Sitting of 31 March 1999

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

  Adjournment (Easter)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  9.33 am
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On Tuesday 23 March, The Mirror ran an exclusive story on Anita Froggatt, a constituent of mine from North Wingfield, who had had a healthy breast removed. She had been wrongly identified as a cancer victim at the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital, where a mix-up had occurred with the slides. On reading the report in The Mirror, I immediately contacted Avril Toland, the unit manager at the hospital. I was informed that a consultant pathologist had been suspended. There had been a similar case the previous year, involving the same consultant pathologist, which had resulted in an internal investigation. Obviously, the results and recommendations of the investigation and the procedures that were set in motion were inadequate to deal with the problem.
  The second person involved is Kuldip Sumal, who is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The hospital serves my constituency as well as those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.
  I then contacted the office of the Secretary of State for Health and Anita's solicitor, Phil Bowen. I talked to Anita, who was at the solicitor's when I called. Also, I raised the matter on a point of order with you, Madam Speaker, and discussed the case that evening with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whose concern is revealed in an answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled on 23 March and to which I received an answer yesterday.
  I asked my right hon. Friend what reports he had received on errors made by the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital in diagnosing breast cancer and if he would make a statement. The reply states:
  "We are aware of the two terrible cases which have been the subject of media attention and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to both women to express his feelings of deep regret that they have had such an awful experience.
  We have asked the regional director of public health in Trent to commission a comprehensive review of the circumstances to ensure that everything possible is done to avoid this happening again. The review team will include an expert nominated by the Royal College of Pathologists. My right hon. Friend will be kept informed of progress and will be fully appraised of the conclusions and recommendations of the review team, which will be published."—[Official Report, 30 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 647.]
  1008
  A serious matter of confidence is involved—the shattered confidence of my constituent and women's confidence in breast cancer screening and treatment in general. Anita is reported in The Mirror as saying:
  "It's horrific. How can I come to terms with this? My life is ruined. I've been to hell and back for nothing … Now I look at my wedding picture and want to turn the clock back. I was so confident and happy."
  She has the close support of a loving family, including her husband Paul and 10 year-old son Dane, but she, and they, need help to rebuild the confidence that she once had. Kuldip Sumal has been through the same shattering experiences, as did Margaret Nicoll in 1992 at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley, Renfrewshire.
  Women in general need their confidence in breast cancer screening and treatment restored. The importance of screening was shown by statistics from the Department of Health in evidence to the Select Committee on Health in 1995. About 13,000 women die of breast cancer each year in England alone. Cases of breast cancer increased by 22 per cent. in England and Wales between 1979 and 1988. The United Kingdom is 22 out of a list of 23 nations for breast cancer mortality—23 being the nation with the highest mortality. The 1995 Select Committee report, "Breast Cancer Services", does not deal with the problem that I am raising, but contains evidence from the Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure—RAGE—on women who have suffered injury from radiotherapy treatment following breast cancer.
  To ensure that such errors never happen again, we need not merely another internal inquiry at the royal hospital, but the wider inquiry detailed by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, that inquiry should go beyond the situation at that hospital. Throughout the national health service we want the best practice that operates in any trust hospital. We want that best practice established in north Derbyshire so that these problems do not occur again.
  We also need a full examination of all the royal hospital's breast cancer slides because many other women in the area are worried about their treatment, or lack of treatment, if the wrong slides have been examined and related to their cases. The slides supervised by the consultant pathologist concerned must be examined as quickly as possible. I also hope that the Health Committee will revisit the 1995 investigation to cover the problems that have been revealed at the hospital. In its examination, it would find a visit to the hospital valuable.
  Breast cancer screening is important. Women need to be encouraged to use the service, but to use it they need to have utter confidence in it. That confidence has been shattered in this case, especially in north Derbyshire. The sooner that the investigations take place and best practice is adopted, the better for everyone concerned.
  9.41 am
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: There are three reasons why we should not rush off to our Easter break before considering them. First, before we get back, hedges all over the country will have grown by at least an inch or two if they are leylandii hedges. The matter may cause amusement when a hedge grows from 8 ft to 8 ft 2 in, but when it is from 30 ft to 30 ft 2 in many people suffer distress.
  The organisation Hedgeline already has 2,200 members. The problem is growing as fast as the hedges. One in five trees planted in England is a leylandii or

  1009
  something very like it. We all understand that when one moves into a new plot, it is nice to get some greenery as fast as possible, but many people, either because they are genuinely malevolent or paranoid about being overlooked, plant such trees as close as they can to their boundary, regardless of the damage that it causes to their neighbours. That can mean the removal of a view, not from the ground floor but from the first and second floors of people's houses.
  The problem should be controlled. That is why I had hoped to bring in a Bill, but the Government not only objected to it but are in disarray. They had a special unit examine the problem for about six months. They say that they have no idea how to deal with it, but when presented with a Bill that they could have amended as much as they liked in Committee, they refused to allow it even to proceed that far, which is a shame.
  Mr. David Maclean: They cannot see the wood for the trees.
  Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend is right. It is a serious matter that we should consider. It is going to get a great deal worse. I was somewhat dismayed by my meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). At the start, he said that he was worried about my Bill because an appeal mechanism against a local authority decision that a hedge was causing a nuisance to neighbours would mean that he would have to set up an entire department to deal with appeals because there would be so many. However, at the end he said, "I am not at all sure Andrew that you are not exaggerating this matter. It doesn't seem to me that it is as big as you think." One cannot have it both ways unless one is new Labour.
  The second reason that we should not adjourn is that this is a proper moment to note on the Floor what many hon. Members on both sides of the House have already recognised in receptions and other meetings: the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children campaign to abolish cruelty to children. I acknowledge a vested interest in that I am proud to be a trustee of that organisation.
  Before we return from the Easter break, at least one child under five in this country will have died following abuse and neglect. One child under five dies every week of abuse and neglect and 150,000 children are physically abused each year. Many of my colleagues who heard him speak will have been outraged when Jim Harding, the director of the NSPCC, told us that 30 years ago, one of his first cases involved a baby the end of whose little fingers had been cut off with nail scissors. Such awful cruelty not only continues but may even be on the increase. It is difficult to be sure, because, fortunately, abuse is becoming more commonly reported.
  With 11 per cent. of adults saying that they were sexually abused as children and an estimated 450,000 children being bullied at school, it is appropriate that the NSPCC should have launched the largest campaign this century by a non-governmental organisation. It is comparable only to the anti-slavery campaign of Wilberforce and his friends. When they set out, the public
  1010
  did not believe that anything could be done about slavery or the slave trade. They were derided for even thinking that something could be done. The same is true now. However much they want the get rid of cruelty to children, a great many people believe that it is pie in the sky to imagine that a campaign can abolish it.
  No one suggests that we will get rid of every incident of cruelty to children, but just as Wilberforce and his friends abolished slavery in this country, ended the slave trade and impacted enormously on slavery worldwide, so I believe that the NSPCC campaign against cruelty can be expected to have a similar impact. In 50 years' time, this country will be a kinder place for children to grow up in, and it will be much easier for children to report abuse when they are in misery.
  A telling reason why children do not report cruelty is that they believe that the public services will break up their family. However bad life is for them in it, they know that it is all that they have got. If brothers and sisters are going to be separated by social services, what else have they got? This is an insensitivity in our public life that we must tackle. The ever more clamant new thrust towards listening to children is the beginning of wisdom.
  I am glad to remind the House that I am chairman of a steering group of all parties and many NGOs that is trying to establish for 2000 the first sitting of a United Kingdom youth parliament. That will be part of listening to young people and allowing their voices to be heard on matters on which the Government do not listen to them. The Government introduce legislation on literacy hours, curfews or changing the nature of support for young people at universities, but they never ask young people what they think. It is time that they did.
  The last reason why we should not adjourn is that in the great debate on the Metropolitan police and the Lawrence report, I did not hear anyone wonder whether we ask the police to do too much. This is an important issue. We expect our police to do all sorts of things. We expect them to look after lost property, to register every insurance claim and to police crowds going to football matches or demonstrations. Sometimes reluctantly, we expect them to enforce the law on dangerous drivers. We expect them to act as human traffic lights when the computer systems break down. When the social services are closed, the citizens advice bureau is shut, and the doctor's surgery has gone to bed, we expect them to pick up confused old women with compassion and sympathy. We expect them to find places for people with nowhere to sleep. We expect all that from a group of people who are also expected to respond to crime, assault and violence effectively, efficiently and with power.
  Those qualities are difficult to find in one group of people. The Government need to consider carefully whether the young men and women who are brought into the Metropolitan or other police forces are not expected to have too wide a range of qualities because the range of jobs that they do is so diverse.
  To take one small example, Ministers might consider carefully whether when I lose my wallet or credit card I should have to get a number from the police before the insurance company will pay attention to my claim. That is surely one of many tasks that could be outsourced to an organisation that would keep in touch with the police. I hope that Ministers will consider the three matters that I have raised before we adjourn.
  9.50 am
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise a matter of concern to my constituents in the town of Witham who are residents of Bridge Learning Difficulties hospital. It was built in Victorian times, not as a hospital but as a workhouse and asylum. It has all the hallmarks of such a building. It is forbidding and depressing in character. It has been used for many years for people with learning difficulties. Although the hospital was originally on the edge of the town, close, as the name suggests, to the bridge across the river, it is now closer to the heart of the town.
  An important factor for those with learning difficulties is that they are in the community. A warm regard and affection has grown up between those who live in the hospital and the residents of the town of Witham. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will not be surprised that there are now proposals to close that hospital and move the residents out into the community. Progress has already been made towards reaching that objective. Like many buildings erected in former times, the hospital has a considerable area of land attached to it. A large part of the land has already been sold for residential housing development. It is expected that if the balance is sold, that too will be used for residential housing. The consequences of that will be that those who have lived in the hospital—some of them effectively for all their life and many of them for many years—will be scattered away from their friends and in some cases from their families, into circumstances that will be alien to them.
  I have been approached on a number of occasions by a group called the Friends of Bridge Hospital, made up of the parents of the children who are residents. When I say children, I am talking about some people who are in their middle age. Most of them are men and their parents are now in some cases becoming elderly. The children naturally go home to visit their parents at certain times during the year, but I am told that it is touching that when they leave the hospital they want their parents to assure them that they will be going back there after their holiday. That is because many of them regard the hospital as their home.
  I do not defend the layout or structure of the hospital. In many ways, it is an appalling building. Some of the residents are still living in communal wards, with all the humiliation and lack of dignity that that implies. Others have their own private rooms. To their great credit, the hospital authorities have made great strides in making those rooms homes for those who live in them.
  I believe that the way forward is not to cling to the ideology of care in the community. That ideology, like the ideologies of eastern Europe, is waning, and we should take a more balanced view. Every ideology, by its nature, imposes a philosophical and intellectual straitjacket on those who practise it, and care in the community has in some ways been as thoughtless as other ideologies. The tendency to care in the community is now beginning to change in other areas. I hope that the New Possibilities NHS trust will begin to consider sheltered community accommodation for people with learning difficulties so that they remain together. They could live in bungalow developments rather like those for our older people, with wardens and medical staff on hand to assist them. In such circumstances, the community would still be there, the residents would still have their relatives close
  1012
  at hand, they would still be bonded to the place where they had always lived, they would maintain the relationship with the wider community and they could move forward with dignity and reassurance. I hope that it is not too late for that to be achieved.
  I know that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), whose constituency is not far from my constituency, has a similar residential home for people with learning difficulties run by the same trust. I know that he shares some of my concerns. I hope that the Minister will say that there is a way forward within which we can gain the benefits of community living, but maintain the dignity of those who spend their lives in the hospital.
  9.55 am
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I am most grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate. The subject that I want to talk about is one that the journalist Christopher Booker has described as farming's forgotten crisis or, in other words, the plight of small abattoirs and the crisis in the pig industry. I shall explain in a moment why I believe that the House should not adjourn until these matters have been resolved.
  I should preface my remarks by declaring an interest. My financial interests in the meat industry are as listed in the register. I am president of the Meat Training Council and of the British Pig Association. Both positions are unremunerated and honorary.
  It is certain that Parliament will go into recess today. I invite the Minister to consider the uncertainty that currently faces the small abattoir sector. If the original plans announced by the Government were to go ahead, it would face tomorrow an astronomical increase in the charges that it has to pay for meat inspection. It will not be difficult for right hon. and hon. Members to appreciate the position of any business facing increases of the order of 23 per cent. Bishop's Castle Meat Company in my constituency faces an increase from £4,800 per month to £8,000. That is not untypical. I am told of another slaughterman in Devon, John Coles, who currently pays less than £300 per month but faces the prospect of charges increasing to £3,500 per month. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) will acknowledge that. That is an astronomical increase by anyone's reckoning.
  It is unfair to expect the industry to continue in uncertainty. Ministers have not said that the charges will not be imposed tomorrow or announced when they will come into effect.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend concede that those businesses will not continue to trade? They will go out of business. There is no way in which they can take the costs. Many butchers in my constituency who butcher their own meat are in a similar position. If the proposals go forward, they will go out of business. Yet they provide an excellent service to the local community.
  Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend is right. I have a lifelong experience of the meat industry, and I understand the economics of running abattoirs, both large and small. I know that the small abattoirs simply will not be able to bear the astronomical costs that are supposed to kick in from tomorrow. The effect on other parts of our economy will be serious. The House will recognise that many small

  1013
  abattoirs are located in rural areas and provide vital wealth creation and employment prospects. They also provide an outlet for many livestock farmers, especially small farmers, who may produce a specialist product for a niche market and will be deprived of a slaughter point.
  As my hon. Friend appreciates, when such a farmer cannot get his specialist product slaughtered in a small abattoir, where there is total traceability, a whole raft of economic activity is lost. We must bear it in mind that a large abattoir is not interested in doing the job. It is extremely serious that small abattoirs are closing at a time when people in the countryside are desperate to find ways of diversifying. There will also be serious implications for the welfare of animals which will have to travel much further to the point of slaughter.
  On 17 March, I accompanied a small deputation of people who are involved in that sector of the meat industry to meet the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of State at the Ministry. The deputation included representatives of the Humane Slaughter Association, who are especially interested in welfare matters, the National Federation of Meat and Food Traders, which represents small butchers, whose work will be handicapped if small abattoirs are closed, and the chief executive of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, who is concerned about the niche marketing that his members have established using small abattoirs.
  I must give credit where it is due. It is only fair to say that the Ministers were most attentive to our case and they acknowledged the seriousness of the situation. They confessed that the proposed increase in charges will be more than many sections of the trade can bear. They acknowledged that some of the small abattoirs will have to close—as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) pointed out. They also stated that Government policy was that animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the farm. They assured us that they were considering all possible ways of reducing the overheads of the Meat Hygiene Service and that they were doing their level best to minimise the cost increases due to take effect next month.
  Ministers are on the horns of a dilemma; on one hand, they are under enormous pressure from the European Union to implement fully the meat inspection directive, but on the other, they know that if they do so, scores of small abattoirs will close and there will be a knock-on effect for other small businesses.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on setting up the meeting to which he referred. He was kind enough to invite me and a Labour Member, which made it an all-party occasion. Does he recall that, at that meeting, the Ministers acknowledged that the meat inspections directive did not seem to be biting equally across Europe? One of the most ludicrous matters is that there seems to be a surplus of inspecting veterinary staff in most continental countries, to which we have to apply so that there are enough vets to carry out inspections in this country. There seems to be a trade imbalance in vets.
  Mr. Gill: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In this country, inspection has to be carried out by fully
  1014
  qualified veterinary surgeons, but we are led to believe that in other countries it is carried out by auxiliary vets who are trained to a much lower standard. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in this country we do not know what the charging regime is in other countries. Presumably, if we did know, the Minister would have answered the question that I tabled on 11 March. I also received a very patchy answer to an earlier question on the level of supervision and the implementation of the regulations in other countries. The matter creates difficulties for Ministers because they cannot say that we are doing as much, more than, or the same as other countries; we do not have the information. That is a powerful argument for a stay of execution on the new charges, unless and until it can be established that other countries throughout the EU are operating the same scale of charges on the same level of supervision and inspections.
  Four years ago, the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and I tabled an early-day motion criticising the fresh meat hygiene and inspection regulations, especially the short notice with which they were being introduced. It is somewhat ironic that in the same week, on 13 March 1995, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, tabled early-day motion 778,
  "praying that the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 … be annulled."
  Bearing that in mind, I would have thought that the Prime Minister might influence Agriculture Ministers to stay their hand until the situation is clearer and some way had been found to reduce the charges from the amount proposed.
  In an earnest attempt to help, I have suggested to the Minister that the new charges should not be implemented in the United Kingdom until there has been a technical review of the whole question of meat inspection and charging for meat inspection throughout the EU. I am conscious that other countries, such as the United States of America, Australia or New Zealand, have adopted an entirely different method in which inspection and charging are related to the degree of risk, rather than the cumbersome and expensive method being imposed by the EU.
  Members of the pig industry have made a number of suggestions to the Government and, on their behalf, I want to reinforce their plea that the Government should implement the recommendations of the recent report into the pig industry by the Select Committee on Agriculture. Greater efforts should be made to ensure that all pigmeat coming into this country from other countries is labelled so that the consumer can exercise an informed choice. The industry would also appreciate any influence that the Government can exert on Departments and on local authorities to ensure that they source their pigmeat from UK-produced pigs.
  10.8 am
  Mr. Tom Cox: I want to raise the subject of Kashmir. I chair the all-party group on Pakistan in this House. As we all know, Kashmir is thousands of miles away from the United Kingdom, but it is not a country with which we have no involvement. When one looks back over the events of the past 50 years, one recalls the conflicts and tensions that existed—sadly, they still exist—between India and Pakistan. Wars have taken place between those two countries and one of the issues has always been the Indian occupation of Jammu Kashmir.

  1015
  Sadly, last summer we saw the testing of nuclear weapons in the region; first, by India and then by Pakistan. According to the spokespeople of those two countries, one of principal reasons for that testing was the continuing conflict in Kashmir. One hears repeatedly from the Government of Pakistan—whichever party is in power—that the issue must be resolved to bring peace to that region and to improve relationships between India and Pakistan. I am sure that all Members of the House would wish to see that.
  India and Pakistan are members of the Commonwealth and have close links with the United Kingdom. The last viceroy of India, Earl Mountbatten, said that the issue of Kashmir must be resolved. Sadly, it has not been and that is why the conflict continues. We know that there are thousands of Indian troops occupying part of Jammu Kashmir and that Pakistan has troops and equipment alongside Azad Kashmir. The conflict creates many problems for both India and Pakistan and tension between the two countries. The enormous military build-up in both countries, which was highlighted by last year's testing of nuclear weapons, and the huge financial cost of that military build-up prevents the development of other aspects of the two countries' economies and social structures.
  In addition to all those problems, there is the on-going suffering and denial of human rights to the people of occupied Kashmir who live under the control of the Indian security forces. Without doubt, the country is occupied against the will of its people—and as we have seen many times, when a country is occupied, its people will fight for its freedom, and that is what has been happening for many years in occupied Kashmir. That has led to oppression of the people by the Indian security forces: there is vivid documentation of killings, torture, rape of women and other measures taken against the people of occupied Kashmir. It is now estimated that India has 600,000 troops in occupied Kashmir. Human rights groups have repeatedly reported the brutality of the Indian army toward the people of Jammu Kashmir.
  There have been many United Nations resolutions calling for India and Pakistan to enter into discussions to resolve the conflict. The attitude of Pakistan has been made clear by successive Governments: they want such discussions to take place, with the firm commitment that the people of Kashmir must have a role in such discussions. Regrettably, India has said that that request is unacceptable, that the area of Kashmir now occupied is part of India, and that the occupation will continue. Pakistan—and, I am sure, the whole world—wants the people of Kashmir to be able to involve themselves in a constructive debate that will end the conflict and the tension between India and Pakistan.
  As I said, India and Pakistan are Commonwealth countries, as is the United Kingdom, and our links to them are strong and undoubtedly respected. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has shown a clear commitment to attempting to bring about discussions between India and Pakistan, but it must be said that the Indian response to my right hon. Friend's involvement has been extremely unhelpful. I am pleased to say that, recently, a meeting took place between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan. Such dialogue gives our country an opportunity to offer to play a role in discussions which, although complex and difficult, might succeed if the will is there.
  1016
  Recently, President Mandela of South Africa said:
  "All of us remain concerned that the issue of Jammu Kashmir should be solved through peaceful negotiation and should be willing to lend all the strength we have to the resolution of this matter."
  I am certain that that is the wish of many hon. Members, and it is what the Government of Pakistan and the people of Kashmir certainly want. A week ago, a major military parade took place in Islamabad, and President Rafiq Tarar of Pakistan said that the settlement of the Kashmir dispute was the only guarantee for peace in the region. We, as a fellow Commonwealth country, have a definite role to play. In September this year, the annual Commonwealth conference is to take place in Port of Spain, Trinidad, and I hope that we will work to ensure that Kashmir is on the agenda. We could seek the involvement of a fellow Commonwealth country to act as co-ordinator between India and Pakistan—I refer back to President Mandela's remarks.
  The whole House acknowledges that, in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we have a person who is held in the highest regard and who, as he is currently demonstrating, has a great personal commitment to the human rights of men and women. I do not doubt that, as he has done in Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend could play a major role in bringing India and Pakistan together in discussions to resolve the continuing tragedy. That has to be done, first, for the sake of its people, so that they can lead the sort of life that they want for themselves; and, secondly, to reduce the tension and danger that the unresolved conflict has caused and continues to cause in that region of the world. I believe that the UK can play such a role, and I look to the Government to become involved in resolving the issue.
  10.17 am
  Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, there are several matters that I believe we should debate. As there are many hon. Members waiting to speak, I shall run though the issues rapidly and not expect the Minister to comment on more than two.
  I agree with everything the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) had to say, until he mentioned the leader of the Labour party—but never mind. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) would expect me to mention the Palace theatre, Westcliff. I have to report that, unfortunately, it closed three weeks ago, but two weeks ago I presented a petition signed by 6,000 people and I am delighted to tell the House that the new chairman of the Eastern arts board has promised to be at the first performance of the Christmas pantomime, which is to open in November. However, I expect Her Majesty's Government to give the Eastern arts board decent funding, so that the Palace theatre can continue as a producing theatre.
  Mr. Hurst: As a constituent of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I hope he will accept what I have to say. Does he agree that the Eastern arts board has, for many years, discriminated in favour of the Mercury theatre, Colchester and severely against the Palace theatre, Southend in matters of grant funding? It is not solely a question of the amount of funding the board has at its disposal, but of how it distributes it.
  Mr. Amess: I am delighted to have given way to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want any discord between me

  1017
  and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell)—actually, I would not really mind if there was such discord. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) is quite right about the unfair level of funding: our receiving only £48,000 is an utter disgrace, and if we had had parity with Watford, Ipswich and Colchester, the lights would not be out on the Palace theatre, Westcliff.
  In my time as a Member of Parliament, I have never heard any hon. Member say anything original about crime—we all have crime in our constituencies. I realise that the Home Secretary—a former Essex lad—does not accept this point, but it is an utter disgrace that my area is to suffer underfunding after the latest announcements, because the increase of only 1.7 per cent. does not keep pace with inflation. Civilians now have to do jobs that policemen did previously, and that is not good enough. Southend has lost its four police horses and that is a disgrace.
  Will the Minister find out what is meant by the response that is given whenever we submit our bid for closed circuit television funding? We are told that our bid is not good enough. Visitors to Southend will see the graffiti that is spoiling our sea front. It too is an utter disgrace. We cannot rely on Southend's struggling businesses to fund CCTV projects: we need specific funding. If cameras are installed by Chalkwell station and along Marine parade, I am sure that we will capture on film those disgusting individuals who think it is a good laugh to paint graffiti everywhere—including on the underground. Southend will open for the summer season next month, and I hope that the Minister will explain before then why our bid is not good enough.
  On roads, Southend has a Liberal-Labour controlled council and the Government have cut local roads funding by £600,000. The council understands that, while the Government are not supporting extensive new road building projects—which I think is absolutely barmy—they will make additional funds available for the maintenance of existing highway infrastructure.
  I do not mind the Government's having it in for me as an individual, but it is a bit tough when they have it in for Southend. Why has Southend suffered that funding cut? All other areas in the eastern region have had funding increases, but we have had a 12 per cent. reduction. When the Queen visited my constituency two weeks ago and travelled down Southbourne grove and Westbourne grove, she saw at first hand—despite her outriders—the traffic congestion in Southend, West. The Al27 has been improved somewhat, but the A13 certainly has not.
  The Deputy Prime Minister suggested in the education White Paper that parents should walk their children to school. The right hon. Gentleman should visit Southend, West where parental choice has vanished as a result of the Government's decision to reduce class sizes to 30 and below this September. It is an absolute disgrace. I draw the Minister's attention to what has happened to voluntary aided schools. There will be parental choice in Southend, West only if Our Lady of Lourdes school, which a number of my children attend, is allowed to expand.
  I do not wish to cause trouble in the House, but two Labour Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in the London borough of Havering and I are seeking a meeting with the Minister to discuss the
  1018
  matter. I have a copy of all the relevant correspondence. We have not been able to secure that meeting and the House goes into recess for Easter tomorrow. The situation is completely unsatisfactory. The diocese of Brentwood has not received a clear steer from the Government. It is not a matter simply for the trustees, because Our Lady of Lourdes school is being forced to expand as a result of Government initiatives that clearly have not been thought through properly. It is all very well telling schools what to do in key stage 1, but that impacts on key stage 2. Parents in Southend, West must walk all over my constituency or travel half a mile or two miles because the sibling rule no longer applies to the allocation of school places. It is absolute chaos.
  I hope to be lucky in the ballot and to initiate an Adjournment debate about assisted area status for Southend, West. However, perhaps the Minister will have a word in advance with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about regional selective assistance for my area. Fourteen companies in Southend wish to benefit from that initiative, which offers particular assistance to manufacturing industry. Unemployment in Southend is approximately one and half times the national average and about twice the average for the east of England. Unemployment in Southend is 2 per cent. higher than in Luton and is about the same as in Brighton and Hove. Total employment in Southend over the next decade has been forecast to decline by 6.8 per cent. I hope that the Minister will do what he can to persuade the Department of Trade and Industry to grant the area regional selective assistance.
  I am sick to death of writing to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. Under this Government, we read about new policies in the newspapers. An article in The Times of 25 March entitled "Swifter justice for victims of bad lawyers" stated:
  "Ombudsman will be given power to speed up complaints process".
  I had absolute proof that a particular solicitor was guilty of entrapment—I will not detain the House by recounting the details. The case went before the Solicitors Complaints Bureau three times and the ombudsman found in favour of the complainant three times. Yet the Solicitors Complaints Bureau threw out the case.
  A few weeks ago, hon. Members were invited to a reception in this place. We were told that our constituents would be able to call a dedicated telephone line and have their legal matters dealt with immediately. However, there is a backlog of 32,000 calls at present, and it is obvious that Government have not funded the service properly. I am not having a dig at any solicitors who are in the Chamber this morning—[Interruption.] Perhaps I am having a gentle dig at them. It is unfair that the adjudication panels should contain a majority of three or five solicitors.
  My final point is about modernisation of the House of Commons. I do not care where we are on life's journey: everyone's life is of equal value. I am sick of all the garbage that we are being fed about modernisation. I think the House is being treated with contempt. We all know what is happening on the Floor of the House—which is why I have had to raise seven items—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Eight.
  Mr. Amess: That is why I have been forced to raise eight items this morning. According to the report of the Select Committee on Modernisation, hon. Members will soon conduct debates in the Grand Committee room.

  1019
  The so-called experiment on Thursday mornings is not working. I am a member of the Select Committee on Health and my colleagues are suffering withdrawal symptoms when I must attend debates in the House on Thursday mornings. They believe that the Committee process is weakened because I am not there to question witnesses, and the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), is finding it impossible to rearrange meeting times. I think that the whole modernisation process is absolute garbage. Our constitution is being destroyed, and the wonderful opportunity we have to raise issues for three hours on Wednesday mornings is more valuable than the time we spend debating many other matters in the House.
  10.28 am
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I am delighted to participate in the Adjournment debate this morning. I assure the Minister that I have only one issue that requires his attention: the closure of a printing works in my constituency.
  The works has been operating for 50 years and used to be known as Carlisle Web Offset. It had some problems in the 1960s, and was saved by a then Member of Parliament, Robert Maxwell—some hon. Members may remember him. All sorts of things have been said about Mr. Maxwell, but the reality is that he saved workers' jobs in my constituency and the company has been viable ever since. It became part of the British Publishing Company and was later subject to a management takeover.
  Recent events, however, have proved rather disturbing. On 13 March last year, Richard Warner from Investcorp wrote to me to say that the company was making a bid for the British Publishing Company, to which the printing works in my constituency belongs. He asked me whether I would support the bid in his dealings with the Office of Fair Trading. I was not happy about it at the time and I suggested that we should meet to discuss the issue.
  I met Mr. Warner in the House on 24 March last year, when he gave me assurances about job security at the Carlisle plant and future investment in the plant, which had old equipment and needed modernisation, as printing works regularly do these days. He asked me again if I would support his bid to the Office of Fair Trading. I declined to do so but assured him that I would not oppose the bid.
  On 4 April, the Financial Times carried an article about Investcorp's promises to the Office of Fair Trading. It quoted Mr. Richard Warner as saying that there would be no more than 350 redundancies over the next four years and no more than 140 redundancies in the first year. On 16 April, The Independent carried a similar story saying that the only redundancies would be due to the merger of the two headquarters. I have a copy of a press release from Mr. Warner in which he gave assurances that there would be no manufacturing job losses if the takeover went ahead.
  On 26 February this year, the work force received an ultimatum from the managing director of Polestar, which is a subsidiary company of Investcorp and runs the printing works in this country. The ultimatum was that the plant would close unless there was 100 per cent. acceptance by the work force of a deal that meant that there would be no future investment in the plant;
  1020
  52 redundancies, leaving a work force of 169; an immediate pay reduction of 10 per cent., and a reduction in overtime rates. The company wanted the answer within a week.
  To summarise, the workers were told that they had to increase productivity by 25 per cent. and take a pay cut of 10 per cent., and if they did not agree within seven days, the plant would close. The management knew that the proposals would be totally unacceptable, and the entire work force rejected it. Not one member of the work force could bring himself to vote for those proposals.
  The first that I knew about that was when I was contacted by the local media—in stark contrast to the lobbying that was done when the company wanted my support for its bid to the Office of Fair Trading.
  I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry approved the bid last April, but because of the serious situation at the factory, I agreed to meet a member of Polestar's senior management, Mr. Tony Rudston, at his office last week to try to negotiate a rescue package. I was told that there was no chance of the decision being reversed. He said that the printing work done at the Carlisle factory was being sent to other Polestar plants in the UK and that the redundancy package offered to the work force in Carlisle was considerably less than that offered to the workers at a similar factory in Milton Keynes which had been closed. Mr. Rudston said that that was because the Milton Keynes work force were not to blame for the redundancies.
  I know that the Graphical, Paper and Media Union was anxious to negotiate with Polestar to try to save the plant, but Mr. Tony Rudston refused to negotiate. I understand that he is difficult in negotiations and that the union finds him difficult to work with. Having met him, I can understand the union's problems.
  I raise this matter in the House to put on record what has happened in my constituency because of Investcorp. That is not a British company; it is an asset-stripping company and its money comes from Bahrain. Investcorp lied to me, to the work force and, I suspect, to the DTI and the Office of Fair Trading. If that is the case and the Government were misinformed, we need to know whether there is any possibility of the Government taking legal action against the company to find out if any redress can be made. The company has robbed my constituents of their livelihood and is cheating them on their redundancy money.
  10.35 am
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I think that the House will have great difficulty adjourning at all. I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and on the problem of hedges, about which I have had any number of letters. I have also had a great deal of correspondence on the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).
  I want, however, to follow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). Yesterday, we had yet another glossy document full of soundbites and the language of the business school. Frankly, its announcement was a moment of hilarity.

  1021
  There were references to "modernising government", "developing", "involving", "listening", "supporting", "helping" and "engaging". The Prime Minister said:
  "The new issues are the right issues: modernising government, better government, getting government right",
  and he talked of joined-up government. The statement was an all-time low for this Government.
  I say that because I have a specific constituency concern that preoccupies not only me, but almost every Member of Parliament in the south, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the hon. Members representing Portsmouth, Southampton and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand). That concern is the Government's absolute refusal to take any responsibility for the A3 at Hindhead. In the past 18 months, I have communicated 26 times with the Government on that subject. Every response is an exercise in Sir Humphrey techniques.
  Initially, we had every hope that the A3 scheme would be approved as part of the trunk roads review. The A3 at Hindhead is the most appalling spot on that road; it is the only single carriageway stretch. The A3 is a strategic route on its way to Portsmouth and the continent. A modern country needs a modern transport system. I am sure that the Government would endorse that language. They have refused to give a straight answer on this issue.
  The Government's transparent stalling device was to announce a consultation exercise on whether tolls would have a part to play. No Government will ever approve tolls at Hindhead because they would lead to rat-running, and that problem is already destroying villages. In December, I wrote to the Minister of Transport and asked specific questions, and I received the following reply:
  "Government Offices will shortly be consulting the Regional Planning Conferences … on the specific terms of reference for each study."
  They will then discuss among themselves the priorities for the studies. That is Sir Humphrey language, and it is buck-passing. I had asked the Minister of Transport what the timetable for that consultation process is, who is responsible and when he will visit Hindhead. For the past three months, I have been unable to discover the answers to those questions.
  I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office to give a categoric assurance that his Government do not use ministerial visits and the receipt of delegations as a form of patronage. Do they use them to reward their Back Benchers for good behaviour, as it is widely said they do? It is unacceptable for Members of Parliament, who have been misled by all the undertakings given during the trunk roads review, to be unable to secure a visit from a Minister concerning a scheme as serious as that as the A3 at Hindhead.
  With great difficulty I managed to get a delegation to the former Transport Minister, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), but only by stressing the fact that I was a Privy Councillor—when we were in government, we would never have turned down a delegation led by a Privy Councillor. However, almost all my colleagues say that they cannot get access to Ministers.
  1022
  The Government proclaim the importance of modern, joined-up government, but what about accountability? Ministers are responsible for the trunk roads scheme and for the fact that motorists are now charged £33 billion to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although only one sixth of that sum is ploughed back into road schemes. If the Government are not prepared to act, they should at least be prepared to tell those concerned directly and straightforwardly. It is not good enough that Members of Parliament should be passed from pillar to post.
  We now have the Government office for the south-east, the regional planning conferences and the Highways Agency. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire and I have had more embarrassing meetings with some of these authorities than at any time in our parliamentary careers. The individuals involved simply look embarrassed, shuffle their papers and say, "These are political decisions", or, "These are ministerial decisions." The personnel change and, on occasion, a different agency will be said to be responsible. That is not satisfactory in terms of ministerial accountability.
  I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to point out to his colleagues that if the Minister for Roads and Road Safety is placed in the Lords and is a former general secretary of the Labour party, he is not someone with whom many Opposition Members have natural contact. I seek information about the timetable, the individual responsible and when the Minister will visit.
  There have been delegations, petitions and Adjournment debates, and we have contributed fully to all the consultation exercises, but that is not enough. The Minister needs to come to see the A3 at Hindhead for himself. Only in that way can I be sure that he is fully aware of the problem and understands why there is such great concern.
  The A3 at Hindhead is crucial to the economic development of Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight. The Confederation of British Industry has made that clear, as has the trade union movement. The part of the A3 in question lies in some of the most internationally significant landscape in this country. It is magnificent National Trust land, which is why some years ago a tunnel was announced as approved Government policy. This part of the A3 is destroying beautiful villages throughout the area.
  I am sure that the Minister is aware of the extent to which the shire counties were treated vindictively in their funding settlements. Their settlements are such that they are having great difficulty maintaining health, transport and social services. The Government's refusal to act at Hindhead means that Hampshire and Surrey are under ever greater pressure to come up with transport packages that will help to mitigate the damage to villages such as Churt, Thursley, Haslemere and Grayswood. This is their number one priority.
  This year, I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends have had more letters about transport than any other subject. When my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) recently held an Opposition day debate on road schemes, I and many others without success tried to contribute, such is the interest in this subject.
  It will be difficult for the House to adjourn because of the many issues that hon. Members want to raise, but it will be especially difficult if our adjourning involves a

  1023
  journey through Hindhead. Those who spend their high days and holidays on the Isle of Wight will once again find that it is almost impossible to move.
  To summarise, I want specific answers that the Minister may like to put in writing. Please will he help me get answers to questions that I first asked in December? I want to know who is responsible, not the name of the agency. Who is the individual project manager? What is the timetable? When will the Minister visit?
  10.45 am
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is always a delight to be present for the three-hour Adjournment debate, and it is just the same for the Opposition. It is especially delightful this morning because despite the great philosophical sweep that we sometimes hear from Opposition Members about where they stand on market forces, non-intervention and all the rest, when it comes to constituency cases, all those grand ideas fade away.
  We heard first from the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) who wants more money. He blames the new Labour Government for the fact that hedges are growing too high, although I rather suspect that they were growing 18 years ago, too. He wants regulations to control hedges—let it be known that a Tory Member of Parliament asked for more regulations, despite moaning about the other 2,000 for the rest of the year.
  We then heard the butcher from the midlands, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). Given that he is anti-Europe and anti-Common Market, although he developed such attitudes long after I did—after the single market, as a matter of fact—it is remarkable that he was asking for harmonisation of abattoir charges within the European Union. I would have thought that, as a purist anti-marketeer, the hon. Gentleman was off message.
  Mr. Gill: I take this opportunity to confirm that I am implacably opposed to economic, monetary and political union in Europe. I want that on the record for everyone to see. I was not saying that I wanted harmonisation; I was saying that we should do nothing in this country until we have a level playing field with the rest of Europe.
  Mr. Skinner: I thought that a level playing field meant harmonisation—the hon. Gentleman can twist the words as much as he likes, but that is what it sounds like to me. He was followed by another Tory who wanted, among other things, a lot more money. Of course, the same fellow walked through the Lobby in the debates on the Budget, saying that the Labour Government were taxing too heavily. He voted God knows how many times against spending money.
  We then heard from the representative from Surrey who also wanted a lot more money, not for just anyone but for Hindhead and her constituency, and for the Isle of Wight where she spends her holidays.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey said that she wanted assistance for Portsmouth and Southampton, but above all she wants a straight answer to a straight question. She wants to avoid evasiveness.
  Mr. Skinner: Now that the right hon. Lady can no longer resort to talking about the grand business of
  1024
  government—she was involved for the best part of 18 years—she has to talk about the blockage in Hindhead. She has raised the issue several times. Had she asked me for advice when we were voting on the Budget, I would have told her: "For God's sake, don't vote against tax increases because you'll need that money for Hindhead." If we sit here long enough, we see and hear all the contradictions.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman says that if we sit here long enough, we see all the contradictions. Does he accept that I saw the contradiction when he voted to cap Derbyshire county council last year?
  Mr. Skinner: As a matter of fact, I feel quite happy about that. We asked for an extra £3.9 million from the Government. Ours was the only county that made it. Because I am a good old-fashioned trade union negotiator, I managed to persuade my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to come up with £2.9 million. I thought, "Get the cash." So everybody in Derbyshire, including the hon. Gentleman's constituents, is deliriously happy that Skinner and his mates—not the hon. Gentleman—decided to get an extra £2.9 million for Derbyshire. To get £2.9 million more than the original settlement is not a bad day's work.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) raised the important issue of breast cancer operations at the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital in the light of a tragedy involving one of my hon. Friend's constituents, who unnecessarily had a breast removed. To compound the tragedy, we now know that there was a recent case of unnecessary breast removal in Bolsover, which apparently was not known about until further investigations took place. It happened a short time ago. That tragedy has now been revealed and we suspect there might be others.
  I am calling upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, in his inquiry, to require that the records be examined of all cases of breast cancer over the past 10 years at the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital, with a view to ensuring that there are no more of these tragic cases. This would put the minds of many people at rest.
  Secondly, there is the white finger issue and the chronic bronchitis and emphysema settlements. As a good trade union negotiator, I think that we have pulled off £2 billion for the chronic bronchitis and emphysema payments, not £2.9 million, for up to about 100,000 miners. I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few weeks ago at Question Time to give us a chuck on. I was not too sure whether he understood my language, but 2 billion quid ain't a bad figure.
  We have secured another £500 million for the white finger settlement, which will affect another 30,000 claimants. That must be good.
  My hon. Friend the Minister knows a bit about this subject and he will understand that the lawyers will be taking a slice of the money. I want him to help me and others to ensure that they do not get their hands on too much of it. The money should go to those who need it, such as retired miners who are coughing up their lungs. Where husbands have died, the widows should receive their entitlements.
  Medicals will be taking place, and we do not want to spoil the ship for a hap'orth of tar. Let us not have stories coming out from the coalfields that doctors and other

