5,435.90

  1 senior civil servant

  Secretary of State

  1

  Chicago/Seattle

  October 1998

  Eleven city tour

  6,570.70

  1 senior civil servant

  Adam Ingram

  None

  New York/Washington

  November 1998

  Speaking engagements/receptions

  4,324.50

  Not applicable

  Paul Murphy

  2

  Washington

  December 1998

  Attend dinner hosted by President Clinton attended by all NI political party leaders

  5,576.55

  1 senior civil servant, 1 HEO

  The cost of these flights is part of this Administration's expenditure on ministerial overseas travel.

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list those people she has appointed to public bodies since 1 November 1998, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and if they receive remuneration. [76460]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have placed in the Library of the House a list of those individuals who have been appointed to public bodies in Northern Ireland in the period 1 November 1998 to 10 March 1999 with details of their position and whether they receive remuneration.

  Note:

  The list includes appointments which have been extended to cover the interim period prior to devolution.

  Foyle Fisheries Commission
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish for each fish counter on each river in the Foyle Fisheries Commission area the number of (1) salmon and grilse and (2) sea trout which passed through those counters in each month in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997 and (d) 1998. [76838]
  34
  I am sending copies of both these plans to all right hon. and hon. Members whose constituencies fall wholly or partly within the Metropolitan Police District and I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) ministers and (b) officials travelled first class on commercial aircraft for official purposes in 1998, broken down by (i) date, (ii) cost and (iii) Civil Service grade of passenger. [73961]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The rules on Ministerial travel are the same as those applied under the previous Administration. The information is as follows:

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The fish counters do not distinguish between salmon and large sea trout. Neither do they record fish of a size less than 45 centimetres. Accordingly, not all sea trout will be included in the counts.

  Such information as is available is contained in Tables 2 and 3 of the Annual Reports for the Foyle Fisheries Commission, copies of which are in the Library of the House. The Reports of the Foyle Fisheries Commission for 1997 and 1998 are not yet in the Library and the information available is as follows:

  River Faughan: Fish counts at Campsie Barrage

  1997

  1998

  January

  223

  8

  February

  91

  0

  March

  12

  0

  April

  10

  0

  May

  23

  341

  June

  784

  1,158

  July

  1,291

  39

  August

  320

  286

  September

  748

  74

  October

  23

  303

  November

  0

  131

  December

  0

  737

  35
  River Mourne: Adjusted Count of Salmon at Sion Mills Weir

  Although a fish counter was in operation at Sion Mills Weir during 1998 the counter was not operational for the period February to May due to the construction of a new fish pass and fish counting facilities. The validation of the counts of the 3 channels of the new facilities, when in operation in 1998, has not yet been completed and therefore it is not possible to provide any accurate figures for that year. The 1997 count was as follows:

  1997

  January

  879

  February

  108

  March

  36

  April

  0

  May

  75

  June

  1,849

  July

  1,480

  August

  140

  September

  226

  October

  480

  November

  1,200

  December

  574

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in each of the years 1990 to 1998, how many(a) salmon and grilse and (b) sea trout, were taken by (i) nets and (ii) anglers in the Foyle Commission area. [76883]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Although it is a statutory requirement that anglers in the Foyle Area make an annual catch return, in practice only a very small percentage of anglers provide this. On this basis, the catch information provided (and the percentage of anglers making a return) is as follows:

  Salmon and Grilse

  Sea trout

  Year

  Nets

  Rod catch

  Nets

  Rod catch

  Percentage returns from anglers

  1990

  44,420

  927

  1—

  1,399

  5.00

  1991

  25,816

  482

  1—

  1,222

  9.17

  1992

  42,257

  523

  1—

  1,415

  5.78

  1993

  38,028

  1,214

  1—

  738

  9.11

  1994

  38,854

  1,759

  1—

  592

  12.12

  1995

  35,912

  708

  1—

  759

  6.77

  1996

  30,544

  1,444

  1—

  771

  3.44

  1997

  43,963

  1,020

  1—

  802

  3.30

  1998

  39,950

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1 Not available

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the availability of places for(a) part-time and (b) full-time pre-school education for children other than those from socially disadvantaged circumstances for the school year ending 31 July, 2000. [76931]

  Mr. McFall
  I expect approximately 8,500 full-time and 8,000 part-time pre-school education places to be available in Northern Ireland in the school year 1999–2000. These places should be sufficient for around 70 per cent. of all children in their immediate pre-school year, compared to 45 per cent. in 1997–98. It is not possible to predict the 36
  numbers of children from socially disadvantaged circumstances who will take up pre-school education places, but, if all in this group are allocated places, sufficient places should be available for almost 60 per cent. of the remainder of children.

  Airports
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has(a) to approve and (b) to initiate developments relating to airports before the completion of the economic impact studies covering airports and air services announced in "A New Deal for Transport"; and if she will make a statement. [76992]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  A number of developments have recently been initiated some by local airport authorities. Each application for planning permission will be considered on its merits and it is not possible to indicate in advance whether approval will be given. The Government have no role in initiating airport developments.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the study of the economic impact of regional airports and regional air services announced in "A New Deal for Transport"; when these studies will be completed in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [76991]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Regional Air Services Study is already underway and is due to be completed by the end of the summer. The study findings should be published in September-October 1999.

  Human Rights Commission
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on political balance in the future make up of the Human Rights Commission. [77084]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires that the Secretary of State, in making appointments to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission,"shall as far as practicable secure that the Commissioners, as a group, are representative of the community in Northern Ireland."
  The Secretary of State on 1 March appointed a Chief Commissioner and nine part-time Commissioners for a three-year term. The Government believe that the Commissioners, as a group, are representative of the community in Northern Ireland. There are no plans to make any additional appointments.

  Company Licences
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for(a) small and medium-sized enterprises and (b) larger companies (i) all licences and permits issued by her Department and its agencies to companies permitting them to carry out their business, (ii) the cost of each such licence or permit in (A) 1997–98 and (B) 1999–2000 and (iii) the current number of companies which are in receipt of each such licence or permit. [76856]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: This information has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons.
  37

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will list for the week ended Saturday 6 March the number of(a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland indicating how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups; [77109]

  (2) if she will list for the week ended Saturday 6 March the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved (a) Loyalist and (b) Republican groups. [77108]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the period 28 February to 6 March 1999, there were no shooting incidents reported. There were 3 bombing incidents.

  The number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks during the same period were as illustrated:

  By Loyalist Groups

  By Republican Groups

  Assaults

  2

  2

  Shootings

  0

  0

  Total

  2

  2

  Notes:

  1. Figures may be subject to minor amendment in the light of further information becoming available.

  2. The bombings cannot as yet be attributed to any grouping.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will list for the week ended Saturday 13 March the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups; [77318]

  (2) if she will list for the week ended Saturday 13 March the number of (a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [77319]

  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of security incidents during the period 7 March-13 March 1999 are shown:

  Shooting incidents: 5

  Bombing incidents: 1.

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

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  nil

  1

  Shootings

  nil

  3

  Total

  nil

  4

  Note:

  1. Figures may be subject to minor amendment in the light of further information becoming available.

  2. The bombing cannot as yet be attributed to a grouping.

  Police Complaints
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what are the main stages in an investigation conducted by the Complaints and Discipline 38
  Department of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; what is the average time taken to complete each stage; and how many complaints have been processed and completed over each of the last three years; [78164]

  (2) what are the main stages in an investigation conducted by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints; what is the average time taken to complete each stage; and how many complaints have been processed and completed over each of the last three years; [78170]

  (3) what is the projected estimate and breakdown of the annual budget of the Office of the Police Complaints Ombudsman; how many staff will be employed for the first three years of operation; and at what salary grades; [78171]

  (4) what is her estimate of how many investigations will be conducted by the Office of the Police Complaints Ombudsman over its first three years. [78172]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave him on 15 February 1999,Official Report, columns 475–76.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are, in each of the last four years for which figures are available, the principal items of expenditure contributing to the total annual budget of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints; and how many staff were employed and at what salary grades. [78169]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the last four years' reports of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints which provide Statements of Accounts giving the information requested.

  1998 Annual Report—HMSO, ISBN 0–10–288899—X, pages 66 and 67

  Details of staffing levels and costs are given on page 68 and 69 of the 1998 Report

  1997 Annual Report, HMSO, ISBN 0–10–250698–1, pages 68 and 69

  1996 Annual Report, HMSO, ISBN 0–10–255498–6, pages 52 and 53

  1995 Annual Report, HMSO, ISBN 0–10–255896–5. pages 60 and 61

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were, in each of the last four years for which figures are available, the principal items of expenditure contributing to the total annual budget of the Complaints and Discipline Department of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and how many officers and staff were employed in that Department, and at what salary grades. [78163]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 25 February 1999,Official Report, column 360.

  Independent Police Ombudsman
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions she had with the Chief Constable of the RUC before deciding not to appoint either of the two short-listed candidates as the new Independent Police Ombudsman. [77630]
  39
  Mr. Ingram
  None. The Secretary of State and I interviewed two candidates and, while we found them to be of a high standard, we felt that they did not sufficiently meet the requirements we had set for this extremely sensitive and important post.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Chief Constable of the RUC has a veto on the appointment of the Independent Police Ombudsman. [77631]

  Mr. Ingram
  No.

  Northern Ireland Police Authority
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many press releases were issued by the Northern Ireland Police Authority between 10 February 1998 and 31 December 1998; and how many of these notices were posted on the Police Authority Internet web site. [78160]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 477.

  Terrorist Organisations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will update the answer of 2 November 1998,Official Report, columns 363–64, on terrorist organisations, (a) to indicate the profile of the politically motivated prison population in Northern Ireland by location, status and perceived affiliation and (b) to indicate the estimate of prisoner releases for each perceived affiliation projected for each quarter up to 30 September 2000. [78159]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is as follows:

  Table A shows the perceived paramilitary affiliations of prisoners at HMP Maze.

  Table B

  1999

  2000

  Perceived affiliation

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Total

  INLA

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Loyalist

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  LVF

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  4

  NT

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  PIRA

  0

  8

  2

  9

  8

  0

  6

  33

  Rep Sym

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Republican

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  RHC

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  UDA

  1

  4

  7

  2

  1

  3

  1

  19

  UFF

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  UVF

  0

  4

  1

  3

  0

  3

  0

  11

  Total

  2

  19

  14

  15

  13

  6

  8

  77

  Maze Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response the Northern Ireland Prison Service has made to Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons' report on HMP Maze; and if she will place a copy of the response in the Library. [78162]
  40

  Table A

  Number

  Loyalists

  UVF

  42

  LVF

  17

  UDA

  53

  Total

  112

  Republican

  PIRA

  85

  INLA

  23

  Total

  108

  Information is held in relation to the perceived paramilitary association of prisoners, where applicable, for management purposes. With the exception of HMP Maze where links are more clearly defined, this information is based on a combination of factors including the offence, sympathies and associates. No information is held on the political affiliations of any prisoners. For clarification, I would confirm that these figures include prisoners currently on temporary release from prison.

  Table B shows a total of 77 prisoners whose cases have been deemed to meet the requirements of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 by the Sentence Review Commission and who have been given Substantive Determinations with release dates up to end September 2000. It includes only those prisoners whose perceived affiliation is to organisations which have not been specified under Section 3 of the 1998 Act. This is drawn from information received by the Secretary of State as at 5 February 1999 from the Sentence Review Commissioners to whom prisoners apply for early release. The 1998 Act also provides that, if circumstances permit, prisoners with release dates falling after the second anniversary of the coming into force of that Act (on 28 July 1998) who have served two years or more in prison will be released on that anniversary. Those prisoners are not shown in Table B.

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 477.

  Northern Ireland Prison Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many press releases were issued
  41
  by the Northern Ireland Prison Service between 31 May 1997 and 31 December 1998; and how many of these notices were posted on the Prison Service Internet web site. [78161]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 477.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) under which Sections of the (i) Environmental Protection Act 1990 and (ii) any other Act he has issued regulations concerning conditions to be met by applicants for cultivation of genetically modified crops for (1) research and (2) sale, (b) the (A) dates, (B) numbers, (C) titles of any such Regulations and (D) those which require approval by resolution of either House of Parliament and (c) what general exemptions from any part of any such regulations he has given to (x) which persons and (y) bodies and (z) for what reason. [72561]

  Mr. Meacher
  The release and marketing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is governed by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992, SI 1992–3280, as amended by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1995, SI 1995–304, and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release and Risk Assessment) Regulations 1997, SI 1997–1900 which give effect to Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Together, these implement Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. There is no requirement for approval by resolution of either House of Parliament and no general exemptions have been given to particular persons or bodies.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will state the level of representation of the United Kingdom on each regulatory Committee of the European(a) Commission and (b) Council concerned with the approval for (i) experiment and (ii) sale of genetic crops, listing the producers used at each stage, the mode of decision by vote and the legal basis for such decision. [73720]

  Mr. Meacher
  All consents for the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs are issued on the basis of the procedures laid down in Directive 90/220/EEC.

  Although there is exchange of information at EC level regarding the release of GMOs for research purposes, consents are issued on a national level without the need for EC-level approval. Applications to market GMO products must, however, be cleared by the European Community before consent is granted. The Commission's regulatory committee is therefore involved with the approval of marketing applications.

  If objections are raised by other Member States' competent authorities to a marketing notification forwarded by the lead competent authority to the Commission, a decision is taken by the Commission
  42
  regulatory committee using the type IIIa procedure. At these meetings the UK is normally represented by an official of at least Grade 7 level.

  If the vote is in favour by a qualified majority, release is then approved by the original competent authority. If there is not a qualified majority in favour, the Commission submits a proposal to Ministers at the Environment Council.

  If the Council agrees by a qualified majority the release goes ahead, while if it rejects the proposal by qualified majority, the proposed release is rejected. If the Council does not decide within 3 months, the Commission may approve the release.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is the present acreage of trial genetically modified crops under cultivation; [74852]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the percentage of crops under cultivation which are trials of genetically modified crops. [74853]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: All the genetically modified crops currently grown are small-scale experimental trials. This year, we expect the area under cultivation to be approximately 300 hectares. This is about 0.006% of the total area under cultivation for all crops of almost 5 million hectares.

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the names of the members of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, indicating their involvement with(a) the biotech industry and (b) companies with an interest in growing gene crops on a trial basis. [72305]

  Mr. Meacher
  Members of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) are required openly to declare their interests. These are published in ACRE's annual report, which is available in the House of Commons Library. The current entries are reproduced as follows:

  Professor John Beringer

  Professor of Molecular Genetics and Dean of Science, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol

  Member of ACGM

  Member of the Council of the Natural Environment Research Council

  Dr. Philip Dale

  Senior Research Scientist

  John Innes Centre, Norwich

  Consultant to EC DGXI and UNIDO

  Dr. Ian Garner

  Assistant Director of Research, PPL Therapeutics, Roslin

  Member of BBSRC's Genes in Developmental Biology Network

  Professor Alan Gray

  Head of Furzebrook Research Station, NERC Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

  Honorary Professor, University of Southampton

  43

  Ms Julie Hill

  Programme advisor to Green Alliance

  Member of the Advisory Committee for the Pesticides Trust, Environmental Law Foundation, and Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and environmental advisory bodies for Shanks and McEwan plc and Southern Electricity.

  Dr. Julian Kinderlerer

  Senior Lecturer—Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Sheffield

  Assistant Director—Institute of Biotechnology Law and Ethics, University of Sheffield

  Member of ACGM

  Consultant to UNIDO

  Mr. John MacLeod

  Director, National Institute of Agricultural Botany

  Member, UK Plant Varieties and Seeds Committee

  Member, Groupe Consultatif International de Recherche sur le Colza

  Professor Bev Moseley

  Retired, former Head of Institute Food Research Reading Laboratory

  Professor David Onions

  Head of Department of Veterinary Pathology, University of Glasgow

  Honorary Director of The Leukaemia Research Fund's Human Virus Centre

  Consultant to Q-One Biotec

  Advisor to Intervet International BV

  Professor Nigel Poole

  External and Regulatory Affairs Manager, Zeneca Plant Science, Bracknell

  Honorary Professor, University of Aberdeen

  Honorary Professor, John Moores University

  Dr. David Robinson

  Principal Research Scientist, Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Honorary Lecturer, University of Dundee

  Member of Genetic Manipulation Safety Committee at Nickerson Seeds' Castleton of Eassie site

  Dr. Ingrid Williams

  Principal Scientist

  Leader of the Insect-Plant Interactions Group, Institute of Arable Crops Research Rothamsted

  Honorary Research Associate IGER

  Visiting Professor Estonian University of Agriculture

  Chairman of International Commission for Plant-Bee Relationships

  Council Member and Company director of International Bee Research Association

  Dr. Katherine Venables

  Senior Lecturer in Epidemiology at Imperial College School of Medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute.

  Honorary Consultant Physician at the Royal Brompton Hospital, and Honorary Consultant in Public Health to the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority.

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of rural bus services in the North-West of England. [76359]
  44
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are committed to increasing transport services in rural areas. The 1998 Budget provided an additional £50 million a year for three years for rural public transport. This was increased to £60 million a year for the next two years in the Budget on 9 March.

  As part of this new funding, we have provided £2.635 million to local authorities for the support of new bus services in the North-West in the current year. We have also committed £1.15 million from the Rural Bus challenge competition to support schemes in the North-West aimed at a range of measures to improve the quality and availability of services. We have also approved £322,000 for schemes in the North-West from the Rural Transport Partnership, aimed at building on the success of existing local initiatives and facilitating better coordination of voluntary, local authority and commercial services.

  We will be publishing shortly more details of our proposals, which were outlined in the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport" last summer, for measures to ensure that buses can play their full part in an integrated transport policy, in town and country alike.

  M25
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to resurface the M25 between Junctions 29 and 30 with a low noise surface. [77654]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are currently no plans to resurface the M25 between junctions 29 and 30. This section of the motorway is structurally sound and will not require major maintenance for some while yet. It is not our policy to resurface in advance of normal maintenance requirements. When resurfacing of this section becomes necessary, the Highways Agency will certainly consider whether a quieter surfacing material should be used in line with the Government's policy announced last year.

  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received about noise from the M25 between Junctions 29 and 30. [77655]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The only recorded representation about noise from the M25 between junction 29 and 30, received in the past three years, is from the Head of Transportation and Engineering in the London Borough of Havering, who wrote to the Highways Agency on behalf of residents and Ward Members in the Cranham area.

  Motor Insurance
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the Motor Insurers Bureau agreements in relation to(a) untraced and (b) uninsured motorists. [77577]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have no immediate plans to review the Untraced Drivers Agreement. A revised Untraced Drivers Agreement was introduced in June 1996 after a comprehensive review.
  45
  The 1988 Uninsured Drivers Agreement is currently under review and a final draft of a revised agreement is being considered in the light of proposed changes to civil law procedures in cases involving third party liability, arising from Lord Woolfe's recommendations.

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what involvement fleet managers have had in drawing up his Department's green transport plan. [77961]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department is drawing up green transport plans for all headquarters buildings and main buildings occupied by Executive Agencies and Government Offices for the Regions by the end of this month and for all other key buildings by March 2000.

  My Department does not have fleet managers, but has drawn on best practice in developing its green transport plans.

  Local Authority Spending
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local authorities to which Ministers have written urging greater spending on local services within their portfolio area. [77956]

  Ms Armstrong
  I am not aware of any specific letters from Ministers at the Department urging greater spending on local services in 1999–2000.

  Stock of dwellings: estimated gains and losses 1997: by Government Office region

  Dwellings (Thousand)

  GO region

  December 1996 Dwelling stock

  New house building

  Other gains

  Changes 1997 Demolitions

  December 1997 Dwelling stock

  North East

  1,108.1

  7.2

  0.4

  1.1

  1,114.6

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  2,103.0

  15.9

  0.3

  1.0

  2,118.2

  East Midlands

  1,725.4

  14.2

  0.6

  0.4

  1,739.9

  East of England

  2,218.4

  21.2

  0.8

  1.0

  2,239.4

  South East

  3,251.2

  24.9

  1.6

  0.8

  3,276.9

  Greater London

  3,010.8

  12.0

  2.0

  0.2

  3,024.7

  South West

  2,067.7

  18.1

  1.0

  0.4

  2,086.4

  West Midlands

  2,165.4

  13.5

  0.8

  0.1

  2,179.6

  North West

  2,899.4

  20.3

  1.1

  1.4

  2,919.4

  England

  20,549.4

  147.3

  8.6

  6.2

  20,699.1

  GLA Building
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much the Government plans to pay for the acquisition of the London Bridge city site proposed by CIT Markborough Ltd for the new Greater London authority building. [77817]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Nothing, the building will be leased.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list each site for which outline proposals for a Greater London authority building were proposed and the grounds on which they were deemed inappropriate for final selection. [77822]
  46

  National Air Traffic Control Centre
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress with the new national air traffic control centre. [77689]

  Dr. Reid
  I understand that there has been good progress on the New En Route Air Traffic Control Centre project in the past year, and the centre is still expected to become operational by the spring of 2002.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the current rate of replacement is of Britain's housing stock(a) overall and (b) by region; and what estimate the Government have made of the rate at which Britain's housing stock needs to be replaced. [77627]

  Ms Armstrong
  The table shows the Department's estimates of the dwelling stock at end-1996 and end-1997, together with figures for housebuilding, gains from conversions and changes of use, and losses through demolitions. New housebuilding is developed both to replace existing stock and to provide homes for new households. Conversions represent the adaptation and upgrading of the existing stock. Demolitions are part of the process of replacing the current stock.

  Local authorities take the need to replace existing stock into account when calculating housing requirement for planning purposes.

  The Department does not make any estimates of the rate at which the housing stock needs to be replaced.

  Mr. Raynsford
  I can confirm that there were seven shortlisted sites from which outline proposals for a Greater London authority building were considered.

  A formal announcement of the shortlist was made on 22 September, the shortlisted buildings and sites were:

  Camelford House

  Canary Wharf

  London Bridge City

  Regents Place

  Vauxhall Cross

  Victoria House

  Town Square, Victoria.

  47
  The information provided by the seven shortlisted developers on which the evaluation was based was supplied on a commercially confidential basis and therefore cannot be disclosed.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who is the current owner of the London Bridge city site proposed by CIT Markborough Ltd for the new Greater London authority building. [77816]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The London Bridge city site currently being developed by CIT Markborough Ltd. is owned by London Bridge Holdings Ltd. The shareholders of that company are a member of the CIT Group of investors and DePfa Vastgoed, a wholly owned subsidiary of the DePfa Bank.

  The CIT Group comprises various high net worth individuals and the group assets include £500 of central London commercial property in addition to the land at London Bridge.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of(a) staff who will be located in and (b) visitors to the new Greater London authority building in the London Bridge city site. [77818]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We estimate that approximately 400 staff will be accommodated in the Greater London authority building. These is no way of telling how many members of the public will visit the new building, but we expect it to be an open and accessible structure, which will encourage Londoners and visitors to the capital to come along and view what will be a landmark design and see the Mayor and Assembly at work.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the cubic capacity of the proposed Greater London authority building on the London Bridge city site will be. [77821]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I can confirm that the cubic capacity of the Greater London authority building is 82,467 cubic metres (or 2,911,085 cubic feet).

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide a breakdown of the cost of the (i) development of and (ii) equipping of the London Bridge city site as proposed by CIT Markborough Ltd. for the new Greater London authority building. [77819]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The London Bridge city building will be leased and negotiations with the developers on the final design, contributions to fitting out the building and rent are still in progress. Details will be made available once these negotiations are complete.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what security measures have been taken to protect the London Bridge city site for the proposed Greater London authority building since its designation was announced. [77820]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The London Bridge city building will be leased for an initial period of 25 years and negotiations are ongoing with site developer, CIT Markborough, regarding these contractual matters.
  48

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the minimum age at which provisional or full driving licences may be issued for private cars. [77562]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are at present no plans to change the minimum age of 17 to hold provisional or full car driving licences.

  New Roads and Street Works Act 1991
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations from local authorities complaining about the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 he has received since 1 May 1997. [78057]

  Dr. Reid
  While correspondence is received from time to time on specific aspects of the Act and the secondary legislation, including responses to specific proposals to revise regulations and codes of practice, no central record is held of the number and character of the letters received. In co-operation with the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee, the Department keeps the workings of the Act under constant review, and a number of initiatives are currently under way to improve the operation of the Act's provisions.

  Utility Contractors
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the research by the Transport Research Laboratory into utility contractors compliance with national specifications will be made available. [78058]

  Dr. Reid
  It is the Department's normal practice to publish the results of research. In this case, we expect the results to be published in the near future. Arrangements will be made for copies of the publications to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy regarding ownership of regional airports by local councils. [77910]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Many regional airports, of different sizes, are owned by local authorities. The largest of these airports are structured as public airport companies, with the local authorities as the shareholders. Airports can benefit from local authority ownership and it is for local authorities to decide for themselves whether they wish to own airports, either wholly or through joint ventures with the private sector. The Government will remove central controls over borrowing from public airport companies which are able to demonstrate that they are financially sound. This will enable them to compete for business on a level playing field with private sector airports. Earlier this month we laid an order which will remove borrowing controls from four public airport companies with effect from 1 April. It is open to other public airport companies to apply in the future.
  49

  Air Traffic Management
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for how long NATS has been negotiating with the preferred bidder, Sky Solutions, to agree the new Scottish air traffic control centre PFI; and if he will make a statement. [77919]

  Dr. Reid
  NATS have been negotiating with Sky Solutions as preferred bidder since February 1997. Negotiations are continuing and I have now taken action to ensure that officials from my Department and from the Treasury are fully involved.

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will estimate the lead time required for construction and commissioning of a new Scottish air traffic control centre; [77921]

  (2) what options for the procurement of a new Scottish air traffic control centre will be considered in response to decisions on the future structure of NATS; and if he will make a statement; [77918]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the implications of a delay in commissioning a new Scottish air traffic control centre for (i) the airlines, (ii) air users and (iii) NATS in terms of (a) provision of services, (b) costs to service providers, (c) costs of continued use of existing air traffic control equipment at Atlantic House and (d) consequent costs of the control centre project; and if he will make a statement. [77922]

  Dr. Reid
  NATS estimate the lead time for the New Scottish Centre to be about 5–6 years. The consultation period on the Government's preferred option for the future of NATS—establishing a public-private partnership—has now closed and we are actively considering the responses received. At the same time, the Government and NATS are reviewing the procurement options for the New Scottish Centre to ensure that they provide the best fit with the PPP and provides best value for the taxpayer, NATS customers and for Scotland. The Government are keen to ensure that the NSC is completed in time to meet NATS operational needs.

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the scheduled operational date for the new Scottish air traffic control centre at Prestwick(a) was when the original tender documents were issued and (b) is currently. [77920]

  Dr. Reid
  At the time the original tender documents were issued in 1995, NATS estimated that the centre would be needed in around 2000. This date has been subject to revision in the light of ongoing planning work by NATS. Their current estimate is that it will be needed in 2005–06.

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to implement the two centre strategy for air traffic management independently of any decision on the future structure and ownership of NATS; if implementation of this strategy will be mandatory for any future owner of NATS; and if he will make a statement. [77923]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government remain firmly committed to implementing a two-centre strategy for NATS and to having one of those centres at Prestwick. My Department 50
  is working closely with National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (NATS) to develop the arrangements for financing the project.

  No final decisions have been taken on the future of NATS and my Department is currently developing detailed proposals, taking account of the views put to us in the recent public consultation. We will be making a statement in due course, but our commitment to the two-centre strategy will be reflected in any future arrangements for NATS.

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the responses to the consultation on the proposed public-private partnership for NATS. [77924]

  Dr. Reid
  We concluded the public consultation on our proposals for National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (NATS) on 31 January 1999. Some 230 responses were received. We will, in due course, make the responses publicly available, except in those cases where confidentiality was requested.

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those recommendations contained in the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency report on the technical audit of NATS new en route centre and future of air traffic management which NATS have implemented. [77917]

  Dr. Reid
  We have received the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency report on NATS new en route centre. Working with NATS, we are actively considering the suggestions and the best ways of implementing them. I will make a statement on this subject in due course.

  Town and Parish Councils
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average time taken for the determination by district auditors of challenges to town and parish councils with annual expenditure levels of under £100,000 in the last year for which figures are available. [77190]

  Ms Armstrong
  This information is not held by either the Department or the Audit Commission.

  Road Noise Mitigation
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made on the proposals for noise mitigation on existing trunk roads announced in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England". [78304]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State announced today that we have established criteria and a budget to deal with some of the most serious and pressing cases of traffic noise on existing trunk roads as promised in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England".

  The Government recognise that excessive traffic noise is an important issue for many people. Noise mitigation was not required on roads built before 1969, and in many cases the mitigation provided on roads built between 1969 and 1988 (when the approach to assessing traffic noise was changed) was based on unrealistically low predicted noise levels. This means there has been inequity in the

  51
  treatment of residents living close to certain trunk roads built before 1988. To help us identify the most serious and pressing cases we are today establishing criteria which will be used in an initial sift. Cases satisfying these sift criteria will be studied in greater depth to determine whether practicable and cost-effective mitigation can be provided. An annual ring-fenced budget of £5 million has been set aside to deal with the most serious of these trunk road cases in England.

  Our new sift criteria for noise mitigation will be:

  (a) trunk roads must have been opened before June 1988, but priority for attention is to be given to locations affected by roads which have remained unaltered since October 1969 (the qualifying date for the first noise mitigation measures);

  (b) current (ie 1998) noise levels immediately adjacent to the road to be at least 80 dB (A); and

  (c) in the case of roads opened or altered after October 1969, the current (ie 1998) noise levels must be at least 3 dB(A) greater than' predicted for the design year.

  As far as Wales and Scotland are concerned, this will be a matter for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament who, after devolution, will be responsible for trunk roads in Wales and Scotland.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about his recent visit to India and the Maldives. [78413]

  Mr. Prescott
  I visited India from 4 to 12 March, at the invitation of the Indian Environment Minister, and the Maldives from 12–15 March, as a guest of the Maldives Government.

  In India, I had meetings with the Prime Minister, the Ministers for External Affairs, Urban Affairs and Employment, Power, Civil Aviation, Surface Transport and the Environment and Forests, the Chief Minister and Minister of Public Works of Maharashtra, the Mayor and Municipal Corporation in Bombay and the Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation. In most of these meetings I was accompanied by a group of senior business men with interests in India, and a trades unionist. I also addressed the Millennium Tiger Conference, where I announced that the UK would join the Global Tiger Forum and provide further financial support for India's efforts to protect tigers; visited the Ranthambore nature reserve to see at first hand the efforts which the authorities are making to conserve tigers and the rich biodiversity of the Indian sub-continent; visited the Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI); attended a seminar on environment and transport issues organised by TERI; spoke at events organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) in Delhi, and the British Business Group and the CII in Bombay; and visited a compressed natural gas station in Bombay, with the Minister for Transport of the Government of Maharashrta. I also witnessed the signature of Memoranda of Understanding between the CII and the Joint Environmental Markets Unit of my Department and the Department of Trade & Industry, and between the CII and Asia House.

  En route to the Maldives, I met the Sri Lankan Minister of Foreign Affairs, and a number of other Ministers and business leaders, in Colombo. In the Maldives I had meetings with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Home
  52
  Affairs, Housing and the Environment, Tourism, and Construction and Public Works, and with the Director General of Fisheries Research and Development; visited the VSO office in Male, the Islamic Centre and the Maldivian Telecommunications Company; and also visited a sewage works and a desalination plant and various environmental projects. I was also able to see at first hand the coral reef damage resulting from climate change, pollution and other human activities, and to announce an extension of DfID funding for the South Asia region of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network.

  Water's Edge, Barton upon Humber
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list each offer of financial assistance made by English Partnerships to Glandford Council in respect of the Water's Edge site in Barton upon Humber and the dates upon which they were made. [77089]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: Funding for this project was first approved by the former Department of the Environment in 1991 under the Derelict Land Grant (DLG) scheme. When English Partnerships was established in April 1994, it took on responsibility for the DLG scheme including this project. In addition to administering previously approved aspects of this project, the agency approved grant totalling £162,370 on 28 September 1995, of which £154,252 was paid in the financial year 1997–98.

  Driving Licence Holders
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many UK citizens of 65 years or over hold current driving licences. [77458]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The total number of driving licence holder records for people aged 65 or over in Great Britain is 4.40 million. In Northern Ireland (where driver licensing is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland) the figure is 64,400.

  The number of actual licence holders may be smaller than the number of records because of failure to notify death or emigration.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants (Flights)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the flight number, date, time and place of departure and destination, class travelled, cost and purpose of each flight by senior civil servants in his Department in the course of their duties, including attendance at foreign conferences, symposiums and other meetings, between 1 May 1998 and the present; and what were the total costs of flights of each of the three senior civil servants whose flights cost the most between 1 May 1998 and the present. [75509]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The information is not held in the form requested. Most travel arrangements for Cabinet Office staff are made through a contractor. Between May and October 1998, senior civil servants in the Cabinet Office
  53
  made 106 flights booked through the contractor at an average cost of £824.62. During this period, the three most expensive flights were £4,900.70, £4,413.60 and £3,345.90. All travel complied with the requirements of the civil service management code.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many civil servants in his Department have been invited to waive the Working Time Directive requirement to work less than 48 hours a week on 17 consecutive weeks; how many civil servants in his Department have refused to waive the requirement; and what is the total cost of compliance with the Directive. [76813]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  491 staff in the Cabinet Office and its agencies have signed an agreement to dis-apply the 48 hour limit.

  The standard terms and conditions of service for staff employed by the Cabinet Office and its agencies are well within the limits set by the Working Time Regulations. The Regulations do not require employers to keep records of the number of workers who refuse to sign an opt-out agreement and no central records are kept by this Department. Compliance costs are not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Select Committee Documents
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if(a) Ministers, (b) special advisers and (c) civil servants saw the European Scrutiny Committee questions brief in advance of the appearance of the Parliamentary Secretary before the committee on 2 December. [77850]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer on 19 March 1999]: It has been a common but not universal practice over a long period for Committees to indicate the broad areas they intend to cover at a hearing, to ensure that the evidence session is as effective and productive as possible. I was informed of likely questions in advance of the Committee hearing on 2 December 1998.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he has discussed with representatives of the biotechnology industry the introduction of a voluntary three-year halt in the planting of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops. [77682]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  [holding answer on 19 March 1999]: No.

WALES

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil servants in his Department have been invited to waive the Working Time Directive requirement to work less than 48 hours a week on 17 consecutive weeks; how many civil servants in his Department have refused to waive the requirement; and what is the total cost of compliance with the Directive. [76797]
  54
  Mr. Hain
  No staff have yet been invited to waive the Working Time Directive. It is anticipated that a small proportion, less than 2 per cent., may be invited to waive the requirements of the Directive in due course.

  The standard terms and conditions of service for staff employed in my Department are well within the limits set by the Working Time Regulations. These Regulations do not require employers to keep records of the number of workers who refuse to sign an opt-out agreement and, therefore, no central record will be kept by my Department. The same applies to compliance costs which could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients in each health authority area had been waiting for NHS treatment in December 1996 for(a) six months and under, (b) six to 12 months, (c) 12 to 18 months and (d) over 18 months. [77461]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on waiting times is not collected in the form requested.

  In December 1996, the number of patients waiting for treatment in each health authority area is shown in the following table.

  Waiting times for December 1996

  Health authority

  Outpatients waiting over 6 months

  In/Daycase waiting over 12 months

  In/Daycase waiting over 18 months

  In/Daycase waiting over 2 years

  North Wales

  512

  390

  54

  1

  Bro Taf

  2,906

  1,669

  331

  0

  Dyfed Powys

  1,167

  1,225

  146

  0

  Morgannwg

  3,773

  671

  190

  0

  Gwent

  1,747

  1,703

  493

  3

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

  Tir Cymen
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications were received in(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998 from farmers to join Tir Cymen; what area of land they represented; how many were approved; and what area of land they represented. [77858]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The number of formal applications and the area of land they represented is not readily available. However, over the first five years, 70 per cent. of formal applications concluded in Tir Cymen agreements.

  Year

  Number of agreements

  Area of agreements (Ha)

  1996

  174

  11,955

  1997

  180

  8,597

  1998

  130

  6,157

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

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the differences between the Tir Cymen scheme and the Countryside Stewardship scheme operated in England. [77859]
  55
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The differences between the Tir Cymen Scheme and the Countryside Stewardship Scheme operated in England are as follows:

  1. Countryside Stewardship applies not to the whole farm but to specified eligible landscapes, habitats and features.

  In Tir Cymen there is a whole farm code which applies to the entire holding. In addition to this, specific habitats and features on the holding must be managed according to the scheme prescriptions.

  2. Countryside Stewardship is a MAFF grant scheme whilst Tir Cymen is an experimental whole farm scheme administered by the Countryside Council for Wales.

  3. Countryside Stewardship applies to all of England whilst Tir Cymen applies only to three districts in Wales.

  4. Any land manager can apply for a Countryside Stewardship agreement (including local authorities and voluntary bodies). Anyone responsible for a registered farm holding could apply for Tir Cymen.

  5. Farms applying for Tir Cymen must meet the qualifying criterion which is that revenue for habitats and permissive paths must amount to a minimum of 10 per cent. of the total revenue payment that the farmer would receive through the scheme. Thus, if the farm area is such that the payment in relation to the whole farm code is £2,000 per annum, then the specific habitat management requirements would have to amount to at least £220 (ie, 10 per cent. of the total of (£2,200).

  6. Public Access is not a requirement of Countryside Stewardships. Under Tir Cymen there is an obligation to permit access for the purpose of walking and quiet enjoyment of the countryside, at no charge, on all land which is moorland, heathland, and unenclosed, unimproved upland grassland. Tir Cymen expects agreement holders to fulfil their legal duty to keep existing public rights of way free from obstruction.

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

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total area of land covered by the Tir Cymen scheme; and what is the area covered by the scheme within the less favoured areas and its proportion of the total less favoured area. [77857]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  By the end of March 1998 the total area of land under Tir Cymen agreement was 89,304 ha. As at 31 March 1998 there were 898 Tir Cymen agreements within less favoured areas in Wales which amounts to some 88 per cent. of the total number of Tir Cymen agreements (1,023 agreements).

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

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total budget allocated to Tir Cymen for each of the last three years [77860]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The budget allocation was as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Total Expenditure

  1996–97

  5.3

  1997–98

  5.7

  1998–99

  6.2

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.
  56

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what involvement fleet managers have had in drawing up his Department's Green Transport Plan. [77966]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The DfEE and Employment Service fleet managers have been fully involved in the development of Green Transport Plans.

  Departmental Budget
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was his Department's budget in cash terms and at 1998–99 prices for(a) 1992–93 to 1998–99 and (b) his estimate for 1999–2000 to 2001–02. [77332]

  Mr. Mudie
  The figures are set out in the following table.

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  Real terms at 1998–99 prices

  1992–93

  10,677

  12,390

  1993–94

  13,378

  15,123

  1994–95

  13,988

  15,590

  1995–96

  13,981

  15,141

  1996–97

  14,009

  14,718

  1997–98

  14,533

  14,896

  1998–90

  14,562

  14,562

  1999–00

  15,702

  15,319

  2000–01

  17,531

  16,692

  2001–02

  18,916

  17,565

  Notes:

  1. Figures are DfEE's Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) and include both OFSTED and the Employment Service. Figures do not include expenditure on the welfare to work programme financed through the windfall tax, which is classified under a separate DEL. Figures also do not include spending by local authorities. Figures for 1992–93 to 1997–98 are outturn. Figure for 1998–99 is estimated outturn. Figures for 1999–00 to 2001–02 are plans.

  2. According to Government accounting conventions, the figures include the recource accounting costs of student loans rather than the cash outlay costs.

  3. Figure for 1997–98 includes £527m (cash) transferred from local authorities for the nursery voucher scheme. Figure for 1992–93 does not include funding for further education, which was transferred from local to central government from 1993–94 onwards.

  British Lecturers (Italy)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he has taken to ensure the right of establishment of British lecturers at Italian universities; and if he will make a statement. [77128]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Mother-tongue foreign language teachers in Italian universities ("lettori"), most of whom are non-Italian nationals, are campaigning for recognition of their right under the Treaty of Rome to equality of employment conditions with their Italian colleagues in other disciplines.
  57
  The UK Government have been pursuing this issue with the European Commission and the Italian Government. My noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, whose responsibilities include completion of the Single Market, has written to Minister Letta, his Italian counterpart, to press for an early resolution of the problem. He also urged Minister Letta to ensure that individual university Rectors were aware of their obligation to respect the lettori's acquired rights under the Treaty of Rome. Our Embassy in Rome is currently following up this letter with the Italian authorities.

  My noble Friend also wrote to Commissioner Flynn, supporting the infraction proceedings which the European Commission is currently bringing against the Italian authorities in respect of this issue. He received in return Mr. Flynn's assurance that he was fully committed to pursuing the matter.

  The Government are committed to making the Single Market work, as much for individual citizens as for business. We will do all we can to help bring about a satisfactory solution to the problems faced by the lettori.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 26 January 1999,Official Report, column 212, on common foreign and security policy working groups, if he will list the proposals currently under discussion under each subject heading. [76360]

  Ms Quin
  The common foreign and security policy working groups meet on average once a month. The agenda for each working group meeting is wide ranging, covering current issues of concern in the group's area of interest. For example, there were 16 items for discussion on the agenda of the Africa working group this month.

  Discussion in working groups looks at current EU policy towards all the major foreign policy issues of the day. Among the items on the agenda for the Africa working group this month were Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Sierra Leone and Rwanda. Major issues in other working groups in recent weeks have been Kosovo, the Russia common strategy, Sudan, East Timor, the Middle East peace process and preparation for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Agendas can change at short notice, given the fast-moving nature of common foreign and security policy issues.

  James Miles and Paul Loseby
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the conditions at Yare prison in Venezuela. [76425]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Consular staff from the British Embassy in Caracas have not yet visited Yare prison. Following the transfer of James Miles and Paul Loseby on 15 March to Yare, the British Vice-Consul is hoping to visit before the end of this week.
  58
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken by the British Embassy to ensure that James Miles and Paul Loseby will be considered for parole. [76421]

  Mr. Fatchett
  James Miles and Paul Loseby are not yet eligible for parole.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the current whereabouts of James Miles and Paul Loseby in Venezuela; [76424]

  (2) what reports the British Embassy in Caracas has received concerning the possible transfer of James Miles and Paul Loseby. [76422]

  Mr. Fatchett
  James Miles and Paul Loseby were transferred to Yare 1 prison on 15 March.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to reach agreement with HM Treasury on Financial Services passporting for Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [76639]

  Ms Quin
  In June 1997, after discussions involving the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and HM Treasury, HMG approved the passporting by Gibraltar-based insurance companies of insurance services into the UK and elsewhere in the European Union.

  HMG, acting on advice from the Financial Services Authority, have explained to the Government of Gibraltar and the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission what measures need to be in place before HMG will be in a position to approve the passporting by Gibraltar-based credit institutions of banking services into the UK and elsewhere in the European Union. We understand that the Government of Gibraltar and the Financial Services Commission expect to satisfy these requirements in the near future.

  The regulation of investment services in Gibraltar is less advanced than the regulation of banking services and insurance services. HMG hope to provide the Government of Gibraltar and the Financial Services Commission in the near future with guidance on which measures need to be in place before Gibraltar seeks HMG's approval for the passporting of investment services into the UK and elsewhere in the European Union.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants in his Department have been invited to waive the working time directive requirement to work less than 48 hours a week on 17 consecutive weeks; how many civil servants in his Department have refused to waive the requirement; and what is the total cost of compliance with the directive. [76808]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Records of Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff choosing to sign voluntary agreements to disapply the 48-hour weekly limit for working hours are not maintained centrally. The standard
  59
  terms and conditions of service for staff employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are well within the limits set by the Working Time Regulations. The regulations do not require employers to keep records of the number of workers who choose not to sign an opt-out agreement. It is too early to judge the likely compliance costs.

  Written Answers
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason his Department' s replies to written parliamentary questions for 15 March were in the Press Gallery more than three hours before they were delivered to the Library; and if he will make a statement. [77439]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Library copies were left in the House of Commons Post Office at 1700, the same time as copies were delivered to Hansard and the Press Gallery.

  We have now altered our delivery procedures to ensure that the Library and Table Office copies are hand delivered at the same time as the Hansard and Press Gallery copies.

  Ambassadors (Appointments)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to announce the appointments of British ambassadors to(a) Bahrain and (b) Yemen. [77755]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Mr. Peter Ford will be replacing Mr. Ian Lewty as HM Ambassador to Bahrain in April 1999. This appointment was officially announced on 10 November 1998. Mr. Victor Henderson took up his post as HM Ambassador to the Republic of Yemen in October 1997. There are no current plans for the succession to him.

  Consul-General (New York)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for the post of Consul-General in New York were from ethnic minorities; and how many ethnic minority candidates were interviewed. [77756]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Of the 168 applications for the position of Director-General Trade and Investment, and Consul-General New York, seven declared themselves to be from a minority ethnic background. None of the six candidates interviewed declared themselves to be from a minority ethnic background.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people applied for the post of consul-general in New York and how many applicants came from(a) private sector and (b) public sector backgrounds. [77753]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Of the 168 applicants for the position of Director-General Trade and Investment US, the Consul-General New York, 156 were from the private sector and 12 were from the public sector.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the remit and 60
  powers of (a) the European Community Court of Justice in Luxembourg and (b) the Court in Strasbourg relating to the European Convention of Human Rights. [77612]

  Ms Quin
  The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has a general responsibility under Article 31 of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) Treaty, Article 164 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC) and Article 136 of the Euratom Treaty, to ensure that in the interpretation and application of these treaties the law is observed.

  The ECJ's jurisdiction is laid in the treaties, in particular Articles 169–188 of the EC Treaty, Articles 33–45 of the ECSC Treaty, 141–160 of the Euratom Treaty and Article L of the Treaty on European Union.

  The European Court of Human Rights is a key instrument in enforcing the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court is a judicial body and it produces final and binding decisions. Petitions to the Court may be made by any person, group of people, or non-governmental organisation claiming to be a victim of a violation of one of the Convention's rights.

  UNSCOM
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will instruct the United Kingdom Ambassador to the United Nations to ask(a) Secretary General Kofi Annan and (b) the Executive Chairman of Unscom what information has been made available to the office of (i) the Secretary General and (ii) Unscom in respect of allegations of the United States using Unscom as a cover for signals intelligence operations in Iraq. [78155]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 8 March 1999,Official Report, column 15 and the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow on 9 March 1999, Official Report, column 181. We are in regular touch with both the UN Secretary-General and the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM on many aspects of UNSCOM' s work.

  European Scrutiny Committee
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if(a) Ministers, (b) special advisers and (c) civil servants saw the European Scrutiny Committee questions brief in advance of the appearance of the Minister of State before the committee on 25 November. [77851]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: It has been common but not universal practice, over a long period, for Committees to agree to give officials an indication of the broad areas they intend to cover at the hearing to ensure that the evidence session is as effective and productive as possible. I was informed of the likely areas of questioning in advance of the Committee hearing on 25 November.

  Eritrea and Ethiopia
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will
  61
  make a statement on the steps taken by the European Union to adopt an arms embargo against Ethiopia and Eritrea. [78414]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Following a UK proposal, the European Union adopted a mandatory arms embargo against Ethiopia and Eritrea at the EU Finance Ministers Council on 15 March 1999.

  Following adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1227 on 10 February 1999, which urged UN member states to end immediately all sales of arms and munitions to Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Government took immediate steps to ban exports from the UK to Ethiopia and Eritrea of all goods and technology on the Military List, which forms Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended. Details were reported to Parliament on 15 February 1999, Official Report, column 582. The national measures necessary to implement the EU arms embargo were therefore already in place when the EU embargo was adopted.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be issuing a press release on the EU embargo and has issued guidance to Departments in London, Posts overseas and other Whitehall Departments. An updated version of the list of all UK policy commitments on the application of strategic export controls, including arms embargoes, will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the current conflict in Eritrea; and if he will make a statement.[78034]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Fighting between Ethiopia and Eritrea resumed on 6 February, with subsequent violation of the air moratorium. We made clear our strong opposition to this resort to war. We supported UN Security Council resolution 1227 of 10 February, which demanded a cessation of hostilities and a resumption of diplomatic negotiations; reaffirmed support for the OAU Framework Agreement; and called for a voluntary arms embargo. I announced on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 582, that the United Kingdom had implemented the arms embargo.

  Following Ethiopian military gains on the Badume plateau, Eritrea accepted the Framework Agreement on 27 February. The Security Council welcomed this in a Presidential statement the same day. But heavy fighting has continued. We are actively considering with our international partners how to give further support to the OAU in ensuring that both sides now fully accept the OAU proposals, and to secure a formal cessation of hostilities.

  Papua New Guinea
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of Papua New Guinea regarding Sandline International; and if he will make a statement.[77228]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In the context of the contractual dispute between Sandline and the Government of Papua New Guinea, the High Commissioner of Papua New Guinea in London spoke to FCO officials on 3 March.
  62

  Mercenary Services
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy regarding private companies based in the UK offering mercenary services.[77252]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We and our EU partners have always made it clear that we unequivocally condemn the recruitment, use and financing of mercenaries. We are concerned about the spread of mercenary activity.

  Private military companies which carry out their business within the law are generally not a cause for concern. Our concerns relate principally to those companies which are involved in the supply of military equipment or other controller goods and services in breach of the UK's national commitments, or which supply, or offer to supply, mercenaries or related military services.

  European Commissioners (Emoluments)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much each of the outgoing European Commissioners is to receive in(a) salary, (b) pension and (c) other remuneration following their resignation; what the legal basis is upon which the payments are being made; and if he will place details of the remuneration packages in the Library.[77994]

  Ms Quin
  Commissioners' terms and conditions of service are set down in the 1967 Council Regulation 422/67, which governs their employment. This Statute provides for generous end-of-service remunerations.

  From the first day of the month following resignation, and for three years afterwards, Commissioners are entitled to receive a monthly payment (based upon the number of years served) of:

  40 per cent. of salary if they have served for less than 2 years

  45 per cent. of salary if they have served for less than 3 years

  50 per cent. of salary if they have served for less than 5 years

  55 per cent. of salary if they have served for between 5 and 10 years

  60 per cent. of salary if they have served for between 10 and 15 years.

  Commissioners are also entitled to receive a family allowance for three years after resignation of:

  Euro 12,649 per year for the President

  Euro 11,457 per year for the Vice-Presidents

  Euro 10,311 per year for other Commissioners.

  From the age of 65, Commissioners are entitled to receive a pension, which as a full pension for 15 years service would be equivalent to 70 per cent. of final salary based on a 4.5 per cent. annual accrual rate.

  Reappointed Commissioners are not entitled to receive end-of-service pay.

  If a Commissioner takes new employment, their end-of-service pay plus new gross monthly salary cannot exceed the gross monthly salary they would have received as a Commissioner. If it does, the end-of-service pay is reduced accordingly.
  63

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to implement parts of the Amsterdam treaty not included in the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1998.[77692]

  Ms Quin
  The parts of the Amsterdam treaty not included in the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1998 relate to the common foreign and security policy and police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. They constitute frameworks for action. As such, they themselves can be implemented without the need for UK legislation. That said, measures adopted under these provisions may in due course give rise to the need for legislation. If this is the case, such legislation will be presented to Parliament.

  Armenian Foreign Minister
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of his discussions with the Armenian Foreign Minister. [78035]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Armenian Foreign Minister, Mr. Vartan Oskanian, on 17 March. Their discussions helped to cement the already warm relations which exist between the two countries. They agreed on the need further to promote our growing bilateral commercial ties. The meeting also covered the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and other regional issues. My right hon. Friend looked forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in May. He encouraged Armenia to sign the Ottawa convention on anti-personnel landmines and stressed the importance of keeping to the timetable for closing the Medzamor nuclear power station.

  Ambassador's Residence
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 January 1999,Official Report, column 254, for what reasons it is his policy not to reveal the prices received from the sale of departmental property.[78033]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The reason for not revealing the prices received for individual departmental properties is that this information is often commercially sensitive at the time of disposal.

  UN Finances
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what timetable the fifth committee of the United Nations is following in preparing its proposals to improve the arrangements for the future financing of the organisation; and when its proposals will next be discussed by the General Assembly.[77628]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The fifth committee of the United Nations is currently considering the future financing of the United Nations and should make recommendations to the General Assembly for its consideration before the end of 1999. On 16 March, the European Union Presidency 64
  delegate to the fifth committee again pressed European Union proposals, originally developed by the United Kingdom and France, to put United Nations finances on a more secure and equitable long-term footing.

  Nuclear Missiles
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps he is taking to assist in the implementation of the START 2 Nuclear Missile Reduction Treaty; [77975]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of Russian long-range nuclear warheads; and what steps he has recently taken to encourage a reduction in that number.[77974]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Under the START I treaty, Russia and the United States are limited to 6,000 accountable strategic warheads each. Under START II, which has not yet been approved by the Russian Duman, each side would be limited to between 3,000 and 3,500 deployed strategic warheads. Presidents Yeltsin and Clinton agreed in Helsinki in March 1997 that a START III treaty would further reduce these levels to between 2,000–2,500 per side.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has repeatedly urged the Russian to ratify START II, and to proceed promptly to negotiate with the United States a START III treaty, most recently during his visit to Russia from 2–5 March.

  Dubai
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 March 1999,Official Report, columns 682–83, if, when the response to the note verbale is received from the Government of Dubai, he will (a) inform the hon. Member for New Forest, West and (b) place the response in the Library.[78136]

  Mr. Fatchett
  If and when a response is received, I will inform the hon. Member.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 March 1999,Official Report, columns 682–83, how long he plans to wait for a response from the Government of Dubai before making representations. [78114]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have no plans to impose a time frame.

  Illicit Traffic by Sea
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons Her Majesty's Government have not ratified the Convention of the Council of Europe on illicit traffic by sea; and if he will make a statement.[77605]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  We shall introduce the legislation which will allow us to ratify the Convention as soon as the Parliamentary timetable permits.
  65

SCOTLAND

  Football
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what Government funding has been given or is planned to be given to Scottish football over(a) the past 20 years and (b) the next three years.[72272]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: The information in answer to part 1 is available only at disproportionate cost and I cannot, therefore, answer. In relation to part 2 The Scottish Office is currently providing support totalling £2 million for the redevelopment of Hampden Park, through the Scottish Sports Council. The final payment will be made in 1999–2000.

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

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been given to Scottish football teams by the Foundation for Sports and the Arts in the last five years.[72265]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: Senior levels of association football are expressly excluded from Foundation for Sports and the Arts funding. However, sport at grass roots level has received 857 grants totalling £495,212.60.

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

  Ministerial Costs
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of funding his private offices and those of his ministers in each year since 1992. [74979]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: The table shows costs since 1992. The amounts include staff costs of private offices and non-pay expenditure covering travel and subsistence, office services and general administration costs for both Ministers and the staff of their offices.

  Year

  £

  1992–93

  1,200,160

  1993–94

  1,454,569

  1994–95

  11,374,555

  1995–96

  1,628,424

  1996–97

  1,733,885

  1997–98

  1,953,219

  1998–99 (estimate)

  2,027,610

  1 Estimated figure

  Hospital Service Reconfiguration
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hospitals, by region, which have consulted the local community health council on service reconfiguration in the last 10 years; how many beds have been (i) gained and (ii) lost under these reconfigurations; and if he will list by region those hospitals that are currently (i) under review and (ii) undergoing service reconfiguration. [74991]
  66
  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: Information on the hospitals which have consulted the local health council on service reconfiguration in the last 10 years is not available centrally.

  Data on the number of available staffed hospital beds in each Health Board in Scotland for 1987–88 and 1997–98 are shown in the table. The reduction in the number of staffed beds between 1987–88 and 1997–98 reflects changes in the pattern of care, including a shift toward the use of day case surgery, continuing reductions in lengths of stay for inpatients and the move to care in the community.

  Health Service strategies are kept under review as part of the Health Improvement Programme process introduced in 1998. Every Health Board must set out its intentions annually for service developments in its area for the following five years. Where the planned development represents a significant change of use of a hospital or contains proposals for hospital closure, there must be full public consultation in accordance with The Scottish Office Department of Health guidance.

  NHS in Scotland—Average available staffed beds 1987–88 and 1997–98

  Health board

  1987–88

  1997–98

  Argyll and Clyde

  4,307

  3,527

  Ayrshire and Arran

  2,952

  2,233

  Borders

  939

  743

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,505

  1,076

  Fife

  3,254

  2,070

  Forth Valley

  3,151

  2,106

  Grampian

  5,457

  3,864

  Greater Glasgow

  12,242

  7,325

  Highland

  2,142

  1,479

  Lanarkshire

  4,961

  3,459

  Lothian

  8,008

  4,993

  Orkney

  131

  147

  Shetland

  159

  116

  Tayside

  5,057

  3,374

  Western Isles

  221

  274

  Source:

  ISD Scotland

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

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of people in each health region who are currently waiting for an appointment with a consultant following referral by a general practitioner; if he will provide a breakdown of the length of time for which those people(a) have already waited and (b) are expected to wait; and if he will list for each region the waiting time being issued to new entrants for (i) ear, nose and throat, (ii) trauma and orthopaedic, (iii) general surgery, (iv) ophthalmology and (v) gynaecology consultants. [75066]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: Waiting lists information is collected centrally only for hospital inpatients and day cases. Data are available on first outpatient referrals and the length of time that patients waited for their first outpatient appointment. The

  67
  percentage of patients who received a first outpatient appointment within 9 and 18 weeks following a General Medical Practitioner referral at 31 December 1998 for the specialties requested is provided in the table.

  NHS in Scotland: Percentage of patients who received a first outpatient appointment within 9 and 18 weeks for referral at 31 December 1998p

  ENT

  Orthopaedics

  General Surgery

  Ophthalmology

  Gynaecology

  Health board

  9 weeks

  18 weeks

  9 weeks

  18 weeks

  9 weeks

  18 weeks

  9 weeks

  18 weeks

  9 weeks

  18 weeks

  Argyll and Clyde

  45.5

  87.3

  31.3

  62.3

  91.3

  99.3

  59.0

  93.5

  84.9

  98.9

  Ayrshire and Arran

  69.1

  98.3

  54.8

  93.3

  89.1

  98.2

  39.5

  74.9

  68.3

  93.4

  Borders

  72.2

  97.6

  51.0

  97.9

  79.3

  98.9

  80.7

  97.6

  78.2

  96.2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  20.0

  80.0

  42.9

  60.6

  69.3

  99.5

  64.5

  99.6

  67.9

  93.4

  Fife

  38.1

  86.4

  43.6

  68.1

  63.3

  91.9

  44.1

  77.0

  75.9

  90.4

  Forth Valley

  87.5

  99.0

  32.7

  74.8

  79.7

  92.4

  73.4

  94.4

  75.6

  96.8

  Grampian

  39.1

  83.5

  45.3

  79.5

  57.5

  96.1

  70.6

  95.9

  84.8

  98.5

  Greater Glasgow

  46.6

  77.6

  26.6

  54.8

  77.1

  95.8

  30.6

  69.9

  69.9

  95.8

  Highland

  76.8

  98.5

  36.0

  53.6

  86.2

  99.5

  76.5

  89.4

  66.3

  91.2

  Lanarkshire

  42.7

  83.4

  33.1

  55.3

  68.3

  95.1

  39.0

  75.7

  77.9

  98.3

  Lothian

  50.5

  87.2

  39.8

  68.6

  71.8

  93.0

  57.8

  81.2

  72.1

  94.4

  Orkney

  87.5

  97.9

  76.4

  94.5

  99.5

  100.0

  88.3

  100.0

  80.0

  97.5

  Shetland

  98.6

  100.0

  61.2

  98.5

  99.6

  99.6

  84.8

  100.0

  73.1

  100.0

  Tayside

  55.6

  85.1

  66.8

  95.3

  65.5

  91.9

  52.7

  88.2

  71.4

  94.9

  Western Isles

  100.0

  100.0

  50.0

  62.5

  98.2

  100.0

  70.3

  86.5

  77.8

  100.0

  Source:

  ISD, Scotland

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

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) surgical waiting list figures and (b) specialist outpatient consultation figures in numerical and percentage terms for Scotland for March and September (i) 1992, (ii) 1993, (ii) 1994, (iv) 1995 and (v) 1996. [76148]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: Information on the number of patients on the inpatient/day case waiting list for surgical specialties, on the dates requested, is given in Table 1.

  Information on waiting lists is collected centrally only for hospital inpatients and day cases. Data are available on first outpatient referrals and the length of time that patients waited for their first outpatient appointment. The number and percentage of patients who received a first outpatient appointment within 9 and 18 weeks following a General Medical Practitioner/General Dental Practitioner referral for the quarters ending 31 March and 30 September in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996, is provided in Table 2. Information is not available for the respective quarters in 1992, as the data were not collected prior to 1 October 1992.

  Table 1: NHS in Scotland: Inpatient and day case waiting lists

  Date

  Number on waiting list for surgical specialties1

  31 March 1992

  68,912

  30 September 1992

  69,916

  31 March 1993

  69,515

  30 September 1993

  68,030

  31 March 1994

  67,162

  30 September 1994

  65,691

  31 March 1995

  64,952

  68
  Information on waiting times for individual consultants within specialties is not collected centrally. Health Boards provide this information to all General Practitioner practices in their respective areas on a regular basis.

  Table 1:NHS in Scotland: Inpatient and day case waiting lists

  Date

  Number on waiting list for surgical specialties1

  30 September 1995

  65,877

  31 March 1996

  67,488

  30 September 1996

  65,225

  1 Surgical Specialties comprises general surgery (excluding vascular), vascular surgery, accident and emergency, anaesthetics, cardiothoracic surgery, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, ear, nose and throat (ENT), neurosurgery, ophthalmology, orthopaedics, plastic surgery, surgical paediatrics and urology.

  Source:

  ISD, Scotland

  Table 2: NHS in Scotland: Percentage and numbers of patients who received a first outpatient appointment within 9 and 18 weeks of referral

  Number within

  Percentage within

  Quarter ending

  9 weeks

  18 weeks

  9 weeks

  18 weeks

  31 March 1993

  167,733

  214,837

  72.3

  92.6

  30 September 1993

  167,798

  224,719

  70.1

  93.8

  31 March 1994

  175,852

  223,438

  73.3

  93.1

  30 September 1994

  154,729

  205,307

  70.4

  93.5

  31 March 1995

  168,657

  214,468

  72.8

  92.6

  30 September 1995

  147,651

  199,492

  69.6

  94.0

  31 March 1996

  157,179

  204,823

  71.6

  93.3

  30 September 1996

  151,404

  204,333

  68.7

  92.8

  Source:

  ISD, Scotland

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

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is for each year since 1981(a) the number of inward investment projects, (b) the total value of investment in real terms and (c) the total number of jobs

  69
  in Scotland which were dependent on investment from (i) other United Kingdom countries, (ii) the European Union, (iii) the United States of America and (iv) the rest of the world. [76082]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: (a) The numbers of inward investment projects since 1981 are given in the table:

  Year

  Number of projects

  1981–82

  32

  1982–83

  46

  1983–84

  54

  1984–85

  68

  1985–86

  58

  1986–87

  50

  1987–88

  88

  1988–89

  55

  1989–90

  64

  1990–91

  63

  1991–92

  59

  1992–93

  65

  1993–94

  95

  1994–95

  97

  1995–96

  84

  1996–97

  86

  1997–98

  87

  Source:

  1981–82 to 1986–87 published in NAO report

  1987–88 to date published in LIS Review for that year

  (b) This information is not available.

  (c) The number of jobs which the inward investment projects attracted to Scotland since April 1981 were expected to create or safeguard is as follows:

  Planned jobs (new and safeguarded)

  Year

  US

  Europe1

  Asia2

  UK

  Total

  1981–82

  6,058

  752

  192

  0

  7,002

  1982–83

  4,177

  830

  320

  0

  5,327

  1983–84

  5,094

  1,309

  431

  72

  6,906

  1984–85

  7,495

  561

  830

  557

  9,443

  1985–86

  5,316

  1,527

  97

  1,277

  8,217

  1986–87

  2,694

  1,012

  128

  1,250

  5,084

  1987–88

  3,581

  2,192

  2,113

  3,333

  11,219

  1988–89

  2,358

  972

  940

  2,819

  7,089

  1989–90

  6,255

  462

  632

  4,940

  12,289

  1990–91

  1,760

  1,135

  2,154

  5,195

  10,244

  1991–92

  3,026

  1,138

  431

  1,407

  6,002

  1992–93

  3,919

  1,387

  668

  2,085

  8,059

  1993–94

  5,464

  1,399

  1,074

  3,135

  11,072

  1994–95

  5,738

  1,233

  2,259

  3,099

  12,329

  1995–96

  4,065

  1,627

  4,466

  2,402

  12,560

  1996–97

  4,933

  1,231

  3,636

  4,495

  14,295

  1997–98

  6,578

  2,586

  531

  8,252

  17,947

  Total

  78,511

  21,353

  20,902

  44,318

  Grand total

  165,084

  1 Includes non EC countries

  1 Far East and Rest of World

  Source:

  1981–82 to 1986–87 published in NAO report

  1987–88 to date published in LIS Review for that year

  The above figures are based on information provided by the companies involved themselves when the investment decision was taken and take no account of subsequent developments. As a general rule of thumb, two thirds of announced jobs are actually created.
  70
  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Environmental Payments
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to remove the financial limit on payments under the environmentally sensitive area and countryside premium schemes. [76363]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: We have no plans to remove the financial limits which are necessary to ensure an equitable spread of available resources.

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

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which elements of the recommendations contained in Chapter 6 of the report by the Royal Commission on Long Term Care would require(a) secondary legislation and (b) guidance to be issued for full implementation in Scotland. [75946]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: Requiring property value to be disregarded for up to 3 months and raising the upper capital limit in the means test would both require secondary legislation. On the basis of the current charging arrangements, providing nursing care or all personal care free would require primary legislation. Guidance would be issued to local authorities on all such primary and secondary legislation.

  From 1 July 1999, these matters will be for the Scottish Parliament.

  Statute and Case Law (Internet)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made towards making statute and case law available on the Internet; and what plans he has to charge for this service. [76151]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: The text of all new Acts of Parliament and printed Statutory Instruments are freely available on Her Majesty's Stationery Office website at http://www./open/gov.uk. The Lord Chancellor's Department has set up a Statute Law Database to ensure publication of up-to-date amended text of United Kingdom Public General Acts of Parliament. The partially updated database is presently available to a number of users within central government who have access to the Statutory Publications Office Intranet. The Lord Chancellor's Department are considering options for the future marketing of the Statute Law Database. These options include free Internet access, the granting of non-exclusive licences to legal information publishers and the provision of a subscription on-line service.

  A newly dedicated Scottish Courts Internet site went on-line on 24 February 1999. The site provides a free searchable database of the full text of all judgments from the Court of Session with effect from September 1998,

  71
  including judgments in commercial cases from January 1998. Selected judgments from the High Court of Justiciary, including opinions in some sentence appeals, are also available. Selected judgments from the sheriff courts will be added as the database is developed.

  Psychiatric Care (Children)
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children have been admitted to NHS psychiatric care in each year since 1992. [77137]

  Mr.Galbraith
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Under 13 years

  13 to 17 years

  Year

  First admissions

  Total admissions, re-admissions, transfers

  First admissions

  Total admissions, re-admissions, transfers

  31 March 1992

  99

  261

  230

  473

  31 March 1993

  102

  132

  221

  495

  31 March 1994

  92

  137

  219

  381

  31 March 1995

  75

  103

  237

  425

  Signed PFI projects in Scotland

  Procuring Agency

  Project Description

  Private Sector Partner

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  Provision and operation of a hospital information system

  HBO & Co. (UK) Ltd.

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  Provision of 60 bed nursing home (Ferryfield House)

  James Walker (Leith) Ltd.

  Ayrshire & Arran Health Board (Irvine)

  Provision of 90 elderly care beds

  Craigmoore Health Care Co. Ltd.

  Ayrshire & Arran Health Board (Saltcoats)

  Provision of 60 learning disability beds and 30 elderly care beds

  Care First Health Care Ltd.