  1025
  medical people are telling various claimants who are on the borderline that they will not be getting the money. Let us err on the side of the claimant so that a great achievement, which we worked on for seven years, is not made less good. After seven years of struggle, the Labour Government inherited the problem in January 1998, and they have managed to settle the issue within about 15 months. That is not bad. We do not want some of the doctors and lawyers to spoil what is an extremely good achievement.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will hear many more complaints during this three-hour debate. I am sure also that many of them will be contradictory. However, will he pass on all relevant information to ensure that we can resolve the problem of the breast cancer business at the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital? Will he ensure also that the 2.5 billion quid that is going out to former miners will be paid in full?
  10.54 am
  Mr. David Maclean: Before the House rises for the summer recess—
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Easter recess.
  Mr. Maclean: Yes, the Easter recess. We have a modernising new Government and I am very progressive. I went ahead of my time.
  Before we rise for the Easter recess, like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I have a number of issues to bring to the Minister's attention. Like my hon. Friend, I find this three-hour Adjournment debate to be one of the most important features of our parliamentary calendar. Given the way in which the Government are sidelining, ignoring, bypassing and diminishing the status of the House, this debate, which may be of amusement to those outside the House who do not understand our procedures, is one of the few and vital opportunities that we have to present certain issues to the House.
  I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is no longer in his place. I listened with fascination to his plea that action should be taken against 30 ft leylandii hedges. I can tell Labour Members that, as a deregulator, I do not think that we knew that we needed new Government powers to control these hedges; we merely need to deregulate pesticide legislation to some extent. I can tell the House that I had a springer spaniel who could kill a 30 ft high leylandii hedge within two days of adequate watering. That may be a solution that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals may approve of.
  I wish to bring to the attention of the House the effect of the Budget on our constituents. The past week in my constituency was very interesting. The constituents whom I met and the letters in the constituency postbag suggested that people were beginning to fume about the Budget. It seems that only now have people become aware of some of the details, and they do not like them very much. They believed the Chancellor's wonderful spin on Budget day and the gullible news reports on it afterwards. However, the pensioners with savings have now discovered how
  1026
  they will be fleeced. Married couples have now spotted the Chancellor's rip-off, in that the married couple's allowance ends one year before the tax credit comes in.
  Motorists have spotted the extra 17p per gallon of petrol. No wonder our hauliers are planning to register in France when we consider the punitive rates for diesel and vehicle registration that the Chancellor has imposed on them. Every commodity will rise in price as transport costs for British lorries rocket. Alternatively, we shall find that foreign hauliers will take over goods haulage traffic in this country. I am certain that that will be of great benefit to our environment!
  My constituency postbag has been inundated with complaints from parents who are concerned that the Government are destroying local playgroups. Of course they are destroying them. Playgroups just do not fit the Government's dogmatic model of council-funded nursery education and their minimum wage proposals. It is rather a fitting memorial to this touchy-feely Government, who assure everyone that they share their pain, that among the first victims of the minimum wage will be young women who are looking after children.
  Everyone in my constituency and throughout Cumbria is deeply concerned about roads in the area. We are concerned at the Government's destruction of the roads programme. Roads are essential to us up in Cumbria because an integrated transport network is, and always will be, just a fantasy. If we do not have good motorway links with the M6, the M74, the A66 and the A69, the region's economy will die. I appeal to the Government to press ahead immediately with completion of the so-called Cumberland gap, the last remaining stretch of dual carriageway between the M74 in Scotland and the M6 in England. The project was signed up with private finance initiative funding before the general election. Indeed, the Labour party in Cumbria was boasting that, after the election, it would get the link built faster than the Tories because it could run PFI better than the Tories.
  Mr. Martlew: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the previous Government knocked the project out of the roads programme? I was told by a senior member of the Highways Agency that the then Government considered that the road from Carlisle to the Scottish border was going nowhere. It was the right hon. Gentleman's Government who knocked it out of the roads programme.
  Mr. Maclean: I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. That is nonsense. Before the election, the project was signed up with PFI funding. If it was not, there was no point in the local Labour party saying that it would get the road built faster because it could arrange for PFI funding faster than the Tories. The funding agency made it clear that all the contracts were ready to be signed. Such contracts are never signed during an election period. However, what has happened to the project now?
  Before the election, when Labour was in opposition, it promised that the Cumberland gap would be completed rapidly after the election. In fact, the project has been in limbo for the past two years. That is nonsensical. Everyone knows that this stretch of road must be built sooner rather than later. The Government should authorise the project to go ahead now. I am not calling for Government funding for it. Instead, I am calling for the PFI and the deal which is on the table to be given the go-ahead.

  1027
  Almost every week there is a fatal accident on the A66. The accident rate seems to have increased alarmingly in the past few months, and I suspect that it will get worse as traffic volumes increase and the pressures on that road get worse and worse. I argued with the previous Government, of whom I was a member, for dual carriageway along the whole length of the road. I have not changed my argument one iota and I am putting it to the present Government
  None of us is asking for the road to be completed immediately. We are not asking for miracles, but there is deep concern in Cumbria that the Government's road strategy does not contain a long-term plan for the road. We would have been satisfied if the Labour Government had said, "We can't build dual carriageway immediately, but, over the next 10 or 15 years, we will pick off the worst stretches and build a bit of dual carriageway here and another bit there. We can't go any faster than the last Tory Government." I could not have criticised the Government because I would not have had a leg to stand on, but that is not what they have done.
  The Government seem to have adopted a ploy that my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) has come across on her patch. The ploy for stalling work on the A66 is a safety study. We will, of course, co-operate with the safety study, but we do not need a safety study on the A66 to tell us that the bad stretches at Temple Sowerby and at Warcop are absolutely disastrous. The safety study is being used to kick the issue into the long grass. We need a long-term plan and the Government to say, "Yes, we will continue the slow progress of the last Government. We will continue as we can, picking off bits and building the dual carriageway sections." That is all we are asking for; we have not even got that.
  I wish to touch on the deep concern in Cumbria about the continuing collapse of the rural economy. The £120 million announced by the Government for special aid for farmers is nothing compared with the billions being lost by the farming industries. In any case, in the near future, farmers will bear the cost of the cattle movement scheme, the specified risk material costs, the rocketing and out-of-control meat hygiene costs and possibly even a pesticides tax. Added together, those measures entirely wipe out the £120 million special aid package.
  Although I am not calling for Government funding for the pig sector, it receives no aid at all. The situation is disastrous: 50 per cent. of our nation's herd could be wiped out by the end of the year, with up to 12,000 jobs being lost and more than £1 billion of pigmeat imports being sucked into this country to replace our home-produced pork and bacon. That foreign pigmeat—you will know this from your constituency experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, if you could, you would support us in our plea—will be everything that the Government and consumers apparently detest.
  That foreign pigmeat will be fed on the BSE bonemeal material, which is banned in this country. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office nodding his head at that. The sows producing the pigs will be kept in stalls and tethers, which were banned on welfare grounds in this country. British pigmeat is the cleanest, most welfare-friendly product in the world, which the Government and the supermarkets apparently all want. In that case, the Government should support it
  1028
  and take action against inhumanely produced imports, which are killing off our welfare-friendly products. Time is not on the Government's side; they must act now, before it is too late.
  I will say nothing about small abattoirs and local butchers. I could not match the eloquence or the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who spoke earlier.
  The Government must also make sure that Milk Marque is not carved up in answer to the pleas of the big dairy companies. I know that the Department of Trade and Industry is looking at a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on Milk Marque and I appeal to it not to listen to the siren voices of the dairy companies, which wish to destroy it. In European terms, Milk Marque is not large; nor is it a monopoly. If it is carved up, dairy farming in this country will be put back to the bad old days of the 1930s, when even the Milk Marketing Board was not invented. That would be a further tragedy for our hard-pressed rural industries.
  My last point on the rural economy is a simple reminder to the House that we still have the ridiculous beef on the bone ban, and the ban on beef exports has still not been lifted. We had a great fanfare announcement from the Government many months ago—it was like yesterday's announcement—that the beef export ban would be lifted and that they had achieved agreement because of their wonderful, cosy relationship with Europe. It is still in place and our beef farmers are no further on, after two years of the Government boasting that they could change things radically—faster than the previous Tory Government—because of their special relationship with Europe. All that that special relationship has brought us is more words, more spin, more glossy booklets and no real action.
  I conclude on an issue of major concern for all the people of the United Kingdom, which has a different tone from the other points that I have raised—the wholesale release of terrorists without a single gun or bullet being handed in. When the legislation was rushed through the House, some of us warned the Government and appealed to them not to be so naive; but, of course, nothing must be allowed to stop the so-called peace process, which cannot be questioned. The evil Omagh bombing was swept under the carpet, almost as if it were a slight abberation, rather than a deliberate, cynical act by Sinn Fein-IRA to exact yet more concessions from a British Government who are willing to do anything to keep the peace process going, which is what it really was.
  If the killings are all carried out by means other than the explosion of big bombs, they do not seem to be properly reported, in case that slows down the peace process. Some peace process; Sinn Fein-IRA have used it to regroup. After all, they do not have to rearm, do they? The Government have let them keep their weapons.
  The figures released by the Northern Ireland Office and quoted in Hansard, which I have researched during the past few weeks, speak for themselves. These are the terms that the Northern Ireland Office uses:
  "Casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings".
  There were 24 in 1996 and 72 last year. The Northern Ireland Office refers to
  "Deaths due to the security situation".—[Official Report, 4 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 697–702.]

  1029
  There were 14 such deaths in 1996 and 54 last year. It refers also to "Bombing incidents"—14 in 1996 and 117 in 1998. There were 84 "Shooting incidents" in 1996 and 132 in 1998.
  That is the record of what the Government have achieved so far in the peace process. The knee-capping and bludgeoning rate is three times what it was, the murder rate is four times what it was, shooting incidents have almost doubled and there are eight times as many bombing incidents. There is not much peace there for the people of Northern Ireland, if I may say so. To add to their misery, the Government have released 248 of some of the worst terrorists and murderers that this country has ever seen—and we have had not a single gun or bullet in return. There will be a return—one in the back from Sinn Fein-IRA.
  Last week, we saw the sorry spectacle of the Home Secretary—a man whom I respect—trying to stop the release of three terrorists from prison. That is a bit late from a Government who have already released early 245 pals of those terrorists. What other concessions to terrorism will the Government make this week, or even as we speak? I do not share the belief of some of my hon. Friends that this is the last day on which the House will sit before Easter. The House may not adjourn today and, if circumstances continue to deteriorate in Northern Ireland, I hope that we do not adjourn until we have had a proper discussion on what is happening and full statements from the Government.
  It looks to me as though the IRA has been given everything that it has asked for from the Government. It is demanding that the current deadlock, which it has created, should be removed in its favour. Its members have been released from prison, without a single gun being handed in. They are permitted to be elected to a democratic Assembly, without a single gun being handed in. I am very much afraid that, soon, the Government may let them become Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive, without a single gun being handed in.
  As we approach Easter Sunday, we will see one group of men, who are responsible for the deaths of thousands, being invited by the Government to sit round the Executive table in Northern Ireland, with a gun in one hand and the equivalent of a Red Box in the other. Some miles away, in Yugoslavia, other evil killers will be bombarded with all the bombs and missiles that we can throw at them. Slobodan Milosevic's big mistake was not employing Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein as his negotiators. If he had done so, perhaps American Senators might have wanted to rush over to keep the peace process going. Then, Milosevic could have continued to commit atrocities and kept his arsenal intact, just like Sinn Fein-IRA.
  As a former Territorial Army officer, I totally and utterly support our armed forces whenever they are engaged in the service of this country. They always do their duty unquestioningly, and I give them my full support for the difficult task that they face in the Balkans.
  The Government have adopted a high moral tone over Yugoslavia. As Easter approaches, I am reminded that their pronouncements on Milosevic sound like the denunciations of Christ by Caiaphas, the high priest, while their behaviour with Sinn Fein-IRA reminds one of
  1030
  Pontius Pilate washing his hands. Perhaps the only accurate description can be found in the words of Jesus himself:
  "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."
  11.10 am
  Ms Jenny Jones: A recent article in The Observer described my home town of Wolverhampton as one of the country's greenest and cleanest cities. An analysis of the Government's statistics on nitrogen dioxide air pollution has shown that my constituents can breathe cleaner air than the residents of Mayfair, Kensington and Knightsbridge, as well as many other towns and cities in this country.
  The newspaper did get one thing wrong; Wolverhampton is not a city—yet. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, the council is bidding for city status, but he can rest assured that I am not asking him to leap to the Dispatch Box to say that Wolverhampton is to be granted city status—although we hope that that takes place.
  I wish to refer to the importance of urban forestry and the threat that it faces. Wolverhampton's air quality is due to a variety of factors, one of which is the large number of mature street trees in the town. We have more than 13,000 trees lining the main highways—we have more trees by our highways than in our major parks—most of which were planted at the turn of the century.
  The importance of mature trees in our towns and cities goes beyond their aesthetic beauty. We now know that they filter air pollution, counter the impact of rain storms and reduce the risk of flooding, increase biodiversity and aid economic regeneration. However, we know that they must be looked after and carefully managed. Currently, the responsibility lies with local authorities. The experience of conscientious local authorities, such as Wolverhampton council, has shown that that task can no longer be left to them; there is a role for central Government.
  The greatest threat to mature street trees is open-cut trenching by utility and cabling companies. Any Member of Parliament whose constituency has experienced extensive large-scale cabling knows the damage that that can cause to trees. Open-cut trenching—particularly by machinery—can damage tree roots, and leaves trees susceptible to drought, pollution, pest disease and instability. As it can take up to five years for a 100-year-old broad-leaf tree to die, the consequences of open-cut trenching are not immediately obvious. Wolverhampton council has calculated that open-cut trenching is responsible for 75 per cent. of the loss of mature street trees.
  Utility companies are aware of the problem. In April 1995, the national joint utilities group introduced guidelines for working near mature street trees. However, the guidelines are voluntary. They do not carry the same obligations on utility companies that tree preservation orders place on individuals.
  Some utility companies take their responsibilities seriously; others do not. The practice of paying contractors what is effectively a piece rate on the length of run that is excavated encourages careless open-cut trenching, which does the most damage to tree roots. Reducing the number of inspections on contractors' workings means that there is less effective monitoring. The number of times a highway is opened up by utilities increases the chances of damage.

  1031
  One of my constituents is Professor Chris Baines, a well-known environmentalist. He lives in one of my constituency's most beautiful roads, which is characterised by its 100-year-old broad-leaf trees. He told me that, last year, the entire length of the road was opened up five times by different utility companies, all by open-cut trenching. Frankly, it will be a miracle if those trees are still there in 10 years' time.
  There is one utility company known to me that takes its responsibilities seriously. Last year, Midlands Electricity—noticing that I had tabled questions on the subject—invited me to its headquarters in the black country to see the development that it had made in trenchless technology.
  Midlands Electricity now has a policy of avoiding open-cut trenching whenever possible—partly to reduce the disruption to traffic and pedestrians and partly to reduce damage to the environment and those wonderful trees. It has developed something called computer-assisted three-dimensional digital mapping, assisted by pneumatic moles and directional drills. Time prevents me from going into the technical details.
  The important point is that the result is that Midlands Electricity does most of its work using trenchless technology. The company has found that open-cut trenching is more expensive. By using trenchless technology, it has reduced the cost of cabling by 46 per cent. Not only is the policy environmentally friendly, it is cost-effective. If Midlands Electricity can do that, why cannot other utility companies?
  I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to pass on the message to Government colleagues that there is a need for a national strategy from the Government. Leaving it up to local authorities will not work, and relying on tree planting will not solve the problem either. Utility companies need to be encouraged by various means—the carrot as well as the stick—to make greater use of trenchless technology.
  We need more effective tree preservation guidelines for street trees. People with a tree preservation order on a mature tree on their property know exactly what can happen if they do not look after the tree. I would like the same tough guidelines to apply to street trees. I am reluctant to use the phrase "joined-up government"—it seems to cause mirth—but that is what is needed. The responsibility lies with various Departments; the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Trade and Industry and, possibly, the Treasury. They must work closer together, and with practitioners and experts such as the national urban forestry unit, whose headquarters is in Wolverhampton.
  It is easy to take our mature street trees for granted. We often do not notice them until they are gone. I would argue that urban forestry is not an optional extra, but a necessity. If my constituents are to continue to enjoy breathing good-quality air, we must ensure that these mature street trees are safe for generations to come.
  11.18 am
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I urge that the House should not adjourn until further consideration is given to the crisis in the defence medical services. As we hear of the tragedy in and around Kosovo, we become aware that nothing could be more useful to our armed forces than to
  1032
  have access to first-class medical facilities. Unfortunately, those are not readily available now. It is widely accepted by the Government that the defence medical services are in crisis.
  "Defence Cost Studies 15"—which was implemented from 1994—proposed to focus the defence medical services in one single centre of tri-service excellence, which would have been the Royal hospital, Haslar, in my constituency. It was intended that the hospital should be built up from 200 beds to 330 or 375. In fact, following management difficulties, that did not happen.
  We now have a service in crisis. Most of our armed forces have been cut by 30 per cent., but the defence medical services have been cut by about 40 per cent. We now have about half the number of doctors that we need, and about three quarters of the nurses. Many facilities and faculties are on the edge of collapse. There is a need for 11 surgical posts, of which seven are overseas. There are not enough surgeons to man those posts. These facts come from a Ministry of Defence booklet, "Defence Medical Services—Strategy for the Future", where the crisis is widely accepted.
  The Government's solution is—would you believe?—to close the only tri-service hospital, Haslar, although it is widely recognised in the defence medical services that removing the current centre of medical excellence and building another elsewhere will exacerbate the crisis. As I have told senior officials, if Haslar is closed, it will take 20 years to rebuild defence medical services. If that rather extreme analysis is questioned, let me point out that such services are consultant based, and that it takes 20 years to train a consultant in all the skills required in the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force. We cannot man defence medical services with migrant Australian doctors and pull them in when they are needed; we need people who are trained in war skills as well as medical skills.
  There is some rationale in the Government's plan. They have said, for instance, that a district general hospital needs a catchment of 500,000 people, and that there are not that many people in the Gosport and Portsmouth area. It must, however, be possible for an arrangement to be reached between the national health service and the Ministry of Defence, whereby Haslar could specialise in fields in which it was already supreme, such as surgery, ear, nose and throat, burns, gastroenterology and dermatology, and doctors, nurses and other staff could be trained in other specialties in other hospitals in the south Hampshire area.
  It has been said on the Government's behalf that MOD hospital units provide the training that doctors, nurses and other paramedics need. Although such units are widely praised in the Government, I can say—following extensive consultation with those in the defence medical services—that the units at Derriford, Frimley and Peterborough are not working well from a personnel point of view. They may provide the medical services that are needed, as well as providing medical training, but they do not provide the way of life sought by those who join the armed forces. People are leaving the defence medical services in droves because they are not given the back-up that they need.
  As might be expected, this is an issue of deep concern in my constituency. We are having the time of our lives demonstrating its local importance. I called for a rally and march, which took place on 24 January. We thought that

  1033
  a few thousand people might attend; in fact, 22,000 marched to save Haslar. At the suggestion of a local councilor—a Labour councillor, it must be said—we manned the local park. We wrote "Save Haslar" in letters 11 metres high and 6 metres wide, and about 1,500 people formed a long line stretching to the hospital, which was indicated by an arrow. All that took place at 6.45 pm. Following a loudspeaker announcement, we held up torches and wrote "Save Haslar" in lights; that appeared live on television. Last Wednesday, we took a petition to No. 10 Downing street, and on the same day I presented a petition in the House. Each petition was signed by 50,000 people or more. We have demonstrated just how much local people care.
  The Government have said that they will consult widely on the closure of Haslar and the future of defence medical services. I was able to present in the House a petition bearing the corporate seals of Gosport, Fareham and Havant borough councils, Portsmouth city council and Hampshire county council, all of which had pleaded for Haslar to be kept open to maintain proper provision for both civilians and defence medical services. Surely, if consultation means anything, that should be enough to show how strongly people feel. More than 100,000 people are treated at Haslar annually, of whom some 80 per cent. are civilians, and the hospital deals with more than 20,000 accident and emergency cases.
  One question must surely force the Government to maintain Haslar. Anyone involved in politics will remember the war of Jennifer's ear, which involved the delaying of a little girl's ear operation at the time of the last general election. The Labour party, which was then in opposition, blamed the callous, uncaring Conservative Government for not providing funds to enable the operation to take place earlier. Let me make a different point. There is no doubt that, if the accident and emergency unit at Haslar is closed, lives will be lost between the Gosport peninsular and the nearest other accident and emergency hospital. What message will the Government send to the bereaved when those lives are lost?
  I put that point graphically because it is a real point, which is of public concern. It should also be of political concern, and I therefore urge the House not to adjourn until the Government have undertaken to consult genuinely, and to allow a delegation from south Hampshire to speak to senior Ministers. Such a delegation should plead with the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Health to allow Haslar to remain—not just because it is a centre of local excellence for the civilian population, but because we in south Hampshire care deeply about defence forces, of which defence medical services form an integral part.
  11.26 am
  Mr. John Healey: I want to raise matters connected with the single gateway, a subject that does not sit neatly in one Department and, although important, is not urgent. It does not find a comfortable slot in our normal Chamber timetable, and I am grateful for the opportunity to raise it today.
  I note that Ministers have started to refer simply to the single gateway, rather than the single work-focused gateway—possibly because those who get their hands
  1034
  dirty dealing with clients had started to use the near-acronym "Swarfega". It is fine to refer to the single gateway—a gateway to government support and services—but we must not lose the word "focus" in the implementation, even if we lose it in the name. There are three reasons for that.
  First, the Government's specific aim is to provide a single point of access to a range of services, not just to the benefits system. Secondly, the general economic aim of the Government's welfare-to-work policies is to increase the sustainable level of employment by putting more recipients of benefits in touch with their local labour markets. We are already doing that with the new deal. Thirdly, the general aim of the single gateway and of welfare reform is to change the whole culture—to move away from the question "How much should we pay you in benefits?" and towards the question "How can we help you to become more independent?" Providing people with opportunities to work in the open, intermediate and sheltered labour markets is one of the principal ways of doing that.
  I am proud to be a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, which visited Australia last November and, in January, produced a report entitled "Active Labour Market Policies And Their Delivery: Lessons from Australia". In Australia, separate Department of Social Security and Commonwealth Employment Service local office networks were integrated in September 1997, and a new agency, Centrelink, was formed. Centrelink offices act as gateways to benefits and a wide range of Government services, assisting unemployed people, students, families, homeless people and aboriginal people. They serve as a unified point of delivery for services that were formerly delivered by four different Departments. More than 400,000 appointments are booked each month, half a million decisions are made each week and 232 million payments are made each year.
  The concept is, however, deeply compromised by the separation of the job network—a network of agencies competing to provide job search, advice and assistance for unemployed people—from the Centrelink operation. For unemployed people looking for work in Australia, Centrelink is the point of registration and classification, but Centrelink staff are not allowed to advise clients on their choice of job network provider. They are not able to act as personal advisers to those unemployed people. Nor are they able to access 90 per cent. of the vacancies that are available in Australia, as those vacancies are held by job network providers.
  As we look to implement the single gateway, we need to learn such lessons from elsewhere. It is essential that the Employment Service and other employment and training agencies are built into the single gateway from the start. It is essential that the single gateway does not become benefits driven. I am happy to say that the Select Committee on Education and Employment is about to embark on a joint inquiry with the Select Committee on Social Security. That will be one factor that will figure prominently in our inquiry.
  The single gateway has the potential to revolutionise the way in which people see and experience the Government's role in welfare and work support. There is an opportunity to realise the aspirations of my right

  1035
  hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office in the White Paper that was published yesterday, "Modernising government", in which he states:
  "Better provision of better services available from government at all levels is central to the approach of Modernising Government",
  and it is central to the concept of the single gateway. However, the first four pilots for the single gateway begin in June, and eight more are due to follow in November. I wish to register a concern that we may be missing a once-and-for-all opportunity in two areas as we move towards implementing the single gateway.
  First, the pilots risk being an emaciated test of the potential of the single gateway. They will be run for three years, but will deal only with new benefit claimants—a total of no more than perhaps 30,000 each year in each area, 75 to 80 per cent. of whom will be jobseeker's allowance claimants.
  Those pilots are much too modest in scale and too restricted in scope. For example, those who want to claim the new range of in-work tax credits, in-work housing benefits or child benefit only will still have to go through the existing system, which will be run alongside single gateway interviews and arrangements. The Government's drive towards greater integration of tax and benefits policies must be matched with greater integration of tax and benefits delivery. Indeed, we need to incorporate benefit "payments out" from Government with "tax payments in", just as they aim to do in Australia.
  Secondly, the single gateway is justifiably championed as a significant step towards joined-up government, but we cannot have joined-up government unless we have joined-up information. The single gateway must be championed as a significant step towards electronic government as well.
  Although face to face contact with personnel advisers will be central to the success of the single gateway, the concept of the one-stop shop is simply not location bound. Centrelink in Australia, for example, makes extensive use of the internet and plans in the near future for claim forms to be electronically available, completed and dispatched back to benefits offices.
  That electronic access offers the potential to help the Government to achieve their policy aims, but it also raises important questions about how we prevent such access from adding further to social exclusion. Patterns of personal computer ownership and of internet access are skewed, with a male, middle-income bias. The same is true of card-based information access and storage methods. Smart cards and magnetic strips all display that bias in their use.
  The most widely used technologies are those found in the home: telephones and television. Telephone call centres have been used extensively and effectively in Australia. They have been used in the UK successfully with Employment Direct. I welcome the fact that the call centre will be the base for four of the single gateway pilots that will start in November in Somerset, Buckinghamshire, Gwent Borders and Calderdale, Kirklees.
  It is the development of digital television that presents the opportunity to ensure that we have service access through a medium with which people are familiar and which can be navigated using controls that need not be very different from those that people are already used to. However, that presumes that public information and public service channels are part of the digital television age.
  1036
  Public information and public service channels are not a priority for digital television service providers. Jane Stephenson of Granada Sky Broadcasting spoke for the whole industry when she said recently that public service information "is not a priority". GSB's programme content, for the moment anyway, is largely driven by the commercial formats that it has chosen, so home shopping is much more of a priority than, say, information on social services. The danger is that structures will be set now in a way that will inhibit the use of DTV for electronic public services.
  The issues are these. What regulation or incentive will be needed to ensure public service access through DTV? How will the costs of DTV access for people on low incomes be met? Now is the time to consider those questions: while the ground rules for DTV and its technology are being set, before a dominant provider emerges and before the negotiating hand of the commercial organisations is strengthened in relation to Government.
  If the Government's vision for a single gateway can be expanded in that way, it can live up to its advance billing as a radical and far-reaching reform. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will play his part in that development and will pass my concerns on to those colleagues who are involved in that important project.
  11.37 am
  Mr. Paul Tyler: It has been a fascinating debate, as recess Adjournment debates always are. The problem is that, as the debate progresses, we find that we have many similar points and points of mutual interest when a constituency issue is raised, and that we want to comment on everything, but I will leave that to the other two Front-Bench spokesmen because I want to make one substantial point on a major issue of concern.
  I am struck by the number of occasions when we have seen the connection between food and health. They are critical to our fellow citizens. For example, I take the contributions of the hon. Members for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who were both concerned about breast cancer. I am sure that every hon. Member has unfortunate, sad, tragic stories from constituents of how the system has failed our society in terms of diagnosis, prevention or treatment.
  The specialist scientific report for the European Union directed our attention to an apparent connection—I put it no stronger than that—between hormone-treated beef that the United States is seeking to export to the European Union and the incidence—indeed the increase—in breast cancer. Food and health march together and we should never forget that.
  The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) correctly identified a major problem in the way in which we treat our most vulnerable citizens. There is an almost precise replica of the situation that he described at Bridge hospital, in his community, at St. Lawrence's hospital in Bodmin in my constituency, which serves the whole south-west. Again, health is obviously central to our concerns.
  The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) talked about the problems that our food industry is facing. Again, there will be major implications for the health of

  1037
  the nation if we do not get the right balance between nutrition, food quality and health. That is why I am so delighted to see the report of the special pre-legislative Select Committee on Food Standards. I take some responsibility for that Committee because, as a member of the Select Committee on Modernisation, I was enthusiastic about the idea of proper scrutiny before a Bill is set out in black and white. I shall refer briefly to the wide ranging and urgent implications of that Committee.
  The problem with pre-legislative scrutiny is that it takes time, and we do not have much time in which to improve the situation. The Committee is saying that important nutritional issues are at stake.
  I should declare an indirect interest in that my wife is a director of a famous traditional grocer's shop in Cornwall. Hon. Members who come to the best part of the British Isles for a holiday during the recess may care to call. Although, of course, I cannot advertise the shop, everyone knows that we have the best speciality food in the United Kingdom, if not the western world. My wife is a director, and I am a shareholder. Whether what I have to say about the Food Standards Agency will impinge on that enterprise, I know not. However, hon. Members would be well advised to head west over the next few days.
  The Food Standards Committee report rightly draws attention to the continuum from food safety through quality to nutrition. It is difficult to divide those factors up. That is why I find it difficult to accept the Government's apparent limitation on the role of the agency. We should listen carefully to the Committee, because, particularly when it comes to information rather than advertising, it will be difficult to draw the line at which the agency should stop.
  Recommendations 5 and 8 are extremely important. Recommendation 13 deals with connections to specific agencies that operate under the aegis of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Other hon. Members may have dealt with the Pesticides Safety Directorate or the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. The hon. Member for Ludlow has joined me several times to look at the work of such directorates. If their work is totally divorced from the agency, the agency's work will be much depleted.
  Most importantly, the Meat Hygiene Service must be brought under the control of the independent FSA, and it must be properly accountable to Parliament. The current crisis in the abattoir industry has been some time in coming. When Labour Members sat on the Opposition Benches, many of them joined me in attacking the previous Government over the MHS, recognising that it would not be properly accountable. It is critical that we should bring those burdens on the food industry under control.
  Mr. Rowe: Is there not a serious danger that the FSA will find all sorts of ways to lay restrictions on the British food industry? If supermarkets are going to demand certain standards of production from British producers, should we oblige them not to buy from foreign producers who produce to a less stringent protocol?
  Mr. Tyler: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says, and only wish that I had received such support during
  1038
  the previous Parliament: the problem was important then, and it has got worse. A level playing field is needed, not just to be fair to the industry, but to provide consistent quality for consumers.
  The way in which the FSA is responsible to Parliament—and therefore to our constituents—is a critical matter. The special Select Committee has taken its own experience of considering the issue—drawing members from both the Agriculture Committee and the Select Committee on Health—as a template for dealing with the matter. Before the general election, I suggested that this matter was so crucial to the nation that the agency should not be responsible to any single Whitehall Department, but to a Select Committee along the lines of the Public Accounts Committee. Accountability will be crucial.
  Funding is another issue. The Government initially proposed to impose a flat rate on all eligible food establishments—a food poll tax. The outrage expressed throughout the country has, I hope, made Ministers think again. I am delighted to see that the special Select Committee report discards that idea in no uncertain terms, saying:
  "We believe that the flat rate principle is contrary to natural justice and we recommend that the Government implement a graduated system following its consultation exercise."
  I hope to hear an early announcement that that will happen.
  I can illustrate the absurdity of the initial proposal with an example from Inverness. I visited a small family bakery last Tuesday. It has 11 small outlets in villages around Inverness, and the total initial bill for the 12 establishments would be £1,000 a year. The enormous supermarket a few hundred yards away would pay £90. There is something basically so illogical about that ludicrous proposal that I hope the Minister can tell us it has been kicked into touch.
  Mr Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman support the principle that the cost of the FSA should be charged to the trade, or does he share my view that if the Government impose regulation or inspection on an industry, the Government should pay for it?
  Mr. Tyler: As the point, principal and core objective of the new agency is public health, which must be a core responsibility of the Government, core funding should indeed come from the taxpayer's purse.
  Ms Sally Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: I am up against time, and the hon. Lady may not have a chance to speak herself if I go on too long.
  If there must be some contribution from the industry—the Select Committee makes some suggestions but I have no time to go into them—it must be based on square footage. That is quite easy to work out; the House considered the matter in relation to Sunday trading. However, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, funding is a core responsibility of Government because public health cannot be more important.
  The report refers to the responsibilities of the FSA in international terms. Having recently been to the World Trade Organisation in Geneva, I recognise that our agency

  1039
  will have an input within the European framework on issues such as BST hormone treatment, meat, milk and the American tendency to try to create a new food imperialism.
  I shall refer briefly to a specific case in which the FSA is urgently required. In this respect I note the remarks made by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) about the need for an even playing field.
  Last summer, on 17 June 1998, in a debate on the Food Safety Act 1990, I referred to the case of Duckett and Aldridge, specialist cheese makers. I do not want to repeat all the arguments in that debate, except to say that I had the support of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) in drawing attention to the extent to which the so-called hygiene police were disastrously overreacting in that case. If that case is to be a model of how the Food Standards Agency will operate, we are in big trouble, as we shall be imposing great and unjustified bureaucratic burdens on smaller specialist, craft food producers and processors.
  We all owe a debt to Messrs Christopher Booker and Richard North. Some years ago, they published a wonderful book, illustrated by the inimitable Willie Rushton—it is therefore good Easter recess reading—entitled "The Mad Officials—How Bureaucrats are Strangling Britain". Incidentally, it was published in 1995 and deals with the 15 years of Conservative Administration prior to that date—so let none of us think that such bureaucratic burdens are anything new.
  In last June's debate, I pointed out that the Ministry's attitude to small producers was entirely unacceptable.
  Mr. David Heath: I know a little about the case to which my hon. Friend is referring. I also know that excellent book. Is not one of the problems the fact that the offences he has mentioned are treated as absolute offences—in which no mitigation is available for having employed the best available technology and taken every possible precaution? If a company is found to have transgressed, it can be put out of business, despite the fact that it is doing an excellent job in producing a wholesome product.
  Mr. Tyler: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend—who, coming from Somerset, will be very well aware both of the circumstances and of their repercussions over the entire food industry, not only in the south-west but across the country.
  Just last week, at a special meeting of the Farmers Club, I met some of the people involved in the case, and for a specific reason. Although the Department of Health lost the case, it lost on a technicality. Consequently, one very good producer and one very good wholesaler of cheese are effectively uncompensated and are in danger of being run out of town and ruined. Moreover, currently, they have no redress; indeed, the very reverse applies. For reasons that Ministers will not explain to me, the Department of Health will appeal the case. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will be able—although not today—to extract an answer from the Department of Health on exactly what it is doing with taxpayers' money in trying devastate two extremely valuable food processors and wholesalers.
  The text of last June's debate shows that the Minister for Public Health was woefully misinformed about the nature of the action taken by her officials. In attempting
  1040
  to explain to other hon. Members and to me what had happened, she was not able to give us the full picture. I shall give only one example. She said:
  "A 12-year-old boy developed not a minor tummy upset but renal failure, was put on dialysis and was found to have an E. coli 0157 infection."—[Official Report, 17 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 343.]
  That is just not true. The boy had recovered by the time he was given renal treatment, which he had been put on for purely preventive purposes, to ensure that there was no recurrence of the disease. He was not put on dialysis because he was suffering from a major problem. The nature of the Minister's reply suggests that the hygiene police were in extraordinarily defensive mode. They not only overreacted, but subsequently covered up their mistakes.
  If the incident is an example of the way in which the Food Standards Agency will operate, there is a very big problem of which all hon. Members should be aware. I trust, however, that the Government will take full account of the advice of the special Select Committee. We surely have to ensure that our fellow citizens are able to make an informed choice of food. They will therefore have to know when food comes from a foreign source with lower animal welfare standards, and less stringent legislation on labour and global environmental impact. We have to accept that it will not be sufficient for the Food Standards Agency simply to worry about risk; it will have to be concerned with the entire continuum, through quality to nutrition.
  I believe that the citizens of the United Kingdom—our colleagues and our constituents—have every right to be confident in the quality of good British food. However, unless we are very careful, many manufacturers, processors and wholesalers of that quality food will be out of business before the Food Standards Agency has even started work.
  11.55 am
  Mr. Jon Trickett: I should like briefly to speak about an injustice that is being done not only to my constituency but to most of the other areas in the former English coalfields. The injustice is compounding the problems caused by the industrial, economic and social cataclysm that followed the 1984 strike, in which 190,000 jobs directly related to the coal mining industry were lost. The jobs were lost not in metropolitan areas, where the unemployed might eventually have had access to other jobs, but in small towns, villages and hamlets such as those in my constituency—Featherstone, Hemsworth, Upton, Ackworth, South Elmsall, Crofton and South Kirkby. Those communities have little or no infrastructure, and no access to other local jobs.
  The injustice is continued governmental underfunding in assisting those areas' regeneration. The injustice is unwitting and is, I fear, a product of how our statisticians work. Current measures of deprivation result in funding regimes that inadequately reflect the true deprivation of former coalfield areas. Local authority funding levels in all coal mining areas are very low, and, in the current review, European funding—which was previously the one saviour of our communities—is in danger of being lost.
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is increasingly relying on only one index—the index of local conditions. Consequently, a variety of funding regimes will increasingly be based on that one index.