  Lanarkshire Health Board (Bellshill)

  Provision of 90 elderly care beds

  BUPA Healthcare Homes (originally Taycare

  Dundee Teaching Hospital NHS Trust

  Re-equipping of X-ray department

  Siemens Healthcare Services Ltd. and IGE Medical Systems

  Dundee Teaching Hospital NHS Trust

  SMAC Analysis System

  Bayer

  Grampian Health Board

  Provision of 25 beds for mentally ill at Spynie Hospital

  Skene Enterprises (Aberdeen) Ltd.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board (Darnley)

  Provision of 120 elderly care beds

  Associated Nursing Services plc

  Greater Glasgow Health Board (Ruchill)

  Provision of 120 elderly care beds

  Westminster Health Care

  Greater Glasgow Health Board (Rutherglen)

  Provision of 180 elderly care beds

  Care First Health Care Ltd.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board (Shettleston)

  Provision of 120 elderly care beds

  Highfield Group

  Lanarkshire Health Board (Cumbernauld)

  Provision of 40 elderly care beds

  Scotcare Group

  Lanarkshire Health Board (Cumbernauld)

  Provision of 60 elderly with dementia care beds

  Grampian Homes Ltd.

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  CT and MRI scanning systems

  IGE Medical Systems

  Lothian and Forth Valley Health Boards

  Clinical Waste Disposal

  White Rose Environmental

  Northern NHS Trusts and Health Boards

  Clinical Waste Disposal

  Eurocare Environmental Services Ltd.

  Grampian Health Board

  Provision and operation of a community hospital in Kincardineshire (Stonehaven)

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust, BLB, Mille and Community Health Services Ltd.

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  Provision and operation of a hospital information support system

  Data General & Meditech

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  Energy Management

  AHS Emstar

  Perth & Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  Provision and operation of an integrated healthcare information system

  Shared Medical Systems (UK) Ltd.

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  Provision of elderly care beds, Mearnskirk Hospital

  James Walker (Leith) Ltd.

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Provision of energy management system

  Scottish Hydro Electric

  Monklands and Bellshill NHS Trust

  Implementation of a financial management system

  Cedardata plc

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Multistorey car park/car parking facilities

  Impregilo (UK) Ltd.

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Energy Management System

  Scottish Hydro Electric

  Ayrshire & Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Cumnock Community Hospital

  GA Construction Ltd.

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  New Law District General Hospital

  Summit Healthcare Ltd. (Sir Robert McAlpine, British Linen Bank, Edison Capital Europe Ltd.)

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  Hairmyres District Hospital

  Kier Build Ltd. and ISS Mediclean Ltd.

  72

  Under 13 years

  13 to 17 years

  Year

  First admissions

  Total admissions, readmissions, transfers

  First admissions

  Total admissions, readmissions, transfers

  31 March 19961

  57

  99

  217

  477

  31 March 19971

  31

  47

  186

  384

  31 March 19981

  41

  50

  227

  404

  1 Provisional

  Source

  Information & Statistics Division

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

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those firms which have bid for Private Finance Initiative deals; and which of those bids were successful and where they are located. [77141]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Department does not maintain a central register of firms which have bid for PFI deals. Information on successful bidders is set out in the table.
  73

  Signed PFI projects in Scotland

  Procuring Agency

  Project Description

  Private Sector Partner

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  New Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  Consort Healthcare (Royal Bank of Scotland plc, BICC Ltd. and Morrison Construction Group plc)

  Falkirk College

  Stirling Further Education Centre

  Stirling Centre Ltd. (MJ Gleeson Group plc, Canmore Partnership Ltd., Bank of Scotland, Reiach & Hall and Noble & Company Ltd.)

  North of Scotland Water Authority

  Inverness main drainage and Fort William sewage treatment

  Catchment Ltd. (Betchel Ltd., Morrison Construction Ltd., North West Water (United Utilities) and Societie Generale)

  M6 DBFO

  Upgrading and maintenance of A74(M)(M6) between Millbank and Border

  Autolink Concessionaires Ltd. (Amey plc, Sir Robert McAlpine (Holdings) Ltd., Taylor Woodrow Construction Holdings Ltd. and Barr Holdings Ltd.)

  Scottish Prison Service

  HM Prison Kilmarnock

  Kilmarnock Prison Services Ltd. (Premier Prison Services Ltd. and Kvaerner Construction Ltd.)

  Skye Bridge

  Toll bridge between Kyle and Kyleakin

  Skye Toll Bridge Ltd. (Miller Civil Engineering Ltd., Dykerhoff & Widmann and Bank of America)

  Dundee City Council

  Baldovie Waste to Energy Plant

  Dundee Energy Recycling Ltd. (BICC plc, Kvaerner and Dundee City Council) Construction—Balfour Beatty Projects and Engineering Ltd. and Kvaerner Enviropower

  The Highland Council

  IS/IT Services

  ICL Outsourcing

  Moray Council

  Integrated Education Management System

  ICL Education Systems

  Falkirk Council

  Schools Project

  Class 98 Ltd. (Ballast Wiltshier, Charterhouse and Quayle Munro)

  Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.

  Inverness Airport Terminal

  Inverness Airport Terminal Ltd. (Canmore Partnerships Ltd., MJ Gleeson Group plc, MPM Adams Ltd. and Noble & Company Ltd.)

  Scottish Children's Reporter Administration

  Integrated Information System and Managed Service

  Logica UK Ltd.

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

  Excluded Pupils
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evaluation his Department has undertaken of individual social services department's(a) policy and (b) psychiatric services in relation to children excluded from school.[77146]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Although social services departments may have an interest in school exclusions, education authorities are responsible for exclusion of pupils from schools in their area and have continuing responsibilities towards pupils who are excluded. There has therefore been no evaluation specifically of individual social services departments' policies in this area but research was commissioned on exclusions from school by the Scottish Office from Moray House Institute of Education. The research reported in 1997 and found that there were differing practices and policies in authorities. National guidelines were therefore issued in April 1998 which stressed the need for a consistent approach and highlighted best practice.

  There has been no central evaluation of psychiatric services specifically in relation to children excluded from school.
  74
  As from 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  NHS Advertising Costs
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the NHS spent on advertising costs in each region in each year since 1993–94. [77147]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

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

  Health Boards (Debts)
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each region and health board the level of total debt(a) in financial terms and (b) as a percentage of income in the last year for which figures are available. [77144]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The following table contains the information requested for 1997/98. Interest Bearing Debt (IBD) is held in NHS Trusts only and therefore no data are presented for the Island health boards. The information has been grouped by Trust within Health Board area. IBD is a technical term used to describe funds made available from the Government on the establishment of NHS Trusts. This debt is held wholly within the public service and no liabilities are owed to any external bodies.
  75

  IBD as at 31 March 1998 (£000)

  IBD as a percentage of total Income

  Ayrshire and Arran

  94,759

  47.8

  Argyll and Clyde

  101,664

  42.9

  Borders

  29,800

  47.8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  25,671

  28.6

  Fife

  71,697

  44.1

  Forth Valley

  78,216

  50.8

  Grampian

  164,352

  51.9

  Greater Glasgow

  272,412

  36.9

  Highland

  58,967

  45.3

  Lothian

  216,131

  42.2

  Lanarkshire

  85,563

  32.6

  Scottish Ambulance Service

  25,312

  30.4

  Tayside

  142,199

  45.4

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

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the termination payments made by NHS trusts and health boards to(a) chief executives and (b) general and senior managers including the numbers and amounts. [77135]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on termination payments made by NHS Trusts is not routinely collected. Trusts have the legal ability to make such payments taking due account of financial probity and guidance from the Management Executive. Chief executives are being appointed to the reconfigured Trusts on a standard indefinite contract which includes a maximum 6 month notice period, which, allied to the powers it is intended to take under the Health Bill to enable the Secretary of State to direct Trusts, should effectively eliminate termination settlements to these staff. A limited number of chief executives and executive directors who did not obtain a

  (a) M1 as a percentage of income

  M1 1995–96

  Income 1995–96

  (£000)

  (£000)

  Percentage

  Aberdeen Royal NHS Trust

  3,319

  130,607

  2.5

  Angus NHS Trust

  1,436

  41,162

  3.5

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  1,123

  30,642

  3.8

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,999

  61,465

  3.3

  Borders Community Health NHS Trust

  1,133

  25,998

  4.4

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  1,212

  30,833

  3.9

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  674

  16,223

  4.2

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,630

  73,327

  3.6

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,323

  42,224

  3.1

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health Services NHS Trust

  1,336

  42,096

  3.3

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,713

  59,002

  2.9

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,071

  119,624

  2.6

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  2,060

  53,699

  3.8

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,888

  86,256

  3.6

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  1,147

  28,519

  4.0

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,359

  37,528

  3.6

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,665

  81,331

  3.3

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  556

  10,341

  5.4

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  3,698

  126,883

  2.9

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  7,002

  132,267

  5.3

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  4,454

  149,681

  3.0

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,638

  51,404

  3.2

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  1,827

  51,625

  3.6

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  1,328

  39,603

  3.4

  76
  post in the reconfigured Trusts are taking early retirement under standard Whitley terms and conditions. These staff are not receiving a termination settlement to "buy out" the remainder of their contracts.

  Since 1986 there have been 19 recorded termination payments made to a general or senior manager in a Health Board. The total cost of these cases amounts to some £441,000. The majority of these payments are for a payment in lieu of between 3 to 6 months.

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

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each management consultancy contract that has been advertised by NHS organisations in the supplements to the Official Journal of the European Community in each of the last five years. [77139]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information required to answer this question is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

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

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) M1 management costs, (b) M2 management costs and (c) management consultancy costs (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of income for each NHS trust for the last five years. [77140]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The tables provide the information requested for MI and M2 management costs. Figures are not available for years prior to 1995–96 and no information has yet been collected for 1998–99. Trusts were not asked to calculate the MI measure for 1997–98.

  The information requested on management consultancy costs is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  77

  (a) M1 as a percentage of income

  M1 1995–96

  Income 1995–96

  (£000)

  (£000)

  Percentage

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,993

  47,755

  4.2

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,986

  88,509

  3.7

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  1,653

  46,805

  3.5

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,384

  33,000

  4.2

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,856

  56,582

  3.3

  Moray Health Services

  1,275

  29,709

  4.3

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  2,286

  77,296

  3.0

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,920

  58,017

  3.3

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  1,213

  39,187

  3.1

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  1,844

  54,356

  3.4

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,120

  68,875

  3.1

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  1,583

  49,166

  3.1

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  3,166

  157,147

  2.0

  Scottish Ambulance Service

  2,667

  74,283

  3.6

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,693

  48,269

  3.5

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  2,257

  88,385

  2.6

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,402

  42,238

  3.3

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  1,787

  67,858

  2.9

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,881

  64,610

  3.0

  West Glasgow Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,506

  130,800

  2.7

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  2,780

  76,766

  3.7

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,471

  79,031

  3.1

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  2,040

  58,466

  3.5

  Total

  99,354

  3,059,450

  3.2

  (a) M1 as a percentage of income

  M1 1996–97

  Income 1996–97

  (£000)

  (£000)

  Percentage

  Aberdeen Royal NHS Trust

  3,101

  136,198

  2.3

  Angus NHS Trust

  1,557

  42,618

  3.6

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  1,031

  31,595

  3.3

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,754

  62,179

  2.8

  Borders Community Health NHS Trust

  1,003

  26,942

  3.7

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  1,238

  33,035

  3.8

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  575

  17,292

  3.3

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,516

  70,799

  3.6

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,493

  44,566

  3.4

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health Services NHS Trust

  1,341

  42,260

  3.2

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,768

  61,039

  2.9

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,029

  128,675

  2.4

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  2,110

  54,672

  3.9

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,510

  90,228

  3.1

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  1,062

  29,529

  3.6

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,321

  38,878

  3.4

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,572

  74,161

  3.5

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  545

  10,438

  5.2

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  3,308

  135,564

  2.4

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  6,364

  136,730

  4.7

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  4,238

  152,006

  2.8

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,610

  51,470

  3.1

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  1,698

  48,364

  3.5

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  1,329

  41,066

  3.2

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,717

  50,403

  3.4

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  3,036

  95,047

  3.2

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  1,609

  48,902

  3.3

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,344

  34,317

  3.9

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,779

  58,732

  3.0

  Moray Health Services

  952

  34,229

  2.8

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  2,209

  80,127

  2.8

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,763

  60,717

  2.9

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  1,151

  42,585

  2.7

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  1,764

  56,654

  3.1

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,020

  71,238

  2.8

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  1,274

  51,653

  2.5

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  3,450

  157,783

  2.2

  78 79

  (a) M1 as a percentage of income

  M1 1996–97

  Income 1996–97

  (£000)

  (£000)

  Percentage

  Scottish Ambulance Service

  2,484

  78,902

  3.2

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,602

  50,278

  3.2

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  2,212

  92,339

  2.4

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,279

  44,881

  2.9

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  2,026

  62,018

  3.3

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,775

  62,270

  2.8

  West Glasgow Hospitals NHS Trust

  4,008

  144,961

  2.8

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  2,550

  78,175

  3.3

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,572

  82,871

  3.1

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  1,860

  63,005

  3.0

  Total

  95,509

  3,162,391

  3.0

  (b) M2 as a percentage of income

  M2 1995–96

  Income 1995–96

  (£000)

  (£000)

  Percentage

  Aberdeen Royal NHS Trust

  5,040

  130,607

  3.9

  Angus NHS Trust

  1,961

  41,162

  4.8

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  1,580

  30,642

  5.2

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,969

  61,465

  4.8

  Borders Community Health NHS Trust

  1,482

  25,998

  5.7

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  1,772

  30,833

  5.7

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  928

  16,223

  5.7

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  3,416

  73,327

  4.7

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,873

  42,224

  4.4

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health Services NHS Trust

  1,999

  42,096

  4.7

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,502

  59,002

  4.2

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,944

  119,624

  3.3

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  2,510

  53,699

  4.7

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,374

  86,256

  5.1

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  1,598

  28,519

  5.6

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,812

  37,528

  4.8

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  3,334

  81,331

  4.1

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  821

  10,341

  7.9

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  4,832

  126,883

  3.8

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  7,002

  132,267

  5.3

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  6,829

  149,681

  4.6

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,526

  51,404

  4.9

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  2,688

  51,625

  5.2

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  2,119

  39,603

  5.4

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,122

  47,755

  6.5

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,082

  88,509

  4.6

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  2,369

  46,805

  5.1

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,060

  33,000

  6.2

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,523

  56,582

  4.5

  Moray Health Services

  1,777

  29,709

  6.0

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  2,095

  77,296

  3.8

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,538

  58,017

  4.4

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  1,752

  39,187

  4.5

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  2,487

  54,356

  4.6

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  3,090

  68,875

  4.5

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  2,512

  49,166

  5.1

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  5,007

  157,147

  3.2

  Scottish Ambulance Service

  3,519

  74,283

  4.7

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,389

  48,269

  4.9

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  3,155

  88,385

  3.6

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,973

  42,238

  4.7

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  2,813

  67,858

  4.1

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  2,438

  64,610

  3.8

  West Glasgow Hospitals NHS Trust

  5,298

  130,800

  4.1

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  3,580

  76,766

  4.7

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,628

  79,031

  4.6

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  2,916

  58,466

  5.0

  Total

  137,844

  3,059,450

  4.5

  80 81

  (b) M2 as a percentage of income

  M2 1996–97

  Income 1996–97

  (£000)

  (£000)

  Percentage

  Aberdeen Royal NHS Trust

  4,702

  136,198

  3.5

  Angus NHS Trust

  2,035

  42,618

  4.8

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  1,503

  31,595

  4.8

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,778

  62,179

  4.7

  Borders Community Health NHS Trust

  1,402

  26,942

  5.2

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  1,901

  33,035

  5.8

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  824

  17,292

  4.7

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  3,288

  70,799

  4.6

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,042

  44,566

  4.6

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health Services NHS Trust

  1,899

  42,260

  4.5

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,531

  61,039

  4.2

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,908

  128,675

  3.0

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  2,770

  54,672

  5.1

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,156

  90,228

  5.1

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  1,430

  29,529

  4.8

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,844

  38,878

  4.7

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  3,234

  74,161

  4.4

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  758

  10,438

  7.3

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  4,591

  135,564

  3.4

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  6,364

  136,730

  4.7

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  6,264

  152,006

  4.1

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,484

  51,470

  4.8

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  2,282

  48,364

  4.7

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  2,110

  41,066

  5.1

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,602

  50,403

  5.2

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  3,883

  95,047

  4.1

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  2,281

  48,902

  4.7

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,983

  34,317

  5.8

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,444

  58,732

  4.2

  Moray Health Services

  1,363

  34,229

  4.0

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  2,725

  80,127

  3.4

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,409

  60,717

  4.0

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  1,723

  42,585

  4.0

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  2,365

  56,654

  4.2

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,945

  71,238

  4.1

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  2,230

  51,653

  4.3

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  4,747

  157,783

  3.0

  Scottish Ambulance Service

  3,333

  78,902

  4.2

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,254

  50,278

  4.5

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  3,136

  92,339

  3.4

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,814

  44,881

  4.0

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  3,056

  62,018

  5.0

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  2,355

  62,270

  3.8

  West Glasgow Hospitals NHS Trust

  5,557

  144,961

  3.8

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  3,360

  78,175

  4.3

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,613

  82,871

  4.4

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  2,821

  63,005

  4.6

  Total

  132,099

  3,162,391

  4.2

  (b) M2 as a percentage of income

  M2 1997–98

  Income 1997–98

  (£000)

  (£000)

  Percentage

  Aberdeen Royal NHS Trust

  4,650

  140,830

  3.3

  Angus NHS Trust

  1,965

  43,170

  4.6

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  1,617

  33,158

  4.9

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,859

  64,459

  4.4

  Borders Community Health NHS Trust

  1,467

  27,417

  5.4

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  1,863

  34,945

  5.3

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  829

  17,716

  4.7

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  3,380

  67,868

  5.0

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,010

  46,653

  4.3

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health Services NHS Trust

  1,850

  43,252

  4.3

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,470

  60,779

  4.1

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  4,000

  138,478

  2.9

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  2,770

  56,456

  4.9

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  3,900

  90,045

  4.3

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  1,361

  31,809

  4.3

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,700

  39,795

  4.3

  82 83

  (b) M2 as a percentage of income

  M2 1997–98

  Income 1997–98

  (£000)

  (£000)

  Percentage

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,840

  66,464

  4.3

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  821

  10,877

  7.5

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  4,626

  138,926

  3.3

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  6,144

  139,638

  4.4

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  7,067

  152,044

  4.6

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,494

  54,038

  4.6

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  1,824

  52,122

  3.5

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  2,074

  41,760

  5.0

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,600

  52,191

  5.0

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  3,857

  97,041

  4.0

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  2,346

  49,925

  4.7

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,928

  35,704

  5.4

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,300

  61,747

  3.7

  Moray Health Services

  1,403

  36,065

  3.9

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  2,596

  81,110

  3.2

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,566

  71,070

  3.6

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  1,714

  43,959

  3.9

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  2,454

  60,447

  4.1

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,950

  72,471

  4.1

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  2,100

  53,796

  3.9

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  4,547

  167,174

  2.7

  Scottish Ambulance Service

  3,156

  83,237

  3.8

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,156

  52,624

  4.1

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  3,000

  93,303

  3.2

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,857

  46,434

  4.0

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  3,678

  62,222

  5.9

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  2,611

  64,979

  4.0

  West Glasgow Hospitals NHS Trust

  5,420

  150,417

  3.6

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  3,100

  78,800

  3.9

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,772

  87,722

  4.3

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  2,835

  65,894

  4.3

  Total

  131,527

  3,261,031

  4.0

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

  NHS Clinical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost of clinical negligence claims to the NHS in(a) each region and (b) each NHS trust in each year since 1994–95. [77136]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The cost of clinical negligence claims to the NHS for each Health Board area including NHS Trusts since 1994–95 is set out in the table.

  £

  Health Boards

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Argyll and Clyde

  197,498

  280,773

  510,273

  741,762

  Ayrshire and Arran

  57,364

  56,716

  326,326

  130,642

  Dumfries and Galloway

  46,542

  90,737

  133,786

  85,950

  Fife

  29,940

  81,786

  102,380

  159,395

  Forth Valley

  34,997

  160,246

  1,098,758

  226,587

  Grampian

  136,643

  72,993

  299,778

  106,960

  Greater Glasgow

  1,033,819

  1,459,505

  1,136,008

  1,376,359

  Highland

  15,027

  224,809

  48,968

  423,764

  Lanarkshire

  351,484

  123,895

  108,350

  98,373

  Lothian

  1,344,507

  1,418,026

  560,583

  474,911

  Tayside

  132,572

  97,698

  179,013

  256,741

  Other Boards

  13,583

  54,500

  92,480

  62,685

  Total

  3,393,976

  4,121,684

  4,596,703

  4,144,129

  84
  The information has been aggregated at Health Board level to protect patient confidentiality at Trusts where only one, or very few, claims have been settled. Similarly, Health Boards which have only a small number of claims have been aggregated to protect patient confidentiality.

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

  NHS Training and Education
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what data his Department collects on expenditure on NHS training and education and its distribution. [77134]

  Mr. Galbraith
  My Department holds information on expenditure on those education and training activities in the NHS in Scotland which are funded through the Scottish Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education (SCPMDE) and other central funding mechanisms.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  85

  Timber Industry
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres in the United Kingdom were under softwood timber in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [77204]

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

  Year ended

  thousand hectares

  31 March 1996

  1,585

  31 March 1997

  1,597

  Regular Constables/Special Constables

  1992 December

  1993 December

  1994 December

  1996 March

  1997 March

  1998 March

  Central Scotland Police

  Chief Constable

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Assistant Chief Constable

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Superintendent

  8

  8

  9

  9

  8

  10

  Chief Inspector

  11

  13

  13

  13

  12

  7

  Inspector

  31

  33

  33

  32

  33

  34

  Sergeant

  95

  101

  102

  104

  101

  103

  Constable

  502

  500

  495

  498

  530

  547

  Total

  649

  657

  654

  658

  686

  703

  Special Constables

  102

  101

  110

  88

  81

  72

  Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary

  Chief Constable

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Assistant Chief Constable

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Superintendent

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Chief Inspector

  6

  6

  7

  7

  7

  8

  Inspector

  18

  19

  19

  19

  19

  20

  Sergeant

  59

  59

  61

  60

  65

  68

  Constable

  296

  294

  293

  296

  312

  334

  Total

  387

  386

  389

  390

  411

  438

  Special Constables

  167

  189

  193

  214

  199

  193

  Fife Constabulary

  Chief Constable

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Assistant Chief Constable

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Superintendent

  12

  11

  10

  10

  9

  9

  Chief Inspector

  14

  14

  13

  11

  11

  14

  Inspector

  36

  36

  39

  40

  41

  36

  Sergeant

  111

  110

  112

  111

  111

  110

  Constable

  610

  612

  611

  614

  657

  683

  Total

  786

  786

  788

  789

  832

  855

  Special Constables

  151

  160

  158

  140

  132

  132

  Grampian Police

  Chief Constable

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Assistant Chief Constable

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Superintendent

  19

  18

  19

  19

  16

  16

  Chief Inspector

  21

  22

  20

  21

  19

  20

  Inspector

  62

  63

  69

  69

  69

  68

  Sergeant

  186

  184

  181

  186

  181

  183

  Constable

  903

  903

  899

  874

  885

  911

  Total

  1,194

  1,193

  1,191

  1,172

  1,173

  1,202

  Special Constables

  214

  204

  198

  171

  146

  138

  Lothian and Borders Police

  Chief Constable

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Assistant Chief Constable

  4

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  86

  Year ended

  thousand hectares

  31 March 1998

  1,604

  Special Police Officers
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the number of(a) full-time and (b) special police officers, by rank and force, for March and September (i) 1992, (ii) 1993, (iii) 1994, (iv) 1995, (v) 1996, (vi) 1997 and (vii) 1998. [76858]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: The information requested is presented in the following table.
  87

  Regular Constables/Special Constables

  1992 December

  1993 December

  1994 December

  1996 March

  1997 March

  1998 March

  Superintendent

  35

  37

  36

  34

  36

  37

  Chief Inspector

  48

  45

  43

  43

  41

  40

  Inspector

  127

  124

  123

  122

  125

  127

  Sergeant

  357

  361

  360

  358

  361

  368

  Constable

  1,989

  1,986

  1,990

  1,973

  2,124

  2,115

  Total

  2,561

  2,558

  2,556

  2,534

  2,691

  2,691

  Special Constables

  198

  209

  236

  223

  197

  198

  Northern Constabulary

  Chief Constable

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Assistant Chief Constable

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Superintendent

  10

  11

  8

  8

  8

  7

  Chief Inspector

  14

  14

  8

  13

  12

  13

  Inspector

  26

  25

  25

  27

  27

  26

  Sergeant

  110

  108

  109

  106

  108

  108

  Constable

  474

  498

  484

  489

  492

  501

  Total

  636

  658

  643

  645

  649

  657

  Special Constables

  493

  515

  531

  500

  511

  480

  Strathclyde Police

  Chief Constable

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Assistant Chief Constable

  7

  8

  7

  7

  7

  7

  Superintendent

  111

  107

  111

  112

  114

  118

  Chief Inspector

  122

  122

  122

  115

  110

  102

  Inspector

  359

  357

  362

  353

  357

  374

  Sergeant

  967

  966

  977

  972

  980

  975

  Constable

  5,230

  5,262

  5,423

  5,656

  5,662

  5,722

  Total

  6,797

  6,823

  7,003

  7,216

  7,231

  7,299

  Special Constables

  382

  367

  351

  328

  314

  319

  Tayside Police

  Chief Constable

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Assistant Chief Constable

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Superintendent

  17

  17

  17

  13

  14

  14

  Chief Inspector

  20

  20

  16

  14

  14

  13

  Inspector

  58

  58

  59

  50

  51

  53

  Sergeant

  160

  159

  158

  159

  165

  163

  Constable

  826

  821

  834

  874

  869

  897

  Total

  1,084

  1,078

  1,087

  1,113

  1,116

  1,143

  Special Constables

  140

  152

  215

  214

  206

  191

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

  Pupil Funding
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by local authority area, the level of (i) nursery and (ii) secondary education funding per pupil in(a) cash terms and (b) 1998–99 prices in each year since 1992. [77743]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is given in the tables. 1996 –97 is the latest financial year for which actual expenditure information is currently available. The figures, which are derived from local authority returns, do not include the cost of home-to-school transport, school meals, education authority administration costs and loan charges.
  88

  Net Current expenditure per full time equivalent pupil in local authority nursery schools

  (£ at out-turn prices)

  Regional/Islands councils

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Borders

  227

  242

  2,090

  1,875

  Central

  1,974

  2,073

  2,206

  2,298

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,988

  2,133

  2,185

  2,018

  Fife

  1,483

  1,636

  1,608

  1,757

  Grampian

  2,265

  2,313

  2,315

  2,401

  Highland

  2,425

  2,928

  2,877

  2,875

  Lothian

  2,151

  2,219

  2,258

  2,355

  Strathclyde

  2,820

  3,089

  3,203

  3,437

  Tayside

  2,111

  2,130

  2,105

  2,204

  Orkney

  1,959

  2,379

  2,409

  4,386

  Shetland

  2,573

  3,030

  3,456

  2,691

  Western Isles

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  89

  Net current expenditure per full time equivalent pupil in local authority nursery schools

  (£at 1998–99 prices)

  Regional/Islands councils

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Borders

  264

  274

  2,335

  2,035

  Central

  2,296

  2,349

  2,464

  2,495

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,313

  2,418

  2,441

  2,190

  Fife

  1,725

  1,854

  1,796

  1,908

  Grampian

  2,635

  2,621

  2,586

  2,606

  Highland

  2,821

  3,318

  3,215

  3,121

  Lothian

  2,502

  2,515

  2,523

  2,557

  Strathclyde

  3,280

  3,500

  3,579

  3,731

  Tayside

  2,456

  2,414

  2,352

  2,393

  Orkney

  2,279

  2,696

  2,692

  4,762

  Shetland

  2,993

  3,433

  3,861

  2,922

  Western Isles

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Net current expenditure per full time equivalent pupil in local authority nursery schools in 1996–97

  Councils

  (£ at out-turn prices)

  (£ at 1998–99 prices)

  Aberdeen, City

  2,442

  2,572

  Aberdeenshire

  2,358

  2,484

  Angus

  1,979

  2,085

  Argyll and Bute

  5,327

  5,610

  Clackmannanshire

  3,280

  3,454

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,896

  1,996

  Dundee

  2,243

  2,362

  East Ayrshire

  3,441

  3,624

  East Dunbartonshire

  8,025

  8,452

  East Lothian

  1,951

  2,055

  East Renfrewshire

  1,893

  1,994

  Edinburgh, City

  2,596

  2,734

  Eilean Siar

  n/a

  n/a

  Falkirk

  2,256

  2,376

  Fife

  2,622

  2,762

  Glasgow City

  3,497

  3,683

  Highland

  2,011

  2,118

  Inverclyde

  4,513

  4,753

  Midlothian

  2,564

  2,701

  Moray

  1,576

  1,660

  North Ayrshire

  1,839

  1,937

  North Lanarkshire

  4,409

  4,643

  Orkney

  2,680

  2,823

  Perth and Kinross

  2,193

  2,310

  Renfrewshire

  5,676

  5,978

  Scottish Borders

  1,812

  1,908

  Shetland

  3,086

  3,250

  South Ayrshire

  3,002

  3,162

  South Lanarkshire

  6,839

  7,202

  Stirling

  3,308

  3,484

  West Dunbartonshire

  4,743

  4,995

  West Lothian

  2,340

  2,464

  Net current expenditure per pupil in local authority secondary schools

  (£ at out-turn prices)

  Regional/Islands councils

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Borders

  2,857

  2,873

  2,941

  2,933

  Central

  2,801

  2,785

  2,761

  2,784

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,957

  2,876

  2,894

  2,941

  Fife

  2,636

  2,569

  2,597

  2,630

  Grampian

  3,031

  2,958

  2,862

  2,970

  Highland

  2,896

  2,914

  2,975

  3,061

  Lothian

  3,047

  2,963

  2,959

  3,024

  90

  Net current expenditure per pupil in local authority secondary schools

  (£ at out-turn prices)

  Regional/Islands councils

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Strathclyde

  2,842

  2,769

  2,831

  2,914

  Tayside

  3,036

  2,878

  2,946

  2,932

  Orkney

  3,827

  3,464

  3,576

  3,592

  Shetland

  4,492

  4,948

  5,104

  5,397

  Western Isles

  4,297

  4,200

  4,405

  4,535

  Net current expenditure per pupil in local authority secondary schools

  (£ at 1998–99 prices)

  Regional/Islands councils

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Borders

  3,324

  3,256

  3,286

  3,184

  Central

  3,258

  3,156

  3,085

  3,022

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,440

  3,259

  3,233

  3,193

  Fife

  3,066

  2,911

  2,902

  2,855

  Grampian

  3,526

  3,352

  3,198

  3,224

  Highland

  3,369

  3,302

  3,324

  3,323

  Lothian

  3,545

  3,358

  3,306

  3,283

  Strathclyde

  3,306

  3,138

  3,163

  3,164

  Tayside

  3,532

  3,261

  3,291

  3,183

  Orkney

  4,452

  3,925

  3,995

  3,900

  Shetland

  5,226

  5,607

  5,702

  5,859

  Western Isles

  4,999

  4,760

  4,922

  4,923

  Net current expenditure per pupil in local authority nursery schools in 1996–97

  Councils

  (£ at out-turn prices)

  (£ at 1998–99 prices)

  Aberdeen, City

  2,917

  3,129

  Aberdeenshire

  2,759

  2,905

  Angus

  2,835

  2,986

  Argyll and Bute

  3,003

  3,163

  Clackmannanshire

  2,932

  3,088

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,905

  3,060

  Dundee

  3,142

  3,309

  East Ayrshire

  2,747

  2,893

  East Dunbartonshire

  2,599

  2,737

  East Lothian

  2,923

  3,078

  East Renfrewshire

  2,611

  2,750

  Edinburgh, City

  3,011

  3.171

  Eilean Siar

  4,553

  4,795

  Falkirk

  2,751

  2,898

  Fife

  2,674

  2,816

  Glasgow City

  3,322

  3,498

  Highland

  3,135

  3,302

  Inverclyde

  2,844

  2,995

  Midlothian

  2,880

  3,033

  Moray

  2,799

  2,948

  North Ayrshire

  2,776

  2,923

  North Lanarkshire

  2,854

  3,006

  Orkney

  3,778

  3,979

  Perth and Kinross

  2,822

  2,972

  Renfrewshire

  2,909

  3,064

  Scottish Borders

  3,039

  3,200

  Shetland

  5,777

  6,085

  South Ayrshire

  2,780

  2,928

  South Lanarkshire

  2,863

  3,015

  Stirling

  2,987

  3,146

  West Dunbartonshire

  2,833

  2,984

  West Lothian

  2,945

  3,102

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  91

  Higher Education
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applicants there were for places at Scottish universities in each year since 1992. [77761]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This information is not held centrally.

  UCAS (Universities and Colleges Admission Service) is a central non-Government agency which acts on behalf of UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to process applications for entry to higher education courses. UCAS publishes annual information on applicants and acceptances for courses at Higher Education Institutions in the UK in a report. This information is also available on the UCAS website (www.ucas.ac.uk).

  The UCAS report summarises the total applicants to UK HEIs, but does not distinguish total applicants to Scottish HEIs. However, institutions are separately identified, and the information required can be collated from these.

  Alternatively, UCAS will collate the required information if requested. The address for UCAS is UCAS, Rosehill, New Barn Lane, Cheltenham, Glos., GL52 3LZ, or telephone 01242 222 444.

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

  Boundary Commission
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Boundary Commission concluded its review of the boundaries of each local authority area in Scotland; and if these have been approved. [77747]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Local Government Boundary Commission submitted its final report relating to the Third Statutory Review of Electoral Arrangements in October 1998. The necessary orders implementing the recommendations with modifications have been made for all 32 Scottish councils and will take effect for the local government elections in May 1999. A statutory review of the Administrative boundaries is not scheduled to commence until 2004.

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

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what involvement fleet managers have had in drawing up his Department's Green Transport Plan. [77963]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Scottish Office fleet managers are making a major contribution to our green transport planning. By 31 March, 23 liquid petroleum gas vehicles and 2 electric vehicles will be in the core Scottish Office fleet, representing 16 per cent. of the total. As part of a pilot project, the 2 electric vehicles will be used for staff travelling on official business between our Edinburgh offices. Additional liquid petroleum gas vehicles are to be purchased in the next financial year.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  92

  Hospital Disposals
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what basis the sites of(a) the Princess Margaret Rose Hospital, (b) the City Hospital and (c) the Dental Hospital, Edinburgh were valued prior to disposal; and what assumptions his Department made about their future development. [77855]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The sites at the Princess Margaret Rose Hospital, the City Hospital and the Dental Hospital, Edinburgh were valued both by the District Valuer and the property adviser to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust prior to disposal on the basis that the sites would be used for residential purposes.

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

  Water (Local Authority Control)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with(a) each of Scotland's local authorities and when these consultations took place and (b) COSLA and with whom the discussions took place on the return of water to local authority control. [77336]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Secretary of State issued a consultation paper on the structure of the Scottish water industry in July 1997. Replies were received from CoSLA, and from 10 local authorities. There were detailed discussions at official level between The Scottish Office and CoSLA. The Secretary of State made a statement to the House on 16 December 1997.

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

  Health Board Expenditure
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a detailed breakdown of expenditure by each health board in Scotland in the current financial year. [78027]

  Mr. Galbraith
  A detailed breakdown of expenditure by health board is not yet available for the current financial year. Health Boards are not due to submit their audited annual accounts to the Management Executive until 31 July 1999.

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

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish, for each health board in Scotland, the allocation given to health boards to purchase health care in their areas in the current financial year. [78026]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is as follows:

  Health Board

  £ million

  Argyll and Clyde

  385.8

  Ayrshire and Arran

  326.5

  Borders

  99.8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  140.0

  Fife

  284.8

  Forth Valley

  231.4

  Grampian

  438.6

  93

  Health Board

  £ million

  Greater Glasgow

  880.3

  Highland

  194.4

  Lanarkshire

  460.2

  Lothian

  665.3

  Orkney

  22.1

  Shetland

  23.7

  Tayside

  387.2

  Western Isles

  36.2

  Total

  4,576.3

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

  Health Boards (Senior Management)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total cost of pay was for chairmen, directors and senior managers of health boards in Scotland in the current financial year. [78028]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The total cost of pay for executive directors and senior managers in Scotland's Health Boards will not be available until the end of May. Remuneration to Scotland's 15 Health Board Chairmen in 1998–99 is £228,420; the estimated remuneration to non-executive members of the Health Boards is estimated at £390,000.

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

TREASURY

  Dividend Tax Credits
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provisions the Government have made in the Comprehensive Spending Review for the effects arising from the abolition of the repayment of dividend tax credits to pensions funds. [68753]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: The effects of abolition of the repayment of dividend tax credits on funded public sector pension schemes was taken into account in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  European Scrutiny Committee
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if(a) Ministers, (b) special advisers and (c) civil servants saw the European Scrutiny Committee questions brief in advance of the appearance of the Economic Secretary before the Committee on 10 December. [77849]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: Ministers, special advisers and officials did not see a copy of the Commons Scrutiny Committee questions brief in advance of my appearance before the Committee.

  Company Licences
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for(a) small and medium enterprises and (b) larger companies (i) all licences and permits issued by
  94
  his Department and its agencies to companies permitting them to carry out their business, (ii) the cost of each such licence or permit in (A) 1997–98 and (B) 1999–2000 and (iii) the current number of companies which are in receipt of each such licence or permit. [76852]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: The Treasury and the Executive Agencies responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not issue licences or permits to enable companies to carry out their business.

  Government Overdrafts
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to repay the Government's overdraft on the Ways and Means account at the Bank of England; and if he will make a statement. [77473]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The Government's Ways and Means overdraft with the Bank of England is the main short-term financing instrument currently used to balance the change in the Government's daily cash position. Responsibility for cash management is due to be transferred to the UK Debt Management Office during the course of 1999–2000. When the transfer is complete, Ways and Means will no longer be drawn upon for cash management purposes, and methods will be explored to repay the Ways and Means balance. This will rationalise the Government's short-term borrowing.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is an EU treaty requirement that countries applying to join the euro should repay any overdraft that they may have with their domestic central bank. [77472]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: In accordance with Article 104 and Article 109e(3) of the EC Treaty, overdraft facilities or any other type of credit facility with the ECB or the national central banks of Member States in favour of Community institutions or bodies, central Governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of Member States were prohibited from the beginning of Stage Two of EMU.

  However, in accordance with paragraph 11 of Protocol No. 11 to the EC Treaty, the UK Government may maintain their 'ways and means' facility with the Bank of England if and so long as the UK does not move to Stage Three of EMU.

  Petrol Smuggling
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to combat the smuggling of petrol into the UK. [77481]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: Customs will soon be deploying extra resources to combat the smuggling of road fuel into Northern Ireland. In addition to the anti-smuggling operations a rolling programme of VAT assurance visits to all petroleum retailers in Northern Ireland is in operation. These inspections will check sales against legitimate purchases by reference to pump readings. There is little evidence that smuggling of fuel into any other area of the United Kingdom is a cause for concern.
  95

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the items sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies from those listed in the National Assets Register of November 1997; if he will give in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total cash raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [70418]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]: Items sold since the publication of the National Assets Register (NAR) by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments and associated public bodies are as follows:

  HM Treasury

  (i) As part of the arrangement for contracting out insurance supervision to the Financial Services Authority (FSA), a computer system (transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry in 1997–98) was sold for £3.2 million in January 1999.

  Treasury has also disposed of small quantities of IT equipment, furniture and fittings, as part of routine replacement programmes.

  (ii) Sale of financial investments has raised £177.5 million. These comprise:

  proceeds of £107.9 million, received on 1 April 1997 from the repurchase of £105.4 million (nominal) of the British Energy bond maturing in 2016; and

  the sale in April 1998 of the Treasury's remaining holding of 12,411,795 shares in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company for £69.6 million.

  Bank of England

  (i) The Bank is in the process of disposing of its regional branches. The total proceeds to date are around £10 million, close to the book value of these properties.

  (ii) The Bank's participating interest in the European Monetary Institute was its contribution (ecu 95 million) to the Institute's capital. Out of this contribution, the Bank paid ecu 37 million (£26 million) in respect of the capital of the European Central Bank. The balance of the contribution was repaid to the Bank of England in January 1999.

  (iii) The equipment and machinery used in the Bank's everyday operations are replaced or added to, when necessary. Disposals are for scrap or for second hand value. There have been no material sales of equipment.

  HM Customs and Excise

  Of the buildings listed in the NAR, a small freehold building at 165 High St., Invergordon, Rosshire has been sold for £25,000. Routine sales of other assets have taken place as part of the normal replacement cycle and in order to maintain the Department's operational capability. The approximate annual income from the sale of Customs assets is £1.25 million.

  Inland Revenue

  (i) The Inland Revenue has sold two surplus properties, Dundonald House, Bexhill-on-Sea for £210,000 and Montrose House, Glasgow for £750,000. In addition, they have disposed of two further properties as part of Private Finance Initiative projects; Stuart House, Edinburgh and Highland House, Manchester, valued at £0.5 million and £1 million respectively.

  (ii) As part of continuing replacement programmes, Inland Revenue has sold some cars, office machinery and information technology equipment. Precise information about the sale proceeds of these items is not readily available.

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  Since the publication of the NAR, it has been agreed that some services provided by the Registry of Friendly Societies (RFS) should be contracted out to the FSA. As a result, RFS has disposed of a substantial part of the building it occupies to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) on behalf of
  96
  the Inland Revenue. It has also sold a large proportion of its furniture to the Inland Revenue and has sold the IT assets used by staff transferring to the FSA. A summary of the assets included in the NAR which have since been disposed of is as follows:

  Asset

  Disposal to

  Amount realised £

  Building fitting out costs

  PACE

  3,611,000

  Furniture

  Inland Revenue

  25,000

  IT equipment

  FSA

  103,000

  Other Chancellor's Departments
  The following Departments have realised only small amounts from the sale of minor items of IT equipment, furniture or other items listed in the NAR, or have made no sales:

  Office for National Statistics

  National Savings

  National Investments and Loans

  Office Government Actuary's Department

  Royal Mint.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the average increase in stamp duty payable on purchases of private dwellings as a result of(a) the 1997 Budget measures and (b) the 1998 Budget measures; [70679]

  (2) what has been the average increase in stamp duty payable on the purchase of business premises as a result of (a) the 1997 Budget measures and (b) the 1998 Budget measures. [70698]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: The 1997 Budget measure is estimated to have increased the average stamp duty payable from July 1997 on transactions over the £250,000 threshold on residential property by around £3,000, and by around £15,000 for land and commercial property. The 1998 Budget measure is projected to result in similar average increases in 1998–99.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the market research into the ISA conducted by the McKinsey consultancy to be published; and what is the cost of the research. [77308]

  Ms Hewitt
  As announced, the primary aim of the research is to inform Government policy making. On completion, the Government will decide how best to use the results in support of their aims to encourage personal savings.

  The terms of the contract are a matter of commercial confidentiality. The contract was let following a competitive tendering exercise conducted in accordance with recognised procurement practice, under the supervision of the Treasury Procurement Unit.

  Charities (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount of tax forgone as a result of tax allowances granted to charities in England and Wales in the last financial year. [76053]
  97
  Ms Hewitt
  The total cost of tax reliefs for charities in the UK is estimated at over £2 billion for 1997–98. This comprises around £1.2 billion of direct taxes (including the reliefs given to donors and estates for gifts to charity), about £200 million in VAT reliefs, and £600 million in business rate relief. Information is not available on the total cost of tax reliefs for charities in England and Wales.

  However, of the approximately £730 million of direct taxes repaid to charities in the UK in 1997–98, around £680 million was repaid to charities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. And of the approximately £250 million exemption from inheritance tax of transfers to charities on death in 1997–98, around £220 million was for estates in England and Wales. Of the approximately £600 million business rate relief in 1997–98, around £520 million was for charities in England and Wales.

  It is not possible to give a reliable breakdown of the remainder of the reliefs from direct taxes, or of the estimated cost of £200 million for reliefs from VAT through a variety of zero rates and exemptions.

  Public Consultations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department follows Cabinet Office guidance on how to conduct public consultations. [73959]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury conducts public consultations on a variety of issues with interested parties in a number of ways. The Treasury seeks to follow the best practice principles set out in the CO guidance on "How to conduct written consultation exercises". Less formal consultations, such as the recent regional series of Productivity Road Shows, are also conducted by the Treasury.

  Financial Services and Markets Bill
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the jurisdictions referred to in paragraph 2–2 of the Financial Services and Markets Bill Progress report, published by Her Majesty's Treasury in March 1999. [76062]

  Ms Hewitt
  Both the Treasury and the FSA frequently have meetings with Government officials and regulatory bodies from other key jurisdictions. Many recent contacts have expressed a positive interest in and sought detailed information on the UK reforms.

  Credit Suisse First Boston
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of James Archer, David Crisanti and Adrian Ezra by Credit Suisse First Boston are being investigated by the Financial Services regulator. [77076]

  Ms Hewitt
  As a matter of policy the UK Financial Regulators do not comment on the existence of any investigation that may be taking place until it is appropriate to make public details of an investigation that has been carried out.

  VAT (Domestic Fuel)
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on emission levels of the reduction of VAT on domestic fuel. [76381]
  98
  Ms Hewitt
  The Government estimate that the reduction in VAT on domestic fuel and power from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. announced in the July 1997 Budget, will increase annual carbon dioxide emissions in 2010 by 240,000 tonnes of carbon, all other things being equal.

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 November 1998, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and if they receive remuneration. [76465]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested is as follows.

  Public body

  Name

  Position

  Whether remunerated

  Financial Services Authority

  Moira Black CBE

  Member

  Yes

  Gillian Nott

  Member

  Yes

  Shamit Saggar

  Member

  Yes

  Policy Holders Protection Board

  Andrew Young

  Member

  Yes

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each Department the level of funds that are, according to paragraph 4.22 of the Comprehensive Spending Review, (i) allocated for the delivery of services and (ii) non-allocated, for each of the years from 1997–98 to 2001–02. [68390]

  Mr. Milburn
  All funds allocated in the Comprehensive Spending Review are for the delivery of modern, efficient and effective public services. Challenging objectives and targets for the delivery of these services were set out in individual departments' service agreements and published in "Public Service for the Future" (Cm 4181), along with their allocations for 1997–98 to 2001–02.

  Environmental Tax Reform
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into public attitudes to environmental tax reform. [74818]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are committed to exploring the scope for using economic instruments to secure environmental objectives, as set out in the Statement of Intent on Environmental Taxation published in July 1997. This commitment has been taken forward in an open and consultative way with the publication of a number of consultation documents on environmental tax issues.

  The 1999 Budget included the largest ever package of environmental tax reforms. These reforms followed detailed research and full consultation with all interested parties. This package will make a substantial contribution to the Government's aim of protecting the environment, now and for future generations.

  Euro Banknotes
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what action he is taking to ensure that the Bank of England is not disadvantaged in competition for future
  99
  printing of euro banknotes by the United Kingdom's position outside the euro zone; and if he will make a statement; [75460]

  (2) what plans he has to improve the competitive position of the Bank of England in the printing of banknotes; and if he will make a statement. [75461]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Bank's competitive position is already excellent and their involvement in preparatory work will ensure they are not competitively disadvantaged.

  Public Sector Debt
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the level of net public sector debt per capita in each of the last 25 years for which figures are available. [74876]

  Ms Hewitt
  The table shows the figures requested.

  Public sector net debt per capita

  Year

  Net debt(£ billion)1

  Population(thousands)2

  Net debt per capita (£)

  1971

  38.7

  55,928

  692

  1972

  40.3

  56,097

  719

  1973

  41.8

  56,223

  744

  1974

  46.6

  56,236

  828

  1975

  54.5

  56,226

  969

  1976

  67.5

  56,216

  1,200

  1977

  77.2

  56,190

  1,375

  1978

  83.9

  56,178

  1,493

  1979

  91.2

  56,240

  1,622

  1980

  99.8

  56,330

  1,772

  1981

  115.3

  56,352

  2,045

  1982

  126.8

  56,318

  2,251

  1983

  133.9

  56,377

  2,375

  1984

  145.7

  56,506

  2,578

  1985

  159.4

  56,685

  2,811

  1986

  165.2

  56,852

  2,905

  1987

  170.2

  57,009

  2,985

  1988

  169.9

  57,158

  2,972

  1989

  156.0

  57,358

  2,720

  1990

  153.6

  57,561

  2,668

  1991

  153.4

  57,808

  2,653

  1992

  167.5

  58,006

  2,888

  1993

  204.8

  58,191

  3,519

  1994

  251.7

  58,395

  4,310

  1995

  289.9

  58,606

  4,946

  1996

  322.1

  58,801

  5,478

  1997

  349.8

  59,009

  5,928

  1 end-March

  2 end-June

  Source:

  Public Sector Net Debt—Bank of England:Statistical Abstract.

  Population—ONS Annual Abstract of Statistics.

  Money Transfers (Jersey)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the administration of Jersey about the use of companies based in Jersey for the money transfers by the Russian Central Bank; and if he will make a statement. [76631]

  Ms Hewitt
  Treasury officials have been briefed by the Jersey authorities about press allegations concerning a Jersey based company FIMACO used by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation to manage assets. Regulation of 100
  the financial services industry and company registration in Jersey is the responsibility of the Jersey Financial Services Commission.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants in his Department have been invited to waive the Working Time Directive requirement to work less than 48 hours a week on 17 consecutive weeks; how many civil servants in his Department have refused to waive the requirement; and what is the total cost of compliance with the Directive. [76798]

  Ms Hewitt
  58 staff in HM Treasury have been invited to waive the Working Time Directive requirement to work less than 48 hours a week. To date, 31 staff have signed an agreement to disapply this limit and nine staff have refused. Compliance costs are not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Euro Coins
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 2 March 1999,Official Report, columns 643–44, on euro coins, what sanctions against those who damage or destroy the image of the euro are provided for by the reproduction regime; and if he will make a statement. [75637]

  Ms Hewitt
  Enforcement of the copyright in the common face design of euro coins will be ensured by participating member states or, in the case of non-participating member states, by the Commission, according to national legislation and in compliance with an agreed reproduction regime.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the economic advantages of remaining outside the single currency; and what account he has taken of these in formulating policy on economic and monetary union. [73599]

  Ms Hewitt
  In his statement to the House of Commons on 27 October 1997,Official Report, columns 583–85, the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the Government's policy on Economic and Monetary Union. He said that the potential benefits for Britain of a successful single currency are obvious in terms of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability. The determining factor as to whether Britain joins a single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for doing so is clear and unambiguous.

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will name the Ministers in his Department who are regular users of electronic Red Boxes. [76178]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 16 March 1999,Official Report, columns 651–52.
  101

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) of 16 March 1999,Official Report, columns 641–42, from whom the PPS to the Chancellor received the draft Social Security Committee report. [78157]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 16 March 1999,Official Report, columns 641–42.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many pensioners will benefit from the uprating of the minimum income for pensioners in line with earnings at the next benefit uprating; and what this number is as a proportion of the total number of pensioners receiving the basic state pension; [78039]

  (2) how many pensioners will become eligible for income support directly as a result of the uprating of the minimum income for pensioners. [78040]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not currently available. The information will be available as soon as the forecasts on which the requested figures are based have been published in the Departmental Report on 30 March. I will write to the hon. Member after publication of this Report.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the uprating of the minimum income for pensioners will be in line with earnings at each annual uprating. [78038]

  Mr. Timms
  We have made it clear that our aim is to uprate the Minimum Income Guarantee in line with average earnings over time as resources allow. The increase next April will provide a further boost to the incomes of the least well-off among today's pensioners on top of this year's increase of three times the rate of inflation. We will review the economic situation and make decisions for future years at the appropriate time.

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit—newly diagnosed awards of asbestos-related diseases in the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  All

  Men

  Women

  All occupations

  1,016

  995

  21

  Corporate managers

  2

  2

  0

  General managers

  1

  1

  0

  Physical, mathematical and engineering science professionals

  3

  3

  0

  Other professionals

  1

  1

  0

  Physical and engineering science associate professionals

  17

  17

  0

  Life science and health associate professionals

  1

  0

  1

  Teaching associate professionals

  1

  0

  1

  Office clerks

  4

  2

  2

  Personal and protective services workers

  6

  4

  2

  Extraction and building trade workers

  276

  275

  1

  Metal, machinery and related trades workers

  298

  296

  2

  Precision, handicraft, printing and related trades workers

  51

  50

  1

  Other craft and related trades workers

  37

  34

  3

  102
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households have
  weekly incomes of(a) £65 to £70, (b) £71 to £75, (c) £76 to £80, (d) £81 to £85, (e) £86 to £90 and (f) over £90 in the case of single pensioner households, and of (i) £110 to £120, (ii) £121 to £130, (iii) £131 to £140, (d) £141 to £150 and (e) over £150 in the case of pensioner couples. [78041]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the tables.

  Number of single pensioners in selected income bands

  Range of income

  Number of single pensioners (Thousands)

  £65 to £70

  180

  £71 to £75

  200

  £76 to £80

  220

  £81 to £85

  130

  £86 to £90

  130

  Over £90

  3,080

  Number of pensioner couples in selected income bands

  Range of income

  Number of pensioner couples (Thousands)

  £110 to £120

  80

  £121 to £130

  80

  £131 to £140

  110

  £141 to £150

  160

  Over £150

  2,100

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000, although they are not necessarily accurate to that degree.

  2. 'Income' refers to the net weekly income of the single or couple.

  3. Pensioners are defined as single (non-cohabiting) people over State pension age (65 and over for men, 60 and over for women), and couples (married or cohabiting) where the head is over State pension age.

  4. Estimates are based on incomes reported in the 1996/97 Family Resources Survey, uprated to April 1998 prices.

  Disablement Pension (Asbestosis)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women, broken down by occupation, (i) are in receipt of a disablement pension for asbestosis and (ii) were made an award in the last year for which figures are available. [69932]

  Mr. Bayley
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 February 1999, c. 535–36]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  103

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit—newly diagnosed awards of asbestos-related diseases in the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  All

  Men

  Women

  Stationary plant and related trades workers

  95

  94

  1

  Machine operators and assemblers

  41

  36

  5

  Drivers and mobile plant operators

  69

  69

  0

  Sales and services elementary occupations

  14

  12

  2

  Agricultural, fishery and related labourers

  2

  2

  0

  Labourers in mining, construction, manufacturing and transport

  96

  96

  0

  Armed forces

  1

  1

  0

  Notes:

  1. Figures are not available by occupation or attributable agent for the total numbers of people receiving benefit related to asbestos.

  2. Asbestos related diseases that are prescribed for the purposes of industrial injuries Disablement Benefit are Pneumoconiosis (prescribed disease D1), where the attributable agent is asbestos; Diffuse mesothelioma (prescribed disease D3); Carcinoma of the lung (prescribed disease D8); and Bilateral diffuse pleural thickening (prescribed disease D9). The table shows new diagnoses for benefit purposes of these asbestos-related diseases, which have attracted an award of benefit in the 1997–98 year, by gender and occupation.

  Source:

  DSS (Analytical Services Division). Figures based on 100 per cent. data.

  Widows' Benefits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of(a) delaying the halving of the additional pension payments for widows whose spouse dies after 5 April 2000 until 2010, (b) delaying the reduction of the additional pension payments for widows whose spouse dies after 5 April 2000 and instead reducing the payments by 10 per cent. each year until 2004 and (c) delaying the reduction of the additional pension payments for widows whose spouse dies after 5 April 2000 until 2010 and then reducing the payments by 10 per cent. each year up until 2014. [75664]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: The information is in the table.

  £ million

  Cumulative cost

  Continuing cost per annum

  2000–09

  2010

  2020

  2030

  2040

  2050

  (a)

  5,620

  1,130

  740

  350

  110

  20

  (b)

  1,710

  180

  110

  50

  10

  0

  (c)

  5,620

  1,190

  950

  470

  150

  30

  Notes:

  1. Costs are supplied by the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. No allowance has been made for income related benefit offsets.

  3. Costs are rounded to nearest £10 million and are presented in 1998–99 benefit rates.

  4. Costs include SERPS pension paid to widows and widowers above the state pension age and to widows below state pension age.

  5. The estimates are based on current legislation.

  6. Real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent. has been assumed.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the housing benefit system. [77738]

  Angela Eagle
  Our aim is to modernise Housing Benefit so that it is fairer, better administered, secure and promotes the incentive to work. A Housing Green paper will be published later this year which will discuss options for reforms to Housing Benefit within the context of housing policy.
  104

  Single Gateway
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what budgets have been allocated for each of the three phases of the Single Gateway pilot schemes. [78115]

  Angela Eagle
  The additional funding for the 12 single Work-Focused Gateway pilots, that is the amount allocated on top of that which would be required to administer benefits in the pilot areas under the current arrangements, has been allocated as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Allocation

  1998–2000

  32.49

  2000–01

  23.97

  2001–02

  23.07

  These amounts do not differentiate between the three phases. They include information technology and capital expenditure over the period of the pilots. The funding allocation for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 has been combined.

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) of 8 March 1999,Official Report, column 52, on unclaimed benefits, what factors caused the error in the data; and when he expects to conclude his review of relevant data. [77995]

  Angela Eagle
  Take up of income related benefits is calculated by comparing an estimate of the number of people entitled to, but not receiving, each benefit with the number of people known to be claiming it.

  The error was caused by a failure to include, in our calculations of entitlement, payments to widows from a deceased spouse's former employer (widows occupational pension). The failure occurred when these payments were first recorded separately from other occupational pensions in the Family Resources Survey, from which these estimates are made.
  105
  This caused the Department's statisticians to under-estimate the incomes of some pensioners, leading to an over-estimation of benefit entitlement. This resulted in an over-estimation of the numbers of pensioners not claiming Income Support to which they are entitled.

  We expect to publish a revised set of figures for 1996–97 in May.

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of increasing the disregard in the bereavement benefits to(a) £20, (b) £30, (c) £40 and (d) £50. [78031]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  The estimated total costs of increasing the proposed disregard for Widowed Parent's Allowance

  £ million

  WPA disregard in all benefits

  Year 1

  Year 2

  Year 3

  Long run

  £20

  15

  15

  15

  10

  £30

  25

  25

  25

  15

  £40

  40

  40

  40

  25

  £50

  55

  55

  55

  35

  Notes:

  1. The proposed disregard for Widowed Parents Allowance is £10 for Income Support and £15 for Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Working Families Tax Credit. The figures estimate the cost of increasing these rates for these benefits to the requested levels.

  2. The estimates presented are broad orders of magnitude. They are rounded to the nearest £5 million and are our best estimate of the cost of increasing the disregards, but are nonetheless subject to a degree of uncertainty.

  3. Estimates use information from the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey, the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry and forecasts from the Government Actuary's Department. The offset ratio is assumed to remain constant across the years in order to provide illustrative estimates.

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what involvement fleet managers have had in drawing up his Department's Green Transport Plan. [77968]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department's Environment Officer is also the Department's fleet manager and had considerable involvement in developing the 27 Departmental Green Transport Plans which will be in place by 31 March 1999.

  Miners (Compensation Payments)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if social security benefits previously paid out will be recoverable from the compensation payments recently announced for miners suffering from(a) emphysema, (b) bronchitis and (c) vibration white finger; and if he will make a statement. [78137]

  Mr. Bayley
  It has been a long standing principle that victims of personal injury or disease should not be compensated twice for the same need. Consequently compensation paid to miners for loss of past earnings, cost of care and loss of mobility may be reduced to take 106
  account of the liability to repay benefits paid in respect of the disease in question. Compensation for pain and suffering will be paid in full.

  Disability Allowance Review
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) for what period disability living allowance recipients whose cases were examined by the Benefit Integrity Project will be excluded from the new checking regime; [77889]

  (2) what estimates he has made of the likely level of savings or increased expenditure arising from the new disability allowance review regime. [77891]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are committed to achieving a coherent, fair and sensitive system for the delivery of Disability Living Allowance (DLA). This will encompass new methods of claiming and periodic inquiry arrangements to be applied ultimately to all cases in payment. The Benefits Agency is working to establish the proper frequency with which individuals should be asked about their current needs so that, in the future, inquiries can be made at the most appropriate time and new claimants can be advised from the outset when inquiries are likely to be made in their case. Developmental work is well underway, in consultation with organisations of, and for, disabled people.

  As a first step in the process, a prototype periodic inquiry system will be introduced in April 1999 for existing DLA cases, followed in the Summer by trials to test new ways of handling claims for DLA and Attendance Allowance (AA). Both strands of work will be closely monitored and evaluated. Developments and data from each strand will be used to design the final overall process.

  People whose cases were examined under the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) will not, at the outset, be subject to the new periodic inquiry arrangements. Once the full new system is introduced, they are likely to be allocated a periodic inquiry frequency on the same basis as new claimants for DLA and AA. It is, however, too early to provide details.

  We have made it clear that the main objective of these changes is to ensure that benefit is being paid properly. They are not savings driven. There will be additional administrative costs as the new inquiry process develops. The effect of the new processes on programme spending will be factored into the expenditure forecasts in the normal way.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Global Services and JMT Charlesworth Ltd.
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings his Department have had with Global Services and JMT Charlesworth Ltd.; what were the terms of the grants made to these companies over the past two years; and if he will make a statement. [71805]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]: JMT Charlesworth applied in 1997 to the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) for a DTI funded Export Marketing

  107
  Research Scheme grant. The grants are open to British companies with fewer than 500 employees wishing to research specific overseas markets and are payable after the work has been successfully completed. The company received a grant of just over £1,000 from BCC following their study of the market for used, refurbished trucks for sale to Eritrea and Ethiopia.

  Mansion House Speech
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received following his speech at the Mansion House on 2 February. [75180]

  Mr. Byers
  Several.

  Trade Promotion
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to(a) Lithuania, (b) Malawi, (c) Malaysia and (d) Mauritius; and what future trade delegations are planned. [76544]

  Mr. Wilson
  (a) Lithuania—I will be leading a trade mission to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania from 26 to 30 April 1999. The mission will look at opportunities for British companies in ports and railways development and it is hoped that more than 15 high level British companies will take part in the mission. This is the first occasion that a Government Minister has led a trade delegation to the Baltic States during this administration.

  Date

  Trade missions

  April 1999

  Agricultural sector working group mission to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan

  October 1999

  Infrastructure and Energy projects Directorate oil and gas trade mission to Kazakhstan

  October 1999

  British Water Trade mission to Kazakhstan

  March 2000

  British Consultants Trade mission to Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan

  Additionally, the Chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board will be visiting Central Asia in September with a trade mission. He is expected to include Kyrgyzstan in the visit.

  (c) The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), led a mission of British Water companies to Lebanon in December 1998. My Department plans to support five trade missions to Lebanon in the financial year 1999–2000:

  Date

  Trade missions

  11–24 April 1999

  Business Link Gloucester

  18–22 May 1999

  Middle East Association

  3–15 October 1999

  Business Link Milton Keynes

  16–24 November 1999

  Nottingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  January 2000

  Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  (d) There have been no Minister-led trade delegations to Lesotho and there are no plans for one in the future.
  108
  (b) Malawi—There have been no Minister-led trade delegations by a Government Minister in this Administration and none are currently planned.

  (c) Malaysia—The last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to Malaysia was in September 1995 by the then President of the Board of Trade, Ian Lang.

  Thirteen DTI sponsored trade missions are planned during FY 1999–2000.

  (d) Mauritius—There have been no trade delegations led by a Government Minister in this Administration. Future DTI supported outward trade missions to Mauritius are planned for July 1999, November 1999 and March 2000.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to(a) Kazakhstan, (b) Kyrgyzstan, (c) Lebanon and (d) Lesotho; and what future trade delegations are planned. [76541]

  Mr. Wilson
  (a-b) The last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to Kazakhstan and/or Kyrgyzstan was when Viscount Goschen, then Minister for Aviation and Shipping, led a delegation to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan between 9–16 September 1995.

  There are no firm plans for future trade delegations led by a Minister to visit either country. The Department of Trade and Industry plans to support 4 trade missions to Kazakhstan in 1999–2000, two of which will visit Kyrgyzstan. They are as follows:

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to(a) Colombia, (b) Cuba, (c) Cyprus, (d) Dominica and (e) the Dominican Republic; and what future trade delegations are planned. [76526]

  Mr. Wilson
  The then Minister for Trade led a trade delegation to Colombia in 1996. There are no plans for another Minister-led trade delegation in the near future. The following trade missions are planned:

  Date

  Trade missions

  May 1999

  ABHI/LATAG

  September 1999

  British and Colombian Chamber of Commerce

  November 1999

  London Chamber of Commerce

  March 2000

  Northern Development Company

  The then Minister for Science and Technology led a trade delegation to Cuba in 1994. I will be leading a

  109
  trade delegation in April 1999 and the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group (CARITAG) are planning a trade mission in June.

  There have been no recent Minister-led trade delegations to Cyprus, Dominica or the Dominican Republic and none is planned in the near future.

  The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry are planning a trade mission to Cyprus in September 1999 and CARITAG are organising a trade mission to the Dominican Republic in June 1999.

  Date

  BEAMA

  14–18 June 1999

  Birmingham Chamber of Commerce

  27 September-1 October 1999

  British and Chilean Chamber of Commerce

  22–26 November 1999

  London Chamber of Commerce

  20–26 March 2000

  Qatar

  The former Minister for Trade led a trade delegation to Qatar in November 1997.

  Date

  Northern Development Company

  5–7 February 2000

  Middle East Association

  26–28 February 2000

  East Mercia Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  1–3 April 2000

  Rotherham Business Link

  9–11 April 2000

  Saudi Arabia

  The last occasion a Government Minister led a trade delegation to Saudi Arabia was in November 1995.

  Date

  Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  18–27 September 1999

  Middle East Association

  15–25 October 1999

  Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  18–28 November 1999

  Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  25 January-3 February 2000

  London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  29 February-9 March 2000

  Business Link Rotherham

  26 March-4 April 2000

  Singapore

  I led a trade delegation to Singapore in October 1998.

  Date

  The Scottish Council for Development and Industry

  19–23 April 1999

  Defence Manufacturers Association

  3–7 May 1999

  East Mercia Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  10–14 May 1999

  Business Link Shropshire

  21–25 June 1999

  BESA

  28 June-2 July 1999

  Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce

  20–24 September 1999

  Business Link Kent

  27 September-1 October 1999

  Manchester Chamber of Commerce

  5–29 October 1999

  Southern Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce

  1–5 November 1999

  Northern Development Company

  22–26 November 1999

  Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  January 2000 (tbc)

  Luton and Bedfordshire Chamber of Commerce

  7–11 February 2000

  North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce

  28 February-3 March 2000

  Business Link Sheffield

  27–31 March 2000

  110
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to(a) Peru, (b) Qatar, (c) Saudi Arabia and (d) Singapore; and what future trade delegations are planned. [76556]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information is as follows:

  Peru

  The last occasion a Government Minister led a trade delegation to Peru was November 1996.

  My Department plans to support four trade missions to Peru in the financial year 1999–2000

  My Department is planning to support four trade missions to Qatar in the financial year 1999–2000:

  My Department is planning to support six trade missions to Saudi Arabia in 1999–2000.

  My Department is planning to support 14 trade missions to Singapore in 1999–2000:
  111
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to(a) Japan, (b) Jordan, (c) Kenya and (d) Kuwait; and what future trade delegations are planned. [76538]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information is as follows:

  Date

  British Nuclear Industry Forum

  5–15 April 1999

  British Tourist Authority

  11–17 April 1999

  Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  May 1999 (tba)

  Motor Sport Industries Association

  17–21 May 1999

  JTA/Exports to Japan Unit

  24–28 May 1999

  British Knitting and Clothing Export Council

  31 May-4 June 1999 (tbc)

  Aromatherapy Trade Council

  June 1999 (tbc)

  Birmingham Chamber of Commerce

  7–11 June 1999

  London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  14–18 June 1999 (tbc)

  British Airports Group

  21–23 June 1999

  The National Wool Textile Export Corporation

  21–25 June 1999

  The British Council

  Between September 1999 and March 2000 (tba)

  Export Action Centre for Building Materials

  September 1999 (tba)

  JTA/Exports to Japan Unit

  September 1999 (tba)

  Northern Development Company

  6–10 September 1999

  JTA/Department of Trade and Industry

  Autumn 1999 (tba)

  The British Council (Education Counselling Service)

  1–11 October 1999

  British Jewellery and Giftware Federation

  11–15 October 1999

  Energy Industries Council

  2–5 November 1999

  British Knitting and Clothing Export Council

  November 1999 (tba)

  Food From Britain

  November 1999 (tba)

  The Federation of Garden and Leisure Manufacturers Ltd.