  1041
  I do not want to engage in some type of competition, demonstrating how poor my area is compared with other deprived areas. I shall leave such a competition to other people, as I think that it would be unprincipled to argue that other deprived areas should lose funding. Nevertheless, I feel that the index of local conditions relies too much on housing condition and probably also on ethnicity—thereby discriminating against areas, such as mine, where the housing stock has, over the years, been well-maintained by the local authority, and where there is an overwhelming preponderance of people from an ethnically white background.
  The European Union relies on various indices of deprivation. Eligibility for objective 1 funding—which is the highest-level funding that might be available to Hemsworth, or to any other area in the English coalfields—is determined on the basis of gross domestic product output per head. To be eligible for such funding, areas must be at 75 per cent. or less in the index. An independent analysis of the communities in my area shows that we are probably at about 75 per cent., or just marginally over it. Therefore, we should be able to receive objective 1 money. Sadly, however, the European Union does not propose basing its analysis on district level in determining eligibility for those funds.
  In determining communities' eligibility for objective 2 funding, however, the European Union uses a secondary index, based on district unemployment levels.
  Unemployment is notoriously difficult to measure. Over the years we have seen disputes in the House and elsewhere over the true level of unemployment. In Wakefield, which is the district in which my constituency lies, the official level of unemployment is 9.1 per cent., which is less than the European Union average. I believe that that dramatically understates the situation in Wakefield, Hemsworth and throughout the coalfield area. Wakefield district lost one in 10 of all jobs lost in the coal mining industry since 1984. A total of 190,000 jobs were savaged for reasons that we all know. Wakefield lost 20,000 of those jobs—one tenth of all the coalfield losses. That is the equivalent of 63 jobs per 1,000 people in my area.
  How can the unemployment statistics get it so wrong? One clue that might lead to a solution to that riddle lies in the health-related statistics for the Wakefield area. In Wakefield, as in many other parts of the coalfield, the standardised mortality ratios are very high. Wakefield has 11 per cent. more deaths than could be expected on average in Britain as a whole. About 29 per cent. of our households—almost one in three—contains somebody suffering from a limiting long-term illness.
  There is massive understatement of the true level of unemployment in the coalfield areas. In Wakefield, 29 per cent. of people of working age—it is higher in my constituency—are regarded as being economically active. That is the real clue to the understatement of the coalfield unemployment figures. I have no doubt that real employment in Wakefield as a whole is between 18 and 20 per cent.—one in five of the population. I reckon that about 40 per cent. of households—two out of five—have nobody who is economically active. How can the statistics used by the Government and the European Union so badly understate our position so that we are left without access to the resources we need for regeneration?
  1042
  The villages that I represent and now live among are sinking gradually but inexorably further into poverty. Statistics show that before the introduction of the minimum wage, an increasing number of people were living on £2.50 or less per hour. The statistics on poverty and household income levels show that increasing numbers of households in Hemsworth, Wakefield and throughout the coalfield areas are sinking further into poverty.
  I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office understands the coalfield areas and I urge him to take this message back to his colleagues in Government and tell them that the coalfields are suffering from an injustice as a result of the indices of deprivation that the Government have adopted. They understate the true level of suffering and poverty in our communities. We need help from people such as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who understands our area, in order to convince the Government that we need access to the badly needed funds for regeneration.
  12.4 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have not been able to participate in the debate. That is most unfortunate. However, the Parliamentary Secretary and I have cut down our remarks considerably and will be speaking for rather less time than the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in order to try to answer the debate. We have heard 15 speeches which have raised some 31 or 32 issues. It would be almost impossible to deal with them all in just over 10 minutes, but I will deal with as many as I can.
  Many of my colleagues have referred to the importance of this debate in the parliamentary calendar. As I saw the frustration on the faces of some hon. Members it occurred to me that the next time we do this we should continue the debate until 2 o'clock. That would give everybody an opportunity to participate. Perhaps we should ask Madam Speaker to consider limiting speeches to a maximum of 15 minutes. Those two changes would give everybody the opportunity to participate. Fifteen minutes is a reasonable limit and would enable more colleagues to get in.
  This is one of the few opportunities that Back-Bench Members have to bring to the House issues that are causing them concern. Although there was no common thread running through the speeches—nobody would expect that—there was common concern to put before the House issues of considerable importance.
  No hon. Member has been frivolous. We have heard some amusing comments and that is good. I am delighted that my omnibus Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) managed to contribute again. He does not abuse the time of the House. He spoke for only 10 minutes and raised eight issues. I am pleased for him that the Palace theatre in Westcliff, although dark at the moment, will have its pantomime horse back at the end of the year. I am sorry that the police horses will not be there to patrol the crowds as they go in to watch my hon. Friend's bravura performance.
  We began with a serious speech from the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) who is an habitual contributor to these debates. We are glad that he has made a full recovery. He talked about the tragic incidents in his constituency and that of his hon. Friend the Member for

  1043
  Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) of the two ladies who had their breasts removed unnecessarily. He made a powerful plea for a national inquiry and some national standards. I hope that his words will be heeded by his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and, more importantly, by the Secretary of State for Health. It was an important issue to raise.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) talked about the literally growing problem of leylandii hedges. There is probably not an hon. Member who has not had experience of this problem. He was right to draw it to our attention. He also talked about the NSPCC's important campaign on cruelty to children. He spoke with all the knowledge of a trustee of that most important organisation. I hope that all hon. Members will back that campaign. However, it is important that we never encourage those who make spurious allegations against parents. It has reached an absurd position in some cases where the most minor chastisement of a child is interpreted in some quarters as abuse. It is important to get the balance right. He also talked about the expectations we place upon the police and he was right to do so.
  The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made what I would call a classic speech for this debate because he focused on one issue of great concern to him and his constituency—the future of Bridge hospital. He hopes that it will not be closed. I cannot comment in detail because I do not know the hospital, but he made a cogent case which deserves a cogent and well thought out answer. I hope that he will get that from Ministers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) illustrated how important it is that we should have in the House hon. Members who have practical experience of the subjects about which they are speaking. There can be no hon. Member who knows more about an individual subject than my hon. Friend knows about the meat industry. The Government must take to heart his plea for the owners of small abattoirs and his illustration of the plight of pig producers. It is ludicrous that some of the owners of small abattoirs are facing, within a very short time, an escalation of costs up to 10 times or more what they are paying now. That can have only one catastrophic result, which my hon. Friend pointed out graphically, and that is the closure of those small abattoirs and nobody will benefit from that. He was also right to talk about the plight of the pig industry and how ludicrous it is that foreign imports of a far inferior quality will force out our own, wonderful, home-produced pork and other pig products.
  The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who nearly always talks about international affairs in these debates, turned his attention to Kashmir. He did the House a service in so doing. It is an immensely complicated and almost intractable problem and I will be careful what I say about it. All I would tell him is that it is right to use the Floor of the House to raise such issues. Let us hope that, with the dexterity that was not apparent when the Foreign Secretary first ventured to comment on the issue, the right hon. Gentleman will return to it and may play a part in bringing together India and Pakistan. Without their complete agreement and a binding settlement the problem will fester into the next century.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) mentioned a problem in his constituency and made some serious accusations about a company. He made them with such
  1044
  quiet passion that I hope that they will be investigated. If the situation is indeed as he described it, that company has behaved very badly.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) talked about the A3 at Hindhead and asked for some replies to her questions, as she has a right to do. She also mentioned the fact that Ministers have refused to see deputations. I have had experience of that problem when roads and education issues have been raised. The Minister refused to meet Members of Parliament who represent Staffordshire—hon. Members from both the main parties—to discuss education funding there, which is utterly disgraceful. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) wanted to speak in the debate and I know that I speak for him in making that point.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover made an inimitable speech. Again, he showed hon. Members how to do it because in eight minutes he made some extremely pithy points. In boasting of his acumen as a trade union negotiator, he perhaps boasted too much in the case of Derbyshire, but certainly not too much in the case of people suffering from emphysema and white finger. We are all glad about that settlement and it is important that the people concerned should be paid as quickly as possible because they have suffered enormously.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) obviously has an extremely versatile spaniel. He made some good points about the road haulage industry and play groups. He ended on a more serious topic. There is widespread concern in the House about events in Northern Ireland. Many of us find it difficult to see terrorists who have clearly been guilty of the most despicable crimes being freed. My right hon. Friend went considerably further than I would go in his remarks. We must all hope that this Easter does indeed see the furthering of the peace process that was embarked upon on Good Friday last year.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) made a classic Adjournment debate speech when she talked about trees in town streets. My constituency is adjacent to hers and I know that she speaks with knowledge and authority and I support all that she said.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made another powerful plea for the Royal hospital, Haslar. If we wanted an object lesson in how to put forward a case, we have only to take advice from my hon. Friend. I hope that all the peaceful demonstrations with which he has been involved will result in the only just answer, which is the preservation of that extremely important hospital.
  The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) talked about the gateway to services in the light of the White Paper that was published yesterday. The hon. Member for North Cornwall discussed the Food Standards Agency and made a good point about the so-called poll tax on food. I sincerely hope that the Government will take that argument on board. I also hope that we will not see more of the ludicrous interfering, which resulted in terrible problems for the Duckett and Aldridge cream cheese producers. The hon. Gentleman was right to highlight those problems.
  We ended with the speech from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) who made a powerful plea for some regeneration in his part of the Yorkshire coalfield.

  1045
  He was magnanimous enough to say that he fully recognised the fact that other areas have similar problems. We have lost our coal mines in Staffordshire and although I would not wish to enter into a competition with him, I will merely say that I am aware of the importance of his arguments, which the Government need to tackle, perhaps, more satisfactorily they have been doing.
  We have had a useful debate, in which a number of important issues have been raised. Obviously, I cannot deal with every last one. In the remaining minutes I shall mention a couple more. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, in his wide-ranging speech, mentioned graffiti—a problem that, literally, defaces many of our constituencies. I hope that we will have an onslaught on that appalling menace in the next year. Let us have a clean country to enter the millennium.
  A number of hon. Members mentioned this House. One reason why so many Members wished to take part in the debate and why there is such frustration in the House is that the Chamber is becoming increasingly sidelined. Although it would be wrong for me to anticipate the report of the Modernisation Committee on the Main Committee—we must look at that, read it carefully and debate it thoroughly—as I have said before from the Dispatch Box, anything that detracts from the centrality of this Chamber should be resisted and anything that can put life back into it and will make Ministers more accountable and bring them here more often to be held to account must be supported.
  I am delighted to see that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, is to reply to the debate again. Please will he tell his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—who we accept has many important issues on his mind at the moment—that we would appreciate seeing the right hon. Gentleman a little more often in and around the House of Commons. He has appeared in the Division Lobby far less than any Prime Minister in recorded history and we want to see a little more of him because, after all, he is our Prime Minister.
  Mr. Skinner: You lot hate his guts.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not. The hon. Gentleman knows that hatred is not an emotion that I find easy to embrace. I am speaking personally but I am also speaking for my party—we are not a party that hates, but a party that tries to be constructive. In that spirit, I will end by wishing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and everyone in the House a happy Easter.
  12.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office(Mr.paddy Tipping)I shall carry on from where the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) left off. I am conscious that, as we speak, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Northern Ireland doing extremely important work. I am also conscious that, last week, he was at the European Heads of Government summit in Berlin. I also know, because I took the opportunity to look up the figures, that my right hon. Friend has missed only two Prime Minister's Question Times since he came to office and he has answered more questions at Question Time than his predecessors.
  1046
  I agree with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire that it is important to bring life into the Chamber. There has been plenty of life, interest and debate this morning, with 15 hon. Members aising a range of constituency and wider matters. I believe that we need to look into ways to give more hon. Members more opportunities to have a say. The Main Committee has been mentioned during our debate. The report of the Modernisation Committee will be available after Easter, and I look forward to an early debate and discussion on it. Hon. Members have made various suggestions about how we should give more Members more opportunities to speak, and I am keen to look into those. I shall certainly consider carefully the suggestion that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire made about extending the debate.
  I apologise to hon. Members who had no opportunity to speak. Perhaps I should get my retaliation in first. It will not be possible to reply to all the points made this morning, but I undertake to write to everyone who has raised matters. That will destroy my Easter holidays and those of some officials. I may not have the chance to travel to the Isle of Wight or taste the delights of North Cornwall.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) put his case about the problems at the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital well. I am pleased that the trust there has accepted responsibility. He asked for a wider investigation, and I am pretty confident that he will get one. He spoke strongly of the need for best practice. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is being launched today. I am delighted that we have achieved that and look forward to strong, positive work from it. I give him a hint that a colleague at the Department of Health will make a statement on breast cancer treatment soon and build on my hon. Friend's phrase about early treatment avoiding later pain. An extra £20 million has already been made available for breast cancer services. Another £150 million was announced this month. I hope that, in the next day or two, we will achieve our manifesto promise of early treatment for women with breast cancer. I hope that he and the women in Derbyshire who have been so cruelly treated do not have long to wait for that.
  The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) raised three points. I agree that leylandii is a problem and that we must find a solution. His Bill may be a trigger for action. Colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are considering ways forward and are minded to give guidance and advice, but we may end up with legislation.
  I join the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent and others in celebrating and praising the marvellous, life-saving work of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It must work in partnership with others. I am sure that we can achieve more and that we would, if, as he suggested, we listened more to the voice of children. There is much to be learned from the youth Parliament that he has advocated for many years.
  The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent wondered whether we ask the police to do too much. There are strong arguments on that. The police deal with crime but are also the ultimate emergency service. I know that there have been discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others to define the role of the

  1047
  police and learn from best practice. We could learn much by comparing police forces and authorities more effectively.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made a strong case for the Bridge hospital in his constituency. He knows that the Secretary of State for Health shares his concerns about the failure over many years of so-called community care. For community care to be successful, we must have real, not artificial, support mechanisms in the community. We need to offer people in Braintree, Witham and elsewhere a range of choices from residential accommodation, through focused community care in the sort of sheltered housing that he mentioned, to more diffuse community care and advice. His case can still be heard, and I will ensure that colleagues hear it.
  Like the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), I come from a rural area. I noted the strength of his comments. I know the value of local abattoirs both to local employment and to animal welfare. I am delighted that he was able to meet the responsible Minister and that the Minister listened to him. The hon. Gentleman knows that no decision has yet been made on the level of charges. It is important to get this right and to try to help the pig industry. I know from my own visits that the industry feels that it competes on a far from level playing field. I am glad that we have made some progress on labelling. We need to reconsider the role of the supermarkets in that. It is important to raise standards, as he put it, for the best across Europe. It cannot be right that our producers have more liabilities than their competitors.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke about Kashmir. It would be nice to have the opportunity in the Easter holidays to visit the occupied part of Kashmir. That pleasure has been denied hon. Members for many years. He knows that we must build on the 1972 United Nations Simla agreement, the core of which is his argument that we need to bring people in India and Pakistan together.
  I must progress quickly. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) made many points. I will write to him on them all. He and other hon. Members should note that this year's local government financial settlement has been the best for local authorities, including shire counties, since the new financial regulations came in.
  I know of the concern in Carlisle about Polestar printworks. If my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) feels that there has been what I think he
  1048
  called lying, he must contact the Director General of Fair Trading. My hon. Friend will pleased to know that inquiries are being made.
  The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) asked about the A3. The Highways Agency is the responsible body for the study on behalf of the Government office of the south-east. I will ensure that the team leader is made known to her. The study will last two years. She asked for a meeting on site, and knows that there is an opportunity for a further meeting with the Minister responsible. I hope that she will take up that offer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke strongly and movingly about miners in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and elsewhere. I am delighted that we are going to put real money into their pockets to reward them for what has not been achieved in the past. It is also important to act for coalfield areas such as Wentworth and Hemsworth and use new technology to change culture to ensure that they have new investment and a new future. I am very conscious of the bids for assisted area status for new regional funds from the European Union. I understand that the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry has written to all hon. Members this morning saying that he is happy to consult them.
  I was pleased by what we heard about Wolverhampton. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) has been a strong advocate of city status for Wolverhampton. The area is on the up and up. I am delighted that there is urban forestry there and that the Government intend to build on the guidelines that she mentioned. I hope that we can green Wolverhampton.
  As we move to the Easter recess, perhaps we should reflect that
  "April is the cruellest month … mixing
  Memory and desire".
  We have had plenty of memories and many more desires in the Chamber today. In conclusion, we should perhaps reflect that Easter is a period of rebirth and renewal. Both Kosovo and Northern Ireland have been mentioned in the debate. Let us hope that the pain, cruelty and torture there will end and that, in the coming months, we shall see the signs of rebirth, new life and democratic renewal.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now come to the debate in the name of the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter).

  Secondary Education (Plympton)
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the Minister will know, that, from time to time in our constituencies, a situation of real injustice arises that causes us to get angry. I bring to the House today a situation in my constituency that has certainly made me angry. For the people involved, it is a real injustice. Some people in Plympton in my constituency have been treated very badly indeed. The Minister is a father, as am I, so he will recognise that it is an extremely natural desire of parents to try to do the best for their children. At no time is that desire more demonstrated than when parents are trying to secure the best possible schooling for their children, especially in the secondary school sector. The upshot of what I am about to describe today is that, in September. 30 of my constituents will not be able to send their child to a school of their first or second choice, or even to a school in their community, such is the way in which the system has moved against them.
  The parents are faced with bussing their child—in each case, their beloved 11-year-old son or daughter—to the other side of Plymouth, to which there is not a direct bus route, outside their local community. The children will be educated outwith their peer group of friends. It is a matter of great distress to every family involved. As I shall demonstrate, there is a solution that the local education authority could adopt. It is reasonable and doable, and it would meet the circumstances nicely. At the moment, the LEA is refusing to adopt that solution, for all the wrong reasons. That is why I am here today to urge the Minister to intervene.
  It will be helpful for the Minister and the House if I set out the background to the situation that I have described. I have already referred to Plympton, a suburb of Plymouth at the heart of my constituency. Some 45,000 people live in Plympton. It is a self-contained community. It has many splendid facilities, although of course we could always do with more. Until the 1970s, Plympton was run by its own borough council, and it still enjoys many local traditions. We have civic groups and societies. A stannator is elected once a year in Plympton. It is very much its own community.
  There are two secondary schools in Plympton—Hele's and Ridgeway. Both are excellent schools. For historical reasons, Hele's is slightly more popular most years. Every year, I try to help a handful of Plympton parents to get their child into Hele's school, even though they live outside the catchment area and the child is not in a feeder school for Hele's.
  There has never been a year to date in which a child in a Hele's feeder school has not got a place at Hele's. That is an important piece of information, which I hope that the Minister has taken on board. The wonderful booklet produced by Devon county council, now Plymouth city council, about the education selection process refers to feeder schools feeding into secondary schools as if it happened as night follows day.
  Most years, Ridgeway has a few spare places and parents who appeal for a place at Hele's and lose can do so, safe in the knowledge that they will at least get their child into Ridgeway and have him or her educated in the community of Plympton. It is always a struggle. There are
  1050
  always lots of nerves, tensions and anxieties, but somehow it works. All Plympton families, to my knowledge, have been able to educate their children in Plympton if they wish to do so.
  This year, the pattern seemed to be following its usual course. People were going to open days and discovering what school was best for their child and listening to what the schools had to offer. That was until 20 parents with children in feeder schools for Hele's received letters from the LEA out of the blue telling them that the school did not have a place at Hele's school for their child this year. There was no warning of that. They had attended parents evenings in the usual way and had had discussions with teachers and the head teacher. No one had ever suggested that Hele's feeder school children would not get into Hele's. It was a complete bombshell.
  To make matters worse, parents in north Plymouth, perhaps to their credit, had begun to spot that Ridgeway school did not always fill up straight away with first choices, so several of them plumped for Ridgeway—a very good school—as their first choice. They chose to send their children to school three or four miles away. That was their choice, and I make no argument with that. The reason why they made that choice was that at least one school in north Plymouth is seen by parents—they are, after all, the test—to be failing. That is why they are looking around for schools in other parts of Plymouth. The upshot is that, as a result of the influx of children, Ridgeway school filled up this year with first preferences.
  So those families who naturally chose Hele's because their children were in a feeder school for Hele's, and who did not have the faintest notion that they would not get in—cannot now send their child even to Ridgeway school in Plympton. They are joined by another group of parents who exercised their parental right perfectly reasonably and understandably to make Hele's their first choice, even though their children were in Ridgeway feeder schools. Naturally, this year they did not succeed. So 30 of my constituents cannot have their children educated in Plympton. For them, this is a very serious matter. Many of them have come to see me in my surgery. Many have described the position as the end of the world for them. It is a matter of the gravest concern.
  The parents are faced with educating their children outside the community. There is not even a direct bus route from Plympton to north Plymouth. The children will have to go into the city centre and then out again on another bus. They face that obstacle when all the time there are two first-class secondary schools in their own community. Of course, parents are appealing individually against the decision, but we know that there is movement of only two or three places each year. So two or three of them may well succeed, leaving a class full of children who cannot be educated in their community.
  My case for the Minister is simply that the Hele's feeder school families had no warning that they would not get their first choice. Hele's feeder school children had always got into Hele's. No one warned them that this year was different, although I believe that the LEA knew, or ought to have known, that, this year, the numbers were difficult and the situation was different. Not a word was breathed to the parents who were exercising their proper choice. I argue that parents of Hele's feeder school children did not get a proper first choice. At the very time when they were ticking the box for Hele's, automatically assuming that that was the right thing to do, the door to

  1051
  that school was already closed. As a result of the movement from north Plymouth into Ridgeway school, their second choice was also closed off.
  Those parents have been denied their first and second choice and face the prospect of bussing their children outside the area. That is unacceptable to them, to me and to local councillors. So what activity has taken place since the matter was drawn to my attention several weeks ago? I have had consultations with most of the parents. I have had extensive correspondence with the director of education and officials. I have had discussions with head teachers. I had a meeting last Friday with the local education area officials, the director of education and the chairman of education.
  I believe that there is enormous sympathy within the LEA for the plight of the 30 families. However, the chairman is setting his face against finding the obvious solution. The obvious solution is that the LEA should ask one of the schools in Plympton—probably Ridgeway—to take in an extra class this year. I know that that would take it above its planned admission level, but 30 children from Plympton would then go to a Plympton school. Ridgeway school is undergoing a phase of refurbishment, I am pleased to say, which was agreed several years ago. Four mobile classrooms are being replaced and a new block is being built. It would not be impossible for one of those classrooms to be left while the extra intake of pupils saw their way through the school. The school is prepared to do that and the parents would be delighted, but the LEA refuses to take that step.
  The local education authority has a strategic role in these matters; several months ago, it should have hovered above the situation and seen what was going to happen. At the earliest opportunity, it should have given the parents of the Hele's feeder school children the best information and told them that, this year, exceptionally, their children might not get into Hele's school. That would have allowed the parents to exercise a proper first choice. They could have taken the risk of choosing Hele's school, or they could have chosen Ridgeway so that their children would definitely be educated in Plympton. However, that advice was not forthcoming and, as a result, I argue that the parents did not have a proper choice.
  I asked the LEA to intervene to sort out the matter. At present, the authority refuses to do so; its members acknowledge that there is a problem and that the situation will be improved next year. They will take better soundings from primary schools as to the number of children applying to Hele's. They will give local parents, councillors and myself better advice at an earlier stage. The LEA has acknowledged the needs of local people and that it needs to change its system. Although I welcome that, it will not help the group of 30 parents in Plympton who want their children to be educated in Plympton this year.
  I urge the Minister to leave aside the advice that he might have received from his civil servants—I know what that might have been—and to place himself in the shoes of those 30 parents. He is a father and I ask him to share their mindset and understand their plight. I ask him to acknowledge that there is a solution: he can ask the LEA to direct Ridgeway school to form that additional class for which that group of 30 children is exactly the right number. I ask the Minister to intervene, although I do not know whether he will do so.
  1052
  If the Minister does not intervene, the matter will not end here. It is clear that the LEA either knew, or should have known, more; it could have given better advice. Some parents are talking about maladministration and may well have a legal case against the LEA: that it fell short of its duty to give them the opportunity to make a proper first choice. Some of the parents are talking about taking such action. I very much hope that it will not come to that, but that the Minister will show us today that the Labour Government, who proclaim that they are caring, understand the plight of parents and support parental choice. I hope that he will stand at the Dispatch Box and insist that Ridgeway school takes another group of 30 pupils. If he will not, or cannot, do that, will he say what he thinks that the parents of children at Hele's feeder schools should have done to exercise their choice and, more importantly, what should they do now?
  I hope that the Minister will intervene to solve this problem. It is a crisis for the families involved and it will not go away. It is not good enough to solve the problem next year. Those parents deserve to have their children educated in their local community this year. I hope that the Minister will make that possible.
  12.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on securing the debate. I thank him for writing to me earlier this week setting out the substance of what he would say. I hope that that will result in a constructive exchange. I also thank Mr. Faruqi, the director of education for Plymouth, who has taken the trouble to write to me fully setting out the situation.
  There is common ground between us on many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. There are two secondary schools in Plympton: Hele's and Ridgeway. Places are allocated in accordance with clear criteria set out by the Plymouth education authority: first, children living in the school's designated area with an elder brother or sister who will be attending the school at the time of admission; secondly, children living in the school's designated area who attend a feeder primary school; thirdly, other children living in the school's designated area; fourthly, children living outside the school's designated area with an older brother or sister who will be attending the school at the time of admission; fifthly, children living outside the school's designated area who attend a feeder primary school; and, finally, other children living outside the school's designated area.
  Next year, on the basis of those criteria, Hele's school will admit children in the first five of those six categories—a total of 211 children. Ridgeway will admit children from all six categories—a total of 190. When the hon. Member for South-West Devon referred to the building work at Ridgeway, I gave a wry smile because I think I am correct in saying that, under the Labour Government, £1.1 million of new deal money has been allocated to the school. The work may have been planned many years ago and the desire for improvement might have existed under the previous Government, but the fact is that this Government have allocated the resources to improve the school.
  The allocation of places to those schools was in accordance with the admissions policy of the local education authority, as I understand it. That policy,

  1053
  which I set out, is the subject of annual consultation. I am advised by the LEA that there were no objections from the hon. Gentleman or from anyone else during that period of consultation. It was determined following an agreed consultation process. That policy was publicised in the booklet "Next Step" to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his speech. The booklet sets out the details of the policy and warns parents of the tangible risk that they might not be awarded their first choice. In his speech, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the document implied that children from feeder primary schools would get into the secondary school—I think that he used the phrase "as surely as night follows day"—but I do not think that the document substantiates that. The document makes it clear that there are risks in the process—that is true for all parental choices throughout the country—and that parents must take those matters fully into account before making their decision.
  In accordance with that policy and following advice, places were allocated—211 at Hele's and 190 at Ridgeway—leaving 53 children with a preference for those schools. Thirty of those children, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, live in the Plympton area. I am advised by the LEA that there are two reasons for the over-subscription to those two schools: first, the larger sibling cohort of that age range this year, making this year atypical both by comparison with past years and with expected numbers in future years; secondly, the "local pecking order"—to use the director of education's phrase in his letter to me—of parental preference in Plympton. He tells me that the preference is for Hele's school rather than Ridgeway. I think that the hon. Member for South-West Devon confirmed that in his speech and also in his letter to me. He seemed to suggest that he has advised parents to get their children into Hele's, in so far as he could.
  Mr. Streeter indicated dissent.
  Mr. Clarke: If I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I should be happy for the point to be clarified. In his letter, he stated:
  "Hele is slightly more popular and every year I help a handful of Plympton parents try and get their children into Hele, although they live just outside the catchment area and their child is not in a feeder school for Hele."
  Mr. Streeter: I should like to clarify that point. I have never advised anyone that Hele's is a better school than Ridgeway; they are both excellent schools. However, if a constituent comes to me and says, "I want my child to go to Hele's", I do my best to help.
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for that clarification but, with all respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has slightly missed the point. The pecking order to which the director of education referred is about the preferences, views and attitudes of people towards the two schools and that affects their choice. My interpretation was that the hon. Gentleman was acknowledging that pecking order in the advice that he was giving to the parents in his constituency. Perhaps that interpretation was wrong, but I do not think so.
  It is important that Members of Parliament should advise constituents to study carefully the local documents and the way in which the system operates, because of the
  1054
  problems that the hon. Gentleman so eloquently described. I am glad that he said clearly that Hele's and Ridgeway were good schools because it is clear from what the director of education has written that everyone makes that point widely in the community. However, the two reasons that I have set out—the larger sibling cohort and the pecking order—are the principal reasons for the shortfall in places at the two schools.
  The reason that the hon. Gentleman gave in his speech and in his letter to me—that a "badly failing" secondary school in north Plymouth is the cause of the problems—is simply not correct. In Plymouth, one primary school, but no secondary school, is on special measures; nor are any of the secondary schools in Plymouth judged by the Government to be failing, badly failing, failing schools in need of remedial action, and so on. Moreover, it is important to emphasise that the evidence that I have seen on the numbers admitted to Hele's and Ridgeway schools does not suggest that the principal reason for the excess number of applicants to those two schools is that people are coming from the catchment area of any "failing" schools the hon. Gentleman might be thinking of in the LEA area.
  Therefore, the reason on which the hon. Gentleman rests much of his argument—that there is a badly failing school elsewhere in Plymouth which people are attempting to avoid by applying to Hele's and Ridgeway school—is not valid; that is not the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem was set out by the director of education: the larger sibling cohort and the pecking order. It is important that we all examine our own attitude toward such pecking orders and how they operate.
  Mr. Streeter: With the greatest respect, I think that the Minister has missed the point. He must answer the question, how many children from outside the Plympton area have been accepted into Ridgeway school this year?
  Mr. Clarke: I understand that it is a very small number—certainly not a number remotely near to the 53 children who have not got places at Hele's or Ridgeway school, or the 30 from the hon. Gentleman's constituency who comprise part of that 53.
  Several measures have been suggested. I understand that some of the Plympton parents have suggested that offers to parents who do not come from the Plympton area be withdrawn. The hon. Gentleman did not make that suggestion and I do not suggest that that is his view, but I must make it clear to anyone who does believe that it would be right for the LEA to withdraw offers on the basis of geographical access that the LEA could not, and, in my opinion, should not do so.
  The second suggestion, which the hon. Gentleman did make, is that an extra class should be created, either at Hele's or at Ridgeway school, to meet the increased number of pupils moving up from primary schools. I am advised by the LEA that it has consulted the heads of both Hele's and Ridgeway school on that proposal, but that both heads have made it clear that they do not want the overcrowding or the risk of educational standards falling in their schools that would be consequent on the extra class being established. The LEA has considered the proposal, consulted the schools and, based on the advice received from the schools, come to a view on the practicality of that proposed solution. During that process, both schools made it clear that they support the LEA's admissions policy.

  1055
  I am told that the LEA has offered an interview with one of its officers to every pupil who has not got a place, so that they can discuss the situation in detail. As with all schools in the country, it is obvious that, as time passes, some places will become available as people do not take up places for various reasons. However, I fully acknowledge that only a small number of such places can be expected, so that process cannot meet the scale of the problem that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
  I am sure that people will turn to the appeals process, and I know that the LEA will ensure that everyone has the full facts on which to base their decisions in that process. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not for me or the Government to second-guess the outcome of that process; the appeals committee will make its decisions based on the criteria set down in law. Those are the facts of the case and the history to the present day, and I believe that, with the important exception of the existence or otherwise of the "badly failing" school to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his letter, they are common ground between us.
  As to the options available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department for Education and Employment, and to the hon. Gentleman's specific request, there are two areas in which the Secretary of State potentially has power. The first is the power to direct a school to admit a child. The position is as follows: the Secretary of State can exercise his general powers of intervention under sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996 where he is satisfied that an LEA or governing body has failed to perform a duty imposed on it by, or for the purposes of, the Act, or has acted unreasonably in the performance of such duties.
  Before the Secretary of State could intervene in the case that we are discussing, he would have to be satisfied that Plymouth LEA had acted unreasonably in the strict sense in which that word has been interpreted by the courts. The courts have ruled that, in this context, acting unreasonably means acting in a way in which no other authority having due regard to its legal responsibilities would have acted. In determining fair admissions arrangements, publishing them and then applying them fairly, it cannot, in our view, be said that the LEA has acted unreasonably within that tight definition. Therefore, it is not possible for the Secretary of State to direct a school to admit a child using his powers under sections 496 or 497.
  Secondly, there is the question of providing extra places. In respect of the adequacy of school places, LEAs have a duty under section 14 of the Education Act 1996 to secure the provision of sufficient schools in their area. The Secretary of State could intervene only where it was clear that the LEA was failing in that duty. We sympathise with the Plympton parents and I emphasise that I fully
  1056
  understand their despair and the reasons why the hon. Gentleman has felt this Adjournment debate is necessary. However, we have no evidence that there is any deficit in secondary places in the area as a whole—on the contrary. Nor is there evidence that the LEA has acted unreasonably in not being prepared to add a classroom at Ridgeway school—again, on the contrary; the LEA has consulted on that option, considered it and has not behaved unreasonably in deciding that is not a course of action that can be pursued. I believe that there are no grounds on which the Secretary of State could legally direct the LEA to add extra places in the area. Therefore, I regret that I am unable to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request to act in that respect; there is no legal basis for so doing.
  To reinforce my earlier remarks, let me say that the Government strongly support the development of community schools and the rights of parental choice in education matters. We have immense sympathy for the Plympton parents who are experiencing those problems, but we do not believe that there is any way in which the Secretary of State can intervene with the LEA to change the situation. The matter is one for the LEA, which is taking steps to arrange transport. I am sorry to be unable to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.
  Mr. Streeter: Before the Minister sits down, will he tell me—whether as a Minister, a parent or a human being—what advice he would have given to the parents, especially the Hele feeder school parents, at the time that they made their original selection, given that every child at a Hele primary school has always got into Hele school?
  Mr. Clarke: I hope that I am a parent, a human being and a child—did I say child? I meant to say, "and a Minister". That was a Freudian slip for which, after a short period in office, the hon. Gentleman should excuse me.
  Very hard and difficult choices are being made all the time by parents throughout the country. The advice that I give to everyone facing such decisions, and I offer it to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, is to examine carefully, on the basis of the total information available to them, the options available and the local situation. In the Plympton case, the LEA set out the information clearly, and I believe that parents will have made their choices in the light of the knowledge derived from that. It is necessary at all times to work on the basis of what the situation is, not on the basis of night following day or assumptions based on past experience. It is the duty of all hon. Members and all those who advise parents in that position to advise them to look carefully at the current situation in the round, and not to assume that the way in which matters have operated in the past will continue into the future.

  A500 (Stoke-on-Trent)
  1 pm
  Mr. George Stevenson: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the proposed A500 grade separation scheme on City road and the proposed flyover scheme on Liverpool road. The schemes are extremely important not only for Stoke-on-Trent but for the midlands region and for the nation as a whole.
  I shall touch briefly on the history of the A500. When the section within the city was designed in the early 1970s, the two schemes were part of that road development. The section of the A500 to which I refer was a principal road scheme, not a trunk road scheme. As such, it was, of necessity, more concerned with local rather than regional and national traffic. As the schemes were part of the original proposal, they were obviously needed at that time. However, I am sorry to say that a Labour Transport Minister cut them out of the overall development in an effort to reduce costs.
  What has happened since the early and middle 1970s when the scheme was designed and built? The main change is the construction of the new A50 road in Stoke-on-Trent. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that it is one of the last pieces in the jigsaw of the A50 improvement from the M1 south of Derby to the M6 in Stoke-on-Trent. That is a much-needed development, and the A50 in Stoke-on-Trent is one of the last components of the east-west link. Therefore, the A500 and the A50 form part of a strategic trunk road network that is important not only for the midlands but for the country as a whole—so much so, that the Government recently made the A500 a trunk road.
  The A50, whose construction recently concluded, is being used as an alternative to the M6. As a result, there has been severe additional congestion at those junctions. It is not unusual to see—particularly at peak times—traffic backed up for a mile or so in each direction. Because of their geographical location and the fact that the two roads are now part of the trunk road network, the regional and national trunk road and motorway systems in the area are subject to double corking at two bottlenecks. The benefits of a much-improved local roads infrastructure have been seriously compromised, and the situation will continue to deteriorate.
  I stress to my hon. Friend the importance of the two schemes to public transport. Public transport in Stoke-on-Trent is suffering serious problems. Stoke-on-Trent is damn near 13 miles long—it is a linear city with six town centres—so public transport problems are enormous. The two junctions on the A500 straddle the main arterial bus corridors in the area. Unless we tackle congestion by establishing the schemes as quickly as possible, there will be no prospect in the foreseeable future of achieving public transport improvements consistent with the Government's positive and forward-looking public transport policies. The city's far-reaching public transport plans will also be compromised if the schemes are not implemented.
  There are even wider implications in the public transport sector. Because of the city's topography, the new A50 road is not being used to divert traffic from central areas to give a greater priority to public transport. Motorists are deterred from using the new road outside the town centres by congestion at the two junctions.
  1058
  The development of transport integration has also been affected, including road, rail, freight and canal networks—a central canal system is immediately adjacent to the two junctions. Integration of the west coast main line, freight facilities, canal systems and public transport will not be possible unless the two junctions are improved.
  Perhaps the most serious concern is the effect on local economic development. The A50 and A500 corridor contains significant land development opportunities that must be seized for the benefit of the north Staffordshire area in general and Stoke-on-Trent in particular. The area depended traditionally on a pretty narrow manufacturing base, comprising the pottery and coal industries. I worked in both of those industries, but I would be hard pressed to get a job today. There is not a single coal mine remaining in Staffordshire or in Stoke-on-Trent. The last local colliery at Hem Heath was closed with the direct loss of 1,400 jobs—if we multiply that figure three times, we can ascertain the number of jobs lost indirectly—and at an estimated cost of about £60 million a year to the local economy. The pits have disappeared.
  About 15 years ago, the pottery industry employed 56,000 people. Today, the figure is closer to 20,000. In 1998, the industry lost 2,500 jobs in the area, and the difficulties continue today. I am not making a special plea, as a constituency Member of Parliament, for a particular scheme here or there; these schemes are essential if we are to develop the A500 and A50 corridor using the development land available, if we are to attract the necessary investment to our area, and if we are to produce the integrated transport system that north Staffordshire needs. However, I fear that that essential development will continue to be blocked while the schemes at those two critical junctions remain uncompleted. The attitude of potential investors in the area will not improve while they know that access to the regional and national trunk and motorway network is effectively compromised because of increasing congestion.
  The roads review gave top priority in the west midlands to those two schemes, but the Highways Agency, as it recently reported to the city council, placed the schemes 37th out of the 39 schemes on which it is working. That is simply not acceptable. I have met with officials from the Highways Agency and with my noble Friend Lord Whitty, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). The agency says that it needs statutory instruments to be enacted, which of course it does. I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to use her influence to ensure that that process is begun immediately.
  Nobody can guarantee that there would be no objections to the schemes, but I argue strongly that there is little prospect of objections. First, on land take, I understand that one or two small pieces of land would need to be purchased for the schemes, and one of those is owned by what was British Rail and is now presumably Railtrack. I do not anticipate any problems with the purchase of that land. No houses or properties are involved, so there would be no objections.
  Secondly, on objections from the wider community in the area, we have argued throughout the roads review about the importance of the schemes. We were delighted that they were given top priority in the west midlands and

  1059
  survived that scrutiny. Throughout that review there was massive publicity in the area, and as far I know there have been no objections from the wider community.
  I suspect that the main reason that the Highways Agency is being somewhat dilatory is that the Department of Trade and Industry is urging the city council and the private sector to invest in the area to create jobs, but the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions objects to that development because there is insufficient road capacity in the area. If my information is correct, which I suspect it is, we are between a rock and a hard place, and we could do with a little of that joined-up thinking of which the Government are rightly proud.
  In conclusion, the schemes are vital not only for the area, but for the region and the nation. The arguments in favour of the schemes are fully in line with Government policy on investment, jobs, public transport, the environment and the targeting of resources specifically on schemes, such as these, which give maximum overall benefit. I therefore say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the arguments are overwhelming. It would be reasonable for her to use her good offices to ensure that the procedures necessary for the schemes to go ahead are implemented immediately so that they can be completed without any further undue delay.
  1.14 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: I am grateful to my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) for his kindness in allowing me to make a short speech. I congratulate him on his success in securing the debate.
  As my hon. Friend said, this issue has been a problem for the economy and our city's life ever since Lord Rodgers, then Secretary of State for Transport, secured the development of the A500. On the bridge that links Stoke city centre with the railway station, there is a large plaque to Lord Rodgers, not only giving thanks to him for what he achieved but serving as a reproach because, as my hon. Friend said, the work was never completed and the lack of the two grade separations has caused enormous problems.
  As my hon. Friend also said, that is not just a local problem, but a regional and possibly even a national problem because east-west road communications on our island have always been poor. There is a 100-mile gap between the motorway that links Manchester and Leeds and the M6. The dual carriageway on the A50 that now links the M6 and the M1 completes an east-west link, but traffic comes to a grinding halt when it hits the A500. That affects not only our city but the wider economy, so the matter is of considerable importance.
  We are close to resolving the problem, thanks to the efforts of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and its Ministers, but we are anxious that there should be no further delay. Tenders have gone out in European journals; substantial contractors are seriously interested; the finance exists, and as my hon. Friend said, the only inhibitions about land take relate to two small areas. Above all, the Highways Agency and, in particular, local authorities are enthusiastic about the schemes. All that we need are the statutory procedures to go ahead.
  My hon. Friend the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and I ask the Minister to take an interest in that issue, to recognise its
  1060
  local and national significance and to give us all the assistance that she can. if she does so, there will be another plaque relating to the grade separations, and I hope that her name will be on it and that this time we shall have completed work that has long been needed in our city.
  1.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on obtaining this Adjournment debate and on his generosity in affording my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) the opportunity to contribute.
  This issue is clearly of primary importance not only to a particular area, but to the wider conurbation of north Staffordshire. As my hon. Friends have made abundantly clear, progress on tackling the traffic problems on the A500 in Stoke-on-Trent is central to the debate.
  The A500 is part of the national core motorway and trunk road network. The high percentage of heavy goods vehicles—over 20 per cent.—that use that route is proof of its economic importance. The A500 is equally important in the local context. Not only is it essential for the movement of traffic within the north Staffordshire conurbation, as I have already said, but it provides access to potentially important development sites.
  We are aware of the congestion on the A500, particularly at the Stoke and City road junctions, which hinders the movement of goods and people and hampers regeneration. Congestion at those junctions creates difficulties for bus operators, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South pointed out, and dangers and inconvenience for cyclists and pedestrians.
  I referred to the access that the A500 provides to potentially important economic development. Successful development has already taken place at Festival park, and major new proposals in Etruria valley and Trentham lakes have also succeeded in attracting a variety of public, European and private sector funding. However, to maximise the opportunities created by such developments, there must be an integrated transport system allowing easy access by all forms of transport for pedestrians and cyclists to development sites and within the urban area more generally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South also pointed out.
  When reviewing the roads programme last year, we assessed all 147 schemes from the previous roads programme against the five criteria of the new approach to appraisal: safety, economy, integration, accessibility and the environment. After much detailed scrutiny, 37 schemes were included in the targeted programme of improvements, announced in July 1998. The A500 City road/Stoke road scheme was one of the 37. I hope that that demonstrates to my hon. Friends the high priority that the Government attach to tackling the problems of north Staffordshire. Like them, we see the main benefit of the scheme as being economic regeneration, but it will also allow the more efficient operation of bus services, and safer movements for cyclists and pedestrians.
  It is not the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, that the scheme is not being advanced. The list to which he referred, which was announced by our noble Friend Lord Whitty on

  1061
  10 December 1998, did indeed contain the programme for the next stages of schemes in the targeted programme of improvements, but the position of this particular scheme in that list is no indication of when it will be taken forward. It was not a list of prioritisation.
  Mr. Stevenson: Lord Whitty followed up our meeting with a letter to north Staffordshire, saying that he could not envisage the schemes starting for up to seven years from now. Can my hon. Friend give us some reassurance about the time scale involved?
  Ms Jackson: I was just about to come on to that point. Regrettably, I was not present at the meeting with our noble Friend Lord Whitty, to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am aware that the Government have given a clear commitment that the schemes that have been named will certainly be started within, I understand, seven years. Of course, the money for their completion is also clearly committed.
  As I was about to say, the next statutory stage for the A500 scheme for order publication will be 2000–01. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, the Highways Agency published a notice in the Official Journal on 23 March seeking expressions of interest from consultants to design the scheme. The agency anticipates letting a contract for this consultancy in the summer.
  My hon. Friends will also be pleased to hear that the Highways Agency is looking to introduce an innovative procurement process, which should speed up the processing of the scheme through to completion. The agency is still working on the details of this new approach, but the key feature is that the scheme will be progressed in partnership with the city council. The design consultants will be asked to carry out transportation studies that embrace both trunk road and local road issues. I am delighted that the city council has recently agreed a joint approach to such studies and a contribution of £25,000.
  As I said, the Highways Agency is looking to introduce innovative procurement processes—namely, the Stoke pathfinder project. The key feature of this will be that the consultants will be involved in discussions with not only the Highways Agency but the local authority; the scheme will be developed in partnership with the city council; and design and construction will be taken forward by way of a joint venture. It is certainly my understanding that there is nothing inherent in the system that would accord
  1062
  anything other than priority status to the scheme, which is so important to the area that is represented so well by my hon. Friends.
  Our transport White Paper "A New Deal for Transport" emphasised that we needed to take an integrated approach to transport, another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. Transport should not be, nor can it be, seen in isolation. We must integrate transport policy within and between modes, with the environment, with land use planning and with policies for education, health and wealth creation. In line with this emphasis on integration, the A500 project will embrace wider transportation and regeneration issues.
  As I said, the Highways Agency, its consultants and the eventual successful contractor will work closely together to ensure that trunk road and local transport matters proceed in a complementary fashion. In developing the A500, it will be necessary to assess the impact on local traffic movements, as well as the effect on the trunk road network, and to identify opportunities to improve measures for cyclists, pedestrians and public transport.
  We shall expect Stoke city council and, indeed, neighbouring authorities to reflect this approach in their local transport plans. As my hon. Friends know, local transport plans will require local authorities to set out their strategies for transport over a five-year period, together with long-term targets for improving air quality, road safety, public transport and the reduction of road traffic.
  We will expect local transport plans to be well integrated with local development plans and other key strategies in the area. We will therefore be asking the local authorities to explain in their plans how their proposals complement the A500 scheme in ways that meet local transport plan objectives and contribute to safety, improved accessibility for all, environmental improvement and economic growth.
  My hon. Friends will be aware that we have allocated £1.725 million to the north Staffordshire package for 1999–2000, an increase of more than 100 per cent. on the 1998–99 allocation. That brings to nearly £5 million the allocations for local transport in north Staffordshire since 1995. This allocation will allow the local authorities to progress measures that improve public transport—through, for example, a bus quality partnership, the provision of better information through the city council's exciting advanced transport telematics project, and improvements in safety.
  The allocation, together with the commitment that we have shown to improvements to the A500, demonstrates the importance that we attach to tackling transport problems in north Staffordshire in an integrated fashion, given their importance for the regeneration that is so vital for this part of the country.

  Chelmsford Prison
  1.26 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I am very pleased to have this opportunity to debate a matter of grave concern to me and my constituents—namely, the prison in Chelmsford—relatively soon after the publication of the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons entitled, "Report of an Unannounced Short Inspection 20–22 October 1998".
  The background to the on-going problems in the prison were highlighted in the report by the chief inspector of prisons after a full inspection carried out in September 1996. Two years later, the chief inspector carried out an unannounced further inspection, and the first paragraph of the preface to his subsequent report starkly explains the chronic situation at the prison. He states unequivocally:
  "If I was a member of the staff of HMP Chelmsford, or any part of the Prison Service with any responsibility for the prison, I would not feel very proud about this report. I described what I had to report after our inspection in September 1996 as 'dreadful'. Too much that is dreadful still remains … at least young offenders are now held separately from adults, but their regime leaves a lot to be desired. To be fair to the staff of the prison, many other aspects are beyond their control, such as the turnover of Governors, the speed and numbers of prisoners who pass through local prisons, and the continued absence of capital funding to build an acceptable gatehouse and reception area."
  I hope that the Minister agrees that that is a fairly damning indictment of what has been going on, but I believe that it is important to learn from the mistakes of the past, not simply to dwell on them. We must ensure that positive action is taken to improve the running of the prison and enhance the quality of life of the prisoners and the working environment of the staff.
  The issues are far too serious to be treated in a partisan, party political way. I for one have no intention of seeking to turn the problem into a petty, political party squabble.
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I know that the hon. Gentleman is very aware of the circumstances surrounding the murder of Christopher Edwards in Chelmsford prison and the chain of human error, misjudgment and lack of system which led to that extremely unfortunate and tragic death. Since the inquiry into it, has the hon. Gentleman been able to assess whether there are now systems in place that recognise the mentally ill when they are in Chelmsford prison, and that those people are protected by them? Will he be seeking an assurance from the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), that this matter is being assessed and monitored?
  Mr. Burns: In a way, the hon. Gentleman has anticipated the next paragraph of my speech.
  Although the terrible tragedy to which the hon. Gentleman has referred occurred in a prison in my constituency, it was the family of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, including his parents, who still live in the constituency, who were most directly affected by what happened. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall certainly be referring to a number of the problems that he has highlighted in his intervention. I am sure that the Minister will seek to address some of them when she replies.
  1064
  Probably the most important problem to arise at the prison, which has focused so much attention on it, was the tragic murder of Christopher Edwards by another prisoner on his first night in the prison. The chief inspector's report states in paragraph 2.39:
  "We spent some time on the induction wing and on three separate occasions tested the cell call system."
  I find it inexplicable and unforgivable that the chief inspector should have to report after his unannounced visit:
  "We found it was working but that staff failed to answer any of the cell calls we made."
  What is the point of having a cell call system if nobody will pay the blindest bit of attention to any calls for help from prisoners using that system? That is unforgivable and I trust that the Minister will be able to tell the House what is being done to ensure that the system works physically and in practice by officers responding to calls for help.
  Rightly, the chief inspector states that that failure to respond was
  "totally unacceptable. Staff should respond to the cell call system and check the welfare of their prisoners frequently."
  I am sure that nobody in the House would disagree with that.
  Although the report does not specify the explanation for that crass failure, in the light of the Edwards tragedy I would appreciate it if the Minister could tell me whether any reasons have been given for an abject failure of a critical part of the system.
  As for cleanliness and hygiene, I find it unacceptable that the chief inspector found a cell infested with mites from the pigeon population and pigeon corpses lodged in gutters and poky alleyways. Pigeons are roosting on A wing and, apart from that, it is unacceptable that the ventilation fans have caused the sucking of dust, excreta, feathers and the occasional bird into the wing. Why were no mesh guards placed over the ventilation fans? Those conditions are more reminiscent of Victorian times rather than the approach of the new millennium. That is unforgivable.
  I am concerned that the holding room was dirty at the time of the inspection, with a strong smell of urine. To my mind, it is demeaning for prisoners not to have any proper privacy when using the lavatory by the holding room, though one fully appreciates that security must be an important consideration. However, surely a system could be devised that afforded some human dignity to individuals without a gross lack of privacy.
  In general, the entire process of reception should be greatly improved. As the chief inspector stated in his report:
  "Standards in reception were some of the lowest we have seen in any local prison."
  He described the procedures as "appalling failures". He has categorically stated of those procedure that "this was not acceptable." I could not agree more.
  Equally scathing are the chief inspector's comments on health care services in prison, a matter raised by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) in his intervention. As a former Health Minister, I can fully understand the problems, though I do not necessarily accept that they should be allowed to continue within our prisons. However, I accept that there is always a tension between

  1065
  the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Prison Service over the question of health care within prisons. Sadly, that is not unique to the present Government. It applied also to the previous Government and the Government before that. It boils down to a tension over the funding of health care in prisons. I do not say that to score points. I am stating what is a fact under Governments of all political complexions.
  I urge the Minister and the Prison Service to give careful consideration to the problems and the recommendations and to take positive action to improve things, particularly in respect of mental health care. Everybody knows for a fact that there are many people among the prison population who are suffering from mental health problems who arguably should not be in a conventional prison but rather in a secure unit where proper and dedicated medical treatment could be provided for them.
  In chapter 5 of the report, the chief inspector deals with the management of the prison. On reading the report, one gets a sinking feeling about low morale among staff and an undervaluation of the work that is carried out at the prison. The Minister is probably aware that during the past 10 days prison officers at Chelmsford have passed votes of no confidence in both the governor and the chief inspector of prisons. I am not convinced that that is conducive to improving the situation at the prison, where everyone should be working together rather than in conflict to improve conditions. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us of her views on that situation.
  On 11 March, I asked the Under-Secretary with responsibility for prisons, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), what action the Government plan to take to deal with and rectify the problems and to respond to the recommendations that were set out in the chief inspector's report. The Minister encouragingly replied:
  "Work has already begun to address the issues raised in the report including the installation of a new cell call bell system and the building of a new reception area."
  He added:
  "The Prison Service will, within 30 working days of the date of publication of the report, prepare an action plan addressing all the recommendations made by the Chief Inspector."—[Official Report, 11 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 333.]
  I welcome that, but will the Minister give us an assurance that all the recommendations will be implemented? What checks and monitoring will be carried out to ensure that the recommendations and the action plan are implemented?
  Paragraph 5 of the report states that the prison budget for 1996–97 was £9.02 million. It was reduced to £8.6 million in this financial year and it is to be reduced further by £348,000 in the year 2001–02. Would the Minister be prepared to seek to reverse these reductions in the financing of the prison in the light of the problems that have been highlighted by the chief inspector's report?
  I am sure that the Minister will accept that historically—certainly since I have been a Member representing the Chelmsford area—and as echoed in the report, there has always been overcrowding at Chelmsford prison. I accept that, two or three years ago, two new wings were built inside the perimeter of Chelmsford
  1066
  prison to help to overcome the problem of overcrowding, but it has persisted, which is causing strain and tension within the prison. What can the Minister do to try to overcome that problem and the other problem identified in the report—significant transfers or discharges from the establishment? That practice does so much to undermine attempts to provide long-term training and offending behaviour courses. Such problems inevitably cause disruption to the smooth running of any prison.
  Does the Minister agree that the time has come to alleviate the chronic problem of overcrowding in the main prison in the county, perhaps by building another prison in Essex?
  I will listen extremely carefully to the Minister's reply and I hope that she agrees that the problems at Chelmsford go far beyond excepted practice; that far more should and needs to be done, following the 1996 report; and that the time for talking is over. A properly planned, properly monitored programme must be implemented to ensure that none of us in Chelmsford ever has to read another damning and shaming report from Her Majesty's inspector of prisons, as we had to do in 1996 and as we have had to this month.
  1.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing this debate on a very serious matter. All Members of Parliament should have an interest in what goes on in prisons, but, as Member of Parliament for the constituency containing Chelmsford prison, he has a particular and obvious interest. I welcome the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) to the Chamber.
  The report published on 9 March by the chief inspector of prisons following his inspection of Chelmsford prison last October contained a number of serious criticisms. Personally, I found the report quite shocking and I can well understand the anger and concern of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford about what has been done and what is going to be done. The governor, Alison Gomme, and the area manager responsible for Chelmsford are determined to build on any progress that has been made, and to do so in the coming months and years.
  As with all inspections, the Prison Service will consider all the chief inspector's recommendations carefully and produce an action plan setting out in some detail its responses and how it intends to take them forward. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the action plan will be produced within 30 working days of the publication of the report and, as is the case with all the chief inspector's reports, will be monitored by line management, with reports being made to Ministers at the nine and 15 month stage. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the action plan will be discussed with him.
  I shall deal briefly with some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns and try to answer as many of them as possible. He asked why staff were not answering the cell call bells, which prisoners use in case of emergency. The events leading to the tragic death of Christopher Edwards were a matter of deep regret for the Prison Service and the other agencies concerned with his welfare. The criticisms of the Prison Service in that regard are serious and are being addressed. The inquiry into the death of Christopher

  1067
  Edwards established that the cell call system—which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree—had not been working and that staff would not have been aware if he had called for assistance.
  A new cell call system, which can be centrally monitored for response times, is being installed as part of a major electrical upgrade at Chelmsford. That work should be completed by May, but the governor was herself appalled to hear of the chief inspector's findings and has given clear instructions to staff that they must respond to cell call bells promptly. I have to say that I agree with every word that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford said about the fact that staff did not respond to those calls promptly.
  Prisoners have also been reminded of their responsibility to use the system sensibly. It is being closely monitored by the manager of each wing of the prison and, on a regular basis, by senior management. The panel that inquired into the death of Christopher Edwards is to return to Chelmsford later this year to assess progress and the proper working of the cell call system will be an important part of that follow-up visit.
  The hon. Gentleman raised genuine concerns about the prison's reception area and gatehouse. Although it has not been possible to provide a new gatehouse, work on a new reception facility began in December and will be completed by the summer. In the meantime, the old reception facility has been decorated, but it would be inappropriate to spend any significant funds on it because it will soon be taken out of use.
  The reception and induction wing has been brought under the control of one manager, who is conducting a complete review of the reception and induction process in preparation for the new unit. Many of the prisoners arriving at Chelmsford will be experiencing prison for the first time. The work that has been put in hand should ensure that their reception takes place in decent conditions and that they are given all the information and assistance that they need to settle into the regime of the establishment from the beginning.
  A new health care standard has been developed for reception procedures and that should underpin more effectively the continuity of care between the community and prison. The aim is to ensure that the mental health needs of prisoners are identified at an early stage, that staff are appropriately trained and that all relevant information about those with such needs is shared between the agencies responsible for their care and custody.
  The hon. Gentleman expressed concerns about the provision of health care at Chelmsford and, in particular, the care of mentally ill prisoners. That, as he knows, is a difficult area for prisons throughout the country. Prisoners suffering from mental disorder who require specialist medical treatment or social support should receive it from the health and personal social services. The commencement of criminal proceedings should not prevent or delay access to appropriate care and treatment.
  The Home Office has provided general guidance to those working in the criminal justice system on how those principles might be put into practice through effective inter-agency co-operation. It has also provided funds for a number of mental health assessment schemes at magistrates courts and encourages prison doctors to identify prisoners who are so mentally disordered that
  1068
  they need hospital treatment and to recommend their transfer accordingly. I fully accept that it is not appropriate for those prisoners to be treated in prison, except on a voluntary basis pending imminent transfer.
  The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the large pigeon population, which had created a dangerous and unacceptable situation. A control programme has already been implemented and the pigeon infestation problem has, I am assured, been brought under control. All pigeon corpses have been removed from the gutters and mesh has finally been placed over the inlet for the fans.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the budget reductions imposed on Chelmsford prison. Like all prisons—and, indeed, all parts of the public service—it has been required to make efficiency savings, but, in the next financial year, it will benefit from additional resources from the settlement obtained by the Prison Service under the comprehensive spending review. The hon. Gentleman will be particularly pleased to know that, in addition, other funds have been made available to Chelmsford, which will effectively mean an increase in available resources to slightly under £8.9 million.
  Funding will be provided for additional instructional officers, which will allow for an increase of 20 to 25 per cent. in prisoner places in the workshops. It should also minimise workshop closures resulting from staff sickness and annual leave. Additional funding has also been provided to extend education, which is targeting literacy and numeracy skills.
  Although the hon. Gentleman referred to a rise in the population at Chelmsford, overcrowding is not a significant long-term problem. Indeed, the vast majority of prisoners in Chelmsford are in single cells. A substantial addition was made to the prison through the provision of two new wings, which opened only a few years ago. It has been necessary recently to transfer some prisoners, but that was caused by loss of accommodation due to the electrical upgrading work. There are no plans to build another prison in the West Chelmsford constituency and Chelmsford prison is expected to serve as the local prison for Essex for some time.
  Finally, a word about management and staff. Staff morale at Chelmsford is at low ebb. The establishment has been subject to considerable criticism in recent months, but a largely new management team, with a determination to improve Chelmsford and address the criticisms raised in the chief inspector's report, is in place. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that continuity will help the process.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of changes of governor in recent years. A governor of long standing was replaced on his retirement for a short time by a temporary governor, before the current governor was appointed. The new governor, Alison Gomme, has had a period of absence on maternity leave but, during that period, continuity was ensured by temporarily promoting the deputy governor, rather than posting in a new figure. The current governor returned to duty in December, and she is committed to remaining in post for the foreseeable future and to ensuring that progress is made in tackling the problems identified by the chief inspector. The area manager responsible for Chelmsford has paid close attention to the prison, offering support and guidance where appropriate, and will continue to do so.

  1069
  I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the report was a fairly damning indictment of what has been going on. However, as he said, the way forward is to learn from the mistakes of the past, rather than to dwell on them. We must ensure that positive action is taken to ensure measurable and solid improvements.
  I hope that what I have set out will persuade the hon. Gentleman that the Prison Service takes the criticisms by the chief inspector seriously, and that action has been taken—and will continue to be taken—to resolve the problems of Chelmsford prison. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is pleased that Sir David Ramsbotham's team will be inspecting Chelmsford prison again in a year's time to see what progress has been made.
  1070
  At the end of the introduction to the report, Sir David said:
  "I hope that senior management in the Prison Service will take the action required of it, to ensure that the treatment and conditions of prisoners is brought up to an acceptable standard, and that lessons really are learned from incidents that do no good to the name of the Service in the eyes of the public they have a duty to protect."
  I hope that, this time next year, the hon. Gentleman is in a position to secure a debate following the report to discuss improvements. I hope that all of us together will be able to ensure that prisoners at Chelmsford are served well, and that the people of his constituency feel that the prison is being dealt with properly.
  It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

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

    Post-devolution Responsibilities
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales after devolution. [78059]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): After devolution the Secretary of State for Wales will be a member of the United Kingdom Cabinet, with responsibilities for ensuring that the needs and interests of Wales are taken into account in its decisions.
    Mr. Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his brief reply. I assume it means that he will become a very junior member of a future Labour Cabinet. But will not devolution bring about a massive and unprecedented transfer of power from his office, and will not his accountability to the House, which he stressed in his reply—accountability in regard to agriculture, health, education and other matters—be minimal? How does the right hon. Gentleman feel that he will best be able to represent the interests of the people of Wales in this House, bearing in mind the limited powers that he will have?
    Mr. Michael: I do not see how a representative of a party that has no Welsh representatives in the House can have the cheek to talk about power or representation.
    As usual, the hon. Gentleman has made the wrong assumptions. The Secretary of State will be an important member of the Government, because the United Kingdom Cabinet will retain responsibility for all sorts of legislation affecting the people of Wales, not only in terms of England and Wales but in terms of the United Kingdom as a whole, and in wider terms. The voice of Wales will continue to be heard. What devolution will do is this: it will put decision making for people in Wales into the hands of representatives elected by the people of Wales to sit in the Assembly. I think that that will prove a very effective way of ensuring that the people of Wales are given the best possible public service, and the best possible representation from those whom they elect.
    Sir Raymond Powell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the partial responsibility of MPs, particularly Welsh MPs, for Welsh devolution and the setting up of the Welsh Assembly? I accept that my right hon. Friend's continuing membership of the Cabinet will be very valuable to the Welsh nation, but now that he has announced the date of the Assembly's first sitting, will he be kind enough to invite Welsh MPs who have not been elected to the Assembly to attend that function?
    Mr. Michael: I agree that Welsh MPs, especially members of the Labour Government, have delivered to Wales an Assembly and an opportunity to be properly represented in the future. [Interruption.] I hear grumbles
    1072
    from those sitting on one of the Opposition Benches. I remind them that the Labour party is the real party of Wales.
    I certainly accept that the relationship that develops between the Assembly and Welsh MPs will be extremely important, and that there will need to be appropriate opportunities for members of the two bodies to meet.
    Dr. Liam Fox: In his answer to the main question, the Secretary of State correctly said that he would be Secretary of State in a Union Cabinet and a Union Parliament. Does he agree that, according to that logic, Members of this Parliament should be able to question the Secretary of State on all aspects of policy, not simply reserved matters?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman should surely accept that devolution and the establishment of a Welsh Assembly will strengthen the United Kingdom and the Union, in that appropriate decisions will be made at a Welsh level, and there will be accountability on the part of those elected by the people of Wales. As for what questions are appropriate for the Secretary of State for Wales, I think that legislation and the rules of the House of Commons will determine that.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What is the answer?
    Mr. Michael: It is absolutely clear in the legislation. The hon. Gentleman obviously has not been following events in the House, let alone outside it.
    Dr. Fox: There can be little clarity when the Secretary of State does not know what subjects the Secretary of State should answer questions on; but on a broader matter, does not the fact that hon. Members from all parts of the UK will be required to raise the taxes that the Welsh Assembly will be responsible for administering leave something of a deficit of scrutiny? How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to rectify that and to give Members of the House, who are responsible to all electors for raising taxes, a say in how that money is spent?
    Mr. Michael: Yet again, the hon. Gentleman is fighting old battles. It is typical of the Conservative party's attitude to the election. Its leader in Wales, a former hon. Member, seems to be entering that campaign to try to pull the Assembly down, rather than to make it work for the people of Wales, which should be everyone's responsibility.
    The hon. Gentleman should know that many issues, including much legislation and the Welsh budget, which will be voted on by Parliament are matters for the Secretary of State, on which he will answer to the House.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On that very point, will the Secretary of State confirm that one of his main responsibilities will be to secure adequate resources for the needs of the National Assembly for Wales, not least to deliver on items such as the pledge card promises that were produced in Llandudno on health and education? Will he confirm that those pledge card promises are old promises that have already been made in London?

    1073
    Will the Secretary of State confirm that, whoever is governing in the National Assembly in Cardiff, that money will be available—that it will be available not just to the Labour party, but for all the people of Wales, to be administered by the Assembly?
    Mr. Michael: The pledges that have been made by the Labour party show what will be delivered by the Labour party. It is interesting to note what the right hon. Gentleman and his party stand for: separatism and dividing the United Kingdom, rather than strengthening the Union as well as the voice of the people of Wales. In terms of achieving the finances that are necessary for the Assembly and for Wales, I have full confidence in the present Secretary of State for Wales and in any future Labour Secretary of State for Wales.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: I do not want to be mischievous, but I wonder whether, when he looks at his responsibilities, the Secretary of State will also look at the responsibilities of Members of Parliament? In view of what will be a big job-sharing exercise and an obvious diminution in our responsibilities, will he consider whether our salaries should be lowered?
    Mr. Michael: I note that my hon. Friend may need to declare a lack of personal interest in the subject. I am sure that he does not intend to be mischievous, but I can assure him that the partnership between Members of Parliament and Members of the Assembly will be important. It is important that both Members of the Assembly and Members of Parliament work very hard to ensure that it is a positive and creative relationship. I know that many Members of Parliament, including some who were not necessarily enthusiasts for an Assembly, have already started to build such a relationship with those in their constituencies who hope to represent the same party in the Assembly.

    Job Losses
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: If he will make a statement about recent job losses in Wales. [78060]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Although recent job losses in manufacturing in Wales are extremely regrettable, overall the Welsh economy continues to grow, and last year Wales had a net gain of 21,000 jobs.
    Miss Kirkbride: Has there not been a turnaround in the number of jobs being created and lost in Wales? Is not part of the problem the fact that the Government have introduced the minimum wage and adopted the working time regulations? This afternoon, the House will hear more about regulations to be imposed in relation to family crisis leave and parental leave. Every employer and federation agrees that all those things add costs, burdens and regulations to business. They are unwelcome and will add to the problem in the Principality of a lack of employment and job opportunities.
    Mr. Hain: I cannot blame the hon. Lady for being out of touch with business opinion in Wales, but she is. Business in Wales enthusiastically welcomes the Government's policies and is working in partnership with us to support our initiatives.
    1074
    I am pleased to be able to announce three new schemes to assist small businesses in Wales, many of which were decimated by Tory Governments. The first is a £2 million Welsh Development Agency small loans fund. The second is a £2 million British steel industry small equity packages and loans fund. The third is a £6 million WDA and National Westminster bank venture capital fund to finance innovative developments that focus on new technology. We are supporting businesses in Wales—just as the Tories destroyed their prospects.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the 36 months to February, unemployment in Llanelli fell by 25 per cent., and by about the same amount in neighbouring constituencies? However, in the 12 months to February, the drop has been minuscule in Llanelli, while in surrounding constituencies, including the Minister's own, there has been an increase. Does this not show that manufacturing industry is beginning to feel the pressure of recession and contraction? Will the Welsh Office make urgent representations to the Bank of England to seek a further substantial reduction in interest rates to reduce the pressure?
    Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend is correct. However, unemployment under the Labour Government has fallen to the lowest levels in living memory. At least a quarter of the world is in recession and world growth has halved. Our manufacturers are having a difficult time, but the Government are supporting them in every way possible. There was a net growth of 21,000 jobs last year, despite the fact that most of the world is in a difficult economic situation.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: I am sure that the Minister is as concerned as I am by the loss of manufacturing jobs. On his recent visit to the United States of America, was the Secretary of State able to persuade a manufacturing investor to come on to the site at Ystradgynlais, where, in April, 750 people will lose their jobs at the largest manufacturing plant in my constituency? Would the Minister visit the plant with me to give some hope to employees who are reaching the end of their tether?
    Mr. Hain: I have visited the plant recently, and I have been in close contact with the stewards. I have also been responsible for setting up a task force that is carrying through a nine-point action plan to provide alternative job and training opportunities. The Lucas workers suffered a grievous blow when their jobs were withdrawn at very short notice, but we are working to increase investment in the Swansea valley. We were able to announce 500 more high-tech, high quality jobs at the bottom of the valley last year. We have raised the future of the site with the owners, TRW and Lucas, in conversations in America and here.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am that unemployment in Wales has at last been discovered by the Conservatives? Does he, like me, regret the fact that it was not discovered 20 years earlier? Given the prospect of job losses in west Wales, can the Minister assure us that the resources needed in Wales will be made available so that we may

    1075
    exploit the advantages of the welcome introduction of objective 1 status, on which the Welsh Office is to be congratulated?
    Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is selective amnesia on the Tory Benches about the devastating impact of Tory policies on jobs and businesses in Wales. We are driving forward new job opportunities in the Swansea area. Only yesterday, the Secretary of State announced an initiative supporting Visteon in safeguarding and protecting hundreds of jobs in the area. We are also working with the Swansea Bay partnership and others to assist south-west Wales. I am confident that Wales will be able to draw down the funds that it needs under objective 1 status, which has been admirably won by the leadership of the Labour Government.

    Genetically Modified Crops
    Mr. Norman Baker: What mechanisms exist to communicate representations made to his Department concerning genetically modified crops to other Departments. [78061]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): The Welsh Office maintains regular contact with other Departments that have an interest in genetically modified crops. Any issues arising from representations made on the subject are communicated to and discussed with those Departments as appropriate.
    Mr. Baker: Given that the Welsh Assembly will have responsibility for agricultural matters, will the Minister clarify for the House what responsibility the Welsh Assembly will have for licensing and approving GM crops in trial sites and elsewhere? Will the Welsh Assembly have some flexibility in dealing with the matter? If so, will the Minister guarantee that the same environmental safeguards as currently apply across the UK, or even stronger ones, will apply in Wales under the Welsh Assembly?
    Mr. Jones: The use of genetically modified techniques is a fast-moving science with huge potential benefits. There may be risks—which of course need careful assessment—but the Government's priority is to safeguard public health and the environment. Ensuring that the risks are properly assessed will be a United Kingdom function rather than a Welsh Assembly function.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the very serious concern in my constituency about two applications—by AgrEvo UK and Pioneer Genetique SARL, in collaboration with Monsanto—to release genetically modified organisms, in relation to oilseed rape, in Monmouthshire? May I assure him that there is great concern that adequate safeguards have not been applied, and about the effect that such a release might have on biodiversity? May I assure him also that I have formally objected to the applications to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales?
    Mr. Jones: I can well understand that there are concerns, and that my hon. Friend shares them. The Prime Minister
    1076
    has established a ministerial group to oversee developments on the subject. As a first step, the group has commissioned a thorough examination of our regulatory framework. The group will report soon.
    I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that, if we are to assess the environmental impact of genetically modified crops—which are likely to become an increasingly common sight, if not in the United Kingdom, then in other countries—we have to undertake properly monitored and independently assessed field trials, to ensure that we get the best scientific knowledge.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Simon Hughes: If he will list the band D council tax rate for each local authority for 1999–2000 and the percentage increase in each case for (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1997–98. [78062]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): As the information requested is too extensive for an oral answer, I have arranged for the hon. Gentleman to be sent the details in tabular form, and for a copy to be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Hughes: First, will the Minister tell the House why the council tax figures for Wales were given to the press before they were given to Parliament? Will he then explain why council tax increases—which, in December, Ministers predicted would average 7.5 per cent.—turned out to be about 8.5 per cent.? Will he also explain why, on average, the increases are higher in Wales than in England? Will he also explain why—for the second year in a row under the Labour Government—the increases are more than twice the rate of inflation for everyone except those who are on council tax benefit? Whom should Labour voters blame—local councils, or Labour Ministers and the Labour Westminster Government?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman's carping is very familiar to the House. The reality is that we have seen an extremely good settlement for local government in Wales—the best for very many years. Central Government support for local government is 4.8 per cent., which is well above the rate of inflation. Government support has also allowed a record increase in service spending—15 per cent. over 3 years, and a £145 million increase in the next year alone. That is more money for schools, more money for social services—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear this—it will adversely affect the Liberal Democrats' likelihood of winning any elections—but additional resources of £300 per person in Wales over the next three years come as very good news indeed.
    Tax incre0ases in Wales are lower than they were last year. Moreover, tax levels in Wales are far lower than they are in England, although service spending in Wales is significantly higher. It is a good deal for Welsh local council tax payers.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Would the Minister care to comment on the formula which determines how much central Government money goes to local authorities? That formula discriminates against the poorest communities in Wales and puts authorities such

    1077
    as mine in Blaenau Gwent at a massive disadvantage. I accept that we inherited the formula from the previous Government, but will the Minister give a commitment to look at it again so that the poorest communities get the biggest amount of money from central Government?
    Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. The Secretary of State and I met local government leaders, including those from my hon. Friend's constituency, in the past few days. Although we have agreed a formula with Welsh local government, it may well be unfair particularly towards areas such as the one represented by my hon. Friend. We agree that we need to work towards a new formula which better reflects real spending needs. Moving towards that formula is likely to take more than one year and the Secretary of State has, therefore, indicated that we need to address the anomalies to which my hon. Friend referred. Hopefully we will be able to do that in the next financial year.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mk): Is this not just another example of Labour pandering to the rich and clobbering the poor? Does the Minister not realise that the tax cuts being given to the richest in society are being paid for by the poor of Blaenau Gwent and Holyhead, in my constituency? Why does not the Minister ensure that there is more money from central Government for local authorities instead of making the poor local taxpayers pay for tax cuts for the rich?
    Mr. Jones: The formula is agreed by local government across Wales, including the hon. Gentleman's area. We have agreed that we need to reform the formula. The hon. Gentleman must accept that money does not grow on trees. If we take money from one pot for use elsewhere, that money has to be denied to existing spending priorities such as health.
    Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I can take points of order only after questions and statements.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister has just said that this is a good settlement for Wales. When will he join the real world? In Blaenau Gwent the council tax increase will be over 13 per cent., in Anglesey it will be 11.9 per cent., in Merthyr it will be 11.4 per cent., in Powys it will be 10.2 per cent., in Rhondda it will be 12.2 per cent. and in Wrexham it will be over 10 per cent—all this at a time when people are facing a standstill in their pay, or increases of 2 to 3 per cent.
    One group who may be able to pay the council tax increases this year will be Members of the Welsh Assembly. I understand that an announcement is being made at 3.30 pm today—at the end of questions—about the rate at which Members of the Welsh Assembly will be paid. Why was that statement not made this morning so that hon. Members could have questioned the Minister about it? We now have to wait a whole month before we can scrutinise the pay of Members of the Welsh Assembly.
    Mr. Jones: This is a good settlement for Wales for the reasons I have given. It allows local government to spend
    1078
    more money on schools and social services. It is considerably more money than was ever allowed by the Government supported by the hon. Gentleman.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What new proposals he has to improve the competitive position of the Welsh steel industry. [78063]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): With the world collapse in the demand for steel the Government's commitment to the economic stability that our policies have already achieved is even more important in improving the competitiveness of the Welsh steel industry.
    Mr. Flynn: The recent record of the Welsh steel industry is one of the great unsung success stories of industry. More steel is being produced in Wales than ever before. There is a 25 per cent. increase in the sales of Welsh steel and nearly half of all the steel being produced in the United Kingdom is made in Wales. In spite of that, Welsh steel makers are facing hostile and unfair competition which has brought about the regrettable job losses today in Newport and west Wales. Will the Minister redouble his efforts to guarantee that the Welsh steel industry has not merely a proud, successful past but a brilliant future?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, I can reassure my hon. Friend that we will do exactly that. We are working closely with British Steel to provide technology and training support and with the European Commission to tackle discriminatory dumping measures and illegal use of state aids. The British steel industry—especially the industry in Wales—is an example to the world and we want to work with it to protect its future and safeguard the jobs in it, despite a massive reduction in the demand for steel world wide.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What representations is the Welsh Office making to the Treasury to ensure that the euro does not continue to be devalued and that the Bank of England sets the interest rates that are right for British industry?
    Mr. Hain: We have the lowest long-term interest rates for 40 years and mortgage rates are the lowest for 33 years. Compare that with the Tory Government's period of office, when interest rates were at record levels, the steel industry was badly hit and other businesses in Wales and throughout Britain were devastated.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I tell my hon. Friend that Shotton steelworks is to lose 150 jobs even though it is competitive, productive, breaks all records and has a loyal work force? Can I persuade him to tell the arrogant, faceless bureaucrats of Brussels that the assisted area status that we have should not be lost? Will he remind them that in 1980 we lost 8,000 steel jobs overnight and that we have yet to rebuild our economy, so we need assisted area status to the end of the century and beyond?
    Mr. Hain: I am aware that the steel industry in Shotton is grateful for my hon. Friend's continued hard work on

    1079
    its behalf. We are working closely with the industry to ensure that it has a positive future, and to ensure that the measures about which he complained are tackled as soon as possible.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: Is the Minister aware that the Treasury proposal for an energy tax would hit the British steel industry and British Steel in particular extraordinarily hard? Recent figures suggest that the Government propose a discount of £5 million for a tax that will cost British Steel £200 million. In the light of all that has been said about the extraordinarily difficult competitive position of British Steel, will the Minister guarantee that the energy tax will not be imposed on it in that discriminatory way?
    Mr. Hain: We will certainly not impose any tax, let alone an energy tax, in a discriminatory way. I am aware of the problems that high energy users, such as steel, face. For that reason, the Deputy Prime Minister is meeting to consider and consult on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will also be consulting on it. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order: it is far too noisy.