  November 1999 (tba)

  The Scottish Council For Development and Industry

  15–19 November 1999

  Wolverhampton Chamber of Commerce, Trading and Enterprise

  November 1999 (tba)

  JTA/Exports to Japan Unit

  November 1999 (tba)

  Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders

  November 1999 (tba)

  North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  January 2000 (tbc)

  Nottinghamshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  late January 2000

  British Marine Industries Federation

  February 2000 (tba)

  Publishers Association

  14–16 February 2000

  British Furniture Manufacturers

  March 2000 (tba)

  Bedfordshire and Luton Chamber of Commerce

  March 2000 (tba)

  Business Link Kent

  March 2000 (tba)

  Federation of British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufactures' Association

  March 2000 (tba)

  JEBA/JTA/Exports to Japan Unit

  tba

  JTA/Exports to Japan Unit

  tba

  JTA/Exports to Japan Unit

  tba

  JTA/Exports to Japan Unit

  tba

  Jordan

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) led a trade delegation to Jordan from 5–8 December 1998.

  Date

  Middle East Association

  24May-9 June 1999

  South of England Exporters Association

  19–22 September 1999

  Business Link Milton Keynes and North Bucks

  3–15 October 1999

  Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the British Consultants Bureau

  20–22 November 1999

  Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  January 2000 (tbc)

  Kenya

  There have been no recent Minister-led trade delegations to Kenya.

  My Department is planning to support one trade mission to Kenya in the financial year 1999–2000.

  Business Link Sussex 1–10 February 2000.
  112
  Japan

  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) led a trade delegation to Japan from 15–27 March 1998.

  My Department plans to support 38 trade missions to Japan in the financial year 1999/2000:

  My Department is planning to support five trade missions to Jordan in the financial year 1999–2000.

  Kuwait

  There have been no recent Minister-led trade delegations to Kuwait. However, Kuwait has been visited by many UK Ministers and I plan to visit next month.

  My Department plans to support three trade missions to Kuwait in the financial year 1999–2000.
  113

  Date

  Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  11–13 September 1999

  Sheffield International Trade Centre

  2–4 November 1999

  Middle East Association

  18–21 February 2000

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to(a) Ecuador, (b) Egypt, (c) Estonia and (d) Gambia; and what future trade delegations are planned. [76529]

  Date

  North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce

  16–20 May 1999

  Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  June 1999

  Business Link Sussex

  12–16 September 1999

  South of England Exporters Association

  19–29 September 1999

  Northern Ireland Development Company

  28 November-2 December 1999

  London Chamber of Commerce

  30 January-3 February 2000

  The Guage and Toolmakers Association

  February 2000

  Business Link Barnsley and Doncaster

  Date to be confirmed

  Estonia

  I will be leading a trade mission to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania from 26 to 30 April 1999. The mission will look at opportunities for British companies in ports and railways development and it is hoped that more than 15 high level British companies will take part in the mission.

  No other trade missions are being passed by my Department.

  Gambia

  There have been no recent Minister-led trade delegations to the Gambia.

  My Department has no plans to support any trade missions to the Gambia.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to(a) Algeria, (b) Argentina, (c) Australia, (d) Bahrain and (e) Bangladesh; and what future trade delegations are planned. [76520]

  Date

  The Northern Offshore Federation

  19–23 April 1999

  The Sports Industries Federation

  21–25 June 1999

  Association of British Healthcare Industries

  5–9 July 1999

  Business Link Sussex

  30 August-3 September 1999

  Dorset Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  20–24 September 1999

  Northern Development Company

  4–8 October 1999

  North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  18–22 October 1999

  Australia and New Zealand Trade Advisory Committee (ANZTAC)

  22–26 November 1999

  Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  7–11 February 2000

  Business Link Shropshire

  13–17 March 2000

  Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  20–24 March 2000

  The Scottish Council Development and Industry (SCDI)

  date not yet decided

  114
  Mr. Wilson
  The information is as follows:

  Ecuador

  There have been no recent Minister-led trade delegations to Ecuador.

  My Department has no plans to support any trade missions to Ecuador.

  Egypt

  I led a trade delegation to Egypt in February 1999.

  My Department is planning to support eight trade missions to Egypt in the financial year 1999–2000:

  Mr. Wilson
  There has been no Minister-led trade mission to Algeria during the past 10 years. There are no trade missions planned for Algeria.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, led a trade delegation to Argentina in July 1998. There are 8 trade missions planned to Argentina during the next financial year:

  Date

  Trade International Northern Ireland

  April 1999

  Latin American Trade Advisory Group/ABHI

  May 1999

  Northern Development Company

  May 1999

  Mid Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  July 1999

  Southern Derbyshire Chamber/BL North Derbyshire

  September 1999

  Birmingham Chamber of Industry and Commerce

  November 1999

  British Argentine Chamber of Commerce

  November 1999

  London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  March 2000

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) led a trade mission to Australia in October last year. The following 12 missions are planned for the coming year:
  115
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs opened a British Week event in November last year in Bangladesh. One trade mission is planned this year:

  Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  6–13 November 1999.

  The last visit by a Minister to Bahrain was undertaken by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), in November 1997. The following four missions are planned for the coming year:

  Date

  Coventry and Worcester Chamber of Commerce

  28–30 September 1999

  Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce International

  22–24 January 2000

  Middle East Association

  22–25 February 2000

  Rotherham Business Link

  5–8 April 2000

  I commend the hon. Member to the Overseas Trade Services website (http://www.dti.gov.uk/ots) on which a list of future missions, seminars and trade fairs is displayed for all our major markets.

  Sombrero Island
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 9 December 1998,Official Report, column 199, on the island of Sombrero, if he will make a statement about officials' discussions with the Government of Anguilla. [76629]

  Mr. Battle
  Officials from the British National Space Centre are in contact with the Government of Anguilla on the outer space aspects of the request by the US company Beal Aerospace to lease Sombrero Island for the purpose of launching commercial satellites. A meeting was held in London on 10 December between UK Government Departments and representatives of the Governor and Government of Anguilla to discuss the process and timetable for considering the application. Representatives of Beal Aerospace and of the Non-Governmental Organisations were also present.

  I understand that subsequent discussions have also been held by officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with the Government of Anguilla on this and on other aspects of this unique proposal. My officials continue to be in contact when appropriate.

  Discussions are continuing on the full implications of the project.

  Ilisu Dam, Turkey
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria are applied by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in reaching decisions on giving support for the Ilisu Dam project in Turkey. [77133]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department will employ its normal underwriting criteria to ensure that the provision of support for this project involves an acceptable risk. Part of the underwriting process involves looking, with other Export Credit Agencies, at environmental issues, including social issues, such as the resettlement of the local population and protection of cultural heritage, as well as the economic and political risks involved. Ministers will be consulted.
  116
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a full environmental and social impact assessment before granting export credit insurance for British firms involved in the Ilisu Dam project in Turkey. [77079]

  Mr. Wilson
  I do not propose to publish a full environmental and social assessment on this project. We are working on the basis of documents which have been produced by other parties to the project and which are not our property. However, we shall be reviewing very carefully the environmental and social aspects of this project.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will adopt World Bank policies on(a) environmental assessment, (b) involuntary resettlement and (c) the protection of cultural heritage for the screening of projects receiving support from the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [77132]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 11 February 1999,Official Report, columns 410–11.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is part of the standard procedure that projects considered for support by the Export Credits Guarantee Department are assessed in respect of their compliance with the OECD's guidelines for the conduct of multinational enterprises. [77081]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 11 February 1999,Official Report, columns 410–11. ECGD is aware of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, but it is not part of its normal underwriting procedures to assess compliance with these. HMG (through DTI) are currently engaged, together with their OECD partners, in the review of the Guidelines. One of the issues under discussion is the broader question of how Governments can encourage greater awareness and observance.

  One of the main aims of the procedures ECGD is developing is to raise the awareness of UK exporters, investors and overseas buyers of environmental issues.

  Waste Tyres
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what safe forms of disposal for waste tyres the Government are promoting. [75963]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: There are a number of options for handling waste tyres. These options include retreading a used tyre to give it another life, energy recovery in the form of electricity generation or as fuel in cement kilns, recycling and re-use. The Government believe that all these options have an important role to play in meeting the 100 per cent. recovery target for waste tyres that the EU landfill Directive will bring. Together with industry, in the form of the Government/Industry Scrap Tyre Working Group, we are considering what steps may be necessary to improve our scrap tyre recovery performance from its level of 74 per cent. in 1997 to the target of 100 per cent., which it is anticipated we will need to achieve by 2003.
  117

  Soft Timbers
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the tonnage of soft timbers imported from(a) Latvia, (b) Lithuania and (c) Estonia during each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [77200]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is possible to differentiate most, but not all, imported timbers between softwood and other timber. For those categories which can be distinguished, available figures for the imports of softwood from the Baltic States are:

  (thousand metric tons)

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Latvia

  352

  449

  718

  Lithuania

  38

  73

  97

  Estonia

  68

  93

  161

  Source:

  Eurostat Intra & Extra EU Trade

  The figures cover Standard International Trade Classification (Rev3) 247.30, 247.40, 248.20 and 248.30.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the output figures of softwoods for the UK timber industry over each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [77201]

  Mr. Wilson
  Information on the output of UK sawmills is available in "Product Sales and Trade, PRA17", published by the Office for National Statistics. A copy is held in the Library of the House. The latest year for which data is available is 1996.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports he has assessed of illegal dumping of imported softwoods onto the UK market; and if he will make a statement. [77205]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am aware of the difficulties being experienced by the UK soft wood industry and have had discussions with their representatives. However, it is the responsibility of the European Commission to investigate complaints about allegedly dumped imports into the EU. So far as I am aware the industry has not made a complaint to the European Commission about the dumping of soft wood.

  Pains Wessex
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the licensed production agreements that Pains Wessex has established in other countries, indicating the products which the agreements cover. [77238]

  Dr. Howells
  Companies wishing to license overseas production of their products do not require DTI approval, nor are they required to notify DTI of agreements entered into.

  However, I would also refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms, Trade and Industry on 12 January 1999, Official Report, columns 149–50.
  118

  Wind Turbines
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 571, on the potential inclusion of offshore wind energy in NFFO, if he will introduce a support scheme for long-term investment in wind turbine manufacture. [77271]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government are already supporting the commercial development of wind energy in the UK under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO). At 31 December 1998, there were 58 wind projects operational, comprising 138 MW Declared Net Capacity. In addition, a further 69 wind projects, comprising 368 MW of capacity were contracted under NFFO-5 which I announced last September.

  Support for manufacturers for research and development of wind turbine technology is available under my Department's New and Renewable Energy Programme. As referred to in my answer of 17 March 1999, Official Report, columns 700–01, total DTI expenditure on wind energy projects in 1997–98 was £1.5 million.

  Support under the Department's Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) scheme is also available. This is a discretionary scheme aimed at attracting investment and creating/safeguarding jobs in the Assisted Areas. Guidance notes and application forms for this scheme can be obtained from local Business Links or Government Offices.

  Prison Labour
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the Governments his Department made representations to in 1998 on the use of prison labour in the manufacture of goods imported into the United Kingdom. [77600]

  Mr. Wilson
  My Department has neither made nor received representations about the import of prison made goods.

  Argentina
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the visits made to Argentina in 1998 by Ministers in his Department. [77599]

  Mr. Wilson
  There were no visits to Argentina by Ministers in my Department during 1998.

  Northern Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what checks are made on goods imported into the United Kingdom to ensure they were not manufactured in the occupied area of Northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [77601]

  Mr. Wilson
  None.

  Export Promotion Directorate
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many visits abroad have been made by officials in the Export Promotion Directorate since 1 January. [77746]
  119
  Mr. Wilson
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff are employed in his Department's Export Promotion Directorate; and of these how many are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities. [77745]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department currently employs 632 staff in the Export Promotion Directorates, of these(a) 255 are female and (b) 118 are known to be from ethnic minorities.

  Exports (Gulf States)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's export promotion activities in(a) Oman, (b) Bahrain, (c) Saudi Arabia and (d) the UAE. [77744]

  Mr. Wilson
  Our export promotion activities for these markets are contained in the Markets and Sectors Matrix, published on 4 March, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. We provide a range of help for exporters to all these markets, including targeted market information, market research services and, where appropriate, support for missions and trade fairs.

  Petrol Retail Prices
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the percentage change in pre-tax petrol retail prices over the last two years. [78007]

  Mr. Battle
  Excluding duty and VAT, unleaded petrol prices have fallen by 32 per cent. between February 1997 and February 1999.

  Oil Prices
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the percentage change in oil prices over the last two years. [78109]

  Mr. Battle
  The average price of crude oil, acquired by UK refineries, fell by 53 per cent. between February 1997 and February 1999.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will(a) list the consents he has refused for gas-fired power stations and (b) estimate the proposed investments in each station by those applying for the consents. [78013]

  Mr. Battle
  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 following proposals have not been granted clearance:

  Barking—154 MW (black start and open cycle gas turbine plant)

  AES Partington—380 MW (combined cycle gas turbine plant)

  Keadby II—770 MW (combined cycle gas turbine plant)

  Spalding—800 MW (combined cycle gas turbine plant)

  Fleetwood—1,000 MW (combined cycle gas turbine plant)

  120
  The level of investment involved is a commercial matter for the companies.

  Energy Regulator
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what preparations are being made by the Energy Regulator in respect of his responsibilities under the Competition Act 1998; what increase in staff is required; and what action is being taken to co-ordinate policy with the Director General of Fair Trading. [77688]

  Mr. Battle
  The Office of Gas Supply (Ofgas) and Office of Electricity Regulation (OFFER) are members of the Concurrency Working Party (CWP), chaired by the Office of Fair Trading. The CWP is working to ensure that a consistent approach is being taken by all regulators on areas of training, internal procedures for the investigation of cases, IT requirements and guidance for industry. At present it is unclear if further staff will be required in Ofgas and OFFER to undertake work resulting from the prohibitions in the Competition Act coming into force in March 2000.

  Naturally, the Director General of Electricity and Gas Supply is aware of the need to ensure that the appropriate level of trained staff is in place to deal with these new responsibilities. A guideline, "Concurrent Application to Regulated Industries", which deals with how regulators work with the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) and with each other, has been produced by the CWP and issued by the DGFT. In February, the DTI issued a consultation document "Concurrency: consultation on the possible need and scope for regulations".

  New Roads and Street Works Act 1991
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations from local authorities complaining about the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 he has received since 1 May 1997. [78056]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department has received one representation from a local authority.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Court Fees
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what estimate he has made of the cost to the Legal Aid Fund of civil court fees in the next financial year; [77344]

  (2) what is the estimated cost to the Legal Aid Fund of civil court fees in (a) the current and (b) each of the last three financial years. [77345]

  Mr. Hoon
  As I told my hon. Friend on 8 February 1999,Official Report, column 14, the Legal Aid board does not record separately the amounts paid from the Legal Aid Fund in respect of civil court fees; court

  121
  fees are recorded under the general heading of 'disbursements'. Therefore no reliable estimate of the cost to legal aid of civil court fees is possible.

  County Courts
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many county courts are due for closure in the current financial year. [77350]

  Mr. Hoon
  Seven county courts have closed during the current financial year. No further closures are planned for the remainder of this financial year.

  Access to Justice
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its 1994 report "Administrative Law, Judicial Review and Statutory Appeals" and by Lord Woolf in Chapter 18 of his 1996 report "Access to Justice". [77082]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has decided to establish a full Review of the High Court 'Crown Office List', which includes, for example,habeas corpus and the judicial review of administrative decisions. The Review, under the chairmanship of Sir Jeffery Bowman, will be fundamental. It will consider, not only the recommendations made by the Law Commission and Lord Woolf, but also the Rules, procedures, jurisdiction, organisation and work of the Crown Office List.

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what involvement fleet managers have had in drawing up his Department's Green Transport Plan. [77962]
  122
  Mr. Hoon
  There are separate Green Transport Plans for the Headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Court Service and the Public Trust Office. All fleet managers have been consulted in drawing up the plans.

  Freemasons
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what the latest figures are for the declaration of membership of the freemasons among the judiciary, together with the numbers from whom replies have not yet been received; and if he will break down the figures between(a) the professional judiciary and magistrates and (b) men and women. [78053]

  Mr. Hoon
  All serving members of the judiciary were invited by the Lord Chancellor to declare on a voluntary basis whether they were freemasons. Responses are still being processed and analysed. The latest figures available are given in the table, but these remain subject to revision in the light of new replies and further analysis. In addition, all new appointees to judicial office are now required as a condition of appointment to state whether or not they are freemasons, and if not, required to notify the Lord Chancellor if they subsequently join. Declarations obtained from new appointees are also in the process of being collated.

  Register of freemasons among judiciary: interim responses

  Professional judiciary

  Lay magistracy 1

  Forms sent out

  5,290

  24,964

  Declared non-mason

  4,744

  20,300

  Declared mason:

  Male

  260

  1,176

  Female

  3

  32

  Status not disclosed:

  Male

  65

  413

  Female

  5

  186

  No reply received

  213

  2,857

  1 Excluding the Duchy of Lancaster

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

National Curriculum
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made on revising the national curriculum for schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone)My Lords, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority will be making recommendations for revising the national curriculum to my right honourable friend at the end of March. We shall consult widely on draft proposals for revisions to the national curriculum during the summer. My right honourable friend 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.
Lord QuirkMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. One hears talk about slimming down and if that is to come about, I hope it stops well short of anorexia. Does the Minister agree that breadth is of vital importance in the curriculum, with arts, music, foreign languages, design and history all providing an opportunity for a spark of interest to be generated among every pupil?
Does the Minister further agree on the importance of teachers building out from the core curriculum of maths and English, showing the connections and continuities with other subjects on the curriculum? For example, that would obviously involve maths extending into science and technology and English into everywhere, with the vocabulary enhancement that comes with the observation of lexical distinctions in every subject on the curriculum.
Baroness BlackstoneMy Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said about the need for a broad and balanced curriculum, covering a wide range of subjects. His emphasis on breadth is well taken by the Government. I also entirely accept that the key core subjects of maths and English should be well linked with other parts of the curriculum. I know that the noble Lord has a particular interest in English. It is very much the Government's intention to encourage such links right across the curriculum.
The Earl of LauderdaleMy Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government have any ideas for improving and encouraging the teaching of the French and German languages?
Baroness BlackstoneMy Lords, the Government are utterly committed to high quality teaching of the modern languages of French and German as well as other modern languages. We face a problem in the recruitment of modern language teachers to our schools, but it is our intention to continue to find ways of recruiting good students of modern languages to teach, so that we can maintain the quality to which the noble Earl referred.
Lord Janner of BraunstoneMy Lords, will my noble friend do her best to ensure the continued inclusion in the national curriculum of Holocaust studies, which first appeared in the previous curriculum? That has made a big difference to the teaching of history throughout the country.
Baroness BlackstoneMy Lords, I can give my noble friend that assurance. The national curriculum for history has always required that 11 to 14 year-old pupils in maintained schools be taught about the Holocaust. That will continue to be the case.
Lord Pilkington of OxenfordMy Lords, what are the Minister's views on the leaks which have appeared in the press that the Government are to start the teaching of modern languages for those aged nine? Can she also say whether it assists discussions in this House if we have to consider leaks in the papers before we have a Statement from the Front Bench? We are all puzzled as to whether the Government will start the teaching of languages for pupils aged nine or later. It seems to be a common characteristic of the education pattern that we read about it three weeks before it appears. Can the Minister comment?
Baroness BlackstoneMy Lords, I cannot comment on leaks about the teaching of modern languages for pupils aged nine and above. However, when asked about leaks I always say that we should be careful about believing speculative stories in the newspapers. The Government have not yet received advice from the QCA about any aspects of changes to the curriculum. That includes the teaching of modern languages in primary schools. We await that advice. Frankly, I have no idea what it will be, but when we have had a chance to consider it, we shall consult on it.
Lord AnnanMy Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether it is correct that children stop learning history and geography at the age of 14? If so, will she ensure that they continue learning it until they are 16? Will she also put in a plea that children should be taught to recite poetry and learn it by heart?
Baroness BlackstoneMy Lords, on the first part of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on the teaching of history and geography, it is not true that pupils stop learning history and geography after the age of 14. Geography is a compulsory subject in

953
the national curriculum. History is an optional subject and many students carry on with it after the age of 14.
The noble Lord raised the issue of whether it should be compulsory. The Government look forward to receiving advice from the QCA on that and other matters. As for reciting poetry, yes, there are great advantages for pupils in being involved in the reading of poetry and sometimes learning to recite it aloud.
Lord TopeMy Lords, although the Minister may still be unaware of the QCA proposals, can she at least confirm that the Government will ensure that they fully embrace the proposals in the Crick report on the teaching of citizenship?
Baroness BlackstoneMy Lords, one of the matters that the Government have asked the QCA to look at is the teaching of citizenship in our schools. We expect to receive advice about those very important areas so that all young people leave school with a better understanding of our democratic institutions.
Lord Campbell of CroyMy Lords, although the national curriculum has never applied to Scotland, where the Scottish curriculum has been in place and the Secretary of State for Scotland has been responsible for education, is there an intention now or in the future to have a separate curriculum for Wales?
Baroness BlackstoneMy Lords, the Welsh Office and Welsh Ministers will be advised by the equivalent authorities in Wales about the national curriculum there. Of course, the Welsh language is taught in Welsh schools but not in English schools, but there are very many common characteristics of the curriculum across both countries.
Lord AveburyMy Lords, although I am glad to hear from the Minister, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, that the inclusion of Holocaust studies within the national curriculum is to be continued, will the Government reconsider their refusal on previous occasions to include the Armenian genocide of 1915–16 in these studies, bearing in mind that all of the bibliographical references, 400 of which I have sent to the Foreign Office, make clear that that was a genocide within the meaning of international law?
Baroness BlackstoneMy Lords, given the unfortunate number of genocides that have taken place this century, it is very difficult for the Government to be too prescriptive about the details of the national curriculum in the way that the noble Lord requests. All I can say is that I believe that senior pupils, certainly those in the sixth form, should read the book written by my former colleague Eric Hobsbawm on the 20th century in which all of this is well set out.

Manchester United Football Club: MMC Report
2.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to receive the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the future ownership of Manchester United Football Club plc.
Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on BSkyB's proposed acquisition of Manchester United was received by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 12th March.
Lord Morris of ManchesterMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, but can he now say what happens next and when? Will the announcement of the Government's decision on the MMC report also be the occasion for stating their view of BSkyB's total monopoly of Premier League TV coverage, thus excluding many millions of licence payers from the action? Was not my right honourable friend the Prime Minister right to say, even before this bid, that:
"Football, the people's game, is being too driven by money and not enough by the sporting spirit"?
Why should millions of people be excluded from seeing the best of the people's game?
Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I thought that my noble friend intended to comment on the view that football was not just a matter of life and death but more important than that. As to when the Secretary of State will respond to the MMC report, I can say only that it will be as soon as practicable. There is no statutory limit. As regards the options that are open to him, if the MMC concludes that the merger may be expected to operate against the public interest, the Secretary of State will announce what action, if any, will be taken to remedy or prevent the adverse effects specified by the MMC. If the MMC has cleared the bid, the Secretary of State has no power to act but can only publish the report. I have not seen the report and I do not know what it says. Therefore, I cannot speculate as to what the Secretary of State may say.
Lord BorrieMy Lords, does my noble friend recall that a Statement was repeated in this House by my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury on 10th March in which the Government indicated that they no longer wished to second guess an adverse report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Can the Minister say whether that Statement was to be instantly effective or whether it awaited legislation? Can the Minister indicate whether the reference in the Statement on 10th March to a special exemption for defence industries may be extended in the Government's mind to such matters as take-overs affecting the media?
Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, as my noble friend is aware, at present the Secretary of State acts on

955
the advice of the Office of Fair Trading in deciding whether to refer a proposed merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I do not believe that he would expect me from this Dispatch Box to anticipate any major change of policy.

Cuba: Exports
2.48 p.m.
Lord Sandberg Lord Sandberg asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any progress has been made in persuading the Export Credits Guarantee Department to reinstate Cuba as an insurable risk for British exporters.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Export Credits Guarantee Department cover is available for United Kingdom project exports to Cuba provided payment is made from foreign currency funds held outside Cuba. A senior ECGD delegation recently visited Cuba to explore the scope for expanding this cover and resolving outstanding debt issues. Good progress was made with the Cuban authorities on both issues.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, I am sure he is aware that the Spanish, Germans and Canadians are queuing up in Cuba to the detriment of British exports. Will the forthcoming visit by Mr Brian Wilson of the DTI cover those points?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Brian Wilson will indeed visit Cuba again; he was there before Christmas. The occasion of his next visit is the opening of the British Airways direct route to Cuba. No doubt he will cover these issues as well. We are aware of the other countries which have succeeded in embarking on turnkey deals—for example, in airport construction or tourist industries. But they depend on a line of credit which produces revenue from outside Cuba; in other words, hard currency revenue, as I indicated in my first Answer.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I welcome what has been done through the ECGD to seek improvements for our exporters to Cuba. Can the Minister assure us that negotiations are continuing? No doubt the visit of the noble Lord's honourable friend, Mr Brian Wilson, in conjunction with the BA direct route, is intended to increase trade. Will this most important issue, which is holding up British trade, be pursued vigorously?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I pay tribute to her work as chairman of the Caribbean trade advisory group. As she well knows, one difficulty we have is that there are outstanding short, medium and long-term debts due from Cuba. We are pursuing vigorously the issue of
956
repayment of short-term debts through the private market and of longer-term debts through the Paris Club. If and when those questions are resolved, many other matters will fall into place and trade will be easier.

Ambassadors: Selection and Training
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to improve the selection process, the preparation and the language training of Ambassadors and Ministers prior to their appointment to lead the 212 British Embassies and Legations abroad.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, ambassadors, other heads of mission and ministers who act as deputies in the largest embassies are chosen on merit by Foreign and Commonwealth Office selection boards. They receive individually tailored programmes of training and briefing, including relevant language tuition, before their postings. We plan further improvements to these arrangements. From the end of 1999, promotion into the FCO's senior management structure will depend on successful performance at new assessment and development centres. There will also be enhancements to training packages prior to officers' overseas appointments.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her most helpful reply. Does she recall that on 9th January last year I asked when Her Majesty's Government would appointment an individual who had shown distinguished service from one of the minority ethnic communities to head one of our embassies or legations abroad? Fourteen months have passed. What consideration has the Minister given to that issue? Why is there the delay?
Will the Minister assure us that ambassadors can be given at least nine months' warning before they are in place in their embassies so that they can seek to fulfil Diplomatic Service Regulation No. 28, thereby learning the principal language of the nation to which they are posted, so that they do not make complete fools of themselves before the host nation or the 10 million of us who live and work abroad and bother to learn the language?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, before I answer the noble Earl, perhaps I may take this opportunity to express on the record of the House my condolences to Lady Gillmore on the sad death of Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield. I am sure that the House will join me in recognising the great contribution he made to this country both in recent years as a Member of your Lordships' House and previously as one of our most distinguished diplomats. He was an example of the

957
Diplomatic Service at its very best. He was authoritative, highly skilled and unfailingly courteous. He was also an extremely kind man.
I turn to the specific points raised by the noble Earl. Very occasionally, it is possible to appoint an individual to a particular post, but, on the whole, they are political appointments, or appointments on short-term contracts such as the contract we have with the FCO's ethnic liaison officer. Most appointments are rightly made on the basis of fair and open competition. That fair and open competition for the most part—we depend on the expertise and experience of our diplomats—comes from within the Foreign Office. On occasions it is possible to have open competitions. We have held three such open competitions in the past year or so. But we tend to rely on the recruitment end to ensure that more women and more people from the ethnic minorities come into the Foreign Office.
I believe that we have succeeded modestly in the past year. At the DS8 level—the policy entrance level— 9 per cent. come from ethnic minorities. There are some 13 per cent. at DS9, the operational level.
The noble Earl's second point related to linguistic competence. I do not think that any of our diplomats are in danger of making what the noble Earl describes as "fools of themselves" abroad. Sometimes people have to be posted at short notice. Events happen. They cannot always have the language training that we should like, but I can assure the noble Earl that when they are not up to the required level the language training continues in post.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, first, I endorse the warm remarks of the Minister about my successor at the Foreign Office, Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield, whose widow I saw this morning. I know that the remarks of the noble Baroness will be of great comfort to her.
Turning to the Question on the Order Paper, does the Minister agree that in most cases—of course not in all— the appointment of ambassadors or ministers to head missions abroad is a matter of not 14 months' training but of a lifetime career's training? Is she aware that my experience of learning Arabic 23 years before I was first appointed to head a mission in an Arabic speaking country was by no means unusual?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, by the time our diplomats reach the stage in their careers of being appointed as ambassadors they have an enormous wealth of experience. The point we must bear in mind is that ambassadors and other senior officers in our overseas posts, and those in London too, have to be chosen on merit. I am sure there would be many protests if they were chosen on any other basis. They are chosen by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office selection boards at different levels. Those boards are staffed by senior diplomats; and all except the No. 1 Board have women sitting on it; the No. 1 Board does not have a
958
woman sitting on it. However, I am an observer on that board as were my predecessors, so I suppose that I provide a female element in that capacity.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the tributes paid to Lord Gillmore will be echoed in all parts of this House, especially by those of us who were helped so much by him during his period of office and who enjoyed his friendship afterwards?
Will the Minister also accept that the criticisms on the appointment of ambassadors made by the noble Earl and others are not because we seek to deprecate what they do or the help we receive from them? However, it is totally unacceptable for a country with such a vast proportion of people from ethnic minorities not to have any ambassadors, few deputies of whom I know, and almost no one at the highest level from ethnic minorities. It is no answer to say that we have to wait for 30 years. We have to help people to progress up the ladder by training them. In those circumstances, will my noble friend be kind enough to say how many people at the top levels today are from ethnic minorities; and what hope is there of improving that number while those of us present remain alive?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the remarks of my noble friend and those of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, will be of comfort not only to the family of the late Lord Gillmore but also to his many colleagues in the Foreign Office who are very, very sad at his passing.
In the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we are committed to having people who are representative of Britain's diverse society and to developing the potential and maximising the talents of all FCO staff through our policies covering recruitment, career progression, training and different kinds of harassment.
We aim to double at least the number of women in the senior management structure by the year 2003. In the 1998 recruitment campaign, we succeeded in attracting very high levels of young people from ethnic minorities to join the FCO. We started from a very low base and we aim to build on our successes. We aim to do that not only through recruitment but also through holding open days and having individual shadowing not only of FCO officials but also of Ministers. The shadowing that we have done with young people from ethnic minorities may be something—who knows?— which people in other parts of the House may wish to take up as a genuine commitment to ensuring that young people feel that they have a role to play in that respect.
My noble friend asked me some particular questions about numbers at different levels in the Foreign Office. I have many figures here, but I can tell my noble friend that unfortunately, at the highest levels, at present we have fewer than 1 per cent. of people from ethnic minorities. As I say, we are trying to improve that and we shall continue to do so. However, it must be done through fair and open competition.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a grave danger in the kind of talk that we heard

959
from the noble Lord, Lord Janner? As a member of an ethnic minority which had to wait over 200 years before an ambassador came from its ranks, I ask the Minister to say that in no circumstances will the characteristics of our representation abroad be determined by anything but the merit of the individual? Will she confirm also that quota systems, whether ethnic or gender based, are wholly alien to the best traditions of the British Diplomatic Service?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I give the noble Lord that assurance. All appointments, whether on recruitment or through promotion, must be made on the basis of merit. A number of questions about opening up Foreign Office recruitment at different levels are being examined. There are a number of different and important issues. We are determined to ensure that people are aware that whatever their background, as long as they have the ability, they may be able to find a career in the Foreign Office. But everybody must know that such a career will take place only on the basis of merit and that such recruitment will take place only on the basis of fair and open competition.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister accept that when I was a Minister in the Foreign Office many years ago, I visited most of the principal diplomatic posts in the world? Is she aware that I found there ambassadors and heads of mission of the highest intellectual and diplomatic ability? Will she confirm that that situation is still the case all these years later? Will she confirm also that intellectual and diplomatic ability will remain the main criteria for selection to those important posts?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is more fortunate than I. Sadly, I have not visited most of the posts abroad. I am afraid that your Lordships keep me much too busy in this House to enable me to do so. Nevertheless, I can certainly say to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that I have been extremely impressed in those whom I have met by their intellectual calibre, wealth of experience and commitment to the job. It is a job where a good deal of flexibility is needed. After all, governments come and governments go, but the Diplomatic Service is the service on which we base so much of our international effort. I agree with the noble Lord that appointment is and should continue to be based on merit.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she wishes diplomatic appointments to be on merit only—and she is quite right. She said also that in the next 10 years she wishes to see the number of females double. Are the two objectives not contradictory?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, what a brave man the noble Earl is. No, I do not believe that for a single moment. I said that that is our target. It is not a quota. It is a target to ensure that young women believe that they can have a career in the Diplomatic Service in the same way as young men. Therefore, we
960
have raised the target for recruitment from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. I am sure that all noble Lords who have daughters who wish to become diplomats will be extremely pleased to hear that.
Lord Laming: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not inconsistent to have a system based upon merit which also reflects entirely the make-up of our society?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I agree with that. I believe also that in trying to convey that message, it is extremely important to ensure that young people, whatever their background, know that there is a possibility of joining the Foreign Office. For that reason, my right honourable friend and, indeed, the whole ministerial team in the Foreign Office have been so committed to trying to open it up. We have put advertisements in the ethnic minority press and we have had open days which have been extremely successful. For that reason, we were successful in last year's recruitment competition in attracting not only a record number of applications from young people from ethnic minorities but in attracting also a record number of successful candidates in the competitions that we held.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the conclusion of the debate on the report of the Procedure Committee my noble friend Lady Blackstone will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on education: excellence in cities.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.7 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the: Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
As your Lordships will see, the Procedure Committee report has two main items. The first consists of comments and recommendations of the Procedure Committee on the report of the working group appointed by the Leader of the House on conduct in the Chamber.
The committee is extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and her five colleagues. Indeed, I am sure the whole House will be grateful for the thorough and speedy way in which the working group carried out its task. Your Lordships will have noted that the Procedure Committee did not feel able to endorse all the working group's recommendations, but that in no way detracts from the valuable work it has done.
The House may find it helpful if I emphasise that this afternoon we are debating the Procedure Committee's report and not the report of the working group. The House is being asked to endorse the comments and

961
recommendations of the Procedure Committee on the report of the working group and not the report of the working group itself.
I do not propose to go through all the recommendations for change proposed by the Procedure Committee in the light of the working group's report. The changes are set out in the Procedure Committee's report. I shall try to deal with any questions your Lordships may have. However, I remind your Lordships of the importance of the courtesies of the House. Those govern the way in which noble Lords have traditionally behaved towards each other and are usefully set out in the working group's report.
I mention in particular the need to observe our courtesies on business immediately after Starred Questions. The Procedure Committee is concerned about the noise made when noble Lords leave the Chamber after Starred Questions and the difficulty caused for the noble Lord dealing with the next business. That difficulty is especially acute for a noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench because departing noble Lords often pass directly in front of him. It is very much hoped that the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, and of the group of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, aimed at maintaining the good order and dignity of our proceedings, will be taken to heart.
The second main item in the report of the Procedure Committee is the proposal of the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip that, as an experiment beginning immediately after the Easter Recess, the general debate day should be moved from Wednesday to Thursday. The experiment would last until such time as government business fills the debate day, probably mid-June.
The experiment might require certain consequential changes, such as starting business on Wednesdays at 3 p.m. and on Thursdays at 2.30 p.m. The House will understand that there was strong opposition to the proposal in the Procedure Committee. The committee was divided on the merits of the proposal and, in the end, did not feel able to make any recommendation to the House. There was a strong feeling that the House should decide the matter without any proposal from the committee. That is the purpose of the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. There is also the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
In the circumstances, I do not believe I would be helping the House if I were to try to summarise the arguments for and against the proposal. It is better that I leave that to other noble Lords once the noble Baroness has spoken to her amendment.
There is also the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. Again, I leave it to the House to decide. So far as the mechanics are concerned, it is perfectly possible to provide whatever is necessary. Strictly speaking, if the noble Lord moves his amendment, debate will take place on it. However, I hope that noble Lords will feel free to range over any of the matters in the report and so avoid the need for
962
several debates. After the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has spoken, no doubt your Lordships will wish to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 33) be agreed to. — (The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. REPORT OF THE GROUP ON PROCEDURE IN THE CHAMBER
At its last meeting the Procedure Committee agreed to a recommendation by the Leader of the House that a Working Group should be established "to consider how the procedures of the House can be improved within the existing framework of self-regulation; and to make proposals for ensuring that Lords are better informed of procedure so that self-regulation can work". 1The Committee has considered the Group's report2 and recommends the House to accept the following proposals for change in the House's present procedures:
Starred Questions
A second topical question each week should be created by reserving the fourth question on Wednesdays, for tabling no earlier than the previous Monday. The second topical question should be subject to the same rules as the existing topical question, in particular the rule that no Lord may ask more than two topical questions in one session. 3
Lords should be limited to one Starred Question (instead of the present two) on the order paper at any one time, unless they are successful in the ballot for topical questions.
The Committee endorses the following additional guidance recommended by the Working Group:

(a) Ministers' answers should be shorter. Their initial answer should not generally exceed 75 words. Supplementary questions and answers should also be shorter and confined to not more than two points.

(b) The problem of how supplementary questions should circulate around the different parts of the House cannot be resolved by a rigid rule. The Government side should not expect to have every alternate supplementary. In giving guidance, the Leader should be mindful of the interests of all backbenchers, including the Liberal Democrats and the Crossbenchers.

(c) If two or more Lords rise at once, they should be more ready to give way immediately, rather than provoke a shouting-match, which is undignified and wastes time. If the Leader rises, other Lords should sit down at once.

The Committee reminds the House that the Lord who tabled the question has no automatic right to ask a final supplementary question. 4
Business immediately after Starred Questions
The Committee is concerned at how much noise is created when Lords leave the Chamber after Starred Questions. Lords should do so silently; those remaining in the Chamber should avoid conversations at this point. It is in order for the Lord moving the next business to pause for a short period until the House is quiet again. The Clerk should not start the clock until he begins to speak..
Drafting of amendments
In appropriate cases amendments should take the form: Page x, line y, leave out paragraph (b), and not: Page x, leave out lines 1 to 3.
Grouping of amendments
For an experimental period until the summer recess, government departments should produce draft groupings of amendments for consultation by 2.30 p.m. on the working day before debate (rather than at lunchtime on the day, as at present). To enable departments to do this, marshalled lists of amendments should be published on the working day before the debate (rather than on the day of debate, as is normal at present). Lords should be encouraged to facilitate this by tabling amendments no later than 5 p.m. two days before the

963
debate, whenever possible. Amendments handed in later than this will be published in a revised marshalled list or in a supplementary list. The experiment should be confined to committee stage.
Tabling of amendments
Outside recesses, the deadline for handing in amendments for printing the next day should be 5 p.m. (4 p.m. on Fridays) instead of 6.30 p.m. (5.30 p.m. for a marshalled list, 4 p.m. on Fridays) as at present. During recesses the deadlines will remain unchanged (10 a. m. to 5 p.m.).
Repeal amendments
An amendment identical (or of identical effect) to one pushed to a vote by the mover and defeated in committee should not be retabled for report stage. The amendment should be changed more than cosmetically if it is to be retabled. However, it would not be desirable to restrict the reopening at report stage of an issue debated and voted on in committee.
An amendment agreed to on division in committee should not be reversed at report stage except with the unanimous agreement of the House.
Divisions
The time for divisions should be extended from six to eight minutes; the time for appointing Tellers would in consequence be extended from three to four minutes.
"Bill do now pass"
The motion "That this bill do now pass" should be moved formally and should not normally be debated. Ministers should if necessary respond to points raised on the motion by other Lords. The motion should not be an occasion for thanking those involved in the passage of the bill.
Statements
The Committee does not accept that the number of statements repeated in this House is unreasonable. They are important policy announcements. While there will be exceptions, the time for the two Opposition front benches and the reply to them should be limited to 20 minutes, as for the backbenches. 5 Backbenchers too should exercise restraint, restricting themselves to brief comments and questions rather than speeches, so as to allow more Lords to intervene within the 20 minutes available.
The time when a statement is to be taken (for example, "after amendment 20" or "after the first debate"), once agreed between the whips, should be put on the annunciator. A Lord who was not present to hear a statement should not speak on it. The practice of noting unrepealed statements on the cover of Hansard should be revived.
Courtesies
The Committee endorses the following reminders of the courtesies of the House:

(a) Lords should bow to the Cloth of Estate on entering the Chamber, though not on leaving. 6 Lords should also bow when the Mace passes.

(b) A Lord who is taking part in a debate is expected to attend the greater part of that debate. It is considered discourteous for him not to be present for the opening speeches, for at least the speech before and that following his own, and for the winding-up speeches. Ministers cannot be expected to answer, orally or in writing, points made by a speaker who does not stay to hear the Minister's closing speech. A Lord who becomes aware in advance that he is unlikely to be able to stay until the end of a debate should normally remove his name from the list of speakers.

(c) Reading of speeches is alien to the custom of the House. In practice, some speakers may wish to have "extended notes" from which to speak, but it is not in the interests of good debate that they should follow them too closely.

(d) Lords should never address one another in debate as "you".

(e) Lords should refer to "the noble Lord, the Minister", or simply "the Minister", but not "the noble Minister".

(f) The Lord who follows a maiden speaker (and only that Lord) should congratulate him on behalf of the whole House. Other Lords should not leave the Chamber while this takes place.

964

(g) Lords should not pass between the Lord who is speaking and the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair. 7

(h) Lords should not move about the Chamber while a Question is being put from the Woolsack or the Chair. This does not apply when the Lord Chancellor is speaking as a Minister from beside the Woolsack.

(i) Lords should not bring books or newspapers into the Chamber, except for reference in debate. 8

The Committee reminds the House that private conversations in the Chamber are not desirable.
Training
The Committee agreed that the Working Group's proposals for training (paragraphs 71–78) should be considered further. The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee that he proposed to begin a revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders for issue by the beginning of the next session.
The Committee expressed its gratitude to Lady Hilton of Eggardon and the members of the Working Group for their work on procedure in the Chamber.
2. THE GENERAL DEBATE DAY
The Committee considered a proposal from the Government Chief Whip that, as an experiment from the return of the House after the Easter recess, the general debate day should be moved from Wednesdays to Thursdays. The experiment would last until such time as government business filled the debate day, probably mid-June 1999. The Committee noted that there was strong opposition to the proposal. If such a change were to be made on an experimental basis, the Committee recommends that the House should meet at 3 p.m. on Wednesdays and 2.30 p.m. on Thursdays" However, in the absence of agreement on the Chief Whip's proposal, the Committee makes no recommendation on the proposal or on sitting times. The issue should be left to the House to decide.

1 4th Report (1997–98), HL Paper 144.

2 The report is printed as HL Paper (1998–99) 34.

3 See Companion to the Standing Orders, p 86.

4 Companion, p 85.

5 As recommended in the Procedure Committee's first report 1994–95, agreed to by the House on 10 January 1995.

6 Standing order 17(2).

7 Standing Order 17(1).

8 Companion, p 64.

9 The committee was led to understand that this would be because party meetings would be held on Wednesdays.

3.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris rose to move, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, at end insert ("save that, in paragraph 1 ("Report of the Group on Procedure in the Chamber"), on page 4, in the sub-paragraph headed "Divisions", leave out ("in consequence be extended from three to four minutes") and insert ("remain at three minutes")").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the proximate cause for the amendment standing in my name lies in the alarm I felt recently when I encountered a noble Lord whose age can best be described as "mature" and whose build invites the label of "sturdy" who was exhibiting a remarkable turn of speed at imminent peril to his cardiovascular system and who nearly ran me down in the precincts of the Palace in his determination not to miss a Division. His assiduity put me upon reflection. I recalled that the Hilton group had recommended that Division time be extended from six to eight minutes which pleased many noble Lords because it made things easier for those getting in from workplaces outside the

965
Palace or from distant spots within it and because of the weight of numbers now taking part in at least some Divisions.
The group also recommended an extension of the time allowed for the appointment of tellers from three minutes to four. This was accepted by the Select Committee with one subtle change, the phrase,
"in consequence be extended from three to four minutes".
I submit that the cases are not parallel. The Clerks, acting as tellers, are, as I have observed them—and there are only four at any given time—young persons, fit, agile, nimble, and very quick off the mark. They can go far in three minutes. In 10 years in your Lordships' House I have never found them absent from their posts or breathless from exertion.
Noble Lords, on the other hand, tend to be less lissom, to move more slowly, stumble a bit and occasionally get in each other's way. They need all the time they can get to reach the Lobbies and process through them; often there is quite a considerable crush. The phrase, "in consequence", implies the unquestioned assumption that the two periods in a Division must be of equal length. I submit that that assumption is unsupported by any evidence and has no basis in fact. It has all the virtues of symmetry but no other virtues.
I have been given to understand that Division time is measured by the action of what is described as "an hourglass" which runs for three minutes and must then be inverted to measure the second period of time. I do not wish to be pedantic but an hourglass, by definition, measures an hour and a three-minute glass is more accurately described as an egg-timer. An egg-timer is a useful and often artistically pleasing example of the glassmaker's art. But it has one manifest drawback. It can only measure its allotted span of three minutes and then has to be turned over. It is excellent for its purpose, producing a boiled egg. However, given that a new hourglass or egg-timer would be required if the period were extended to four minutes plus four—a sort of hard-boiled egg-timer—this cannot be an argument against three-plus-five. In any case, technology has developed and new and exciting possibilities have been opened up by the invention of the stop-watch. It is an accurate, flexible and readily available machine, very much fitted for its purpose and now quite cheap in price.
The purpose of the proposed amendment on page 4, line 25, of the report is to allow a little extra time for noble Lords to reach the Division Lobbies and pass through them in comfort and in a settled frame of mind. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, at end insert ("save that, in paragraph 1 ("Report of the Group on Procedure in the Chamber"), on page 4, in the sub-paragraph headed "Divisions", leave out ("in consequence be extended from three to four minutes") and insert ("remain at three minutes")"). —(Lord Morris of Castle Morris.)
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I have been invited to take part in the debate at this point because the report of my group applies only to the first
966
part of the Procedure Committee's report. It therefore seemed sensible that I should speak now rather than after the two amendments to the second part of the Procedure Committee's report.
I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I suggest that the mechanical problems could be overcome by having two egg-timers or hourglasses, one timing three minutes and one timing five minutes.
I turn briefly to the report of the cross-party committee I chaired. I begin by stating that it was an enjoyable experience. I express thanks particularly to the other members of the rather disparate group that we were and to the many noble Lords who wrote to us. I thank especially our Clerk, Andrew Makower, who managed to make sense of our sometimes rather disjointed discussions.
The main thrust of our report is to underpin the existing procedures, courtesies and practices of this House which give us our unique style and authority. I hope your Lordships find our report a useful summary of the most important procedures and courtesies and consider that it makes sensible recommendations about administrative procedures.
I am delighted that the Procedure Committee has felt able to accept about two-thirds of our recommendations, especially those on the timing and grouping of amendments which I am sure will be of assistance to us all. I am, however, personally disappointed that the recommendation with regard to a Victorian tradition, much practised in the other place—I refer to the habit of Front Benchers placing their feet on the Clerks' Table—was not accepted and that that practice is to be allowed to continue.
Finally, we made a number of recommendations about introductory courses for new Peers which the Select Committee did not really have the time to discuss in detail. I hope that they will be taken forward at future meetings of that committee. I refer in particular to our suggestion that there should be an introductory day on the history, geography and culture of the House, which would only later be followed by a second day on the technicalities of legislation and Bills. An introductory day which enabled new Peers to understand the way in which we behave and provided them with a formal guided tour of the House and some talk of its history and traditions would enable new Peers to feel comfortable in the House and would assist them with those aspects of our behaviour which we all prize and cherish.
I hope that the work of our group will reinforce the self-regulation of the House and that the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure will be accepted.
Baroness Young: My Lords, in commending my amendment on item 2 ("The General Debate Day") on page 5 of the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, I should like to start by saying that when the matter was discussed by the Select Committee concern was expressed about the proposed change by Members in all parts of the House. I believe that that concern will be expressed again today in your Lordships' House.

967
If I may put this in shorthand, the issue at point is to change Wednesday into Thursday. I should like to make three points about that. The first is a point of principle. I believe that the House of Lords has two main functions. The first is to amend legislation and the second is to hold general debates. In fact, the Select Committee was reminded that during the discussions at the time of the 1968 reform of your Lordships' House the function of holding general debates was placed first. We are all well aware of the interest that those debates hold. They provide an opportunity to have a wide-ranging discussion of topical subjects. They are an excellent opportunity for Back-Bench Members of the House to take part. I am thinking particularly of the two debates initiated by noble Lords on the Labour Benches on the BBC and on the British Council. I think also of the interesting debate on AIDS in Africa, which was initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and of the debate introduced last week on democracy by my noble friend Lord Waddington.
That leads me to my second point. If we were to agree to the change, the first three days of the week would be taken up entirely with legislation. That function would therefore be assumed to be by far the most important. There would therefore be a real danger that Thursdays would be seen as a kind of afterthought, or a dead day, when it was not necessary for most of your Lordships to be present and most Peers could go home on Wednesday evening. We would then be in great danger of becoming a three-day-a-week House. I regret to say that we would also be in great danger of becoming like the House of Commons where, as far as I can see, a great many Members leave at lunchtime on Thursday.
Many Members of your Lordships' House are already very worried about any weakening of this House. I believe that the proposed change would signal such a weakening. Even if, as is proposed, it was for a trial period, all of us in public life know that such "trials" usually turn out to last a long time. If accepted, this proposal would signal that the fourth day of the week would be for general debates and only those taking part in them would feel it necessary to attend. Thursday would be in danger of becoming rather like Friday, which is usually used at the end of a Session for private Bills and for orders. At first glance, this looks like a small proposal; in fact, I believe that it is of fundamental importance to the working of this House.
That brings me to my final point. Next week we are to debate the Second Reading of the Bill to reform the House of Lords. Whatever the outcome of that, the House is very unlikely to be the same at the end of it. What is the point of altering tried and trusted procedures which matter a great deal to noble Lords in all parts of the House, procedures which have worked well for many years, at this stage in the lifetime of your Lordships' House? I believe that we should stand with those arrangements which we believe are right, which we believe are in the best interests of the House and which we believe reflect what the House of Lords ought to be doing as the second House of Parliament. I suggest that we are not here simply to serve our own convenience; we are here to serve the House and I hope that, in serving the House, we will all feel that we are
968
serving the nation. It is in that respect that I think we should stand by our procedures. I commend my amendment to the House.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, as the procedure has been outlined, it is my pleasure to speak to the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. At the end of this debate, I hope to have the opportunity to move my amendment.
I am bound to say that the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is fair and reasonable. It is a case for the status quo and for no change. It is a case made on behalf of those who have benefited from, and enjoyed, the existing system and who want to continue to do so. However, it means that those who have been disadvantaged will continue to be disadvantaged.
Colleagues are doubtless aware that for many years, and certainly since I have been a Member of this House—that is, for some 15 years—there has been a general grumble about the fact that business on a Thursday can sometimes extend to 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, or even later, irrespective of whether it is government or other business. I am not making a party political point because this has been said from all Benches. A point that I picked up quickly on becoming a Member of this House, and subsequently as Chief Whip, was that, although our present arrangements are fair and reasonable, they deny a great many Members— I cannot quantify this—the ability to do that which a great many others can do. That is simply because they seek to serve both the House and their party.
I happen to live in Loughton in Essex and, if required, I can catch an underground train at 11 p.m. and be home not much after midnight. However, many Members of this House who want to be similarly assiduous face a human dilemma. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has told us what this House is and what we are here for, but I have to tell her that many noble Lords, on both the Opposition and the Government Benches, face a dilemma on a Thursday. Having been here on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday because they are good party members, they then look at the Whip and reflect that, in order to get home on Thursday—not at a decent time, but before midnight—they will have to leave here at, say, three o'clock, four o'clock or five o'clock. It is not for me to comment on how that dilemma is resolved by individuals, but that dilemma nevertheless exists. I do not have to face that; nor do many other Members of this House; but I am simply saying that if one wants to plead "no action" because of the imminence of a possible change, we must nevertheless recognise that that dilemma exists—and that means not accepting the amendment from the noble Baroness.
Perhaps I may illustrate this from my experience in the other place. Exactly 25 years ago this month I made my maiden speech—on a Friday. The Member I followed is now the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and I was followed by Dr. Rhodes Boyson. Fridays then ended at four o'clock. Later, Friday sittings ended at 2.30 p.m. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is in his place. One of the recommendations was that the House shall not sit more than 10 Fridays. Then, for the convenience of Members, for the conduct

969
of legislation and for good order and discipline, Thursday sittings were considered and changes were made. They were enormous changes compared with the modest one that I am suggesting; that the general debate day should be changed from Wednesday to Thursday.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, may be right. It may well be that fewer people will wish to participate in a general debate on a Thursday. However, I tell her from my experience that when one comes into the Chamber at six, seven or eight o'clock on a Wednesday, the only persons present are those who are waiting to speak, or to hear the wind-up speech, in order to carry out their duties. The general debates are an essential part of the operation of this House. But my plea is that for a short period of about six weeks, from the middle of June to the end of July, we see whether these proposed changes meet the wishes of Members. Unless my amendment is carried, there will not be an opportunity for them to express their views. I believe that in 1999 the House, which has proved to be flexible, should be flexible on this occasion. Without diminishing the amount of legislative time or the quality of the debates, my colleagues should be given the opportunity of considering these new proposals. I believe that we shall then have a happier, more satisfactory and beneficial House.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on the proposal before the House. Before I do so, may I ask the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees whether he will tell your Lordships, when he comes to reply, what provision he has made for the next meeting of the Procedure Committee which, he will remember, was originally scheduled for the same afternoon on which the second day of the Second Reading debate of the House of Lords Bill is now to be held? As we are discussing the last Procedure Committee report, it will be useful to know on what day that particular meeting of the Procedure Committee will now be held.
At the time of the 1968 proposals, as my noble friend Lady Young has mentioned, the first of the five functions of the House were described as the provision of a forum for full and free debate on matters of public interest. This is the all-important function which she and I believe will be downgraded by the switch of days. It will also, as she has said, turn the House into a three-day-week Chamber.
It will vastly inconvenience Peers who, for a long time, have had the practice of fixing up important meetings on Wednesdays because it is then that no Divisions are likely to take place. Peers whom I know, if they are to take part in the debating day on a Wednesday, will find it very inconvenient indeed. The most important point from my point of view is that the experiment will be distracting for this House at a time when it is considering the most important Bill, as far as it is concerned, probably since the year 1911. To have this particular six weeks as an experiment seems to be rather unkind in distracting the House at such a time.
970
The final point is that it may all be for nothing and, in effect, no trial at all because what works well for the existing House will not necessarily work well for the interim House, let alone the definitive one, after full reform has taken place. So why are we bothering to have this experiment now? If it is to be made, it is far better to let the new House make it and then judge for itself whether that is what it wants.
When this matter came before the Procedure Committee, as the Chairman of Committees has said, it ran into so much opposition that the committee felt unable to make a recommendation to the House. Therefore, I am very sorry indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has seen fit to table such an amendment today. As a former Chief Whip, he of all people knows that this House works by consultation and consent. I cannot remember a previous government of either colour trying to force through a purely procedural matter such as this with such tactics as these. I hope that, if possible, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will undertake not to move his amendment today, but that if he does so your Lordships will reject it overwhelmingly.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may remind him that the words we are considering in the report say that the matter should be left to the House and that is exactly what I have done.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, perhaps a declaration of interest is unnecessary, as from my accent noble Lords may divine that I am not from the Home Counties. I often face a journey to Scotland—not the far north, but the central belt—and I ask your Lordships to take into account the proportionate inconvenience which is suffered under the existing system and under the proposed amendment. So far as I am aware, this is unwhipped business today and there is no question of the Government trying to force through anything. My understanding is that Members are free to form whatever view they like. I imagine that views may well be split according to the place of main abode rather than the party viewpoint.
Perhaps I may put a very simple point. In terms of what one might call the law of proportionate inconvenience, noble Lords who find it convenient to attend on all four days and who live in and around London will experience no inconvenience whichever day is held to be the general debate day. However, noble Lords who have public interests which they should discharge elsewhere will experience considerable inconvenience if in order to fulfil those obligations they have to travel north and then return.
The attraction of general debates is their intrinsic merit and not the fact that one is forced to attend them because one is sandwiched between a Tuesday and a Thursday when one is down here anyway and cannot be bothered to go home. For example, on Wednesday 21st, despite the fact that I have to be in Lochinver in the very far north of Scotland on Thursday morning, I shall certainly try to attend the debate to be introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on digital broadcasting. I believe that most of us prefer general debates to the

971
nitty-gritty of procedural amendments and the scrutiny of legislation in Committee when frequently one cannot see the wood for the trees. Frankly, general debates are much better fun, but we must place them in the proper context. At the top of page 2, the report states:
"They make the House uniquely well-equipped to carry out what is currently regarded as its major role, namely the revision of legislation".
In all honesty, however much we enjoy general debates and however much I agree that they are extremely important, they are subsidiary to legislation. I cannot see how it is in anyone's interest to divide the block of legislation into two parts, Monday and Tuesday and then Thursday, when it would be equally convenient to have Monday to Wednesday. Then, it is to be hoped that those who can stay on for the Thursday debates will do so, particularly if they have an interest in the subject. Those who have urgent business elsewhere are not faced with the problem of leaving at four o'clock.
Several times last year I was faced with the problem of Divisions taking place after midnight on a Thursday. I tried to reach British Rail in the late hours of the evening to cancel the sleeper I had booked. I contacted British Airways, via its New York office, to book a flight for first thing Friday morning in the hope that I would get it.
I ask noble Lords to consider this point. The House is justly renowned for its courtesy. Members who find it convenient to attend four days a week will not be upset if Wednesday's business is moved to Thursday. However, those of us who have to travel very long distances will considerably benefit from the change and I urge noble Lords to make it.
There is one final point that should be borne in mind. The public purse is to be considered. People who have to attend each side of the break are claiming two amounts of travelling expenses, which I do not believe is justified in the public interest. It would be much better if we dealt with legislation in one block.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I live even further away than the noble Lord, Lord Gordon. But on the face of it I agree with him. Since I first came here I have longed for the business to be turned around.
However, that was when I did not understand the role of the Opposition. I am just beginning to understand that role. The noble Lord said that he does not much enjoy the nitty-gritty of legislation, although he admitted that it is the most important function of this House. Since this Government came to power, most of the organisations which want Bills changed have been funnelling their amendments through the Opposition and not through Government Back-Benchers—not all, but most of them.
I should like to cite the example of the Health Bill, which is still before your Lordships' House. That Bill is one reason for my considerable change of mind. It would have been impossible to do it as much justice as we have if we had taken the Committee and Report stages on two days running; for example, Tuesday and Wednesday. It has been a terrible rush to get the amendments through. Because of the way in which the
972
Bill is drafted, doctors and nurses have come to understand quite late the implications of this Bill for them. Last Thursday's debate would not have been possible on the Wednesday.
The earlier part of the report contains the findings of the working party, which suggests that amendments should be brought forward earlier. That will help, but it still will not help this issue. My noble friend Lady Young was absolutely right on this and I shall back her.
In relation to the working party on the procedure of the House, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, for the way in which she chaired that working party. I had not worked with her before but greatly admired the way she did that job. She was even-handed; she was patient; and she was fully on the side of the Back-Benchers, which was an important role for that working group. We came to consensual decisions on our recommendations, and when it turned out that our report was to go before the Procedure Committee on a certain day we were all invited to attend. However, I was horrified when I discovered that the noble Baroness. Lady Hilton, had not even been sent the agenda of the Procedure Committee; she had no idea how the report would be handled and how the Leader of the House would deal with it. I have said personally to the Leader of the House that next time a working party is set up, it would be nice if it knew how its business would be handled by whichever committee to which it reported.
I support the Procedure Committee's response. I am happy that it turned down some of our recommendations and accepted others. I slightly regret that we talked about "training" of noble Lords. One does not train people to be parliamentarians. I would have preferred to call it "providing information". However, I am sure noble Lords understood what we meant. We made some: good proposals and those are clearly still on the table.
Lord Orme: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment, which relates to a change of day for debates from Wednesday to Thursday.
I speak as a provincial Member, along with many of my noble friends. In many parts of the House people have a long way to travel home at weekends. The change proposed will not reduce the hours in the House; it will underwrite the fact that the debate can take place on a Thursday just as it presently does on a Wednesday.
There was a contradiction in what was said by the noble Lord who referred to the fact that he made appointments on a Wednesday and was not in the House because his arrangements had, in that sense, become regularised. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the fact that people want to keep Wednesdays for normal debates as such. However, the changes proposed are moderate and very much in line with modern thinking. For instance, the British Parliament sits longer than any other democratic parliament in the world— both this Chamber and the other place. To alter the procedure, as my noble friend from Scotland suggests, illustrates the great problem of travelling home after the House rises.