    Concessionary Transport
    Ann Clwyd: How many representations he has received on concessionary transport fares for pensioners in Wales in the last year. [78064]
    Mr. Don Touhig: How many representations he has received on concessionary transport fares for pensioners in Wales. [78065]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The Government's commitment to half bus fares for Welsh pensioners this year and free fares within two to three years has been widely welcomed throughout Wales. Following the transfer of functions, the National Assembly will be able to pursue that policy.
    Ann Clwyd: It is very good news for the pensioners of Wales that the Welsh Assembly, under Labour control, will introduce free concessions for travel within two to three years. May I remind my right hon. Friend that many pensioners in Labour-controlled authorities throughout Wales already enjoy half fare concessions, including those in my local authority of Rhondda Cynon Taff? What pensioners want in addition is an improvement in the quality and frequency of bus services throughout Wales. What can he do to assist those vital social bus services for the people and pensioners of Wales?
    Mr. Michael: I am pleased to pay tribute to Welsh local government, particularly to the Labour authorities that push such policies forward, and to the co-operation that we have received from the Welsh Local Government Association. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that I have provided new funding for a massive increase in the provision of socially necessary bus services: £5 million in 1999–2000, securing 16 million bus kilometres, or in real money, 10 million bus miles. I am grateful in particular
    1080
    to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), for the way in which he has pushed the policy forward.
    Mr. Touhig: May I tell my right hon. Friend that the 12,000 pensioners in my constituency will welcome half-fare travel? On top of the cut in VAT on fuel, the £100 winter fuel allowance and the ending of eye test charges for pensioners, it shows that the Government are delivering for pensioners. Will he ensure that the scheme will be simple, with the minimum of form filling for pensioners, local authorities and transport operators?
    Mr. Michael: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The scheme needs to be simple and straightforward. As he said, it is another example of Labour delivering in office.

    The Prime Minister was asked—

    Engagements
    Mr. Howard Flight: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 31 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I was in Belfast together with the Taoiseach, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and leaders of all the parties in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Flight: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the Chancellor's written reply about who leaked the Social Security Committee draft report meets the requirements for openness in the code of conduct for Ministers?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I am satisfied.
    Mr. Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend knows of the massive pressure on my constituents and the whole of the west midlands from continuing uncertainty about BMW's investment plans for the Longbridge plant. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spoke today to Professor Milberg, the chairman and chief executive of BMW. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress of those discussions?
    The Prime Minister: I have received the following information. I am pleased to say that the Secretary of State and Professor Milberg have reached agreement on the level of assistance to be provided. This will now be put to BMW's management and supervisory boards for their consideration. I am informed that their next meeting will be in the week beginning 12 April. I hope that hon. Members will understand that, at this stage, I cannot say more about the details, but I am delighted that we can now look forward to BMW making Longbridge a world-class plant for the next century, and one that will achieve the highest standards of productivity and working practices.
    Mr. William Hague: May I first say to the Prime Minister that, across the House, we all

    1081
    hope that the negotiations from which he has returned in Northern Ireland are successful, and that all parts of the Belfast agreement of last year will be implemented?
    Secondly, may I ask him a question about Kosovo of which I have given him notice? Everyone in the House will be moved and angered by the spectacle of thousands of helpless people driven from Kosovo. We support the announcements on aid that the Government have already made. Does he agree that we need to go further, and that, with so many appeals for donations in progress, the Government should at least match, pound for pound, the money given in all voluntary donations to the charities and aid agencies concerned?
    The Prime Minister: I have literally just received the letter that the right hon. Gentleman sent me. I will certainly consider the proposal that he makes. I would point out, however, that we have already given several million pounds in help for refugees and we have just committed an additional £10 million; but, of course, I will consider his request.
    Mr. Hague: I recognise that the Government have already made announcements about this matter and that the Secretary of State for International Development is to make a further statement in half an hour's time. Does he agree that it is unlikely that the help offered by the Government, or by any Government so far, anywhere in the world, will be adequate to meet the problem, and that this proposal for matching funds would have the advantage of encouraging many additional donations and channelling more money directly through the aid agencies and charities concerned? Will he assure me that he will deal with it as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: I will, but I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we have already made a massive commitment to aid for refugees. Indeed, we have been supporting the Kosovar refugees since early 1998. It is worth pointing out that there were 330,000 refugees before the NATO campaign ever began. There are, of course, more now. We are putting an extra £10 million into the latest relief effort. The European Commission has also provided additional money for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. There is an additional contribution from Germany, and more from the United States. Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, Italy and Japan have all given money. We are sending more money and supplies out today to help the refugees and we shall carry on doing everything that we possibly can.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the distaste, embarrassment and resentment of the people of Scotland at the disavowal of the Scottish National party leader of the United Kingdom involvement in the defence of the people of Kosovo and of the opposition to the unacceptable face of Balkan nationalism?
    The Prime Minister: The claim made by the SNP that economic sanctions would work in this situation is palpably ridiculous. No one believes that to be the case. The only alternatives are to take the action that we are taking or to leave these poor defenceless Kosovar
    1082
    Albanian people to the mercy of the Serb killing machine. I find it appalling that the SNP should have chosen the latter course.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: The Prime Minister knows that he and our forces have the support of Liberal Democrats for the action in which NATO is currently engaged. Does he agree that the test of the effectiveness of the action will be whether the Kosovar people are able to return to their homes in safety in due course?
    The Prime Minister: Yes; that is precisely right. That is why it is important that we have an independent force on the ground that can help them to do that.
    Mr. Beith: Whether or not Milosevic signs up to an agreement, can the Prime Minister imagine the hundreds of thousands of frightened and dispossessed people going back to their homes unless they know and are confident that there are troops to protect them? Is not the alternative to that instability and long-term refugee camps in several neighbouring countries?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, and that is why it is particularly important that we carry on the action now and intensify it. I believe that the ploy yesterday by Mr. Milosevic does not impress this country and will not impress other countries. What we have to do is intensify the attacks, and that is what is happening now, today. The attacks that have been carried out today on the actual troops repressing the people in Kosovo will inflict real damage on Milosevic's tanks, artillery and the thugs carrying out the killing and repression in Kosovo. They will keep on until he agrees to come back into line with the agreements that he made last October, ensures that people are treated in a civilised way and agrees the terms that NATO has set.
    Ms Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Northampton and elsewhere in the midlands will have bitter memories this Easter because it is exactly a year since the floods that devastated about 4,000 homes and killed five people? Although I recognise the enormous strides made in flood defences and warnings in the past year under the leadership of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what message does my right hon. Friend have for the people of Northampton and elsewhere who, while they want to look forward, will find that their minds are drawn back to the suffering in the past year?
    The Prime Minister: A lot of steps have been taken in the past year or so to cope with the problems of floods. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister informs me that further discussions are to take place. We shall certainly keep my hon. Friend well informed of them.
    Mr. Eric Forth: How does the Prime Minister reconcile bombing murderers in Kosovo with releasing murderers in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: We are engaged in Northern Ireland in trying to implement the Good Friday peace agreement. I would have hoped that we had the wishes of

    1083
    the whole House behind us on that. The idea that we can compare sitting down and trying to get the Good Friday agreement implemented with the killing of innocent civilians in Kosovo could come only from today's right-wing Conservative party.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the favourite newspaper of the Leader of the Opposition—the current issue of the Rotherham and South Yorkshire Advertiser? Its front page contains the statement "Good News Week" as 4,000 jobs are created in Rotherham and a Japanese company relocates there. Is it not a fact that this occurred during our watch, and that the message from the people of Rotherham is that a return not merely to the boom-and-bust years that destroyed their jobs, but to any form of Conservative control—council, regional or national—would be a disaster?
    The Prime Minister: I regret to say that I have not yet read the Rotherham and South Yorkshire Advertiser, but I shall correct that omission later today. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I am delighted that he mentioned boom and bust before I did. Our policies have given us the lowest interest rates for more than 30 years and have sorted out the public finances that are a contrast to the years of Conservative decline.
    Mr. Phil Willis: The Prime Minister is aware that the Liberal Democrats have welcomed and supported the Government's emphasis on further education during the past two years. That was long overdue and is much deserved. Given that the Government are putting £2,300 into every full-time training place for the new deal, how does the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that only two thirds of that money actually arrives at the college gates and that £700 is wasted on a paper chase of contracting? Does he agree that that is a scandal and that something must be done to get the £78 million back into the colleges; and what is he going to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: I gather that, on the whole, that was a supportive question. First, I will say that, in relation to the new deal money, I seem to remember that it was the Labour party that wanted the windfall tax on the utilities in order to fund the new deal, but other parties did not.
    In relation to the money that is going in, I should like to look into the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given before I accept them simply because he has stated them—[Interruption.]—if he does not mind. I hope that he will agree that, of course, we want to reduce the administration as much as possible, but one of the advantages of the new deal is that it gives real quality advice to young people before they pick up whatever option is available to them. When I talk to young people about the new deal, I notice that all the things that people used to say about skivvy schemes, youth training and so on are not said about the new deal. I do not know how much of the £700 is geared to that, but I shall look into what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend convey the thanks of my constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan and of all the people of Wales
    1084
    to all those who worked extremely hard to secure a massive £1.8 billion in structural funds for Wales at last week's European Council summit in Berlin? Is that not the clearest illustration that the Government's policy of constructive engagement with Europe is delivering for real people—not only in Wales, but throughout the UK? Will he contrast that with the behaviour of Opposition Members, who continue to squabble with each other over Europe, when they are not taking tea with military dictators?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot think what my hon. Friend is referring to.
    The objective 1 status for west Wales and the valleys is a very good deal for Wales, but the most important thing about it is that it will secure funding for the next seven years and will help regeneration in the area. We achieved the best deal that this country has had for years and years at such an economic summit—not by the idle posturing that characterised the diplomacy of the Conservative party, but by serious, constructive engagement resulting in success.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the position in Kosovo? Does he agree that President Milosevic has now succeeded in expelling much—probably most—of the indigenous population from Kosovo? Will he tell the House whether it is the policy of NATO to compel President Milosevic to reverse that position and, if so, how?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course it is our policy to do so, and that is precisely the purpose of the attacks that are being made on him.
    As for the displacement of people, again I point out that that displacement was happening long before the NATO attacks ever began. It is the most muddle-headed type of thinking imaginable, when innocent people have been driven from their homes, somehow to put the blame on the one group of people trying to defend them.
    Let me read to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what some of the people from Kosovo have said. Speaking only a short time ago, Mr. Havoli, in answer to the question, "Do people in Kosovo support the NATO action?" replied, "They absolutely do." Professor Isa Ximberi said:
    "Everyone we have managed to be in touch with in Kosovo said their only hope was now NATO. They would be devastated if NATO now stopped without finishing the job."
    Finishing the job is what we intend to do.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: At this grave time, the tragedies of world war two and the absolute horror of the holocaust teach us the terrible cost of appeasing tyranny and genocide. Does my right hon. Friend share my sadness that that lesson does not appear to have been learned by the leader of the Scottish National party?
    The Prime Minister: I have already said why I think those remarks were shameless. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that people realise that, if we were not carrying out the NATO air strikes, the campaign that Milosevic had prepared would go unchecked.

    1085
    Forty thousand troops had been built up in the area over the past few months, along with 300 tanks. They were there not for a picnic, but to begin the process of ethnic cleansing, and we now know that that process began days before the NATO attacks began. The only right course for us to take is to learn the lessons of the past and not appease this dictator, but to carry on until we have brought about the proper terms of settlement.
    Mr. William Hague: Next Tuesday, the savings habits of millions of people will be affected by the abolition of personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts and their replacement by a scheme that is more complicated, more costly and more highly taxed. Is the Prime Minister surprised that savings in this country are now falling?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that about individual savings accounts. They are a far simpler scheme, not least because they do not require people to hold their money for so long, which is why they have been so widely welcomed by so many people.
    Mr. Hague: Three things are clear. First, the Inland Revenue says that ISAs will be more costly for savers than the current schemes. Secondly, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have halved the most that can be saved tax free, which is, of course, a disincentive to save. Thirdly, the supermarket savings revolution that they were meant to be launching is already a flop, with Sainsbury pulling out of it—obviously "Good savings cost more at Sainsbury's" was not going to be a very attractive slogan. Should not the Government now give a last-minute reprieve to PEPs and TESSAs, before more is done to damage Britain's savings culture?
    The Prime Minister: No. A host of organisations is offering ISAs. First, they are easier—money can be put in and taken out more easily than used to be possible with TESSAs and PEPs. Secondly, they will allow millions of people who were not able to save under the old PEPs and TESSAs regime to save for the first time. Thirdly, if I may say so, the savings ratio is actually increasing next year.
    Mr. Hague: Well, it is 7.4 per cent. in the Treasury's current document, and it was 10.5 per cent. when the Government came to power, so it would need to increase a great deal to make up for that. The last time I asked the Prime Minister about this issue, he talked about 6 million new savers in answer to any question—I notice that we do not hear about 6 million new savers any more. Is not the truth that the Government have imposed a swingeing tax on pension funds, which is a broken promise, and that they have now abolished highly successful savings vehicles, which is a broken promise? Does the Prime Minister not understand that that damages future investment in our economy and the independence of families who want to save, and that that is a grievous mistake?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with that. The right hon. Gentleman gives figures on the savings rate, but I shall tell the House the lowest savings rate in this country over the past 20 years. Under the Conservative Government, in the 1980s, the rate fell to 3 per cent—that
    1086
    was the position under the Conservatives. Many more people will be able to save with ISAs. The single most important thing for people in this country—which is as a result of the Government's sorting out the doubled national debt and the £28 billion borrowing requirement—is that interest rates are at their lowest level for more than 30 years. When did the Tory Government ever achieve that?
    Ms Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today we should celebrate the ending of the two-tier system in the health service, the ending of GP fundholding and a return to the fundamental principle of the NHS: equal access for all? Does my right hon. Friend agree also that the problem of recruiting GPs to disadvantaged areas in Wales could be addressed by proceeding with the salaried service for doctors, which would be particularly attractive to women?
    The Prime Minister: The salaried doctors scheme allows a doctor who cannot or does not wish to become a GP principal to work in general practice in a more flexible manner. My hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue for some time, and she will understand that we have made a big difference by abolishing the system whereby doctor competed against doctor and hospital competed against hospital. We have returned the national health service to the principles on which it was based.
    We now know the Conservatives' plan for the national health service. They would attempt to solve health service problems by forcing more and more people to opt for private medicine. We believe that the answer to health service problems is the £21 billion that we are allocating to the NHS—which the Conservatives oppose.
    Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Prime Minister recall saying at the time of the general election that the Tory cuts in mortgage interest tax relief were a tax increase? However, in the Budget, the Chancellor called his cuts in mortgage interest tax relief a spending cut. Which is correct?
    The Prime Minister: The basis on which we have calculated mortgage interest tax relief is precisely the same as under the previous Government. However, I shall be fair to the hon. Gentleman. If we were to include mortgage interest relief at source as a tax change, we would also have to count the increase in child benefit, the winter fuel allowance and the minimum income guarantee for pensioners as tax changes as well; if we did that, counting all those things not as spending, but as tax, the hon. Gentleman would be quite right: it would add up to not a £4 billion Budget giveaway, but a £6 billion Budget giveaway.
    Mr. Russell Brown: Tomorrow sees the introduction of the national minimum wage in this country. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the employer in my area who told me that he opposes the national minimum wage? That employer employs three young people whom he pays £65 to £70 a week and, at this time of year, expects to work 60 hours a week. Does my right hon. Friend share my dismay at

    1087
    the attitude of Opposition parties who, when my hon. Friends and I sat through the night in Committee, did nothing to help the poorest paid in this country?
    The Prime Minister: The minimum wage will give 2 million people in this country a pay rise and put a floor beneath their wages. We must also take into account the working families tax credit, which makes work pay and helps low-income families. It illustrates perfectly the difference between the political parties. The Conservative party proposes abolishing the working families tax credit, which would create a massive tax rise for low-income families, and abolishing the minimum wage. That would lead to the low-wage economy that the Conservatives think is the future of Britain, and we know is not.
    Mr. Graham Brady: I wonder whether the Prime Minister remembers promising that his Government would maintain high standards in public life. Is he ashamed of the actions of his Secretary of State for Health, who, since 1 May 1997, has appointed to health trusts and authorities no fewer than 228 Labour councillors? Is he aware that every year, under his Government, the national health service is putting £1.4 million into the pockets of Labour councillors, and will he apologise for that?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly will not apologise for having changed the system. Everyone knows what used to happen under the Tory Government. An independent system now appoints people. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want to support the vast sum of additional spending going into his constituency under this Government which it was denied under the previous Conservative Government.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his work in ensuring the retention of objective 1 European structural funds for Merseyside to support the continued regeneration of the Merseyside economy. Will he assure me that he will do his best to ensure that Merseyside receives the full additional benefit of those funds? Does he welcome the start of the work of the North West regional development agency? Will he make efforts to ensure that those European structural funds are disbursed with the agency, so that maximum strategic use is made of the moneys available for investment in Merseyside's economy?
    The Prime Minister: I should point out that we got the biggest extension of objective 1 status of any country in the European Union. The continuance of that status for Merseyside is good news. The regional development agencies will start work tomorrow, and the objective 1 status will obviously play an important part in enabling the North West RDA to carry out its remit. Our purpose is to get the right balance of public and private investment into those areas so that they can attract the jobs and industry of the future.
    Mr. Archie Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware of the financial plight faced by the growing number of cystic fibrosis sufferers who are now living on into adulthood as a result of advances in medical research? Does he recall the "Health 2000"
    1088
    document, published by the Labour party before the previous general election, which made a commitment to abolish prescription charges for cystic fibrosis sufferers? Will he now tell the House when his Government plan to fulfil that commitment?
    The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. We shall carry out all our commitments in "Health 2000". I point out to him and his hon. Friends that it is as a result of our actions that we have been able to give more help to people suffering from a range of complaints. We have done better than the hon. Gentleman's Government ever did.
    Angela Smith: In the same month that UNICEF and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have launched a new campaign for the rights of children, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Basildon hospital on using £500,000 of new Government money to create separate out-patient and in-patient facilities for young children in the accident and emergency department?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I am delighted to congratulate the hospital in my hon. Friend's constituency. As a result of the new money that the Government are providing, the accident and emergency and out-patient departments of hospitals around the country will be helped. That is a result of the Government's extra investment in the health service. We are not merely getting waiting lists down, but putting into the health service the capital investment that it needs.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As the Prime Minister fritters away the golden economic inheritance—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    Mr. Jenkin: How does the Prime Minister claim to have ended boom and bust and how can he look representatives of the road haulage industry in the face? I draw his attention to a fax from a road haulier in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency which I have received since the Budget. It says:
    "I am now having to battle for the survival of my company which employs 18 people."
    Why does the Prime Minister not do something for the road hauliers, instead of lecturing them about their industry, about which they know far more than he does?
    The Prime Minister: First, I suppose that it is an advance that I have now got Tory Members using the term "boom and bust"—we have been trying for that for a long time.
    Secondly, as for the "golden legacy" that we inherited from the Conservative party, it consisted of a national debt doubled, a £28 billion borrowing requirement and inflation back in the system. This Government have cured all that. As for the road haulage industry, the fuel escalator was introduced under the previous Government—by people now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. The best news for industry is that the Government have not merely cut corporation tax, but, yes, we have at long last ended Tory boom and bust.

    Kosovo Refugees (Humanitarian Assistance)
    3.31 pm
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Madam Speaker, with permission I will make a statement on humanitarian assistance for Kosovo refugees. I will set out what we understand the latest position to be, and what our and the international response has been.
    First, I want to make one point clear. I reject absolutely suggestions that we should have been prepared in advance for a movement of population on this scale. It would have been an appalling act of complicity in ethnic cleansing to set up in advance a network of camps to await the Albanian population of Kosovo. That would only have assisted Milosevic's objectives. What is now happening is a reflection of unimaginably outrageous behaviour on the part of the Serbian forces. People's anger must be directed at the Serbian aggression, and not the United Nations agencies struggling to cope with the crisis.
    Our objective is clear: it is to secure a verified withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo so that the refugees, including those displaced internally, can return to their homes. Meanwhile, I can assure the House that we will do all in our power to support the international effort to provide as quickly as possible shelter and food for those who have been driven over the borders.
    As the House knows, there were more than 250,000 internally displaced people within Kosovo, and a further 100,000 in neighbouring countries before NATO intervened, but the situation has deteriorated sharply in recent days.
    As people have seen on their television screens, more than 100,000 people—mostly women, children and elderly people—have been driven from their homes. They are very frightened. They are bringing with them stories of gross brutality and killing, which forced them to leave and often forced their menfolk to stay. The numbers in Albania are now 100,000, and the flow is continuing. In Macedonia, there were 16,000 refugees before 24 March, and another 14,500 have arrived. More are expected.
    We share the concern of the House and people worldwide that the response to the crisis needs to be speeded up. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is leading a co-ordinated international response. We are doing all we can to support UNHCR, other UN agencies, the International Red Cross and non-governmental organisations which are providing assistance in the area.
    At the beginning of this week, the Prime Minister announced that we had made available up to £10 million as an initial response to the current crisis. We are using this funding to get the most urgently needed items to where they are required. This is in addition to the £3 million provided for emergency relief in Kosovo since March 1998.
    The first UK emergency flight, carrying 42 tonnes of tents and blankets, arrived in Tirana early this morning, and the supplies are now being distributed. A further flight using an RAF C130 aircraft is taking more tents and blankets to Skopje today. A UK-funded flight with UNHCR emergency personnel and supplies is also leaving
    1090
    Amsterdam today for Tirana. We have also agreed to help airlift supplies into the region from warehouses in Europe, the middle east and north Africa.
    We are identifying other ways of meeting urgent needs. We are providing emergency health kits through the World Health Organisation to cover the needs of 70,000 people for three months. We have provided £500,000 to help support the Red Cross operations in the region. We have asked NGOs working in the region to tell us their needs and have offered them logistical assistance to get into the field. We have in the last hour provided £500,000 to the World Food Programme so that it can move the food that it has to the people who are in need.
    We will make further allocations over the coming days as needs become clear. To help identify these needs, we are sending an assessment and monitoring team to the region. The members of it will leave the UK this weekend, led by the head of my conflict and humanitarian affairs department.
    The situation in Kosovo is a terrible tragedy—just as was the suffering inflicted in Bosnia by the same regime engaging in the same monstrous behaviour. This time, the difference is that the international community is acting militarily to halt the aggression. Everyone should be clear that the Kosovo refugees support the military action. They need urgent help with food, shelter and other emergency provisions. But they are clear that they want NATO to succeed and that they want to return to their homes. We are doing all in our power to support the UN effort and to speed up the humanitarian response. We will remain committed until we can assist with the much more welcome task of helping the refugees to return home.
    Mr Gary Streeter: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for letting me have a copy of it a short while ago. I was in Kosovo just a few weeks ago, and she will recognise that her comments about the desire of displaced people to return to their homes is very much what they are saying to us all. Their desire is for peace and security and to return home, and everything that we do must facilitate that.
    I welcome much of the action that the right hon. Lady has now taken. With half a million displaced people—a quarter of a population of about 2 million—it is now obvious that we are dealing with a full-blown humanitarian crisis. Does she agree that the UNHCR has been doing a first-class job in dealing with the crisis to date, and continues to do so? Does she agree, and will she never tire of saying, that it is President Milosevic who is responsible for the crisis? Does she agree also that it is the children who are particularly vulnerable? I understand that many who are crossing the border are suffering from pneumonia and bronchitis. Will she ensure that the health and welfare of children will be a specific priority for us in our humanitarian response?
    The air strikes began on 24 March 1999. Will the right hon. Lady say to what extent her Department had by that date already prepared an action plan to meet the refugee crisis that would inevitably follow? When was the interdepartmental Kosovo emergency task force set up and when did it first meet? What co-ordination has taken place between her Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence in producing her Government's response? In other words, did she anticipate the flood of refugees and has her Department prepared for it?

    1091
    The opening paragraph of the right hon. Lady's statement can be described only as getting in her retaliation first. She must understand that many people feel that when aeroplanes were given the green light to fly, the humanitarian relief effort should at the same time have been ready to roll. Can she tell us what co-ordination there has been between her and the aid Ministers in all the NATO countries in preparing for this effort, and when it began?
    Does the right hon. Lady agree that given that the conflict is on the doorstep of Europe, this provides an opportunity for the European Union, through the European Community Humanitarian Organisation which both she and I have rightly criticised in the past, to rise to the challenge and provide focused, urgent and effective aid to the people of Kosovo? Does she think that it will?
    Will the right hon. Lady say a little more about the logistical difficulties that face the relief effort? Does she believe that the UNHCR has sufficient people to co-ordinate the humanitarian relief? What specific plans are in place to overcome the logistical difficulty in getting food, blankets and medicines to people who need them?
    Does the right hon. Lady agree that north-west Albania is particularly unsuitable for many of the refugees because there are many Albanian armed bands roaming around? What steps are in hand to help the Albanian Government deal with those problems? Does she envisage a role for British troops in Bosnia and in Macedonia, helping to deliver humanitarian assistance?
    The right hon. Lady has said that her Department will support applications from NGOs seeking funds for their response to the crisis. What amount of her budget will she be making available in addition to the amount already allocated?
    Does the right hon. Lady support the appeal for funds launched by several British charities this week? Will her Government support the initiative put to the Prime Minister this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—that the Government should match, pound for pound, the money raised by the generous people of Britain? Will she put politics aside and support that initiative?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman started well and rose to the occasion. He said how serious this crisis is and backed what the Government are doing, but then, of course, his remarks deteriorated. The hon. Gentleman's comment that there is something wrong with my making the very important point that everyone who is moved by this suffering has got to bear in mind the fact that they should be angry with Slobodan Milosevic, not with the UN, suggests that there is something wrong with him.
    The hon. Gentleman asked all those detailed little questions about when our Department moved. We are famous throughout the world humanitarian system for being the fastest. We are providing planes, we are moving the UNHCR's own resources and we are moving resources that are not in this country. We are the fastest and we have gone the farthest. Everyone who knows in any detail about these situations knows that that is Britain's contribution.
    The co-ordination between our Departments has been seamless. Our officials—many of whom have not been getting much sleep recently—are in contact all the time, and Ministers are in contact all the time. The
    1092
    refugees, the Albanian Prime Minister and all the people in the region are sending messages of thanks. We do not want messages of thanks, but we want to do a good job and we are ensuring that we will do that.
    As the hon. Gentleman will know, the EC has made a commitment of resources and we have to make sure that they get to the people on the ground very quickly. He asked whether the UNHCR has enough people in the region. The answer is no, but we are helping to fly people in on the planes that we have already organised. He is right to say that the situation in north-west Albania is very unsuitable; people are far too near the border and they are in danger. Buses have been provided by the Italians and people are being moved away. Encampments are being set up in playing fields near the capital as we speak.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether British troops should help with the effort. We and the Ministry of Defence have agreed that it would be desirable, particularly in Macedonia, for the troops to help with the humanitarian effort. Obviously, NATO has to agree. The people of Albania are being so generous; they are taking even more people into their homes, and Albanian troops are helping, but the problem is in Macedonia and I hope that we shall be able to make progress there.
    We will supply support to NGOs that are already in the region. That is the only way to get things done quickly. We do not put money into boxes in order to allocate it; we put money into pockets where it can be delivered on the ground immediately. That is how we proceed. It is up to NGOs whether they appeal for funds, but the problem is not money, but logistics. There is enough food and there are enough tents and blankets, but they are not where the people are. That job involves organisation and logistics, and we are ahead of the game.
    I heard what the Leader of the Opposition said, and the Prime Minister has said that he would consider his proposal, but my instinct is that it would slow things up. That is not what we need at the moment.
    Mr. Tony Worthington: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement and on the Government's response. As she says, the problem is logistics. Will she keep her mind open to the necessity of using resources beyond those of the NGOs? There may be situations in which service engineers and other personnel have to be used to deploy resources that are not usually used in humanitarian disasters. I ask her to co-operate with the Ministry of Defence. I am sure that she will, because I feel confident that some building will have to be done and resources will have to be shifted. Only the military can do that.
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right; the problem is logistics. We are not relying on NGOs, as senior UN officials have expertise, engineers and so on. I agree that the services—who are flying out some materials—could help more, particularly in Macedonia. I know that the Ministry of Defence is in agreement, but it is a question of NATO agreeing. The services will then be able to provide the help that is needed in Macedonia. The mission will be a joint mission, involving the Ministry of Defence and my Department. We are working seamlessly together, as we are in Bosnia. We have offered a humanitarian adviser to our troops in Macedonia if we can get approval for such assistance.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: It may cheer the Secretary of State to learn that the first words that I have

    1093
    written on my notes are to congratulate her and her Department on their speedy response to the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. As a country, we should be proud to see such a response to such a difficult situation; a situation where women and children seem, once again, to be suffering disproportionately in modern warfare.
    I do not agree with the rather sour remarks by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). However, we would like confirmation that an assessment was made in the Department before the NATO offensive, in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. Will this country—bilaterally, or with the EU—support education, health and other public services in Albania, Montenegro and Macedonia to prevent civil unrest in those countries, which could be so dangerous for the stability of the region?
    What plans do the Government have for keeping a register of refugees whose identity papers have been removed by the Serbs, so that they can reclaim their homes in the event of peace? Are there plans for the repatriation of Kosovar refugees once a stable peace has been secured?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am proud of the people in my Department, who are the best and the fastest in the world. They work enormously hard and, at times like this, they are working all night. It is nice for the House to recognise the quality of people whom we have working in the area. We are all entitled to be proud of them.
    The hon. Lady said that women and children are suffering dreadfully. That is correct, but they are desperately worried about their menfolk, following the stories of what is happening. She asked whether an assessment was made before NATO started the action. She must understand that we work with the international system and, since the election, we have put a lot of energy into trying to get the system to work better.
    The UNHCR was already in Kosovo, where there were many displaced people already. We were trying to get a more efficient system, and the UNHCR is expanding its operation. However, no one can get inside the head of Slobodan Milosevic. No one could have said exactly where or when the ethnic cleansing would start, or what direction he would drive in. There are tents, blankets and food in the region, but the problem is getting those things to the people who need them. I am confident that we will do that, but we want to speed the process up. There was no lack of preparation, but no one could have predicted what that bestial behaviour would produce.
    The hon. Lady suggested that we should make provision for education, health care and other public services in surrounding countries. I agree, but those countries must not take the strain. The people of Albania have been fantastically generous, and are still taking people into their homes. They have been taking the strain for a long time. We must make sure that there is provision by the international community, not by those poor countries.
    The situation in Macedonia is a worry. If we can get our troops to help with the humanitarian effort, it will help the situation there. However, we need NATO agreement
    1094
    for that. The hon. Lady asked whether registers were being kept. That is a job for the UNHCR, not for us. It is doing that job, and statements are being taken in preparation for the International War Crimes Tribunal.
    Mr. Tony Benn: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about financial aid for the humanitarian crisis, but she will recognise that it is only a tiny fraction of what is spent on the war every day. Given the scale of the human tragedy that is unfolding—we see it day by day on our screen—which exceeds anything that anyone in this House can ever have experienced, is it not clear that the only organisation with the logistical and air movement capacity to deal with this matter is NATO itself?
    Would it not be sensible immediately to divert the aircraft currently operated by NATO for the supply of weapons, and to take the opportunity provided by yesterday's visit to Belgrade by Mr. Primakov to cease hostilities, at least over Easter—which is very precious to the Orthodox Church—in order to save lives?
    If the situation is not tackled with the organisational efficiency with which the war is being undertaken, people will die of disease and starvation, and it will not comfort anyone if Ministers are able to say, "Do not blame us; blame Milosevic". It does not matter who is to blame; lives need to be saved now, and the only way of doing that is to bring about a cessation of hostilities so that NATO can be diverted for this purpose.
    Clare Short: Let me say to my right hon. Friend—who is an old friend—that I wish he would stop and listen to the voice of the refugees. They are saying that they support the NATO action, that they want it to be carried through, that they want help in the meantime and that they then want to return home. In all humility, let me ask whether we should not listen to them.
    Some military planes are being made available to us, but they tend to be too small. They are not the best planes to move the necessary resources. It is better for us to use civilian planes of the right size. We are quite good at this; we do it a lot; and we are using military planes simply because we need to use everything that we can lay hands on. Nevertheless, it is not right.
    If there were a ceasefire now, the net result would be not that fewer people were hungry, but that more people were killed in Kosovo by Slobodan Milosevic. It would help Slobodan Milosevic. Surely my right hon. Friend does not want to do that.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: I wholeheartedly welcome the right hon. Lady's statement, not only on behalf of all hon. Members but, in particular, on behalf of those who, having been driven from their homes in Kosovo, are now desperate refugees in neighbouring countries. Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the voice of women will be heard in the organisation of the camps, and that they and their children will be protected, given their present vulnerability and the vulnerability that they will experience in the camps? Will she also assure us that the extra money spent by the Department will not ultimately be taken from its budget, but will be replaced by the Treasury?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I nearly called him my hon. Friend.

    1095
    The hon. Gentleman is right. We have learned again about the situation of refugees. For the moment, we must get the camps organised, but for people living in camps for a long time, life can become very difficult. Children need to be educated, and women need to be respected. We have learned a lot, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will make the proper arrangements.
    The £on that we have made available is in my budget. We must see how the spending goes after that—Government may have to consider other arrangements—but we have money available to deal with humanitarian disasters, and money has been allocated to Kosovo. We can afford the £10 million now, but if the crisis continues, the Government will have to consider providing further resources.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that the views of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) are more representative of the Opposition's stance than those of his hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), whose typically snide contribution merely reminded me that it was the Conservative party that cut the international aid budget year on year, making it more difficult to do what the Department is now doing?
    The flow of refugees across at least one border has slowed to a tiny trickle, presumably because supplies are not yet in place. Does my right hon. Friend know whether that is the only reason, or whether there are other difficulties that need to be resolved so that people can reach safety more quickly?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am certain that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), the Chair of the Select Committee on International Development, is much more representative of the view of decent Tories. Yes, the Conservative party cut the aid budget. As a matter of historical record, it stood by when ethnic cleansing went on in Bosnia.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a problem on the border of Macedonia. There is a slow trickle of people getting across the border and a big tail of people wishing to cross. They are in a worrying situation. That is caused not by a shortage of resources, but by bureaucratic procedures on the border.
    We are worried about the situation. We have been in touch with our ambassador, and he has been in touch with the Macedonian Government. We are exerting all the pressure that we can. There is divided opinion in Macedonia; that is part of the problem. That is why I am keen, if we can, to get the forces to help with the humanitarian situation, so that the public in Macedonia do not resent the refugees.
    Mr. Alan Clark: The right hon. Lady mentioned that she is making available £500,000 worth of emergency food supplies. Does she realise that that is slightly less than the cost of one cruise missile, and that more than 50 cruise missiles are being dumped on Yugoslavia every night? I recognise her commitment to the humanitarian issue, as does the whole House, and her practical good sense, but she must accept that £500 million of ordnance being dumped on Yugoslavia every 24 hours is killing people. That is nothing to do with Milosevic—he is not killing them—and it is not getting anywhere near him either. Yugoslav civilians are being killed by the NATO air offensive.
    1096
    If the right hon. Lady can accept that equation, she will surely see that the sooner the bombing is halted and diplomatic initiatives take place again, the more resources, on an enormous scale, will be immediately released for the purposes that she knows how to apply so well.
    Clare Short: I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman; I thought that he was a better historian than that. Does he not remember appeasement? Milosevic was appeased in Bosnia, and look what happened. He is doing it again. There are times, however difficult, when we have to stand against such fascist evil. Fascism is reappearing in Europe only 50-odd years after the end of the terrible events in Germany.
    The right hon. Gentleman misheard me. The £500,000 that has been made available to the World Food Programme is for logistics. It has enough food. The money is not for food; that is being provided anyway. The money has been provided so that we can move the food to the people.
    NATO is not killing civilians. The very carefulness of our operations is to ensure that there is minimum damage to civilians. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may laugh, but it is the truth. He should pause and have more humility. People who are walking up mountains and who fear that their menfolk are being executed are saying, "Please carry on with the NATO action." Should he not listen to them?
    Fiona Mactaggart: Will my right hon. Friend place a high priority on ensuring that UNHCR staff are available to document the refugees in the places where those refugees are going? Milosevic is not merely stealing their identity documents, but using the period to destroy their existence in Kosovo, blowing up register offices, burning land documents and so on. That is clearly an attempt to finish off the ethnic cleansing that he has started.
    It is our duty to provide such documentation. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure me that some of the work of her Department will enable that to be implemented, to ensure that Kosovars can reclaim their identity and their land.
    Clare Short: I assure my hon. Friend that the whole purpose of the operation—and we will go on until we finish—is to drive back the military aggression and to help people to go home. We will do it. Records are being kept, and much more detailed records of the war crimes are also being taken. I am sure that there will be quite a lot of trials after the matter is settled.
    Sir Alastair Goodlad: The right hon. Lady will be aware that all those involved in seeking to mitigate this appalling tragedy, whether they be servants of her Department or people working for NGOs, will have the wholehearted support of the House. Can she reassure the House that she is confident that proper measures will be taken for their physical protection in the countries around Kosovo?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that all the people who are working so hard would be equally grateful. Our concern lies in northern Albania, where people are in inappropriate circumstances

    1097
    and where there is fighting close to the border from which they may be in danger. An operation is taking place, and the Italians have provided buses to move people to safer places. We will do all in our power to protect people engaged in humanitarian action. Across the world, more and more such people have been targeted and killed. As yet, we do not see that danger arising, but we are trying to make better arrangements for northern Albania.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: How can the Secretary of State be so innocent as to come to the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons and use the word "unimaginable"? The moment American and British leaders said that ground troops would not be used and that there would be air attacks, was it not all too obvious—predictable and predicted, foreseeable and foreseen—that the Serbs would wreak the most terrible retaliatory vengeance on those whom we had left vulnerable? What does "intensification" do about ruthless machine gunners and pistol users who are crazed by what has happened to their own families 400 or 500 miles to the north?
    Leaving aside the dangers of humiliating the Russians and their best intentions, why did the Government reject—apparently out of hand, although I stand to be corrected if that is not so—the proposals of the one man, the Russian Prime Minister, who could have done something? Finally, what exactly did the Prime Minister mean at Question Time when he used the phrase "to finish the job"? Which job? What does it mean?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend makes me very sad. Anyone who is critical of the military action should have more humility and should listen to the voices of those who are suffering. The refugees, the people in Kosovo and the Albanian Government strongly support the NATO action and are asking that we go on to finish the job. Finishing that job means reversing Serbian aggression, reaching a political settlement, putting in ground forces to make it safe—[Interruption.] That is a recognised part of the policy and it was declared long ago. It means returning people to their homes and helping people to rebuild. That is what is right. My hon. Friend is wrong.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Not a single Member would question the personal or political will of the Secretary of State, and I congratulate her on her actions. I do not know whether she made a slip of the tongue in responding to the previous question. I suspect she meant to refer to peacekeeping forces, not ground forces. Perhaps she would clarify that point.
    Countries that surround Kosovo face difficulties in dealing with this huge problem. People are being stripped of every aspect of their identity, including even car number plates. There is now a citizenless class in the area. Can the United Nations, the European Union and NATO come together to make sure that people will have homes to return to? Will part of our policy be to rebuild homes?
    Clare Short: Throughout the tragedies of Bosnia, I recall, I sat beside the hon. Lady, and we shared the view that there should have been earlier intervention to stop Milosevic. It would have been easier then, and there were mistakes in our policy. At least now we are doing what is right.
    1098
    I made no slip in mentioning land forces. It was made clear in the Rambouillet talks that if autonomy was agreed, troops were already out there who could move in to keep people safe and to enforce the agreement. That was always part of the proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked what finishing the job meant, so I was briefly reminding him of what had been announced.
    There are no citizenless people. They are citizens of Kosovo. They have homes; they know where they come from. We hope that the action will be over soon and that they can go home. Burning their papers does not destroy their identity. They are citizens, and their legal rights will be respected. They will go home, and the international community will make sure they have help in rebuilding their homes.
    Mr. David Lock: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and direct her mind particularly to the problems facing the children of Kosovo? I do so without making any party political points—which have no bearing on this debate, and should not have been made in the first place. Does she agree that—according to information that the Under—Secretary of State for International Development and I were given at a recent meeting—19 of 20 children who die in war zones die not from guns or bullets, but because the health system that is so essential to keeping them alive disintegrates because of the destruction of war?
    Will my right hon. Friend particularly commend the British paediatricians who, over the years, have been prepared to travel to war zones—to rebuild, to retrain and to treat children who need medical treatment? Will she ensure that her Department considers any requests that it has received from organisations supporting paediatricians, to enable the great humanitarian work by highly qualified British doctors to continue—so that they may treat some of the 19 of 20 children who might otherwise die, not from bullets, but from the displacement and destruction of war?
    Clare Short: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to British paediatricians, and to those from around the world, who go into very dangerous and difficult situations to care for children. They are some of the bravest people, and I think that we all admire and respect them.
    In Kosovo—compared with, say, Rwanda—children are healthier to start with, and we have enough time. We are working with the World Health Organisation in putting in health kits, and should be able to prevent any deterioration in that situation. I am pretty confident in saying that we will be able to prevent it. Although there is a little time problem, people are being fed. Now, we have to get people under canvas, as some people have been sleeping out of doors.
    My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that we must ensure that health systems are available, but we are providing health kits to ensure that the problem does not arise. We should be able to organise it so that those children will be safe. In some conflicts in Africa, children are malnourished to start with, making the situation much more serious.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: May I place on record my encouragement and support, and that of Plaid Cymru,

    1099
    for the right hon. Lady in the enormously important work that her Department is doing? The military operation is an enormous logistical exercise, and I join those who have said that the humanitarian exercise should be commensurate with it in seriousness, scale and commitment of resources. Will not the humanitarian exercise have to be maintained for as long as necessary—until those people are able first, to live in the places to which they have been displaced, and secondly, to return and reconstruct in Kosovo itself? It is bound to entail a very major commitment of resources. I therefore add my voice to those who have said that that commitment should in no way reduce the Department's capacity to continue its programmes elsewhere, and that additional resources will have to be provided to meet all its commitments.
    Clare Short: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, and that of his party, for all the work that is being done. I absolutely agree with him that the humanitarian response must be as powerful, well-resourced and efficient as the military exercise. He was absolutely right to say that we have to be there for as long as necessary. We all hope that the military campaign will be successful quickly, and that, therefore, as soon as possible, we shall be helping people to go home. However, we shall stay there and be there until we can help people to go home and to reconstruct.
    As I told the Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), the £10 million that the Government have made available is available in my budget—from which we make allocations to deal with humanitarian disasters, and have made allocations to that region. However, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) was right—if the crisis in Kosovo continues and costs more, we shall have to consider where we will get the resources from.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I, too, offer my sincere compliments to my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development and their officials on their speedy response to these dreadful events? However, I hope that she will forgive me for introducing a possibly carping note to the debate. Does she agree that the terrible plight of the refugees, and the involvement of those remarkable officials from the grossly underfunded UNHCR, bring into stark relief the ignominious failure of the United States to honour its financial obligations to the United Nations? Is there not now an opportunity for the people on Capitol hill to make right that terrible failure?
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) that it is essential to involve units such as the Royal Engineers, and other similar units from NATO forces, to help those refugees to have bearable lives by providing them with makeshift services as soon as possible.
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Everyone carps about funding the United Nations but, at moments like this, we need a good, well-funded and well-staffed UN. People complain that things are not moving as rapidly as they might, but that is because there has not been strong enough support for the UN in the past.
    My hon. Friend made his point about United States contributions. I hope that the advertisement from six former Secretaries of State calling on the United States to pay its dues to the UN has an effect on public opinion there.
    1100
    My hon. Friend talked about the Royal Engineers. It is not always best to have military people providing for civilians. It is not always appropriate for the children. It is often better to have civilians. As my hon. Friend knows, in Bosnia, because our troops are there, we have provided some resources and they are helping the refugees to return. That is a sensible use of resources because the troops are there. In general, the effort should be led by the UN, but we have particular problems in Macedonia. It would help if the military there were able to help the humanitarian effort. There might then be less doubt in Macedonia about allowing in the refugees. Where appropriate, it is good to do it.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Lady agree that humanitarian aid has a real role to play? I wish to add my congratulations to her and her team for the work they have done. Can the right hon. Lady explain why there was a delay of seven days after the first bombs had been dropped before the departure of the first plane carrying humanitarian aid? The House has some concern about that.
    In Question Time today, the Prime Minister referred to the role of an independent force in Kosovo. He did not say whether it would have an aggressive role to drive back Milosevic's forces from Kosovo, or a peacekeeping and humanitarian role. Perhaps the right hon. Lady will explain to the House what role that independent force would have.
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for all those involved in the humanitarian effort. There is a problem about what happens when the cameras are not there. I remind the hon. Lady and the House that there were many refugees before the NATO action began. We were there as was the UNHCR. We were spending money and backing up the UNHCR. It was not that there was no food, no tents and no blankets before that flight. There was quite a lot of food and resources in Albania, but not in northern Albania. We need to bring more into the region as the flow of refugees is so big and is clearly going to continue. The hon. Lady must not think that there was nothing there before.
    The hon. Lady asked about ground forces. That is not new. Part of the Rambouillet proposals was that, if there was acceptance of autonomy for Kosovo together with a peace deal and a withdrawal of the Serb forces of aggression, ground troops would go in to police the deal. They were in Macedonia waiting to move. That was part of the Paris talks. Those are the forces to which the Prime Minister referred and which I mentioned when I answered my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
    Ms Tess Kingham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her announcement today. It is widely recognised that her Department is a world leader in ensuring that prompt and appropriate humanitarian assistance reaches parts of the world where it is most needed. It is understandable that attention now is focused on providing immediate needs such as shelter, housing and health care, but will she consider ensuring that, at an early stage, trauma counselling and psychological support are made available for the refugees as they come over the border? We have seen to our regret in the past that that has not always been seen as an immediate need, but we have seen Milosevic's thugs burning villages, razing them to the ground and raping women.

    1101
    We have heard about the atrocities committed. This time, may we please ensure that that support is given to people early on, not merely for their psychological well-being, but to ensure that some of the war crimes and atrocities can be documented early on, so that the perpetrators can eventually be brought to trial?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am proud of the people in my Department and I am grateful to the House for recognising the work that they do. They are respected internationally—they are the fastest, they are very good indeed and they work very hard. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people arriving are very frightened and worried about members of their families whom they have left behind. This morning, I read a telegram from our ambassador in Albania, which said that women who had arrived had not been able to pick up their children, who had been put somewhere just outside the town to be safer. One can imagine the fear and worry. The stories of executions and brutality make people highly traumatised. We learned that in Bosnia—hon. Members must remember the rapes and all the women involved—and we brought in psychological support later. My hon. Friend is right and I will ensure that, as soon as we are organised, that sort of assistance is provided.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I join my hon. Friends in congratulating the right hon. Lady's officials for responding so quickly to the huge humanitarian crisis, which involves the largest movement of refugees in Europe since the war? I have no doubt that the British people will want to be very generous in responding to the crisis. They also expect their Government to be generous. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Lady to respond to the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that the Government should match, pound for pound, every pound that the people give to NGOs. Further to an earlier answer, how on earth would the implementation of such a scheme slow up the aid given to NGOs?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising the quality of my officials. May I explain that I have £10 million now. Our word is trusted. We are hiring aeroplanes from other countries over the telephone. They are being made ready immediately on our word because we have the money, we can spend it now and we can move immediately. The problem is not money; it is getting the planes, getting the logistics right and getting everything moved into the right places. In answer to the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he would look at the proposal. I understand that the Disasters Emergency Committee is about to launch an appeal: advertisements will go in the
    1102
    papers and collections will be made. That will take some time and that is my point. We have to spend now and get things moving now.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: We all know that, true to form, my right hon. Friend will be pressing to maximise the budget that may need to be made available to her now and later. Will she ensure that the Ministry of Defence is not allowed to purloin any part of that budget in the form of charges for aircraft that it lets her Department have, as happened on a previous occasion? Also, will she relay to representatives of the Government of Albania the deepest appreciation of Members of this House for the valiant work being done by the Albanian people in helping to resolve the crisis?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to say that, in the past, when the military made a contribution, the Overseas Development Administration was made to pay from its budget. Military costs are high—higher than hiring civilian aeroplanes. Since we formed our Government, the military has helped on a number of occasions and the Department has never been charged. One of the flights that I announced today is a military flight and we are not paying. The Ministry of Defence is contributing, so that is not happening.
    I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the generosity of the people of Albania. It is a very poor country and it is recovering from a civil war. Many refugees have been flowing into Albania for a long time. People have been taking them into their homes—these are very poor people—and, even now, they are taking more. The Prime Minister of Albania sent a lovely, moving letter to our Prime Minister to thank us both for the military action and our other help. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's message is conveyed and I am sure that people will be grateful for it.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be prudent at least to plan against the risk of long-term, large-scale refugee problems arising from Milosevic's present, and likely future, actions? Does she further agree that permanent refugee camps are undesirable? What steps does she propose, in concert with other countries, to facilitate the permanent resettlement of those refugees who want to be settled outside Kosovo in countries away from the frontiers of the former Yugoslavia?
    Clare Short: I caution the right hon. and learned Gentleman that although he may not mean it to happen, Mr. Milosevic would be pleased at his suggestion. We are not planning to move people out of the region. People do not want to move out; they want to go home as fast as possible. They support the NATO action and want it to be successful. They need protecting now. We have plans to look after them now and to help them go home to reconstruct as fast as possible.

    Points of Order
    4.22 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the past 80 minutes, we have heard the remarkable proposition that, by the use of air power, without ground troops, populations are to be re-established in areas from which they have been cruelly driven. I know that, technically, it would be difficult to move for a debate under Standing Order No. 20, but I understand that it could be done at 7 pm despite the statement that we expect on defence. Are you prepared to hear my request? Do you accept that several of us, with very different points of view, think that it is not proper in this situation that the House of Commons should be away next week, and that, in these dire circumstances, there should be a recall of the House?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I am not in a position to deal with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. On the first part, he must put such requests to Madam Speaker. It is not a matter with which I can deal.
    Mr. David Faber: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that, last week, the House debated the Government's roads policy, with frequent mention by me and other hon. Members of detrunking existing trunk roads. A local journalist rang to tell me that the Deputy Prime Minister is to make a statement on the detrunking of the national road network tomorrow. Is it not a common courtesy that local Members be informed of such decisions by Ministers, before they are released to the press? Is it not a coincidence that the statement is to be made on the first day of the recess, thus ensuring that the Deputy Prime Minister cannot be questioned on his plans?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but it is not a matter for the Chair. I have no knowledge of the matter that he raised.

    Prescription Charges (Hormone Replacement Therapy)
    4.23 pm
    Dr. Howard Stoate (Dartford): I beg to move,
    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for women requiring hormone replacement therapy to pay a single prescription charge for both single and cyclical hormones, regardless of the preparation they are taking.
    Hormone replacement therapy has three major benefits. It effectively treats the symptoms of the menopause. There is a likely, but not yet proven, link with reducing the risk of heart disease. The most important benefit to women's long-term health is that it effectively reduces the incidence of osteoporosis in women after the menopause.
    After the menopause, all women lose calcium from their bones. For many, the loss is much more severe, resulting in osteoporosis, which is often known as brittle bone disease. The condition reduces bone density and increases the likelihood of fractures, back pain and curvature of the spine. It causes not only much pain and suffering but huge physical, psychological and social cost to sufferers and their families.
    The effects on the national health service are also considerable. There are 60,000 hip fractures in the United Kingdom every year, or one every 10 minutes. Sadly, by the time that I have sat down, someone else will have fallen down and broken a hip. Eighty per cent. of hip fractures are in women over 50. Treating a fractured hip costs £4,800. That is £4,800 every 10 minutes. One in five of those who suffer a hip fracture will go on to require long-term residential nursing home care costing, on average, £19,000 a year. That is one extra nursing home place taken every hour as a result of osteoporotic hip fractures alone.
    At the menopause, HRT is a logical and appropriate intervention for the prevention of osteoporosis. It is proven to reduce bone loss in women, and it can delay or even prevent the onset of osteoporosis, thus significantly reducing the risk of fragility fractures.
    The Department of Health local health action sheet advises GPs to counsel women on the risks and benefits of HRT at the menopause, and lists HRT as an effective drug therapy for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. The effectiveness of HRT in preventing reductions in bone density and reducing fractures is beyond doubt.
    If we are to meet our targets set out in the Department of Health Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation" for reducing the huge burden of accidents, we need to encourage more women who would benefit from HRT to use it. Current opinion holds that giving HRT for periods of up to 10 years yields significant benefits, with minimised risk. The suggestion that HRT causes women to wear lurid outfits and to act strangely in the national media are purely anecdotal.
    There are different types of HRT, and different types suit different women. Women who have undergone a hysterectomy can be prescribed the single hormone oestrogen. This attracts a single prescription charge. Women who are completely past the menopause can use combined therapy with little or no side effects. This also attracts a single prescription charge. Then there is the perimenopausal group—those women who are either still,

    1105
    or have just finished, menstruating. The other two therapies are usually not suitable for such women, and cyclical treatment is required. If unopposed oestrogen is given to such women, there is a significant risk of endometrial cancer. Thus, they must take two different hormones—oestrogen and a progestogen—separately at different times in their cycle. Although that treatment is usually contained in one treatment pack, it attracts two prescription charges.
    Many of my constituents in Dartford, and several hon. Members of the House, have approached me about that anomaly. Why, they ask, should some women, for purely medical reasons, face the double charge? My experience as a GP tells me that some people find the double charge not only inexplicable but a significant cost burden which can put them off taking the treatment altogether. Professor David Purdie, of the British Menopause Society, estimates that 50 per cent. of post-menopausal women would benefit from HRT, but that only 10 per cent. of the group are using the therapy. That means that 40 per cent. of post-menopausal women are not benefiting from a therapy which could bring them relief from their current symptoms and reduce the risk of osteoporosis in later life. Our task should be to reduce the figure of 40 per cent. as much as possible by encouraging women who decide, after discussion with their GP, that HRT is right for them to use it.
    Women in the group most likely to require cyclical therapy are aged 50 to 60. Although 86 per cent. of prescriptions are issued free, women in that age group are very likely to pay for their own prescriptions. Nor is this a small problem. Figures that I have obtained from the House of Commons Library show that, of the 5.8 million prescriptions for HRT in 1997, 62 per cent. were charged as one item. That means that 38 per cent., or 2.2 million prescriptions, attracted a double charge. That is a clear disincentive, preventing a wider take-up of HRT.
    "Our Healthier Nation" contained welcome initiatives for reducing fractures among the elderly. Osteoporosis is a major cause of fractures, and an important plank of any strategy to tackle it has to be a greater take-up of HRT. I welcome the Green Paper and the strategies contained in it, and I congratulate the Government, and especially the Minister for Public Health, on a document that details how we can put into practice the old adage, "Prevention is better than cure."
    When more women are aware of the benefits of HRT and can decide whether it is right for them, and when the double prescription charge disincentive is removed, the incidence of osteoporosis can be reduced. That will reduce the cost to the NHS of treating osteoporosis and, more important, reduce the pain and suffering that it causes.
    The Bill tackles a clear anomaly in the system, and it will go a long way towards increasing the use of HRT by those women who could benefit from it. I ask hon. Members to endorse the Bill, which will directly benefit the lives of many of their constituents.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Howard Stoate, Ms Christine Russell, Mr. Gareth Thomas, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Dr. Evan Harris and Mr. John Austin.

    PRESCRIPTION CHARGES (HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY)
    Dr. Howard Stoate accordingly presented a Bill to provide for women requiring hormone replacement therapy to pay a single prescription charge for both single and cyclical hormones, regardless of the preparation they are taking: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 June, and to be printed [Bill 80].

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    VALUE ADDED TAX
    That the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 593), dated 9th March 1999, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    That the Value Added Tax (Finance) Order 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 594), dated 9th March 1999, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
    The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 153.

    Division No.137]

    [4.31pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Caborn, Richard

    Allen, Graham

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Canavan, Dennis

    Austin, John

    Cann, Jamie

    Banks, Tony

    Caplin, Ivor

    Barron, Kevin

    Caton, Martin

    Battle, John

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Beard, Nigel

    Clapham, Michael

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Benton, Joe

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Berry, Roger

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Best, Harold

    Clwyd, Ann

    Betts, Clive

    Coaker, Vernon

    Blackman, Liz

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Cohen, Harry

    Blizzard, Bob

    Coleman, Iain

    Borrow, David

    Colman, Tony

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Corbett, Robin

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Cousins, Jim

    Cox, Tom

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Crausby, David

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Burden, Richard

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Burgon, Colin

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    1107

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Darvill, Keith

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Denham, John

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dismore, Andrew

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dobbin, Jim

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Dowd, Jim

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Kemp, Fraser

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Khabra, Piara S

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kidney, David

    Edwards, Huw

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Efford, Clive

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Ennis, Jeff

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Etherington, Bill

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Fisher, Mark

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Laxton, Bob

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Leslie, Christopher

    Flint, Caroline

    Levitt, Tom

    Flynn, Paul

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Follett, Barbara

    Linton, Martin

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Livingstone, Ken

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Lock, David

    Foulkes, George

    Love, Andrew

    Fyfe, Maria

    McAllion, John

    Gapes, Mike

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gardiner, Barry

    McCabe, Steve

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Gerrard, Neil

    McDonnell, John

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    McIsaac, Shona

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Godsiff, Roger

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Goggins, Paul

    McNamara, Kevin

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McNulty, Tony

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    MacShane, Denis

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Grocott, Bruce

    McWalter, Tony

    Grogan, John

    McWilliam, John

    Hain, Peter

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Hanson, David

    Marek, Dr John

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Healey, John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Martlew, Eric

    Heppell, John

    Maxton, John

    Hesford, Stephen

    Merron, Gillian

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hill, Keith

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Hinchliffe, David

    Miller, Andrew

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Mitchell, Austin

    Hood, Jimmy

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hope, Phil

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Morley, Elliot

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Mountford, Kali

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mullin, Chris

    Hurst, Alan

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Hutton, John

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Norris, Dan

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jamieson, David

    Olner, Bill

    Jenkins, Brian

    O'Neill, Martin

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Pearson, Ian

    1108

    Pendry, Tom

    Soley, Clive

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Pickthall, Colin

    Spellar, John

    Pike, Peter L

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Plaskitt, James

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Pollard, Kerry

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Pond, Chris

    Stevenson, George

    Pope, Greg

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Pound, Stephen

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Stringer, Graham

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Purchase, Ken

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Todd, Mark

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Trickett, Jon

    Radice, Giles

    Truswell, Paul

    Rammell, Bill

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Rapson, Syd

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Vaz, Keith

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Roy, Frank

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Ruane, Chris

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Watts, David

    Salter, Martin

    White, Brian

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Sawford, Phil

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Wills, Michael

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Winnick, David

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wise, Audrey

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Woolas, Phil

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Worthington, Tony

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Wray, James

    Singh, Marsha

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Jane Kennedy and Mr. David Clelland.

    Smith, Uew (Blaenau Gwent)

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Allan, Richard

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Amess, David

    Collins, Tim

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Cotter, Brian

    Baker, Norman

    Cran, James

    Baldry, Tony

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Beggs, Roy

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Bercow, John

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Boswell, Tim

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Duncan, Alan

    Brady, Graham

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Brazier, Julian

    Evans, Nigel

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Faber, David

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Fallon, Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Butterfill, John

    Flight, Howard

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Forsythe, Clifford

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Chidgey, David

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Chope, Christopher

    Gale, Roger

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

    Garnier, Edward

    1109

    Gibb, Nick

    Ottaway, Richard

    Gill, Christopher

    Page, Richard

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

    Paice, James

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Pickles, Eric

    Gray, James

    Prior, David

    Green, Damian

    Randall, John

    Greenway, John

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Grieve, Dominic

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Hammond, Philip

    Ruffley, David

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Hawkins, Nick

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Heald, Oliver

    Sanders, Adrian

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Horam, John

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Hunter, Andrew

    Spring, Richard

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Streeter, Gary

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Stunell, Andrew

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Swayne, Desmond

    Syms, Robert

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Key, Robert

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Townend, John

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Tredinnick, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Trend, Michael

    Lansley, Andrew

    Tyler, Paul

    Leigh, Edward

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Letwin, Oliver

    Viggers, Peter

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Walter, Robert

    Lidington, David

    Webb, Steve

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Wells, Bowen

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Loughton, Tim

    Whittingdale, John

    Luff, Peter

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Wilkinson, John

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Willetts, David

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Wilshire, David

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Woodward, Shaun

    Maples, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Norman, Archie

    Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Mr. John M. Taylor.

    Öpik, Lembit

    Question accordingly agreed to

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) Standing Commitees on Delegated Legislation),
    That the draft Social Security (Incapacity, Earnings and Work Trials)Pilot Schemes Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
    Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Employment Relations Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
  Employment Relations Bill
    Clause 28

      EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES
      4.43 pm
      The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 14, leave out from beginning of line 10 to end of line 40 on page 15 and insert—
      '. Schedule (Employment Agencies) shall have effect.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in page 14, leave out lines 12 to 21.
      No. 36, in page 14, line 21, at end insert—
      '(ed) regulating the conduct of hirers in paying appropriate fees to such agencies and businesses for supplying workers for permanent or temporary employment.'.
      No. 2, in page 14, line 21, at end insert—
      'Provided that regulations under this section shall only be made with the purpose of protecting employees' rights and not otherwise to interfere with the commercial relationship between such agencies or businesses and employers'.
      No. 35, in page 14, line 21, at end insert—
      'Provided that regulations under this section shall only be made in such a way as to avoid prejudice to the ability of the private recruitment industry to continue to expand its role in the labour market.'.
      No. 3, in page 14, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 15.
      No. 34, in page 15, line 38, at end insert—
      '(6A) In section 12—

      (a)in subsection (5), at the beginning insert "Subject to subsection (6) below,";

      (b)after subsection (5) insert—
      "(6) Regulations under section 5 shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before, and approved by Resolution of, each House of Parliament.".'.

      Government new schedule 2—Employment Agencies.
      Mr. Byers: I shall speak to amendment No. 59 and new schedule 2, but reserve my comments on the amendments tabled by the Opposition until I wind up the debate later this evening.
      I shall explain the motives behind amendment No. 59 and the changes that we intend to introduce through new schedule 2. The proposals make changes that we believe are necessary to the employment agency standards inspectorate's powers of entry and to allow it to take away copies of documents.
      It was observed during the passage of the Employment Agencies Bill in 1973 that it was modelled in part on the Croydon Corporation Act 1960. I do not know whether many hon. Members are experts on the Croydon Corporation Act 1960 but, if they are, they will know that the inspection powers follow the lines of governing agencies in the Edwardian era. The wording can be traced

      1111
      back further to the Manchester Corporation Act 1903. I know that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is an expert on that, and I am sure that he will regale us in great detail with sections of that Act. As the proceedings move towards midnight, we shall look forward to that with great pleasure.
      Paragraphs 4(2) to 4(5) of new schedule 2 amend section 9 of the 1973 Act to ensure that its powers are appropriate to the beginning of the next century. Modern inspection powers are all the more important now that bureaux no longer have to be licensed. New section 9(1A) enables the Department of Trade and Industry's inspectors to enter relevant business premises, as defined in new section 9(1B). Those provisions extend the range of premises that the DTI's inspectors may enter in the course of their duties.
      On the face of it, that seems a draconian power, but we hope that it will help employment agencies. The present wording of the 1973 Act allows DTI inspectors to enter premises to examine documents only if those premises are being used by an employment agency, even though, for practical reasons, the agency may have documents in another building. The changes will introduce flexibility to ensure that documents can be retained elsewhere provided that they can be inspected at reasonable notice and in a reasonable way.
      New section 9(1C) takes into account the fact that we are now living in the computer age and allows for computerised information to be held remotely, provided that it is accessible from the relevant premises. The DTI's inspectors will not be able to take documents away with them, but new proposals will allow them to take copies of relevant documents.
      Paragraph 4(4) amends section 9(2) of the Employment Agencies Act by replacing the existing provision against self-incrimination with a new provision that takes into account the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Saunders v. the United Kingdom.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman rose—
      Mr. John Bercow rose—
      Mr. Byers: I give way to my hon. Friend.
      Dr. Godman: Will the provisions have any effect on subcontractors, some of whom are utterly unscrupulous, who employ foreign nationals to work in our offshore oil and gas installations? Many of the employees concerned are taken on for disgracefully low wages and their terms and conditions of employment are, or should be, utterly unacceptable in an industrial society such as ours.
      Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has raised two distinct issues. On levels of pay, he will be aware—he drew the situation to my attention—that people working in the circumstances that he described were not covered by the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, but we introduced in the House a few days ago an order—
      Mr. Tim Boswell indicated assent.
      Mr. Byers: As the hon. Gentleman indicates from a sedentary position, we introduced an order that will
      1112
      extend the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act to individuals working in precisely those circumstances. Unfortunately, those provisions will not take effect tomorrow, when the national minimum wage will come into force for the bulk of employees, but on 1 May. Although that measure will take effect a month later, I am sure that it will be widely welcome.
      We are trying to deal with my hon. Friend's second point, about abuse and exploitation, through the regulations that we shall introduce through the Bill. I can give him some comfort by saying that, when we introduce the proposals by way of regulation once we have consulted on the detail, he will be satisfied that we have addressed those concerns.
      Mr. Bercow: The Secretary of State's historical exegesis has been much enjoyed so far by a packed House. On the subject of the notice required before premises are visited and inspected, will he assure the House that he will be guided by one or other of the many precedents in other legislation? It would be helpful if he could tell us at this point by which he will be guided.
      Mr. Byers: This legislation stands on its own, and precedents will no doubt be created when it comes to be interpreted. It is far better to allow the courts to consider the wording that the House is putting in place and for them to interpret it accordingly. However, there are rules of statutory interpretation, which will apply to any legislation. It is wholly appropriate that the courts adopt that particular approach, and they will do so in the context of this legislation as they do with all other legislation.
      Mr. Bercow: That was a marvellously fluent response, but I am afraid that the fog has, if anything, increased. I intend no discourtesy to the Secretary of State, but will he give the House an idea of what he would consider in this context to be a reasonable period of notice?
      Mr. Byers: I have studied law for far too long not to know that one should not try to define what is meant by "reasonable" in any hypothetical situation. It must always be—[Interruption.] I see that the Opposition Whip, who is a lawyer, agrees with that approach.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: I was amused by it.
      Mr. Byers: That probably speaks volumes. Reasonableness will always be a matter for the courts to decide in the circumstances of any particular case. The important point to bear in mind is that, if that is what is required, the test of reasonableness, to which the hon. Member for Buckingham referred, must be considered in the circumstances of the case.
      I was saying that, in relation to self-incrimination, we have to take into account the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Saunders v. the United Kingdom, and these measures do precisely that.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: In opposition, one is always keen to ensure that one makes a positive contribution to a Bill. I wonder whether the proposal was always intended to be concerned with self-incrimination. When I made a speech on precisely that point in Committee, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and

      1113
      Industry was unaware that, by allowing this sort of inspection, one was effectively giving an unwarranted—I use that word in both its senses—access to people's records. That is extremely important as, once enacted, the Bill will extend the offences that can be investigated by the investigator so that they cover almost anything.
      Mr. Byers: My approach is that if good ideas that can improve the Bill are put forward in Committee—from whichever party they come—we should try to incorporate them on Report. This may well be an example of that happening. It is good practice and one which I intend to follow so that we end up with better legislation.
      I hope that Government amendment No. 59 and new schedule 2 strike a careful balance between the needs of regulation and the regulated. I am sure that the majority of bureaux will welcome the modernisation of record-keeping and inspection powers and the up-to-date safeguards that we are putting in place while ensuring that we, as a Department, exercise our inspection powers.
      This is a good opportunity to pay tribute to the majority of private recruitment agencies. They play a key role in meeting the demand for flexible and multi-skilled staff. They provide hirers with the means of coping with fluctuating demand, as well as providing specialist skills in recruitment. They also help find work for many people who might otherwise be unable to participate in the labour market. Employment agencies can play a valuable role. Indeed, the industry is one of the economy's success stories. It has grown continuously in recent years. Most measures show that it has more than tripled in size since 1992, and provisional figures for the third quarter of 1998 show growth of more than 20 per cent. over the previous year.
      We believe that the existing framework of regulation no longer meets the needs of the industry or of its clients and therefore needs to be changed. There is much good practice and much that the industry should be commended for. We are wholly committed to maintaining flexibilities in the labour market, but underpinned by minimum standards for those in work. However, its role can continue to expand only if it is based on fair and non-restrictive terms applying to both hirers and workers.
      I am pleased that, when we introduce new regulations to underpin this measure, we shall be removing three sets of regulations and replacing them with one set. We shall see a number of regulations fall by the wayside. There will be an overall reduction in the amount of regulation as a result of the proposals that we are bringing before the House.
      Mr. Bercow: The Secretary of State's last point is of particular interest. In the light of the prospective reduction in regulation that he envisages, will he be a little more specific and tell us precisely what impact it will have on the net figure of 2,380 additional regulations that have spewed forth from the Government since 1 May 1997? What is the new figure? Will the right hon. Gentleman open Pandora's box and tell us?
      Mr. Byers: Not in the precise terms in which the hon. Gentleman invites me to respond. However, in the final three years of the Conservative Government—I will
      1114
      remind him of the figures because they should be placed on the record—we saw more than 10,000 regulations introduced.
      Mr. Bercow: That was Hezza's fault.
      Mr. Byers: It may have been the fault of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) as President of the Board of Trade.
      We shall see a significant reduction in regulation. We shall see three sets of regulations with seven schedules reduced to one set with four schedules. There will be a relatively significant reduction in the number of pages of regulations, from 22 to 18. We are moving in the right direction. Instead of regulation escalating all the time—this applies to Governments of our persuasion and also to those of Conservative persuasion—at least with this measure we are beginning to see a reduction at long last. I hope that this is the beginning of a substantial reduction in the pages of regulations, the sets of regulations and the schedules that implement regulations.
      Mr. Phil Woolas: It may be worth while to point out, for the record, that it was not only the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who oversaw the deregulation unit. Also involved were the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and the then hon. Member for Tatton, Mr. Hamilton. I wondered whether the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) would shake his head so vigorously given that information.
      Mr. Byers: When the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who leads for the Opposition on these matters, was a Minister with responsibility for corporate affairs in the Department of Trade and Industry, he had a pretty bad record on regulation. We will reveal the figures in due course. Conservative Members will have to wait a while before we can open that particular Pandora's Box. I am sure that we will look forward to that with equal pleasure.
      As I have said, the Bill begins the reduction of regulation. We want to do so in a way that modernises the approach to employment agencies. We do not want to create a revolution in the way in which the recruitment industry operates. The draft consultation document shows that we are seeking, in the main, to clarify existing standards and to eliminate those that are outdated.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I am extremely surprised that the Secretary of State should say that there will be only a slight amendment to the regulations. Surely he understands the principle that interfering with a contract between an employment agency and the person doing the hiring of either permanents or temps, and banning temp to permanent fees, wholly undermines an industry which has 200,000 permanent employees and ensures that 900,000 people are in temporary work. We are seeing a fundamental change which could lead to the abolition of employment agencies.
      5 pm
      Mr. Byers: I think that I mentioned in my introductory remarks that I am leaving my detailed comments on those matters to when I reply to specific amendments. That seems to be appropriate. I shall respond when I have heard the arguments of Conservative Members.

      1115
      We have produced draft regulations—and, indeed, are consulting upon them—because we have no doubt that improvements can be made. The consultation is genuine and if people can show me evidence of difficulties along the lines of those to which the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) referred, I will be prepared to look again at our approach to this matter. I do not have a closed mind and we have an opportunity to create a framework within which employment agencies, which have a crucial role to play, can work well and honestly in the future. I believe that we can achieve that and I want to achieve it together, rather than seek divisions on what is a genuine approach to the way in which we can move forward.
      I know that the recruitment sector has a number of concerns. I hope that I will be able to offer some reassurance that our proposals are sound and will provide a basis for a strong and confident industry, which can look forward to a prosperous future. Many people will see opportunity in our proposals and I look forward to hearing their views, as well as those of Conservative Members and of hon. Members generally. I am sure that, based on those views, we will be able to introduce regulations that support the industry. I await with interest comments from Conservative Members on their amendments.
      Mr. Boswell: I thank the Secretary of State for moving his amendment and I agree with the way in which he proposes to handle this rather complex group of amendments, which consists of a Government amendment, a Government new schedule and six amendments tabled by Conservative Members. If he has undertaken any detailed textual criticism of those amendments, he will know that they all have slightly different provenances. Nevertheless, all refer to an issue of considerable concern.
      For reasons that may become apparent, I am becoming increasingly familiar with the ways of lawyers. It was perhaps a tribute to the Secretary of State's skills in that respect that he was able to move his amendment to what is undoubtedly the most contentious clause of the Bill in tones of such sweet reasonableness. We will probably have to take him at his word and answer him in his own terms.
      I should record my considerable concern about the proposed means of proceeding. The Government are bent on consulting on new regulations. It would be welcome if, as a result, they turned out to be simpler, briefer and less intrusive on the activities of employment agencies, but on Tuesday of last week we had the remarkable experience on opening our post of being invited to consider 60 pages of a pre-consultation document, which was evidently delivered to us in circumstances of great secrecy and privilege. There was no realistic possibility of our studying the document before our proceedings began.
      I should say at this point that the whole House will be waiting for the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who knows about these things and will no doubt have a great deal to say on the details—indeed, I defer to his knowledge of the matter.
      Be that as it may, the infelicity about consultation—it would have been nice if we had had it in time for us to think about the results before we debated them—has been compounded by the Government's introduction of new
      1116
      schedule 2. There may be other occasions on which we would want to discuss the general handling of the Bill, but the new schedule runs to three pages of fairly closely typed print and it had been introduced without explanation, although the Secretary of State has now provided that. We are pleased to have had his explanation and I am even more gratified that it was coincident with my feeble understanding of what was intended.
      We think that we know what we are about; as the Secretary of State said, it has to do with inspection and evidence. It is worth flagging up the point that it is becoming a habit for the Government to take the meat out of clauses, use them as paving measures and put all the meat into new schedules. New schedule 2 includes the meat of what we have been debating plus the new inspection provisions.
      Perhaps we need not debate that method of drafting now, but there are concerns of substance and procedure relating to the new schedule. I was a little concerned when the Secretary of State said that it would make matters easier for agencies. When one hears that, one is always a little suspicious.
      An example that might be congenial to the Secretary of State—and to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—is a chilling description I once heard of a visit late at night by the then nationalist South African police, which was described as the "friendly knock" of the police. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to reassure the House that his inspectors do not work on that basis.
      The schedule embodies and extends new powers. Even if the Secretary of State has the greatest of good will, the powers may cause difficulties, particularly where agencies may not be sympathetic to the conduct of the legislation or anxious to be entirely compliant with it or the wishes of inspectors.
      The Secretary of State is a lawyer, and I am not, and he has access to advice that I do not have. On Second Reading, he issued a certificate to the House that the provisions of the Bill were compliant with the European convention on human rights. He referred to convention cases that informed Government decisions. He has now tabled a new schedule, with direct implications for human rights.
      I did not participate in the debates on the Human Rights Act 1998, and I am not clear whether the new schedule is automatically certificated as compliant with the convention, whether it is deemed to be compliant or whether it has not been considered. Clearly, the Secretary of State would like it to be compliant, as would the Opposition. However, the matter should be explained to the House.
      Government amendment No. 59 has some superficial similarity to some of the amendments that we have tabled to delete subsections of clause 28. However, the Secretary of State proposes the insertion of an even bigger schedule. That schedule has arrived at the last minute, and the gap between the conclusion of the Committee and Report has been sadly compressed. We have not had enough time to table probing amendments to the schedule; nor have we had the opportunity to consider fully the matter with our advisers, who might wish to reconsider and make suggestions for another place. The Bill passes from our control shortly, but that does not mean that the issues should not be addressed.