973
I speak as a Member who arrives on a Monday, and who is here Tuesday, Wednesday and a large part of Thursday. Therefore I am not trying to say that people should be away from the House. They should be here whenever possible. When we get a reformed House of Lords we will see a great difference. A lot of provincial Members will come in from Scotland, Wales and other outlying areas, and it will make a radical difference to them. Perhaps I can suggest, therefore, that we should allow the experiment. I hope the House will support it. Many people need and demand that the change takes place and I hope that your Lordships will vote for it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was good enough to refer to me in his speech, perhaps because of some reforms in another place with which I was closely involved. But speaking—like him and my noble friend Lord Denham—as a former Chief Whip, I profoundly disagree with him. I am much more concerned about the democratic rights of opposition than about the individual convenience of Members of your Lordships' House.
I strongly support the comments of my noble friend Lady Young. She is perfectly right. The classic way in which governments get their foot in the door and start changes is under the guise of "experiment"; many of us have done it.
I was struck by paragraph 7 of the report from the group on procedure which said:
"Procedure in [this] Chamber has traditionally been marked by a degree of courtesy, good manners and good will across the various political divides".
I just want to refer to the "good will" element. The Government have serious duties with regard to good will towards both individual Back-Benchers and also Opposition parties and groups. In your Lordships' House individual Back-Benchers have little about which to complain over the opportunities to let off steam or to examine legislation; indeed paragraph 4 refers to that when it says,
"back-bench members of the House enjoy very extensive procedural freedoms",
many more than in another place, if I might say so.
However, I am concerned about the proposals in paragraph 2 of the report of the Procedure Committee to change the general debate day from Wednesday to Thursday. It most seriously erodes the duty of good will owed by government to Opposition parties and groups. After all, the Wednesday general debates are the prime time in the week for opposition parties to try to chivvy the Government and to do their constitutional duty of opposing. Of course I understand the reason for Government Back-Benchers wanting the change but I hope they understand that the Opposition are entitled to prime time during the week. I calculate that over the years since World War II my party has been in power 37 years, while Labour has been in power 22 years; so in the long run what I am saying will probably be to the disadvantage of Conservative Back-Benchers. However, I believe that the proposition is wrong constitutionally.
974
Votes rarely follow general debate days. A Written Answer that I received last week stated that there have been only eight Divisions on general debate days over the past 20 years, so everybody knows that such days are unlikely to end in a vote. We used to have a procedure like that in another place called Private Members' Motions. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will remember that the committee of which I had the honour to be chairman did away with them in favour of even better prime time. On Fridays when we had Private Members' Motions in another place, they rarely ended in a vote and the Chamber was virtually empty. The only persons present were those taking part. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, said that one could come here on a Wednesday evening and find few people in attendance. If we change Wednesday for Thursday, even fewer people will be here on Thursday nights. It would often mean the Opposition talking to virtually an empty Chamber. As a former Government Chief Whip, I know the effect on an Opposition of putting their bull points to empty Benches. It is a most effective way of dealing with an Opposition who are trying to put over critical points. If the place is empty, the media take little interest.
I do not believe that the Opposition should be sidelined in that way. In the days when I was the Government Chief Whip and my friend—if I may call him that—the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, was my opposite number, he would have gone into orbit if I had tried to move Opposition days to Friday or the end of the week. I am glad to see the noble Lord nodding his head. He would have made my life totally impossible.
The Government have a duty to keep the great occasions for Oppositions, be they the Liberal Party, Cross-Benchers or the Conservative Party. All Opposition groups deserve prime time and should continue to have it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I did not intend to say anything until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. I did not follow his argument at all. He said that moving general debates, which on his own admission rarely have a vote attached to them and are not well attended, from Wednesday to Thursday erodes the duty of good will owed by government to Opposition parties and groups and somehow interferes with the democratic rights of the Opposition. I do not see that for an instant. What democratic rights are infringed? The only difference is that the House will be empty on Thursday instead of Wednesday and that votes will not take place on Thursday instead of not taking place on Wednesday. If the Opposition have a topic that they wish to air, they can air it on Thursday with just as much fervour, skill and determination as on a Wednesday.
There may be other arguments for keeping Wednesday, but the idea that a change would erode the democratic rights of the Opposition is, with great respect to my noble friend—as I would call him—Lord Jopling, somewhat fanciful and a little over the top.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to indicate—I suspect on behalf of all of us—our warm support for the broad recommendations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. Her committee produced its report

975
with considerable dispatch and the overwhelming majority of it was endorsed by the Procedure Committee. We owe a debt to the noble Baroness and all other members of the committee.
When the committee began to debate the Wednesday/Thursday issue, I did not hold a strong view on its merits and thought the argument was evenly balanced. However, I have reached the conclusion— speaking entirely for myself, and with a free vote as far as we are concerned—that I shall vote for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I will do so because I do not believe that major procedural change should be supported unless there is a broad consensus of support. There is no broad consensus of support for the proposal, as was made clear in our debate in the Procedure Committee.
If the change is made in the way that is explicit in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I fear the consequence will be a three-day week. It was put that way by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and he is entirely right. One of the things that we prize dearly in this House is the quality of our Wednesday debates. I believe that there would be a significant deterioration if we were to find ourselves on a three-day week. In a thinly attended House on Thursday, there would be less of a disposition to hold the Executive to account in a satisfactory fashion.
We are being invited to decide not simply a narrow and insignificant procedural question but an issue of fundamental importance. I hope that the House will recognise that when it votes.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I follow three old friends of mine—my noble friend Lord Richard, my former noble friend Lord Harris and the antagonist, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. From my accent, people might think that I would want to get away from this place on Thursday and go elsewhere in order to enjoy life there. But I live in NW11 and would be perfectly happy to come in on Fridays.
What is odd about this debate is the idea that because few noble Lords attend on a Wednesday, few would come on a Friday.
Noble Lords: Thursday.
Lord Howie of Troon: Or a Thursday, my Lords. I beg your pardon. My colleagues would obviously attend on Thursday to deal with the important matters that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said nobody votes on. If they do not vote on Wednesday, they probably would not do so on Friday.
Noble Lords: Thursday.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it would not make much of a difference. The debate would still remain terribly important. The sort of persons who are interested in debates on Wednesday and had something to contribute would come on Friday.
Noble Lords: Thursday.
Lord Howie of Troon: Whatever day of the week it is, my Lords. I would come myself. I would not actually
976
contribute but I would like to look handsome on the Back Benches. We are talking about something slightly weird—the notion that the Opposition would be deprived of some kind of strength that they would have otherwise. Of course they would not. They would still have all the parliamentary time needed to deal with the issues they think important and requiring to be dealt with. That would be more convenient to most people. I shall not go into the matter of Thursday and Friday. There seems to be a problem—a little difference—here between myself and the House. I believe that my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton has the argument right and that he should be supported.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, made a fascinating intervention. I am not quite sure what he wants. I think that he wants not to be here on Thursdays but on Fridays, which is a curious combination. I have the privilege of being a member of the Procedure Committee, although I regret that I was not present at the one meeting. I was also a member of the group on procedure of the noble: Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon. I reiterate what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said; namely, that the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, conducted the group with extraordinary flair and understanding, and with Back-Benchers' views in mind.
If your Lordships were to read the report of the group—I have no doubt your Lordships will not do so, although it makes good reading, which I can say because I did not draft it myself—your Lordships would see that paragraph 6 states:
"It is not always appreciated that the freedoms of individual members of this House are wider than in any other legislative assembly".
That is a pretty big statement. It is worth reminding ourselves of that. The report continues at paragraph 8,
"Courtesy should not be seen as an optional extra. Without a high degree of courtesy and self-restraint, self-regulation will become unworkable".
The courtesies which go with the House are important. We do not have a Speaker, other than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who, of course, does not operate in the manner of the Speaker in another place. I hope that we shall not have a Speaker. However, that requires us to exercise the elementary courtesies. Those are referred to on page 5 of the report of the Procedure Committee. It says:
"It is considered discourteous for [a Lord] not to be present for the opening speeches, for at least the speech before and that following his own, and for the winding-up speeches".
That may seem fairly elementary. But it is astonishing how often the convention is broken. I recall my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham when he was Leader of the House rebuking the late Lord Arran. He said that you cannot blow in, blow off and blow out! That is something we might well remember.
The report continues:
"Reading of speeches is alien to the custom of the House".
That might prove an inconvenience to many noble Lords. However, the report states that extended notes are permitted. If noble Lords were not to read, debates

977
might become more interesting to other noble Lords but not to the noble Lord concerned who was inconvenienced.
The report also states that noble Lords should not address one another as "you". That seems fairly obvious, but one hears it day after day. With great respect, I must say one even hears it from government Ministers. I hope that we shall keep to the third person and not to the second person. The report reminds us that,
"Lords should refer to 'the noble Lord, the Minister"',
not to the noble Lord, the Minister, but either the Minister or—I apologise. I have that wrong. This is what happens when one does not read. The report states,
"Lords should refer to 'the noble Lord, the Minister', or simply 'the Minister', but not 'the noble Minister'".
That important convention is frequently broken.
The report states:
"Lords should not pass between the Lord who is speaking and the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair".
The idea is that one ought to pass behind. Periodically people used to duck when in the line of fire. Now it seems the practice is to go ahead like a ship in full sail, straight across the line of fire. That is discourteous to the House.
The report further states:
"Lords should not move about the Chamber while a Question is being put from the Woolsack or the Chair".
Of course when that happens it gives all of us an opportunity to shout, "Order, order", which we think exciting, but it does not actually help the running of the business of the House.
I hope we shall try to remember these courtesies. Some people say it is difficult for new Peers because they have not become attuned to them. However, we have all been new Peers at one time or another and we had to adjust. I do not think it a good idea to alter the procedures just because it is difficult to familiarise ourselves with them.
The biggest problem arises, of course, at Question Time which is also the most exciting time and the most important time. The report suggests that questions and answers should be shorter. I say with the greatest of respect to the Government Front Bench that it would be a good thing if ministerial answers were shorter. That would make matters much more fun and much more interesting. I also believe matters would be far more interesting if questions were shorter. Nothing is more likely to flummox a Minister and not give him time to think of an answer than to ask "Why?" or "Why not?" If three questions are asked, the person concerned has time to think up an erroneous answer which probably lasts twice as long as the time taken by the questioner. It would be of great convenience if we could keep questions and answers short.
In the good old days—as a schoolboy would say—if two Peers got up to speak, one would graciously give way to the other. That does not happen now. People stand like two bulls pawing at the ground, each trying to outstare the other in the hope of winning the right to speak. Or there is the other schoolboy attitude of saying,
978
"It is my turn". If noble Lords were to sit down immediately when someone else has risen to speak, it would stop all the awful rowing and eliminate the need for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to make a choice. No Leader of the House likes doing that, and it is quite unnecessary. It is also pretty discourteous of noble Lords to stand their ground. When noble Lords give way, some do so without too much grace and sit down slowly. A speaker can be half-way through his question and the noble Lord who has been put out is still descending. It is rather like letting the air out of a balloon with your hand over the nozzle so that it escapes slowly. It would add greatly to the courtesies of the House if noble Lords sat down quickly. If we did that and all the questions and answers were shorter, everything would be far simpler. I hope that that will happen.
I hope that your Lordships will not change the general debate day. Wednesday has always been a general debate day. It splits up the government business. It is all very fine for some noble Lord—I forget who it was—to say that we can have government business on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. However, that would impose quite a strain on Ministers and civil servants, as it would sometimes on people in opposition who might be involved on all three days. I hope that that proposal will not be adopted and that we keep Wednesday as a general debate day. There is no doubt that if the general debate day were moved to a Thursday, people would stay for that debate only if they are interested in it. Some say that everyone would disappear on a Wednesday evening. I fancy that we could see that. One noble Lord said that he would like to return to Scotland on Wednesday evenings and I dare say he would. But one would see a massive exodus on Thursdays after Questions. People will find it convenient to be present for Question Time (if I may be vulgar, because they wish to claim their expenses) and then clear off home, leaving an important debate to just those who are interested in it. That would be a retrograde step and I hope that it will not happen.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
Noble Lords: Order! Cross-Benches!
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, as regards the Thursday issue—assuming I have the days of the week correct— I would be sad to think that your Lordships decided this issue on the basis of individual, personal convenience. With respect, it seems to me that the issue we ought to consider is whether or not the proposal will promote the efficiency of the conduct of our business. I want therefore to echo in a way what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said. If we were to conduct legislative business on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, it would open up the possibility—the probability will perhaps be disputed by the Government Chief Whip—of sitting three consecutive days in Committee in order to deal with an urgent Bill. Even if the Government Chief Whip says that he would have no intention of doing that, it still opens up, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy,

979
pointed out, the increased mathematical probability in any week of spending two consecutive days in Committee on the same Bill. I regard that as undesirable from the point of view of the conduct of business in your Lordships' House.
As all of us who have taken part in a debate in Committee know, at the end of the first day many matters arise which require a little thought and reflection before one proceeds with the second day. Those matters may require further research; an outside body may require to be consulted; an amendment already tabled for a subsequent stage may have to be altered; and, on occasions when there is an extremely co-operative Minister, there may be the possibility of discussing an issue in order to find an agreed solution before proceeding to the second stage.
It is in the interests not only of the Opposition but of the Government Ministers who are conducting business, if they will allow me to be so presumptuous as to make an observation on their behalf. It is highly beneficial to the conduct of the business of this House that during the Committee stage of a complicated Bill there are intervals for consideration. It is important that we do not proceed from one day to the next, as is almost bound to happen unless the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is agreed to by your Lordships.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for long. I cannot speak for all Cross-Benchers—nor would I presume to do so—but perhaps I may remind your Lordships of an old parliamentary adage: "Only the temporary is permanent". I have a suspicion that if we proceed to this experiment we shall be stuck with it.
I disagree with the noble Lord who spoke earlier about Wednesday debates being subsidiary to the legislative work of your Lordships' House. An important debate was initiated last Wednesday by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and a Cross-Bench debate is to take place this Wednesday, "to call attention to the economic and social role of marriage", a subject that would never be discussed in the other place. One needs only to attend such debates to realise that it is extremely important that matters of this kind are discussed in your Lordships' House.
Although I fully understand that it would be for the convenience of many Cross-Benchers—certainly those who live in the north of England and Scotland—to get away earlier on a Thursday, I strongly feel that, on balance, and bearing in mind the old adage, we should stay where we are, at least until we know the complexion of the new House when all kinds of changes may have to be made.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I make no comment about the extension of the time for a vote from six minutes to eight minutes—although I have an opinion— but the question of changing from three minutes to four the moment at which noble Lords may vote is another matter. As a frequent Teller, on every occasion I see noble Lords straining in the slips at three minutes to get
980
back to their work or to their tea. If the period went from three minutes to four, they would be almost uncontrollable. I have also seen the Government Chief Whip having to restrain physically with his wand noble Lords of either party who wish to get back. In my mind there can be no argument in favour of changing from three minutes to four, leaving aside the problem of the egg-timer. I do not consider that an adequate matter of inconvenience to your Lordships. I therefore fully support the amendment of the noble Lord.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may, for a moment, turn to the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, with which I agree in very large measure. However, when talking about courtesies, he did not refer to a very considerable lack of courtesy shown in this place only the other day during the passage of the Access to Justice Bill. One noble Lord—I shall not mention who it was—made a quite considerable personal attack on a Government Minister and then, having made that attack, saw fit to leave the Chamber soon afterwards before the end of the debate on the amendment. I think that is an extreme act of discourtesy which should not happen. I hope that it will be noted by the House.
In the proposition advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, I found an uncharacteristic lack of consistency. No argument has been put forward as to why debates on Thursday—not Friday, or even Good Friday for that matter—would be any less effective. People who are interested in the topics will attend, just as on Wednesdays. There are many noble Lords who are interested in the topics which are constantly raised. Of course, there are exceptions. If the draconian consequences spelt out by a number of noble Lords during the debate were to occur, would they not be revealed in the course of the experiment suggested by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton? If such consequences occurred, I would have thought that the House would have little difficulty in deciding that the experiment was a bad one and should not be proceeded with. However, simply to assume that all these consequences would arise is a dangerous way of proceeding. It would be within the capacity of your Lordships' House to say very clearly, "We do not like what has happened; we have given it a chance and it should be rejected". But to say that we should give it no trial period at all seems to me to be extraordinarily inconsistent.
It has been suggested that somehow or other the media will cease to have much interest in this House if we undertake this experiment. Quite frankly, it does not seem to have much interest in this House anyway. I do not think that is a very powerful argument. The media does of course report proceedings inadequately. "Today in Parliament" used to devote rather more time to the affairs of this place and it now interjects other issues during discussions occurring in another place.
Like my noble friend Lord Richard, I do not see that there will be any weakening of the position of the Opposition if we proceed with this trial period. They will have every opportunity, particularly if they are an

981
effective Opposition, to ensure that people will come and listen to important debates. It is incumbent on Members of this House to table matters of interest for the Wednesday debate. Sometimes the subjects are a little esoteric, but there is nothing much wrong with that because one makes an assumption that not too many people will attend anyway.
I think the best way to proceed would be to accept the proposition put forward by my noble friend of a trial period for just a matter of weeks. In my view, it is a very sensible proposition.
Lord Elton: My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said earlier, I think that your Lordships should give the matter a little more thought. I have been both a Minister and a spokesman in opposition. The strain of two consecutive nights in Committee on a major Bill is considerable. The strain of three consecutive nights on a major Bill would be verging on the intolerable.
Whether in government or in opposition, when one has a Monday and a Tuesday consecutively on a Bill one is desperate for Wednesday so that one can catch up on one's briefs for the Thursday. One has no opportunity on Monday and Tuesday to talk to one's advisers or to ring them up because one is actually in the Chamber. By the third day one has moved into a new part of the Bill which requires new briefing. I therefore think that to preserve an interlude in which there is a possibility for Ministers and opposition spokesmen on Bills to do the work out of the Chamber that enables them to do their work in the Chamber properly and effectively is very important. That happens to chime in with what other noble Lords have said, which was summarised by the noble Lord the Convenor of the Cross-Benches, about preserving Wednesdays, with which I heartily agree. But I would not wish your Lordships to think only of that point because I believe that the legislative efficiency of this House could suffer if we lost that interval.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Graham. I do so as a northern Member of the House and one who usually leaves on a Thursday evening. I occasionally stay over when there is business on Friday in which I am involved but usually I leave on a Thursday evening. I leave not because it is a matter of convenience to me as an individual. I leave because I have commitments in the north which it is important for me as a Member of the House to fulfil.
I remind your Lordships that this House meets, for half the Session at any rate, for five days a week and not four days a week. There is business on Friday as well as on Thursday. I also remind your Lordships that we are not a full-time, professional, paid House of Lords. We are a part-time House. Very few Members spend the whole of the four or five days on the business of the House. Indeed, we are made Members of the House because of the experience we can bring to the House. We like to refresh that experience by being involved in matters other than debates and legislation.
982
I will not go into the detail of what I do on a Friday. However, it is much easier for Members who live in London and the south to fulfil their obligations to the House and at the same time to extend their experience so that they can contribute that experience to the work of the House. Therefore, I should like Members to consider that point carefully.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and other noble Lords on the importance of the general debates on Wednesday but I disagree profoundly that the importance and status of those debates would be downgraded if they were held on a Thursday rather than on a Wednesday. Those debates are initiated by noble Lords who are fundamentally interested in the subject they are raising. The speakers who support them come forward for the same reasons. That would continue. Some of us attend the Wednesday debates out of interest in the subject being debated. That would continue if the debates were held on a Thursday rather than on a Wednesday.
A number of noble Lords have asked whether it is convenient to have three consecutive days on legislative work. We rarely have three consecutive days on one Bill. In fact, one could count on the fingers of one hand the occasions when we have had three consecutive days on a Bill. But there may be some substance in what has been said about the difficulty of getting up to date for the next day of the Bill and that it may therefore be important to have a break between the days. We do not know about that. It may be a valid point and we would find out if we had an experiment.
The experiment would be linked to one of the changes that is being made as a result of the excellent report of my noble friend Lady Hilton and her committee; namely, that amendments will have to be submitted earlier than has previously been the case and that the grouping of the amendments will be available by 2.30 p.m. on the last working day before the debate on the amendments. Those changes will have an effect not only on us but also on the outside bodies which brief Members of the House of Lords on these subjects.
I suggest to the House that it would be valuable to have the experiment of changing to Thursday the day of the general debates along with those changes that are being initiated as a result of the Hilton Report. I hope that we shall give an opportunity to the House to change the day of general debates from Wednesday to Thursday.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. It may be of interest to noble Lords to know that our egg-timer is not always perfectly accurate. Sometimes it is jinxed and therefore we may not get three minutes. Therefore, in view of all the modernisation that is going on at the moment, perhaps a modern timepiece would be more appropriate for your Lordships' House.
One point that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, did not bring to your Lordships' attention was the reminder that conversations should be carried out in the Prince's Chamber rather than on the Benches of your Lordships'

983
House. Not all of us are professional public speakers and it can be disconcerting to have to speak against a conversation that is taking place on the Benches either in front of or behind you. In addition, not all of us have perfect hearing. It can sometimes be difficult to hear what a speaker is saying when conversations are going on. In my role as someone who occasionally sits on the Woolsack, in a debate last week initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I was struck by the fact that, during the speech of a noble Lord which was not perhaps as interesting as other speeches had been, conversations were being held on all three Front Benches, and not sotto voce. It was extremely difficult for the individual who was speaking to make himself heard to other noble Lords. I would be grateful, and I am sure other noble Lords would be grateful, if conversations could be carried out in the Prince's Chamber rather than in this Chamber.
I have listened to all the speeches that have been made on the subject of the Wednesday debates. I have yet to make up my mind. I have served for nearly 25 years in your Lordships' House. I cannot believe I am the only one who recalls the time when we sat only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. We used to have a three-day week. Therefore, that argument is spurious. However, as I said, I have yet to make up my mind which way I shall vote when we come to a Division.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I wish to make a brief intervention. This is not a Whipped matter on my side of the House. It is a free vote. I rise to say, first, that, regrettably, I will be unable to support my noble friend Lord Graham if he puts his amendment to the House in a Division. I very much hope that my noble friend will not put his amendment to a vote. It seems to me that the proposal is premature and that it would be better considered in the new House which will form after the end of this Session.
Secondly, it is important that there should be a real consensus on this issue. Clearly, from this afternoon's debate there has not been. Thirdly, as far as concerns the carrying out of experiments, it does not seem to be a very good time to carry out an experiment in April and May when the Government's business is welling up and when the House is under unusual pressure. If the experiment is to be carried out, the appropriate time will be when there is a reconstituted House and at an earlier time in our proceedings.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and congratulate her on the quality of her report. I was initially rather suspicious about the setting up of this group. I shared those suspicions with the noble Baroness. However, she and her team have done a very good job. This resulting debate has demonstrated that there is, on the whole, little disagreement with the proposals of the Procedure Committee.
Turning to specific points, I entirely agree that ministerial Answers should be shorter. On many occasions during the past few months ministerial
984
Answers, and questions to Ministers at Question Time, have been far too long. Any proposal designed to shorten them should be carried out forthwith. I hope that the Government will have found a mechanism whereby they can reduce the desire of their Front Bench for long Answers.
On the matter of Divisions, I initially did not feel strongly about the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, on changing the Division time from six to eight minutes; and therefore, if we were to keep the egg timer idea, it would also mean that the first stage would be four minutes. But having heard the debate, and in particular the persuasive words of my noble friend Lord Burnham, I wonder whether it might not be better either to have two egg timers or to use a stopwatch for the first three minutes.
My final point on the noble Baroness's report relates to the working group's proposals for training. Like my noble friend Lady Carnegy, I prefer the term "information", or at least "advice", on the procedures of the House. Since the general election an enormous number of new Peers have entered this House. The overwhelming majority have taken to its customs and traditions extremely well. They have made a tremendous effort to understand exactly how we operate. There are normally very good reasons why the House operates as it does. But I think that there has also been recognition that we need to find better ways of giving that advice to new Peers. I hope that we shall not allow this proposal to be dropped entirely, and that the Procedure Committee will be advised as to how it will be advanced.
The noble Baroness's report is very much in contrast to Part 2, dealing with the general debate day. The noble Baroness dealt with some extremely controversial issues. She carried out wide consultation with various parts of the House and asked for evidence from the Front Benches. That information was turned into a report which was debated through the usual channels before being presented to the Procedure Committee. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why there has been so little debate over that part of the report.
The issue of the general debate day has been dealt with in a different way. This proposal was put forward to the Procedure Committee by the Government Chief Whip. Not a great deal of consultation took place. During the course of the Procedure Committee's work, it became increasingly obvious that there was no consensus whatever. That is why the committee made no recommendation.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was absolutely right. The point is that the House should proceed on agreement. It is one of the great traditions of this House, where there is no Speaker, that on procedural matters every effort is taken to reach a broad consensus on these kinds of matters. That is why I rather regret the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has tabled his amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will not press it to a Division—first, because I believe that he will lose, but also, this debate having taken place, it may be better for the proposal to be put back into the usual channels for wider consultation.

985
I am in a slightly difficult position. When I was Government Chief Whip I recommended this change to my own Front Bench. At that time my Front Bench said that they did not want to undertake such change for some of the reasons that have been given. They saw no advantage in it, as well as the principled argument. I withdrew my recommendation—in fact I do not think I even discussed it with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who was then my opposite number as Opposition Chief Whip.
If the noble Lord, Lord Graham, presses his amendment to a Division and wins, then we should agree certain principles in relation to this House. The first is that a Bill should not be taken on three consecutive days in the same week. Secondly, there should be an understanding that it will make business on Fridays—especially controversial business— considerably more difficult than has been the case up until now. Thirdly, if Thursday is to become the general debate day, secondary legislation on Thursday evening following those debates will also be much more difficult. I should like a recognition from the Government that they will not seek to do that. That is not for the convenience of Front-Benchers; it is because of the great interest that Back-Benchers have in secondary legislation. Therefore we should not be obliged to do that.
One of the reasons that this has gone wrong is that Peers did not have enough warning that this experimental stage might take place. I was approached last week by one of my noble friends who is on the boards of various charities and other organisations. He said that he had made appointments for every Wednesday purely because that fitted in with the way the House arranged its business, and that if this proposal were to be accepted he would have to change them all.
The most important point of principle and practice is that this is an experiment at a time when the whole House is about to undergo a massive experiment if and when the reform Bill that is before this House goes through. For that reason, if there is a Division, I shall support my noble friend Lady Young.
This has been a useful debate. I conclude from it that, if we are to make these procedural changes in the future, it would be far better for it to be done in the way suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, rather than as presently suggested.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate because it is a matter for the House. However, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked about specific matters. I shall certainly agree that, if the debate day is switched from Wednesday to Thursday, we shall do exactly the same on Thursdays as we now do on Wednesdays in relation to debates and Unstarred Questions. I will undertake that, for the six weeks of the experiment—we are only talking about six weeks—from the beginning of May until the middle of June, there will be no week in which we take three days
986
on the same Bill. I would remind your Lordships that, from mid-June until the end of the Session, we deal with whipped business on four days a week.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may put a short question to the Lord Chairman of Committees. It arises out of paragraph 79 of the working group's report. The second part of the paragraph reads:
"It might be useful to the House to have an arrangement for back-benchers to meet semi-formally, with a Clerk, to exchange ideas and concerns, whether about procedure or about other aspects of membership of the House. Lords might feel easier raising minor matters in such a forum rather than going straight to the Procedure or Offices Committee".
I do not know whether the noble Lord might feel that that suggestion should be considered by whatever may be the appropriate quarters.
I have in mind that a semi-formal group of that kind might be a useful receptacle for ideas which could be tested and, if considered suitable, passed on to the Procedure Committee. I do not envisage that such a small, informal group need sit more than once during a Session. Perhaps the Lord Chairman of Committees may care to comment on that matter.
4.39 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I begin by clarifying two points. First, the change in the Division time will take effect after the Easter Recess. As far as concerns Starred Questions, in particular the proposal for the second topical Question each week, the changes will be introduced gradually, as soon as there is a Wednesday with fewer than four Starred Questions tabled. At the moment, that is 21st April. Perhaps I may reassure noble Lords that no noble Lord with two Starred Questions tabled now will be required to remove one of them.
As I indicated at the outset of the debate, I put forward no view about the proposed change in the debate day. Therefore, if your Lordships will forgive me, I do not propose to reply to that part of the debate, which was the substantial part.
Perhaps I could attempt to reply to some of the other specific points. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hilton of Eggardon and Lady Carnegy of Lour, referred to training matters. That will come up for further consideration. The Procedure Committee thought that the usual channels would be asked to give further consideration to the matter. I do not anticipate that there will be anything to put forward on the matters before your Lordships at least until the autumn, if then. However, I sound one warning note to your Lordships. If those matters are pursued—and some seem to be desirable—then there will be not inconsiderable resource implications for them.
On the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, my reference at the outset of the debate to being able to cope with the mechanics of any change which your Lordships might make was intended to refer to the means of timing the two parts of the Division. So there is no difficulty about being able, if it is agreed, to implement what I hope will be acceptable mechanical means.

987
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, or any other noble Lord needs to become too worked up about the nomenclature as concerns the historic timing device that we have used so far. We can avoid using the inappropriate hour-glass or even the egg-timer. Anyway, I have nearly always heard it referred to as a "sand-glass".
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, asked me about the proposed next meeting of the Procedure Committee. I am conscious of the difficulties. As he indicated, it is timed for one of the days on which your Lordships will be considering the House of Lords reform Bill. As your Lordships will know, the Procedure Committee is very large. I can see that a number of noble Lords who would wish to be present in the Chamber are likely to be incommoded, whether or not they are speaking on such an occasion. For the moment, perhaps I may try to satisfy the noble Lord by saying that consideration is being given to the matter, and leave it at that.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, dealt with some of the courtesies of the House. With respect, he is one of the most qualified of your Lordships to talk about them because he is one of our most courteous Members. I wholeheartedly support his endorsement of the proposal that we should continue to observe the correct form of nomenclature for Ministers. As he and the committee said, they should not be referred to as the "noble Minister", but as, for example, the "noble Lord the Minister". As your Lordships all know and acknowledge, that is simply because their nobility does not stem from their ministerial position; it stems from their personal capacity. Of course, all Ministers, from whatever side of your Lordships' House they have ever come, act in a noble way, but, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, rightly said, they are not noble Ministers.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, raised a point about the possible need for an informal standing group. I am grateful to him for characteristically letting me know beforehand that he proposed to raise the point. Your Lordships will appreciate that no view was taken about the matter in paragraph 79 of the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. If there were to be such a proposal, it would need to go before the Procedure Committee. It has already been possible for informal discussions to take place before matters have been referred to the Procedure Committee. Very often, Chief Whips of the various parties and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers are consulted about them. It was as a result of a suggestion originally referred informally to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that the working group of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, was set up in the first place. So there are mechanisms and procedures in which this kind of informal consultation can be carried out. However, I shall consider further what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said to ascertain whether any additional way of proceeding might be necessary. I am grateful to him for his suggestions.
988
Those were the general points which arose: out of your Lordships' debate. As indicated, I leave the other matters to your Lordships.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon for her support for my minute amendment. No one in your Lordships' House has thought more deeply or more recently on these matters than she has. I am grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her support and also for the eloquent support of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. On the matter of the egg-timer, he and I are clearly "yolked" indivisibly together. As I feel a general sense of acceptance for the three-minutes plus five-minutes amendment, I hope it may be possible for your Lordships to agree to it without a Division.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, at end insert ("save that, notwithstanding paragraph 2 ("The General Debate Day"), Wednesday shall remain the general debate day").
Moved, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, at end insert ("save that, notwithstanding paragraph 2 ("The General Debate Day"), Wednesday shall remain the general debate day". —. (Baroness Young.)
4.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 225; Not-Contents, 87.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brightman, L.

Ailsa, M.

Broadbridge, L.

Aldington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Burnham, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Burns, L.

Ampthill, L.

Buscombe, B.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Butterworth, L.

Annaly, L.

Byford, B.

Annan, L.

Cadman, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Caithness, E.

Attlee, E.

Calverley, L.

Avebury, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Carlisle, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Beloff, L.

Carnock, L.

Belstead, L.

Carrick, E.

Berners, B.

Carrington, L.

Biffen, L.

Chalfont, L.

Birdwood, L.

Charteris of Amisfield. L.

Blaker, L.

Chesham, L.

Blatch, B.

Chilver, L.

Blyth, L.

Clancarty. E.

Boardman, L.

Clanwilliam. E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Clement-Jones., L.

Bramall, L.

Conglelon, L.

Bridgeman. V.

Cowdrey of Tollbridge, L.

Bridges, L.

Cox, B.

989

Craig of Radley, L.

Maddock, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mar, C.

Craigmyle, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cranborne, V.

Marsh, L.

Cross, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cuckney. L.

May, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dahrendorf, L

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Denbigh, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Desai, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Devonport, V.

Morris, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Munster, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Napier and Etrrick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Naseby, L.

Elton, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Exmouth, V.

Newall, L.

Ezra, L.

Newby, L.

Falkland, V.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nickson, L.

Flowers, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Foley, L.

Norrie, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Northesk, E.

Gladwyn, L

Norton of Louth, L.

Glanusk, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Glenarthur, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Glentoran, L.

Ogmore, L.

Goodhart, L.

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Gormanston, V.

Palmer, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Haddington, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Halsbury, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hamwee, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Harlech, L.

Poole, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harris of High Cross. L.

Rawlings, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Razzall, L.

Hayter, L.

Reay, L.

Hemphill, L.

Redesdale, L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

Holderness, L

Renton of Mount Harry, L

HolmPatrick, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Home, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Hooper, B.

Rowallan, L.

Hooson, L.

Russell, E.

Hothfield, L.

St Davids, V.

Howe, E.

St John of Bletso, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sandberg, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Iveagh, E.

Shaw of Noithstead, L.

Jacobs, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Jopling. L.

Slim, V.

Kelvedon, L.

Stair, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Laming, L.

Stewartby, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Strange, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Swansea, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Swinfen, L.

Listowel, E.

Taverne, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Long, V.

Tenby, V.

Ludford, B.

Teviot, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff. B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Macleod of Bone, B.

Thurlow, L.

McNair, L.

Tope, L.

McNally, L.

Trefgarne, L.

990

Trenchard, V.

Westbury, L.

Tryon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Vivian, L.

Wilcox, B.

Waddington, L

Williams of Crosby, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Warnock, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Weatherill, L

Wise, L.

Young, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Jeger, B.

Amos, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Balfour of Incteye, L.

Judd, L.

Barnett, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Kennet, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Bragg, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Burlison, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Carter, L.

Monkswell, L.

Christopher, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Orme. L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Davies of Oldham, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dixon, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dubs, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Randall of St Budeaux, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gilbert, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gladwin of Clee. L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Shepherd, L.

Goudie, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Grenfell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Haskel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thornton, B.

Hoyle, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Uddin, B.

Islwyn, L.

Varley, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

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

Whitty, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Education: Excellence in Cities
5 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission I wish to make a Statement on excellence in cities

991
"On 11th March I announced to the House that with the extra investment in public services from the Budget we would provide much wider access to information technology—with a clear focus on inner cities. In our White Paper, Excellence in Schools, we promised to modernise the comprehensive principle. Today I can announce a major new framework for our inner city schools—taking these principles forward in the six largest cities in England.
"It means shifting the focus decisively from the institution to the individual, irrespective of geography or birth, so that every gifted pupil will be stretched and special needs met. It means a substantial expansion of specialist and beacon schools promoting diversity and excellence. It means that every youngster who would benefit will have access to a learning mentor, with extra help available for those who need it most. This is a strategy which will give every pupil an entitlement to new and more challenging opportunities.
"There are particular problems in inner cities that have created a long-standing culture of low expectation. Today's action plan—which will be backed by £350 million over the next three years— will build on measures already taken to raise achievement.
"Sure Start and expanded nursery education will give every child the best possible start in life. The daily literacy hour is teaching children to read, write and spell effectively for the first time in 30 years. From September, our numeracy strategy will restore mental arithmetic to maths teaching. This is underpinned by a rapid reduction in infant class sizes.
"There are many teachers and pupils already performing very well in difficult circumstances. We must build on and spread their success. Just as the city multiplies the barriers, we have to multiply the opportunities. Initially, our action plan will be taken forward in six areas—inner and north-east London, Manchester/Salford, Liverpool/Knowsley, Birmingham, Leeds/Bradford and Sheffield/Rotherham. As the programme develops, we will link into other initiatives for regeneration and spread success.
"We will strengthen leadership in our inner city schools and provide gifted pupils with new opportunities to succeed. This means setting into appropriate groups in their own school, as well as extra classes linked to specialist schools. If a child with a talent for languages wishes to study German or Italian, but his own school offers only French, he should be able to do so.
"All of us would want to ensure that those who have the ability can go to university. We will establish new university summer schools for 16 and 17 year-olds in the inner city. This will build on links already developed by individual schools and colleges with some universities.
"Madam Speaker, many youngsters in our inner cities lose out because they drop out. All secondary school pupils in these areas who need one will have access to a learning mentor, to assist in overcoming barriers—someone who can cut through red tape to
992
offer support. This will benefit those who have been traditionally failed by the system, especially children from minority ethnic and disadvantaged backgrounds.
"This year, we will make a start with £17 million to employ over 800 mentors in our schools. Mentors will guide pupils towards extra help and extra tuition where they are falling behind. Nor can we allow a disruptive pupil to wreck the chances of others. Excluded youngsters miss out on education and often turn to crime. Seventy-five per cent. of those on remand have a reading age of 10 or below. We are already acting to tackle these problems.
"Today, I propose that in these areas every secondary school should have access to a learning unit for disruptive youngsters. They will receive a full time-table and will return to class only when they can do so without disruption.
"Madam Speaker, turnover and the use of supply teachers are major challenges to the continuity of education in inner cities. We will introduce new measures to attract and retain good teachers, through enhanced retention bonuses and targeted training and development.
"Alongside today's measures, we are strengthening diversity and excellence across the education system. Today, I can announce the expansion of our existing target for specialist schools from 500 to at least 800 by 2002. This will mean that nearly one in four secondary schools in England will offer a specialism, linked to neighbouring schools and colleges.
"Our new network of learning centres will include specialist schools with a strong ICT focus and adult computer learning. The first 80 centres will be placed in our inner city areas at a cost of £100 million. I can also announce a five-fold increase in our beacon school programme from the current planned number of 200 by September to 1, 000 by 2002.
"There has been great enthusiasm for education action zones—and we will invest up to £24 million to extend the programme to support an additional 40 smaller zones. We will also accelerate Ofsted inspections of inner city local education authorities.
"I am pleased to say that, to spearhead this drive, the Prime Minister has today appointed my honourable friend, the School Standards Minister, to hold special responsibility for inner city education. She will lead a strategy group which will include successful heads.
"For too long the specific educational characteristics of inner cities have been ignored. Today, I believe we have set in train action which will lead to a step change in aspiration and expectation. Our ambition is real diversity and excellence—from world-class primary education to a comprehensive system which works for all our children whatever their background.
"Madam Speaker, I commend this Statement to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. The Government having attacked selection on the ground of ability for months if not years, this Statement is seriously astonishing. It would be helpful to have some questions answered on finance, but I shall return to those in a moment.
No one, but no one on this or, I suspect, any side of the House would argue with the aim that education should meet the needs of all children from the very brightest through to those with the most special needs. That is common ground between us. Indeed, our specialist schools were designed by the previous government to expand the strengths of many of our schools; and I am delighted to see that the expansion will continue.
The Statement reveals the hopeless confusion at the heart of the Government's education policies. They have spent two years attacking any attempts by schools to specialise with more able pupils. Schools are losing their power over their admissions policy. They will no longer be able to introduce a policy of selecting any students on the basis of ability. Furthermore, all our grammar schools are under threat; and it is my prediction that with the rigged balloting system few will survive the next decade.
Now the Government have come up with this scheme for selecting more able pupils in inner city comprehensives. Why is that form of selection by ability being imposed while all existing forms of selection have been banned? The Government have taken all the rungs out of the ladders and now have a dog's breakfast of a system in which they are trying to put one or two of them back.
This hare-brained scheme will be virtually impossible to operate in practice. Are the Government listening to the teachers and the heads of department and the people who have already been reading, in some detail, over the weekend about those proposals? I listened to Radio 4 this morning when the matter was gone into in great detail. That is another example of how the Government prefer to go public with their Statements before respecting the sovereignty of Parliament.
Are we suggesting that more able pupils should be taken by bus to other schools for special lessons? What was wrong with able children attending schools which could provide for their needs? Will the noble Baroness confirm that the Government ban specialist schools from selecting by ability? Under the Government's present plans, schools can specialise in music but they cannot specialise in mathematics because that smacks of selecting by ability. Are the Government now saying that pupils can be taken to another school because of their ability at maths but cannot be enrolled at that school? Is that not tying the policy up in knots?
The Secretary of State has made clear on so many occasions his hostility to selection on the basis of ability. Those special classes are to take place in pupils' own schools. Is that with or without the very teachers who are failing to meet the needs of the children in those schools or are the teachers in those schools to be set aside? Very often, inner city children have enormous problems at home. The end of the school day is not a time when they are at their brightest. But they must sit down with their
994
new teachers who will start to teach them literacy, numeracy and other subjects. Those children, tired and exhausted, have been holed up in schools during the week and they will then be taught after school and on Saturday mornings.
Why can those special lessons not take place at normal times during the school day? Do we not owe it to our children to meet their needs during the course of a normal school day? Are we back to setting in schools? I thought the Government were against that. On this side of the House, we certainly support the notion of setting.
This hardly constitutes the transformation of inner city education. The Secretary of State famously remarked— and it is well recorded—that:
"I am having no truck with middle-class, left-wing parents who preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area".
Of whom was he thinking? Is it all right now, provided that the children travel by bus to a specialist school, in an evening, from inner city schools where the children are enrolled already?
Mentoring can be a useful way of helping pupils. When I was at the Home Office, we did a great deal to encourage mentoring, especially of children in inner city schools. We worked closely with the Prince's Trust. So many of our young civil servants encouraged people in business and commerce to lend their most able people to work alongside young people, particularly those who were disruptive in school, to see whether they could be brought back on track. So we do recognise that work.
But the Secretary of State makes great play of that and of the money that is to go to inner city schools. Will the noble Baroness confirm that that is part of the education settlement which has been announced already? How is the money to reach the schools? Is the Secretary of State aware of the frustration and anger among schools when they hear yet another glitzy announcement from the Government, but they know it is to be financed out of the money which should have gone to them as part of their core funding? Instead, it is held back for yet another central departmental initiative.
Over the weekend, I was talking to the head of a school which is having to shed 10 members of staff. It is a secondary school—it was a grant-maintained school— and is a specialist school. Is it to shed 10 staff and then to look forward to a glitzy, presentational mentor who will arrive at the end of the school day? Would it not be better for that school to keep those members of staff?
It is true that the way in which money is now being top-sliced in education means that the core funding going into school is being corrupted and distorted. The best way forward is to give schools the greatest possible power to shape their own characters and to call them to account. The Government say that they will allow schools to select by aptitude (for example, music) but not ability (for example, maths). That is ludicrous.
Having attacked selection on the ground of ability for so long, how is it that the Government can now present us with the kind of weasel words which we see in this document? What provision will there be for a highly academic, able young person in a school which does not

995
meet that child's needs? What will happen? Will that child not be selected on the basis of ability as a child with special needs?
In repeating the Statement, the noble Baroness said:
"Our ambition is real diversity".
That is perhaps so, as long as that does not involve selecting a child on the basis of ability. Or does it? How do we take that from the Statement?
I should like the noble Baroness to clarify the financial aspect. I have asked for a breakdown of the £19 billion which was allocated to education over three years. I am finding it extremely difficult to get information from the department about that. Is that money additional to the £19 billion or is it part of it? To what extent has the £19 billion been eroded from core provision for schools into those specialist schemes? Will all the revenue costs of those measures continue to be funded beyond the planned period? Many schools across the land are receiving money from the Government for one scheme or another, but then are left to pick up the costs. Even in relation to the class-size pledge, they may have the classrooms and extra teachers this year, but there is nothing in their budget which will provide for the continuing revenue costs of refurbishing those classrooms and providing teachers and staff for the children.
The noble Baroness is, at the moment, making evaluative statements about action zones. That is another area about which I have been asking questions. But we are not receiving any information about how they are performing. I can tell the noble Baroness that in places they are so bogged down with communicating, meetings and co-ordination that the very last people to benefit from those activities are the children in the schools. This Statement is breathtaking in its arrogance and in its double standards.
Lord Tope: My Lords, in your Lordships' House, I am used to following the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I usually try to be more positive in my response. I shall do so again today. However, I share some of her concerns and I admit to a growing irritation over the past 48 hours and a growing feeling that this initiative received more and more publicity not only on the day of the announcement but even the day before the announcement. It seems to me that this Statement is now something of an afterthought rather than, as I believe it should be, the first action, followed if necessary by all the glitzy publicity.
I want to try to be positive and to give a welcome to the general thrust of the Statement. I say that for two reasons: first, because it recognises the special position of some inner city schools. It is turning towards praising and raising rather than the previous practice of naming and shaming. I certainly welcome any additional resources which may be coming to inner city schools, indeed to any schools.
Secondly, I welcome it because it recognises that gifted children also have special needs. My first question is whether the Government intend to review the provisions of the 1996 Act in that regard actually to recognise that special needs include those children with particular gifts,
996
a point which we discussed in your Lordships' House when that Bill, as it then was, was going through this House. Do the Government intend to review that?
Not all inner city schools are disadvantaged and certainly by no means all disadvantaged and/or gifted pupils are in inner city schools. While I recognise that any initiative must start somewhere, I must ask the Minister when the Government expect to be able to extend that programme to the many schools in suburban and other metropolitan areas and in particular rural areas which face very real problems similar, albeit in very different settings, to those which we are addressing today in our inner city areas.
Much of the Statement and the booklet—I have had the opportunity to glance quickly at it—have a rather familiar ring. There is extensive reference to initiatives already announced by the Government. Some have been announced by the Government several times. Indeed, I sometimes liken the Government to a cow which has seven stomachs. This Government seem to have to regurgitate each initiative at least seven times and announce it each time before it is finally digested.
Perhaps I may repeat a question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in a different way. How much of the money is being announced for the first time today and how much is money previously announced as specific initiatives or as part of the education settlement generally? To the extent that any of it relates to part of the previous education settlement, schools all over the country will have been expecting some share of that and will feel some disappointment—I put it no stronger—that even that small funding will not be coming their way. I return to my earlier question: when is this programme expected to be extended?
What will be the delivery mechanism of the funding? How will the funding reach schools, and, perhaps more importantly, the pupils at whom it is targeted? Will it be on the basis of need? Or will it be yet another bidding process which does little in recognition of need but responds much more to those who are good at putting in bids? I hope the Minister can tell us what the delivery mechanism will be and how it is to reach those for whom it is intended.
Finally, reference has been made to the 800 mentors. I believe this to be a welcome initiative, provided it is done properly and well. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us where the 800 mentors are to come from— I nearly said "800 Ministers"; God forbid!—and who they will be. What training will they receive? How will they be able to carry out their jobs? I believe that in another place the Secretary of State made reference to the fact that such mentors would also use volunteers. I believe my question is even more relevant. Who will these volunteers be? What training will they have had? What is the extent of their professionalism? What supervision and support will they receive? This is a very welcome initiative but only if done properly. If done improperly or badly, it could be disastrous.
As always with such initiatives, it begs more questions than it answers. However, I conclude by giving a general welcome at least to the recognition that gifted children also have special needs, wherever they live.
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for at least welcoming the increase in specialist schools. However, I am sorry that she was disparaging about so much of the package. It is designed to provide additional support for schools in our inner cities and to ensure that pupils in those schools are stretched and taught in such a way that all fulfil the potential of which they are capable. That includes the most able pupils and also those who are disaffected and not at present getting what they should from their experience in our secondary schools.
I emphasise that the Government's announcement today is not just about gifted and able pupils but also those at the other end of the spectrum, including those who are disruptive in our schools. We want to ensure that such pupils do not disrupt the education of others but that they are adequately taught in special units pursuing a full timetable and then brought back into the classroom as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, was a little more welcoming but somewhat unfair in suggesting that there is not very much that is new in the announcement made today. I should like to correct the noble Lord. I believe that when he has had the opportunity to read what we are setting out to do he will see that a great deal of what is contained in the document published today is, in fact, new.
I turn to the more specific questions. The noble Baroness made some scathing remarks about the intention of the Government to abandon selection in some areas but reintroduce it in others. I remind her that the Government are not reintroducing selection here but making it possible for pupils in all schools, wherever they are, to have the kind of programme that is appropriate to their needs. That will be done partly through setting but also through after-school activities, Saturday activities and ensuring that they have access to programmes provided by neighbouring specialist and beacon schools.
There is no suggestion in what has been announced today that large numbers of pupils will be "bussed". They will be able to benefit from the teachers in beacon schools visiting neighbouring schools and providing the best practice that such excellent teachers are able to provide, supporting the training of teachers in schools that have not been designated as beacon schools, and so on. Therefore, I believe that the noble Baroness is wrong to suggest that, somehow or other, as a result of focusing more on the needs of gifted pupils, we will be moving large numbers of pupils around.
The noble Baroness was very dismissive of the excellent after-school and Saturday activities already in place. These are the kind of programmes that have been paid for, quite often, by people who send their children to private schools. I cannot imagine why pupils in our state schools should not benefit from additional provision of that sort. It seems to me highly desirable to make such provision available. I think the noble Baroness was a little "over the top" in her suggestion that all pupils are so exhausted at the end of the school day that they cannot benefit by such programmes.
998
The noble Baroness asked about the funding of the initiative, as did the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Perhaps I may explain that the cost of the initiative will be about £350 million. It will be funded with approximately £150 million of new money provided for in the Budget and £200 million out of the existing settlement secured under the comprehensive spending review.
I believe that this is an enormously welcome announcement for teachers. It means that they will have access to resources they have not had in the past. The noble Baroness said that she was unable to obtain information about the breakdown of the £19 billion of additional money. Of course, the Government have not yet announced how all of that will be spent. They have not yet announced how the third year of the additional £19 billion will be spent. However, the Government have published countless documents of one kind or another concerning the first two years. I have tried to ensure that the noble Baroness is sent copies of all such documents which have been made public.
The noble Baroness also asked about education action zones. She said that no information was provided about their performance. Perhaps I may say that it is still early days. The Government are evaluating the education action zones but most were established only recently and are part of a larger programme. It is rather too soon to give any clear cut indication of how they are performing. However, anecdotal evidence indicates that they are hugely more successful than the noble Baroness suggested. I deeply regret her extremely hostile remarks about the great effort that has been put into the education action zones. I am surprised because I had thought that the noble Baroness welcomed them.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked about mentors and where they will come from. Those additional staff for inner-city schools will be recruited from a variety of different professions. Some will be additional trained teachers; some will be youth workers; and some could be from the educational welfare service. They will come from different backgrounds and will be expected to work with all children who require mentoring. That includes those who are in some difficulty in deciding to commit themselves to their work and their learning as well as those who are very able. In particular, we want to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds. We want to help able children from disadvantaged backgrounds who may need advice about access to post-school education, including university. I am glad that there was some welcome for the proposals to develop university summer schools. I regard that as a very important initiative. It will encourage young people from homes where there is no tradition of higher education to make the most of their talents and abilities.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in so far as the Statement relates to pupils in comprehensives in inner-city areas it confirms the totally disastrous nature of the decision taken by this Government to abolish the assisted places scheme, a decision taken purely on the basis of ideological bigotry? Will the Minister accept from me that the assisted places scheme, introduced in 1979 by, among others, my noble

999
friend Lady Young and myself, had the main and specific aim of providing educational opportunities for bright children living in inner-city areas, working through the old grammar schools? Sadly, the Statement shows that inner-city comprehensives, through no fault of their own, have been unable to provide such opportunities. How many children does the noble Baroness estimate have had such opportunities taken from them by the decision that this Government took? Is it not time that the Secretary of State apologised to them and their parents for the opportunities that they lost?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I am afraid I do not accept what he says. I know that the noble Lord is very attached to the scheme he introduced as Secretary of State for Education and Science some time ago. That scheme took a tiny number of bright pupils out of local state schools and put them into private schools. The scheme involved very, very small numbers. It did nothing for the 98 per cent. —or, rather, the 99 per cent. —of pupils left behind in the schools from which those pupils had been removed. This Government are determined to make it possible for all children in comprehensive schools in our inner cities to get the education they deserve. It is not a question of plucking out small numbers.
The noble Lord used the strong words "ideological bigotry" in relation to the abolition of the scheme. It may be appropriate to say that the introduction of that scheme was ideologically motivated. I would not want to accuse the noble Lord of "bigotry" because I think that such language is unnecessarily strong and even a little abusive.
This programme is about developing opportunities for children in their own neighbourhoods, in their own schools. It is about local schools being of really high quality. I am amazed that noble Lords opposite are not welcoming that.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, first, does my noble friend agree that schools in areas such as I knew in east London in the 1950s and 1960s suffered considerably because the brightest children in the neighbourhood were siphoned off to selective schools? Will this scheme help the brightest children to play a part in the leadership of their own schools while they receive additional help?
Secondly, with reference to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, does my noble friend agree that with regard to priority areas, "priority" needs to mean priority and not trying to spread the butter too widely over everything, and that schools in priority areas have needs that are different not only in scale, but in kind?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the leadership that able, committed, motivated and bright pupils can provide in a local comprehensive school. We all know from countless pieces of research the role of peer group pressure and the role that pupils who really want to get on can play in encouraging others. The ethos of a school can be changed by those young people staying in their local areas and working with their teachers to ensure that their school is a success rather than a failure.
1000
I accept what my noble friend says about the great needs of priority areas. We know that many inner-city schools have lacked the resources they need to do the excellent job they all have to do, as required by the Government. One of the really important outcomes of today's announcement is that they will have both the extra funding to help them to do that and, just as importantly, they will be linked with schools which have demonstrated by their success that they can achieve things that some other schools do not. This Statement is about trying to raise quality and standards in all our inner-city schools through such a mechanism.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister what I think are two rather practical questions. However, perhaps I may begin with a short statement about the enormity of the problem she faces. As I am sure the noble Baroness knows, there are about 160 very despised secondary modern schools left in England. They score better overall than 700 compirehensives, mostly in the inner cities—that is, better than one-quarter of our comprehensives—and in maths and science, they score better than 900 of our comprehensives—that is, better than one-third.
My first practical question is this. In view of the enormity of that failure in inner-city areas, does the Minister really think that: simply bringing in someone from another school, holding a summer school or possibly introducing a Saturday morning school will help? The noble Baroness has been in the academic world almost as long as I have, and she knows as well as I do that it is continuous good teaching from 9 a. m. until 4 p.m. that helps both those who are low achievers and those who are high achievers. Does she not agree that the Statement is merely rhetoric when faced with the reality of the figures I have quoted? That is my first question. I put it without ideology but as a former teacher.
I come to my second practical question. The noble Baroness knows, and has said, that the culture of the inner cities, particularly in families which have not received higher education, is often, sadly, against learning. Yet she believes she can persuade the children of those families, who are wholly different from those at private schools, to spend their summer holidays on university courses. I can assure the Minister that that has been tried, that some such children go, but that many do not. To expect such pupils to attend school on a Saturday morning when their friends are taking their girlfriends to the cinema is demanding a lot, even from a middle-class child. In other words, has the Minister faced the total reality of the failure of the inner-city comprehensives? I agree that that reality is terrible. I ask that because these measures will not achieve what she hopes.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has been a little over-dramatic in so roundly condemning all our inner city comprehensive schools.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I did not.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord suggested that the culture of the inner cities was very

1001
much against learning. His conclusions were pretty defeatist and rather condemnatory of many of the schools. He suggested that there is not enough good teaching in them to lead to the kind of success that the Government hope to achieve from this new programme. I entirely accept that these schools need continuous good teaching. That is central to the issue and no one can get away from it. At the same time, many other measures can be taken which may perhaps raise the spirit of the schools and help to transform the teaching, including some of the matters that I have already mentioned, but about which the noble Lord is so deeply sceptical.
As regards summer schools, reality flies in the face of what he said. The Government have set up a number of such schools. Some of them started last year for pupils to develop literacy and numeracy skills. Large numbers of pupils attended from disadvantaged families in the inner cities. The noble Lord is being grotesquely unfair to many of the parents who want their children to do well. As yet some of them may not have understood the importance of learning, but many of them have. We should give them the tools to make it possible for their own children to succeed just as well as those children who attend private schools.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, it would appear that the Statement is not universally popular in all quarters. Therefore, perhaps I may give a particular welcome to that part of it which announces the establishment of summer schools for 16 and 17 year-olds to be taught foreign languages. That follows a recommendation of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Community in which we commented on the inability of many young university students to take courses in foreign universities because they felt that they did not have the linguistic capacity to cope with them. Therefore, I welcome this step which appears to be in the right direction.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for his comment about summer schools for 16 and 17 year-olds. The ability of such students to learn or improve their foreign languages is just one example of how children from the inner cities can be helped. Many children from more privileged backgrounds are sent abroad and gain the opportunity to improve their language skills by that means. Some pupils cannot afford that. However, it is very desirable, where possible, for inner city comprehensive schools to try to arrange exchanges, but I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult. The summer schools can be an important way of supporting learning of this kind.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for fleshing out what we already know from Radio 4 and other sources. It is very unfortunate that the media will have no interest whatever in the exchanges in this Chamber and probably those in another place. Therefore, our function is not to form public opinion, but to have some effect on government, which I hope the noble Baroness will allow us to do.
Learning units for disruptive pupils are very far from being a new idea. It was in existence 10 years ago when I wrote my report on discipline in schools. It was not a
1002
new idea then. I am glad to hear that these learning units will be available to every school, but it would be helpful to know whether they will be on or off-site and whether, as I believe is essential, their prime objective will be to get children re-injected into orbit, if I may use that phrase, and back into the classroom as quickly as possible as they so quickly lose the place which they would otherwise be able to maintain.
As regards mentors, the noble Baroness touches on a subject which is close to my heart as chairman of the DIVERT Trust, which provides mentors for children in difficulty in schools. I suspect that the philosophy of the noble Baroness or of her Government is different from ours. I would like to know a good deal more. The noble Baroness has often told us that her Government are engaged in joined-up government and joined-up thinking. One thing that clearly needs to be joined up is the part of a child's life which is lived at school and the part lived outside school. The mentors are described as "learning mentors". Does that mean that they are concerned only with the academic life of the children? If so, that will greatly inhibit their work. If that is the case, will they have formal links with the mentors from the voluntary sector who are looking after the other aspects of the lives of those children?
The noble Baroness is injecting a new creature entirely into the culture of every school in question. That will have considerable effects on the social and other structures within the schools. Can she tell us where these learning mentors will fit in? We read in the main report that they are based in the schools, but will they be in the staff-room? Will they be answerable to heads of department, the deputy head or the head of the school? What status will they have not only in the eyes of other teachers but, most importantly, in the eyes of the children themselves? They will be an invaluable source of feedback on the way in which a school is working. Will that be capitalised on and will the opinions be fed to the school and the local education authority and, if so, how?
Finally, the paper which is the precursor of the Statement says that each secondary school pupil in the areas will have access to learning mentors. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could tell us how many pupils there will be and what the ratio will be as between the pupils and the 800 mentors. It is beginning to look as though the Government are providing a very small number at a cost—I am sorry to hear—of £200 million to the other schools. As I understand it, £150 million is being provided as new money. If I misunderstood the noble Baroness I am sure that she will be glad to have the opportunity to put that right. It appears that £200 million will come from the general educational programme. I am very relieved to see the noble Baroness shake her head.
As a mentor at heart I cannot refrain from welcoming this approach, provided that it is properly thought through and that it is introduced in the schools in a way that is amicable to their culture.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked quite a number of questions and I am not sure that I shall be able to do justice to all of them in the time available. I very much value the excellent work that the DIVERT Trust does in this area. I accept that the idea of

1003
providing learning support units is not a new one. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the work that he has done in the past in pressing for them. But what is new is that this Government are investing money into providing them so that they are available to pupils in all schools which need this kind of help.
Most of the provision will be on site, but not all. There may well be smaller schools where pupils in need of help will have to go to other schools. The prime objective is to get the pupils back into the classroom. That is something with which everyone in your Lordships' House will agree. When they are excluded and drop out altogether, they get into trouble with the police. They can finish up filling our gaols later on, which is something we should try to avoid at all costs.
We foresee the mentors working with the voluntary sector and supporting volunteers working in their own schools. That is a very important part of their role. We can increase the numbers involved in giving their time willingly, particularly those who have experience of disaffected young people. The noble Lord also asked to whom the learning mentors would be answerable. They will be answerable to the head teacher in the schools where they are based. I cannot give the noble Lord a precise answer as to how many pupils each learning mentor will have. I doubt whether anyone can give that answer at this stage. However, if I am wrong about that I shall write to the noble Lord.
As regards funding, the £200 million will not be taken away from other schools; it will come from the extra money that the Department for Education and Employment has secured from the Treasury. Some of it will be spent through the Standards Fund and some will come from the department's reserves.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I welcome the Statement? It is an injection of new money into inner city schools. Am I right in assuming that it is not only the bright children who are the target of the new funding, but also the average children? The proportion of young people who now go into universities has vastly increased, and that growth has surely come from the children of average ability. It is important therefore to motivate those children in the inner city areas who have been demotivated in the past.
I welcome too the fact that Leeds/Bradford is to be one of the areas to form part of the initiative. Is my noble friend aware of some of the initiatives that have already taken place in that part of the world? For instance, during literacy year volunteers were brought into schools to help with literacy and the University of Bradford held a Saturday morning class for the Asian community to try to encourage more of its members to consider entering the universities. Will the initiative build on that kind of activity in those localities?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, on the last point, I am grateful to my noble friend for referring to the kind of scheme that exists in the Leeds/Bradford area with Saturday schools for the Asian community. Those are exactly the kind of schemes on which this initiative will want to build. Indeed, we want local education authorities to work directly with such schemes.
1004
I am glad that my noble friend drew attention to the fact that the extra money for these inner city schools will help average children, too. Quite a lot of the funding will go to the provision of world-class IT centres in our inner cities. We want all of our children to be computer literate; as we move into the 21st century, it will be vital that they are able to use IT. Many jobs will require them to be proficient in that area. That is one respect in which the funding will help average children.
My noble friend suggested also that these are children we need to motivate to go on to further or higher education. That is certainly the case. Many of them will want to go on to do some kind of full-time course, not necessarily in a university, but perhaps a vocational course in a further education college.

Future Financing of the European Union: ECC Report
5.53 p.m.
Lord Grenfell Lord Grenfell rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Future Financing of the EU: who pays and how? (6th Report, HL Paper 36).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave I begin by paying some well-earned tributes. The members of Sub-Committee A, whose names are listed in Appendix 1 of the report before this House, worked very hard over the five weeks available for conducting this brief inquiry into the future financing of the European Union. I thank each and every member warmly for a report which is well focused, convincingly argued and extremely timely.
It being a short inquiry, we dispensed with the services of a specialist adviser, but were excellently assisted by our Clerk, Dr. Elizabeth Hopkins, whose insights into the subject and drafting skills contributed immeasurably to the inquiry and to the writing of our report. We are very grateful to her for that.
The committee felt that it was important that this inquiry be conducted, and the report produced and then debated in your Lordships' House, before the Berlin European Council which begins the day after tomorrow. That meant that we had to act fast and I am pleased that the Government, in their written response, told us that the report has been taken into account in formulating the UK's position for the forthcoming council.
Because of the short timeframe, we were unable to take account of developments in negotiations on the Agenda 2000 package occurring after 21 st February. But nothing which has happened, including the resignation of the Commission, renders this report obsolete. Many of the problems it discusses are those with which the new Commission, when it is put in place, not to mention current governments, will still have to grapple even if agreement on Agenda 2000 is reached in Berlin.
We had first-class witnesses in London and Brussels; their names appear in Appendix 2. We thank them for their enlightening and authoritative contributions. We are grateful also for the excellent briefing given to us

1005
by Britain's Permanent Representative in Brussels— Sir Stephen Wall—and by his embassy staff. We are equally grateful to Her Majesty's Treasury and in particular to my honourable friend the Economic Secretary for providing the Government's response to this report in the unavoidably short time between its publication and this debate. We look forward to hearing more of the Government's views on this when my noble friend the Minister replies.
I should add that the report was agreed unanimously and I congratulate my colleagues on that. But I hope that where there were differing shades of opinion, which eventually merged into a consensus, no one will hesitate to ventilate them in this debate.
Our inquiry was prompted by a Commission report published last October which took a hard look at the revenue side of the EU budget and at the impact of expenditures on member states' net contributions. The Commission's broad conclusion was that all was not well and that there would have to be changes made if the expenditure proposals put forward in Agenda 2000 in July 1997 were to be successfully implemented. At 719 billion euros over the next seven years—the equivalent of just under £500 billion—the Commission's proposals for EU expenditure are modest compared to total public sector expenditure in most member states. Nevertheless, as my honourable friend the Economic Secretary reminded us, the UK's contribution to EU expenditure this year amounts, after abatement, to 1 per cent. of our GNP or 4p on our standard rate of income tax.
That is what we pay now, and it worried our committee members from the very outset of our inquiry that the British people at large have virtually no knowledge of what they are paying and what they are paying for. Enshrined therefore in two of our opinions is a call for greater transparency in funding and even closer national scrutiny of EU spending than at present, and on a continuous basis. With that in mind, our inquiry focused on the potential sources of funding and the problem of budgetary imbalance; that is to say, the issue of inequity among member states' net contributions. I will certainly not weary your Lordships with a recital of the 24 opinions we reached; they are set down and summarised in Part 2 of the report. But let me rather draw attention to some of our more important conclusions and how we reached them.
As your Lordships will know, the 1995 "own resources" decision, described in paragraphs 26 and 27 of our report, set a ceiling of 1.27 per cent. of the EU's GNP on the amount of resources that could be raised from EU member states which, since the EU cannot borrow, also sets the ceiling on expenditures. That ceiling must be reached in steps by 1999 and remain at that level thereafter.
Though we in the committee were aware of the effects of lower growth rates now forecast for both existing members and candidate members, our report agrees with the Treasury's view that the 1.27 per cent. should be sufficient up to the end of the Agenda 2000 period, including therefore funding enlargement, as the evidence of the Economic Secretary said,
1006
"provided we get stabilisation and the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy".
But whether that ceiling will give sufficient headroom after 2006 struck us as highly uncertain, depending as it would on the future growth of an enlarged Union and the extent to which it had proved possible to reform existing spending programmes. Consequently, we did not share the Government's implied expectation that the ceiling would not have to rise after 2006. Although gross contributions to the EU budget are roughly proportional to members' GNP, some consider that under the present arrangements they are contributing too much to the EU in relation to the benefits they receive in return.
In a union of richer and poorer countries, equity would never demand equality of net contributions but there is no disputing that the present system of contributions does not produce equitable results. Germany, currently financing some 28 per cent. of the EU budget and paying a net contribution equivalent to 0.6 per cent. of its GNP, says that it will not go on paying such a disproportionate share. The Netherlands, at 0.7 per cent., is worse off and Sweden and Austria are not far behind—slightly worse off than the United Kingdom at 0.16 per cent., and lying in fifth place among the five biggest net contributors.
Paragraph 54 incorporates an analysis by Professor Iain Begg of South Bank University of the 11 remaining states, explaining why some are net contributors and others net recipients. It would be simple to conclude that some relatively prosperous states contribute fairer shares. We considered the principle of the juste retour— getting back from the EU in financial terms what one puts into it, and we agreed with Senor Colom I Naval of the European Parliament and rapporteur of its Committee on Budgets, that many benefits of membership had nothing to do with the budget.
In London, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury told us that
"membership of the European Union is immensely valuable to the United Kingdom as well as to other Member States".
Nevertheless, our report notes that however great the benefits, financing the EU on the present basis can continue only if all members are content—and they are not.
Remedies to perceived imbalances will not be found simply through changing the pattern of gross contributions. Remedies will also have to be found on the expenditure side, through changes to the amounts spent overall and/or their distribution among individual member states.
On the revenue side, we looked at the three options for change proposed in the Commission's October 1997 report—revision of the own resources system; modification of the UK's abatement; and the introduction of a generalised correction mechanism in the form of a general reassessment of contributions. One member of our sub-committee doggedly and absolutely rightly insisted throughout that there must be a simpler way of raising the required revenue from member states. With that in mind, we looked first at the four own resources—the two traditional own resources of

1007
agricultural levies and customs duties; the third resource of contributions based on VAT; and the fourth resource of contributions collected from states on the basis of their GNP.
Paragraphs 61 to 70 set out how we reached the view that the two traditional own resources and VAT-based resource, which are all declining as a proportion of revenue raised, are not only generators of bureaucracy and highly prone to fraud, but are arguably systematic sources of inequitable burdens on member states. We felt that they should be abolished, which would certainly help some large net contributors.
That left the GNP-based resource and we had much sympathy with Commissioner Erkki Liikanen's view that exclusive reliance on that resource would improve the fairness of the system as the most objective criterion for national capacity to contribute. The Economic Secretary agreed that that would bring an improvement in equity, if only small. Therefore, we considered how that equity could be improved further. We concluded that the revenue raised from each state should be based on GNP per capita rather than straight total GNP—and that gross domestic product might be a better proxy for the contributory capacity of states than GNP.
We grant that relying solely on per capita GNP or GDP-based resources is not so popular with people such as Senor Colom I Naval, who argued strongly that unless the EU obtains through taxation some real own resources that do not transit through national budgets, the financial autonomy of the EU is bound to be undermined further. The Economic Secretary told us that the Government do not see more financial autonomy for the EU as desirable. In any case it was the Treasury's hunch that there probably would not be a consensus for renegotiating the existing own resources decision. Neither did Commissioner Liikanen see the need for modification at an early stage.
The committee remains strongly convinced that renegotiation of the own resources system would be necessary in due course and that should be sooner rather than later.
That brought us to the difficult question of the UK abatement—an arrangement which has brought significant benefits to a country which is the fifth highest net contributor to the total budget but only the tenth or eleventh most prosperous state among the 15, depending on the measurement used.
The abatement is based on the decision made at the 1984 Fontainebleau Council that any member state bearing excessive budgetary costs in relation to its relative prosperity could benefit from a correction. Paragraphs 85 to 91 set out why the Government feel strongly that the abatement, currently worth £2.1 billion a year, remains fully justified on the ground of fairness under the present system of contributions to the EU budget and why the Commission thinks otherwise.
Commissioner Liikanen says that the world has changed since 1984 and Britain's abatement is not an easy case to defend. We readily accept, in Opinion 16, that without abatement the UK would remain one of the largest net contributors, but we could not ignore that whereas in 1984 the UK was the only member state
1008
making a substantial net contribution in terms of percentage of GNP—as seen in graph 3 on page 4—four states are now making larger net contributions. They are the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and Austria. In the same opinion, we agreed that some way of remedying the situation would need to be found, given that those four countries are dissatisfied—to say the least—that they are not accorded similar relief.
It became perfectly clear that if the existing rebate mechanism from which we benefit were applied to those four countries making excessive net contributions, that would—in Professor Begg's words—blow such a hole in the budget that the whole thing would collapse. Therefore, we looked for alternative remedies. A proposal by the four countries to grant budgetary corrections to all member states which qualified, but setting a threshold below which corrections could not be claimed, has support in some important quarters but is seen by the UK Government as a means of reducing the burdens of other net contributors by increasing Britain's burden and was, in the words of the Economic Secretary, grossly unjust. We agreed with her that to substitute one injustice for another will not improve matters, but a problem remains for the five net major contributors, Britain included. We felt that the rebate system, of which we are currently the sole beneficiary, may no longer be the best way of solving that particular problem.
In Opinion 18, we state our view that a realistic negotiating result for the United Kingdom would be agreement to forgo the abatement on condition that, and only when, the loss could be made up on a permanent basis through the savings of a reformed CAP and the stabilisation of expenditure overall by 2006 and, possibly, increased EU expenditure in the UK.
I stress the conditions that we set. Nothing could have been further from our minds than to recommend unconditional surrender of the abatement. That brought us naturally to the possible alternatives. We included increased expenditure in the UK tentatively because, as a net contributor, increased expenditures here, unless matched by cuts in other countries, simply add to the burden. The likely solutions lay in radical reform of the CAP, which currently accounts for 50 per cent. of the EU budget, and stabilisation of expenditures overall.
Since we closed our inquiry, negotiations on CAP reform have progressed, but there is no agreement yet at heads of state level on where to set the limit on direct payments between 2000 and 2006. The committee was in favour of the proposal to introduce co-financing by member states of agricultural spending of perhaps 25 per cent. of the total cost, provided the level of support agreed by the Council was adhered to by each member state and that savings for the EU budget would be real, not simply spent on other programmes.
While this would not have been an alternative to CAP reform, it would have reduced overall EU expenditure and, as the UK receives relatively modest amounts of CAP funds, its net contribution would have benefited somewhat from the effect of the overall savings to the budget. It is regrettable therefore that France—

1009
a substantial beneficiary of the CAP—has blocked the proposal, but I sincerely hope that we have not heard the last of it.
This brought us finally to the question of an overall stabilisation of EU expenditure by 2006 at the present level of 85 billion euro. As the Economic Secretary told us, the UK and the majority of member states regard stabilisation by 2006 as essential to provide the room to finance enlargement. But more than that, it would, in her words, be,
"the most effective way of limiting net contributions to the EU budget and thus would help other states who are large net contributors".
Our report fully agrees with this and rejects the view of the Commission that stabilisation would make reform of the CAP impossible. We agree with the Government that the circle could be squared if "degressivity"—that terrible word meaning the reduction over time of compensation to farmers—was part of the reform package. At present it is not, and one can only pray that it will be by the end of the Berlin negotiations.
The other area where spending reductions could be sought is structural operations. We agreed that there is a need to continue to provide substantial funding for the most disadvantaged regions, but we also believe that cuts in funding received by existing member states are inevitable. The important point is to ensure that those cuts are manifestly fair. As to the cohesion fund, we echoed the conclusion of an earlier Select Committee report to your Lordships that continued cohesion funding cannot long continue for those member states which have attained convergence and have entered monetary union. However, as we note in Opinion 20, it is crucial that the cohesion fund be continued in some form so that new member states may be helped along the road towards convergence.
On a personal note, I feel that the chances of an agreement at Berlin are looking a little less gloomy today than they were a week ago. The seismic events in Brussels seem to have galvanised those who will be negotiating in Berlin. It now seems likely that the British rebate will survive, but with modifications which may not be attractive to the Government. Spain may get its way over continued access to cohesion funds, but for how long? Italy may recalculate and raise its contribution to the budget after the year 2000. In other words, a deal is likely to be done at the very last minute.
However, the impression remains that what will be brokered in Berlin will be only an incomplete reform. That is better than nothing, provided it does not further delay enlargement. But it still leaves many problems to be resolved: the continuing problem of budgetary imbalances between states; the need to reform the own resources system; the need for greater transparency in funding the budget and greater accountability in spending it; eliminating the continuing shortcomings in the CAP, to mention only the most obvious; and dare I add—although our report did not go into this—a move perhaps to zero-based budgeting in the European Union? These problems will still remain after the heads of state
1010
have left Berlin. That is why I humbly suggest that the report remains highly relevant and, I hope, helpful to the continuing debate.
In our report's concluding opinion, we suggest that Europe is a concept which to most goes beyond mere deal making. In relation to the security and prosperity of Europe, the budgetary costs to each member state, although not negligible, are none the less not exorbitant, but they are not yet equitable and that, they must be. That is the essential message of our report. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Future Financing of the EU: who pays and how? [6th Report, HL Paper 36]. —(Lord Grenfell.)
6.14 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the Select Committee on their report on the future financing of the European Union. It is a fiendishly complicated subject, which the report has reduced to exemplary clarity. However, the Select Committee's hope—just reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell—that greater transparency can be achieved under the present system; that, in its own words, we should know,
"what we are paying—and what we are paying for"
strikes me as being somewhat Utopian.
I doubt whether one person in a hundred understands the fiscal operations of his own government. The idea that the accounts of the European Union might become an open book seems to me to be a pipedream. It would certainly be a nightmare to all those who live off the honey pot. The recent mass resignation of the commissioners was a very belated recognition that fraud and corruption are endemic in the way the Commission uses the funds member states place at its disposal. This is always a danger when any group of people are given control over other people's money.
In national administration we take enormous care to ensure that politicians and officials are accountable to the taxpayer. Eight hundred years of our constitutional history can be read as a struggle to achieve such accountability. The officials of the European Union to whom we entrust £8 billion a year, or 5p in the pound of our taxpayers' money, are in practice, largely unaccountable to anyone for how that money is spent.
Most of the report's conclusions and recommendations are sensible, and will not give rise to political controversy. I would like to draw attention to three. First, the committee endorses the Government's view that, by the year 2006, the Union's expenditure should be stabilized, at its present level of 85 billion euros. Contrary to the Commission's own view, it concludes that with an "own resources" ceiling of 1.27 per cent. of the Union's total GNP, this will give it an adequate margin to spend on enlargement—although not necessarily thereafter—depending on what growth assumption is used. It points out rightly that this margin would be greater if the common agricultural policy were reformed, and the cohesion and structural funds more accurately targeted.

1011
Secondly, the committee states:
"We do not see a directly collected own resource as a viable option at present, in either political or practical terms".
We agree with that. To give the European Union its own independent tax base is to cross the line between a confederation and a federation, and we are pleased that the committee resisted this step, despite, I think, some prodding from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
Thirdly, there will be a general welcome for the report's conclusion that,
"cuts in the structural funding received by existing Member States are inevitable, "
and that,
"continued cohesion funding cannot be justified for those Member States which have met the convergence criteria".
However, these conclusions, however sensible, fail to tackle the root problem of lack of accountability. In the long run we face a choice between two alternatives: eliminating the so-called "democratic deficit" at the Union level or handing back a large part of the Union budget to the member states. Since we in this party, and I believe most people in this country, do not want a federal Europe, we logically support the policy of budgetary repatriation.
The report is considerably less robust when it comes to the question of Britain's rebate, negotiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, at Fontainebleau in 1984. This rebate was made necessary by the fact that Britain's net contribution to the Community's budget—the difference between its gross contribution and its receipts—was greatly in excess of its relative prosperity.
The present financing crisis—to which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, alluded—has arisen because four other countries, Germany, Austria, Sweden, and the Netherlands, also believe they are paying too much relative to the benefits they receive, and have formally asked for rebates. Germany, in particular, has indicated "vociferously", as the report put it, that it no longer wants to be Europe's milch cow. In the words of one of the witnesses, Professor Begg, who has already been quoted, the request for a general rebate will, if granted,
"blow such a whole in the budget that the whole thing would collapse".
The general principles of the matter are reasonably clear; indeed, they are relatively uncontentious. Each member state should contribute according to ability and receive according to need—where have I heard that remark before?—so the richer states should be net contributors and the poorer ones net recipients.
However, these lofty ideals are very difficult to translate into practice for two reasons. First, it is very hard to agree a formula for contributions which is generally accepted as fair. For example, the report asks: should contributions be proportional to GNP or to GNP per capita? If one were to design a proportional tax system within a single state, the obvious measure of ability to pay would be the size of an individual's income; and, by analogy, money raised from member states should be a share of that state's national income per head. On this basis Britain's gross contribution to the budget would not be the third largest but the tenth
1012
largest. Although of course there are different ways of measuring per capita GNP, they do not affect the rankings by much, though they are at the source of the conundrum about whether Italy is more prosperous than Britain. As my noble friend Lord Boardman—I do not know whether he is here—argued in Appendix I to the report, a per capita funding formula would make rebating unnecessary. The report had a lot of sympathy with that view. Unfortunately, that is not how it is done, and nobody seems to be in favour of doing it that way.
The other problem, as the Treasury memorandum to the Committee pointed out, is that,
"there is no clear relationship between receipts and prosperity".
Net receipts do not necessarily go to the poorest. For example, France, the seventh most prosperous economy, receives exactly as much as it contributes, whereas Britain, the tenth most prosperous, is a net contributor, even with the rebate. That is because 50 per cent. of the EU's transfers go not towards helping the poor but to subsidising the wealthy—in this case France's farmers—through the operation of the CAP, from which Britain's relatively efficient farmers receive disproportionately little. In other words, the total pattern of net transfers fixed by the Union's history, the original deals by which the Union was constructed, is haphazard and irrational.
The report then argues that Britain's rebate should be traded for a reform of the CAP and other funds, which would also help the other large net contributors. The idea is that price support for Europe's farmers should be run down and their replacement subsidies should also be run down. Britain's gross contribution would then be reduced and its net contribution consequently cut. In this connection, I very much regret that the report has given currency to the horrible word "degressivity". We now have an unholy trinity of progressivity, regressivity and degressivity. My computer showed good judgement by underlining each one in red, telling me that it did not recognise any of them. What is the opposite of degressivity? "Gressivity", I suppose.
All the report was saying was that income support for farmers should be tapered off—a sound phrase expressing a sound idea—but how likely is that to happen? The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, referred to "co-financing" of farm support. The French have vetoed "co-financing" and the Commission will have no truck with tapering. It was rather bad luck that when the report was written it was not implausible to suppose that,
"the political will for CAP reform was reported to be emerging".
All one can say is that the reports of the CAP's death were premature.
The Treasury memorandum therefore argued perfectly cogently that, desirable though reform of the CAP was in the general interests of the EU consumer,
"There is no medium-term prospect either of reform leading to a dramatic reduction in CAP expenditure or of the UK's share of that expenditure increasing substantially".

1013
That being so, we should go on vetoing any reduction in our rebate unless and until we have a proposition on the table to make our net contribution equitable without the rebate. I wish the report had stated that in those terms.
Noble Lords: It does.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, not quite. The report says that we should be prepared to trade our rebate for things that are very unlikely to happen.
In its Agenda 2000, the Commission has its own proposals for what it calls "a general corrective mechanism" for dealing with the financing problem. In each of its possible correction scenarios, designed to accommodate Germany and other countries, Britain would lose between 2 billion and 3 billion euros. The Economic Secretary rightly judged that,
"such a solution would be grossly unjust".
It would be quite possible, though, to design a rational corrective mechanism. I offer one today. It would be based on the principle that the pattern of payments and spending should aim to achieve zero net budget balances for all member states, except for the structural funds. The structural funds would then be the chosen instruments for net transfers between member states. That would mean that some key members, such as France, Luxembourg, Belgium and Denmark, would have to pay a fair share for the first time. They would not like it; nor would Ireland. That is why it will not be considered.
This makes it all the more surprising that the report should apparently be willing to trade the solid ground of the abatement that we now have for what is little more than a blast of hot air. So the financing crisis will not be solved, certainly not by the time of the summit in Berlin in two days' time. The Select Committee's report has not suggested a solution but it has made an admirable contribution to the elucidation of the problem, and for that I am sure the House will want to express its appreciation and thanks.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I was honoured to be asked in December to join the committee which, at that time, was just beginning its work on this report. For me, as a new member of your Lordships' House, it has been a learning experience. I had a high regard for the work of the committees of your Lordships' House, having appeared before them as a witness on some occasions. I have also been an extensive user of the reports of your Lordships' House. It was quite pleasant and enjoyable to be a poacher turned gamekeeper in this respect. I wish to extend special thanks to the other members of the committee, in particular the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, who made me so very welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, was ill for a while during our deliberations and it is good to see him back in the House today.
1014
It is quite clear that the crisis in the Commission which burst last week will dominate the agenda of the discussions in Berlin in the next few days. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said, any deal on the budget will be an incomplete deal. But the budget issue will not go away. In the end it will have to be an integral part of what will be a new constitutional settlement. That will be a requirement if the EU is to proceed along the agenda it has set for itself.
I have become well aware in the relatively short time that I have been here that some of your Lordships would prefer not to see the EU proceed with a future agenda but rather to wither away on the vine and proceed no further. I am not one of those. I was born just before the Second World War and I am very much one of the generation which has seen the creation in Europe of what Churchill, in the aftermath of that war, called "A kind of United States of Europe". He said, "We must create a kind of United States of Europe". It is amazing that in the past 50 years we have seen the two old antagonists of Germany and France coming together under the umbrella of what we now call the European Union.
However, perhaps more important is the fact that we have also seen countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain, which were dictatorships, using the rock of the European Union to anchor their fragile democracies and build their new economies. The agenda of the European Union will provide the rock on which the newly established democracies of central and eastern Europe, for so long under the yoke of the Soviet Empire, can anchor themselves and go forward. That is the task which underlies the constitutional settlement and, for that matter, the budget settlement. That is why we are considering the budget issue today. It is an extremely important step for the European Union and one that we should not underestimate.
Some noble Lords may have heard of Amartya Sen, Master of Trinity and Nobel prize winning laureate in economics, talking the other day about his new book, Development and Freedom. I heard him on the radio and I was struck by what he was saying. He said that he had become convinced over the course of his life that, on the one hand, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience but also freedom from hunger and freedom from disease were the right aims for development—not GDP growth or GDP per capita, but freedom. But, he said—this was the most significant feature—freedom is both the end and the means by which to achieve that end. In helping the fragile new democracies of central and eastern Europe, we are both helping them to anchor representative democracy to their way of life and creating in the future new and prosperous markets for our own goods and services. However, in order to do that, we must be in a position to divert some of the resources from the present EU budget towards them. That is why there is a crisis in the budget and why we need to consider these issues.
I wish to turn now to the budget and to make two points about it. First, the European Union's annual budget is approximately 100 billion euros. That is about £70 billion. It is not an insubstantial sum but, equally, it is less than we in the UK spend annually on social

1015
security. That £70 billion is spread over some 380 million people in the 15 nations of the European Union. A disproportionate share of the budget—some £30 billion—goes on the common agricultural policy. Another 35 per cent. —£25 billion—goes on the structural funds. Those are the two main demands on the European Union's budget. The British rebate is worth 3 billion euro—£2 billion or the equivalent of 1p on income tax. However, the problem with the budget arises from the unsatisfactory and archaic way in which the funds for the budget are raised and spent.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, made clear, although there are many different sources, what is paid in is roughly, for most countries, 1 per cent. of GDP. The discrepancy arises in what different countries receive from the budget. The UK, because it does not qualify for large payments under either the common agricultural policy or the structural funds, receives very little. That is the logic for the UK budget rebate. It is the logic that underlies the settlement made in 1984 and it remains the logic for our special treatment today. However, I think that the Treasury is disingenuous in some of the arguments that it makes. We could receive much more funding under the structural funds and under the common agricultural policy if we were prepared to co-finance.
Under the common agricultural policy new initiatives are being introduced which aim to move away from paying large subsidies for vast fields of wheat towards helping the rural economy restructure itself. But those require financing side-by-side with the funds that are available from Brussels. We are not paying out to co-finance such schemes. Exactly the same point arises with the structural funds. We could receive far more from the structural funds for our areas of urban deprivation if we were prepared to put more money into our own regional budget.
The discrepancy between what we pay in and what we get out of the budget need not be as great as it is. Even so, there would be a considerable gap under the present system. As I have said, that remains the logic underlying the UK abatement. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, made clear, the problem is that the discrepancy arises in relation to other countries. Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands have made a claim for special treatment. Germany has done so also. In many senses it remains the paymaster of the Community and, with the burden of the integration of the eastern länder on its budget, is by no means as rich as once appeared to be the case. Germany has always made a special contribution towards the UK rebate and is now saying in effect that it wants to renegotiate the whole budget. Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands argue that, if the UK receives a rebate, they should have one too. But if everyone followed the same logic as the UK, the EU budget would collapse. That is the crux of the issue.
The Community is in the process of renegotiating the common agricultural policy. A good deal of movement has been made. If we are to follow the route of enlargement, it is essential that we reform the CAP, because we cannot possibly afford to have Poland within the Community if we retain the CAP as it exists today. There is movement there, whatever the noble Lord, Lord
1016
Skidelsky, says. At long last there is a wish on the part of the Germans to see some renegotiation within the CAP.
In the report we argue that there is potential for reform of the CAP and that that would not be at the cost of jeopardising the enlargement process. To my mind, enlargement is the vital next step for the Community. We must help the countries of eastern and central Europe to retain the freedom which we have so long enjoyed and which will in turn help them restructure and rebuild their economies. I commend the report to the House. I believe it is the right way forward.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on his forthright opening remarks. I readily pay tribute to the Select Committee for all its justly acclaimed work. This report, Future Financing of the EU, is well up to the outstandingly high standards that we have come to expect. It is a matter of some regret to me that I shall have to launch into some criticism of the apparently unanimous central conclusions. First, I applaud the committee for its lucidity, although it invests the EU mumbo-jumbo with undeserved coherence. Its diligence in marshalling so much complex data provides matter for half a dozen Ph. D theses.
Thus one might go deeper into the question of GDP versus GNP as measures of economic welfare on which national net contributions are supposedly based. I would argue that net national income is a better guide than gross national product, although all these measures have a degree of arbitrariness, because they are severely distorted by the rampant black markets that are caused by over-taxation throughout Europe. Another study might examine the idea of a single tax levied from Brussels rather than fiddling further with this rag-bag of so-called own resources. Yet another might look closely at the Commission's own list of eight possible candidates for still further taxes, such as an EU-wide energy tax; a communications tax; a corporate income tax; an earmarked personal income tax; a Euro-supplement to VAT, or to tobacco and alcohol duties. Finally, I should like to see an honest Ph. D assessment of the costs and benefits of this ever-encroaching Europe project.
To speak frankly as an increasingly convinced Euro-sceptic, my chief criticism of the committee is that its membership, like the witnesses, may not sufficiently reflect the fundamental balance of doubts shared by the majority of independent economists known to me. The latest scandals over EU fraud and incompetence must surely provoke doubts about the amiable indulgence with which the committee views the shambolic finances of this long-running Brussels pantomime. Buried beneath the jargon of "own resources, traditional resources, third and fourth resources", to be supplemented perhaps by a "fifth resource", lies a tangled web of levies, duties, VAT-based and GNP-based contributions. That is the debit side. On the credit side are the kick-backs received by some in the form of CAP, cohesion, structural and administrative payments.

1017
Struggling to comprehend what goes on risks stumbling into a snake pit of politicians and apparatchiks—all working the system back stage, trying to pay less and get more at the expense of everyone else. Some countries, like the UK, end up receiving less than they pay in, while others appear to run off with the swag. But allowing for bureaucracy, the fiscal freight charges in both directions, and the low priority of many of the structural spending projects, most of the 15 nations are in the position of traders buying euros at 1 euro 20 a time!
One of the committee's top Eurocrat witnesses rejected complaints by net contributors about the cost of Brussels by pointing to the non-financial benefits, such as sharing in a common market. It brought to my mind the picture of Sir Leon Brittan standing at the entrance to a shopping centre rattling a collection box for access to a competitive market. Anyway, what about the costs already imposed on consumers by farm subsidies and business compliance with thousands of directives and regulations?
The same lofty complacency was displayed by another former top member of the Brussels nomenclatura on BBC radio's "Any Questions?" last week. Out of delicacy I shall not mention his name. He excused the latest financial irregularities as only what might be expected from any large organisation. He went on to say how modest were the EU budget and staff, considering—wait for it—that they "look after the affairs of 350 million people". But not perhaps quite as well as they look after their own affairs.
Unfortunately, the economic witness to the committee seemed to share similar Euro-phoric delusions, without a redeeming glimmer of healthy scepticism. Thankfully, the British Treasury witness repeatedly provides a welcome douche of correction. For example, against the trivial claim that trade with the EU is a benefit worth paying through the nose for in taxation, the Economic Secretary calmly points out that this:
"takes no account of increases in exports which might have happened independently of EU membership, nor of the corresponding increase in imports".
The truth—which incidentally punctures the weary CBI case for signing up to the euro—is that our trade (visible and invisible) with America and the rest of the world now exceeds that with the EU and is growing far more rapidly.
Returning to the central issue of the budget, paragraph 15 of Part 2 of the report sets the stage with an astounding admission:
"We are already being taxed to finance EU expenditure, yet we have virtually no knowledge of what we are paying—or what we are paying for".
Alas, the committee does not enlighten us on the second half of that unequal equation.
The committee's economic witness seeks to minimise the burden by expressing it as the average cost spread over the entire EU population, which he says is a mere one-sixth of what we spend on the NHS. Along comes the Treasury with a more meaningful assessment; namely, that the cost to the UK after the abatement is
1018
£8, 000 million, which is 1 per cent. of GNP and equivalent to 4p on the standard rate of tax. Surely that makes it all the more surprising that the committee should be ready to offer up the UK abatement in negotiation on the future EU budget. Of course the committee wants something back in exchange, but it stops well short of my price, which would be the repatriation of the CAP under World Trade Organisation rules and the phasing out of arbitrary and distortionary cohesion and structural subsidies. That would be a bargain worth striving for. Not only would our abatement become unnecessary, but the so-called "own resource ceiling" could drop well below 1.27 per cent., perhaps closer to 0.27 per cent., and our net contribution would drop towards zero along with everyone else's.
Such a clean, principled renegotiation would have many advantages. Not least, it would finally purify this sordid and sullied project. It would sweep the Augean lobbies clean of corrupting backstage deals, often amounting to little more than Commission payments for support by such perpetual beggars as Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain. Above all—and this is my earnest and consistent message—such a fundamental review would redirect attention to the historic engine of economic progress, which is the mutual enrichment of unhindered free trade in an expanding global market.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, knows very well that my fondness for him is matched by the extent to which I disagree with almost everything he says on European Union matters. With him, it is not simply an emotional spasm; intellectually, I know where he stands. I understand his point of view, and disagree with it totally. In or out of the European Union, there is need for a sensible budget. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, says that if we stick to the present system the budget will collapse. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, will not mind my saying this; indeed, I am sure he will be delighted. I note that he nodded in total agreement, as he wants to see it collapse.
I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Grenfell and the committee. They have done your Lordships' House a great service in dealing with this difficult problem. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made a good point. He said he doubted whether many people understand the UK budget, let alone the European Union budget. He could have gone further and expressed doubt about whether many people understand their own family budget. From my own old days I found that that often applied to clients, their businesses and their families.
I wish to stick to the one point the committee made in relation to the rebate and the general financing of the European Union budget. Under the present system, the committee makes the fair point that equity never demands equality of net contributions. I see that the Government agree with that, and so do I. However, where I strongly disagree with the Government's response, as Ministers may not be too surprised to learn, is in its rigid and inflexible position on the rebate. I strongly agree with the committee and might have

1019
been tempted to go further than saying that rebates may no longer be the best way of solving the problem. The committee is absolutely right.
It may be a surprise to the Government that I agree with them occasionally, but I do agree with them that nothing in Agenda 2000 would compensate the United Kingdom for giving up the rebate. On that the committee is right. But that is now. It is not necessarily what will happen or what we should seek to change. The committee puts forward a number of sensible proposals for changing the whole budget scenario. It even goes so far as to question GDP and GNP. Everyone who understands their own budget understands that there is a difference between GDP and GNP. But the committee puts forward the question of whether member states should pay as a proportion of their per capita income. That is at least worth consideration in any renegotiation.
The urgency is spelt out by the question of enlargement which has all too often been shirked. Everyone supports enlargement, at least nominally, including the Eurosceptics. They think it an easy way of dealing with the problem. We have such a large Community; we do not need to worry any more about financing or anything else. There is no chance whatever, it seems to me, of achieving enlargement without major reform of the finances of the European Union. I am not at all sure that we will get it even then. There are member states of the European Union, including major ones, who would not be in favour of enlargement. Although nominally they say they are, in practice they do not like it. I am getting worried. I see my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington nodding in agreement. I have never experienced that previously on European Union matters. I take it that he agrees with me.
Stabilisation will produce only modest gains for the United Kingdom. I refer to the present proposal on stabilisation with which the Government agree. But stabilisation surely cannot be the end of the matter. Negotiations will need to go on. That is only the start, not the end.
I return to my main point about rebates. It seems to me that reform will never be possible if the UK or any other government stick rigidly to not being willing to give up a penny of a £2 billion rebate. If that is the approach and that of other member states, then we can forget about any possibility of reform. Is it not as foolish to say "never" on the rebate as it is effectively to say "never" on joining a single currency? That seems to me just as stupid.
The report makes clear that there is an obvious, simple case, in a complex system, for major reform and an early renegotiation. Of course, it is foolish not to recognise that it would be extremely difficult to get the kind of successful renegotiation most of us want to see. But we must try. In the UK case, to put it into perspective, if we gave up £1 billion of our £2 billion rebate, we should recognise this in the perspective of a money GDP next year of £925 billion. So let us get into perspective what we are talking about. We are talking about petty cash. Here is our Government sticking rigidly to a principle. That would be a crazy situation.
1020
If we gave up £1 billion of our rebate, in return perhaps we could obtain £2 billion by changes in the budget. So why start from that crazy situation? It seems sheer lunacy to do so if, for rather silly political reasons, there is a fear of being accused of giving up the so-called Thatcher victory. I say sheer lunacy because, with such vital net gains, to stick rigidly to not being willing to give up a penny of a rebate is a crazy way to start a serious negotiation.
I hope that the Government will reconsider what they have said—what the Minister said to the committee and what has been said since. Of course, one does not start by giving up a rebate. But if we are to seek early renegotiation of the whole financing of the European Union, it is vital. If we need those major changes—and I agree with the committee that we do—simply saying no again and again is not a sensible way of seeking to solve the European Union's major financial problem. I therefore agree with the committee and my successor, my noble friend Lord Grenfell, in all that is said in the report.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I gladly continue with the theme of fondness and disagreement with which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, began his speech. Unlimited as my admiration is for the noble Lord, I shall not be able to agree with everything we have heard in the last nine minutes. I must also make a brief apology. As the debate is running late, it is possible that I may have to miss part of the wind-up speeches. I apologise for that, particularly after the lesson we had this afternoon in courtesies. However, we are running late and I must speak elsewhere later.
I confess that I find the report extremely disturbing. In a way that is a compliment. It is meant to be a direct compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. He is my noble friend, as a matter of fact, and he is the chairman of the committee. A committee report should be disturbing. A report on this sensitive issue that came out saying, "Everything's fine and it's all going to work out well in Berlin" and so on would be no good to your Lordships' House. To have from such a distinguished and experienced chairman and committee of your Lordships' House the phrase in heavy black type mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that we have virtually no knowledge of what we are paying, or what we are paying for, needs to send the message that there is something profoundly and fundamentally wrong with the system we are examining. Vast and radical changes will be needed to get round it.
What is the root of the problem? The report describes it accurately. There is inadequate, vague, indeed almost untraceable, accountability. I wish to concentrate on that. We are looking at future financing. But financing is driven by expenditures. That is what it is for. And the expenditures are driven by decisions. The reality is that those decisions come pouring out and unless checked—as would apply to national governmental decisions leading to expenditure and therefore the need for new financing—they will grow. Unless those who make the decisions, with the consequent expenditures and

1021
generating the consequent financing need, are held to account vigorously and continuously, the whole machinery will expand.
The report talks about achieving stabilisation by 2006. That is a very poor target. I do not believe for a moment that it will be achieved. But even that target would leave the situation that the sub-committee has confronted so perceptively in a very unsatisfactory state. In addition to the very detailed and brilliant questions posed by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, the question perhaps for the less expert is: who will check all of this? From where will the checks on accountability come? Before we begin to look at new ideas for the financing of this, that and the other by way of new taxes, how is the matter to be held to account? How can we control the driving mechanism for the expansion of expenditure that has been working so vigorously? One answer appearing in the media and current on many people's lips is that it is a task for the European Parliament because it has shown that it has teeth and that it can do it. However, while the European Parliament has performed a signal service with its latest investigation it has not had a reputation for curbing expenditure. On the contrary, it has been a powerful force for increased expenditure. All of its arguments with the Commission each year have been about why more has not been spent on this or that programme. With its co-decision procedures it has now become not only a calling-to-account watchdog and a legislature of the kind that we know in this country but part of the government and executive of Europe. It involves itself in legislative programmes that lead to more and more expenditure. There will be many more programmes like the famous Leonardo programme about which we have heard so much. That is a classic example of unaccountable and unnecessary expenditure.
Before we answer any of the questions on the budget rebate, stabilisation, own resources expansion or, heaven preserve us, the imposition centrally of new taxes directly on the citizens of Europe we must recognise what my noble friend Lord Skidelsky rightly said; namely, that there are two fundamental approaches and we are rapidly coming to the Y-fork in the road. I do not know whether that Y-fork will be recognised at Berlin with all the talk of fresh approaches. I rather doubt it. The Y-fork is the choice between moving towards a centralist or a constitutional European Union. I am aware that "centralist" is perhaps a loaded word. I do not intend to be too critical but that is where we are going now.
We hear suggestions that more power should be given to the parliament and that obviously the Commission should have more expenditure programmes and the power to tax. This is the classic centralist pattern. One has great organisations, perhaps in conflict with each other, trying to hold each other to account. Great organisations, perhaps of a pan-continental size, joust with each other for the government of Europe. I suppose that that was the pattern adopted towards the end of the Roman Empire when the Senate took more power as it ceased to hold the imperial authority to account; it just
1022
became a very powerful second kind of government. That is the centralist pattern and the path that we have followed.
That is to be contrasted with the constitutional pattern where we now seek to circumscribe much more effectively than in the past the powers and role of the Commission. We question whether it should have the initiative to legislate and propose, as it has in the past. We seek to impose accountability, not by giving more central power to pan-European institutions but by building up the abilities and initiatives of national parliaments. That is the constitutional route, and it is one I prefer. It is not the path we are now following but that may change. We are at the beginning of the talks on co-financing and we worry about the total inadequacy of the past pattern of accountability. That has grown up thanks to weaknesses in both the Commission and the parliament. It may be that when the Prime Minister talks about a fresh start in Europe he is thinking of going that way. It would be wonderful if that were so.
The constitutional role does not rule out the European Parliament which I believe does extremely good work as a watchdog. Obviously, it can play an increasingly effective role in scrutinising and doing the kinds of things it has been doing in the past few weeks. But the constitutional role insists that power should be remitted to the national parliaments. We in the national parliaments should gear up our methods of calling to account to a far higher level than we have so far, excellent though our work is. I am not averse to the possibility of some Members of the European Parliament participating in a reformed House of Lords. They are extremely well informed and see things that are about to happen way up the legislative stream before we are suddenly confronted with an instrument of expenditure.
Our system here is excellent. We have excellent committees and this evening we are discussing the report of one of them. But the system tends to be document-based scrutiny. We have to shift the whole system in the other place and in your Lordships' House into much higher gear and seek to involve ourselves in calling to account initial ideas and procedures that lead to endless growth of expenditure combined alas, as we have seen in recent weeks, with a considerable diversion of expenditure into improper channels.
The choice is between the centralist and constitutional approach. I should like to think that true constitutionalists will now make that choice and that at Berlin a major step will be taken towards circumscribing the Commission, clarifying its role beyond the endless grey area that leads to constant growth, redefining the role of the European Parliament as an efficient watchdog but calling the work of the Commission and the activities of the European Union to account through national parliaments five times more vigorously than we have so far.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I regret that due to the lateness of the start of this debate I may have to leave before the end. I have an Inter-Parliamentary Union

1023
delegation to receive and it is my parliamentary duty to attend. That is not a private duty. I shall try to stay for as long as I can.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that the system of budgeting was haphazard and irrational. I entirely agree. What we have tried to do is to put it on a moderately rational basis. My argument is that our obsession with the rebate prevents us from doing anything rational about the budget. I go as far as to argue that when the UK won its rebate it was so satisfied with that great national triumph that it took its eyes off the ball and did not play a full part in the subsequent momentous events that took place within the European Community. Now many of the people who were then in power regret that they were so happy with the rebate that they forgot to look out for the single market. That is the only controversial comment that I shall make.
There is an anomaly about the budget. Spending per capita throughout the EU population is £155. That is not a large sum of money. The UK contribution, give or take the odd penny, is £155. At present, with the rebate, we contribute as much to revenue as per capita spending. If we lost the rebate we would spend about £14 more per capita: £170. That is not a gigantic sum. However, a large number of people feel strongly about it and so we should look at it rather carefully. Not only does the method by which the EU budget is financed have no reason or structure to it, but the way in which the whole question is always settled five minutes before midnight by a tired group of 15 heads of state or chief executives is no way to run a whelk stall.
There is nothing to urge the European Parliament or governments to think, "Hang on, there are other confederations and federations around the world. How do they do it?" There is much economic literature on burden sharing. Do we apply those principles? I asked the question of a witness. No one has thought about it. No one wants to start from first principles. People are in entrenched positions which they will not give up, but if they do not give them up we shall be in this mess for a long time.
I have been no friend of enlargement. I have said in your Lordships' House that I wish enlargement would never take place; and if it does, it will be a budgetary disaster. I have also always said that the European Union has not thought seriously about enlargement because it has not tackled its budget seriously. Unless it settles its budgetary problems, enlargement will not occur. Alternatively, it will take place but in such a horrendously messy fashion that we shall continue to have debates like this and there will be much dissatisfaction for a long time to come.
Many people like enlargement because it weakens the centralist tendencies in the EU. I was amused when the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said that there were two approaches: the centralist approach and the constitutionalist approach. The United Kingdom has always taken the centralist approach and it has done us no harm whatsoever. We do not want the European Union to take a centralist path, but there is nothing bad about centralism. We have benefited enormously from centralism. We are one of the most centralised states in
1024
the world. We would not have considered the welfare state without centralism. A decentralised United Kingdom would not have the same prosperity.
However, I digress. I refer noble Lords to the last page of the report. It has two tables by the European Court of Auditors. They demonstrate that, depending on how one calculates contributions in respect of agricultural levies, sugar and isoglucose levies and customs duties, we are either a net contributor or a net recipient. The difference is £3.5 billion. The figure fluctuates from minus £2 billion to plus £1.5 billion. They are smokescreen mirrors because no one has established correct principles.
In response to the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, addressed the issue, I ask: how should we approach it? I believe that the issue does not relate purely to per capita income. Per capita income is one dimension. Given the tremendous differences in the population of the European Union, we should consider per capita income and total GDP. A weighted average—it might be half and half—to decide contributions would, I believe, arrive at a reasonable judgment. I made some calculations, almost on the back of an envelope. The gross contribution of the UK would be reduced, but it would make the position more equitable.
The UK insists on sticking to the principle of per capita income. I feel shocked that our Ministers proudly insist that we are tenth or eleventh in the league and proudly display our poverty. We are a member of the G7. We are a permanent Security Council power. How can we be eleventh in the per capita income league? Why do we not say proudly that we are number three in the European Union as regards total GDP? Why do we always insist on our shortcomings? I have asked our Ministers whether it was Her Majesty's Government's policy always to stick to the eleventh position, perhaps even going down to 12th or 13th, so that they could have a greater rebate. I was given an evasive answer.
I have never liked league tables. They are somewhat fraudulent. I draw your Lordships' attention to the very useful Table 3 in the report. If one adds up the UK's rank on total GDP and per capita GDP, and compares the contributions of different countries by their rank—it takes some calculation but perhaps noble Lords will take my word for it—high ranking countries are the net contributors, including the United Kingdom. There is one anomaly: the difference between the German contribution of 11 billion euros and the next largest contribution, that of the United Kingdom, at 2 billion euros. The difference is far too large. The anomaly has developed and some way will have to be found to correct it. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. said that everything else should be balanced out and only structural funds should be left as an instrument of mechanism. It is an interesting suggestion which we should perhaps follow up.
I also believe that we should devise a system of contributions that is not based on mechanisms which are subject to fraud. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, suggested a single identifiable contribution—I would prefer it to be based on total and per capita GDP—that was not accompanied by stories of fraud, or debates on

1025
the income of Italy, and so on. In any such confederation there should be "progressivity" (if I may use such a horrible word) in contributions. The richer countries should contribute more; otherwise we cannot sustain any kind of Community.
I do not believe in a juste retour. If we based a national policy on juste retour the state would be bankrupt. I do not want as much back from the state as I put in because I am relatively better off. I can put in more than I take because that is the only sensible way to finance the state. If we all received as much back as we put in how would we build roads, and so on?
To conclude, we need a serious, rational, calm consideration of the principles of European Union budgeting, leaving aside the rebate for the time being. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said. Until we do so, this mess will continue. The position will not get better but worse. The report points out that there are ways out of the mess. We may not have suggested explicit solutions, but we have suggested that the present system is not the way to go forward.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, first, I welcome the report of the Select Committee on the European Communities on the financing of the European Union. I have read its reports regularly and I believe that this report is a valuable contribution to improving the United Kingdom's position within the Union. However, I intervene principally on one point: the United Kingdom rebate. I do so because it is an important point; and because I was a member of the team which, under the command—I think that the word is accurate—of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, negotiated this rebate. I was present when the noble Baroness rejected in a convincing manner some offers on the rebate. I was also present when she accepted the rebate. So for my part, that rebate is like a baby son to me.
But I have noted of course, as have many noble Lords here, the Select Committee's views which have been quoted; namely, that the rebate "should be negotiable" as part of an overall settlement delivering the results of fairer net contributions and:
"It seems to us that a realistic negotiating result for the United Kingdom would be agreement to forgo the abatement on condition that—and only when—the loss can be made up on a permanent basis through the savings of a reformed CAP and stabilisation of expenditure overall by 2006, and possibly through increased EU expenditure in the United Kingdom".
I recognise that that opinion is conditional and presented very carefully. Nevertheless, we must be careful that we do not find ourselves on a slippery slope. I do not consider that at this time the conditions will be met and accordingly, I side with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury when she informed the committee that:
"The Government is determined to maintain the rebate".
I believe that there are good arguments for such an approach which I should like to draw to the attention of the House. First, the UK abatement which was negotiated at Fontainebleau is an intrinsic part of the
1026
current own resources decision. That decision was adopted by unanimity and can be changed only by unanimity. When that was first negotiated, it was an essential point for the United Kingdom.
Secondly, although the Select Committee points out rightly that the sums involved in the European Union budget are relatively small as against total public expenditure in most member states, they are by no means negligible and the present abatement system gives an assurance to the United Kingdom or, more accurately, gives back, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, would have said, resources which can be used directly to train more doctors, to educate more people and to use for whatever purpose the Government think fit.
Thirdly—and this is a point which I genuinely believe to be very important in the negotiations and which has not been raised generally—the system which we have in place at present ensures that if the UK were to gain more from changes in financing, for which there may be good reasons, the abatement would automatically be less. The reason for that is that subject to certain rules on calculation, the abatement is broadly equal to 66 per cent. of the UK's unabated contribution to the Community budget, less its receipts. Clearly if our unabated contribution and/or our receipts were to change, we could receive 66 per cent. of a smaller figure. It is thus a method of correcting unfairness in the budget but it is also a self-correcting mechanism.
Those three arguments are strong for the retention of the rebate in its present form at this time. Agenda 2000, which is referred to quite often, is a comprehensive package which deals with negotiations with the applicant countries, agricultural reform, structural funds and the budget up to 2006. In that basic substantial document, there is no proposal to change the UK abatement at this time. Rather to the contrary, the European Commission document, the main basic document for the negotiations, states that over the period to 2006,
"the maintenance of the current financing arrangements and the effects of the reform of the main Community policies are not expected to lead to major changes in the budgetary positions of the Member States".
Consequently, the uncertainty surrounding the relative prosperity of the UK led the Commission to propose postponing a re-examination of the rebate mechanism until after the first enlargement.
That is contained in the basic document which is being discussed in Berlin and elsewhere. On that basis, the UK can rightly argue that the current package of agricultural reforms, structural policies and progress towards enlargement of the Union does not need to include any reconsideration of the UK abatement.
It is correct—and the Select Committee examines this in its report—that in a later document the Commission has suggested three possible courses of action, including a reduction or phasing-out of the abatement which could address the imbalance,
"if there were a political consensus".
But second thoughts are not always best and I do not form part of a political consensus on that point. It is a perfectly defensible negotiating approach to base

1027
oneself on the elements of Agenda 2000 and not to disturb the balance of that document by introducing the question of the UK abatement which was excluded from Agenda 2000.
Finally, the Select Committee deals extensively—and a number of noble Lords have commented on it—with the question of a broader reform of financing. That is a different and wider point. It is extremely important. But I share the view of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury that it is not for the immediate future because it is not going to be negotiable in the immediate future. However, I believe that the Select Committee is right to concentrate on a GNP per capita approach in the medium term and, as we already have a GNP-based part of the resource system, that would make it easier to negotiate.
The defence of some other current elements of the financing, such as agricultural levies and customs duties, on the grounds that they are the Community's own resources seem to be now to be largely theoretical.
I conclude that this is not the time to abandon my baby, the UK rebate, on the steps of the Berlaymont or on the steps of the Breydel buildings in Brussels as the conditions suggested by the committee are not likely to be met. However, for the longer term, the committee's views on a medium-term objective of moving to a GNP per head basis for financing certainly deserves most serious consideration.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, perhaps I may say how pleased I am to be a member of Sub-Committee A and how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Grenfell for his support, advice and guidance during the work of that committee. I apologise for the fact that illness precluded me from playing a full part in the work of that committee. However, because I was not able to participate in its deliberations I can perhaps be more objective about them.
Much of the Select Committee's report is clear and relatively non-controversial. The statement that spending should be stabilised at current prices—about £85 billion—is not only clear but is almost universally accepted. That must be done not only by strict adherence to budget discipline but by a number of other endeavours into which the report does not have an opportunity to go fully.
It is quite clear, for example, that in future, the European Commission must follow the advice given so clearly by Commissioner Liikanen to follow policies of critical mass, policies where there is clear added value in undertaking projects at the European level. That really does mean that if we are to follow the policies of critical mass, there must be equal rigour in weeding out the policies which are no longer appropriate to be undertaken at European level.
Towards the end of his speech my noble friend Lord Grenfell referred to the use of zero-based budgeting. That could be a major contribution both to the process of budgetary discipline and, through that process, to the
1028
stabilisation of the budget. We must make sure that some recurrent programmes rejustify their utility in terms of European added value.
At present, in a number of relatively small programmes, we see some sort of European game of snakes and ladders but on a board which still has all the ladders there but without too many of the snakes. That creates some inequity as we go forth with new programmes without having the resource necessary to fulfil them.
However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in the same way as I would to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, were he in his place, that it is unfair just to castigate the Commission. The Commission merely puts forward the proposals. The policies are agreed by the Council of Ministers either by themselves or jointly with the European Parliament. To that extent, the Council of Ministers must accept its responsibility for demanding of the Commission the execution of policies without necessarily having the resources to go with them. Therefore, the budgetary discipline aspect is extremely important.
The report also commends greater scrutiny of EU spending and states that such scrutiny should be rigorous. Of course, one of the ways in which that could be improved is by the Council of Ministers accepting its responsibilities. Year by year, it gives a recommendation to the European Parliament on whether we should discharge the European Commission for its handling of the spending of the previous year. I have to tell noble Lords that the Council of Ministers has never called into doubt the question of granting the Commission discharge. I pay particular tribute to Mrs Liddell when Economic Secretary to the Treasury, for being the first Minister during a British presidency, or during any presidency, not only to force a political discussion on discharge in the Council of Ministers but also to come to the Parliament's budgetary control committee and to the plenary session of the European Parliament to spell out the shortcomings.
Ministers must accept their responsibilities in the process of control rather than merely looking to an alibi post factum. Therefore, things need to be done in relation to the scrutinising of European expenditure beyond just the rhetoric of blaming somebody else. For example, for far too long there has been a cosy conspiracy between the European Parliament, of which I happen still to be a member, and the Council of Ministers. It has been called "The gentlemen's agreement". I believe that transparency in the budget would be assisted no end by abolishing the pretence that the two institutions are composed entirely of gentlemen. That is "gender wrong" in the first place and factually wrong in the second place. The European Union would be greatly enhanced by each institution accepting a responsibility fully to scrutinise each other's undertakings.
I turn to the question which has obviously been of greatest concern, that of own resources. The committee—I believe quite rightly—did not support, on either political or practical grounds, a directly collected own resource. I welcome that as an important part of its

1029
recommendations. However, it very much criticised the traditional own resources system. Such a system is one which is of decreasing economic significance. It is the most fraud-prone part of the European budget and, were it to be abolished, would bring the greatest benefit to the three countries which are the largest net contributors to it.
The benefit to Germany would be 3.8 billion euros; to the United Kingdom 3.4 billion euros, and to the Netherlands 1.9 billion euros. That spending would have to be made up elsewhere, but it would be made up on a far more equitable basis of contribution were it related either to the current fourth resource or to some new GDP per capita resource than to the present system. It is extremely important, in terms of the fight against fraud; and in terms of transparency and budgetary equity, that the Select Committee has commended this attack on the traditional own resource.
This brings me to the heart of the report; that is, the whole question of the inequity of contributions and the EU budgetary revenue. It is perhaps to be regretted that it has almost become an argument as to whether the wording of this is right or wrong when it strikes me that almost everybody who has spoken has said the same thing. They are not arguing that the British rebate should be given up. The argument of the committee is very clear in saying that, instead of merely arguing about that, if the European Union—of which 14 member states are attacking the abatement mechanism—concentrated on following the policies that mitigate the necessity for such an abatement mechanism, the argument becomes unnecessary.
The report seems to me to be quite clear. It recognises that the own resources decision is, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, a decision of treaty status requiring unanimity to change it. It recognises that the own resources decision encapsulates this Fontainebleau mechanism. However, any attempt to change the own resources decision cannot, in any circumstances, be imposed upon the United Kingdom. That is not a matter for argument or debate but merely a statement of fact.
We need to see this abatement mechanism, currently worth over £2 billion, coming into an equation, following member states of other European Union countries taking the necessary steps. Those steps contain some terrible words. They contain the Commission proposal for agricultural reform plus the so-called degressivity in direct payments to farmers. They include stabilisation in real terms of the agricultural budget between now and 2006; non-discrimination against large farmers, particularly British and German farmers with more efficient farming systems, and co-financing of agriculture, not as an act of reform in itself but as an aid to correcting budgetary imbalances after reform has taken place.
However, the report speaks not only of the agricultural sector. The report of the Select Committee clearly recognises the need for cohesion fund reform. Countries which have received major financial aid from the cohesion fund, particularly Spain, Portugal and Ireland, which have met the qualification, the convergent standards, for economic and monetary
1030
union, are, in my opinion, no longer automatically entitled to receive cohesion fund money. That is part of the process of reform for living within the 1.27 per cent. ceiling.
If we follow that agenda, I believe that we would have an agenda fully compatible with the Select Committee report. It would produce sufficient levels of budgetary reform and budgetary equity such that it would largely mitigate the need for an abatement mechanism, especially if reforms were to lead us to a budget financed on a different mechanism, such as that suggested by the Select Committee of per capita GDP-based contributions.
On the basis of the comprehensive nature of the report, I am certainly envious of those who are able to take part in the deliberations. I express my regret at not having been able to do so. However, I say to my noble friend Lord Grenfell that, had I been there, I would have been proud to be associated with the report of the Select Committee which is not only a great aid to this House, but of substantial assistance to the Government in the negotiations they have to undertake.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I, too, applaud the committee and its chairman for an excellent report. I also welcome the timeliness of this debate, not only because of the cathartic events of last week but also because of the imminence of the Berlin Summit.
I shall make my remarks more on the politics of the question than the technicalities, but I am comforted by the fact that others, including noble Lords on my own Benches, are expert on the detail. Indeed, few know more on these matters than the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson.
As I took the milk from my fridge this morning, I noticed a pack of bacon. The label stated, "Cooks and tastes like bacon used to". "What a comment", I thought, on 40 years of the CAP that we need to go forward to the past to try to put right the failings of intensive food production distorted by the wrong kind of European subsidies.
On the same theme, I watched a delightful television programme last night about a Devon farm where birds, wildlife and wild flowers flourished due to traditional farming practices, unchanged for 40 years. However, the land surrounding that farm was a desert of ripped-up hedgerows, of fields ploughed to the edges, eradicating habitats for mice and voles, and sterilised by pesticides and herbicides so that insects and birds could not survive.
Coming back from my rural idyll to politics, the fact is that European taxpayers—and certainly British taxpayers—are starting to rebel at paying what used to be three-quarters—now, thankfully, down to half—of the EU budget on farm payments which have helped to destroy our rural environment.
I suggest that we need to start from the big picture. I very much agree with my noble friend Lady Sharp that we need to look at the huge gains in peace, security and solidarity in Europe since 1957, but our goal now is to meet the further challenges to security, trade and

1031
globalisation, and to make the EU fit for enlargement both financially and politically, and thus able to call on the support of its citizens.
I suggest that we need to do three things. First, we need to decide strategically what functions the European Union should have and what the EU budget should fund. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, in talking about added value. Secondly, we need to decide how to get value for money. Thirdly—I put this last sequentially only because it flows from the previous two—we need to decide the best and the fairest way to pay.
We cannot really make lasting progress on the issue of EU spending until we settle what it is that we really want the European Union to do. The committee rightly stressed that it is crucial for our citizens to know what their stake in European policies and operations really is, via increased transparency about what we are paying and why. I and my party would go further and say that the time is ripe, even overdue, to write a constitution for Europe to define—and perhaps even in some cases to limit or, in the case of a common foreign and security policy to boost—the powers of the Union, and to define the powers of the national and regional tiers and the rights of citizens to show who is accountable to whom.
The European Union is seeking to decide the budget and the reform of the CAP and the structural funds without looking simultaneously at the necessary constitutional settlement and fundamental institutional reform that should accompany it. The two should at least be twin-track in order to make the European Union and the prospects for enlargement politically as well as financially stable.
We have rather treated our citizens with disdain, failing to justify or to explain the priority areas where EU action is justified. Going back to my bacon and to the farm, we have never had, nor did we ever explicitly seek, the citizens' agreement to pay for food mountains, destruction of wildlife, food from animals fed hormones and antibiotics, and large sums being paid to rich farmers while small and hill farmers go bankrupt. We certainly must not extend that system to the accession countries of eastern and central Europe.
However, we might well get the support of our citizens to an environmental clean-up in the new member states and to pay for the maintenance of the EU's rural environment via a system of direct payments, which meet economic, social and environmental goals benefiting the whole Community.
In the search for ways to placate public opinion about the EU budget, we have in my opinion taken a wrong turning. New little initiatives and pots of gold have been invented on a rather ad hoc basis to give the illusion of a "people's" Europe. That diverted attention from the true priorities of a citizens' Europe; for instance, eliminating the injury and insult of £750 million a year on subsidies for growing tobacco. The injury is that EU citizens are paying for damage to health, which they then pay to put right, but the insult is that the tobacco, being of low quality and unusable in the EU, is dumped on the third world.
1032
One of the frustrating aspects of the current trade disputes with the United States is that, although many of us feel that the US is being high-handed on bananas, GM foods, and hormones in beef and milk, the atmosphere has been poisoned over the past decades by resentment over the export subsidies to dump foods on world markets.
Also on the issue of political creditability, perhaps I may draw attention to an issue of significance to London with regard to the reform of the structural funds. I tried—misguidedly and rather ineptly, for which I apologise—to raise this matter on what I later realised was a Welsh Question and the House was understandably cross with me. The calculation on GNP per capita made inner London come out as the richest region in the EU. That is because the whole: economic activity of the City of London is attributed to the residents of inner London boroughs, many of whom are the poorest in our land. That means that the £1 million bonus of a City trader living in Surrey becomes the notional income of a resident of a tower block in Islington, Hackney or Tower Hamlets. That does nothing to increase the political credibility, transparency or citizen acceptability of EU budget calculations, at least in London.
I turn now to value for money and follow what the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said. I believe that on the very day last week when the Commission resigned, the Council gave discharge to the Commission for its stewardship of the 1997 budget, without any question or hesitation. So, while the European Parliament was exercising some clout over its insistence on a clean-up, the Council—including the British Government, I presume—preferred to look the other way. That rather gives the lie to the spin-doctored line of recent days about our Government's consistency and conviction on these matters.
That is why some of us are not convinced by the protestations about how good management requires the Commission to report more to the Council. It has cared only intermittently about value for money. The previous Conservative Government refused to accept majority voting for anti-fraud measures and insisted on the appointment of a weak Commission president instead of a strong one. The present Government have come only belatedly to the cause, with their political allies in the Socialist Group widely reported to have done No. 10's bidding in blocking censure of the Commission until last week.
Apparently—this is regrettable—the majority of governments in the European Union (of the centre Left, linking up therefore with the Socialist group as the biggest group in the Parliament) until recently put more store on not rocking the boat than they did on cleaning up EU governance. The report that we are debating cites Commissioner Liikanen's comment that, because member states retain only 10 per cent. of the traditional own resources collected for administration—that is, the agricultural and Customs duties—they do not regard that as sufficient incentive to tackle fraud. The Court of Auditors and the Treasury think that VAT collection by member states falls short by at least between £2 billion and £3 billion a year.

1033
I think that we ought therefore to hear a little less piety from the member state governments about the role of the Council—not least because most of the money disbursed from the EU budget is handed out by the national administrations and that is where most of the fiddles, especially on the agricultural budget, go on. One of the arguments for the co-financing of the CAP is to concentrate the minds of member states on making agricultural policy not only WTO-compatible and environmentally sustainable, but also free of fraud.
The fact is that, as the sub-committee said, scrutiny of EU expenditure needs to be on a continuous, rather than an occasional, basis. The attention of the European Parliament has been more continuous than that of the Council. Indeed, I am pleased to see that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is quoted as saying:
"the Parliament for many years has largely espoused the cause of budgetary discipline".
Those are reasons for agreeing with Professor Begg, who is quoted in the report as saying that the European Parliament is the "obvious democratic authority" to which the Commission should be accountable. Of course, the European Parliament must address the mote in its own eye—and I should declare an interest as an aspiring Member—but I am proud at least that my own Liberal group has been leading the charge to tighten control of MEPs' expenses, as it did the scrutiny of the Commission. The other governments could help by persuading France and Luxembourg to accept one site in Brussels for the European Parliament instead of lamely agreeing to a three-city travelling circus. That would save some £100 million a year.
If the Council wishes to do something else that is positive, it should agree to increase the powers of the Court of Auditors to investigate whether EU spending is achieving value for money. That is a body which, because it has been consistent in its scrutiny, has repeatedly refused to give discharges to successive EU budgets.
Finally, as I promised, I have much less to say about the technicalities of the fairest way to pay than about the surrounding politics. I know that, as the report states—I am sure that all noble Lords know this also—it is not politically feasible to ask the British public to give up the current rebate which caps our net contribution while wastefulness and fraud have not demonstrably been rooted out and while the CAP in particular is wrongly orientated.
For political reasons, throughout the European Union it would also be impossible to lift the cap on total EU spending, however relatively small the budget is at the moment, before all the possible avenues of saving and fraud-busting have been followed. We probably must move in the longer term to more citizen-based funding rather than to a system which focuses on the contributions of governments. It is ironic that the EU has slipped back de facto into a system of national contributions which it purported to get away from through the development of "own resources".
I note and accept the committee's opinion that the implications of moving to a system in which the European Parliament should be responsible for both
1034
raising and spending EU funds would be "profound", by which I believe it means, "too profound for now". In the long term perhaps a tax that met EU environmental objectives such as an energy carbon tax, could be a possible contender. In the shorter term we should at least try to link revenue to GNP per capita with the caveat that I made earlier about the effect of calculating that, particularly with a large Community hinterland.
I again thank the committee for its excellent report and its contribution to this extremely important debate.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, like other members of Sub-Committee A, I join with noble Lords on both sides of the House in congratulating our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on this, the first report we have produced under his chairmanship and also on the efficiency with which he drove us to produce a relatively complicated report in very quick time.
The report was embargoed for release at 0001 hours on Tuesday 16th March, within minutes of the moment when the European Commission offered its resignation. I wonder how the noble Lord felt when he awoke the following morning and realised that his report had hit the world at precisely the same moment as the disappearance of M. Santer and others. He must have pondered a little as to whether it was a good thing or not. If our report had come out a month later perhaps some of our recommendations might have been stronger. But it has had something of a cathartic effect on our consideration of the key issue of financing the EU; not just how it spends money, but how it raises it at this key moment in its history.
On one point I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford. We disagree on other matters as regards the European Union. I agree, however, that the Union is, as he put it, at the Y point or junction in its history. It can either go forward, as a result of the events of last week, to greater success—which I hope it will do—or it will slip back and in some measure, in power terms, slowly disintegrate. It is important to consider this report today in the light of those circumstances.
It was consideration of the future that led us to decide very carefully that the present methods of "own resources" in raising money for the EU are simply too complex, too inefficient and too subject to fraud to continue. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is not in his place. He chided us amiably. He spoke about the "amiable indulgence" with which we treated the EU's "shambolic" finances. Perhaps the noble Lord did not read carefully enough paragraphs 65 and 70 of our report in which we firmly draw attention to the incredible mess—there is no other way to describe it—in relying for own resources on VAT receipts in the individual countries of the EU.
The European Court of Auditors reported on the years 1991–93 that VAT collections from all the countries of the EU could be short by as much as 70 billion ecu a year. That is almost equal to the total spending of the European Union. It comes out clearly in our report that,

1035
when questioned, the Treasury officials did not have any answers. They did not know the figures and they could not tell us the precise why and wherefore of what the figure meant for Britain. They later sent a written reply, which is in our evidence. I defy some of your Lordships to understand precisely the content of that reply.
I make the point because it is an example of how domestic governments, including our own, have allowed this shambles of resources—the money that goes into the European Union—to continue under successive administrations for far too long. For me, it is the key point of our report. It is one reason why we concentrated so heavily on looking for alternative sources such as a GNP-based resource, possibly with the addition that a proportion of it would be GNP per capita rather than the totality of GNP.
Against that background, I am deeply disappointed by the reply that we received from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who is to wind up the debate, kindly circulated. Noble Lords who have had time to read it will note that in paragraph 6, "Own Resources Decision", the Economic Secretary writes:
"The Government acknowledges the problems of fraud in respect of own resources".
That is precisely the point we were making.
"It continues to press for improved systems which reduce these. But it agrees with the Commission that 'the shortcomings of the system … do not by themselves provide grounds to justify an urgent modification of the Own Resources Decision'".
Is that not precisely the sort of language and the shoving away of the importance of a matter that caused the commissioners to resign? It seems to me that here we have another example of a government being aware of the problem but simply not being prepared to tackle it.
I hope that the Minister in his reply will dwell on that point because it is a very shallow dismissal by the Government of essentially the most substantial point our report makes—other than that about our own rebate, which has been extensively discussed.
I would like to see the European Union moving to a source of funds which is clearly collected from individual taxpayers via the local tax authorities and clearly marked for European Union purposes. This is not unlike the way in which district councils at the moment collect on behalf of county councils and parish councils. That is stated in the rating Bill. The local tax authorities are being used for that purpose. In my opinion it is the only way in which we are going to solve the problem of the lack of transparency to which our report refers, and the lack of knowledge as to where and how European Union money is being spent.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, referred to a figure of £155 per head as being the cost to each person in the European Union. If one asked on that lovely programme, "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", how much the European Union costs and there were four answers to choose from, I am sure that the audience would have absolutely no idea at all whether to elect £10, £50, £5, 000 or £155. But voters should know. That will only happen in the long run through a levy for specific European Union purposes, but using the local
1036
tax authorities to collect it and with independent national audit offices checking. Their reports would be debated by the European Parliament which would have powers, in my book, to sack individual commissioners, and senior officials as well, if they Were found to be incompetent.
I mentioned the European commissioners. Who exactly are these great men and women? We are told that once again a heavyweight politician is being looked for to run the Commission. Indeed, the Prime Minister used those words in the House of Commons last week. Is not that precisely what Jacques Delors was? Is not that why he was so unpopular? Is not that why my good friend John Major did not want Jean-Luc Dehaene and M. Santer was chosen instead? And M. Santer said, amiably, that he intended to spend a great deal of time "not doing much" for which he was greatly applauded at the time.
Who could expect M. Santer to do any more than that? After all, he had been Prime Minister of Luxembourg and a very successful broadcasting minister there. Because at the time I was the United Kingdom Minister responsible for broadcasting, I met him several times and found him an amiable and competent person within that context; that is, the context of 330, 000 people. Why was there ever any real expectation that he should go from running a country approximately the size of Brighton and Hove to running the European Union with 350 million people? Yet we are looking for another politician like him at the moment.
Names like Romano Prodi—the former Italian Prime Minister—and Wim Kok, the Dutch Prime Minister, have been bandied around. If we step back for a second and consider what is the real role of the Commission, it would be much better to send highly competent businessmen there or highly competent civil servants. Businessmen would concentrate not on the great strategic plans but on how to run Europe and how to obtain efficiency and more value of money for the shareholder—the voter. Someone like my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover or the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell would be suitable candidates. Certainly, if I look at the Treasury Benches opposite, delightful and witty people though they are, the only one I would recommend to be a commissioner is the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, in view of his record as a successful chairman of British Petroleum.
That is one of our problems at the moment. It leads me to take up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford. Where do we want the European Union to go? I do not believe it is moribund at the moment; I am certain that it will recover from this shock. A weak branch has been pruned off and, as is the way with nature, stronger branches come where the weaker one has gone. But where I agree with my noble friend is that this is the time for serious constitutional reform in the European Union. It cannot happen overnight. It will not happen in Berlin. But it has to be in the long-term programme.
Along with that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that this is not the right moment to proceed with haste into welcoming another five or six members into

1037
the European Union. To me the constitutional change has to happen first. If 15 members cannot devise an effective, popular, comprehensible, non-fraudulent organisation, how on earth are 20 members going to do it? I would therefore like to see the constitutional boundaries clearly examined between the European Council, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, the Commission and national parliaments, making quite certain that those boundaries are properly drawn. If not, I accept that the European Union might topple under the very unevenness of its own weight.
The existence of the single currency makes the European Union much more important than it was. The single currency could well become the euro challenge to the dollar. I hope that that will happen. But I believe strongly in a limitation of the executive powers of the Commission, a serious enhancement of the legislative powers of the European Parliament and continuous independent audit by national authorities. I hope that that will be on the long-term agenda.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as I said last Wednesday, this debate is premature in the sense that Members of the House have had only six days to realise that the report has been published; to read and assimilate the report; and to discuss and consult with others about it. That is a great pity. It is an important report which should have had wide circulation; it should have been widely read, with wide consultation, and lots of people should have been given the opportunity to take part in a debate upon it. I sincerely hope that in future such an important report will not be rushed on to the Order Paper for discussion in your Lordships' House.
Having said that, I congratulate Sub-Committee A on the report. It was indeed a tight timescale, though it was probably self-imposed, and the committee worked hard to publish in time for the March summit. Unfortunately, that lack of time restricted the range of witnesses called. I feel that rather more witnesses with wider interests should have been called.
There is a good deal of interesting material in the report and some of the evidence confirms what many of us have been saying for a long while. For example, Ms Patricia Hewitt, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, responded to a question by the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, who asked:
"Has the Treasury taken a look at Professor Gretschmann's attempts to quantify the non-monetary advantages of being part of the European Union such as access to markets, free movement of capital and the much broader question of the overall security of the European continent?".
She replied:
"One cannot assume that all increases in our exports to other European Union members derive solely from membership of the European Union. One must take account of movements in world trade generally, and one may need to make some assumptions about what would happen in the absence of the European Union or our membership of it. One would certainly need to take into account, which Professor Gretschmann's model does not, the increase in imports from other European Union countries, even if one accepts his rather narrow methodology".
That is a significant answer because over many years we have been told by Minister after Minister that the trading aspects have been paramount and that in fact all
1038
the trading increases have been due just to our membership of the European Union. It is useful, therefore, to have that on record. Furthermore, it again confirms what many of us have said; that is, that in many respects the European Union has been a trading disaster; that our adverse balance of trade, since we joined, has been around £130 billion and that has been added to by £4 billion to £5 billion every year.
Again, the Economic Secretary confirmed that for every £1 that we receive from the European Union, we pay back £1.50; and that is not a good bargain. I wish that some of the local authorities who see their financial saviours as being the European Union would reflect that if the £41 per annum net paid by every man, woman and child to the EU budget were distributed instead on a per capita basis to each local authority, they would gain immeasurably. In Reading, where I live, that would amount to £5.3 million and would avoid my rates going up by 8 per cent. next year.
However, where I do not agree with Ms Hewitt is on her evidence at Question 129, repeated in the report of the Select Committee at paragraph 113:
"If one goes back to the motivation for the creation of the European Economic Community one has in mind the end of war … on the Continent of Europe. One can scarcely put a monetary value upon that or suggest that it is worth more to one country than another".
If that were true, her comments might have some relevance, but it is not true. The organisation that has kept the peace in Europe over the past 50 or more years is not the European Union but NATO, which was formed long before the then Common Market came into existence. The greatest threat to Europe came with the Berlin blockade in 1948–49, when the European Union was not in existence. All one needs to keep the peace in Europe is for France and Germany to agree not to go to war. We do not need a European superstate to keep the peace in Europe.
I cannot comment on all the recommendations but agree that a directly collected own resource is not a viable option at present or for the future. The constitutional implications for this and other countries are so involved and important that they cannot be grappled with in the short term. I agree also that there should be greater national scrutiny of the budget. As national parliaments raise the tax—£8, 000 million per annum so far as this country is concerned, or 4p on income tax—they should oversee spending by the European Union, although the European Parliament should also have some input.
It is right that expenditure should be stabilised at £60 billion by 2006, but that is not radical enough. The report considers that the self-financing of agricultural support might be a good idea provided that discretion over spending is not given to member states. If they have no discretion, there is no point in doing it. Most people agree, including the Government and most of your Lordships, that the whole of agricultural support should be repatriated to the nation states. The CAP makes no sense at all. It is wasteful and susceptible to fraud. It helps large and rich farmers but hurts small,

1039
poor farmers. It also costs the consumer dear as well as hurting the environment through intensive farming, which is also a health risk.
Being able to trade on world food markets would bring down food prices in this country and elsewhere and help world farming generally—especially in third world countries.
I shall be told, as we always are, that is unrealistic. Is it really so unrealistic? In the present circumstances, it would make far more sense to have a subsidised common market in cars, but surely no one would agree to that. No one would agree that we should create such a market. We must be prepared to think the unthinkable. Getting rid of the CAP would virtually solve the finance problem and the fraud crisis in one fell swoop. I hope that the Government will pursue that proposal irrespective of it being a distant prospect.
Following the fraud fiasco and the resignation of the whole Commission, the opportunity exists to question its powers and whether many of them should be returned to member states—as was promised by Prime Minister John Major when he agreed to the Maastricht Treaty. The Commission complained last week that it was asked to do too much and said that was one of the reasons for losing control of the budget. Let us help the Commission by relieving it of some of its burdens.
One-third of our overseas trade—about £700 million—is administered—wrongly in my view—by the EU. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, is concerned at how the money raised by our taxpayers is used. That money could be and should be repatriated to this country. I hope that, too, will be followed up.
I disagree with the report's central recommendation that Britain's rebate should be negotiated. I find myself on the side of the Government. I do not always find myself on the side of the Government on this issue, but I do so tonight. I am encouraged by press reports and the Government's response to the report that the Prime Minister intends to stick to his position that the rebate is non-negotiable. The reasons given by the Treasury witnesses and the Economic Secretary for retaining the rebate seem sound. I do not believe that the consequences the committee fears may result from Britain keeping firmly to its position will come about. It would certainly be extremely unwise to enter negotiations on the basis that one's opposite numbers around the negotiating table know before the start that one has compromised over a central issue. I hope that the Government will stick to their guns.
The Select Committee has not helped the Government. I hope that the take note Motion will not be construed as an endorsement of the Select Committee's opinion. I do not believe that it would be the opinion of the House to undermine the Government's negotiating position at the summit later this week.
Bearing in mind the crisis in EU financing and the cataclysmic events over the past week, this might be a good opportunity to review the whole concept of European co-operation, modernise the treaties, reverse
1040
the trend towards further integration and a country called Europe; and rebuild European co-operation based on nation states, voluntary co-operation and democracy.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Hussey of North Bradley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, chaired the committee with all the skills and charm of his predecessor—the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—aided by a most excellent secretary. He explained the speed at which the report was considered and written, hoping that it might contribute to a solution of the problems that are likely to crop up in Berlin this week.
I feel honoured to serve on the committee surrounded by noble Lords of great financial experience. I do not intend to weary your Lordships with my views on complicated problems such as reform of the own resources system, the relationship of a member state's gross contribution to its GNP, the co-financing of the CAP and the vagaries of VAT collection. I want to discuss issues that are important to me. Incidentally, I started writing this speech on Monday. Ely Tuesday morning, the whole picture had changed, rather like a transformation scene in a pantomime.
The Community now comprises 15 states and will shortly be increased. Its aim is to weld this body into a unified whole, at least on the economic side. There are those, of course, who argue that you cannot have a unified economic whole without a unified political whole as well, but I shall not go into that. What is vital is that all the member states should agree on their collective objectives. This inevitably means that some countries will have to sacrifice some national objectives in the interests of the whole. In our inquiry into the European Central Bank, the same point arose. It is the crux of many difficulties. Yet I recall the President of France saying,
"On major issues I represent my nation and will expect others to do the same".
That is not an exquisite expression of the communautaire spirit.
The issues arise again over the financing of the Community. My life in the media was dominated by how to raise the money to match the costs—except, of course, in the BBC where £2 billion a year came in through the window—but in most businesses the nail-biting struggle concerns the relationship of cost to revenue. Financing the European Community is not an income problem. Everyone believes that the proposed ceiling of 1.27 per cent. of the GNP will raise sufficient resources for the Community to work within its budget with some spare for the accessions. The issue is how the money should be raised and then distributed; the division of the spoils, if you like—an issue on which friends, colleagues and competitors frequently fall out, and have done over the years.
Neither the contributions nor the receipts from this co-operative effort appear to be fairly distributed. As we were convinced that they never would be seen to be fair, under the wise guidance of our chairman we proposed that we should not endanger the chances of agreement in Berlin by too obstinately sticking to Britain's