      1117
      Paragraph 3 of the proposed schedule refers to classes of cases that the Secretary of State may prescribe as exceptions. However, no reference is made to any criteria by which the Secretary of State should decide the cases. It will be important—if only because he will wish to avoid judicial review—for him to do so on a proper, procedural and principled basis. He might wish to explain to the House the kind of criteria that would be appropriate.
      Paragraph 3(c) could abolish what is known in the trade as temp to perm fees, and would drive a coach and horses through the custom and practice of the operation of employment agencies and businesses in this country. I shall return to that when I deal with the amendments that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled.
      The Secretary of State referred to inspection and new powers. It is characteristic of the drafting of this legislation that paragraph 4 of new schedule 2 inserts new subsections in the Employment Agencies Act 1973, one of which provides a power to
      "enter any relevant business premises".
      No restrictions are prescribed. There is no reference to entry at any reasonable time—not necessarily on notice—or entry with any reasonable force that might be appropriate to secure access. I think that there ought to be such restrictions. Nor is there any requirement for an inspector who has had to force an entry to make good any damage that he may have caused.
      Paragraph 4(3), interestingly, states that an officer
      "may require any person on the premises … to inform him where and by whom the record, other document or information is kept".
      That is a reasonable requirement if the person knows, but it is not very reasonable if the person does not know. I feel that there should be a safeguard to cover those who, in good faith, may not have such knowledge. At present, the requirement applies to
      "any person on the premises",
      not any person who is likely to have the information in question. That could be a cleaning lady, a tea lady or some other member of staff. Indeed, in some cases data protection legislation might make it impossible for a person to release the information.
      The proposed subsection (1B)(c) of section 9 refers to an officer having "reasonable cause to believe" that premises are being used
      "for the carrying on of a business by a person who also carries on or has carried on an employment agency or employment business".
      The Secretary of State mentioned that extension of powers, and I understand it. I know that, as a term of art, officers are expected to act reasonably at all times, but I am not sure whether an officer should be required to make a formal declaration to that effect, or whether it should be assumed, if he goes on to look at other premises, that he has reached such a conclusion. I suspect that, as a safeguard in terms of human rights, he ought to be required to make a formal statement.
      Let me make two more points about the new schedule. Both have been made in earlier debates, but I think they are important. Paragraph 4(6) refers to a restriction on the
      1118
      disclosure of information. That is a widening provision, in that the release of information would no longer be tied to matters
      "pursuant to or arising out of the Act".
      I am not sure that that is very safe. In Committee, the proposal coincided with press reports suggesting that, for example, the Child Support Agency and the Inland Revenue would be able to work more closely together.
      There are some important safeguards, in terms of civil liberties, relating to the release of information by one Department to another. I think that, as a lawyer, the Secretary of State will want to ensure that those provisions are considered properly, and are proportionate only to any particular need.
      My final point about the new schedule relates to the offences provisions, which have also been referred to in earlier debates. The Government want to increase the qualifying time from within six months following the offence in question to either
      "within 3 years after the date of the commission of the offence"
      or
      "within 6 months after the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the Secretary of State to justify the proceeding came to his knowledge."
      I shall not repeat the arguments that have already been presented, but I feel that three years would be a bit long in some cases. Evidence might be destroyed, and difficulties might be caused even for parties acting with good will.
      5.15 pm
      Let me now deal with the Opposition amendments. We are not at all happy with the current drafting of clause 28. Amendment No. 1 proposes the omission of lines that redraft the Employment Agencies Act 1973, because we prefer the status quo. We do not think that the Government have yet made out a case for change. The 1973 Act was in itself a departure from the norm of non-partiality in business activities—the general principle that particular business sectors should not be subject to legislation unless there is a problem that must be dealt with.
      The Government of the time were prepared to countenance legislation that imposed specific restrictions in relation to agencies, with which the Secretary of State is familiar. I shall not reopen that debate. Although some of his hon. Friends might have disagreed had they been present, the Secretary of State implied that employment agencies and businesses had conducted themselves well, that they were useful and that he wanted to help them; and I think that the legislative umbrella under which they operate has itself worked reasonably well. The Secretary of State owes it to the House to say a little more about why the Government consider this change necessary, especially as it will further restrict the activities of employment agencies.
      The following three amendments are all designed to curtail what might be termed over-enthusiasm with regulations. Amendment No. 36 provides for
      "regulating the conduct of hirers in paying appropriate fees to such agencies and businesses".
      It is less about the fees themselves than about the way in which hirers go about their business. Is it "oppressive", as I think the lawyers would say? Is it unfair? Or is it the reasonable conduct that a well-founded, properly run agency should be undertaking?

      1119
      Amendment No. 2 takes a slightly different approach. It deals with the purpose of regulations, and suggests that they should be restricted to
      "the purpose of protecting employees' rights and not otherwise to interfere with the commercial relationship".
      The Bill provides for such interference. If the Secretary of State can make out a case for saying that, without such provision, it would be impossible to safeguard employees' rights, and that, in the circumstances, it is reasonable, we shall consider it; but subversion of the basic operation of the market is something which, given his rhetoric, the Secretary of State appears not to want. Certainly Conservative Members do not want it.
      Amendment No. 35 stresses the importance of preventing regulations from prejudicing
      "the ability of the private recruitment industry to continue to expand its role in the labour market."
      It is a useful amendment. Indeed, those are useful agencies, and they should not be seen as being unduly restrictive. The Secretary of State says that he wants to help them; well, he should put his money, or his regulations, where his mouth is.
      Amendment No. 3 deals with the main issue: an agency's ability to claw back recruitment fees if employer and employee conclude a private arrangement for permanent employment—the so-called temp to perm arrangement. Such fees are analogous to the fee that would have been levied had the employer taken on the employee from an agency on a permanent basis in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset is an expert; but I cannot see that it is wrong to secure that in principle. The two cases are virtually the same. It is not a restraint of trade. The Government may, even if they do not intend to, preclude that arrangement and they should not do so.
      The thrust of our concerns is summarised in amendment No. 34, which, in effect, subjects any subsequent regulations to the affirmative resolution procedure. I have mentioned our considerable disquiet about the way in which the legislation was chucked at us. Now that there will be consultation, there are opportunities for the Government to redeem themselves.
      In fairness to the Government, in other areas, they have shown a readiness to listen to proposals, either voluntarily, or as a result of proposals that we have put to them. For example, the affirmative resolution procedure will be invoked in relation to clause 3, which deals with black lists, on which we spent some time last night. The Government have also promised that the affirmative resolution procedure will be used in relation to clause 16.
      Apparently, the Government are no longer set against the use of that procedure. I agree with that because these are important matters of principle to get right. We say modestly that, even if we are not the world's greatest experts on these matters, we have an important lay role in saying that legislation does not seem to be quite right and that, if the Government want to get it right, they should look at it again.
      I have set out an initial response to the Government's new schedule and expressed some concerns about the powers that it sets out. The amendments set out several ways in which the danger, as we see it, of restricting and regulating the important employment agency sector out of sight and out of existence could be curtailed.
      1120
      We have noted the Secretary of State's rhetoric, but we remain deeply suspicious of it—the alleged intentions are not consistent with what is being delivered in the Bill. We await not only the contributions of other hon. Members, but the right hon. Gentleman's response on the amendments because, at the moment, we are far from satisfied and may have to put that dissatisfaction to the test.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I have seldom had a speech trailed so thoroughly. I hope that I will not disappoint colleagues, who have been told of my supposed expertise.
      I repeat what I have said in all such debates: I have a declaration of non-interest, although people may believe that I have an interest. I should tell the House exactly the position. I ran an employment agency for 12 years. It is a limited company which, until the licensing of employment agencies was cut, had a licence. It is supposed to be an employment agency, but has not traded for the 11 years that I have been a Member of Parliament.
      Although I advised the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services until the general election, I am not an adviser to that organisation now. I think that I am right in saying that I do not have a single penny of income coming from any employment agency source. I hope that, in making that clear, I am also showing that I have some 12 years' experience of trying to make my living running an employment agency. That is important information.
      We started consideration of clause 28 in the dark about what the Government intended. They had had consultations with a number of organisations, including FRES. Indeed, FRES was quite calm about what was happening because it did not believe that the Government intended to implement the policy in the Labour 1983 manifesto, which was to abolish employment agencies as a matter of urgency. When one hears the rhetoric coming from Government, one is encouraged to believe that new Labour recognises that employment agencies and employment businesses are part of the flexible labour market that it is now supposedly signed up to.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: There has been talk about the history of the legislation. Does my hon. Friend recall that my pair—if we had pairs—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), referred to the 1983 Labour manifesto as the longest suicide note in history? Does my hon. Friend think that the Bill will turn out to be the same?
      Mr. Bruce: Unfortunately, the Labour party has become adept at not telling people what its real intentions are. It is called spin; it is good at it. Many of us will learn from it when it comes to the next general election. It has been careful not to sign suicide notes, but that does not mean that there is no conspiracy. However—I hope that the Secretary of State is listening—I was pleased with what he said about genuinely consulting on the Government's document.
      We did not know what the Government's intentions were. We had a clue. It was in a press notice that was dated 25 September 1998 and released by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It said that, in the modernisation—a wonderful word, but I always prefer

      1121
      "improvement"; we are always keen to see improvement and everything can be improved—of employment agencies, issues to be covered included the
      "need to ensure proper standards on reference checking",
      no one has any worries about that,
      "rules requiring agencies to pay workers promptly and fully",
      again, one has no arguments about that; it was already covered in the previous legislation,
      "and an obligation on agencies holding clients' money to safeguard it properly."
      Who could argue with those things? A few cowboys might have been worried about that, but, clearly, FRES and all employment agencies that were not cowboys and were running their businesses properly were not concerned at all.
      The press release said that we would see a consultation document by the end of 1998. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) pointed out, that consultation document arrived on the Tuesday morning that I made my initial speech on clause 28. We did not have the opportunity—perhaps during one of the pauses for breath while I read the document—to see some of the things that were in the consultation document. In fact, it stood the Employment Agencies Act 1973 on it head.
      The House should understand that that Act was a Conservative private Member's Bill, but that the regulations that came from the Act were enacted in 1976 by the then Labour Government. I have a little advice on that. The Minister at the time was Harold Walker, now Lord Walker of Doncaster. who served as a distinguished Deputy Speaker of the House. I understand that he put his reputation on the line because he had understood what the industry was saying and resisted old Labour's push to get him to interfere with the proper working relationships in the industry. Perhaps he was new Labour, even back then. He decided that it was not an industry which we should attack, but one that should flourish.
      Amendment No. 35 includes the somewhat strange words:
      "Provided that regulations under this section shall only be made in such a way as to avoid prejudice to the ability of the private recruitment industry to continue to expand its role in the labour market."
      Those words come directly from the draft consultation document. That is confidential, but I hope that the Secretary of State will not object to its words being used in the amendment. That is what the Government say they want to do, but, under the regulations—certainly, the draft regulations seem to suggest it—they will close the industry, or at least damage it seriously.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is a tremendous authority on these subjects. Given that this is our final opportunity to debate employment agencies, does my hon. Friend agree that it is regrettable that the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) is not present? In the Standing Committee, the hon. Gentleman cited an example of appalling bad practice by an employment agency, giving the impression that it was in his constituency. Does my hon. Friend recall, however, that when challenged, the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to confirm that the culprit
      1122
      agency was in his constituency, or to name it? The effect is that a cloud of suspicion hangs over all employment agencies in Corby or in close proximity to it. Should that matter not be cleared up as it has created considerable uncertainty and confusion?
      Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend has jumped ahead to a point I had intended to reach. The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) has three times given his example on the Floor of the House. At least, I assume it was the same example; each time he told the tale, it altered slightly.
      Mr. Bercow: It did not improve in the telling.
      Mr. Bruce: It certainly did not. The Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services believes that such a case did exist some years ago. The agency involved was investigated, and it ceased to practise some years ago. The federation's disciplinary procedures also make it clear that any agency employing such practices would be declined membership or kicked out of FRES. That was appropriate self-regulation before the minimum wage came in, and the minimum wage regulations also deal with the matter.
      It is fallacious to suggest that regulations are required in the new Bill. None of the regulations suggested by the Government seeks to deal with the matter. When we considered the regulations in advance, it seemed that the new clauses would do so. The federation and other bodies were not concerned because bad practice will always occur—perhaps in 1 or 2 per cent. of businesses, or even more. No one in the industry wants the Government to stop taking action against bad practice, but that is not dealt with in the draft regulations.
      Mr. Bercow: If it is accurate, my hon. Friend's intelligence on this matter is extremely helpful to the House. Although he is not psychic, does my hon. Friend surmise that his intelligence might explain the absence of the hon. Member for Corby, who will be well aware that it would be a serious matter knowingly to mislead the House? Might the hon. Gentleman know that the example that he gave in a bid to whip up hysteria is dead and bogus, and that he dare not reproduce it this afternoon?
      Mr. Bruce: In Committee, we shot the hon. Gentleman's fox. The record makes it is clear that employment agencies in Corby can hold their heads up high. Although their Member of Parliament has slagged them off, they have proved that they are of the highest standard.
      Mr. Ian Stewart: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has tried to vilify a Labour Member by claiming that my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) did not give details of a particular company. If Conservative Members read Hansard for Standing Committee E, however, they will find that Members on their own side stated that several agencies fitted the bill, but did not give any details. It is all in Hansard.
      Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman should check his facts. I have a complete set of the Committee Hansard which I should be happy to give him if he would like to check.
      Miss Julie Kirkbride: Would the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) care to tell us in which columns we can find the allegations that we made against employment agencies in our own constituencies?
      Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, but we should not embarrass the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart), whose contribution to the Committee was very valuable. He has told me off several times for praising him too much. Apparently, genuine praise from this quarter is unwelcome, and he is once again embarrassed by it. His contribution to the Committee was extremely good, as were those of several of his colleagues. I should mention the excellent whipping of the Bill, which got it out of Committee exactly on time, although I do not want to damage anyone else's reputation by saying so.
      I acknowledge that new schedule 2, which abolishes clause 28 by replacing it with a much longer schedule, goes some way towards solving the problem of allowing inspectors to enter premises to investigate almost any crime. The new schedule was published only on Thursday, and I did not see it until this week. I do not know of anyone who has read it in detail and produced a definitive view of how it affects employment agencies.
      That is not the right way to introduce legislation. The new schedule has not been examined line by line, and we do not have the time to do so on the Floor of the House. I am sure that the Government have tabled the new schedule in good faith to try to deal with problems raised in Committee. However, a two-and-a-half page new schedule is replacing a page-long clause, and we have not examined it in detail. That puts Parliament in a difficult position. We are telling employment agencies that we have, during the few days of Report and Third Reading, created a new schedule that has not been properly debated.
      Amendment No. 34 seeks to provide for positive resolution on this point. I hope that the Minister will give us that comfort. We rightly pay tribute to the Government when they do listen, and they were quick in Committee to say that they would allow positive resolution on virtually all other issues raised. This is a major part of the Bill—perhaps even a Bill within the Bill—and it requires time in Committee.
      I am worried that draft regulations may be published in a few weeks' time, examined and reported on in May or June, and made on the last day of Parliament, which is exactly what happened with regulations on holiday pay contained in the working time regulations. The regulations would then come in a month later without any chance of discussion, even though we would be able, under the positive resolution procedure, to discuss them when we return in October. If the Minister considers the matter honestly, he will know that people could not ask their Members of Parliament what those regulations meant to them. That is no way in which to introduce major change in an industry that has many employees.
      Until quite late in the proceedings, I had not appreciated that, interestingly, the Government have made a regulatory impact assessment of the Bill. Although the House should welcome the Government making such assessments, the problem is that—as hard as I looked—I could not find in that document one word about the regulations' effect on employment agencies. Extraordinarily, there was also no mention in it of cost
      1124
      compliance. Ministers have acknowledged that they are planning to introduce many regulations on the issue, but they have not even addressed the issue in the document. I hope that the Government will do the other place the courtesy of providing some type of impact assessment.
      We are not talking about a minor part of our economy. The Government themselves believe that, on any one day, 900,000 temporary workers are out working. Therefore, today, 900,000 workers will finish their work, probably at about 5.30 pm, and will expect to be paid for that work. About 200,000 people are employed as permanent staff in employment agencies—attempting to find permanent jobs for people—and in employment businesses, which attempt to hire people out. They comprise about 3 per cent. of the United Kingdom work force.
      To get even close to the number of people who would be affected by the regulations, we would have to add together the number of all those employed in the national health service, which is three quarters of a million people, and in the motor industry. We could also add in the number of Members of Parliament. We have to be extraordinarily careful about passing restrictions that will affect all those who take temporary work and the 380,000 people who gain permanent work each year through employment agencies.
      Many people who study employment in the United Kingdom and the world say that ever more people are working in service industries. Some people might even say that employment agencies have no positive impact—other than to help other businesses to do more effectively what they do—and that it is a purely service industry. However, closing down or restricting that industry would affect the employment not only of the 200,000 people who work in it, but of the 900,000 people who gain temporary work through it. Such action could also restrict the speed at which the 380,000 people whom it helps to look for permanent work find jobs.
      Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend is making his point well, but I should like to develop it a little further, and link it to one of his earlier points. Restricting the industry would disproportionately affect certain types of work and jobs. Employment agencies provide particular types of work to a very large group of employees, and are the principal source of employment in certain types of jobs. Restricting the agencies would therefore have a disproportionate effect on certain parts of the labour market, and it is difficult to imagine another type of agency filling the gap.
      Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—he has provided a neat point at which to give an example. I shall use as an example the operation of hon. Members' offices—with which we are all familiar. Let us say that, on a Monday morning, an hon. Member discovers that his or her secretary has taken ill or has had a home emergency. We might decide that, for the next week or so, we shall not answer our correspondence, but catch up later—perhaps expecting those who work for us to work that much harder. It is very difficult for parliamentary secretaries to work any harder than they do; we all know the volume of correspondence that they deal with. Those who work in business are faced with the same decision on whether temporarily to take on someone to help with the work.

      1125
      It is good for the United Kingdom economy, for employment and for temporary employees if a temporary employee can arrive at a workplace within hours of someone picking up a telephone and saying, "We have a problem; someone has not come in today. Can you get someone down here to take over?"
      The temp will be told over the telephone how much he or she will be paid. The amount often varies, depending on the job. Very often, secretarial temps might work as a personal assistant on one day, as a clerical assistant the next day, and in answering the telephone on another day.
      Employment agencies try to get the best possible rate for the job. Many Labour Members seem to think that agencies try to pay the temp the lowest possible amount and to charge him or her out at the highest possible amount. In reality, everyone knows what a temp is being paid when he or she walks through the door. It is very much a cost-plus situation. If one is paying £7 an hour and employer's national insurance, the amount charged by an agency is that amount plus whatever mark-up it is trying to get. Therefore, very often, it is in temp agencies' interests to obtain higher wages for temps. Sometimes, however, agencies cannot send someone out at the desired rate, but will accept a lower rate, of which they will inform the temp. The individual does not accept the job until he or she knows the rate.
      5.45 pm
      The regulations would prevent someone going from a job paying £7 an hour to a subsequent job paying £6 an hour until that individual had come in to the agency and signed a contract saying that he or she agrees the variation. Under current regulations, within 24 hours—it is a very tight time frame—a rate can be agreed over the telephone, and, in that evening's post, the temp will receive a contract stating how much they will be paid, and the company will receive a contract stating how much it will be charged. Under the new regulations, temps would have to sign a piece of paper stating, "I'm aware of the change, and I agree to it." If it is all done by post, they will be able to start work in about three days' time.
      Mr. John Healey: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that everyone does not know what a temp is earning when they walk through the door? One of the problems for employers who use employment agencies is that they do not necessarily know—and often cannot find out—how much the temp they have engaged via an agency is being paid. Therefore, employers also have no idea of the commission that is being taken by an agency. Does he accept that the regulations and new schedule 2 will help in that process—which many clients find to be an opaque one?
      Mr. Bruce: I do not think that the regulations will necessarily allow an employer to know the rate. People often say that one should not put up on a board what everyone in the organisation is earning, but that one should pay people as if that information will be put up on a board—in other words, one must be fair. Temps certainly do know the various available pay rates.
      Perhaps the Government's desire to deal with pay rate variations is based on the fact that two temps may go to the same organisation to do the same job, but be charged
      1126
      out and paid at different rates. Such a situation sometimes disturbs the work environment. Those in the industry might say, "Unless one is paying temps at a sensible rate, they will leave one agency and go to another."
      We thought that the Government were concerned about people's ability to be flexible in marketing themselves, by going from one agency to another. However, in the regulations, they seem to be trying to deal with almost everything but that.
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government seem to assume that the 900,000 people who are temping are doing so because they have been thrown on the scrap heap of life, and that they are being exploited by temporary agencies? More often than not, however, people seek temporary work because they enjoy the flexibility that temp work provides. They are able to do different jobs on different days, whereas, on other days, they are free to look after their children, to do the shopping, or whatever. They enjoy that flexibility, which would be restrained and constrained by the Government's proposals.
      Mr. Bruce: I believe that Ministers and some of the members of the Standing Committee understand that. However, generally people are hostile to temping. People must understand that there are those who temp because that is how they want to do their business. There is also a group of people who do not want to temp, but want a permanent job.
      There would be unintended consequences if the Government stop the temp-to-perm fees.
      Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Bruce: I shall just develop my point. I do not want to lose track of what I am saying. [Interruption.] All right, I will give way.
      Mr. Hayes: I shall give my hon. Friend pause for breath and thought. The key point is that not only is there a group of people who are happy with the flexibility my hon. Friend described—he is right about that—but employers are well aware of that fact, and are aware of the good agencies and those that are not so good. I have found from my business and commercial experience that employers build up a relationship with two or three agencies on which they -know that they can call because they are reliable. There is no mystery about that, and there is not a great deal of mystery about the standards of those agencies and the prices they charge or pay. It is not always a jungle out there, which is what some Labour Members would have us believe. There is a fair amount of knowledge on the part of the temps and those using them which tempers the worst excesses that are sometimes caricatured by Labour Members.
      Mr. Bruce: Having had my train of thought disturbed I shall now return—
      Miss Kirkbride: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his wonderful command of the detail of this legislation. His speech is illuminating for Conservative Members and, I suspect, for Labour Members. I should like to be clear about what he is saying about the notification period for

      1127
      a change in the hourly rate. There are many people who enjoy temping who may be cross if they cannot have a job that suits their arrangements in a particular week because of the notice period. I am not sure what my hon. Friend is saying about the time involved in the notice period if a telephone call is not enough.
      Mr. Bruce: The current regulations are quite clear. If the terms of employment are to be changed from one week to another, an agency can ring someone and say that the terms are different—hopefully, they will be better. However, if someone is working as a personal assistant in a top company for a few weeks and then has to accept a copy typing job because that is all that is on offer, the pay will not be as much. The person may then say, "If there is nothing else for me, that is fine." A fresh contract will then be sent by first-class post and the employment agency will have done what it needs to do.
      Under the regulations suggested by the Government, once they had agreed by telephone to work for a certain amount of money, it would be an offence for people to carry out that work until they had signed a contract to say that the terms were different and that they were willing to accept that. We are talking about people who might be contacted at 10 o'clock in the morning because somebody has not turned up for work because of ill health.
      Under the proposed regulations, that individual would either have to go to the agency to sign the contract and perhaps lose a day's work or, if that were not possible, they would have to wait to receive the contract in the post, sign it and then return it. It would then be Wednesday or Thursday before they could work. They could not go until the contract is in the hands of the agency because it would be an offence not to have a signed contract. The bureaucracy is silly.
      It is important for hon. Members to understand what sort of people might want to temp and what sort might want permanent jobs. Married women with children of school age are often able to come back to do secretarial work without having to work during the school holidays. They may also want time off if their child is to have an operation or to deal with any other domestic emergency. The temp controller ensures that that is taken into account.
      During the school holidays, undergraduates or students at technical college may be available for work and some of them may have secretarial skills. They are available at exactly the same time, perhaps with an overlap, as the children are away from school. That is a perfect flexible market. There are two groups of workers, one that wants only temporary contracts, and the other willing to temp, but wanting a permanent vacancy. The regulations are attempting to stop the temp-to-perm process. Temp people would be sent only to where there is a permanent vacancy and a shortlist of those who want permanent work would be sent later.
      A company that wants to take on permanent staff now can ring an employment agency and ask for a temp. If that temp proves to be good, the company may not advertise or ask the agency to send a shortlist, but may take them on as a permanent member of staff. The normal way of dealing with that is that a permanent fee is charged. It may be that £10 or £20 is being made on the margin while those people are temping and a recruitment fee is paid at the end of that time. I do not want to see the unintended consequence of employment agencies sending out only those who want to be temps and providing a separate shortlist of those who want permanent work.
      1128
      Some people may become unemployed as temps simply because they are looking for permanent work. Temping is a good way for people to get back into permanent employment and to keep their skills up to date. Sometimes those returning to work, particularly women, want to work at a lower skill level because they do not believe that they have sufficient skills. From running employment agencies I have found that people who say that they can no longer do any shorthand or typing often turn out to be brilliant shorthand typists. Those skills can then be developed while working as a temp, specifically to get back into permanent work. There comes a time in women's careers in particular when the age of their children is the crucial factor in deciding whether they need to stay at home during the school holidays. If the children can stay on their own or go elsewhere, women do not need to stop work during the school holidays.
      I am worried that the Government's proposals for the temp-to-perm process will mean that employees are no longer used in that flexible way. In fact, I would go a step further. I believe that this is crucial and that the Government do not understand what they are doing. If a company wants a temp urgently, it can ring the agency and ask for one. The agency may be making a few pounds an hour on top of the cost of delivering that individual. The company may believe that that is a bit steep, but agree to it because it has to have that person.
      If there is no requirement for that company to pay a permanent fee, it could decide to employ that person directly as a temp. The employment agency would have used its skill in advertising, interviewing and checking skills and so on. That is a reason to prevent employers who are using the skills of the employment agency from employing an individual directly without paying the agency what it has agreed to pay under the terms of the temp contract. A company might cease the temp contract early and take the person on as a temporary worker, working directly for the company.
      That is the temp to perm arrangement which would ensure that any individual trying to run a temporary employment business could be undermined by employers, who would say, "No, I don't have to pay a fee if I take this person directly on to the books." That would have unsatisfactory consequences, in particular for what the Government are trying to do.
      6 pm
      Employment rights are what the Government are about. Although we would not go down the regulatory route, we understand that they have a mandate to deliver that. Let us imagine the situation. Someone starts off at a temp bureau and undertakes a series of temporary assignments for one employer. After three months, he or she would receive all the usual employment rights—one qualifies for some after one month and for others after six. If individuals decided to swap and change, rather than stay with the one contractor—if they worked for one company for one week, under contract to the agency, were directly employed by the company for three weeks and then returned to the agency for another one week contract or whatever—that would break up the continuity of employment and deprive them of the employment rights that the Government have been struggling to give them. It would ruin their holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay

      1129
      and all the other benefits that the Government say that they want. Those would be the unintended consequences of this measure.
      I will not speak at great length about what one hon. Member has tried to tell people about the £1 an hour penalty clause. As I said, the employment agency industry works through its reputation for being fair to the employers to whom it is providing staff and to its employees.
      I started off with three employment agencies in one town and I ended up with one. Unfortunately, my agencies were so successful that another five started up. We paid our temps more money and we gave employers a better service. That is how one succeeds. I had a temp controller who insisted that we should constantly try to get higher rates for our people and better people because that was the way forward. Employers wanted really good temps—well paid and well motivated—and that was the right way forward.
      It is no business of the Government or of Parliament to decide how much people should be charged. In general, minimum wages do not affect employment agencies that much, but the minimum wage regulations have already been introduced. There is no requirement in this legislation or in the regulations to suggest that the Government are trying to decide that. They say that they are simply going down this route to stop restraint of trade when people who are taken on on a temporary contract do not convert to permanent employment because the company has to pay a fee. Clearly, that is not correct, because employment agencies make about 20 per cent. of their permanent placements directly through that route. I assure the Minister that it is a great deal more profitable to give a permanent job to temps, in particular outside London where plenty are available, than to take on a permanent employee directly.
      It is suggested that some agencies, instead of charging a direct, normal, permanent recruitment fee, charge more to stop temps moving across. It would not upset employment agencies if the Government introduced regulations to stop that practice and to prevent employment businesses from charging more for a temp to go permanent than for someone who had been sent for an interview for a permanent post. Indeed, the businesses might suggest that people who temp for longer periods could go to the employer at a reduced rate—many companies already do so.
      We thought that the Government were working on measures to deal with contract workers—people who work in an employment business, but are really being supervised to do a particular job of work. I am minded of organisations that provide telephonists. In this place, the telephonists are employed not by the House of Commons, but by a company that provides a service to the House. That also happens at Buckingham palace, the Treasury and—dare I say it—No. 10 Downing street. Recently, the company that everyone wants all employment agencies to resemble lost the contract at No. 10. Surprisingly, the Government seem to be almost recommending a number of the measures that we thought they were worried about, for example, zero-hours contracts. When someone works for Manpower—let us use that example, to avoid
      1130
      confusion—he or she is taken on on a zero-hours contract to be a permanent employee, but only when he or she works. That is one way around the regulations.
      I thought that the House was upset about the fact that burger bars and suchlike use zero-hours contracts. Certainly, we think that a temp should know that he or she is being hired for so many hours, give or take a few. The arrangement should be fairly flexible and the temp should know that the contract might end early—someone who thought that he or she might be off ill for a fortnight could come back early, so the contract would end. Generally, temps who are sent in to do a week's work end up doing two, three or four weeks. It is the job of the temp controller and the employment business—the agency—to keep people working as much as possible, which is surely what the Government want.
      The draft regulations would have another unintended consequence for people on a contract for services. The Government have noticed that, where carers go to individual homes, the little old lady who is receiving the care becomes the employer and is not charged the whole fee as though the entire contract is for services. The wages and national insurance are in effect paid by the little old lady and are shown separately on the invoice, while the margin that the company charges is put on the invoice and value added tax is charged only on that margin. That is a way to ensure that value added tax is not charged on top of the hourly rate paid to people who work for someone who cannot claim back VAT. No one goes through that convoluted rigmarole when putting temps into a company that is VAT registered and can claim the VAT back. The Government may want to ensure that the employment relationship is clear. Employment agencies are not in the business of attempting to get out of their responsibilities for employees. I urge the Minister to consider carefully before collecting VAT from old ladies who are buying care in their own homes because they have been given money by the Government to do so. No one intended them to pay VAT.
      Perhaps supplying labour should be zero-rated. After all, when someone works for wages, he or she does not charge the employer VAT for having done so. There have been cases that prove that employment agencies can work around that anomaly—sometimes the Revenue wins, sometimes it loses—and ensure that individuals do not have to pay VAT that cannot be claimed back because they are not a business.
      References are another issue. I do not think that employment agencies are too worried about a sensible regime on references. However, we get into all sorts of problems when tight regulations are involved. Let me give some suggestions. When someone comes to an employment agency, it is not certain that that person will be employed by it. People have interviews and the agency tries to place them. It is often not convenient, particularly if someone wants a permanent position, to seek references for that person at that point. The best method must be to telephone the company that the person is supposed to be working for and asking, when that person has supposedly given notice, for a reference over the phone or in writing. If people are lying about who they work for, that is when one usually finds that they are wrong 'tins. One cannot take the reference until the contract has been signed. People who were not wrong 'tins would lose their jobs if one rang up their employers for references before they had

      1131
      given in their notice. That would destroy the employer's confidence in them. It is important that the regulations deal with real, sensible things.
      It is not necessary to go to the nth degree and check whether secretaries have the Royal Society of Arts qualifications that they say they have. After all, if one places a temp who claims to have shorthand, RSA stage III and all the rest of it, but clearly does not know one end of a typewriter from the other, that person's contract will cease, and the employment agency will not get paid for putting the person in. Under the minimum wage regulations, the agency will still have to pay such temps, despite their having lied through their teeth about their qualifications. The practical aspects are probably more important.
      Of course, if one sends someone out as a heavy goods vehicle driver, one wants to see the HGV licence—indeed, to see the real licence, photocopy it and get the guy to sign that for the record. That is good, common-sense practice. If employment agencies send people out without the appropriate licence, the legal document necessary, under common law, they could be liable for what happens. We must be careful not to have too much bureaucracy.
      There is something amazing about the regulations. As one reads them to try to find what the Government are up to, one finds that, right at the end, they want to repeal the regulation that stops an employment agency that has placed someone permanently in a company ringing that person up a month later to say "You've done your month. We do not have to give any money back. Do you fancy another job?" That is very bad practice. Employment agencies do not think that that should happen. The regulation stops that, but the Government want to repeal it. That is extraordinary. It is there to stop the cowboys and is in the interests of employment agencies that do the job properly, but it is being removed.
      Mr. Hayes: I am interested by my hon. Friend's last point, because that happened to me in my commercial experience. This reinforces his argument that employers soon get to recognise the agencies that behave like that and do not use them. Firms set up relationships with agencies for particular sorts of employees—indeed, we frequently used agencies when we needed a receptionist or telephonist. Companies will stick with agencies that conduct themselves professionally. Repealing this regulation will only foster the cowboys whom we would rather avoid.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend's point is sensible.
      We would be out of order if we considered in detail the draft regulations that the Minister was kind enough to give us. They cannot be covered on Report, despite the fact that we did not have them to deal with properly in Committee. I hope that I can get his attention so that he can give some pledges when he replies and do what he said that he would do at the outset. He should consider the regulations from the point of view of allowing employment agencies to continue to thrive and flourish.
      The Opposition do not believe in over-regulation. We think that self-regulation and many other things work very well. However, we accept that the Government have a mandate to regulate for what they see as employees' rights. Employment agencies are not going to resist what
      1132
      the Government have a mandate to produce, but they must be able to operate sensibly. We must understand that a temporary employee or someone applying for a permanent job can act independently of employment agencies and businesses. They can take out temporary contracts with employers. Much bar work and casual labour work in the leisure industry are done in that way. Some employees work through employment agencies. I contend that, in law, individuals, whether employed directly by an employer or by an employment agency, should be treated equally. However, I allow that individuals working in an agency might feel that they do not have enough power of negotiation and might wish the Government to protect their rights. Sensible regulations have therefore been accepted by employment agencies over many years, and they have worked successfully. The industry has developed.
      The industry is usually relaxed about regulation. When I ran an employment agency in Yorkshire, it was great to have a licence. If Mrs. Smith decided to run an employment agency because she used to be a temp and thought it would be a great way to make money, which is how my two rivals started, I could close it down for three months. After its first advert for temps, I could ring the Department of Employment and say that someone was starting an employment agency. The Department would send an inspector or write a letter to say that a licence was necessary. A licence could be got without difficulty, but it used to take at least three months. The local authority had to check for planning permission; lots of forms had to be filled in—all the usual bureaucracy. It was great. I paid about £100 a year and had a restraint of trade on anyone who wanted to start competing with me.
      Before I started my employment agency, I had been made redundant and had decided to start a management consultancy. As part of the base for that, I was going to have an office services bureau which would make lots of money. I set up the bureau and had people with typewriters and everything else. I spent all the money. I thought that I was a great marketing expert, but, however my cheap my service, I could not grow the bureau fast enough.
      I thought, "God, what am I going to do?" The guy who was made redundant with me told me that he was doing interviews for employment agencies. He told me that I should start an employment agency because I would make a fortune. It was foolish; I had an office services bureau sitting there and had interviewed a lot of secretaries. Then I realised that I had an asset in the group whom I had employed and the group whom I could not employ, but who were really good, and that I could start an employment agency. I started almost overnight by ringing a few local companies and saying that I had some super secretaries for their vacancies and asking whether I could send some people around. That is how I started my employment agency. I suspect that if I had not got those early placements, I would have gone out of business very quickly. It is amazing how one can spend money setting up a business.
      If I had had to wait the three months that the old system used to allow for, I would never have started. The two existing businesses would still be working today and BOS Recruitment would never have been born. That shows how employment agencies and the Federation of

      1133
      Recruitment and Employment Services can be keen on ensuring that there are regulations to protect existing agencies and not necessarily to allow new entrants.
      Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is speaking with great knowledge on this important subject. I wonder whether he thinks that the Government should look again at this rather cumbersome and lengthy draft new schedule in the light of the recently agreed Cabinet policy, which we heard about earlier this week, that regulations should be both necessary and proportionate. I know that my hon. Friend feels that in some ways regulation is necessary, although not always for the best of reasons, but is the new schedule proportionate? Can he draw on his experience to tell us whether the Government should take it back because it is clearly not proportionate to the problem that they have identified?
      Mr. Bruce: The Government often come out with extremely good statements of intent. They say that they want to ensure that regulations are proportionate and do not go overboard, but, in trying to regulate, they suddenly discover that regulations beget regulations, and that loopholes appear that then require another set of regulations. That is why the draft consultation document, which runs to 70 pages, was necessary just to say what clause 28 would do. The Government have discovered that they needed to write new schedule 2 because clause 28 was not long enough.
      Mr. Byers: I welcome the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to this important debate. It is a shame that he was not here at the beginning of the debate, given its importance. Had he been here, he would have heard me announce that, as a result of our amendment, we are reducing three sets of regulations to one and seven schedules to four. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes that approach.
      Mr. Bruce: Although the point was made to my right hon. Friend, I am sure that he will allow me to answer on his behalf. I am sure—
      Mr. Byers: Let him answer.
      Mr. Bruce: My right hon. Friend cannot make a speech while I am making a speech, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me. I am sure that you will remind him of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I allow that the Government set out to reduce the number of regulations, but since last Tuesday, when we discussed clause 28 in Committee, the Government have produced new schedule 2, which is twice the length of clause 28. On the Tuesday before we started discussing clause 28, we received draft regulations of 70 pages.
      If the Government went through the existing regulations and struck through 50 per cent. of what was there, of course the industry would say that that was good. The words might even be clearer. But that is not what happens. The Government go off with good intentions of simplifying the regulations for employment agencies. I wrote an article for The Interviewer magazine in which I asked whether we should be concerned about the
      1134
      regulations or should panic about them. The industry is now panicking. I cannot pass out the draft regulations to all and sundry, because they still have not been made public. When the one person to whom I have shown them saw them, she panicked about what they contained. I accept that the Secretary of State is sincere in saying that he wants to remove regulations, but I am afraid that it is not happening.
      Mr. Redwood: Of course I would have liked to be here to hear the remarks of the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend, who is speaking so well, but I went to the shadow Cabinet. Perhaps the Secretary of State agrees that, given the momentous events unfolding here and elsewhere, it was important that I was at the meeting. I was subsequently briefed by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister of State, who was here to listen to the earlier part of the debate.
      Does my hon. Friend agree that the length of the regulations is not the only issue, although he rightly says that the latest version is long? The impact on business is also an issue. Only last night, the Secretary of State turned down the opportunity to exempt all small business from this rigmarole. That is why we are still unhappy about the proposals. We would prefer it if he exempted small business from the regulations so that their incredible cost is not imposed on it.
      Mr. Bruce: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point, which I will not attempt to paraphrase.
      When the Labour party was in opposition, it wrote in its 1983 manifesto that it would make employment agencies and businesses illegal. I suspect that such a measure could be encapsulated in a small number of regulations, but I predict confidently that if the Minister wants to restrict what contracts can be made between an employment agency or business and an employer who wants to take on staff, the regulations that we have now will pale into insignificance.
      No one bothers to go to law about regulations that are reasonable and sensible, but if the Government try to outlaw practices that are normal and sensible and have worked well over the years, their regulations will be tested in the courts. I know that the Secretary of State's officials will be spending an awful lot of time, paper and ink in producing the regulations.
      Miss Kirkbride: I served on the Standing Committee with my hon. Friend. The draft regulations were presented to us on the morning when we were meant to debate clause 28. That was breathtaking in itself. They were not to be made available to the employment agency industry. With his superior knowledge, does my hon. Friend have any idea when the industry might see the regulations? It would be wrong if the Bill were to pass through both Houses and become law before the industry could make its representations. However clever my hon. Friend is, there may be things that he has not noticed, and that it is necessary to draw to the attention of the Government.
      Mr. Bruce: I would like to answer my right hon. Friend—I am sorry, I meant my hon. Friend; I am sure that, one day, she will become my right hon. Friend—on the Government's intentions. When I was asked the same question by the Federation of Recruitment and