1041
self-interest with regard to the abatement. Instead, we raised the issue of whether it should be considered in the negotiations. We believe that the abatement was a classic case where we might accept a reduction on condition that—and only when—the loss can be made up (as your Lordships have heard) on a permanent basis through the savings of a reformed CAP, a stabilisation of expenditure and possibly through increased expenditure in the United Kingdom. All these provisos were directly in line with the Government's negotiating stance. We did not expect that this recommendation would pass without criticism, and nor has it. But I was surprised that the word "undermine" appeared in several newspapers which are not normally bedfellows. A touch of spin there, I thought.
We did not undermine the Government's negotiating position; we preserved it carefully by the conditions that I have just mentioned and, in so doing, we believed that we were demonstrating a practical way in which this country could negotiate in the spirit of the Community and, it is to be hoped, set an example. We matched the loss of a cherished national objective with gains elsewhere in the interests of the Community. This is a proposal that I unhesitatingly support. As our report declares, the Community is a concept, an ideal, of great significance. The original objective was to replace successive centuries of devastating wars with a system that could secure lasting peace. Economic—let alone political—integration came later.
A basic weakness in the constitution is the fault line between the Commission and the European Parliament. The responsibilities of the two have never been clearly defined, but what is relevant is that the Members of the European Parliament are elected, whereas the members of the European Commission are appointed. The Community cannot survive without compromises. There is nothing new about this. The last ditch settlements—usually achieved at the latest hour of the morning—are evidence of hard-fought victories for compromise. But the issues are now more complex. The accession of five new states will present a major financial on-cost. The application by the European Central Bank of "one cap fits all" for interest rates increases the strain. Severe charges of financial mismanagement and neglect are well made. Fraud over VAT is alleged to cost 8 billion euros a year. For too long the CAP has consumed 50 per cent. of the budget. Several countries, not least our own, wish that cost to be substantially reduced.
In all this there is the dual responsibility of the Commission and Parliament. Neither body has survived the past six months without serious criticism of its financial control, and the good life incidentally that many of its members enjoy. To quote the evidence of the Economic Secretary, the role of Parliament in setting the budget is significant. It is part of the inter-institutional agreement which forms the framework with which Agenda 2000 and the financial perspective must be settled. Finally, once the Council has decided on a common position it becomes a matter for discussion with the Parliament.
1042
There are further issues for the Parliament and the Commission; for instance, the transparency of the Community's activities. The people are entitled to know what they each pay for the Community's costs and what they get back from it, and how the finances are collected, distributed and spent. We are talking of hundreds of millions of people; this is no minor constituency. They must be assured of democratic accountability. This is a prime duty of elected representatives who have long been too far distant from the lives of the people whose livelihoods they influence. In my opinion, it is inevitable that the responsibilities of the elected but, I trust, much reformed Parliament should be extended and those of the unelected Commission should be reduced.
The Council is composed of commissioners allocated posts by the president on the basis of nomination by their member states. That is not a democratic process. The damning revelations of the recent report on the Commission, followed by its mass resignation, have elevated into stark public prominence issues of which many people have been well aware and kept silent, although there are some who conspicuously did not.
I am not a stalwart defender of everything that is printed in our newspapers—indeed, that would be a difficult position to substantiate with any confidence—but at least from the tabloids to the broadsheets there have been strong criticisms. There is an opportunity now to put this right, but it will be extremely difficult and take a long time. A comfortable ticket on the gravy train rapidly becomes a way of life, but root and branch reform there must be.
We hope that we have helped to clarify these issues. Stabilisation of expenditure is critical. The cost of the CAP must be reduced. Misuse of public funds must be ended. Confidence in the government of the Community must be restored and transparent accountability introduced, leaving no doubts in the minds of the people of Europe about the fairness of the proceedings and the manner in which they have been conducted. I hope that this report will be seen to be courageous and fair. I commend it to your Lordships.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am well aware of the work that went into the compilation of this report as I attended at least one of the committee meetings and I could see it for myself. I certainly congratulate my noble friend Lord Grenfell on his presentation of a large and discursive report. However, I believe that it has suffered from a serious defect. The defect is not really the fault of those who participated in the work of the Select Committee, but of whoever set for them the timetable which is referred to in the introduction to the report. January and February were available for the compilation of this report; the period ending on 21st February. All the events which happened after that inevitably could not form part of the report.
Much has happened since 21st February. I wish to comment a little more about what, on reflection, was an impossible task. What were my noble friends on the Select Committee able to do in two months? Yes, they

1043
were diligent and they managed to hear four witnesses give oral evidence: one from the Commission; a rapporteur on budgetary matters from the European Parliament; a junior Minister very fresh from the Treasury; and a professor, an academic. Frankly, that is not enough. If one has seriously to write a report on the financing of the European Community, with all its complexity—not only on the revenue side but also on the expenditure side—one cannot do it in so short a time span and with so little evidence.
I make that comment at the start with genuine regret because the subject is important. Given the time span available, I wish that the committee had decided to be minimalist in its approach rather than to take on what is really an impossible task. By being minimalist, I would have hoped the committee would have concentrated on what needed to be done to make possible the cost of the new entrants into the European Union. That is the practical problem. The long-term financing, quite frankly, can and will take its time and, within that particular remit, make it possible for new members to join. Surely concentration should have been placed heavily on the CAP.
The remarks of my noble friend Lord Stoddart about the CAP are justified. I do not think that anyone will seriously dispute that. It is a system which not only imposes unnecessary costs for food on virtually every family in the whole of the European Union, but it discriminates against other food producers in a very unfair way, particularly those in developing countries who are denied a market which might otherwise be theirs. Helping us to make an assault on the CAP, we have of course not only the support of large numbers of countries outside but increasingly the influence of the World Trade Organisation which is seeking also to bring about rationality into the food policy of the EU.
Lord Desai: My Lords, given the structure of the committee system, the noble Lord should perhaps note that the CAP is outside the remit of Sub-Committee A.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says, but that may be a problem for those who draw the limits, as it were, in the terms of reference of the committees. Clearly if one is going to study the budget one has to cover the CAP—certainly if one is going to deal with the expenditure side—and to say that that is not within one's terms of reference is not adequate.
Putting that aside, there are plenty of reasons why we should have concentrated on the CAP. There is an additional reason. I share the anxieties that I think many members of the committee feel about whether the financing within the 1.27 per cent. GDP ceiling of Community expenditures, let alone preparation for enlargement, will be sufficient given the rate of growth of GDP in the Community. Every forecast brings a lower expectation of growth in the years ahead. In Italy the latest growth rate is reduced to 1.7 per cent. GDP this year, with a pretty ghastly outlook next year, and Germany is in very serious shape. It is now very dubious that they will be able to stick to the present levels of expenditure consistent with an overall ceiling of
1044
1.27 per cent. That is an additional reason why we should add, as it were, all the weight that we can to reforming the CAP and securing a year-by-year reduction of a substantial kind until something very different from the present CAP is left at the end.
The second point I wish to make concerns the complex subject of Community financing. I think a list of 10 potential taxes is to be found somewhere in the text, but, if one turns one s mind seriously to the subject of Community financing, there is much more than that. With a slightly longer historical perspective, my noble friend would have been able to recall that the present mix of own resources has developed quite considerably. Indeed, up until the very year that we decided to negotiate for entry into the Common Market, as it then was, a GDP system of financing was in place and the own resources system was brought in to welcome the new British intake. How well designed it was to make Britain pay the maximum penalty! There were levies on imported agriculture produce. Who compared with the UK in terms of imported agriculture from the Commonwealth and elsewhere? Of course they knew it. Who other than the United Kingdom traded so heavily with the world outside of Europe and therefore would have to pay the very special brunt and burden of the tariffs and excise duties which are the second of the own resources components? It was no accident that the system was introduced in 1971. They knew perfectly well that we would be making a quite disproportionate contribution to the overall Community budget.
Against that background, I must say that I find some of the things that have been said today quite extraordinary. The report of the committee was careful, but a little uncertain about the justification for our rebate. I was very glad to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, which so strongly emphasised that there is no question of changing it until some equivalent benefit is available, and even then the onus of proof will be on the advocates of change.
Having said that, some of the speeches today have been quite extraordinary. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, was quite unhelpful in what she said about the UK's position and the retention of the rebate. The most culpable of all was my noble friend Lord Barnett, whose remarks were really quite absurd and quite wrong. He described the British rebate or contribution as being peanuts. No, he went further than that. He said that we had to get it into perspective first; it was petty cash. I know a little about this and the whole balance of my noble friend's thinking about Europe was probably reflected in those remarks.
We did an estimate, based on information from the House of Commons Library—I think the Government did so, too—of how much money we had paid net (after the rebate) at 1995 prices in the years since we joined the European Community. In 1995, the figure was £30 billion. I do not know what it has been since, but I would suggest around an extra £8 billion or £9 billion. Perhaps my noble friend, when he comes to reply, can give us the up-to-date figure.
To suggest at any time that that is petty cash is preposterous. To say it on the eve of the Berlin heads of government meeting is irresponsible. My noble friend

1045
should know, if he does not know, that what he has had to say and what others have had to say will undoubtedly be used and quoted against us by those in the Community who clearly have a vested interest in our giving up the rebate. As I said earlier, the rebate has to be set against the very fact that we were always doomed to pay more under the own resource formula at the moment of its design.
I conclude by saying that the debate is badly timed. The report has, frankly, been far too hastily put together. But I do rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we are approaching, as it were, a fork in the road. A centralist Europe as against a constitutional Europe, as he put it, is developing. Between those alternatives, I have no doubt at all which one I would prefer. Following the events of the past week or so and the revelations, which have now been made public, about abuse and corruption, it is quite extraordinary that anyone should even contemplate giving more power and resources to be administered, decided and used by the European Commission. Surely our thoughts and self-interest should point to the repatriation of a great deal of the power it already has, including expenditure on projects and policies which should properly be run by the governments of the nation states that form the European Union.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I begin by adding to the tributes that have already been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for his admirable chairmanship of the committee and for producing in albeit a short time—that was not his fault—a unanimous report. I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, who said that the report should have covered the vast amount of ground to which he referred. However, he will see that the report concerns "who pays and how?". It does not concern how the money is spent. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, it has nothing to do with the CAP. Although expenditure, of necessity, crept into the report from time to time, the inquiry was not into expenditure. So I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on preparing the report and thank too, as he did, the Clerk to the committee, Dr. Elizabeth Hopkins, who was of considerable help to all of us.
While I am in the thanking mood, perhaps I may thank the Government for responding to the report so rapidly. They did so very well indeed. I thank the noble Lord the Minister for sending the response round to all of us so that we had an opportunity of seeing it over the weekend. That was very courteous and was much appreciated.
Perhaps I may turn to the abatement, which has been discussed at length during the debate but does not seem to have been understood. Perhaps it is the fault of the committee that we did not make it clear. It was my view, and I believe it was the view of all members of the committee, that there should be no question of surrendering the abatement. That was never in our thoughts. It was suggested that if no progress could be made because of the abatement—if proposals were put to the Government to provide something at least as
1046
permanent and valuable—they should be prepared to negotiate. I share that view. In their response, the Government said that no proposition was likely to come forward and that in those circumstances they would stand firm on the abatement. I entirely agree with them on that point.
Perhaps I may move from the abatement to the funding system. It has been said by a number of noble Lords that traditional own resources represent a dwindling amount and produce a far smaller amount for the European economy than was previously the case. The VAT resource, although it is capped, produces about 35 per cent. of the total but the main resource comes from GNP. I was surprised—I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry—that the Government agreed with the Commission that the shortcomings of the present system do not provide grounds to justify an urgent modification of the own resources decision. Yet there is unlimited evidence of maladministration, fraud and massive bureaucracy arising within the common market, primarily with regard to traditional own resources. Indeed, the former Commissioner for the budget, Mr. Liikanen, said in reply to Question 104 on page 50 of the report:
"we should replace all the different own resources by the GNP resource. It is simply the most objective criterion for national capacity to contribute. We would do away with a major part of bureaucracy in member countries and Brussels and, thirdly, there would be no fraud on the revenue side".
He continued at some length to justify the decision to do away with traditional own resources and to rely on GNP.
I believe that GNP per capita or GDP should be considered. However, that would require unanimous agreement. It would also mean, as far as one can calculate, that some countries—France, Italy and Belgium—would be worse off. It is generally recognised that they should pay considerably more. That change would also benefit those which we consider are paying well over the odds—Germany and the Netherlands. To achieve unanimous agreement on that might be somewhat difficult. But it is logical to do so and to do so now and not to put off doing it, as the Government seem minded to do. They should try to get it done now.
VAT produces some 35 per cent. of Community revenue. But the amount produced is falling. A tremendous amount of fraud and bureaucracy goes with VAT. If a country fails to meet the threshold for VAT forecast for it and is short of a few hundred million pounds, instead of it having to make up the amount out of its GNP contribution, the deficiency is spread among all the members of the Community. A country which has fallen well below the threshold does rather well out of it, which is perhaps an encouragement for less than accurate reporting on that system. I suggest that GDP or GNP per capita would provide a fairer and more equitable basis for membership.
I agree with the Government that, in so far as that would create discrepancies between the prosperity of individual countries, the remedy should not be by jigging about with the contributions they make but should be dealt with on the expenditure side. We should not fiddle with contributions but increase the grants to

1047
countries such as Greece where need may be greater. We should keep a uniform contribution from them all, based on whatever is the correct percentage of GNP.
The matter of transparency has been raised a number of times during this debate. Far too little is said about what actually happens. Neither the Government nor the Commission seem anxious to promote any figures that make it clear to the general public who pay, how much they are paying to the Community and how the money is spent. I searched through the Red Book—no doubt the Minister will tell me where I should have looked—in an attempt to find a nice table containing all the information. But such information was not apparent to me. It is a great pity. There should be a summary, clear to all, of items of revenue and expenditure between the United Kingdom and the Community. It could and should be done.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said that it was not a large sum. I believe the noble Lord described it as "peanuts". It is I per cent. of the GNP of the European Community as a whole. The noble Lord shakes his head. Perhaps I misunderstood him. One per cent. of GNP represents more than the total budget of certain countries—Ireland, for example. It represents more than the total expenditure of this country on welfare. So it cannot be written off as peanuts.
Turning to the expenditure side—
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I do not expect the noble Lord to be quite so violent as my noble friend Lord Shore, but I was putting in perspective the cost, at £1 billion, out of £925 billion GDP. That is all I was doing.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's point. It is still a substantial sum of money. The unfortunate point is that it is never openly presented to the public.
The expenditure side was not the object of our inquiry; however, it arose in various forms. First, manifest inefficiency and fraud, which is topical, was one of the first points. As I am a farmer and therefore have an interest to declare, I shall not comment on the CAP. I agree with the point in the committee's report that those who qualify for EMU should not be allowed in on the Cohesion Fund. In relation to the Structural Fund, many noble Lords who have visited parts of Europe where some of that money has been spent—for example, the island of Madeira—must wonder about such lavish expenditure at public expense. The report touched on co-financing. Co-financing has advantages, provided that the savings made are not applied by the Community in other ways so that the total bill by the Community is as large as it was before the Community passed part of that burden on to the nation states. I believe also that member states must be bound to make up the deficiency received from the Community to whatever grant was co-financed. It will mean that those states which make a large CAP contribution, such as France and Ireland, will inevitably suffer severely from
1048
any co-financing. On that basis, I assume that obtaining the support of such countries for this method is somewhat remote.
I hope that the report, which has been prepared over a short period, is of some help to the Government in their forthcoming negotiations in Berlin.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is normally easy for me to find common ground with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. I was therefore surprised to hear him complain today that there had been so much argument about expenditure on the European Union when the title of the report referred to future financing. On reflection, I believe the noble Lord will agree that in the latter part of his excellent address to your Lordships he himself ventured onto the expenditure side.
It is immediately clear, if one is to bring the question of fairness and justice into the financing of the European Community, that one must have regard to how the sums are expended to the benefit of the various states that contribute. Therefore I must repudiate that whole approach, and emphasise that it is vital that we concentrate on the expenditure of the European Union, particularly under circumstances where regularly, year after year, a sum of 3 billion ecus (£2 billion) disappears into thin air. I should have thought that the expenditure did merit some consideration. Indeed, the whole question arose from the Commission's own proposals in that regard, which followed the plan for the year 2000. I refer, for the purposes of greater accuracy, to the communication published by the European Commission on 7th October last year. In that document the whole case for the revision of the scheme for financing the European Union was set out, together with a considerable endeavour to show how the benefits were distributed and how, therefore, the whole matter could be made clearer.
On the question of budgetary balance, the Commission states at page 17 of its report:
"Budgetary balances (also called net balances), measured by the simple difference between contributions to and receipts from the EU budget, represent only a narrow view of, and fail to fully account for, the benefits accruing to Member States from participating in the EU".
It is precisely because the Commission, with all the skills available, either indigenously or as a result of the lush hiring of consultants, has been unable to specify in any monetary terms the benefit, for example, that the United Kingdom might have received in return for the contributions it has made--always, of course, agreeing immediately that every member state has to pay for the cost of administration. That cost should be shared roughly proportionately among member states.
At page 21 of the report, the Commission elaborates. It states:
"Graph 7 shows that the mechanism has been effective in reducing substantially the negative balance [the British abatement] of the United Kingdom. However, even after the rebate the United Kingdom remains a larger net contributor to the EU budget than Member States with a higher capacity to pay".

1049
So the case for something reasonably approaching—I am careful not to say absolutely equal monetary terms— a juste retour is clearly envisaged.
I congratulate my noble friend on the report. It has been a matter of infinite ingenuity to secure the result that was achieved. The difficulty is that it is a unanimous report, and in that it differs substantially from the reports produced by Select Committees in another place. There, differences of opinion on the Select Committees are permitted, indeed encouraged, because they make for sharper thinking and greater articulation of arguments, and they provoke discussion. I doubt whether noble Lords are surprised to learn that that does not apply to the Select Committees of your Lordships' House. A tradition has grown up which is not in the Companion to the Standing Orders, nor in the Standing Orders themselves.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? I am grateful. Perhaps I should inform the House that at the beginning of the inquiry I told the committee that I did not regard unanimity as an end in itself and that if necessary I should be quite happy to see differences of opinion and minority views expressed in print. So although I may have been transgressing what might be an old tradition in these committees, I changed it in my committee.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I immediately accept that and congratulate my noble friend on having taken that attitude. Perhaps I was harking back to when another report emanated from Sub-Committee A. It was dealt with by the full European Committee, drafts were presented and, in my innocence, I submitted 129 amendments to the draft. Some 20 were accepted, but thereafter, immediately Parliament resumed and even though the statutory year had passed, I was eliminated from all Select Committees on European legislation. It is not a matter of great gravity. At a later, more convenient stage I shall present the House with the facts in a like manner. But that is what happened.
I congratulate my noble friend on having advised the committee accordingly. Nevertheless, the report was unanimous. Whether it was due to the personal magnetism of the noble Lord or his close colleague, my noble friend Lord Barnett, we shall never know. On looking down the list of members of the committee, and having the honour of knowing most of them personally and liking all of them, I was surprised to see them arrive at an agreed opinion. However, that is the way it is, and the report suffers a little because of it.
That is nowhere better illustrated than by the events that followed immediately after the draft report was closed and the various documents became available. At page 23 of the report the committee unanimously came to the view which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell:
"we have virtually no knowledge of what we are paying—or what we are paying for".
1050
That seems an extremely frank admission by the committee, speaking unanimously. It was supplemented by the report of the wise men, which states in its concluding paragraph on page 144:
"It is becoming difficult to find anyone who has even the slightest sense of responsibility. However, that sense of responsibility is essential. It must be demonstrated, first and foremost"—
I emphasise the words "first and foremost"—
"by the Commissioners individually and the Commission as a body".
Did they ever pause to wonder what an extraordinary statement that is? It was a virtual admission. In any negotiated settlement, with whom are we going to negotiate? If we are to negotiate a different formula for determining the abatement negotiated by a previous Conservative Prime Minister, with whom shall we negotiate? People who have no sense of responsibility? We have reached a point where we ourselves as a committee and as a House do not know what the money is being spent on. I leave your Lordships to contemplate that possibility. What confidence can we have?
It is clear, on reading the report, that considerable changes must take place, both in the type and composition of the Commission. And there must be a complete clean-out of those who have no sense of responsibility and of those who so conducted the Commission's affairs that the committee of this House could not be certain what the money was spent on or how much it was. I suggest that that is an inferior position in which to place your Lordships' House.
I would have hoped that that proposition would have been received with acclamation. We must have people who are not of necessity politicians. The Government have already demonstrated a certain scepticism about politicians by ensuring that the interest rate is controlled independently by a bank and not politicians. There is therefore an instinctive disgust of politicians. What we want at commissioner level is not another series of politicians but skilled administrators, managers and those on whose integrity we can rely; in a word, people we can trust. If we follow that precept we may find that we do rather better in Europe than before.
My noble friend Lord Barnett referred to peanuts and all the rest of it.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I never did.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, my noble friend did not but he may have referred in somewhat minimalist terms to the significance of the monetary contribution of the United Kingdom. I believe that my noble friend will accept that. I am content to let the matter he on the record. I have a good memory, too. We have to do something very different. We cannot rely on promises and prospects of reform of the common agricultural policy as any substitute for the rebate that has been negotiated. I applaud the decision of the Government to insist on the retention of the rebate. If one considers this year's expenditure, the net payment out of the pockets of United Kingdom taxpayers after the rebate will be £3, 457 million. That is not small beer. When one considers expenditure on kidney machines, for example, suddenly it is discovered that they are far

1051
too expensive; one cannot possibly contemplate 10 new kidney machines each costing £20, 000. Hard choices have to be made. Single mothers must make sacrifices. Yet we do not seem to be too much troubled about £3, 457 million. I am very glad that my noble friend has indicated on behalf of the Government that something firm and definite is far better than some myth projected into the future by those politicians who control the Commission and the Council.
9.11 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Noble Lords will be pleased to learn that, given the hour, I shall keep my comments this evening quite brief. I endorse the point made by our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. At the beginning of the inquiry and on several occasions during the evidence he made it emphatically clear that he wished to promote open debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for having steered the sub-committee in such a masterly way that it has completed its report in time for the summit in Berlin later this week. Like the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and other members of the sub-committee, I am also grateful for the invaluable assistance of our Clerk, Dr. Elizabeth Hopkins.
It is inevitable that the forthcoming Council meeting will be a bruising battle over finances as each of the member states jockeys to keep as much of the Union's largesse as possible while making substantial financial provisions for the new accession members who will be joining between 2000 and 2006. Clearly, the significance of Agenda 2000 and the entry of several eastern European neighbours is likely to be obscured by horse-trading over CAP reform, members' net contributions and the abatements. While compromises and concessions will have to be made, it should be noted that Germany stands to profit most from the almost 64 million additional consumers when the first tranche of six new applicant countries joins the European Union.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that it is difficult to devise a formula for the European budget which is fair to all member states. What is critical however—it is a point made clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson—is that there is an essential need for strict budgetary discipline with greater scrutiny of EU expenditure. There have been many calls for European Union money to be used more effectively. Commissioner Erkki Liikanen has been given the responsibility to knock some rigour into the Commission's financial planning and financial controls.
A common theme throughout most of the inquiries of Sub-Committee A, of which I have been privileged to be part, has been the need for greater accountability of funds spent by the EU. I was encouraged to note in the Government's response to our report that the Government invest significant resources in scrutinising EU spending through the processes of the Council and official committees in co-operation with like-minded states. However, I also believe—it is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell—that it is vital that UK taxpayers should have a clearer understanding as to their stake in EU policies and operations. I was pleased that
1052
the Government agreed that such transparency is important, especially in the lead up to the referendum when the British electorate will decide whether or not to join the single currency.
Although the Government have made their position clear that they wish to maintain the UK abatement, I hope that they can agree to some form of future compromise such as a quid pro quo on CAP reform, or possibly through increased EU expenditure in the United Kingdom. It would reflect badly on Britain if the main reason for the Berlin Summit not reaching an agreement on the financial framework was as a result of the refusal of the British Government to contemplate any change in the present system.
Despite the strong arguments of my noble friend Lord Williamson for a retention of the UK rebate, we cannot ignore the point made by Commissioner Liikanen that a lot has changed in Europe since 1984 and it is therefore difficult to defend the UK abatement on its own without considering abatements for the other major net contributors. I entirely agree with paragraph 18 of the report which states that,
"the rebate should be negotiable as part of an overall settlement delivering the result of fairer net contributions".
A point that several noble Lords have made is that if every net contributor were to seek a similar rebate to the UK, this would result in a collapse of the EU budget.
As regards the level of funding needed in the period of the next financial perspective, when we interviewed Commissioner Liikanen and Mr. Naval, they were both confident of the Commission's proposal that maintaining the own resources ceiling at 1.27 per cent. for the next seven years would be sufficient to finance the necessary priority measures of Agenda 2000. However, that proposal was based on the assumption of annual growth of 2.5 per cent. per year for the existing member states, and 4 per cent. for the applicant countries. While I agree that the headroom provided by the 1.27 per cent. own resources ceiling is sufficient at present, I have my reservations with the onset of enlargement as to whether that will be sufficient in the future, particularly if GNP growth forecasts fall short of expectations, and if the reforms of the present spending programmes are not achieved. Clearly it is essential that stabilisation of expenditure and reform of the: CAP are achieved soon.
Time and again those Eurosceptic speakers such as my noble friend Lord Harris—he is not present at the moment—refer to the constant problem of fraud and (I think in his words) the "Brussels pantomime". Even though our report did not recommend in the short term a renegotiation of the own resources system, I agree that if in the medium term traditional own resources and the VAT-based resource are abolished leaving only the GNP-based resource, this would considerably reduce both bureaucracy and the constant problem of fraud.
In conclusion, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I support enlargement of the European Union. Enlargement is now the European Union's major challenge. If the financial hurdles are not overcome in Berlin, it is likely that the timetable for enlargement will be delayed. I refer back to paragraph 18 which states:

1053
"Equipping the European Union to handle enlargement is a very big prize: we urge the Government not to throw it away".
I commend the report to your Lordships.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I start by saying what a pleasure it was to be on the committee which produced the report that we are debating. As this is a high quality report, which is what is expected of the House of Lords.
Also, I add that our new chairman, my noble friend Lord Grenfell, played a superb role in the production of that report in such a short time, and it was a unanimous report. In particular, he created a good working atmosphere which made being on the committee so enjoyable. I add my thanks also to Dr. Elizabeth Hopkins, our Clerk, for the effective contribution she made.
This report is about funding the European Union in the period between 2000 and 2006. However, I believe that we need to put the whole matter of funding into perspective. We are funding an institution which is vitally important to the security of Britain and the rest of the European Union. Thank goodness the European Union is stable and the possibility of having war within it is negligible.
That contrasts with our recent history in which we had two world wars within a 25-year period with indescribable death and destruction—about 60 million lives being lost. In your Lordships' House, we have noble friends on all sides who have lost their sight and have damaged or lost their limbs. They gave all that for us and we should never forget it. At the same time, we should never again allow conditions to prevail in Europe where others would have to forfeit so much in the same way.
The threat to our security goes beyond the boundaries of the European Union. The current death and destruction in the former Yugoslavia is right on our doorstep. The European Union has a leading role to play, in conjunction with the United Nations and NATO, in order to stifle conflict there. We could be on the edge of war again, according to the news to which I listened at lunchtime today.
The key question which arises is: what can the European Union do to reduce possible threats from countries just beyond its boundaries? In my view, the answer is the enlargement of the European Union. There is now a group of 10 countries, called the CEEC 10—the central and eastern European countries—which can be expected to join the European Union in the not too distant future. Five countries, including Cyprus, will be likely to join in the next phase.
The institutional bonding of the CEEC 10 into the European Union will have the effect, over a period of time, of diminishing the threat of conflict and war. However, in addition to all this, the economic advantages of increasing the size of the European Union to perhaps 25 countries will be enormous. Enlargement, both in terms of security and economic benefit, is a prize we must not lose.
1054
When one considers Agenda 2000, which presents the EU budget for the period 2000 to 2006, one big item is missing; that is, radical reform. The budget appears to be out of balance because of the disproportionate level of spending on the agricultural policy. That has to change if we are to have sufficient funding for enlargement and if we are to introduce greater fairness in the way that member states contribute to the EU budget.
Since the Select Committee report was published, the whole of the European Commission has resigned and there are uncertainties about the future. However, I believe that the crisis we are in can result in advantage to the European Union. Certainly, there now appears to be a greater chance of radical reform in the European Commission, but we will have to wait and see.
To use the words of the Prime Minister, we must make the European Union more of a "people's Europe". Presently there is—we must admit it—a considerable sense of detachment of the British people from the European Union. They contribute their money to it but, as the report states, they have no idea on what that money is spent. I say that as somebody who is very pro European Union. Certainly, the people are not aware of whether or not the money is spent wisely. That situation cannot be allowed to continue. The Select Committee report advocated greater transparency in the EU budget. Will the Minister tell the House the Government's position regarding the conclusion of the select committee on transparency, as laid down in paragraph 15 of the report? I look forward to my noble friend's reply on that point.
If the Commission is to be seen as a servant of the people, which is what I believe it should be, there has to be greater accountability of the European Union on budgetary matters. Whether we like it or not, there is, unquestionably, a perception that Brussels is too isolated, too distant and not approachable. Again, I believe we have to face up to this. Our MEPs who, on the whole, do an excellent job, do not have the powers or means to make the EU more accountable. There are several ways in which financial accountability could be achieved, but there appears to be no agreed strategy on how that should be done. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House the Government's position on the question of financial accountability and what they intend to do about it? I look forward to my noble friend's reply on that.
The third question that I should like to ask my noble friend is whether the Government believe that the two Houses that make up the British Parliament should have greater powers of scrutiny of the EU finances, which would lead to greater accountability of the EU both at national state level as well as at the European Union level.
I should like to say a few words about the contributions made by member states to the EU budget as well as about Britain's abatement. The first thing that should happen is for all member states to feel contented with their net contributions. At the moment, that situation does not prevail and it must therefore be dealt with. Reference has already been made to the countries

1055
which are not content. I shall not go into the details, but they include Germany, Austria, Holland and Sweden. I do not believe that it is particularly difficult to determine the fair gross contributions to be made by member states to the EU budget. We can draw up a list. What is difficult—or seemingly impossible—is to draw up a simple list of net contributions which is seen to be fair to all member states. I think that the fundamental reason for that is that member states receive different benefits from the EU budget.
To be specific, Britain receives the abatement partly—I think, probably mainly—because we are in receipt of relatively small benefits from the common agricultural policy because of the nature of British farming, which is efficient and very advanced. There is, in my view, a case for Britain to negotiate its abatement if, for example, there were radical reforms to the CAP, stabilisation of expenditure, and possibly if more EU money was given to Britain.
If—and I stress the word "if"—those conditions were met, I see no reason why Britain could not be made content with its net contribution while the current abatement changes or even disappears. As I have already stressed, this is all a matter for negotiation, as well as for EU reform. My noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney, who is no longer in his place, suggested that there was surrender here, but it is not a question of surrender; the report proposes a negotiating stance or a way forward, which would have to be negotiated.
In that context, it is worth pointing out that the system of "own resources", together with VAT, forms the basis for funding the European Union. In my view, that system acts as an impediment (because of its complexity) in determining the fair, net contributions to be made by member states.
Finally, I support the comments made on this in the Select Committee's report which suggested that a system based on GNP per capita might be better than the current own resources and VAT arrangement. One additional advantage of that approach is that it would help to reduce fraud in certain member states.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, I should like to follow others who have already expressed their thanks to our new chairman for the way in which he has led us in the discussion of this report. The noble Lord has already shown that he is equal to the standard of his distinguished predecessors. We all look forward to a considerable number of reports as a result of his leadership.
This report arises from the need of the EU to look ahead at its future financial needs. I say that because if one is to raise money, it is always good to know what one is to raise it for. The other aspect is that we have to discuss the means by which the monies are to be raised.
Since I first took part in European parliamentary budgetary discussions not only has membership of the European Union greatly increased, but also the size of the EU budget. It has increased enormously. At the same time the diversity of need between the large number of member states has also increased. It will continue to
1056
increase as and when further enlargement takes place. One of the troubles is that the systems do not seem to have changed much or certainly have lacked a great deal of control.
While our review is primarily concerned with the limited period covering the years 2000 to 2006, it must be helpful for thought to be given to the longer financial perspective. In planning for the short-term it would not be helpful to pursue policies that would make things more difficult for the fulfilment of longer-term policies. The need for such a longer view of our finances and expenditure methods has been greatly increased by the resignation of the Commission and the report of the independent committee.
The report seems to have come as a surprise to many people. Frankly, to me it has come as a tremendous relief. Those of us who have been concerned with these matters have long known what is going on. Neither our words of warning, nor even the warnings of the Court of Auditors seemed, for too long, to have had any effect. Incidentally, I believe that the work of the Court of Auditors has been greatly undervalued in this affair. The strengthening of its status at Maastricht and its subsequent qualified report are the background to the present independent report and the more active role that is now being taken by the European Parliament.
The Berlin European Council meets this week to try to complete the Agenda 2000 negotiations. I am not clear as to where the need for reforms brought out in the independent committee report comes in the council's agenda. Will that committee's report be discussed and what effect will it have on the original agenda? I firmly believe that no further progress can be made on enlarging the EU until those reforms that result from the inquiry have been put in place and prove to be effective. The overwhelming feeling that has come out of this report is that there has to be a deep-seated review of the composition of the Commission and its responsibilities and that it must come quickly.
As regards the raising of revenue, that makes paragraph 64 of our report all the more relevant. It quotes the Court of Auditors as saying,
"In order to eliminate repeated irregularities, the Commission should … improve collaboration between itself and the Member States as regards the management and control of traditional own resources".
It goes on to say,
"The persistence of irregularities in the collection of traditional own resources despite constant pressure for improvement suggests that the problems are inherent in the system".
That makes it all the more urgent that the own resources decision should be renegotiated a soon as possible with a view to funding being based entirely on a GNP-based resource.
Incidentally, I feel that there should be no question of any form of direct EU taxation. Filling in one UK tax return is quite enough and the bureaucracy and complications involved in filling in a European one makes the mind boggle.
The independent committee report must have a direct bearing on the subject of our report and, in my view, on what goes on in Berlin this week. It is essential that the

1057
opportunity is now taken to look in depth at the manning and scope of the Commission's activities. How many commissioners do we need? How are they and their staff to be appointed? To whom will they be accountable? What are to be their future responsibilities? Until those questions are quickly addressed, slowly but surely we shall slip back into the same old ways, and the answers that have to come in the end will be disastrously delayed.
I have always regarded the Commission as the executive Civil Service of the EU. That it has taken on a greater role is because it has been allowed to do so. A redefinition of the Commission's responsibilities is required. I believe that there are a number of areas where EU activities should be returned to the responsibility of the member states themselves. In broad terms, I would wish to see the Council of Ministers playing more of a Cabinet role; the Commission more of a purely executive role; and the European Parliament, among its other duties, a greater scrutinising role.
In relation to revenue raising and expenditure, it must be remembered that much of the work is carried out by the member states themselves. That being so, the degree of bureaucracy and fraud depends on how simple the systems are made, the clear way in which responsibility is placed on those member states, and the clear and effective audit arrangements that are put in place. That is why Commissioner Liikanen, as my noble friend Lord Boardman said, argued solely for the GNP-based resource as a means of improving the fairness of the system. He said that moving to such a resource would,
"do away with a major part of bureaucracy in member countries and Brussels … and there would be no fraud on the revenue side"—
or nearly no fraud.
In relation to expenditure, much of the administration is carried out either by the member states or by independent agencies of one sort or another. Here again, the objectives and stages of fulfilment must be clearly defined and reported on. The programmes must be open to continuous scrutiny. When we set up the Budget Control Committee in the European Parliament in 1977, I had hoped that it would act as effectively as our own PAC. In those early days I am afraid that those hopes were not immediately fulfilled. I hope that now the strictures of the Court of Auditors are being followed up both by that committee and by Parliament itself. I hope that the changes which must come about will be brought about with great urgency. I hope that priority is given to them even over the priorities already given to the Agenda 2000 programme in Berlin this week.
One of the difficulties of the present system is that the presidencies last for six months at a time and it has always been necessary that the presiding presidency should have some success story at the end of that six months. Frankly, if a way could be found for the fundamental reform that is now so urgently needed, that would be a much greater success for the German presidency than the success of Agenda 2000. Perhaps they have a priority. I do not know. My personal feeling is that the priority should be deep-seated reform.
I hope that the report is a preface to other reports based on what will come out of proposals for reform from the Berlin Summit later this week. I fully support the work of
1058
the committee and the report that it has achieved. I hope that it will not be long before we produce another report, further along the line of reform.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I do not have a great deal to say by way of comment on the report, which was excellently summarised and elucidated in the introductory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. The report is excellent and I have few comments because I do not want to repeat what others have said. My only comment is on the rebate.
I listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, about the need to veto an end to such a rebate unless we secure certain concessions. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I agree much more with his approach than that of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. Then I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, who made me think again because he has unrivalled experience. On reflection, it does not seem that there is a profound difference between their comments. No one is suggesting that we should give away the rebate without concessions. No one is suggesting that we should fight to the last ditch for the rebate, whatever concessions may be offered. It is a question of tactics. I prefer the approach advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and many others.
It does not do much good to brandish a veto. Too often our deliberations in Brussels are represented as a tennis championship—game, set and match to Britain. It is a sort of macho contest. We win or we surrender. That is not the way to negotiate. A much more sensible approach is advocated by the committee, and I strongly endorse it.
The proper way is shown by the BSE experience. The last government threatened and exercised a veto, using the doctrine of the empty chair, and got nowhere. The present Government have been much more emollient. One person who paid tribute to the better results of that stance was the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, who said that the ban on British beef would not have been lifted if we had continued to negotiate in the way that the last government did.
My main question concerns the total size of the budget. The committee reached the reasonable conclusion that it would be possible up to 2006 to stay within the ceiling of 1.27 per cent., which could even accommodate enlargement. That may be true but a bigger question arises. Will the budget be sufficient for European monetary union? It is likely that within the next two years two new member states will join EMU. Personally, I regard it as more likely than not that by 2004 Britain will be a member of EMU. So all 15 present member states will be members.
Is the budget large enough for EMU? I remember reading the MacDougall report, which demanded strong central resources, at the time of the Werner plan. I actually wrote a pamphlet about it in 1972. I have not re-read my pamphlet because I am not sure that it was particularly good. However, the question arises of the need for central resources. It is extremely significant that there is no push for increasing the EU's central resources. The noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, is not in his place, and it seems to me that debates could be shortened if noble Lords who are

1059
not present for the wind-up speeches would refrain from speaking. That would certainly make our debates end somewhat earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Shore, always frightens us—as indeed do many of the anti-Europeans—with the thought of a terrible federal superstate that the Germans are advocating. It is perfectly true that many Germans talk about the need for political union and Mr. Tietmeyer talks about the need for an economic government. But you cannot have an economic government and a federal state without much bigger central resources. You cannot have a federal government with central resources of 1.27 per cent. of GDP of the federal state. This is why I sometimes think it is necessary to draw a distinction between the rhetoric and the reality. The German politicians are not advocating that they should contribute more. They want to contribute less. They are the keenest to limit the total resource to 1.27 per cent. of GDP.
It rather knocks on the head the idea that what we are about to face is a federal superstate when every country is agreed that we shall not increase the central resource of the EU. The next question is: is that right? Is it possible to limit the central resources of monetary union to such a small central budget? Was MacDougall right to say that you needed a much bigger budget? People draw a parallel with the United States because of the stabilising effects on depressed regions of a strong federal budget. If, for example, Texas is in depression, Texans pay less tax and receive more benefits, and therefore the recession is mitigated. Some people have calculated that US federal taxes and transfers offset variations from the national average by as much as 40 per cent. Others put it much lower at 10 per cent.
I have changed my mind about this matter. I used to support MacDougall but I think it is possible that monetary union can function perfectly well without a large central budget. I have been much reinforced in this by an excellent study which I commend to the House. It was done in 1996 for the OECD by three authors, Hoeller, Loeppe and Vergriete. I found that study convincing. They say that the comparison with the United States is not valid as Europe is a completely different animal. The states of the United States do not have the resources for stabilisation. In the European Union there are not the central resources, and they will not exist. However, the resources of the member states are infinitely greater, and the responsibility for dealing with unemployment or regional variations in employment lies primarily with the nation state and will continue to do so.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. How does he address the issue that unemployment may be a regional phenomenon which does not conform to the jurisdiction of national budgets?
Lord Taverne: My Lords, if it is a regional phenomenon, it will correspond to the question of national budgets.
Lord Skidelsky: Across frontiers?
Lord Taverne: My Lords, in national terms it will be a matter for national governments. The other aspect of the
1060
matter which is pointed out in the study is that if one looks at the experience of the countries which tied themselves to the deutschmark—particularly Austria and the Netherlands—one sees that there were times when they suffered from differential economic growth and when they needed differential fiscal policies which they managed to carry out perfectly well while tying themselves to the single currency, in their case the deutschmark. I do not want to discuss this study in detail but I believe it makes an extremely convincing case for saying that there is no need for a strong central budget. It seems to me therefore that although this was not a matter for the committee's consideration, it is something that one ought to bear in mind when looking at the total budget. There is no reason to suppose that in EMU the central budget must be greatly increased.
9.55 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, many noble Lords have spoken with expertise about the report of the committee, as one would expect, and in view of the lateness of the hour I will be brief. I, too, wish to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on the excellence of the report. As noble Lords have reminded us, it was produced in a very short time. Through no fault of the committee, its timing is unfortunate, coming as it does on the eve of the Berlin Summit, a subject to which I shall return.
The report emphasises one or two points—for instance, that reform of the CAP must not be used as an excuse by certain member countries to frustrate the enlargement of the Union under Agenda 2000. Intrinsic to the budget reform is the reassessment of the cohesive and the structural funds. It must be a matter of no disagreement—certainly in this House and throughout the Union—that it is quite inequitable, even grotesque, that countries having achieved convergence should continue to receive cohesive funds. Structural funding is more politically sensitive and the report was right to confine itself to the observation that any adjustments here must be seen as equitable.
Several noble Lords have referred to the question of co-financing the CAP. The committee had two reservations with which we agree. First, the level of support given by each member state must be centrally agreed. Giving discretion on the make-up of any shortfall to individual states could open all sorts of soft subsidies, which is protection by another name. Any co-financing must be accompanied by degression, though the Treasury's misgivings on any substantial net benefit to this country must be noted. We also agree that there are very pertinent concerns that co-financing must not be used to mask the real basic root and branch reform that the CAP needs.
My noble friend Lord Skidelsky and several other noble Lords—Lord Tomlinson, Lord Howell, Lord Renton and Lord Randall—referred to the need for accountability in the Commission. We were interested to hear the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry of a hypothecated tax for the Union to be collected by member governments. Transparent, yes, but who is to fix it? Surely there is no alternative to the Commission centrally? Is it uniform; are there not shades

1061
of the community charge here? The fixing of this charge would need to be transparent and, crucially, understood by the average citizen. However, it could have the important, possibly political, effect of surprising the average citizen in the Union by informing him or her, in practical terms, of just how small his or her contribution is, a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and, from a different perspective, by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
Accountability is a thread running through the report. My noble friend Lord Shaw in particular, has drawn attention to the significance of the coincidence of the resignation of the Commission and the issue of this report. We look forward to hearing from the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take advantage of the unique opportunity presented by the report of the Court of Auditors, and the subsequent resignation of the Commission, to institute accounting and reporting controls, so ably flagged by my noble friend.
I return to the central point of the debate, the treatment of our budgetary rebate. Many different contributions have been made today and I wish to quote an emphatically non-exclusive example of two opposite views: those of the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Williamson. The coming conference in Berlin will rightly be regarded by Germany, as President, as a unique chance to air its understandable grievance at the level of its contribution, though it is worth bearing in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, that the coming accession of the CEEC countries will present a unique preferential market to Germany. That point should be made at the conference. Germany will not want to be distracted by the events of the past week.
In many ways this report has come with unfortunate timing. Quite understandably, in the time available, the committee was not able to come up with alternatives to the present system. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the rider in paragraph 18 of the report that it would be regrettable if an inviolate stance were taken on the level of contribution which would prejudice the reform of the CAP or the enlargement of the community.
Therefore, from these Benches—I echo the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Skidelsky—we should like to give the Prime Minister and his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary our support in holding basically to the present structure at this time. That is important. In this connection, it was interesting to hear the surmise of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that the rebate would probably be continued, though perhaps attenuated. I was certainly interested to hear his accompanying remarks on Spain and Italy. There will certainly be the usual panoply of special pleading and horse-trading at the conference.
If the report is read, as I know Select Committee reports are read in Brussels and throughout the Union with great respect, as a deeply thought-through discussion paper, it will have done a great service to this country and to the Union in addressing the problems of the Union in the next century.
Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his colleagues. From personal experience on a sister committee, how right he was to include the Clerk in his thanks. They all deserve the gratitude of the House.
10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to what has been a most interesting and varied debate. I welcome the fact that many elements of the report, which was produced so ably by my noble friend Lord Grenfell and his colleagues, echo the views of the Government. There are obviously matters on which we disagree but, like the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, I believe that many of those differences are on tactics rather than on principles.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, referred to the precise timing of the report. I do not know whether he was suggesting that the Commissioners resigned because the report came out at 01.00 hours on Tuesday morning. One has to be careful about causality in these matters. The timing of the debate is significant because later this week, as is well known, the heads of government of the 15 members of the European Union are meeting in Berlin to seek agreement on the financing of EU policy reform over the next financial perspective, covering the years 2000 to 2006. Obviously, this negotiation is of great importance. I agree with my noble friend Lord Grenfell that the report is still relevant. It is certainly the case, as the Government said in their response to the report, that it will be taken seriously into account in our preparations for Berlin. On that point, I disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman.
The issues that will be discussed in Berlin are broader than the remit that the committee set itself in the report. The committee has been concerned with the revenue side of the budget, but the debate in Berlin—and it has been the case quite properly in the debate today—will also be about the expenditure side of the budget—the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, referred to that point—and how Europe spends our money.
Other issues have forced themselves onto the agenda: the appointment of a new Commission, whether temporary or permanent; the improvement of financial management under the control of the Commission; and discussion of the broader economic reform agenda. I was challenged on those points by my noble friend Lord Randall, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and other noble Lords. I do not think that it can be my responsibility to broaden out the debate, which is supposed to be about the financing of the European Union, into the wider issues. But it is the case that in preparing our stand in Berlin, we plan as always to work constructively with our partners while remaining committed to defending British interests.
Before I leave that point, perhaps I may say a word or two on accountability and transparency. Those matters were raised by a number of noble Lords. They were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Randall; and the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, seemed to think that there was nothing about these matters in the Red Book. In our response to the committee's report, we agree that transparency is important. We publish an annual White Paper on European Community finances; we publish in the Red Book estimates of net contributions; and of course we welcome the scrutiny which both Houses of the UK Parliament provide. Improving financial management

1063
and strengthening the fight against fraud were the priorities of the UK's presidency of the European Union last year, and they remain the priorities.
I now turn to the UK abatement. Perhaps I may set out our position, which does not differ from that of the committee by as much as some noble Lords make out, although there was some fairly strong disagreement among noble Lords on this point. The UK wants to see a fair financing system for the European Union. We recognise the broad principle that wealthier member states should contribute more to the EU budget and poorer states should be net recipients. But the structure of EU financing means that that is not the case. The UK remains, after the abatement, the fourth or fifth largest net per capita contributor to the EC budget, despite being only the ninth, tenth or eleventh most prosperous, depending on the measure used. For example, we pay three times more per capita than France, yet France is wealthier than we are. So the UK abatement is in place because of the inequity which is present in the system of contributions.
The root cause of the injustice is the low level of Community spending in the UK. In 1995–97 per capita spending in the UK was 55 per cent. of the EU average. The UK receives an even lower share of per capita common agricultural policy spending—just 47 per cent. of the average over the same period. It is that divergence on spending levels which means that the abatement remains fully justified.
The committee recognises that fact. I quote:
"We accept that, without the abatement … some way of remedying the situation would need to be found".
The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, whose baby this is and who is glad to have its paternity acknowledged after this period of time, confirmed that point. The problem of the UK's large contributions will remain for as long as the fundamental problem of inequity of spending continues to exist.
With the majority of other member states, the Government have actively supported a number of ways of controlling EU spending, including stabilisation of the budget and reform of the expensive and economically inefficient common agricultural policy. I shall say more on both those matters in a moment.
The fact remains that, after stabilisation, CAP reform and enlargement, the UK will continue to contribute more to the EC budget than a number of member states with a higher capacity to pay. So there is no justification in the claim that the UK Government should negotiate the UK abatement as part of an overall settlement.
I now turn to the issue of whether the abatement should be on the negotiating table. This is the area of the debate where there is wider disagreement between the committee and the Government. The committee's report suggests that the abatement should be on the negotiating table.
Last week, I was able to send noble Lords taking part in this debate the Government's response to the inquiry. In it, we explain clearly why we disagree with the report on the subject of putting the abatement on the negotiating table at Berlin, on the basis that, savings of a reformed CAP, stabilisation of the budget, and increased receipts would make up the value of the abatement.
1064
Perhaps I may explain why in our view that cannot be the case. As the Government's response: spelt out, CAP reform will reduce the amount spent on intervention prices, but the amount spent on direct aids to farmers will rise. The Government cannot therefore predict with any confidence that CAP reform will have a significant effect on the UK's net contribution.
Stabilisation of the budget, the second proposal, is vital to large net contributors. However, the UK does not receive the full benefit of stabilisation because the abatement works as a corrector mechanism. The UK receives only one-third of the benefit it would otherwise receive from stabilisation. This illustrates the purpose and reasoning behind the abatement. It is not a set amount paid to the United Kingdom regardless; it is a self-correcting mechanism. Here again, we were grateful for the definitive contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. It is a self-correcting mechanism which corrects an inequity to the UK which arises from the EU financing system. If that inequity did not exist, there would be no reason for the abatement. So long as that inequity remains—and stabilisation would not correct it—the UK abatement will remain justified.
The committee also suggested increasing EU expenditure in the UK as a possible solution to our contributions imbalance. But a massive redistribution would be required of an order which could not be contemplated in the Agenda 2000 negotiations. If we put aside the CAP and the structural funds, we would have to receive virtually all the rest of the available funds if we were going to go any way towards sorting out the imbalance.
So let me be clear. There is no possible outcome to the Agenda 2000 negotiations which could compensate the UK for forgoing the abatement. Even if I find myself on the same side as my noble friends Lord Stoddart, Lord Bruce and Lord Shore of Stepney—a most unusual situation for me—I am afraid that they are right and those noble Lords who are serious about putting the abatement into the negotiating procedure are wrong. So the Government will resolutely defend the abatement. I am grateful not only for the support of my Eurosceptic friends, but for support from a number of noble Lords from all sides.
My noble friend Lord Tomlinson probably knows as much as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and more than any of the rest of us about it. He is right to say that we must continue to reform the policies of the European Union. He mentioned CAP reform, co-financing and degressivity. I might add the better targeting of structural funds, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Grenfell. The Government are among the strongest advocates of European Union policy reform.
Perhaps I may say something briefly about the own resources decision. Paragraph 58 of the report suggests that the financing of the European Union on the present basis could continue only if all member states were content. I cannot accept that; it is an incorrect assumption from which to begin. The correct assumption would be that changes to the financing of the European Union could happen only if all member states agreed. So long as not all member states agreed, the current financing basis would continue.

1065
In her answer to Question 122, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury was quite clear on the point. One would see a small improvement in equity, but to achieve it one would have to go through a rather large and painful process of negotiation. One would have to get a new "own resources" decision which would have to be unanimous. In turn, it would have to be ratified through the appropriate procedures in each member state. In our case, that would mean a fresh Act of Parliament. It is for that reason that we agree with the Commission's assessment in its paper last year. Despite the many valuable contributions which have been made on new possible alternative sources of revenue—the problems with the traditional own resources element, the need for the Cohesion Fund money to be thought out again, since many of the Cohesion Fund recipients meet EMU criteria, the better targeting of structural funds, to which I referred—they do not overcome the profound difficulty of achieving a reform of the own resources decision and the rather limited results which would be available to them.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Surely, he realises that to say it will be a painful procedure is not an adequate answer to the fact referred to constantly in our report that own resources, particularly the collection of the resource based on VAT, is riddled with fraud. Everyone says that. Commissioner Liikanen agreed with that and the European Court of Auditors said it. Therefore, simply to say, as the Economic Secretary said in her answers to us, that the Government agree with the Commission that the shortcomings are there but they do not themselves provide grounds to justify a modification, that it is all too difficult and so the Government will not try, is simply not good enough for those who genuinely want to reform the European Union for its own good.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have two problems with that. First, we would be prepared to embark on a difficult and painful process if the quantum were sufficient to justify it, but now agricultural levies account for only 2 per cent. and customs duties 13 per cent. of revenue. Already we are returning to a GNP-based revenue system, even though no formal decision has been taken to do so. The second reason is that in order to start this painful process, unanimity is required and we do not have it.
I am very conscious of the time and the fact that many noble Lords, including myself, have more work to do tonight when this debate is concluded. If your Lordships will forgive me, I shall pass over the issue of stabilisation. However, stabilisation is essential in helping to solve the contribution imbalances of member states. I shall also pass over the common agricultural policy. The position of the Government on both issues is well known. However, they relate to expenditure rather than revenue and therefore, strictly speaking, they fall outside the subject of the debate.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that the Council later this week presents an opportunity for the heads of government of the 15 member states to set a path of
1066
stability for the finances of the Union over the next seven years. I welcome tonight's debate as an opportunity to air our views on these important issues. There is hard negotiation ahead, but the potential benefits are clear to all. The Government will go to Berlin to demand an outcome that is fair to all member states and to taxpayers and consumers.
10.17 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, the hour is very late. I have no intention of adding to the long and excellent debate that we have had. I shall make one substantive point. I suppose that the sub-committee and the Government will continue to disagree on the subject of the abatement. I believe that it is more a matter of interpretation than anything else. We stated what we believed would be a realistic negotiating result for the United Kingdom and said that it was highly conditional. We made no apology for the fact that when we talked about what would be a realistic negotiating result we did not necessarily mean that it had to be on the table right now but that it was something that the Government should consider over the course of time. What disappointed me about the response of the Government and also the very authoritative speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, was that in their very spirited defence of the British abatement no reference was made to the fact that there were others in the same position. That problem will not go away.
This has been a very good debate. I am glad that it has provoked such a lively discussion. Some noble Lords have been very severe in their condemnation of the time frame in which the inquiry took place. I can assure noble Lords that I did not set the date of the Berlin Council, but I take full responsibility, and make no apology, for my decision to seek the agreement of the sub-committee to take on this inquiry. We were tempted to go straight to what might have been considered the rather sexier subject of tax harmonisation, but I and my colleagues believed that we would be derelict in our duty if we did not examine the budget issues in the framework of Agenda 2000 expected to be settled during the German presidency, and in particular at the Berlin Council. That is why we decided to go ahead within this brief time frame.
Much as I long to comment on the many authoritative and interesting speeches made in the course of the debate, I must refrain from doing so because of the lateness of the hour. I warmly thank all who took part in the debate for their contributions. I am particularly grateful to those who wound up from the Front Benches for their interesting summations and comments.
To the credit of all noble Lords, I believe that their interest through these long hours demonstrated that there was no noticeable suffering from degressivity. I thank all noble Lords for the attention they have paid to the report. It only remains for me to thank again all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate, for making it such a lively debate, and for giving a good response to the report. I commend the report to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scottish Enterprise Bill
10.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Section 25(2) of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 places a financial limit upon Scottish Enterprise. The purpose of this Bill is to increase this financial limit from the present level of …3, 000 million to …4, 000 million. In addition it removes the provision enabling the Secretary of State to increase the limit further by statutory instrument.
The …2, 000 million limit in the 1990 Act was increased to …3, 000 million by The Scottish Enterprise (Aggregate Amount Outstanding) Order 1996 and was expected to take it into the millennium. This has proved not to be the case. It is now estimated that this level will be reached around June 1999.
A number of items count towards the financial limit placed on Scottish Enterprise: first, Scottish Enterprise's and its subsidiaries' general borrowings; secondly, sums issued by the Secretary of State or the Treasury in fulfilment of guarantees; and thirdly, loans guaranteed by Scottish Enterprise or their subsidiaries. Finally, the largest item comprises payment from the Secretary of State consisting of grant-in-aid less administrative expenses, plus voted loans payments.
The increase to …4, 000 million will allow Scottish Enterprise to continue to operate until approximately March 2001. Thereafter the Scottish Parliament will have an opportunity to consider the future funding arrangements.
Expenditure for 1997–98 alone has achieved some significant things: the creation of 30, 000 job opportunities; 17, 700 projects undertaken with Scottish businesses; 5, 300 new businesses started up generating …33 million of additional sales; employment opportunities for 13, 500 people; and 87 inward investment projects.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently provided Scottish Enterprise with strategic guidance that will ensure Scottish Enterprise is aligned to the Government's aims and objectives. But we are not resting on past achievements. We have ambitious plans for Scottish Enterprise activities. They are: to help create 100, 000 new businesses in the next 10 years; to improve their survival rates; to broaden the knowledge base of the Scottish economy and address Scotland's underperformance in the growth areas of creative industries and marketable services; to promote productivity; to prioritise and promote the clustering of companies in sectors most likely to benefit from a strategy of collaboration to compete; to engage the strength of large companies in partnerships across the economy; to initiate activity to raise the level of investment in research and development to competitive levels; to sustain Scotland's attraction to inward investment and reposition where possible to knowledge-intensive industries and promote the
1068
potential of indigenous suppliers; and to help Scottish Trade International to create new exporters and expand new markets for Scottish goods.
Through the effort to refocus Scottish Enterprise activities, we consider that it is achievable within the current level of funding. It is a programme that goes beyond June 1999 when the current aggregate amount outstanding will be reached. The purpose of this Bill is to raise that level to enable Scottish Enterprise to continue to work to meet those objectives until the Scottish Parliament can consider afresh the funding arrangements for Scottish Enterprise.
The Bill was accepted in principle by all parties in the other place and passed without amendment. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. — (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
10.25 p.m.
Lord Nickson: My Lords, I welcome the first opportunity I have had to speak from these Benches on such a bipartisan subject. I welcome the Bill; I welcome the need for it; and I welcome very much the vote of confidence and the agenda which the Minister set out.
As the last chairman of the Scottish Development Agency and the first chairman of Scottish Enterprise, it is appropriate for me to say briefly why I believe that Scottish Enterprise is set on such a course of success.
It is too late to rehearse the background to the start of Scottish Enterprise. However, I pay tribute, with which I am sure the Minister will agree, to all who have worked for it and who have risen to the challenge over the past eight years; to all those who have served on the boards of Scottish Enterprise, the local enterprise companies, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies; and to the very dedicated, imaginative and enterprising staff who have worked for Scottish Enterprise and who are delivering that great success which Scotland has.
I am happy to be able to pay that tribute. When Scottish Enterprise was established, there were many sceptics and many who mourned the departure of the old Scottish Development Agency, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, who was on that board with me, will know. The Scottish press was extremely hostile to the demise of the Scottish Development Agency. I was cast in the role of undertaker and also in the role of midwife and eventually wet nurse to the infant Scottish Enterprise.
Achieving the right balance between Scottish Enterprise at the centre with the co-operation of all the local enterprise companies was not an easy task. But I do not believe that the past eight years have proved that we got it wrong.
The other great addition was the responsibility for training and skills which TECs in England and Wales did not have. It does not surprise me in the least that regional development agencies in England and Wales have been somewhat jealous perhaps of the success of Scottish Enterprise and are now seeking, through regional development authorities, to replicate that to some extent.

1069
The only other point I wish to make is that I hope that when the Scottish Parliament comes to consider future funding arrangements and refocusing—I use the Minister's words—it will endorse the great advantage which Scotland has had and will support the partnership arrangement which has been so successful in Scottish economic development. On the whole, it has been an extremely cohesive partnership involving government in the form of the Scottish Office, of whatever party, local authorities—I supported the retention of economic responsibility in the local authorities—and the private sector. I hope that the partnership and the concept of it will continue when the Scottish Parliament comes into being. I hope that Scottish Enterprise, which has flourished and which continues to deliver the benefits which have been enunciated, will have the opportunity to continue and to build on its success into the new millennium.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Nickson—who did so much to set the Scottish Development Agency and Scottish Enterprise on the right path—and to acknowledge what he has done for Scottish industry, banking and aspects of life in Scotland over so many years. We are lucky to have his advice in this Chamber.
The Bill represents a very large increase in the funding of Scottish Enterprise and it is somewhat disappointing that so important a measure, wherein we can discuss industry and employment in Scotland, is being debated late at night, particularly as this is probably the last occasion on which we will be able to debate those topics.
It is only right that we should ask the Government: is the money being well spent and is it producing the results we would expect from Scottish Enterprise? Its work can only succeed in parallel with good government economic policies to ensure business confidence and a willingness to invest in new industry, new enterprises and new small businesses. At present, one can hardly say that there is a good scenario for developing industry. Are the Government giving the right support to enterprise at present?
One's views tend to be coloured by what is happening in areas one knows best. I obviously know the south west of Scotland. Ministers come and Ministers go. They meet representatives of enterprise and the local authorities. They make all sorts of promises; yet, at the end of the day, the results are singularly depressing. From a random selection of local press cuttings we read, "Minister's crisis visit", "Axe hanging over tourist board jobs", "Emergency jobs meeting", "Jobs hit list". The depressing headlines go on and on: "Jobs cuts crisis alarm", "Timber firm puts back opening of new plant", "More jobs loss misery", and so on. That hardly seems to me a climate in which one would expect enterprise to have the dramatic impact which is needed and where jobs are disappearing fast.
In September last year, Mrs. Walker, the director of enterprise in Dumfries and Galloway, reported the loss of 1, 000 jobs in 12 months. That was before we ran into
1070
the major problems of the textile industry, the developing problems of agriculture and of industry generally. The Minister may well say, "Yes, we have lots of new jobs; part-time jobs in service industries. "However, that is no good to those who want full-time skilled jobs, whether men or women.
As I said, Ministers visit frequently. They include the Secretary of State; Brian Wilson when he was Minister responsible for industry; the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald; Mr. Calum MacDonald; and Mrs. Liddell. The Member of Parliament was acting a year ago as if there was light at the end of the tunnel. The tunnel has not yet been reached, far less any daylight being seen at the end of it. The situation is steadily deteriorating.
Dumfries and Galloway Council has produced many competent reports, both on rural and industrial aspects. It has explained to Ministers just how serious the situation is. We have had major problems, such as ICI selling its very modern plant to Dupont and then to UCB with a substantial loss of jobs. The Government seem incapable of resolving what would seem to be the relatively simple problem of Crichton Royal. I refer to the money that was paid to the university trust in error by the council. The trustees cannot pay it back without authority. Ministers do not seem able to resolve the matter.
A major disappointment in recent months has been the decision by the timber industry over Kronospan. That was the great hope that was supposed to bring many hundreds of jobs to a major site north of Lockerbie. To what extent does the Minister check with Scottish Enterprise and with the local enterprise companies? I know that they must be independent, that individual directors must use their own judgment and that there must be an element of entrepreneurship. But what happens when such a company takes on a greenfield site well north of Lockerbie, for which planning permission would never have been given for anything other than jobs, and apparently spends £2 million preparing the site, and the timber industry then says that because of the economic situation it is not going to use that site, and the enterprise company is left with that £2 million bill without having had a formal contract before beginning work on the site? Surely that is a dubious use of enterprise money. I repeat that there was not a strong legal contract before the work started.
I turn finally to something on which the Minister could and should be spending more money. Part of the money going to enterprise could be used on the infrastructure. From his visits to Dumfries and Galloway, the Minister knows that the road situation is very serious. However, all the current major construction work on the A. 75 at the Glen, on the M. 6 from Beattock up to Paddy Rickle Bridge and north of Beattock, together with the improvements to the A. 7 were approved and begun under the last Conservative government. Since then, the present Government have done nothing to make any major improvements to the roads anywhere in south-west Scotland. If ever anything is crying out for action and if ever the Government could do something to help with jobs, road safety and transportation, that is it. We must create the motorway link between Carlisle and Gretna Green where there are

1071
between seven and eight miles of dual carriageway, the only stretch between London and almost the outskirts of Glasgow.
It is incredible that the Government have put their heads in the sand and will do nothing about developing roads in the south of Scotland—and, indeed, throughout Scotland. In view of my severe criticism, I hope that the Minister will think seriously about the developing unemployment in the south of Scotland, to which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Steel, will refer in a moment. We do not want merely talk; we are anxious to see action and good, permanent, skilled jobs coming to an area that needs them desperately. I know that this is not easy, but I should like to see a very much more successful application of employment creation. Of course, we support the increase in the money available to Scottish Enterprise, but I want to see it better, and more effectively, spent.
10.37 p.m.
The Earl of Stair: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this Second Reading debate on the Scottish Enterprise Bill.
I support this Bill, and believe that the best description of the purpose of the Bill is to be found on the front cover of the Scottish Enterprise Network booklet, entitled The Network Strategy, which states:
"our purpose is to help the people of Scotland create, and sustain, jobs, prosperity and a high quality of life".
It is very easy to say that a technical Bill such as this is not a priority, when there is already a very full legislative programme, and the funding is not necessarily required at the present time. However, this should not be a Bill that will instigate great political argument and disruption. It should pass with the minimum of delay to enable Scottish Enterprise to prepare to operate under the new Parliament for the improvement of business development in Scotland.
However, I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice that Scotland's circumstances are now considerably different from nine years ago when the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 was passed. As I see it, the availability of this extra £1, 000 million will boost the opportunity for Scottish Enterprise to implement national strategies, and to dispense funds to the local enterprise companies which in turn can implement the Government's policy of sustainable rural business development. This is already in process with the personal enterprise shows being run by Scottish Enterprise, in partnership with the Royal Bank of Scotland with the aim of increasing the new business birth rate. These shows are providing advice and guidance to potential small business operators all over Scotland.
This Bill will also introduce a degree of much-needed flexibility for Scottish Enterprise to be able to call on extra funds should an industrial or employment crisis develop in one of the regions of Scotland. I would like to provide an example, but first I should declare an interest in that I am a board member of Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise, one of the 13 LECs in Scotland. My example occurred last year when Dumfries and
1072
Galloway suffered several unconnected large job losses in the region. Scottish Enterprise was able to provide contingency funding which enabled Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise and the council to develop a 10-year plan for the economic regeneration of the region. This was launched by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, on 3rd March, in Dumfries. This joint economic strategy will provide a shared approach to the future economic development of Dumfries and Galloway.
The local enterprise companies have a major role to play in the development of business opportunity. The most often published stories concern inward investment, and the announcement of new employment. However, the local enterprise companies operate throughout the community and through the network of business shops assist in training, and advising new businesses, as well as assisting in Government schemes such as skillseekers and training for work, and to attain industry standards such as Investors in People. Through a joint arrangement with some local councils there is the administration of leader 2, European supported incentives for small business development. Other joint efforts involve, for example, office unit developments in Newton Stewart, a town in the Dumfries and Galloway region, which enable embryonic businesses to move into a small office which is equipped not only with desks and the normal furniture but also the latest in information technology. Existing industry is also helped both with expansion, diversification, innovation and the creation of jobs.
Finally, there is a community involvement with the provision and co-ordination of funding for schemes such as the small towns initiative, intended to regenerate particular identified communities.
Next year's gross expenditure allocation to Scottish Enterprise from the block grant to the Scottish Parliament has been reduced. This is to take account of some major rephasing of projects. Commitments have been made, subject to review by the Scottish Parliament, to increase the allocation for the following two years.
I trust that this Bill will pass as quickly through the stages in this House as it did in the other place to enable Scottish Enterprise to plan, particularly in the light of the expected reduction in European structural funds.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Monro. The site to which he alluded cost nearer £3 million. Already there are three active interests in that site. It has been a worthwhile investment.
10.41 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, one might not suspect it at this late hour and with such a thin attendance, but I imagine that this is quite an historic occasion. I suspect that it is the last time that this House will consider a Scottish Bill. We are looking forward to the advent of the Scottish Parliament. The 300 years during which this House has had to look after Scottish legislation is coming to an end. That is one reason for giving this Bill three cheers. The other is that, like other speakers, I welcome the increased funding which Scottish Enterprise will have.

1073
However, in my capacity as a candidate for the Scottish Parliament I received the other day a very glossy folder from Scottish Enterprise full of very fine and unexceptional phrases about what it hoped to do. I could not help looking at the expensive production and thinking that I would rather have had one page saying how the money had been spent and what had been achieved. I commend that approach not only to Scottish Enterprise but to other organisations as well.
When the Scottish Parliament comes to look at the work of Scottish Enterprise and all the other agencies, it will want to have a much more hands-on approach than has been possible under the existing parliamentary scrutiny. For example, the Scottish Enterprise remit does not include the need to establish or to draw up any kind of national infrastructure strategy. It does not deal with the question of having any kind of blueprint for a road network, rail or airports.
I suspect that the Scottish Parliament in its first couple of years and probably by the time the budget provision that we are making today runs out, will want to look at all the agencies that operate in the economic field, try to streamline them and make them more efficient, cost-effective and answerable to the parliament itself.
I share some of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monro. We in the south of Scotland have had a series of unfortunate disasters, totally unrelated to any expectation and to each other. I know that the Minister has been to see the effect of the closure of Viasystems. It was a successful company, built up by small local entrepreneurs and eventually taken over by larger concerns which grew from a handful of people in Galashiels and Selkirk. It became the largest single employer in Selkirk. The fact that the new American owners decided to close it down—not for any local reasons—has been a major economic disaster in the area. That, coupled with the new quarrel between the Americans and the European Union on the banana question, and the totally unjustified sanctions on what I prefer to call the "cashmere" industry, led to a serious economic situation in the Scottish Borders.
I make one plea to Ministers. I have heard him and other Ministers repeat the old truth—for it is a truth— that unemployment in the Borders even at the present time is less than in some other parts of Scotland. We had this argument 30 years ago and I am sorry to see it reappearing. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Monro, will agree that it is a tradition in the Borders that if one is unemployed, one does not hang about; one does not go into the unemployment statistics; one leaves and finds employment in central Scotland, down South or indeed overseas. That has always been the tradition. In an area like the Borders depopulation is our enemy, not unemployment. We won that argument in the late 1960s. Eventually the government recognised that they would have to consider industrial support on criteria other than unemployment. I hope therefore that we are not going to have to go back and rehearse those arguments all over again.
1074
I raise that matter because the SDA, to which the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, made reference and in which he was involved, was extremely active in the Borders and very effective in many ways in both large and small schemes, in helping to revive the economy. The Minister was recently in Selkirk, and one of the curious things he may have noticed there is that along the road from Viasystems is the old Ettrick mill. I remember it as a spinning mill when I was a new Member of Parliament. It had been closed for years and the local enterprise company, using partly Scottish Enterprise funds and partly European funds, refurbished the building four or five years ago. A lot of money was spent on it, yet it stands empty to this day.
I do not understand why we have not been able to attract into the south of Scotland not industrial jobs—I realise the difficulties in that area—but office employment. We are told that in the computer age offices do not have to be in city centres, yet one only needs look at Glasgow and Edinburgh to find millions of pounds being spent on great new offices by insurance companies and other agencies. That mill is a building on which substantial sums have already been spent, and nothing has been successfully achieved in having it occupied. Those are the kinds of question which in future the Scottish Parliament will want to address. It will want to look at the present rather inadequate structures—I include Scottish Enterprise in that—for making sure that economic development is balanced and tailored to the specific needs of specific parts of Scotland.
10.48 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming this Bill, although, if I understand it rightly, it does not provide more funds to Scottish Enterprise; it just gives them cover for the continuing funds coming from the Scottish Office as the aggregate amount is about to run out. So it is not entirely the good news story that some people might like to imagine.
However, it is important for all that because it would not be right to find Scottish Enterprise running out of legislative cover and not being able to take and use the money coming from the Scottish Office. I entirely understand the point of the Bill. It is interesting that the Bill says that the total will not exceed £4, 000 million, then takes out the provision in the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 for further increases, which will be necessary after 2001, to be by secondary legislation. I presume that early in the new millennium, the Scottish Parliament will have to consider similar primary legislation, to up the amount to £5, 000 million or whatever. Will the Minister confirm that that is so?
If I understand the amendment to the 1990 Act, I am intrigued by the removal of the words
"with the consent of the Treasury".
Was that cosmetic or will future increases not require the consent of the Treasury? At this time of night, I will not go into some of the great debates about whether or not the words "with the consent of the Treasury" were necessary. Some of us take the view that not a penny is

1075
spent, not a hair falls from anybody's head, without the consent of the Treasury. Are there any serious reasons for omitting those words, which are found in all sorts of legislation, from the Bill?
I wonder also about Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I suspect that its cover is of a different nature, but is its position secure or will it require similar legislation shortly?
The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, is not keeping a careful eye on the Order Paper. This is not by any means the only piece of Scottish legislation before your Lordships. I suspect that this Bill will make its way onto the statute book a good deal quicker than the other two. Buried in two United Kingdom or basically English measures are major items of Scottish legislation. One of them reforms the Scottish health service, runs to a number of clauses and is an important piece of Scottish legislation. The other is less bulky and is to do with the Water Industry Bill that is before the House. I do not mean a pounds, shillings and pence water bill but legislation. There are still some pieces of Scottish legislation wending their way through the House.
As to the health service legislation, I would have preferred a separate Scottish measure, rather than have something buried in an English Bill.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I did say that this was the last Scottish Bill. I accept that there is other Scottish legislation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's meaning but I could not resist the temptation to point out that two pieces of Scottish legislation are going through the House in a rather unsatisfactory manner—an amazing manner, given that the Scottish Parliament will shortly have responsibility for such matters.
Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise have been successful in many ways over the past nine years but on 1 st June, the situation will change out of all recognition with the coming of a Scottish Parliament. I wonder whether that Parliament should not consider early on the way those bodies operate.
The case for local enterprise companies was that it was a good idea to involve local business and commerce—in the jargon of these days, to give them ownership of the economic development and training in their area. I know it is late at night but this is important. Would the Minister like to share the Government's thoughts as to the future of the current framework?
Sometimes there are real problems with LECs because if the business men who join those boards are thrusting, developing and increasing employment, they will often be the very people who are applying for aid to the body on which they sit, Scottish Enterprise or HIE. Political opportunists often exploit the position of those people in such a way that, if I were such a thrusting person, I would not want to join any of those bodies.
If I did apply to them for anything, opportunist politicians would start to attack me. The current Government, Members of Parliament and so on have not
1076
been immune from opportunist attacks on such business men. Sometimes it seems to me they would almost prefer the unsuccessful to be on these bodies rather than the successful. I should have thought that it is the successful we all want. I hope that the Conservative Party Opposition will not join in such attacks on the kind of people I mention who are the very people we need on those bodies.
It seems to me that the Scottish Parliament will want—as the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, rightly said—a much more hands-on approach in this matter. I do not think it will take the same rather arm's length approach to Scottish Enterprise and HIE as we have taken at Westminster. I was never an industry Minister but I have sat in the same room as them. One of the problems was that it seemed to Ministers that all the good news was dished out by Scottish Enterprise or the Scottish Development Agency and all the bad news had to be dealt with by government Ministers. I think there is a certain amount of truth in that and I believe it still happens. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, has to deal with some of the problems of closures in Scotland which I shall deal with in a minute. However, I wager that if it is a matter of great success stories, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will boast of that.
I do not think that that process will be sustainable in the Scottish Parliament. I suspect there will be major changes in the way these bodies work and the relationship they have with government. I believe that Edinburgh and even Glasgow will be rather small towns—if I can call them that—for such big players to remain in isolation from each other, and it would not be for one to start interfering to a far greater extent than has been the case at Westminster. I believe that we shall see some major changes and I believe they will come about sooner if the Scottish economy continues the economic decline that we have seen in the past 18 months, with unemployment rising inexorably after many years of continuing decline in the unemployment figures month after month. We now see them increasing and we now see a litany of closures.
My noble friend Lord Monro and the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, have drawn particular attention to the problems in the Borders. Undoubtedly if the banana war is not settled soon the cashmere and woollen industry across the south of Scotland will be even more damaged than it has been in the past year. I see that the banana war has stretched as far as Tunnoch's caramel wafers. At least there is some logic in equating bananas with caramel wafers in that they are both foods. I have never been able to see the logic of equating bananas with cashmere. However, joking aside, this is an extremely serious business of which I know that the Government are well aware. I am sure we wish them well in their efforts to try to make sure that this business does not deteriorate any further. We have problems with Bishopton Royal Ordinance Factory and Volvo. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, knows better than most, we have problems at Kvaerner which, like all shipyards, is dependent on the next order.

1077
As regards the money that Scottish Enterprise will receive for the future, it is important that it considers ways to help indigenous industry. It has always been a complaint that Scottish Enterprise and HIE have been too quick to help incoming industry and not quick enough to help indigenous industry to grow. That is something it ought to consider. I do not want to go on any longer. I think we all wish Scottish Enterprise well. While it certainly provides meat to table good questions to the Government to see Scottish unemployment rising, it certainly does not give any joy to those of us who raise the matter because we know from our term in government how difficult it is when one is faced with the closure of enterprises, especially in small communities where that enterprise forms a major source of employment, and how difficult it often is to replace it. The Government have our sympathy and support in these matters, as does Scottish Enterprise.
10.59 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. As noble Lords will be aware, this Bill has a narrow compass. Its purpose is to increase the aggregate amount that Scottish Enterprise may receive under the terms of the Enterprise New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990. It does not influence the level of grant in aid that Scottish Enterprise will receive. That remains a matter for the Secretary of State in his allocation of the Scottish block as determined by the Barnett formula. Funding over the £4, 000 million limit will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament in due course. I can confirm that when the money runs out in 2001, or whenever, it will be for the Scottish Parliament to decide.
It is of course vital that Scottish Enterprise continues to receive funding. As I indicated earlier, the Secretary of State has issued Scottish Enterprise with detailed strategic guidance. He has asked Scottish Enterprise to develop a strategy which will encourage innovation, promote enterprise and lifelong learning and secure a modern and inclusive economy. That will help us to achieve a competitive drive which will enhance the knowledge base of Scottish businesses on which their commercial successes will increasingly depend in the coming century. Scottish Enterprise clearly has a central role to play in this development.
Perhaps I may now turn to some of the specific issues that have been raised. I join the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, in congratulating the very many people who have given of their talents and very freely of their time over the years, from SDA days, through the troubled birth of Scottish Enterprise and its LEC network. I remember the hostility of which the noble Lord speaks. With his leadership, Scottish Enterprise managed to survive and grow and prosper. It is only right that I, too, join the noble Lord, Lord Monro, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, on the crucial part that he played in those early days.
The noble Lord raised a point worth noting. There will soon be eight regional development agencies in England and we will perhaps face the kind of
1078
competition of which we have had forewarning through the activity of the Welsh and Irish development agencies. I am sure that if we are faced with eight muscular regional development agencies in England, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will have to be on their mettle. All of us in Scottish public life should try to make sure that Scottish Enterprise is able to compete as strongly as possible in the years ahead, particularly to protect our splendid record of inward investment which has led to 80, 000 people being employed by foreign-owned companies in the manufacturing sector alone.
Questions were asked about the leadership of Scottish Enterprise. It has been said that it was good at the start, but it should be business led. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, expressed concerns about the leadership and how it would develop in the years ahead. Perhaps I may say very firmly that whatever reservations some might have had in the early years, the Government are committed not only to the idea of partnership—yes, we have brought people into local companies from local authority and trade union backgrounds—but have made it quite clear that that partnership should be led by business interests. Therefore, I was dismayed to note that there were some in Scotland who felt that the best course forward was to abolish the board of Scottish Enterprise and to replace a lot of the local interests, again by political interests. That would be taking out of the enterprise networks the very people with experience of enterprise.
The noble Lord, Lord Monro, asked if we felt that the money was well spent. I will not rehearse again the achievements of Scottish Enterprise, but our belief is that it is the best way forward and, if we can keep the business leadership there, we can begin to build on some of the policies contained in the latest strategy. I believe those policies point Scotland towards a future in a very different century which will be based on a knowledge-driven economy. If one looks at the DTI White Paper on competitiveness, it is interesting how many of the ideas about industry clusters or knowledge-driven economies have been worked upon for some years now in Scotland. Because of the efforts of Scottish Enterprise, Scotland is well ahead in fashioning the theories and shaping the direction which will take us into that next century.
During that transition, there will be difficult periods. I sympathise deeply with the problems of the Dumfries and Galloway economy, which were described by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Stair, with his close involvement through his membership of Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise, for recognising the positive things that have been going on. He mentioned the personal enterprise shows we have set up to try to encourage people to start their own companies. He is aware of the extra money that has been given to Dumfries and Galloway—£2.4 million for the delivery of the local action plan in 1999–2000. I, too, am aware of the positive prospects for the Kronospan-Lockerbie site.
It is also worth remembering that the new technologies will favour the rural areas of Scotland— rural areas where employment has increased quite

1079
markedly in the past decade—and we believe that in setting up our rural inward investment unit we will be able to recreate in the south of Scotland the success that we have already had in the Highlands. Some of those successes were predicated on the new technologies—the ISDN lines being brought into the Highlands—but one can see in towns like Dingwall, Nairn and Alness call centres being developed along them. There is also a good deal of optimism that call centres can be brought into the Border towns and to the towns of Dumfries and Galloway. So I would not be quite as pessimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Monro, on these matters.
In areas such as tourism, which the noble Lord mentioned in passing, we gave an extra £1 million to the Scottish Tourist Board. Its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, is aware that that money was used to help tourist boards in the shakier areas to survive long enough so that they could be properly funded through the Scottish Parliament, which would give the core funding through the Scottish Tourist Board.
Other areas are important in looking at the budget as we go forward. While the £425 million looks as though it is a reduction, we have allowed another £25 million to be rolled over so that there is a real increase next year in terms of its funding. In addition, we should be aware that a great deal of money is going into programmes that are closely involved in the training activities in which Scottish Enterprise has such an interest. For instance, £300 million has been committed to the New Deal over the next five years and the local enterprise companies will have an important role in that.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, said that he believed that there would be a more hands-on approach from the Scottish Parliament. In anticipation of the debates that might lie ahead, we tried to ensure that government, the Scottish Office and Scottish Enterprise were as closely aligned as possible. That has been a useful and positive exercise over the past year. We have also tried to involve business much more in the deliberations of government and Scottish Enterprise than has been the case in the past. We have started the Scottish Business Forum which will allow the bigger companies in Scotland to inform government thinking. That has been judged to be a successful exercise.
At the moment, I am on the point of producing a pathfinder document with the 13 major sectors of business and industry in Scotland which will lay down their priorities for the MSPs who gather in Edinburgh. Politicians will become more involved in the activities of the enterprise networks, and properly so. That is one of the reasons for having a devolved parliament. A strong committee structure will help in that involvement. The related point is that we shall see much more involvement on the part of business as well. I hope that what we have done in the past year in trying to encourage more business activity in Scottish affairs will be continued.
In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Arbrecknish, yes, I believe that the LECs work. We are fully in support of the current framework. As I said, we believe that they should be business-led. I recommend the continuance of that structure to the Scottish Parliament.
1080
The noble Lord mentioned Glasgow and Edinburgh and rightly mentioned the economic difficulties in some areas. It is worth remembering that last Friday Edinburgh announced that it would be creating 40, 000 new jobs. Companies that I visit in Edinburgh are already working in a very tight labour market. Unemployment there is 3.5 per cent. on the claimant count. Even in Glasgow, where unemployment has fallen, 20, 000 new jobs are being looked for in call centres, retail and so on.
I repeat that the claimant count is not the perfect measure. But at 5.5 per cent. in Scotland, it has remained steady in the six months since August. It is the lowest it has been since 1977. Youth unemployment, which was such a scourge under previous administrations, is at its lowest for a generation. So, while there are difficulties, we continue to create jobs. The statistics that we have from Scottish employers indicate that 34, 000 extra jobs were created in the Scottish economy during the past year. So the situation is not entirely bleak. We must be careful that we do not talk Scotland down. If we hit business and consumer confidence, we shall hit jobs.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred to Treasury consent. All ministerial functions under the 1990 Act are exercised by the Secretary of State. Section 55 of the Scotland Act provides that devolved functions, whether previously exercised only with the consent of another Minister of the Crown, will in future be exercised solely by Scottish Ministers. Section 126, dealing with interpretation, clarifies that the term "Minister of the Crown" includes the Treasury. The end result will be that references to Treasury consent to the exercise of functions by the Scottish Secretary under the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act will fall.
I commend the Bill to the House and ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Scottish Parliamentary Constituencies Bill [H.L.]
11.13 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill does two things. First, it brings forward in time Section 86 of the Scotland Act, which reduces the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster to 58. Secondly, it uncouples the number of Members of the new Scottish Parliament from the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster.
As the Scotland Act stands, the Boundary Commission in the next Parliament will reduce the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster. It will do so by raising the electoral quota in Scottish seats from the current 54, 000 to the English level of 65, 000. That will reduce the number of Scottish MPs—I think—to 58. I say "I think" because the number rather depends on how

1081
it is calculated. It might be one less, it might be one more, but most commentators reckon that 58 will be the number.
That reduction acknowledges the existence of the Scottish Parliament; it acknowledges the reduction in the responsibility of Scottish MPs at Westminster; it also acknowledges the existence—although it does not provide the entire solution—to the famous West Lothian question. I believe it is true to say that every party, in both Houses, agrees both with the reduction and with the reasons for the reduction. That was clear during the passing of the Scotland Act.
Where many of us have a quarrel with the Government is on the timescale. In three-and-a-half months the new Parliament will take on all its responsibilities. It seems to me that there is no case for the reduction in Scottish Members not being made before the next election. Why do we have to wait for two elections before doing what everyone, including the Government, agrees should be done? I have no doubt that the Minister will tell me that the Boundary Commission cannot produce a report in time for changes to be made for the next election. I do not accept that for a moment. I do not believe that it would take the Boundary Commission more than the next two or three months to come forward with its proposals. They could be dealt with over the next year, in plenty of time to be put in place for the next election. Given modern technology, all the computer-based demographic information is available. It is no longer the day of the pen and pencil. There is no longer a need to send out an army of people to find out how many people live here and there. That day has long since gone. It is much easier now; there are demographic computer models and all kinds of things that can be used in order to do what is necessary. I have little doubt that a small team would take a short time to come forward with reasonable proposals. Then we could have the appeals, and the reduction could be made for the next election.
If this Parliament goes its full length, the Scottish Parliament will have been running for more than two years by the time of the next election and will be well into its stride. I can see no reason not to proceed with the issue.
The second problem is that when the reduction comes into effect, quite the silliest provision in the Scotland Act will be triggered. Frankly, "triggered" is an appropriate word because, as the Act stands, when the number of Scottish Members of Parliament is reduced by 14, so also will the number of first-past-the-post Members of the Scottish Parliament, plus another seven from the top-up list. That makes a total of 21 Members of the Scottish Parliament who will be invited to pull the trigger on themselves.
It is remarkable that when we go to the polls in 45 days' time, if I am counting correctly, we will elect 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. I presume that is what the Government think we need to be able to run a reasonable parliament. Yet in a few years' time we shall dispense with 21, having in the meantime built a parliament with offices for all 129. It seems a little illogical.
1082
This coupling of the number of MPs at Westminster and the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament is totally illogical. I understand the convenience for the first time, but I cannot believe that it makes sense in the long term. I can think of nothing more designed to create bad blood between Holyrood and Westminster than the Government's current proposals. In a few years' time they will say to the Scottish Parliament— and more importantly to 21 of the 129 Members— "Sorry, we can dispense with you; we don't need you. The only reason we don't need you is that we've reduced the number of Members of Parliament at Westminster".
This small Bill of mine is an appeal for common sense before the Parliament starts work. When it opens, the 129 Members will be looking at each other, scratching their heads and wondering how they can manoeuvre so that they will not be one of the 21, but one of the 108. Equally, they will manoeuvre some of their friends, as they will then be, into a position where they will be among the 21. I do not believe that will get our Parliament off to a good start, with the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of one-sixth of the Members.
We know from press reports last year that Scottish Office Ministers wanted to change the Bill but Tony Blair would not let them. The Scotsman summed it up with this headline:
"Blair snub for Dewar on seals at Holyrood".
The Liberal Democrats thought they had a deal with the Labour Party, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, will spell it out. They thought they had a deal that there would be an uncoupling. They were surprised when the uncoupling did not happen. If the Prime Minister wonders why he has a problem each time he visits Scotland I must tell him that, if this proposal is allowed to come about, whenever it appears that there will be a reduction in Members he will have a much more uncomfortable time, assuming we are still unfortunate enough to have him as Prime Minister when that day dawns.
Your Lordships' House passed amendments to the Scotland Bill along similar lines to the provisions of this Bill. The House of Commons—foolishly in my view— simply did what Downing Street told it to do and voted down the amendment. I was under pressure from the Liberal Democrat Benches to send it back to the House of Commons again, but at that stage it was so near the end of the Session that I thought it would be ill-advised of me to do that. Although the Liberal Democrats might have moved the amendment, my troops, or muscle, would have sent it back. I suspected that my party's opponents would have fastened on to it as a way of proving that the Scottish Conservative Party sought to frustrate the will of the Scottish public at the referendum. As nothing was further from the truth I decided that discretion was the better part of valour. If we had been a few weeks away from the end of the Session discretion might not have played such a big part and I would have been tempted to send the amendment back to the Commons a second time. But that did not happen and we are where we are.

1083
We can get this Bill through your Lordships' House since this House is kind to Private Members' Bills. The Government could easily give this Bill a fair wind and help it through the House of Commons so that the role and numbers of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster can be resolved in this Parliament instead of waiting for the next. Much more important, the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament can be uncoupled from the number at Westminster, and the Scottish Parliament can get on with its work with at least 129 Members of that Parliament without the thought that, based on an entirely Westminster-driven agenda, their numbers would be reduced to 108. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. — (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
11.22 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mackay has spelt out very clearly the two main reasons for the Bill. There is little more to be said about the details. I give him my full support on two counts. First, as a Member of Parliament for many years I was always highly critical of the West Lothian situation. This Bill goes some way towards resolving that problem not only by reducing the number of Members of Parliament to a figure more consistent with the rest of England and Wales but also by substantially reducing expenditure on the salaries and expenses of Members of Parliament who do not need to be in Westminster, bearing in mind that there will be very much less work for Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster. It will also get rid as soon as possible of the ridiculous pocket boroughs and constituencies in the west of Scotland that are far too small compared with the present larger ones of 65, 000-plus.
My second reason for supporting my noble friend is the very difficult question that will arise almost immediately after the establishment of the parliament in Edinburgh; namely, those who will lose their seats in the subsequent Scottish general election. It will not be fair or friendly. It is most inappropriate that Members of the new Scottish Parliament should be put in that position. That is entirely a Westminster decision which will make Scottish Members of Parliament even more furious. I am concerned that the Government have taken such a negative attitude towards this matter. I remember the devious way in which the government in 1977 or 1978 brought forward the recommendation of the Boundary Commission, as they were bound to do, and then voted it down by their parliamentary majority. That was no way to treat the Boundary Commission. It shows that the present Government are rather light-handed when it comes to dealing with parliamentary matters that may affect their majority in the future.
I believe, as my noble friend Lord Mackay indicated, that if the Boundary Commission had been told a few months ago, or was asked even now, to produce new constituencies in 12 months' time it could be done. If the Government expect a Royal Commission to provide for a new House of Lords and its procedures in about eight months' time, I believe that the Boundary Commission could well produce new constituencies in Scotland in 12 months or less. I do not think that lack
1084
of time is any excuse. If there is a will to do it, it will be done. The Government do not want it to be done because they will lose many Members of Parliament at the next election if new boundaries are brought in. That is the real reason. The Government should be honest and admit it, and not blame the boundary commissioners for not having the time to do the work.
The Bill brought forward by my noble friend is a way out for the Government and provides for a constructive democracy in Scotland in the future.
11.25 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It is our last chance to right a terrible wrong. As has been pointed out, the Scotland Bill was allowed through because of the rush at the end of the Session. We wanted to make certain that it went through. My party is determined—as am I— to make certain that the Scottish Parliament will work. It could not do so unless the Scotland Bill had been sent in full strength from this House.
Because of the West Lothian question, while the number of Members of Parliament to the Scottish Parliament and to the Westminster Parliament are linked together, there is the real possibility that we shall see a serious reduction in both parliaments. We have a new Parliament with 129 Members. They are campaigning like fury as we speak and will shortly be deciding issues of great importance. Almost every day in your Lordships' House we hear of another subject matter with which the Scottish Parliament will have to deal.
It is not fair or right that 20 or so of those Members of Parliament will disappear shortly. It is not fair or right that the Scottish voting community will lose MPs for whom they have just voted to represent them. Thanks to my noble friend, we have a chance to stop that travesty. We must grasp the opportunity with both hands.
As I am sure the Minister will remember, I moved an amendment at either Committee or Report stage providing that the Boundary Commission should report. I was informed that that was totally impossible in the time allowed. I agree with both noble friends who have spoken that that is a load of codswallop. The poll tax has now gone. We now have individuals on the electoral register who have not been on it previously. Individuals who were on the register at an earlier stage of their lives are again on it. With the aid of computers, and so on, there is no reason why the matter cannot be dealt with more speedily.
I know that the Minister will state—he has already told me—that it takes a long time to get this matter sorted out; and that it cannot be done just like that. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Munro that if there were a will, a way would be found.
The last and most important point—I have referred to it previously in the Scotland Bill—is that we must be very wary of taking away from the Scottish people something we have given them. That is the worst mistake Westminster could make. It will not be at the behest of the Scottish people, but at the behest of Westminster.

1085
I wish the Bill well and trust that the Government will consider it seriously. The Bill contains much sense; and sense must be seen to prevail.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I too rise to give full support to the Second Reading of the Bill in both its parts, although I am conscious that the longer I speak, the longer I delay a very important debate to come later introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, of Aikwood, so I shall be very brief.
On the first part, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is quite correct—in my view at any rate—to say that there is no reason why the Boundary Commission could not have achieved the reduction to 57, or whatever the number may be, in time for the next general election. In fact, it could have already been working on it for three months now if this argument had been accepted during the passage of the Scotland Bill. We should not find ourselves in this position.
The truth is that the Labour Party came quite late to the acceptance that there should be a reduction in numbers—just before the election. But it is a pity that that has not been thought through. As we reach the next general election, there will be astonishment in Scotland. People have not followed the detailed debates on the Scotland Bill as we have had to do. At the next general election, the Scottish people will be astonished that they are still voting for the same number of MPs in Scotland when they thought there would be a reduction. The Government will find it very difficult to explain away that. Therefore, I stand full square behind the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on that point.
The noble Lord has come late to the argument of delinking the number in the Scottish Parliament from the numbers at Westminster. Johnny is doing well but Johnny has come lately. That issue has been debated thoroughly. He said that we had a deal with the Labour Party. We did not have anything so squalid as a deal. But that issue was discussed fully in the Constitutional Convention. This was long before the White Paper or the general election. The Constitutional Convention's report stated:
"The electoral system for Scotland's Parliament must have stability but it will be dependent on boundaries established for the Westminster and European Parliaments. These may be subject to alteration outwith the control of Scotland's Parliament and it will therefore be necessary to ensure that separate boundary reviews for the Parliament can be carried through with the purpose of maintaining the size of the Parliament".
So that is not a new issue. It was debated two or three years ago and the Constitutional Convention reached a clear conclusion. I am sorry to say that by rejecting that, the Government depart from the agreement which they made when in opposition to which I do not react well.
The second occasion when this was fully debated was in the other place when my honourable friend, the Member for Orkney and Shetland, tabled an amendment to the Scotland Bill. Mr Henry McLeish, the Minister who was replying on behalf of the Government, said:
1086
"Currently, the Government cannot accept Amendments Nos. 61 to 65 which would seek to break the link between constituencies for the UK Parliament and constituencies for the Scottish Parliament".
He then went on to say that,
"there are clearly good arguments on both sides of the issue … We are still considering the matter, and we hope to reach a conclusion by the time that the Bill goes to another place".
He concluded his speech by saying:
"If we establish a Parliament of 129 Members, there is an expectation that they might want to continue. That is why addressing the realpolitik of the Parliament is part of the wider consideration. With those few remarks, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland will withdraw his amendment, and allow us to complete that consideration". —[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/98; cols. 223/4.]
We all know the procedures of Parliament. When a Minister winds up a debate by asking for an amendment to be withdrawn because it is going to be considered in another place, there is a reasonable expectation that the force of the argument has been met and the Government will do something about it.
That did not happen and once again, I am sorry to say, we did not receive any support from the Conservative Party. Indeed, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will have a word with his honourable friend, the Member for South Holland and the Deepings, who said in that debate that the notion of different-sized constituencies for elections to Westminster and the Scottish Parliament is nonsense. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and I would dissent from that.
The Bill came here and we debated the issue again in this House on 17th November last. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has tried to explain that he did not put his troops into the Lobby then in support of our amendment because he wanted to ensure that the Bill was passed. There was no way that the Government would lose the Scotland Bill at that late stage. Had he put his troops into the Lobby, we would have carried the amendment. We could have had a reconsideration of this matter, with the words that I have just quoted to this House repeated in the other place, and there might just have been a chance of it succeeding.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is correct in suggesting that pressure from Downing Street prevented that happening. I have no knowledge of what goes on inside government. However, I am told that the Prime Minister is extremely thin-skinned about criticisms from Scottish politicians or the Scottish press, and that he is always complaining about it. He has only himself to blame when we get into a mess like this. I hope, even at this late hour, that this Bill might be given a fair wind and we might see an improvement to what is at present a nonsense in the Scotland Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, as I rise to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, my mind and indeed my body go back to those days of almost high summer when we debated these issues. I believe that we discussed this issue initially in terms of the Referendums Bill (Scotland and Wales) and subsequently in the White Paper debate, at Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on our consideration of the view that the Commons took of our

1087
amendments. Therefore it is not a matter that we come to anew or in any way strange to the main issues of the debate.
We have spent a considerable amount of time on this issue, and rightly so. I recognise that it is important but it has already had a thorough debate, not just in this House, but by the totality of Parliament. I do not wish, for a moment, to cast any doubt on the propriety of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in bringing forward the Bill at this stage. However, I must point out that we are faced with what is the settled will of Parliament. Parliament has had many opportunities to consider the points raised in the Bill. It has decided them decisively and, I believe, conclusively. There is no new argument, no new evidence, that the noble Lord has brought to support his case that he has not, in essence, used previously. We are revisiting old arguments that have been re-presented in terms of a Second Reading debate.
Perhaps I may deal with a number of issues. The Bill is clearly about the size of the parliament. Quite simply, the noble Lord's overall aim and the principle behind the Bill is, as he freely acknowledges, to break the link between Westminster and Scottish parliamentary constituencies and so fix the size of the Scottish Parliament at 127 members at least. The Government cannot, and do not, support such an aim.
I shall not labour the Government's opposition to this idea. As Your Lordships know, we are committed to maintaining the linkage between the constituencies in the two parliaments. That has been an explicit and long-standing commitment. If noble Lords go back to the White Paper, Scotland's Parliament, they will see that we considered that the integrity of the United Kingdom would be strengthened by common UK and Scottish parliamentary boundaries. We also said that any changes in Westminster constituencies would result in changes to Scottish parliamentary constituencies and might also lead to consequential adjustments to the size of the Scottish Parliament.
The provisions that we have made in the Scotland Act give effect to the provisions outlined in the White Paper. I recognise that that was a departure from the view taken by the Scottish Constitutional Convention, but it was in the White Paper, which was endorsed not only by the Scottish people, but also after a campaign in which the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and his friends felt able to campaign in favour of a yes, yes vote. So, this has been subject to debate and discussion both by the electorate of Scotland and here in both Houses of Parliament.
Given what has gone before, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that we have not changed our minds over the past four months since the Scotland Act became law because essentially nothing new has occurred; there has been no new evidence and no new arguments. We remain committed to the arrangements that we laid out then. We believe that there are considerable benefits for constituents. We spelt them out previously. Common boundaries will make for representation which is easier to access and will help to ensure that MPs and MSPs are well placed to co-ordinate their constituency work. That should make sure that local interests are properly represented in both places.
1088
As we said in the White Paper and as I have said many times previously, we believe that these arrangements will help to maintain the integrity of the Union. We have embedded the electoral framework of the Scottish Parliament into the electoral framework of the UK Parliament. We want the constituency building blocks to be the same.
After all, that is how we arrived at the current figure of 129 MSPs. It was not a calculation made on the basis of, "How many MSPs do you need to make the Parliament work?" That was not the primary, driving consideration. If it had been, I do not think that the magic number of 129 would have been arrived at— because there is no such magic number of 129; the figure of 129 is derived from the building block of the number of Westminster Scottish constituencies and adding to that the number of regional Members. Indeed, throughout the deliberations of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and elsewhere, good and reasonable schemes produced parliaments ranging from 110 to about 140 or 145 Members, if my memory serves me correctly, and all were developed on a different basis. I do not claim that 129 is the precise number needed. As I have said, that number is the result of using the number of Westminster Scottish constituencies as the building block for the whole scheme.
I am quite interested by the idea adduced by the noble Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Steel, that somehow it will be absolutely dreadful for those MSPs in their first or, indeed, second Session, who are looking over their shoulders, fearing that they will be booted out. That is what elections are all about. Given the likely representation of the party opposite and that of the party diagonally opposite, I should have thought that those noble Lords would welcome the idea of change and of turnover in the composition of the Scottish Parliament. The fact that there will be people in one parliament who will not be in the second or third parliament does not seem to be a sound reason for opposing any form of electoral change.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I believe that he is puzzling us all with his argument. None of us argues with the fact that at elections some people lose. They may not like it but it is the simple fact of the matter. I would not quarrel with what boundary commissions occasionally have to do. But what we have here is 28 people who are not going to lose because of the electorate or even because the Boundary Commission has changed something directly concerned with the Scottish Parliament. They will lose because of the tie-up with another parliament. That is the point and it has nothing to do with the electorate.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, before the noble Lord stands up, can he say what the Government will do when the new parliament has been built and there are, as the noble Lord said, 129 officers, with a committee structure which is running; and it is found that 129 is a reasonable number, as everyone has anticipated, and parliament itself decides that it does not

1089
want to lose 28 members and petitions this place to retain the parliament in its present state? What are the Government going to do then?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, directly. I have already dealt with it on a number of occasions. I have made the point that, notwithstanding the argument and merit of the linkage between the Westminster constituencies and the Scottish parliamentary constituencies, if, in the light of actual experience—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, will recognise my words—the Scottish Parliament has a committee structure and a system of operating which requires a larger number of officers than would be allowed as a result of the changes following the reduction in the number of Scottish Members at Westminster, it would clearly be open to the Scottish Parliament to make representations.
I have enough confidence in and recognition of the good faith of any government of the day to indulge in serious and constructive discussion with the Scottish Parliament on that basis, because it is in the interests of both parliaments to ensure that a Scottish Parliament works and is effective. We are not at that stage yet. The government of the day could only reach that judgment in the light of the experience of the parliament and could then properly weigh the merits of maintaining a common constituency system for both Westminster and the Scottish Parliament against an argument about the optimum size of the Scottish Parliament which had been established on the basis of experience.
On that basis I am sure that one could have a constructive discussion between the two parliaments and the two executives. At this stage I cannot make any commitment about the outcome, but it is something which is clearly sensible and can be considered.
It seems to me that we come to two issues. First is the size of the parliament which requires breaking the linkage. Our argument has always been that there is a good and strong case to be made for maintaining the linkage between the Westminster constituencies and the Scottish parliamentary constituencies. That reinforces a sense of identity. It helps to maintain the shared institutions of the Union, which is what we are concerned with in this House.
Secondly, I deal with the timetable for the review. The next Boundary Commission will take place between December 2002 and December 2006. Despite what noble Lords say, reviews take time. Any of those involved in any way in Boundary Commission reviews know the interest that they quite rightly generate locally, not just among political parties but among ordinary citizens. It is not just a matter of using a democratic model, plugging in statistics, punching the right buttons and coming out with lines on a map giving equal size constituencies throughout Scotland without having proper regard to the views and interests of local communities, particularly as this boundary review could well result in a significant reduction in the number of Scottish constituencies. This must be handled with a
1090
degree of care and sensitivity which will rightly take time. It is not appropriate therefore to disturb the timetable that is already set in place.
We have been here before. We have heard both sets of arguments before. In a longer debate I would have drawn attention to other minor points in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as not being acceptable. But we concentrated on the two broad issues; the size of the Parliament, setting it in stone forever more, and the timing of the review. I have made it clear that the Government are not disposed to accept this Bill as the right to way to deal with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord in his usual eloquent but familiar terms; but following the conventions of this House we will not oppose a Second Reading.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I share a sense of disappointment with my two noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. I had rather hoped that, with the end in sight for the ministerial job of Under-Secretary of State for the Scottish Office in the House of Lords, the noble Lord might have shown himself to be freer of the ties that bind him to Downing Street and would have been prepared to see the problem we put forward.
As my noble friend Lord Monro said, it is hard to believe that it can take longer to create 58 new Westminster constituencies in Scotland—or rather, to keep 72, because that is what we are talking about— than it will take to come up with Royal Commission proposals to reform your Lordships' House. I cannot think why one is expected to last eight months, yet the other for two or three years. My noble friend Lord Rowallan said that it was a huge error for Westminster to appear on the one hand to be giving something to Scotland, but in a year or two's time to be seen to take it away, at least in part. The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, made clear points, going over the previous position in which the Government had clearly signed up to the proposals in the constitutional convention. My party was not a part of that, but recognised that they signed up to them. Then, all of a sudden, when we come to look at the legislation the Government back away from them.
The Minister said that I had adduced no new evidence and no new argument; but once again he has failed to persuade me, or anybody in Scotland listening to this debate, of the Government's case. One of the reasons for coming up with a tightly drawn Bill is to get away from the other issues in the Scotland Act and just try to concentrate on this one matter. The idea that if we break this link, we will be breaking a bigger link between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament is a nonsense. If I thought for a minute that breaking the link between the number of MSPs and the number of MPs at Westminster would endanger the Union, I would not be bringing forward my Bill.
If I may speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, I thought that the worst argument the Minister adduced was that because the noble Lord campaigned for a yes, yes vote he must have been happy with the White Paper—as though the noble Lord would have campaigned for a no vote on the basis that he did not

1091
like a small part of it. That really was disingenuous. Mind you, I should not be surprised because currently the Labour Party, having campaigned to give the Scottish Parliament the power to charge another 3p in the pound on Scottish taxpayers, is not campaigning vigorously against the idea that it should ever be implemented because of the damage even 1p more tax would do to the Scottish Parliament. If the Government throw stones at people for the way they campaigned in the referendum, they ought to be careful lest serious bricks be thrown at them.
I do believe that we ought to break the link, which could easily be one of the catalysts that might damage the Union. Let us assume for a moment that the Scottish Parliament does as the noble Lord, Steel of Aikwood, said. Anybody who lives in the real world knows that it will. When it comes to the day when the Boundary Commission is set up, and this seems to be coming over the horizon, the Scottish Parliament will pass a Motion, which it will send here, saying, "We want 129 constituencies". It will do that after lots of campaigning, when the Scottish National Party will make hay in a big way. So will the other Opposition parties, if Labour is still in government. The Government have stored up real trouble for themselves. This little issue will be magnified by the Scottish National Party and the Scottish press. The people who think that they are the short list of 21 will, regardless of where they sit in the Scottish Parliament, stir up as much trouble as they can.
That issue will be brought here, and we would do better dealing with it now—rather than let a head of steam build up and have the Westminster Parliament forced to back down.
I do not believe in common boundaries. The Government have proposed a method for the election of European Members of Parliament when in Scottish terms—and the same is true all over the UK—eight MEPs will be in the one constituency, without any boundaries. They are not so sacrosanct as the Minister seems to make out. We will all be puzzling which of the eight represents us. If we have a bit of a problem, we will write to all eight. That situation is much worse than a bit of double representation. It is not even double. I will know that my MSP and Westminster MP are A and B. A neighbour may share A but not B, because he will have a different MP at the Westminster Parliament. I do not think that will be a problem. The Scottish electorate are quite well educated enough to work that one out.
I am disappointed. The Government's failure to act on those two issues will lead to problems in two different places. The Minister did not address why, if it is right to go to 58 constituencies the election after next, is it not right to go to 58 at this election. He did not lock horns in that argument. I am not surprised because he has no possible justification for the Government's action. The result is that once the Scottish Parliament is up and running, the number of MSPs will begin to become an issue in England. In two or three years, when we come near to the reduction in the next Parliament and therefore in the number of MSPs, that will become an issue and a problem in Scotland. On those two issues,
1092
there will be problems in England to begin with, then problems in Scotland. The Government are being very "head in the sand", in not seeing that my little Bill is one way of resolving those two problems. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

International Mobile Satellite Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1999
11.59 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order is required to give effect in UK law to the new headquarters agreement which has been negotiated as the result of the organisation's restructuring. An affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament is necessary before the order can be referred to the Privy Council. The order revokes and replaces a previous order made in 1980 to confer privileges and immunities on the organisation's predecessor.
The decision to restructure, which is basically privatisation, was taken to ensure the organisation's survival in a rapidly changing and commercially competitive environment. This is due to take place on 15th April 1999 when most of the organisation's staff, assets and liabilities will be transferred to a limited liability company to be known as Inmarsat. A small secretariat, which will retain its intergovernmental character and will continue as a treaty-based entity, will remain. This will be known as the International Mobile Satellite Organisation. Its sole purpose will be the oversight of the new company's public service obligations, that is, the operation of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety Service (GMDSS)—in other words, the "999" for ships.
The organisation was previously known as the International Maritime Satellite Organisation. This was established in 1979 and located in the UK under the aegis of a headquarters agreement signed on 25th February 1980. It was given effect in UK law by the INMARSAT (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1980. The organisation subsequently changed its name to the International Mobile Satellite Organisation.
The original purpose of the organisation was to improve maritime communications, as well as aeronautical communications, as practicable. These activities were designed to assist in improving communications for distress and safety of life and for communications for air traffic services. They were also designed to improve the efficiency and management of transportation by sea, by air and on land, as well as maritime, aeronautical and other public correspondence services, plus radio-determination capabilities.
The Government strongly support the restructuring, which is designed to ensure the new private sector company's attractiveness to investors and its ability to

1093
take advantage of rapidly advancing technology. The incorporation of new developments quickly, the reduction of operational costs and improvements in the speed of decision-making are also key objectives. An important point to note is that the residual intergovernmental organisation will be entirely funded by the new Inmarsat company, with no cost burden falling to member countries. The net result is private sector funding of an international public service and the more efficient and competitive use of a public sector organisation's staff and assets.
The number of staff accorded privileges and immunities will be much reduced from 472 at present to about six when the restructuring becomes effective in April. The Order in Council will give the residual intergovernmental organisation, which will be based in London, the same kind of privileges and immunities as its predecessor. The new headquarters agreement,
1094
necessary on account of the restructuring, is modelled on and closely follows the wording of the 1980 agreement with the organisation's forerunner, which it terminates.
It is essential and important to the 86 member states of the International Mobile Satellite Organisation for the order to be made by the Privy Council at its next monthly meeting on 13th April. This is so that the necessary implementing legislation is in place in order to enable the headquarters agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the organisation to be signed on 15th April which is the effective date for IMSO's restructuring. In the circumstances, I very much hope that your Lordships will approve the draft order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 1999

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Amendment) Order 1999
  12.5 a. m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft order and the order (S. I. 525/99) laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful that it has been agreed that we should consider these two orders together since their effect is similar. The emergency provisions Act amendment order adds the Orange Volunteers and the Red Hand Defenders to the list of proscribed organisations in Schedule 2 to the Emergency Provisions Act 1996.
  The specified organisations order has the effect of adding the Orange Volunteers and the Red Hand Defenders to the list of organisations who are ineligible for the benefit of the Northern Ireland Sentences Act 1998. That benefit is the early release of prisoners convicted of scheduled, that is to say, terrorist-type, offences. If an organisation is specified, supporters of that organisation do not qualify for early release. Neither of these organisations currently has any members or supporters in prison but I am sure your Lordships would agree that it is entirely right that they should be listed as specified organisations. The order also removes the Irish National Liberation Army from the list and thus entitles its supporters to benefit from early release.
  Before I go into more detail on the provisions of the orders and the need for them, I should like to set them in context. Northern Ireland has in recent weeks attracted much news coverage as the parties and the governments have been urgently seeking to secure the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. However, the past week has, tragically, seen the focus of attention shift back to the dark days of murder on the streets. There have been two more murders, including that of Rosemary Nelson, a well-respected and courageous solicitor, a wife and mother of three, which appalled everyone who has been working so long for peace. That murder was claimed by the Red Hand Defenders.
  The Government very much welcome the swift action taken by the Chief Constable in involving David Phillips, Chief Constable of Kent, and the FBI in investigating this horrendous murder. As the Chief Constable, Mr. Flanagan, said,
  "not only will this investigation be meticulous but it will be transparently obvious to (the family of Mrs Nelson) and to the watching world. I am determined that those concerns will be addressed".
  The Chief Constable has further emphasised that no constraints and no limit whatever will be placed upon Chief Constable Phillips and the FBI.
  Set against these recent despicable acts, and with the memory of Omagh very much in our minds, is the fact that Northern Ireland has seen over the past year a transformation in the political climate. The Good Friday agreement has provided, for the first time in Northern Ireland's history, an opportunity to secure long-term peace and political stability based on an agreed accommodation between the two communities. There has already been a great deal of progress in implementing that agreement. The new Assembly has been set up; treaties have been signed to establish agreed cross-border bodies; the Human Rights Commission has been established; and reviews of policing and criminal justice are well underway. Only a year ago, all this would have been unthinkable.
  There is still hard work to be done but the prize is within our reach. That is what those organisations not on ceasefire want to destroy. They want to bring to an end the hard-won progress which has been made. They must not be allowed to succeed.
  Because the order proscribing the Orange Volunteers and the Red Hand Defenders was made under the urgency procedure provided for by Section 60(3) of the Emergency Provisions Act, they were proscribed with effect from 4th March 1999 and we are now seeking to have that proscription endorsed by Parliament. The main effect of proscription is that membership of the organisation in question becomes a criminal offence. Apart from making membership of the named organisation an offence, proscription creates offences in relation to soliciting or inviting financial or other material support; helping to arrange, manage or address a meeting; and dressing or carrying articles in a way which is likely to arouse reasonable apprehension that the person is a member or a supporter of the organisation. I should add that the Orange Volunteers are described within both orders as:
  "The organisation using the name 'The Orange Volunteers' and being the organisation in whose name a statement described as a press release was published on 14th October 1998".
  A copy of the press release has been deposited in the Library for the convenience of Members. This rather tortured piece of wording was deemed necessary in order to differentiate between the present-day Orange Volunteers and an organisation of the same name, but unrelated, which was formed in the 1970s. Although the 1970s organisation has apparently been inactive for some years, we consider that it does still exist. It is not, however, an organisation which we consider should be specified, nor does it meet the criteria for specification.
  Similarly, the other order specifies both the Orange Volunteers and the Red Hand Defenders as organisations ineligible for benefit from the prisoner early release scheme. But it does have the effect of despecifying the Irish National Liberation Army and thus brings it within the early release scheme. This is in recognition of the fact that the Secretary of State now believes that it is observing a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.
  The two orders should be seen as evidence of the flexible approach we take, responding to the ever-changing nature of the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft order and the order (S. I. 525/99) laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee]. — (Lord Dubs.)
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the orders, which we fully support. The orders were made before the murder of Mrs. Nelson, on which I shall say more later. It is also a sad fact that the splinter groups that we see appearing are, in general, anti-agreement. One difficulty is that we are aiming at a moving target, and no doubt further splinter groups will appear, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will take similar firm and prompt action as required.
  The objective of the extremist paramilitaries is to ruin the agreement and stop the peace process because peace is not in their interests. The last thing they want to see is normalisation in Northern Ireland. These extremists are becoming increasingly desperate as they see the efforts of all the parties to the Belfast agreement getting tantalisingly close to achieving full implementation. However, I also believe that they are attempting to take advantage of their window of opportunity arising from the current difficulties over decommissioning.
  Last week I said that I would elaborate on my views of the foul murder of Mrs. Nelson. She was a member of the legal profession who handled many high-profile cases involving republicans. Her work was important as there would be something wrong in terms of human rights if, yes, even alleged terrorists did not have access to legal advice that they could be confident in. Furthermore, it is in no one's interest for a person, whatever his background, to be convicted of a crime that he did not commit.
  Mrs. Nelson was part of our criminal justice system, but it is worth pointing out that so, too, are judges, the RUC, prison officers and, indeed, witnesses. It is well known that members of these groups have been killed and they remain vulnerable to terrorist attack.
  I accept that I am relatively inexperienced in these matters, and no doubt I will see further disappointments and set-backs for us to overcome. Last week I said that I was bitter about Mrs. Nelson's murder, but I do not shed crocodile tears. I am sincere. I have described the important role that she undertook, but she was attacked despite the fact that she was also the mother of three young children, one of whom was at school very near to where the attack was planned to take place. To target a woman in that way was quite despicable even in terms of international terrorism. I join with the Minister in supporting the prompt action of the Chief Constable of the RUC in setting up the investigation into the murder.
  What will concern many, both inside and outside this House, is whether the brutal attack by the so-called loyalists, who will be caught by the orders, will have the effect that they desire. That is in the hands of the republicans. They could do nothing; they could just ignore the attack and pretend that it did not happen. Or they could do exactly what the loyalist extremists want.
  1098
  They could follow the extremists' own agenda, jeopardise the Belfast agreement and, in the process, throw away all the advantages of the agreement that they signed. Incidentally, as that approach would make the extremists' attack a successful one, it would put other soft targets at risk. In making that point, I wish to make it clear that I see no silver lining in Mrs. Nelson's murder. It is all entirely negative.
  On the other hand, the republicans could salvage something. They could do precisely what the extremists do not want. They could defeat them by carrying on with the peace process, however difficult that might be. All the parties have met their obligations, with one major exception—decommissioning. Decommissioning has to happen. I was disappointed that the Prime Minister did not take a firmer stand in the US. But I recognise that last week we were unlikely to see the breakthrough for which we had hoped.
  It is disappointing that the need for this order has arisen at all. However, we fully support the timely action taken by the Secretary of State in making the order, and we are content.
  12.15 a. m.
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches also support these orders, which are specific in their aims.
  "Ordinary Catholics have nothing to fear from us".
  That claim was made by the Orange Volunteers during a display of strength for journalists shortly after the group's formation late last year. Since then, the organisation has claimed responsibility for a spate of attacks on Catholic families and bars which can only be described as senseless and indiscriminate. At Magherafelt's O'Donovan Rossa GAA club, a bricklayer who was working there was injured in a bomb attack. Patrick Shields was injured in an explosion at his home in Loughinisland in January. And it was sheer luck that a bomb left outside a bar near Toome Bridge did not kill the customers inside, or anyone else using the main Belfast to Derry road. It is clear that the ordinary people of Northern Ireland have much to fear from the Orange Volunteers.
  I welcome the decision by the Secretary of State to add the Orange Volunteers to the list of proscribed organisations under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. I also welcome the decision to proscribe the Red Hand Defenders in the same way. Like the Orange Volunteers, that organisation has shown nothing but savage brutality towards the Northern Ireland community. As well as admitting that they have been behind a number of gun, bomb and arson attacks in the past year, the Red Hand Defenders have been responsible for the loss of three lives in the past six months or so. Constable Frankie O'Reilly died after blast bombs were lobbed at the police during Drumcree protests in Portadown. Last November Brian Service was shot and killed in North Belfast. Their latest attack claimed the life of Rosemary Nelson last Monday when

  1099
  a bomb exploded under her car in Lurgan. This was a particularly deliberate and barbarous incident which robbed Northern Ireland of a gifted lawyer and robbed three young children of their mother. Such foul deeds must be condemned in the strongest political terms.
  Those in the Orange Volunteers and the Red Hand Defenders who planned and carried out these attacks in recent months have no place in today's society. There is absolutely no justification for such blatant sectarian aggression. It is clear that at such a critical point in the peace process, these organisations are intent not only on destroying life but also on destroying the prospects of peace and political stability in Northern Ireland.
  I am in full support of the Secretary of State's decision to add these groups to the list of proscribed organisations. We also welcome the recognition of the INLA's six-month cease-fire and the decision to remove this group from the proscribed list. We support the orders.
  Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I would like to thank the Minister for the clarity with which he has explained the purposes of the first two orders before us tonight. I was not present last week when the prevention of terrorism Act (continuance) order was debated, but would agree with those who say that the Act is often mistakenly seen as a Northern Ireland measure when it is not.
  In that connection, I welcome Her Majesty's Government's proposals to introduce permanent United Kingdom-wide counter-terrorism legislation. The measures before us this evening are, of course, specifically Northern Ireland matters and the dreadful events of last week only served to emphasise how necessary these are. The cowardly and brutal murder of Rosemary Nelson has been claimed by the Red Hand Defenders, whose proscription, which we are asked to approve tonight, appears to have been almost uncannily foretold when it was announced, along with that of the Orange Volunteers on 3rd March. Two days after the murder of Mrs. Nelson, Mr. Frankie Curry, an alleged member of the first of the two organisations, the Red Hand Defenders, was slain. That, it was alleged, was carried out by other Loyalist paramilitaries.
  The Province is currently awash with rumour and counter-rumour about his death and also the circumstances surrounding that of Mrs. Nelson in that it is claimed that the Red Hand Defenders did not have the expertise to manufacture and plant the lethal device in Mrs. Nelson's car. Ipso facto, it is claimed that they may have been assisted by the UVF, the UFF or the UDA.
  The question then is whether Mr. Curry's death is the result of an internal feud or a demonstration by some of the mainstream Loyalist paramilitaries to their opposite numbers in the IRA that Mrs Nelson's murder was not approved by them. Out of these dreadful events it is perhaps—and I say this diffidently—slightly encouraging and I earnestly hope not premature to note that there has not been any knee-jerk tit-for-tat killing by the IRA. Would that this were the case and that they might now start to decommission.
  1100
  Inevitably there have been claims from the usual quarters that Mrs. Nelson's murder was carried out with the collusion of the security forces and in particular that of the RUC. This kind of claim, I am sure, is totally without foundation and is inevitably yet a further attempt to discredit the RUC, no more and no less. I too applaud the chief constable of the RUC in his decision to bring in the chief constable of the Kent Constabulary and also the FBI to assist in the investigations into Mrs. Nelson's murder.
  In view of the events that have occurred, there is no alternative but wholeheartedly to support these two orders. I have but one question for the Minister tonight. The sentences Act and the emergency provisions Act are both security related. Would I be right in thinking that they and the associated orders will remain as Westminster matters if and when power is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly? If that is correct, I look forward to the day when your Lordships' House no longer needs to debate such matters and, indeed, to when these two uncomfortable Acts may be repealed.
  The Minister highlighted the comparatively buoyant state of the Northern Ireland economy and employment prospects when introducing the appropriation orders at the beginning of this month. I congratulate the Government on this. It highlights the benefits of a peace dividend. How cruel if all this progress is now dashed. Therefore, I wish the Secretary of State good fortune in the difficult days that lie ahead, especially those leading up to Good Friday next week.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I wish to make a few brief points but before doing so I wish to do two things. First, I associate myself with the words of my noble friend Lord Attlee concerning Mrs. Nelson's death. Secondly, I wish to make it quite clear that, whatever I may say tonight or may have said in previous debates, I still strongly support the bipartisan approach within Parliament.
  It is worth reflecting—perhaps in my rather cynical way—that the Government face serious difficulty in the fragmentation of these various bodies. For 50 years or more it has been the objective of the Republican movement to maintain a united front. Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuiness say that they are unable to deliver disarmament and so on, but they will put that before losing a united Republican front.
  I believe that what is happening as we speak is that individuals move between one organisation and another. It has been more difficult for the RUC without military support to have on-the-street cover and close surveillance of the various terrorist areas. Organised crime involving drugs and other forms of smuggling has increased. The difficulty that approaches, and probably exists now, is how to be sure that objectively one is assessing where terrorism drifts down the horrible murky line and gets lost in what we may know in this country as ordinary organised crime. As we know can happen here and elsewhere in the world, organised crime is capable of moving further so that the funds from that activity go into registered public companies and show a totally clean front. That has been the situation in Northern Ireland for many years. The road

  1101
  that we are taking by prisoner releases and the orders before the House tonight will make it more and more difficult to determine whether a particular individual is not a terrorist or was a terrorist and whether a particular act was not organised crime and straightforward murder but something different.
  Since the murder of Mrs. Nelson I have had in mind—I know for certain that this occurred in the 1970s—the question of collusion between the bottom of the republican IRA terrorist movement and those in the loyalist movements who have the same objectives and are equally determined to destroy anything that looks as if it may restore a civilised and peaceful community and government. It is quite possible that through the murkiness that I have just outlined the idea arose, perhaps after a drink or drug or two, and perhaps the device was given or sold to a loyalist. It is also possible that somewhere down that murky line the republican movement engineered and organised that devious and horrible crime. That is the real world with which we are dealing in Northern Ireland. I support the orders before us tonight. I also support and admire the Ministers who are working in Northern Ireland.
  12.30 a. m.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have condemned recent atrocities. I equally condemn the activities of these groups. I hesitate to call them "splinter groups". As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has just said, there seems to be no end to the fragmentation, some of which is very carefully orchestrated. As to the very valid point he makes about the possibility of collusion, to my certain knowledge that existed even in the 1970s when the same firearm was used by a so-called loyalist terrorist group to commit murder and within a week was used by an equivalent IRA group for the same purpose. We should not discount entirely the possibility that that still goes on and, unfortunately, may continue to mushroom as splintering continues.
  Your Lordships will be aware of the importance of sensitivity in Northern Ireland during the remaining crucial 10 days of the month of March. It is distinctly unhelpful to have the sentencing order on the agenda—the most obscene item of legislation imaginable. I understand that it has to go through the fast track system. I am glad that we have the fast track system of adding organisations, given the freedom with which they splinter, regroup and come back wearing a different colour.
  The concession required of law-abiding citizens was in a sense horrific in the concept of the release of prisoners. But as the release of convicted triumphalist murderers proceeds, unfortunately so the support of the Belfast agreement diminishes in like proportion. But what support remained, I am afraid, has been seriously eroded following the conviction last week of the deadly sniper gang of four which included Bernard McGinn who made the bombs used at Canary Wharf, the Baltic Exchange, and Hammersmith Bridge.
  1102
  The murderer himself admitted without qualification or reluctance that he specialised in making bombs north and south of the Irish border on a daily basis. To use his own words, he said that it was like a day's work. He received three life sentences for the callous murder at different times of three soldiers during a 20-year reign of terror in County Armagh. The other three terrorists were each given 20-year sentences; and as they were all leaving the dock the four murderers laughed and shouted, "See you next year". That is not too difficult to work out. Sixteen months in prison and then they, too, will be released. That boast was not directed at their IRA sympathisers in the court. It was a threat against the law abiding citizens in the United Kingdom. In 16 months they will be retrained and re-equipped, and back at the work they have claimed they know best and which the said gentleman stated was just like a day's work.
  For that revolting situation the two governments have only themselves to blame. It would be interesting to supervise and scrutinise the activities of the Irish Government in carrying out their equivalent legislation. I believe that they are displaying a little more toughness in the criteria that they establish as to who will be released and who will be kept inside. I know that Her Majesty's Government will say that the release of prisoners is the price we have to pay for peace. But unfortunately terrorists have not yet given peace, only a scaling down of their campaign in which a balance of terror had been achieved by the time they were forced to have their first ceasefire. If they intend to grant a permanent peace, why do they feel the need to insist on retention of the weapons of war?
  It is against that background of anger and frustration that crucial questions will now confront those in positions of responsibility in Northern Ireland. During the past 10 days the most dangerous contributors to destabilisation and further confrontation and anger will come from the unthinking demands of those who are sometimes termed the great and the good. Some of them, even in the past 48 hours, have already demanded compromise between the leaders mistakenly regarded as equals. But there has been no question of equality of sacrifice on the part of those leaders.
  Over the past three years, Mr. Trimble, the leader of my party, has been forced, of necessity, to make concessions to keep the show on the road, and many other concessions to violence have been made by the British and Irish Governments, concessions, I am afraid, made always at the expense of the Unionist population which has, in addition to all that, been subjected to a mind-boggling campaign of distortion and deception.
  In the other corner stands one Mr. Adams who has conceded absolutely nothing but pocketed all the concessions made by others and then always comes back for more. So well-meaning but naive people must understand mat there is no equation between Mr. Trimble and Mr. Adams.

  1103
  Those noble Lords who were present on 9th March this year will have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, describe the reality of Mr. Trimble's position. He said:
  "There is no more movement—and, my goodness, there has been plenty—to be had from those representing Unionists in Northern Ireland. Nor, I judge, is there any movement from the two governments". —[Official Report, 9/3/99; col. 197.]
  So my final words and my plea to the great and the good is a word of polite caution, asking them please to recognise that Mr. Trimble has nothing left to give while Mr. Adams has not even started to give.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the widespread support for the Government's policy in putting forward these two orders. I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said about being tantalisingly close to agreement. Indeed, I hope that the next two weeks will see some success in reaching that agreement.
  Yes, I agree with the words used by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about the murder of Rosemary Nelson as being a despicable act intended to undermine the whole peace process.
  I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said that he was grateful that there were no tit-for-tat killings. That is something for which we should be grateful, for a wave of such killings would certainly undermine the political progress that we have made over the past year.
  The noble Lord asked a specific question about whether certain powers will remain with Westminster. The position is that security matters will remain at Westminster because they are excepted matters. Criminal justice, the police and policing are reserved matters which stay at Westminster, but there is a possibility that at a certain point in the future, they could become transferred matters. But security stays as a Westminster responsibility. I hope that that gives the noble Lord the assurance that he sought.
  While being generally supportive of a bipartisan approach, for which I am grateful, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, spoke about areas on which I should prefer not to speculate as regards who has been responsible for any particular act. That would not be helpful. It is better to leave that to the present police investigation and inquiry to see who can be brought to justice for that and other murders.
  I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has been consistently unhappy about the policy of releasing prisoners. He is right to say—and I repeat it again—that it is a price for peace and without an agreement on the release of prisoners, there would have been no Good Friday agreement.
  When we introduced the original legislation permitting the release of prisoners, we said that that was a particularly difficult matter. I am extremely conscious of the real difficulty facing victims, relatives or friends of victims of terrorism when they find that the terrorist who murdered or maimed is being released. I appreciate how difficult that is. However, without that particular approach, we would simply not have got the Good Friday agreement. Given the length of time the troubles
  1104
  have lasted, even before we had the early release scheme, there were many murderers and others who had been released in the normal course of events, having served 15 or 20 years. It is a difficult issue and I am sensitive to the distress it has caused over the period of the releases.
  The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, also suggested that concessions had been made entirely at the expense of the Unionist population. He will not expect me to agree with that. We feel that all sectors of the community have been required to make concessions. That has been part and parcel of the Good Friday agreement. It is absolutely right that we go on demanding that all people who are party to the agreement should accept their responsibilities and obligations under it. That is the basis of the Government's pressure for movement so that the new Assembly can, I hope, assume full powers in the very near future. I commend the orders to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 1999
  12.40 a. m.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998, which received Royal Assent on 8th April 1998, amended the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 to make provision for police interviews to be audio-recorded and for the audio-recording arrangements to be governed by a code of practice.
  Audio-recording will add to a range of safeguards; for example, there is a statutory code of practice already in place governing the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of terrorist suspects in police custody. It requires, among other things, continued detention to be reviewed at 12-hourly intervals, the maintenance of detailed custody records and breaks for all normal meal times. It provides for regular visits and examinations by a medical practitioner and a right for the detained person to have a continuous period of eight hours in any period of 24 hours free from questioning, travel or interruption.
  Audio-recording will run alongside the existing system of silent video recording. This, too, is governed by a statutory code of practice and has been mandatory since 10th March last year. The posts of independent commissioner and deputy commissioner for the holding centres provide valuable assurances that the range of safeguards is being fully and properly applied. These safeguards demonstrate that the Government continue to attach the greatest importance to the protection of the rights of those held in police custody.
  Today I am asking your Lordships' House to approve a draft order which will bring into operation a code of practice governing audio recording. The code of practice was laid in draft before this House on 23rd February this

  1105
  year. It was drawn up to mirror as closely as possible the equivalent Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 code of practice on tape-recording of interviews with suspects.
  The draft code sets out a range of requirements which must apply when interviews with terrorist suspects are audio-recorded. It also gives guidance to police officers and others on the application and interpretation of the code. Section 1 describes to whom the code applies, defines some of the terms which appear in it and requires that it be readily available at all police offices which are designated for the detention of terrorist suspects.
  Section 2 is concerned with the integrity of the system and requires that a twin-deck tape-recorder be used with one tape, chosen by the detained person, serving as the master tape. Section 3 specifies when audio-recording shall apply. Section 4 deals with the interview prior to commencement; the loading of the tape-recorder through to cautioning; objections or complaints; changing tapes; breaks in the interviewing process; and the conclusion of the interview, including the removal of the tape from the recorder. Section 5 describes what happens after interview in terms of the preparation of written records of the interview. Sections 6 and 7 deal respectively with tape security and the destruction of tapes.
  The laying of the draft code of practice followed a public consultation exercise last autumn when all interested parties were invited to comment. In the interest of maintaining parity with the equivalent PACE provisions, only minor amendments were made to the code in the light of comments received. Once the present draft order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament and is made, the Secretary of State will make a further order. That order, which will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, will make it a requirement that police interviews with persons detained under the provisions of Section 14(l)(a) or (b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 will be audio-recorded.
  The second order will also specify additional circumstances in which police interviews are audio-recorded in accordance with the code. I shall explain the reference that I have just made to "additional circumstances". Occasionally when a person is brought before a magistrates' court after he is charged with an offence, the police will need to interview him further at a holding centre about other offences. In such circumstances, the police are not required to make a PTA arrest, or a further PTA arrest, as the case may be. Instead, they will apply under Article 47(4)(b) of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to have the accused person remanded into the custody of a police officer for the purposes of further inquiries into other terrorist-related offences. It is proposed that interviews that take place in those circumstances will be required to be conducted in accordance with the code. I am delighted that we are taking this step today to bring the draft code of practice into operation on 24th May.
  Keeping the draft code closely aligned with the PACE provisions is consistent with the Government's declared aim to align the holding centre procedures with those applicable under ordinary criminal law. The Government have consistently taken the view that the many benefits of audio-recording make it a worth while step. Audio-recordings will provide best available evidence in any court proceedings. Their disclosure to the courts should reduce the length of contested trials emerging from confessions and the tape recording will provide best available evidence to prove or disprove allegations of psychological abuse. I am happy to say that the Chief Constable of the RUC fully supports the move. On his authority, the audio-recording system has been operating in the holding centres since midnight on 10th January this year. This has provided a useful opportunity to test the system. Your Lordships' House will wish to note that the police have experienced no procedural difficulties conducting the numerous audio-recorded interviews which have taken place since then. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Dubs.)
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, given that there is still a certain level of violence and intimidation in Northern Ireland, I believe that the moves being made to introduce full audio-taping of persons held under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act to be a useful step forward. Not only will that help to ensure that the rights of those being detained are not violated, but it will no doubt help the RUC on similar matters. Such a move is constructive at this time, not only as a confidence-building measure, but also in terms of aiding the RUC in the effective prosecution of those who have committed the horrendous attacks that we have seen in recent months.
  We support the provisions because they support transparency within the police force and will build on the credibility of the police force in Northern Ireland in the future. However, I have one question for the Minister. To what extent are these facilities, which involve considerable expenditure and hardware, available throughout the Province?
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's support. I am not certain about where the facilities are available elsewhere. My understanding is that the intention is that they will be available in the holding centres which exist specifically for the questioning of people suspected of terrorist offences. Audio-recording will be available in all three holding centres in the Province. I commend the orders to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Limit in Relation to Licences to Provide Radio Multiplex Services Order 1999
  12.49 a. m
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order revises the limits in relation to licences to provide radio multiplex services set out paragraph 11.4 of Part III of Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990, as amended. Multiplexing—the management of a frequency block on which a range of digital programmes can, using compression techniques, be transmitted—is an essential function in digital radio. It is the expensive part of digital radio and the capital investment necessary before individual programmes can exist.
  The Government are committed to the success of digital radio. We agree with the industry and the Radio Authority that the current restrictions on ownership may harm its development. Apart from the national multiplex licence already awarded, there will be 26 local licences starting in Birmingham and staged over two years.
  The current restrictions are as follows. No one company may at any time hold more than one licence to provide a national radio multiplex service. A company which is a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in a company which holds a licence to provide a radio multiplex service but does not control that company shall be treated as holding the licence held by that company.
  No one company may hold a licence to provide a radio multiplex service and be a participant with more than 10 per cent. interest in more than one company which holds any other such licence. No one company may be a participant with more than a 10 per cent. interest in each of three or more companies which hold such licences. So a company may directly apply for as many local multiplex licences as it wishes, but it cannot hide its interest by controlling a range of consortia applying for multiplex licences. In theory, a single company or consortium could hold most or even all of the local multiplex licences, but that should not happen as the Radio Authority has a duty to ensure fair competition in awarding licences.
  The ownership restrictions included in paragraph 11 prevent companies from trying to circumvent the licensing process by acquiring a controlling interest in companies or in consortia after the licences have been awarded by the Radio Authority. The control of ownership in this way was one means of achieving the objective of plurality of ownership without making digital radio unattractive to potential participants and investors.
  The amended limits correct certain assumptions made in 1996 about the shape of investment in digital radio. We now know more about the extent of interest in local multiplex licences and the scale of the necessary investment. It is now clear that in the early stages of digital radio companies will have to form consortia in order to run multiplexes. The present restrictions will severely constrain the formation of such partnerships.
  Without some amendment we might see one or two powerful consortia bidding for local licences across the country. It could be argued that the current limits would have the effect of forcing the big players into a very small number of bidding consortia. We believe that smaller, more locally based radio companies might be excluded from participation. If even the larger groups find themselves obliged to form consortia the smaller companies can be expected to find it almost impossible to fund and run a local multiplex alone. We believe that that is the opposite of the original intention of the legislation, which was the encouragement of plurality of ownership and diversity of content. It is therefore sensible to revise the limits now. There is a greater likelihood of local interests and tastes being adequately served if regional radio groups and local stations are given encouragement to join consortia bidding for multiplex licences. But there is still a need for some restriction on shareholdings in consortia holding licences. It would not be desirable to have a very small number of companies controlling most or all of the local multiplexes through networks of consortia.
  Following extensive consultation, we therefore propose a cautious measure of relaxation. The order revises the limit so that no company may hold a licence to provide a radio multiplex service and have a shareholding with more than a 20 per cent. interest in more than four companies which hold any such licences. No company may be a participant with a more than 20 per cent. interest in each of six or more companies which hold such licences.
  Raising the number of consortia in which companies may have controlling investments would give all parts of the industry the opportunity to get involved in partnerships to bid for local licences. Raising the maximum investment allowed in companies or consortia should allow smaller radio groups the opportunity to make a number of meaningful investments in several local multiplexes.
  We are confident that digital radio will become an important communications medium in years to come. We want to see a financially healthy digital radio industry with a diverse output which reflects local tastes and interests. The Radio Authority shares our belief that multiplex consortia between large radio groups and local firms should work for the benefit of the digital radio listener. Such partnerships are not guaranteed, but the new limits allow the opportunity for their formation while continuing to guard against undue concentration of ownership. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I am more than usually grateful to the Minister for his explanation. When I was appointed to this brief three-and-a-half months ago, one of the first things I did was try to get to grips with some of the vocabulary surrounding broadcasting orders. I have to say that I have struggled ever since, despite the assistance of the vocabulary guide in the fourth report of the Select Committee of another place.

  1109
  We on these Benches agree that digital must be a success for the future of communications business in this country and that, if it is to be a success, then large groups must be allowed more freedom to invest across the country. On the other hand, it is important to make sure that local companies have the opportunity to be involved and I appreciate the explanation the Minister gave as to how the Government weighed up the pros and cons of how that is to be achieved.
  I understand that the Radio Authority is supportive of this measure. Although others have said that they would like it to go further, the order tonight represents a reasonable way forward and we on these Benches support it.
  Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this order. We also agree with the remarks both of the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, in relation to the desirability of the success of digital. It is one of the great technical advances in broadcasting of recent times. It is expensive, and it is curious how this is one area in which technology has leapt ahead of public demand. I congratulate the Government on seeing that the situation is different from that which existed when they made their original arrangements and so relaxed the constraints on corporate bodies in the way that they have.
  I do not know what timescale the Government envisage for acceptance generally of digital broadcasting. At this moment in time even buying a receiver is an expensive business. But one hopes that by these relaxations and the activity that that will generate, the economies of scale will be created which will accelerate acceptance into the domestic market and bring all the benefits to which he alluded; that is, the plurality of ownership and diversity of content. We agree with that. Having said that, I congratulate the Government and hope that this works. I am sure that it is going in the right direction.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of this order. It is fiendishly complicated and took me through several official drafts before I was satisfied that I understood them, let alone was capable of putting forward any coherent explanation to your Lordships.
  The noble Baroness is right that the Radio Authority supports the amendments. It would have gone a bit further but accepts that this is a realistic compromise. In relation to the response to the question of the noble Viscount, the timescale it will be slower than original anticipated. The equipment is still quite expensive. I have never heard digital radio so I have no idea about the improved quality which it is supposed to offer. It will be a considerable time before digital radio is widespread, but we hope the order will at least remove some possible obstacles to that process.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  New Opportunities Fund (Specification of Initiatives) Order 1999
  1 a. m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of the order is to specify the three initiatives that will be funded by the National Lottery though the New Opportunities Fund. We published our proposals last November in the consultation document New Links for the Lottery and we received 328 responses. I am grateful to all who responded, the vast majority of whom welcomed our ideas.
  Not knowing who else was to take part in this debate, I sent the draft directions to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, last Thursday. They set out the framework for the new initiatives, which have been developed with the benefit of the many useful comments made. I included a summary of the responses to consultation.
  We listened to the many respondents who were keen that we should not try to do too much with too little. I am pleased to inform the House that we have been able to increase the funding available to NOF for the initiatives from £400 million to £500 million. The extra money anticipates income that will accrue to NOF after the end of the current licence period.
  The cancer prevention, detection, treatment and care programme will build on local fundraising to address local needs. That initiative will help to support the Government's aim of providing high-quality cancer services for all. It will strengthen health promotion by developing innovative techniques for giving information about cancer prevention and detection, and it will develop partnerships to promote healthy living. The initiative will improve access and awareness in communities of the benefits of screening and ensure that all programmes have modern screening and diagnostic equipment. It will reduce waiting times for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer by investment in replacement or additional high tech equipment that would not have been made otherwise.
  That new lottery spending will be in addition to the settlement for health services agreed within the comprehensive spending review—additional to, not substituting for, Exchequer funding. The initiative demonstrates our commitment to seeing that the benefits of the lottery are more widely spread. The lottery's long-term success depends on retaining and reinforcing public confidence in its power to address issues that most concern people. That is what this and the other initiatives will do.
  Some £150 million will be available to fund the initiative, which will build on the tradition of voluntary support and the £140 million a year already provided by charitable and voluntary groups.
  The green spaces and sustainable communities initiative will help urban and rural communities across the UK to understand, improve and care for their natural

  1111
  living environment and improve the overall quality of their surroundings. The initiative will have two main strands: first, creating, preserving, improving and promoting access to green spaces of educational, recreational or environmental value to the community— including by the acquisition of land; secondly, encouraging small, community-based projects that engage local people in improving and caring for their environment and promoting sustainable development. The sum of £125 million will be available for that initiative, with 75 per cent. of that directed at the green spaces strand.
  A theme throughout the initiative is meeting community needs. Communities attach high priority to the quality of their environment but that will mean different things to different communities. In a rural community, for example, access to open land may be an issue. For urban communities, providing safe routes to schools might be a higher priority. The initiative will address the dearth of playing fields that resulted from the policy to sell them off. It will help communities such as the Isle of Eigg in Scotland to acquire and care for land. It will help reclaim derelict parts of our country and to knit communities together as part of our agenda to bring about social inclusion. It is NOF's first environmental initiative and shows our determination to ensure that lottery funds make a real difference to everyone wherever they live in the UK.
  The aims of the community access to lifelong learning initiative are to engage more adults in learning at community level and increase community access to information and communications technology. It will do that by supporting the development of a nationwide network of learning centres with ICT access to information and learning. Some £200 million will be available to support the development of community grids for learning and the equipping and networking of public libraries to provide learning centres for everyone wherever they live. Funding for community grids for learning will provide central ICT websites for "joining up" services—education, libraries, leisure, health, transport and the environment—at local level. The grids will provide community information for local people.
  Community grids will link into the national grid for learning, the public library network and the university for industry so that local good practice and information can be shared nationally and in a variety of learning contexts. The public library network is a programme for equipping and networking public libraries to join them to the national grid for learning and the university for industry. This support for libraries will complement the equipping of schools under the national grid for learning. This initiative will unlock the potential of public libraries which are ideally placed to bring the learning age to every community. It builds on NOF's existing initiative to train teachers and librarians and digitise content to support lifelong learning and it will complement the learning centre programme launched by Gordon Brown and David Blunkett providing an extra £470 million of taxpayers' money to raise standards and increase learning opportunities.
  In our consultation paper we also proposed an expansion to the existing NOF out-of-school hours initiative to fund 250, 000 new summer school places. Some £25 million will be set aside to achieve this as an expansion of NOF's existing out-of-school hours activities initiative. Summer schools include study support programmes run by individual schools and groups of schools and children's universities run by local education authorities and others. Activities may be subject-related or aimed at enhancing pupils' motivation and self-confidence to raise their levels of expectation and attainment. The long summer break can hinder pupils' progress, particularly for pupils from lower socio-economic groups whose reading ability can decline over the summer. Lottery funding will enable many more schools and others to offer exciting and effective learning opportunities to complement other summer provision. The Department for Education and Employment is to launch a summer school pilot this summer. The pilot will inform NOF's summer school initiative.
  The order gives effect to policies announced last September. The National Lottery has been more successful than anyone imagined. We want the lottery to provide something for everyone and make sure that the extra money goes where people most want it and where it is most needed. We have created NOF to ensure that lottery money benefits even more people. The health, education and environment projects which will be eligible for grants under these new plans could not happen without lottery money. These initiatives will be additional to government spending and not a substitute for it. NOF will be able to start inviting applications under the new initiatives before the end of this year. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, again I thank the Minister for explaining the order to us tonight, and also on this occasion for sending copies of the directions to me. They were most helpful and I made efforts to ensure that some other of my colleagues were able to see them before the debate tonight.
  We had the opportunity to examine the arguments surrounding the additionality principle on Thursday 4th February when the Minister laid a National Lottery order, and I do not propose to revisit the argument of principle in detail tonight, or rather this morning as it now is. This order diverts moneys which otherwise would have gone to the arts, sports and good causes, as originally agreed in Parliament. However, I confirm my hope that all the projects which will benefit from these diverted moneys will be of value to society in some way, and confirm my belief that some of them will indeed be invaluable to us all. I have merely argued in the past—and do now—that we should take care that we do not fund projects, services or the provision of equipment from lottery money which the public may have a right to expect to be funded on a permanent, reliable basis from taxation.

  1113
  Section 3(1) refers to the allocation of NO funds to cancer care. I prefer to refer to this as NO rather than NOF, which, as the Minister will remember from the previous debate, sounds somewhat akin to a rude direction. Noble Lords had an opportunity for debate when a Statement was made to this House last Monday. I listened then with interest to the points made from around the House on the issue of providing lottery funding for the prevention, detection and treatment of cancer. The Minister, repeating the Statement made in another place, posed the rhetorical question:
  "What better use could there be for lottery money". —[Official Report, 15/3/99; col. 534.]
  I was saddened by that use of rhetoric. It challenged us to dare to make invidious comparisons between the sufferers of different conditions and different diseases. I certainly would not contemplate making such comparisons tonight.
  Responding to the Statement my noble friend Lord Howe gave a warm welcome to the prospect of more spending on cancer care but rightly sought assurances from the Government on the basis that he was always worried by the appearance of lottery money in this context. He sought reassurances that none of the proposed expenditure would represent what would normally be regarded as core NHS spending. All of us will have friends, family or colleagues who have been touched by cancer. We would not deny them help. We would do all we can to prevent others being touched by it. At the same time we recognise that the medical profession has to make difficult decisions day by day about who receives treatment and what treatment, and who does not.
  The order imposes a responsibility on the managers of the NO Fund to make decisions about the disbursement of funds for cancer care. They will have to determine which organisations receive the funds and how they will be geographically distributed within the general guidelines of the legislation of 77.5 per cent. for England, 11.5 per cent. for Scotland, 6.5 per cent. for Wales and 4.5 per cent. for Northern Ireland. They have an extraordinarily difficult task. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, chairs the NO Fund—she is in her place—and I wish her and her colleagues well in the decisions they make. As I am aware that the written record cannot take account of inflexions of voice, perhaps I may say that there is no irony in that statement. I recognise the difficult task they face and I appreciate very much the efforts they will put into those decisions.
  I have read both the order and the directions very carefully. Article 3(2) appears to take us into new territory. It grants powers to the NO Fund to allocate moneys for,
  "the promotion and management of access to the countryside or to other land which is (or is to be) open to the public".
  This suggests that the order gives the NO Fund the power to allocate moneys to help to pay for some of the consequences of the statutory right to roam which the Government announced in a Statement on 8th March. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest,
  1114
  tried to obtain some enlightenment on that occasion about how lottery funds might be used to provide more access for disabled people and more facilities for them at points of access. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty—who is in his place tonight—pointed out that,
  "the terms of National Lottery grants are, I fear, beyond the scope of this Statement". —[Official Report, 8/3/99; col. 49.]
  That is the precisely the problem. How can we scrutinise such proposals effectively and at what stage in the parliamentary process?
  I intended that the main question I asked the Minister would refer to the Government's intention behind the order. I gave advance notice to the Minister's office that I would seek an assurance that the Government do not intend by this order to seek powers to use lottery funds in conjunction with the consequences of the statutory right to roam. I felt that if the Government were to seek to use the moneys allocated under this order in such a way before they had even presented a Bill to Parliament and given Parliament a chance to scrutinise the matter, then that would be a clear contempt of parliamentary scrutiny, a clear case of putting the cart before the horse.
  I was prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on this matter. I was reassured when I read an article in this week's Sunday Telegraph. The department was quoted as denying that the order would influence any future legislation. The quote in the newspaper was from an unidentified spokesman on behalf of the department. It read:
  "The idea that this is helping to fund any right-to-roam activities … is wrong".
  The new scheme, said a spokesman, would allow lottery funding for schemes designed to help communities,
  "understand, improve and care for their environment".
  That is what the department said yesterday. Today is a very different story. Today I attended the debate on this order in another place. Today I heard my honourable friend James Gray ask the Secretary of State whether the order would be used to fund some of the right-to-roam provisions. Today I heard the Secretary of State say that it would and say that he was proud of this prospective legislation. The official record printed tomorrow will show just that.
  So my question has already been answered by the Secretary of State. The Government have already disregarded the value of parliamentary scrutiny in this one respect. What else do we face in the future? I still do hold that scrutiny in high regard and I will continue to put some questions to the noble Lord the Minister. I note that the DETR's paper, The Government's Framework for Action, refers in paragraph 26 to lottery funding in the most general and speculative manner. It states that,
  "the Government is keen to see Lottery funds being made more widely available to complement the statutory responsibilities set out in legislation".
  What legislation? Is this referring in particular to rights of way, or the right-to-roam, or what? Paragraph 26 goes on to state:
  "The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be asking Lottery distributors to see how their funding can contribute further in helping people from all walks of life to take advantage of the new opportunities for open air recreation in the countryside".

  1115
  How and what kind of recreation?
  The order refers to the use of lottery moneys for the acquisition of land. That is an interesting aspect of the order. On what basis—as car parking or land to link areas which will be subject to the right-to-roam? What kind of land are we really talking about? Will it be for playing fields or will it be more directly linked to access matters under the right-to-roam? The order also refers to using money to promote access to the countryside. Is this a reference to advertising how to get access or signposting or way marking? What is involved? Which organisations will benefit from such moneys: the Ramblers' Association, the CLA, the National Trust, the RSPB or the Countryside Agency? What do the Government anticipate?
  The final section of the order refers to the diversion of lottery moneys to the use of IT in education for those aged 16 and over and also to the out-of-school matters to which the Minister referred. Naturally, I support the promotion of initiatives that encourage more adults to take part in learning at a community level and increase community access to information and communication technology. That is a most welcome move. But hardware is notoriously short-lived in the IT world. After the Government have used up the lottery funds to set up new services, how do they expect those services to continue when the original hardware is obsolete? In addition, as software develops, the training that is provided has to be changed as well. It is notorious that people who provide IT training have to be continually subject to retraining themselves. Who will pay for that?
  Overall, the order tacks together several important initiatives, some parts of which might well be expected to form part of core government funding and not be subject to the vagaries—the lottery—of lottery funding. It is the convention in this House that the Opposition Front Bench does not oppose the making of orders. On that basis alone, I would not oppose the making of the order. In addition, however, there is another imperative. I would not consider opposing this order because I would not oppose the grant of funds to such causes as cancer care. However, I remain deeply concerned about the manner in which this order is presented to the House and the statements made today by the Secretary of State in another place.
  Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches congratulate the noble Baroness on an excellent speech at this late hour. She raised many points that are also of concern to us. I do not intend to re-rehearse the arguments against the use of lottery funds for things which we believe should be funded from central taxation (Treasury funding).
  Every time one criticises the actions of the Government in securing funding from the lottery in this way, one is sometimes accused of taking lightly the excellent areas to which these funds are directed. I can understand the importance of everything in the first part of the order, which has to do with the treatment of cancer, the delivery of modern screening in local areas and so on. But I take the noble Baroness's point that the choice of beneficiaries is a complex and worrying area. I find the part of the order dealing with the acquisition
  1116
  of land and the promotion of management of access to the countryside very difficult to follow. I have read it several times, and in conjunction with the excellent notes which are supposed to make matters clearer, but nothing is clearer. I do not like the brackets in the phrase,
  "(or is to be)open to the public",
  and I do not like the connection with the statutory right to roam. It was excellently described by the noble Baroness.
  The Minister, with his customary skill, makes the whole provision seem extremely attractive. He even refers to public libraries, which, thinking in an art sense, are a wonderful thing. My heart leapt for a moment. This is a time when, for some curious reason, funding for public libraries is being reduced. They are a fundamental need of our society. It is encouraging to think that public libraries will benefit in some way from this provision. But the way in which it is being done gives rise to great anxieties. The hour is late and I do not wish to repeat what has already been said in an excellent way.
  Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I must declare an interest. I am chair of the New Opportunities Fund. I merely wish to place on record my board's welcome for these initiatives and for the order that is before the House.
  In carrying out the difficult task that is before us, we shall be working in partnership with other organisations, including other lottery distributors. It is important to emphasise that. We shall be supporting sustainable projects in the United Kingdom which improve the quality of life for individuals and communities, promote social inclusion, encourage community involvement and complement and enhance—but not substitute for— relevant national, regional and local strategies and programmes. We at the fund feel privileged to be playing our part in setting up this new organisation distributing lottery moneys to help education and environment projects. The programme is certainly a challenging one, not only for us but for all the other organisations with which we shall be working.
  I wish to convey to your Lordships something of the public support and enthusiasm for this initiative that are fed back to me as I go through an extensive consultation process with the public throughout the United Kingdom. These initiatives were originally announced in September and we have already started consultation with many of the organisations to which the noble Baroness referred in the environment field and the cancer field, and in terms of learning.
  In our original three initiatives we managed to consult directly with more than 5, 000 people. There is a huge amount of enthusiasm and support for the initiatives. Of course, everyone recognises that there are concerns about additionality, sustainability and how partnerships might work. My board is extremely concerned about that and particularly about ensuring that our provision does not in any way undermine the existing provision.

  1117
  I reiterate that my board is determined to take advantage of the exciting new opportunity in a way which reaches out to the most disadvantaged people in our society. I am confident that we can meet the challenges presented to us and do exactly that.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships long at this hour in the morning. I support my noble friend Lady Anelay on the Front Bench and am grateful that she covered nearly everything I wished to say, especially about the right to roam. That means that I do not have to repeat the points, although I have an interest as a landowner.
  The point of my question is about the New Opportunities Funds. The Secretary of State described them best when he admitted that they had raided the National Lottery to fund the opportunities. Most of them are worthy causes and one must welcome the Government taking the initiative to identify such worthy causes, especially playing fields. I am pleased that that is happening.
  My question is whether the money will be used to fund the mapping by the new countryside agency and the countryside council for Wales.
  1.30 a. m.
  Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for telling us more about the specification of initiatives. Perhaps I am slightly cynical in thinking that the orders seem to be discussed late at night or early in the morning.
  The lottery will only ever work properly and be appreciated by the people of this country if it has a few clear purposes and its image can be fully promoted to the public, with constant improvement in sales which will benefit everyone in all the causes. The order is so diffuse as to open the door to substitution, without creating recognisable improvements on any national scale. The presence this month of £3.7 billion unspent in the National Lottery Distribution Fund, of which £1.7 billion has not been committed to anything, shows the current mechanisms to be on the whole totally inadequate. No other lottery in the world has failed to use its money on that scale. Only 48 per cent. has been spent over the four-and-a-quarter years of its existence.
  The most positive aspect of the order is its role in the prevention of cancer. But why just cancer? What about multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia and Hodgkin's disease, to name but three debilitating conditions. They need just as much sorting out to ascertain what causes them.
  The aspect that is vital is the business of trying to sort out what is the cause of cancer. I hope that we can guarantee at least 50 per cent of the available funds to be fixed and dedicated to that purpose. To that end, the use of the word "facilities" is not enough. We need research and instruction in order to touch the lottery-playing public. Prevention is better than cure. We must look at the research done by, among others, the Gawler Foundation in Australia, which has achieved
  1118
  many remarkable results in finding cures for cancer. We must find out whether what it is doing is right or just an Australian aspect. We must find out and examine in detail the extent to which toxins found in foodstuffs, the environment, viruses and other negative influences reduce the efficiency of our immune system to fight off cancer and other diseases.
  Money raised by the lottery comes from the people and must be used to fund activities in which the NHS is not already engaged and which are new, innovative and useful.
  Part II deals with the purchase of land. Provided the purchase is restricted to such land as is useful for playing fields, I totally support the order. On the same principle, preventive medicine should dominate the part dealing with cancer. It is right to have a right-to-roam Bill in your Lordships' House. I applaud it and have no reason to disagree with it. If we can persuade land owners to let people roam across their land so be it, but it should not be done with lottery funding for the purchase of land. It would be cheaper, surely, to pay landowners to have footpaths along and across their land.
  The third problem is education. We are all very keen on education. I wish that I had learnt how to work my computer many years ago. If so, I would be a lot more efficient than I am today. Surely, this is a government problem and should be funded by taxpayers, not the lottery. Only if lottery money is applied where other sources have failed can it be recognised as a force for good in the land. At the moment, it has become a convenience for Treasury to offload problems. The lottery needs to concentrate again on the original five good causes. Many sporting organisations and arts bodies thought that they would find their salvation in the lottery but came up against blank walls at the end of the day. But others have succeeded in raising a lot of money and a marvellous job has been done by the lottery. Long may it continue.
  This order will almost certainly be passed this morning, but I and many others are very concerned about the use of the people's lottery for government purposes. It is simply not good enough for the Minister to say—he has said it before and I am sure that he means it because he has always been extremely courteous, polite and truthful—that the original five causes have received their quota of money. They should be enjoying extra finance thanks to the success of the lottery, not the Government. That is why the good people of this country play the lottery. They do it to make money, always hoping that they will win the jackpot; they do not do it to boost government funds. We must always remember that this is the people's lottery, not the Treasury's.
  Lord Annaly: My Lords, at this late stage I shall not detain the House for long. Cancer is a very worthy cause. My noble friend Lord Rowallan mentioned a number of other causes that would be equally worthy of support. I shall focus my few remarks on the acquisition of land for the public good.

  1119
  This matter raises a few questions. Perhaps the Minister can throw light on the kind of land that is being considered. I cannot see a mention of games fields. Certainly, in my part of the world, which I believe is typical of the rest of the country, schools have been selling land on which to build houses. In Bicester half the rugger pitch has been built on in the past two years. I am aware that the same has happened round the country. Surely, it is up to local authorities to decide.
  We need more games fields but I question whether they should be funded by the National Lottery. Is the compulsory purchase of land being considered? If so, who will identify the land to be compulsorily purchased? Will it be the county council? Are the Government thinking of using organisations such as the National Trust, which are supported by a number of people? I declare an interest as a member of the National Trust. Some suggest that they would be admirable people to run the land acquired. The National Trust opens houses and, with its land agents, would be well geared to manage land in the countryside and towns for the benefit of the public. Are the Government looking at organisations like the Woodland Trust, or the Badminton Conservation Trust which is geared up for conservation? What are we referring to? If someone wants to sell a grouse moor and wishes to put it on the open market, would the funds be used to buy that grouse moor? I am curious to know exactly what is being considered here.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting and explaining the order to us tonight. I, too, an extremely concerned about the way in which the order is being used, as my noble friend Lady Anelay stated, with regard to prospective legislation. Other noble Lords share my concern that yet again parliamentary approval is being sought and moneys put aside even before legislation has come before either House.
  Those of us who have taken part in debates on Bills recently have already expressed our misgivings about inadequately drafted legislation, or being without the necessary information in order properly to debate matters before us. Such disregard for parliamentary procedure is regrettable; and today we have yet another instance of disregard.
  I have some questions on the order. Will the Minister inform the House what proportion of moneys currently held against the allocation for health, education and the environment will be used up by today's statement? Can the Minister assure the House that by paying the moneys to the New Opportunities Fund, under the provision made in Section 6(2) of the 1998 Act, he will not be depriving NESTA of its initial endowment provided for under Section 19(1) of the Act?
  Is the Minister yet in a position to tell the House how much money he intends to pay across to NESTA, first, in the period from 1st July 1999 under Section 19(1); and, secondly, in the period between 2nd July 1999 to 31st December 1999 under Section 19(2)?
  1120
  Does the Minister envisage, in the period 2nd July 1999 to 31st December 1999, under Section 19(2) of the 1998 Act, drawing on moneys originally intended for charities, the arts, sport or national heritage; and, if so, does he intend to do so evenly across the board?
  The order includes the acquisition of land. Several noble Lords have spoken about that. In what geographical area will this be, and will the land be purchased freehold? How much does the Minister envisage spending on,
  "helping communities acquire, control and develop land which is important to them"?
  Will that acquisition involve compulsory purchase?
  Can the Minister also reassure us that all land acquired under the new opportunities initiatives will be subject to enduring covenants preventing its use, for example, for industrial or commercial development or for housing? Is part of that land to include land which would fall into the remit of the Government's proposals for access, an issue referred to by other noble Lords and my noble friend Lady Anelay. In a presentation last week in this House, the Countryside Commission put forward two papers: one on rights of way and the other on access. Perhaps I may refer to access first. I have a question I wish to ask. The order refers to the promotion of the use of land for the benefit of the community. In its presentation briefing, the Countryside Commission referred to developing,
  "a bid to the New Opportunity Fund for the creation and improving of 'community greenspace' near people's homes".
  Have moneys already been allocated; and, if so, how much? Are the Government considering including allotments in the possible use of community green spaces? Many noble Lords will know that I keep raising in this House the question of allotments as they are being closed down and built on rather than preserved as an amenity for local communities.
  In its presentation on rights of way, the Countryside Commission called for national targets to be set for the rights of way campaign in which local authorities update their statutory duties. Will any money from the New Opportunities Fund be spent on that?
  I find it interesting that, on the one hand, money has been made available to promote the management of access to the countryside and that money has been made available for the acquisition of land under this order. But in the proposals for greater access to the countryside and the right to roam, it has been made clear that landowners are to receive no compensation and must carry third party liability. Perhaps the Minister will comment on those two different approaches.
  I understand that £125 million has been set aside for the environment section. Will the Minister confirm that none of the green spaces covered by the 75 per cent. of allocation includes mountain, heathland or moorland, covered in the Statement on access debated in this House on 8th March? Lastly, will the Minister tell the House how the money allocated will be distributed geographically; whether it will be regarded as pump-priming or, as the noble Baroness said, it must be

  1121
  for sustainable development? If not, how will the Government ensure that those projects will be financially viable in the future?
  Finally, I return to the underlying concern which my noble friend expressed so well; namely, that money is being put aside for projects which have not been submitted to Parliament and certainly have not been approved by Parliament—the Bill on the right to roam.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for some of the comments made. That is as far as I can go in the circumstances. I say immediately to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, that there is no question of diverting moneys from the previous existing good causes. As has been made clear from the very beginning, the original good causes under the preceding Act will all receive more than the amount of money that they expected when the original allocation was set up.
  The funding of the New Opportunities Fund and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts is from additional money arising from the fact that, fortunately, the lottery has been much more successful than originally expected.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said that she thought it right that some of the causes now being proposed would be of value to society. She thought the public had the right to expect that items would not be included that could be funded from taxation. She is entirely correct. I confirm that our position has not changed.
  I shall try to deal with the issues across the range of speakers rather than go back between green spaces and cancer funding. I start with cancer. Two things must be said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. They asked why we have chosen cancer and not, for example, MS or schizophrenia. Cancer affects one in three people in this country and one in four deaths is from cancer. It is very different in scope from the other diseases mentioned.
  I am delighted that, as a long-term project, over the next 10, 20 or 30 years it may be possible to tackle other diseases. However, cancer is the major killer in our society and is an area in which a great deal of research and care needs to be provided.
  Secondly, historically, it is a mixed economy, so to speak, in the sense that a great deal of the most valuable work in cancer research and cancer provision is carried out by the charitable and voluntary sectors. About £140 million of charitable money goes to cancer every year. Those who are involved in such charitable activities for cancer have clearly welcomed the proposals for the extensions to be provided from the New Opportunities Fund. Nicholas Young, Chief Executive of Macmillan Cancer Relief stated:
  "This is a golden opportunity. We must make sure that this financial boost … is used effectively".
  Dr. McArmstrong of the BMA stated that the equipment and services are precisely the areas currently paid for through local fundraising or major cancer charities.
  1122
  These are items of expenditure which it is impossible for the National Health Service to provide to the satisfaction of, and to meet the needs of, the people in this country who suffer from cancer. Those who know about it are determined that this is the right way to proceed.
  I turn to the subject of green spaces and sustainable communities. I have been asked for assurances, to quote a spokesperson in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph, that the suggestion that this is funding right-to-roam activities by the backdoor is wrong. That was true yesterday and is true today. There is no departure from that. The New Opportunities Fund moneys will not be used to pay for the new statutory right to roam. They will be used for purposes which are additional and complementary to the statutory functions. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that there is no question of any disregard for parliamentary procedure and no question of money being put aside before legislation. In due course, when legislation is put before Parliament on the right to roam, those matters which will cost money will have to be funded. However, they will not be funded by money from the New Opportunities Fund which is being approved today. They cannot be funded in that way. There is no legal power, for example, for the compulsory acquisition of land in pursuit of the right-to-roam objective.
  There is a whole range of things which the New Opportunities Fund can do. I can cite many examples: the creation of new powers; the upgrading of existing powers; the provision of facilities for those with disabilities; information about existing or new access opportunities; better way-marking and provision of local maps. The NOF can do all of those things. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked me a whole series of precise questions about what has been committed now. The answer can and must be, in accordance with the arm's length principle, that these are not matters for government but for the New Opportunities Fund. It is in accordance with the general guidelines laid down in the orders that the New Opportunities Fund will be operating.
  Indeed, if we were to seek to give very detailed answers to the questions which she asked—I understand her sincerity in asking them—we would be accused immediately by her Front Bench of breaching the arm's length principle and of going way beyond the legitimate separation of the responsibilities of the funds from the responsibilities of government.
  I agree with noble Lords, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that the problem before the New Opportunities Fund is a difficult one. Only general guidelines and powers are being given to the New Opportunities Fund. They are not precise and a great deal of responsibility will be required.
  Before I leave this point, perhaps I may assure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that this will have no effect whatever on the funding of NESTA. The funding of NESTA was set up under the National Lottery Act 1998. There is no diminution of that funding, which has already been established. At the same time, there are no plans at the moment to make any further endowments

  1123
  to NESTA under Section 19(2) of the Act; the £200 million is already there; it is one of the top grant-making trusts in the country and will receive up to £10 million a year under the guidelines.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, asked me a very precise question about whether the funds could be used for mapping by the Countryside Agency. The answer is no; there is no power to do that.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, made a number of wider points. He thought that these are diffuse powers. Indeed, they are guidelines, not detailed instructions. I can assure the noble Lord that, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley said, there is close collaboration between the NOF and the five original good causes. Where there is overlap between them, they are making sure that it is beneficial rather than damaging.
  On the issue of unspent money, to which the noble Lord refers at what seem to be regular intervals. I can assure him that it is not the case that unspent money is greater for this lottery than for any other. The money in the fund is allocated to each good cause. It is committed to projects over the next few years but is not paid over until actually needed. Where it is kept in the National Lottery Development Fund—in other words, before it is paid over—it gains interest and all that interest goes to the good causes, not to the Treasury.
  The noble Lord, Lord Annaly, asked about playing fields, which, if I may make a party political point, was unwise. Under the previous government, over 5, 000 fields were sold off and a further 2, 600 were under threat. We are determined to stop and reverse that. We are requiring the Secretary of State's approval for every proposal to build on a playing field. We believe that all young people should have access to quality facilities. The Football Association and the England and Wales Cricket Board have welcomed the proposals. The question of who gets the money, schools or local authorities, depends entirely on local circumstances, on who owns the fields and on who needs the money.
  On community access to lifelong learning, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said—and I think that she is right—that the life of hardware can be short and that it needs to be updated. All lottery funding is finite; it does not go on for ever. If it did, after a few years there would be nothing left for new projects. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that the provisions for the learning centres will include not only the hardware but also the very expensive software, such as interactive learning materials, which have to be built up at the beginning, and can include provision for initial staffing.
  I think that I have covered adequately the major points raised by noble Lords and I hope that I have given the assurance that our adherence to the arm's length principle and to the principle of additionality means that a very large number of the legitimate worries that have been expressed are the responsibility of the New Opportunities Fund, which is why we are moving the order in this form. I commend it to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Gas Fuel for Motor Vehicles
  1.54 a. m.
  Lord Steel of Aikwood Lord Steel of Aikwood rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take, in the interests of the urban environment, to encourage the growth in use of gas fuel for motor vehicles.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I tabled this Question I was assured by the powers that be in my own Whips' Office and elsewhere that it would probably come on before half-past six. In my naivety I thought that meant half-past six last night, not half past six in the morning. But here we are discussing this rather important issue at two o'clock in the morning. That is partly because we had a Statement earlier and partly because of the very important debate we had on European matters. Bearing in mind the agreement reached by the House recently on the report of the Procedure Committee that Members taking part in a set debate should at least stay for the winding up speeches, I have noticed that at least two Members—there may have been others—who made lengthy speeches indicated that they had no intention of staying. It seems to me that the alternative on these occasions is to withdraw one's name from the List of Speakers in the interest of the proceedings of the House, but there we are. I feel particularly sorry for the Minister who is to reply, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who must be feeling very uncomfortable with his recent injury and at being kept up at this late hour. I apologise on behalf of others for that inconvenience.
  A little noticed part of the Chancellor's Budget was a tax reduction of 29 per cent. on road fuel gas while, as everybody knows—particularly those who were in central London today—other fuels suffered a whacking increase. There was an increase of 4.25 pence a litre on leaded petrol; 3.79 pence on unleaded petrol; ordinary diesel went up 6.14 pence; and ultra low sulphur diesel by 2.79 pence. In answer to my Question, I suppose the Government would argue that the Budget is itself encouragement for the use of road fuel gases in motor vehicles.
  I must admit that my interest in this topic is very recent. Like most noble Lords, I have been concerned at the unhealthy pollution of the air in our cities. One has only to cross the road in Parliament Square from the building which I used to inhabit, which is the Commons' external office building to the main Chamber, to get a very high dose of poisonous fumes. Apart from the unhealthy nature of that pollution we are also increasingly aware of the cumulative effect of global warming.
  It was only when I went with the all-party motor industry group on a recent visit to Buckingham Palace where the Royal fleet of motor cars have been pioneers in gas conversion, that I discovered how far behind the United Kingdom is compared with other countries. For example, Italy heads the league table with 1.4 million gas-fired vehicles on its roads. Australia has nearly half a million, North America 440, 000; Argentina has 400, 000 and the Netherlands 360, 000. Even little New Zealand has 25, 000 gas-fuelled vehicles on its

  1125
  roads. Unless the Minister has a new figure, Britain lags well behind any of these with only 3, 500 vehicles. So it cannot be said that, whatever steps successive governments have taken so far, they have had any major effect.
  There are problems in advocating the use of gas-fuelled vehicles. The main one is the present costs. It takes over £3, 000 to convert the average private car or van to use gas as well as ordinary fuel. I commend three manufacturers and in particular Vauxhall Motors and close behind, Ford and Volvo who offer dual fuel installations from new at a rather lower cost of under £2, 000. The Government offer environmental grants towards these extra costs and they are used mainly by fleet owners. The cost for each individual vehicle is still substantial and the money which the Government offer in the way of environmental grants is cash limited. The two measures which the Government are taking are the tax on the fuel itself plus the grants. As I say, from the comparative figures internationally it is quite clear that the combination of tax incentive and grants is not enough.
  A second problem in the use of gas is the amount of storage space taken up by the extra gas tanks. Most vehicles on the roads of Britain today are equipped to run on gas, petrol or diesel at the flick of a switch. On huge machines such as refuse collectors that does not matter, but the average private car can lose up to half its boot space—not everybody has Rolls Royces the size of Her Majesty's. The solution of course is to have vehicles running solely on gas with storage replacing the space occupied by the fuel tanks. I noticed that the Duke of Edinburgh has just taken delivery of a new taxi cab fuelled solely by gas for use in London to replace his dual-fuel one.
  That brings me to the third and main problem and the reason why I tabled this debate; namely, the lack of filling stations. It is a chicken and egg dilemma. Owners will not buy gas-fuelled vehicles until there are enough retail outlets for refuelling them; and manufacturers will not provide outlets for refuelling until there are enough vehicles to use them. That is why it is up to the Government to break that difficult cycle.
  I urge the Government to introduce legislation, or at any rate to encourage local authorities and other public operators to require buses and taxis in our major cities, to replace existing vehicles with gas-fuelled ones. That would automatically result in far more refuelling sites and a great reduction in city pollution. London has nearly 20, 000 taxi cabs, plus all the belching buses. Those taxi cabs, I understand, are replaced at the rate of roughly 20 per cent. each year so that, if such a measure were undertaken, they would be replaced in around five years' time entirely by gas-fuelled taxi cabs. All our major cities would benefit. For example, Edinburgh has some 1, 200 taxies. That is not pie in the sky. In Japan almost all taxis in the entire country are gas-fuelled and the city of Vienna has been using gas-fuelled buses for three decades without a single mishap, and now its entire fleet of 400 buses runs on gas.
  My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood will outline some of the steps taken by the Liberal Democrat-controlled council in Sutton. The fact is that some local authorities have pushed forward by using gas-fuelled vehicles themselves. Much more could be done, not just with buses and taxis but with those agencies which are directly controlled by the Government; for example, the Post Office and the police authorities. And what about the Government car pool? I know that a start has been made, but it would be interesting to hear the latest figures from the Minister.
  I have not mentioned in this debate and deliberately have not dealt with the question of electric vehicles; their technology is still uncertain. But the technology for the use of gas is already proven and widely used internationally. However, one problem on which I should like to hear the Minister concerns the choice between the two different gases. LPG is currently the most viable alternative fuel for everyday vehicles because CNG requires the storage of gas at higher pressures and current tank technology requires the use of heavily pressurised tanks for CNG. The range in that is more limited in comparison to LPG. On the other hand, it may be that the CNG available resources are stronger and it would be helpful if the Government could give some kind of policy guidance or direction on that issue.
  On 23rd December last the Government issued their response to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's 20th report, and agreed with the commission about the benefits of gas as a road fuel. But the question is: what are they constructively going to do about it to change these appallingly low figures? It would be in the interests of the nation's health if they were to make further moves. Gas produces 48 per cent. less carbon monoxide than petrol; 78 per cent. less oxides of nitrogen than diesel; 87 per cent. less particulate matter than diesel; and 20 per cent. less carbon dioxide than petrol. The use of gas could cut global warming overall by 9 per cent. compared with diesel and by 17 per cent. compared with petrol. For the sake of the health of us all, the Government need to take more urgent measures to encourage its use.
  2.6 a. m.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood for raising a subject not often discussed in your Lordships' House, even in the context of frequent general transport debates. I spent last Friday and Saturday in Liverpool and Manchester, studying their traffic control plans and actions.
  In Manchester, a large light railway system has been introduced and the hope is that it will be extended. Liverpool is moving into the contracting process for a rather less expensive method of rapid transit-guided buses. Both systems are designed to tackle pollution or congestion by transferring journeys from cars to another mode and have proved quite successful—certainly in the case of Manchester.
  Gas-fuelled or electric-powered cars are a totally different way of tackling not just air pollution but noise pollution. My noble friend referred to the efforts made

  1127
  in Sutton to promote zero-emission vehicles. That borough has used its own purchasing power to create a market for gas-fuelled vehicles. Sixty vehicles are either in use or soon will be, ranging from small vans to refuse collection vehicles and welfare buses.
  The success of that borough and of other boroughs and cities in Europe that are contributing to the Zeus project is evidenced by the reducing price of some vehicles for conversion to gas power. The proportion of the Sutton fleet that is fuelled by natural gas is about 37 per cent. When more replacements have been made, that will rise to 40 per cent. next year and to 47 per cent. in 2002. The borough is making itself into an exemplar of how to change a fleet from one type of fuel to another.
  The cost to the local authority has been rendered acceptable by the grants it has received. The programme supports the council's policy aim of reducing the environmental impact of local traffic and is supplemented by the installation of a gas refuelling station that is said to be the largest in the country. My noble friend referred to the necessity of introducing vehicles and refuelling stations at the same time. That project and the financial support for it has been made possible by the Zeus project, which has secured funding from DG7 and contributions from the Energy Saving Trust in this country. Zeus involves cities and towns throughout Europe. Margareta Olofsson, the vice-mayor of Stockholm, described the project at a conference in Brussels last June. She said:
  "Zeus is a demonstration project comprising the activities of eight European cities in buying, using and evaluating zero and low-emission, low-energy vehicles … Zeus focuses on the role that cities can play in facilitating a shift from private, fossil-fuel based transportation to cleaner, more energy-efficient transport … Zeus includes a number of different fuels and vehicle types, from buses to small cars, to pedal power to passenger vehicles, to waste and other specialty vehicles. We have natural gas, both CNG and LPG, electric vehicles, ethanol and RME".
  The city of Bremen is, interestingly, comparing the various national policy frameworks for achieving environmentally friendly transport, including such matters as fiscal regimes, clean air policies and traffic regulations.
  Clearly the Chancellor's reduction of tax on vehicle gas in the Budget is part of a national policy stance. I should be interested to hear—as I think would many others who will be able to read it tomorrow—if the Minister could tell us more about the specifics of the policy approach which lies behind this initiative. For example, what estimates has the DETR made of the relative contribution of a wider use of low or zero emission vehicles to reducing pollution from vehicles compared with other policy options such as the ones in Liverpool and Manchester? What goals and targets do the Government have in relation to the wider use of such vehicles? What additional mechanisms might encourage their wider adoption?
  It is clear that the local authorities involved with the Zeus project see themselves as major players in creating a market in low emission vehicles. Do the Government also accept such a role for national government? On the
  1128
  lines of questions asked by my noble friend, how far have the Government taken their own programme of vehicle replacement by zero and low emission vehicles?
  I have on a number of occasions expressed my conviction that it is not enough to rely just on local authorities to take all the initiatives and the risks and to initiate the new programmes that will lead eventually to a more environmentally friendly transport system. It is for government to lead. The Government indicated their general willingness to do so in their White Paper. I hope that tonight, in respect of gas-fired vehicles, the Minister will be able to enlighten us as to how the Government see themselves pursuing this lead in practice.
  2.12 a. m.
  The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this topic, which seems to be often and strangely overlooked in the UK, in sharp contrast to many other countries around the world.
  The use of natural gas, either LPG or CNG already in use in this country as a fuel for vehicles, is lamentably and laughably low. There are some highly commendable exceptions such as Royal Mail and the Gas Board, and indeed some government cars are being run on it. I am delighted to hear about the London Borough of Sutton. However, public service vehicles lag way behind.
  Some noble Lords will know of my longstanding connection with the licensed taxi trade. Both the manufacturers of dedicated taxis in the UK—London Taxi International in Coventry, and Metrocab in Tamworth—have undertaken extensive research into this important subject. This has resulted in considerable engineering developments being made by both of them, and this continues. I spoke to the person at Metrocab who has been working on this project since its inception, Stephen Ferris, and he told me that Metrocab has been working closely with the Ford Motor Company on a two-litre petrol/LPG engine for some time, and it is available now for installation in its taxis on the production line. As my noble friend said recently, it delivered a gas-powered taxi to Buckingham Palace for use by Prince Philip as his regular car.
  London Taxi International has looked at both the natural gas possibilities, LPG and CNG, and has had one of its taxis plying for hire on the streets of London for years running on LPG with the tank stored in the boot. It delivered me to your Lordships' House one day. But it is the only one. It would seem from what I have been told by Metrocab that it makes much more sense for cars, vans and taxis to run on LPG rather than CNG because of the time it takes to fill the tank, always supposing you can find a garage that has this facility. Apparently it takes less time to fill a tank with LPG than it does to fill a taxi tank with diesel, but it takes far, far longer to fill the same size tank with CNG. I was also told that the achievable mileage on a tankful of either gas is not quite what it would be with diesel or petrol because the tank can only be filled to 80 per cent of its capacity due to gas expansion.
  However, this should not be a major worry to potential operators providing the many advantages of natural gas are encouraged and advanced. Steps could

  1129
  be taken now to achieve this. First, we need to create the market place for the encouragement of natural gas as a viable alternative fuel. Surely every garage forecourt should have an LPG filling point; surely LPG should carry no tax whatsoever and not just marginally less than diesel, as I believe is the present case. That is a negative approach instead of a positive one; a stick to beat rather than a carrot to wave.
  Perhaps it could be said that vehicles of all types running on natural gas can do so better and more economically in metropolitan areas rather than in rural districts because of the much longer distances involved. But, wherever they run, surely they must be given the very highest of incentives by the Government. Surely if the Government are serious about doing something about our damaged environment—I believe they are— what could be a better way of showing it than giving their support to this as a matter of urgency.
  For many years I have been receiving in my post publications from London Transport called London Lines and On The Move. I am sure other noble Lords are familiar with them. Never have I seen in any of them even a passing reference to natural gas as a possible fuel for any of its buses. I wonder why this is so. The publications are full of articles entitled "Into the Millennium; The Future of London's Buses", which talk about the grand plans it has, but there is not a mention anywhere about natural gas. Not only do I think this astonishing, but very alarming.
  I can understand the difficulty of using natural gas on double-decked buses because where does one put the large fuel storage tanks required? They certainly could not go on the roof as they do elsewhere in the world where they are used on single deckers. But they certainly could be used to great effect on the large numbers of single-deck buses operating in London and elsewhere at present.
  This brings me to the city of Atlanta in the USA. I go there two or three times a year and I have noticed that it runs considerable numbers of its buses on natural gas. I spoke to its bus procurement officer on Friday to find out what I could. He told me that it has a total of 750 buses in its fleet; 118 run on CNG and it has a further 82 on order with the manufacturers, Nu-Flyer of Winnipeg, Manitoba, which has another factory in the USA at Minnesota. So heavy is the demand for these buses, and so successful are they, that there is a two-year waiting list for them. MARTA—which stands for Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority—is so delighted with them that it is seriously thinking whether instead of splitting its order for 206 new buses between 82 gas-powered and 124 diesel-powered it should not go for all 206 being gas-powered. As all its buses are single-deckers, the fuel tanks are on the roof and are filled when the vehicle returns to the depot at the end of its shift. The operating costs for CNG and diesel buses are about the same but gas-powered buses cost 40, 000 to 50, 000 dollars more than the conventional ones. However, this is reduced by a massive 80 per cent., the amount which is covered by the Federal Government in Washington, which leaves MARTA only liable to cover 20 per cent. of the total
  1130
  outlay, not just 20 per cent. of the additional costs. So for each bus powered by CNG which it orders, it has to find only 65, 000 dollars, or roughly £40, 000, in total itself. Surely this is the yellow brick road that we should be travelling down as well.
  If we are to continue to enjoy the luxury of having our own individual transportation tin box at our instant disposal, we must be prepared to pay the environmental price. We have not begun to do that. By this I do not mean charging the motorist more in taxes than he already pays. I mean the lead being taken by the Government in aggressively encouraging the use of natural gas as a vehicle fuel. Whatever we do needs to be done quickly. Otherwise it will simply be too late to save our tottering environment.
  2.20 a. m.
  Lord McNair: My Lords, like my two noble friends who have just spoken, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Steel for raising this important matter. I should also like to draw attention to the stellar performance on these Benches on this matter.
  My personal experience of LPG goes back to the 1970s when I had a Ford Popular engine running a three-phase generator which I attached to a propane cylinder. It was a simple conversion and it worked very well. So I have my personal recommendation to add to the words of my noble friends.
  When I decided to speak in the debate, I contacted Shell because I wanted to find out whether a massive conversion of buses to LPG would unbalance the production and supply of LPG and other petroleum products. It appears that that is unlikely. Sixty-two per cent. of our LPG comes direct from the gasfield where it is found in conjunction with methane, which itself requires enormous compression to liquify and thus is not so suitable for the application we are discussing tonight. But 3 to 4 million tonnes of LPG are exported from the United Kingdom annually and would be available for use in buses in this country. The balance of 38 per cent of the UK's production of LPG is produced in refineries where it represents about 5 per cent. of the total contents of the barrel. There is in fact huge scope for increasing the production and consumption of LPG. That certainly has the support of Shell, but I have not spoken to other oil companies.
  The Budget was good for LPG in general, but apparently not so good for bus operators in particular. The reason for this, which I think I understand, is that, although the rebate on the duty on LPG is 100 per cent., the problem is that in terms of volume per calorific value it is a much lighter fuel than even low sulphur diesel and so operators of LPG-powered buses find themselves still at a disadvantage vis-à-vis diesel buses. In Germany, the government have recently introduced an adjustment of fuel duty that slants the figures favourably in the direction of LPG.
  I am told that there are between 400 and 500 LPG-powered buses in the European Union, but at present only two in the United Kingdom. We are lagging behind, but not for long I hope. At Watford, Arriva has

  1131
  ordered seven LPG-powered buses and London and General has ordered three. Several have been ordered for Scotland.
  What is needed by the bus operators from government is rather more enthusiastic capital support for changing over from diesel to LPG. Daf has produced an 8.6 litre spark ignition engine which is a modification of an existing diesel engine. Since diesel engines operate at a much higher compression ratio than petrol engines, a spark ignition engine using a diesel engine block should prove to be very reliable and long lasting.
  I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say and to see what the Government will do in answer to my noble friend's Question.
  2.25 p.m.
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend for initiating this debate, even at this late hour. It is one of the few debates in which I have taken part in which I can be so friendly with all those who have spoken before me. Most of those concerned about this issue are speaking from these Benches.
  My interest in natural gas vehicles was sparked as a result of my membership of the Science and Technology Committee and the report that we produced on low emission vehicles. It seemed that the only realistic solution for low emission vehicles in the short term had to be natural gas. The recent reduction in tax on gas fuels in the Budget is most welcome. It indicates that the Government have recognised the merits of gas fuels in reducing vehicle pollution.
  It is important to define gas fuels natural gas as the gas that we receive through the mains into our home. Liquid petroleum gas (LPG) comes as a by-product from the petrol refining process. Natural gas in vehicles can take two forms: compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). I should declare an interest as I am currently president of the Natural Gas Vehicle Association. However, I assure the Minister that it is a non-pecuniary position.
  I distinguish between LPG and natural gas because there are different levels of emissions, performance, availability and costs. LPG is mainly used in the conversion of petrol engines, and can show improvements in emissions over petrol. The fuel in natural gas vehicles, on the other hand, has a high octane rating—100 to 125—and is low in volatile organic compounds, making it ideal for reciprocating engines and thus an appropriate fuel for vehicle and engine manufacturers to optimise reductions in emissions.
  It is appropriate to consider natural gas as the third global fuel, alongside petrol and diesel for worldwide usage. It is the most realistic and practical solution to reducing vehicle pollution, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Thomas, and is available worldwide.
  Before turning to the environmental benefits, perhaps I may explain the other benefits of a strong home market for natural gas vehicles. With some 1, 200, 000 natural gas vehicles now in operation, the worldwide growth in such vehicles is expected to exceed 25 million over the next 15 years. Will British industry be in a position to compete—I put that question to the Minister—
  1132
  considering the difficulties that the British motor manufacturing industry is facing? I refer, for example, to the present position of Rover.
  UK manufacturers and development centres have more than demonstrated the advanced technology that is present here in the UK. Yet by comparison with countries such as Germany, Sweden, Italy, the United States and Japan, the number of natural gas vehicles on the road is very small. For British technology and industry to compete in this new and expanding global market, there need to be economies of scale resulting from greater uptake at home.
  The development work in this industry has continued to produce significant improvements. The cost of vehicle and refuelling infrastructure is high. That is due in part to the sophistication of the technologies and to diseconomies of scale.
  An evaluation undertaken in January this year by an independent test house on manufacturers' warranted vehicles compared diesel, LPG and natural gas. The results again demonstrated the very significant reductions in emissions and the contributions that NGVs make to improving air quality and to a reduction in global warming.
  Such is the level of reduction in emissions from passenger cars to heavy goods vehicles and buses that NGVs are capable of achieving considerably lower emissions than any other fuels and are well within those proposed in the Euro 4 standards for 2005. It means that we can have that level of improved air quality now. It is interesting to consider what would be the reduction in NOX and particulates in London's atmosphere if all the taxis and buses were converted today.
  I mentioned earlier the high cost of entry for natural gas vehicles and refuelling stations which I believe must be addressed in the way the Government provide incentives to encourage greater take-up of NGVs. The economics are not yet right for the natural gas vehicle; therefore attention needs to be given to establishing the cost benefit of NGVs based on emissions., business opportunities and reduced balance of payments, for example. An appropriate differential over other fuels is needed and, sustainable over a period of time, will help to encourage investment in their use and for the vehicle manufacturers to do likewise.
  Setting the fuel duty for natural gas at the EU minimum for a sustained period of five years would be a significant recognition of the major contribution NGVs will make to improving air quality. One of the problems I foresee is that in the future we will be using a lot more natural gas vehicles, but unfortunately due to the hesitancy of the Treasury in producing the economic incentives for taking up the technology, the UK will lag behind. That will have a detrimental effect on the people who live in London, in urban areas, especially those who suffer from asthma.
  2.30 a. m.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, for asking this fascinating Unstarred Question. I am glad that he widened it to include CNG and LNG. I am only sorry that we are not

  1133
  joined tonight, or rather this morning, by his noble friend Lord Ezra who has in the past been active in promoting this technology. Indeed, it was the noble Lord who encouraged me to attend a conference organised by the Natural Gas Vehicles Association. It is an organisation now being graced by the presidency of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
  The noble Lord, Lord Steel, raised the problem of the lack of gas filling stations. While I am extremely sympathetic and attracted to gas vehicles, I am not sure that I would like to follow the noble Lord's route of compulsion to run certain vehicles on gas. I believe that it would be far more preferable to lay down exactly what pollution limits, including noise limits, would apply to certain vehicles. The limits may become tighter and tighter as technology improves. The Euro 1, 2 and 3 are good examples of this process and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred to Euro 4.
  I am not convinced that it is wise for the Government to differentiate between the three main gas fuels, other than to set emission limits applicable to all gas-powered vehicles.
  As many noble Lords have rightly observed, the taxation environment in which gas-powered vehicles operate is as important as their benefit to the environment in which they operate. The Chancellor, in his recent Budget Statement, reduced the duty on gas for CNG, LNG and LPG and we welcome it. The signals that the Government send out and their reception by operators are important. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, regarding the need to encourage private operators and not just the public sector. But can the Minister say whether the rate of duty is now at the EU minimum and if not, how much duty would the Chancellor be forgoing if it were?
  Another important component of the signal to operators is the differential between fuel costs when taking into account fuel duty, VAT and fuel consumption. Operators of vehicles and filling facilities need to be sure that this differential will be maintained for the whole life cycle of the vehicle or filling station equipment. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and others.
  One of the major advantages of gas-powered vehicles is their much lower emissions of particulates, CO2 emissions and, most importantly, noise. I think that particularly for urban operations, it is important to remember that the emissions, including noise from diesel engines on start up from cold, are nowhere near as good as for gas engines.
  Many noble Lords have concentrated on cars or car-derived vans, but I have been speaking to manufacturers and operators of larger vehicles. Enthusiasm and experiences appear to be mixed. What is clear is that vehicles built to run on gas by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) are much more reliable than a conversion. OEMs will make a judgment as to whether to offer a gas-engined option if they are certain about the lifecycle costs to which I have already referred. The noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, referred to an OEM (Ford Motor Company) offering an original fit.
  1134
  The maximum benefits of gas will be obtained from use in urban and return-to-base operations, which obviously obviates the need for a petrol tank as well. Unfortunately, the economic benefits arising from lower duty rates may not be compelling because of the low mileages that these vehicles cover. Thus, the lower running costs may not repay the extra investment required for gas. Therefore, encouragement needs to be given by the vehicle excise duty regime. That point was covered in the consultation document, Reform of Vehicle Excise Duty to Ensure a Cleaner Environment. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, explained why government policy is important to exporters in our manufacturing industry. I support his comments in that regard.
  What is the view of the Minister as to the appropriate balance between the encouragement of gas-powered vehicles through VED, fuel duty and VAT? Does he agree that the arrangements overall should be tax-neutral? Alternatively, does he have available some other mechanism to offset the higher capital costs of a gas-powered vehicle?
  The Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is important. It is unfortunate that it could not be taken at a more convenient time, as he had hoped. I look forward to the Minister's reply to the noble Lord's suggestion about compulsion to choose gas for certain vehicles.
  2.37 a. m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Steel, all of us hoped that this debate could have taken place earlier. The first line of my speech refers to this as a timely debate. In a macro sense that may be true but in a micro sense it does not really feel like it. Nevertheless, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Steel, for introducing this interesting debate and pay tribute to the level of expertise and commitment demonstrated by noble Lords who have contributed to it. We are all very much aware that air pollution and how we deal with it is today a central issue of public concern. This Government are heavily committed to improving the quality of the air we breathe. As soon as we were elected we endorsed the national air quality strategy but on the basis that it would be reviewed at the earliest opportunity with a view to delivering it more quickly.
  It is true that road transport is responsible for a significant proportion of air pollution, especially in urban areas. Over 90 per cent. of all London's carbon monoxide emissions and three-quarters of benzene emissions come from road transport. Road transport, in particular diesel vehicles, are also responsible for a significant proportion of pollutants for which objectives will be most difficult to meet, in particular nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter. Even the significant emission reductions arising from the introduction of tighter emission standards will not be sufficient to meet the objectives for these pollutants at all levels. That is why the Government are very keen to encourage the early introduction of cleaner vehicles. We envisage road fuel gases such as LPG and CNG having an important

  1135
  role to play in reducing emissions. Those fuels clearly offer significant environmental benefits. Gas-powered vehicles can also considerably reduce particulate emissions and, to a lesser extent, emissions of nitrogen oxides. In addition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, indicated, they are quieter than diesel and petrol vehicles.
  It was for all these reasons that the Chancellor introduced in the Budget a 29 per cent. reduction in the duty on road fuel gases, it having been frozen in his previous two Budgets. This cut, coupled with the real increase in diesel duty also announced in the Budget, means that the differential in favour of gas vehicles has never been greater. Indeed, that differential is now the biggest in Europe. As the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, indicated, it is not a marginal difference.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, the reason that the differential is the greatest in Europe is simply because our diesel fuel is at a very high rate. But that is a minor point. Can the Minister confirm whether we are at the EU minimum for duty on gas fuels?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the position at present is that we are at 15p. The minimum is 6.8p in sterling, so we are not at the minimum. But that is not the point. The point is indeed the differential. The noble Earl is correct. As we heard today, we are committed to increasing the price of diesel and seek to achieve a greater efficiency in road transport. That is part of a total strategy. It is true, therefore, that fuel prices in this country at present are somewhat higher than elsewhere because we are perhaps more committed than other governments to using fiscal measures to ensure reduction of pollution. The differential between diesel and gas fuel is an important feature. The differential is important. It is not possible, as the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, suggested to put it at a nil rate because of the European directive. But the differential matters.
  These measures should send a clear signal to fleet operators, oil companies and retailers and motor manufacturers about the Government's belief in the viability of a sustainable road fuel gas market in this country.
  Nevertheless, despite all the advantages of gas fuelled vehicles referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and others, LPG and CNG are not the only show in town. There are other fuels and new vehicle technologies which potentially offer significant environmental benefits, especially in the longer term. The emerging hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicle technologies are one example. Technological development in this area recently has been rapid, with hybrid electric production models already entering the market in some parts of the world. These vehicles offer not just air quality and noise benefits, but crucially they have substantially lower CO2 emissions than conventionally powered vehicles, a factor which is becoming increasingly important in relation to achieving Kyoto targets.
  It is also true that there have been further advances in conventional fuel and vehicle technologies—they will come on stream in the not too distant future—so that we
  1136
  have cleaner, more efficient vehicles, using conventional fuels in the market place. For example, we are already seeing the considerably cleaner ultra low sulphur diesel becoming the more standard fuel and being sold at forecourts across the country as a result in part of the introduction of duty differential in its favour. And the environmental performance of conventionally powered vehicles is likely to be improved with even tighter emission standards for new vehicles introduced at European level beyond 2005.
  That is why the Government's objective is not to prescribe particular fuels or vehicle technologies. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, indicated, the aim is to set stringent environmental goals and then support all those technologies which can meet those goals in a cost effective way. There is not one solution to all our environmental problems. One fuel or vehicle technology may be appropriate for one situation; another may be appropriate for a different situation.
  The key to creating a sustainable market for cleaner fuels and better vehicle technology involves our supporting moves in a wide range of different situations. That is why my department has been funding Powershift, a programme designed to establish sustainable markets for alternative fuelled vehicles across Britain. That programme helps private and public sector fleets with the additional purchasing costs of gas powered vehicles among others. Over 1, 000 alternative fuelled vehicles have now been purchased with the assistance of Powershift grants. My colleague, John Reid, the Minister of Transport, announced last October that the programme will go forward. The focus of the programme will remain on supporting gas powered vehicles. But as this market becomes more sustainable, it is anticipated that in future there will be a shift towards sustainable markets also for electric: vehicles, hybrid electric, and, eventually, fuel cell vehicles.
  A number of questions were asked about how far we can go in converting fleets and how rapidly the public sector in particular should move. Questions were asked also about the relative benefits of CNG and LPG in the gas fuel area. The general position is that CNG is better for larger vehicles, and LPG vehicles can be refuelled more quickly and therefore are better suited, as the tax example indicated, to light duty vehicles such as cars and vans.
  It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, made clear at the beginning, that our market has developed more slowly in that area than it has in many other countries. That is partly because the beneficial tax regime has been in place for a shorter period of time. As the Chancellor indicated, it requires a sustained period of fiscal signals for that to be built up.
  However, on the latest DVLA estimate, there are 9, 000 gas-powered vehicles in the UK, although the noble Lord indicated that the figure was 3, 500. There are a significant number of electric vehicles, although they are still mostly milk floats. That is not exactly the cutting edge of technology, but nevertheless we are getting there.

  1137
  In terms of the public sector, several noble Lords referred to the London Borough of Sutton, even in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The London Borough of Sutton is one of a number of councils which have committed themselves to alternative fuels. That includes the London Borough of Southwark, which has electric and gas-powered vehicles and vans. In the City of Coventry I recently drove an electric car which is being acquired for the city's fleet. Just to make the matter completely trans-party, Westminster City Council is also involved with those projects. So there is quite a commitment on the part of local authorities. Although this was slow getting off the ground, it is now moving quite rapidly.
  As regards central Government, 33 cars have already been purchased and there are another 22 on order. It is not a viable option to convert existing cars, but as they are being replaced the balance is being shifted increasingly onto gas-fuelled cars. The largest departmental fleet—the Department of Social Security—announced just last week that it would be purchasing more than 200 new LPG vehicles this year. All departments are looking at those options.
  The noble Lord, Lord Steel, mentioned police authorities. Humberside Police is planning to convert 450 police cars to LPG and there are also moves in Hampshire and some other police authorities.
  As regards London buses and taxis, the situation is not so clear-cut. It is true that gas vehicles offer environmental benefits but there are benefits also in improving the technology in relation to conventional fuels. For example, taxis running on ultra low sulphur diesel and fitted with oxidation catalysts may also offer similar environmental benefits at a lower cost than conversion to LPG. All London buses now use ultra low sulphur diesel and many older buses are being re-engineered to improved emission standards.
  1138
  Nevertheless, we understand that London Transport is having trials of gas-powered buses in some areas of London. No doubt the balance of technologies will achieve a substantially cleaner fleet for London Transport very soon.
  Therefore, we have a range of commitments in the public sector and elsewhere and a range of technologies in relation to which we wish to use fiscal and other measures to develop. Noble Lords are correct to say that the infrastructure does not exist at present and there are serious problems as regards developing that infrastructure. We are looking at that aspect as well as the vehicle aspect of introducing those new technologies.
  We have established a cleaner vehicles taskforce which is considering what further measures are needed. We are expecting the first report of that taskforce later this spring. It is sure to make some key recommendations in that area.
  The Government have already indicated commitment to road fuel gases by cutting the duty on them in the Budget and by giving greater certainty to the market through initiatives such as power shift.
  By committing ourselves to reducing pollution across the board and supporting the various different fuel and vehicle technologies which achieve that, we have indicated our intention to pursue this as a high priority as part of our transport policy. However, it is not just a matter for government, nor just for the public sector. It is also important that government locally and nationally, the manufacturing industry and the operating industry, continue to work together to ensure that we take full advantage of all the new technologies to achieve the environmental benefits we all desire.
  I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. If there are any points I have not covered I shall attempt to do so in writing. I think it is probably about time that we packed up for today. Nevertheless, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Steel, for initiating the debate.
  House adjourned at eleven minutes before three o'clock.

  Peers Not Taking Party Whips
  Peers Not Taking Party Whips
  Turkey: Arrest of HADEP Members
  Turkey: Arrest of HADEP Members
  EU Policy: Wye Agreement
  EU Policy: Wye Agreement
  NATO: Strategic Concept
  NATO: Strategic Concept
  UN Human Rights Commission: 1999 Session
  UN Human Rights Commission: 1999 Session
  Ethiopia and Eritrea: Arms Embargo
  Ethiopia and Eritrea: Arms Embargo
  High Court Crown Office List
  High Court Crown Office List
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Data Protection Act 1998: Implementation
  Data Protection Act 1998: Implementation
  Metropolitan Police: Objectives
  Metropolitan Police: Objectives
  Asylum Applications: Estimates
  Asylum Applications: Estimates
  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  HM Prison Wormwood Scrubs
  HM Prison Wormwood Scrubs
  Gibraltar: European Parliament
  Gibraltar: European Parliament
  Gibraltar: Relationship with United Kingdom
  Gibraltar: Relationship with United Kingdom
  Genetically Modified Animals
  Genetically Modified Animals
  EU: General Affairs Council
  EU: General Affairs Council
  Uranium: Testing for Presence in the Human Body
  Uranium: Testing for Presence in the Human Body
  Health: Parliamentary Statements
  Health: Parliamentary Statements
  The Royal Parks
  The Royal Parks
  Good Friday Agreement: Release of Prisoners
  Good Friday Agreement: Release of Prisoners
  Beef on the Bone
  Beef on the Bone
  Bananas
  Bananas
  Badger Cull
  Badger Cull
  Shellfish Conservation
  Shellfish Conservation
  Agriculture in the United Kingdom
  Agriculture in the United Kingdom
  Pesticide Residues in Baby Foods
  Pesticide Residues in Baby Foods