      1135
      Employment Services, I rather cynically said that it would be when the Government had already got their Bill through the House of Lords and it had become an Act. We wanted to alert people, but when we asked the Under-Secretary whether we could make it public, he said, "No, we are not too keen on that." The 200,000 people in permanent employment for agencies and businesses would make the lorry drivers, farmers and the rest look like nothing demonstrating outside this place. It was clear that their employment would be under threat. Perhaps they do not know it yet, but the 900,000 people who do temporary work through employment agencies and the 380,000 who find permanent jobs every year through agencies may find that they no longer receive such an effective service.
      If legislation is introduced that stops an employment agency making money in one way, agencies are bound to make it in some other way. Employment agencies are not something that can print money: they have to make a profit and they compete with other people. I know that because I ran one for a long period. In the first three or four years, I dared not show my bank manager what I was doing, because I was living off my savings. It takes an awful lot of money to set up an agency. If the Government are sincere in saying that they want employment agencies and businesses to be part of the flexible labour market in the United Kingdom—I accept the words in the draft document—the regulations that come after those comforting words must be wholly different from what the Government intend now.
      The Minister has a mandate to regulate to protect employees who work through employment agencies and businesses. We do not argue against that, but the Government cannot reduce the employment opportunities of individuals.
      I have given way extensively, and perhaps that has extended my remarks more than I intended.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bruce: How could I resist the hon. Gentleman?
      Mr. Stewart: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman asked why my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) was not in the Chamber and why, in a statement to the Committee, my hon. Friend had not given the name of a particular company. I intervened to point out that the hon. Gentleman had mentioned two companies without giving their names. I was asked to give the details from Hansard and I shall do so now—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make such long interventions.
      Mr. Bruce: I invite the hon. Member for Eccles to buy me a drink after the debate and we shall discuss the matter; I am sure that we shall be able to sort it out. I suspect that, by not naming the companies, I was acting positively and trying not to advertise particular organisations—for example, those that now provide
      1136
      services in No. 10 Downing street. If I advertised such companies, I am sure that their principals would be only too pleased. The hon. Gentleman is a sportsman—
      Mr. Stewart: And a friend.
      Mr. Bruce: He is also a friend—in the real sense of that word—and will no doubt put me right later.
      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) began with what he described as a declaration of non-interest, but his remarks were clearly not a declaration of a lack of interest. It was a useful education for the House to spend a valuable hour or so listening to a former practising owner of an employment agency. I thank my hon. Friend for adding to my knowledge.
      I have come across employment agencies in the past, but on the other side of the fence because I have used the temporary staff whom they sent me. The recruitment and staffing service industry is highly fragmented; I understand that the largest company has only about 15 per cent. of the market. Consequently, the industry is highly competitive and, as an employer, when I have looked for staff, either to work temporarily or to take on as a full-time employee, by shopping around, I have found the right people at the right price. Like my hon. Friend in his business, I developed a relationship with a series of different suppliers.
      That demonstrates that restrictive practices do not exist in that industry and that price sensitivity is rather important. It also demonstrates that employers want the right person, and they are prepared to pay for that. The right person is not merely someone who can do the job, but someone who is happy to do the job. A temp who believes that she, or he, is being diddled by the temp agency is not a happy employee and will not do the job well.
      The Government are making a mistake in trying to restrict the fees of agencies, and that is borne out by my experiences as an employer. I would never want to take on a badly paid temp, because he or she would not work well. I would not be interested in taking on a temp from a cowboy agency; I want people who have been properly vetted and can do the job that I ask them to do. I do not mind paying for that, or for the flexibility that it offers. If I decided that a person was so good that I wanted them to take full-time work, I would not mind paying the agency for having found that person for me.
      Miss Kirkbride: As an employer with his own business, my hon. Friend has experience that we now hear less about in the House. For hon. Members who have not had that experience, will he elucidate the difficulties that he might find in recruiting the right person if he went out into the market rather than going through an employment agency? Did he find that using an agency was better? How difficult did he find it to try to attract the right people using his own resources?
      Mr. Sayeed: I thank my hon. Friend for those pertinent questions. In the past, I have tried to save the 10 or 15 per cent. charged by employment agencies. That was a mistake, because I spent too much time trying to interview people and checking their skills, their qualifications, their

      1137
      CVs and references. That was a waste of my time. Horses should stick to courses and, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, my course was not choosing the right people to send to the right companies.
      When I was running one company, it was so large that I set up an internal organisation to deal with recruiting, but I must admit that it was a bit of a failure and did not always attract the right people. One of the reasons is that, to attract the right people—especially in specialist areas—one has to broadcast one's message widely. I closed down that side of the business and went back to using professional recruiters. That is especially pertinent for the recruitment of specialist staff.
      That brings me to my next point and to my problem with the Government's proposals. It is clear that the Government intend to penalise companies that restrict a temporary worker's ability to take a job directly with the hirer. Why do the Government want to do that? I should like to explain to them why it is a mistake from an employer's point of view. Often, temporary workers move, or are transferred, from one agency to another because it is simpler for the hiring company. Then, the employment agencies make arrangements between themselves about how to split fees. If one employs a large number of temps from different agencies, one often wants to consolidate them with one agency; it helps with the payroll and cuts down on administration. It is proper that, when a temp is transferred from one employment agency to another, the company losing the temp has a right to charge the company to which the temp is going. The Government appear to want to restrict that right. That is a mistake.
      If we want employment agencies to be able to source, check and invigilate personnel so that companies can hire from them the best-qualified staff, the employment agencies must be rewarded for their work.
      Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend's experiences as an employer are most interesting. Does he agree that all Members of Parliament can join in this debate? It would be good to hear the views of Labour Members. Every Member of Parliament hires a secretary; many have more than one secretary and many have research assistants. Members often have to use the services of employment agencies when their staff are ill, on parental leave, or away for other reasons. Does my hon. Friend agree that the debate is relevant to all Members of Parliament, and that the experience of Labour Members might be useful in pointing out that the measure might be a step too far, because it would damage their capacity to find the temporary staff they need?
      Mr. Sayeed: As I would expect, my right hon. Friend has made a most cogent point. However, we may well find that the researchers and secretaries of many Labour Members are hired by the trade union movement, which has supplied £100 million to the Labour party over the past few years. Labour Members might therefore be rather less interested than Conservative Members in the direct hiring of personnel.
      The Bill will cause damage. The Government want to prevent employment agencies from benefiting from a temporary worker who becomes a permanent member
      1138
      of staff, but it is important that an agency is able to benefit from a company taking on as a permanent member of staff someone it has been sent as a temporary member of staff. The reason is simple: unless an employer has to pay the employment agent for providing it with a person of such quality that it might want to take on that person as a permanent member of staff, the likelihood is either that the agent will send someone who is just about adequate, and that is all; or that the employer will use that as a way of recruiting full-time members of staff at a cut price. The consequence of that is that the employment agent's quality of selection will decline. Therefore, it is a mistake for the Government to pursue the notion of restricting an agent from benefiting from a temporary worker's ability to take a job directly with the hirer.
      We all want high standards of both staff and employment agents. We do not want workers to be exploited, in either their conditions or their pay. We clearly want action to be taken against restrictive practices in the contract between the employer and the employee, or the hirer and the employment company. Given that, the contract should count as a clear agreement between two consenting parties. There is no coercion in the employment and recruitment industry—it is too fragmented for there to be coercion. Consequently, provided that the industry abides by good practice, it should be left to get on with its important and valuable work.
      Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I, too, believe that the House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) for his detailed and knowledgeable speech. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), the experience that I bring to the debate does not nearly match that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, but I speak as one who has used employment services. I am aware that I have not yet spoken on the Bill, but I have a specific interest in employment agencies and in a subset of that group. However, in Surrey, London and in the west country, I have had experience of using employment agencies and I can attest to their value in terms of finding people to work both in the workplace and in the home.
      Until I listened to this debate, I had not realised that the incompetence displayed by Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry extended not only to the area that I am about to touch on, but across the board. It would appear that there is a total misconception about the point of temporary workers and the purpose to which agencies are put: both exist to oil the wheels of an enterprise economy, and they are not a threat to the regulated dirigiste economic system to which too many Labour Members still aspire.
      Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend made me think of something. I suspect that Conservative Members do not have the figures, so it would be illuminating to hear the Government's figures on the number of full-time jobs found in the regular economy through employment agencies compared with the number found by the Employment Service, which is a nationalised state industry. I suspect that those figures will bear out the claim that the free market economy created by the employment agencies and their supporting ideology has been far more successful.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because we do know that the number of people finding jobs through employment agencies has trebled since 1992; we also know that, during that period, the Conservative Government deregulated the sector. No one can believe that those two facts are purely coincidental. After last year's announcements by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, it became clear that the Government's policy was far from being one of modernisation. In fact, they are turning the clock back to 1973, whereas we modernised in 1996; that is what is happening through legislation such as the Bill before us today. As the chopping and changing goes on, with new amendments tabled on Report, we see that the Government have no clue what they should be doing, or why they are even beginning to do it.
      I have a particular area of concern, and that is the employment of au pairs, a matter which I raised in the House a few weeks ago.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: If the hon. Gentleman's memory stretches back to the mid-1980s onward, he will recall that tenure of employment shifted from permanent to non-permanent or short-term employment. That is what gave rise to the growth of the agencies, because people who had lost their job through downsizing and so on were desperate to find anything to bridge the gap until they found something. That is the insecurity that was built into employment practices during that decade.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we started to debate the changes in employment practice in the 1980s. However, we have a successful economy, which the Conservatives bequeathed to the current Government; it is capable of generating new jobs and, in the flexible workplace, many of those jobs will be temporary.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Opposition Members might care to learn that, during that decade, the number of temporary workers increased from 6 per cent. of the working population to 7 per cent. In France, where temporary employment is effectively illegal beyond three months, the number of people on temporary contracts is 25 per cent. of all employees. That demonstrates what happens when the Government try to overregulate the market.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In addition, the average time that people spent in a job barely decreased at all under the Conservative Governments, because temporary employment was, and still is, so often converted into full-time employment. The very provisions that threaten us today would jeopardise, not help, that process of conversion to full-time employment.
      Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend's remarks are stirring great interest and we are extremely keen to hear of his experiences with au pairs. One of the reasons for the success of employment agencies and why they would be
      1140
      damaged by the Bill is that, now that we have a more specialised labour market, the sort of measure that the Government are trying to introduce—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find that, when the hon. Lady intervenes, she tends to make a little speech. We cannot have little speeches during interventions.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not be tempted down the path suggested by my hon. Friend.
      I should preface my next remarks by saying that my wife and I have never employed an au pair. However, a great many au pairs are employed in my constituency, and representatives of several successful and long-standing agencies that create that employment came to see me some weeks ago when, on another occasion, the DTI got it completely wrong—so wrong that, on the same day as the Secretary of State announced that his minimum wage regulations would not apply to au pairs, one of my hon. Friends received a letter from the Home Office saying that au pairs would indeed be affected by the minimum wage legislation.
      Mr. Boswell: Is it not because the Government were so arrogant in their assumptions in respect of the minimum wage legislation and so determined to confine the number of exceptions to the minimum that they have had the greatest legal difficulty in scrambling free from the chains that they have loaded on themselves and on an important sector of the economy?
      Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend is right. The jury is out, and we cannot predict how the Government's masters in Brussels will interpret their wriggling on the hook of the regulations that they created. We have received several unsatisfactory letters from the Secretary of State and his colleagues trying to wriggle off that very hook. I am concerned that the regulations being rushed through the House may contain hidden legal traps that will come to light only when the officials in Brussels scrutinise the legislation and reinterpret it in the context of the many directives that the Government have signed.
      I must touch briefly on the issue of au pairs. The previous Government, quite correctly, deregulated employment agencies. However, that action had some unintended consequences in the case of au pairs, and some agencies are not delivering the goods. I draw a real distinction between agencies that provide employment in the workplace and those that provide help in the home. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made clear, adults can assess the quality of employees in the workplace. Companies will continue to use the services of an agency that delivers the goods and will rapidly cease to use those agencies that deliver second-rate employees. The market system will solve the problems.
      When it comes to au pairs, the customer is the child in the home who is clearly in no position to assess the appropriateness or otherwise of the care provided. The logic of that argument extends to those who care for the elderly. Will the Secretary of State explain how he believes that the new regulations will affect au pair agencies? Will they continue to be exempt under the published regulations or will they come within the remit

      1141
      of his Department? If they do, there may be an opportunity to improve the present situation slightly, but the Government will risk damaging the entire au pair scheme.
      I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). In responding to a recent Adjournment debate, she made it clear that she believed that au pairs who work for British families are taking advantage of one of life's big opportunities and must take their chances—I almost paraphrase her words. That approach could not contrast more starkly with the apparent attitude of the Department of Trade and Industry, which believes that employees must be mollycoddled from beginning to end by a Government who know exactly what is good for them. Regulations of the type that the Government propose will prove impossibly bureaucratic.
      The Government might also consider the experience of the previous Government in promoting a helpline. In a deregulated system, a helpline is an efficient and cost-effective means by which those who have had bad experiences with employment agencies can alert the authorities and others to the risks that they pose. More practical assistance in the form of promoting that helpline would do more to improve the good-quality employment agencies in this country than the over-burdensome regulations with which we are threatened today. When the Government republished their advice to au pairs, they did not bother to include in their leaflet any information about the helpline that au pairs could call if they found their position unsuitable.
      We must also consider that the Government might use the new regulations to force employment agencies to become second-class tax inspectors and tax collectors. A very good volunteer agency in my constituency works hard to find carers for the elderly, who would otherwise not be able to afford the service. That agency has experienced many difficulties because the local Inland Revenue office compels it to keep detailed records. The agency is required by law to provide information about the background details of all potential carers who pass through its doors.
      Will the Minister assure the House that the remit of the regulations will not be too wide? We have heard that there might be an unfriendly knock on the door and that the regulations offer wide scope for inspecting business records. How can we be sure that, under the guise of these regulations, there will not be cross-fertilisation with the Inland Revenue and undue and unfair pressure applied to those who run the agencies to become tax inspectors and spies for a Government Department? If the Government are tempted down that road, many people will cease using employment agencies. They will relinquish the benefit of being properly assessed for work for which they are suited and the chance of discovering from employers where their best work prospects lie.
      Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the arrogation of power to the Inland Revenue that has occurred under this
      1142
      Government—particularly the way in which the Inland Revenue has assumed the operation of the working families tax credit?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing the regulations as they relate to the Employment Relations Bill. The Inland Revenue may be debated during consideration of the Finance Bill, but not during this debate.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I look forward to debating the Inland Revenue's new approach for many hours when my hon. Friend and I consider the Finance Bill.
      I have no doubt that the Government will be tempted to misuse the regulations. They have succumbed to temptation before, and the drafting of the latest regulations gives one absolutely no confidence that pressure will not be applied. As a result, many of those who might have used employment services will follow other routes and a grey market in temporary employment will be created.
      Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend's remarks are very worrying. Many of my constituents rely on the assistance of carers, who are provided by temporary employment agencies. It is very important that the industry is regulated properly. Such people provide a lifeline for the elderly, who are incapable of looking after themselves.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, and I hope that we will have the benefit of the views of those Labour Members who are deeply concerned about such matters. Unfortunately, not many of them have the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), but I hope that they will not be too timid to contribute to this vital discussion.
      The proposals and draft regulations require more scrutiny than can be provided on Report. They demonstrate how out of touch and incompetent the Government are in the vital area of employment law.
      7 pm
      Mr. Byers: This has been an interesting debate. In the past few hours, we have discussed in detail the important role that employment agencies play in the current labour market. I shall seek to address the various concerns and questions that Opposition Members have raised.
      I shall begin by addressing the concerns expressed by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). He asked specifically whether the new schedule would be in accordance with the European convention on human rights. I touched on that in my opening remarks, when I referred to the need to meet the requirements in relation to self-incrimination, which were set out in the decision in the case of Saunders v. the United Kingdom. We are confident that the new schedule complies with the convention, and I am pleased to give that assurance.
      Mr. Boswell: While I am grateful for that substantive assurance, I also asked the Secretary of State a procedural question about whether a Minister who tables a new schedule automatically considers whether it complies with the convention, whether that compliance is assumed or

      1143
      whether, in this particular case, the right hon. Gentleman has studied the new schedule's compliance and he gives that assurance on a one-off basis.
      Mr. Byers: When a Bill is presented to the House, the responsible Minister has to sign a statement to the effect that the measure complies with the European convention on human rights. It follows that any amendments or new schedules that are tabled by the Government will also comply with that convention, or they would not be tabled. I am certainly happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that this new schedule complies with the convention.
      The hon. Gentleman also expressed concerns about the powers of inspectors relating to entry into premises, including the time of day at which such entry could take place. We heard about the knock in the middle of the night which might not be a friendly knock and the difficulties that individuals could be placed in if they were requested to provide information but lacked the necessary knowledge to do so.
      The hon. Gentleman will be aware that under the existing section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, there is a limit on the hours during which inspectors may visit. Those are restricted, in classic legal jargon, to "all reasonable hours". That is the sort of phrase which allows lawyers to make lots of money. Under the proposals before the House, those words would remain in the section. It is appropriate that there is a discretion to determine what is reasonable in the particular circumstances being considered by the court at the time. The existing precedents have established that a reasonable time is during a business's normal trading hours, and we continue to take that view. We can go further and say that in these situations it should be normal practice for inspectors from my Department to visit by appointment. That is good practice, and I intend to give that advice to inspectors on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry.
      The hon. Gentleman also raised a point about whether forcible entry could be made, with damages arising as a result. I am informed that forcible entry is not allowed in the provisions that the House is considering. I hope that those clarifications are helpful to Conservative Members. We try our best.
      Mr. Boswell: It is right that we should record our thanks where appropriate, so I say to the Secretary of State that we are very satisfied with the assurances that he has given so far. If he continues in that vein, it may affect the tenor of subsequent events.
      Mr. Byers: I am conscious that if I go too far in that vein, I may well be the third Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to depart from office during this Parliament, so I shall move on quickly and try to find a point on which I can disagree with the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Byers: Before I resign or afterwards?
      Mr. Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman will note that his two Labour predecessors were not as accommodating as he is, so perhaps he is ensuring his longevity in the job.
      1144
      However, I suspect that if he gets the legislation wrong for the people from employment agencies who are out in Parliament square, that may truncate his career.
      Mr. Byers: We shall try to do our best for employment agencies as we do for other organisations, bearing it in mind that our Government were elected to act for all our people and not just a privileged few, unlike Conservative Members. Those words should help to extend my tenure.
      The hon. Member for Daventry also expressed concern about a delay in the time in which someone could be prosecuted. The reason for that delay is that there will be circumstances in which individual workers may have to wait a considerable time before they feel able to complain, for example, about non-payment of wages. When a complaint is made in those circumstances, it is appropriate that a prosecution can be made.
      The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) made an extremely informative contribution, which I am sure was welcomed by most, or at least some, hon. Members. He took us through his experiences in the employment agency service, which was beneficial. I accept his point about an impact assessment for regulations that might be introduced. There was no impact assessment for the regulations that were produced last week because those were in draft form. When the definitive version is produced, an impact assessment will be published along with the regulations.
      On pay rates and notice of changes, I want to ensure that the regulations are as practical as possible for agencies. The present regulations contain no requirement to notify workers of their rate of pay, and we receive many complaints about that. That notification is good practice and is given by many agencies. There are contracts that include such notification, but there is no regulation to require that to happen. It is appropriate to ensure that that aspect is covered by regulation. Obviously, the regulation will build on the good practice to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
      Mr. Bruce: I certainly stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that one has to send a contract of employment to an individual. If that contract did not include the rate of pay among its conditions of employment, it would be invalid under employment contract legislation.
      Mr. Byers: That legislation would require a written contract of employment to be provided, but the hon. Gentleman's point was that a telephone call could reveal that a job was available and that it was important, at that stage, that people knew the rate of pay at which they were being hired. That is the issue which we seek to deal with in regulations.
      The hon. Gentleman made an important point about temporary to permanent fees. I make it clear that we do not propose to prohibit the charging of those fees, but there is a need to control the circumstances in which they can be charged. The use of temp to perm clauses without any restriction can have serious consequences for individual workers and stand in the way of a free and flexible labour market. I shall explain why that is the case.
      There is broad agreement that it would be wrong to allow the imposition on workers of terms that restrict them from taking up employment. Placing financial

      1145
      penalties on hirers who wish directly to employ workers whom they originally obtained through an agency has a similar effect to imposing direct restrictions on employees themselves because fees can be set so high that employers are deterred from hiring any workers who have been supplied by a particular employment agency. We seek to overcome that difficulty.
      Mr. Sayeed: Can the Secretary of State give us any examples of that? I am not aware of any employment agency that has ever so end-loaded a contract with a fee as to try to force a person whom they are contracting out to another company to remain in temporary employment rather than going on to full-time labour.
      Mr. Byers: Such an example was given in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope). He reported the case of a worker who formerly worked for a transport agency and was offered a better paid job by a distribution company. The transport agency through which he had previously worked had included in his contract an "introduction fee" of £2,500, many times the cost of recruiting a worker in that sector. As a result, that worker was unable to take up that particular post. That is an example of the difficulties that can be caused and which we are seeking to overcome.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: We are getting to the nub of the issue. A penalty clause—one that makes it more expensive to recruit someone via a temp to perm arrangement—might well require some regulations. I do not think that the industry would be unhappy with that, but surely the Minister is saying that all such temp to perm fees would be outlawed. I have already said why that would mean that a temp could be taken on just for a week and then be followed by another temp. If someone is recruited under a temp to perm arrangement, I think that the industry wants a fee to be paid, as though that person had gone directly from the employment agency into a permanent job.
      Mr. Byers: I said at the beginning that there would be no prohibition on the use of temp to perm clauses, but we are seeking to remove the potential for abuse of that system, whereby individuals can effectively have a price placed on their head and, as a result, find it very difficult to enter employment. That is the point I am seeking to clarify.
      Miss Kirkbride: If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he will allow temporary to permanent fees, will he say how he will judge what is an appropriate fee? Will it be based on a percentage of salary? What guidance can he give as to the level of fee that he would find acceptable?
      Mr. Byers: These are issues on which I am prepared to take advice and to consult the industry. The level will need to be reasonable in the circumstances. That is the approach we intend to take. We want to prevent individuals from being exploited and denied employment opportunities. There is common cause among the parties that that is the mischief which we must address.
      Mr. David Chidgey: While the Secretary of State is undertaking his investigation and consultation,
      1146
      will he take note of an issue that has come to my attention and which affects the teaching profession? Apparently there is increased casualisation of the teaching profession—[Interruption.] I hope that he is able to take on board what I am saying, although he is clearly being distracted.
      There is increasing evidence of growing casualisation in the teaching profession. More and more teachers are finding that they cannot get permanent contracts, only supply work. That in itself is not too much of a problem, but difficulties arise because an increasing number of schools, instead of operating their own lists of supply teachers, are going to employment agencies which are able at short notice to fulfil—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about a highly technical matter, but the House's rules are clear: interventions must be brief. The hon. Gentleman has been as brief as I can allow him.
      Mr. Byers: In that brief intervention, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) made his point. All I can say is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has some radical measures that will make teaching a much more attractive profession, which may help some of the individuals to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
      I hope that I have made the Government's intentions clear in respect of temp to perm fees.
      The hon. Member for South Dorset raised a number of issues around the regulations, and we shall consider them as part of the consultation process. They were not really questions for me so much as general matters relating to the subject. His points were well made, and we shall consider his comments in the consultation exercise.
      In speaking to amendment No. 34, the hon. Member for Daventry encouraged me to endorse the affirmative procedure for the regulations. I set great store by the regulations, and there is merit in ensuring that they are open to effective scrutiny. Clearly, if things remain as they are, there will be an opportunity for Opposition Members to pray against them, and we may well have a debate in the House or in Committee. If the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, such a debate will be guaranteed.
      I cannot agree to amendment No. 34 this evening, but there is significant merit in the suggested approach. I should like to consider that approach; perhaps we shall be able to respond more positively in another place. I hope that I have been able to address Opposition Members' concerns on this very important matter.
      7.15 pm
      There is no prejudice against employment agencies on the part of the Government. We believe that they have an important role to play in a flexible and prosperous labour market. Very often, they deal with people who, for private reasons, choose to be temporary and do not wish to take permanent contracts. Employment agencies are a growth sector, one which we want to ensure can properly address the challenges that lie ahead in the next century.

      1147
      For those reasons, I invite the House to support Government amendment No. 59 and new schedule 2, but to resist the Opposition amendments.
      Mr. Redwood: I am aware that we have had a longish debate, but I should like to make a few brief points in reply to the Secretary of State and in order to give guidance to Opposition Members in the light of his comments.
      I found the Secretary of State's set of replies by far the best that I have ever heard him give. I am grateful to him for going some way to meet the concerns of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I thought that his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) was particularly good. We are reassured about the hours of visits and by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has checked with lawyers about the European convention on human rights—we do not want the taxpayers or the Government to be faced with an expensive court case. We are also reassured that no forcible entry is allowed under the regulations.
      We accept the right hon. Gentleman's reassurances in the spirit in which they were intended. They show that the Report stage can be valuable in clarifying such matters, as we gave the Secretary of State the opportunity to put his assurances on record. Many people in the affected industry will be interested to read his remarks, and I am sure that they will be greatly heartened by them.
      In response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), however, I fear that we did not get quite as much as we would have liked, as I am sure the Secretary of State will understand. My biggest worry about the late arrival of the new schedule and the associated changes is the absence of a proper cost assessment.
      I quite understand why the Secretary of State is in a difficult position. He saw that the original proposals were not going to work very well, and understandably wished to amend them. Because of the pressure of time on the business of the House, he has not had enough time to go through everything properly and come to the House with an impact assessment of the costs. That is of course a pity because it follows the recent famous statement by the Minister for the Cabinet Office—made not so many hours ago—to the effect that one of the most important things for the Government was to ensure that any new regulation would be accompanied by a proper assessment of the costs for those affected. We now have one of the first examples of new regulations with no impact cost assessment.
      I am worried about the possible costs. I understand that the proposals are well intentioned and that the Secretary of State considered their length in terms of the number of words and pages in an attempt to make them a little more user-friendly, to use the management jargon beloved of this Government. However, I would find it much more reassuring if we had a proper cost assessment from the Government so that we could see how much each employment agency is likely to face by way of additional compliance costs. We could then work out the impact on their charging policies and on the number of people they could afford to employ themselves. There is a worry that the cost could get out of control.
      Previous Government exercises have revealed that the Government often understate the compliance costs, sometimes quite dramatically. We certainly felt that to be
      1148
      the case with the competition legislation. Indeed, we now learn from businesses around the country that it is proving much dearer to take the right advice from lawyers in preparation for the new regime than the House was originally told at the time.
      The Bill is still quite complicated and we need to be cautious about the costs that it might entail. That is my worry. I am glad that the Secretary of State made it clear that he does not wish to prohibit the charging of fees where there is a move from temporary to permanent employment. We would hope that the idea that someone obtains a temporary job and that that leads to permanent employment could be actively promoted.
      That movement often occurs even though the temporary staff member has been found through an employment agency. Many employment agencies would regard that as a success. However, understandably, they wish to protect their business interests to a realistic degree. That being so, the Secretary of State's clarification that there is no prohibition on the charging of fees was most welcome.
      As the Secretary of State has said, there may need to be some control over the abuse of clauses limiting or controlling the movement from temporary to permanent employment. I concede, as do my hon. Friends who know the employment agency industry better than I, that there could be such cases.
      It is clear that these matters are confusing when even my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset and others who are well versed in them were not clear about the Government's intention from the amendment paper and the draft schedule. I ask the Secretary of State, with his draftsmen and lawyers, to reconsider the language of their proposals. It is not clear to us from the draft legislation before us that the right hon. Gentleman will achieve his quite sensible objective.
      We should also like a little more information, when the Bill returns to this place, on how abuses can be controlled. We would want to ensure that abuses were narrowly defined so that a new burden was not placed on those carrying out these activities.
      The Secretary of State made the sensible comment that he wants fewer restrictions because he would like to see a more flexible market. If we introduce the crude instrument of the law into a series of detailed and often different negotiations and contracts between individuals and firms, we shall end up with a worse answer rather than a better one.
      When we have had time to study the schedule at greater length, I suspect that we will find that it is not loophole proof. The Secretary of State and his advisers may well find, following further consultation, that it is necessary to introduce additional amendments. He may find that it is possible to find a way round the provisions, which he has put forward in something of a hurry. To me, that implies that we need effective scrutiny of the regulations that will follow. We have only the bare bones before us tonight, even though there is quite a lengthy schedule and a series of amendments. We know that a series of regulations have to follow.
      The Secretary of State did not give us a firm guarantee that we would definitely have a decent debate on the ensuing regulations, which we think is the minimum required given that what is before us came very late, did not go through the normal Committee process and may contain drafting problems. For that reason and others, we

      1149
      cannot simply accept the Secretary of State's amendments. Similarly, we cannot leave our amendments, which were meant well, to try to improve this draft legislation, without pressing them to a vote.
      Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble my right hon. Friend, but what he says about the absence of a commitment to a debate on the Floor of the House is of the utmost importance. That debate must be prior to the implementation of the regulations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the consultation period for the regulations should be no less than three months, and that the private sector should have three months' notice of the date of implementation, in contradistinction to the period that was provided for the working time regulations, which understandably caused a great furore?
      Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has made a helpful point. It might be one that Ministers will be sympathetic towards. I am sure that the Secretary of State did not welcome arriving in the Department to discover that a mass of labour market and other regulations had been rushed through without proper consultation and that many problems had emerged as a result. I pay tribute to him again. There have been occasions when he has tried to sort out problems that he inherited from his predecessor. I think immediately of the au pair mess. We read in the newspaper that the right hon. Gentleman was extremely angry about what had happened. However, it is the Secretary of State's job to stay on top of all that and have the appropriate dialogue with his officials to ensure that the process of regulation and government runs as smoothly as possible.
      The right hon. Gentleman may find that the latest proposals that are before us are still not the answer, as my hon. Friends have illustrated. It would greatly help him to agree at this stage—I shall willingly give way if he wishes to intervene—to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). My hon. Friend is suggesting that three months' consultation would be a very good idea and that we need proper time to scrutinise the Government's proposals to ensure that they are right. Better to have regulations in six months' time that are right, all the issues having been thought through, than to have botched regulations in three months' time, which would entail the House having to undertake its work again when the Government finally admitted that they had got them wrong.
      Given the Secretary of State's new-found love tonight for a sensible parliamentary dialogue and process, and given the co-operation of both sides of the House on some elements of these proposals, I would think it only reasonable for me to ask for, and perhaps for him to accept, a longer consultation period and then a proper debate on the Floor of the House about any regulations. That would complete the job in the way to which we are accustomed, or would like to be accustomed, and in the way that would be best able to secure a sensible future for employment agencies.
      I was heartened that the Secretary of State had honeyed words for employment agencies. That has not always been true of members of the right hon. Gentleman's party. However, now that the Government are using these agencies along with Members on both sides of the House
      1150
      and many people in the private sector, it makes sense for the Government and the Opposition to unite in saying that the agencies have a valuable role to play in our economy. They may need a modicum of sensible regulation to stop abuse but we need to be careful about over-regulating them.
      We need to be careful about changing regulations in case words go adrift or because lawyers are cleverer than legislators, because there are too many loopholes or in case there are crudities in the approach to introducing law that would result in rich lawyers but limitations on the flexible labour market that the Secretary of State says he would like, which I would definitely like and which I have, in the past, tried to help on its way as a legislator on the Government Benches.
      The Opposition welcome the concessions so far, think that we need a few more, would have liked the guarantee of a proper debate and would have liked a guarantee of a sensible period for reflection and consultation with the industry. As we have not yet received those promises from the Secretary of State, I would urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against Government amendment No. 59 to show that we would have liked additional matters to be cleared up.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 127.

      Division No. 138]

      [7.27 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cann, Jamie

      Allan, Richard

      Caplin, Ivor

      Allen, Graham

      Caton, Martin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Chidgey, David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clapham, Michael

      Austin, John

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Banks, Tony

      Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Barnes, Harry

      Barron, Kevin

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Beard, Nigel

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clelland, David

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Coaker, Vernon

      Benton, Joe

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cohen, Harry

      Berry, Roger

      Coleman, Iain

      Best, Harold

      Colman, Tony

      Betts, Clive

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Blackman, Liz

      Cooper, Yvette

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Corbett, Robin

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cotter, Brian

      Boateng, Paul

      Cousins, Jim

      Borrow, David

      Cox, Tom

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Crausby, David

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Burden, Richard

      Dalyell, Tam

      Burgon, Colin

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Darvill, Keith

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Denham, John

      1151

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Doran, Frank

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Edwards, Huw

      Kemp, Fraser

      Efford, Clive

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Khabra, Piara S

      Etherington, Bill

      Kidney, David

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fearn, Ronnie

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Fisher, Mark

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Flint, Caroline

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Flynn, Paul

      Laxton, Bob

      Follett, Barbara

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Levitt, Tom

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Foulkes, George

      Livsey, Richard

      Fyfe, Maria

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gapes, Mike

      Lock, David

      Gardiner, Barry

      Love, Andrew

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McAllion, John

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McCabe, Steve

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Godsiff, Roger

      McDonnell, John

      Goggins, Paul

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Grocott, Bruce

      McNulty, Tony

      Grogan, John

      MacShane, Denis

      Hain, Peter

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hanson, David

      McWilliam, John

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Harvey, Nick

      Mallaber, Judy

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Healey, John

      Marek, Dr John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Martlew, Eric

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Maxton, John

      Hill, Keith

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Merron, Gillian

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hoey, Kate

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hope, Phil

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Morley, Elliot

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hurst, Alan

      Mountford, Kali

      Hutton, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Norris, Dan

      Jamieson, David

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Olner, Bill

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pendry, Tom

      1152

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stevenson, George

      Pike, Peter L

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Plaskitt, James

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pope, Greg

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Stringer, Graham

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Stunell, Andrew

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

      Purchase, Ken

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Quinn Lawrie

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rapson, Syd

      Todd, Mark

      Raynsford, Nick

      Trickett, Jon

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Truswell, Paul

      Roche Mrs Barbara

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rooney Terry

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Roy Frank

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Ruane, Chris

      Vaz, Keith

      Ruddock, Joan

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wareing, Robert N

      Salter, Martin

      Watts, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Welsh, Andrew

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      White, Brian

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Sawford, Phil

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wills, Michael

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Winnick, David

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wise, Audrey

      Singh, Marsha

      Woolas, Phil

      Skinner, Dennis

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wray, James

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Snape, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Soley, Clive

      Mr. Jim Dowd and Mr. Mike Hall.

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Amess, David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Baldry, Tony

      Beggs, Roy

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Bercow, John

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Blunt, Crispin

      Duncan, Alan

      Boswell, Tim

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Evans, Nigel

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Faber, David

      Brady, Graham

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Fallon, Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Flight, Howard

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Burns, Simon

      Gale, Roger

      Butterfill, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Gibb, Nick

      Gill, Christopher

      Chope, Christopher

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Clappison, James

      Gray, James

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Green, Damian

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Greenway, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Grieve, Dominic

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Cran, James

      Hammond, Philip

      1153

      Hayes, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Heald, Oliver

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Horam, John

      Ruffley, David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Hunter, Andrew

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Soames, Nicholas

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Key, Robert

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Streeter, Gary

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Swayne, Desmond

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Syms, Robert

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Townend, John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Tredinnick, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Trend, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Tyrie, Andrew

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Viggers, Peter

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Wardle, Charles

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Wells, Bowen

      Malins, Humfrey

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Maples, John

      Whittingdale, John

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Willetts, David

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Wilshire, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Norman, Archie

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ottaway, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Page, Richard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Paice, James

      Pickles, Eric

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Prior, David

      Mrs. Caroline Spelman and Mr. Tim Collins.

      Randall, John

      Question accordingly agreed to.

  New Schedule 1
    BALLOTS AND NOTICES
      Introduction
      1. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 shall be amended as provided by this Schedule.

      Support of ballot
      2.—(l) Section 226 (requirement of ballot before action by trade union) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (2) (industrial action to be regarded as having support of ballot only if certain conditions are fulfilled) in paragraph (a)(ii) for "231A" substitute "231", omit the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b), and after paragraph (b) insert—
      "(bb) section 232A does not prevent the industrial action from being regarded as having the support of the ballot; and".
      (3) After subsection (3) insert—
      "(3A) If the requirements of section 231A fall to be satisfied in relation to an employer, as respects that employer industrial action shall not be regarded as having the support of a ballot unless those requirements are satisfied in relation to that employer."

      Documents for employers
      3.—(1) Section 226A (notice of ballot and sample voting paper for employers) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (2)(c) (notice of ballot must describe employees entitled to vote) for "describing (so that he can readily ascertain them) the employees of the employer" substitute "containing such information in the union's possession as would help the employer to make plans and bring information to the attention of those of his employees".
      (3) After subsection (3) insert—
      "(3A) These rules apply for the purposes of paragraph (c) of subsection (2)—

      (a) if the union possesses information as to the number, category or work-place of the employees concerned, a notice must contain that information (at least);

      (b) if a notice does not name any employees, that fact shall not be a ground for holding that it does not comply with paragraph (c) of subsection (2).

      (3B) In subsection (3) references to employees are to employees of the employer concerned."

      Entitlement to vote
      4. In section 227 (entitlement to vote in ballot) subsection (2) (position where member is denied entitlement to vote) shall be omitted.

      Voting paper
      5.—(1) Section 229 (voting paper) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) After subsection (2) (voting paper must ask whether voter is prepared to take part in a strike or industrial action short of a strike) insert—
      "(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) an overtime ban and a call-out ban constitute industrial action short of a strike."
      (3) At the end of the statement in subsection (4) (statement that industrial action may be a breach of employment contract to be set out on every voting paper) insert—
      "However, if you are dismissed for taking part in strike or other industrial action which is called officially and is otherwise lawful, the dismissal will be unfair if it takes place fewer than eight weeks after you started taking part in the action, and may be unfair if it takes place later."

    Inducement
    6. After section 232 insert—
    Inducement

      Inducement of member denied entitlement to vote
      232A. Industrial action shall not be regarded as having the support of a ballot if the following conditions apply in the case of any person—

      (a) he was a member of the trade union at the time when the ballot was held,

      (b) it was reasonable at that time for the trade union to believe he would be induced to take part or, as the case may be, to continue to take part in the industrial action,

      (c) he was not accorded entitlement to vote in the ballot, and

      (d) he was induced by the trade union to take part or, as the case may be, to continue to take part in the industrial action."

    Disregard of certain failures
    7. After section 232A there shall be inserted—
    Disregard of certain failures

      Small accidental failures to he disregarded
      232B.—(1) If—

      (a) in relation to a ballot there is a failure (or there are failures) to comply with a provision mentioned in subsection (2) or with more than one of those provisions, and

      (b) the failure is accidental and on a scale which is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot or, as the case may be, the failures are accidental and taken together are on a scale which is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot,

      1155
      the failure (or failures) shall be disregarded.
      (2) The provisions are section 227(1), section 230(2) and section 230(2A)."

      Period of ballot's effectiveness
      8. In section 234 (period after which ballot ceases to be effective) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted—
      "(1) Subject to the following provisions, a ballot ceases to be effective for the purposes of section 233(3)(b) in relation to industrial action by members of a trade union at the end of the period, beginning with the date of the ballot—

      (a) of four weeks, or

      (b) of such longer duration not exceeding eight weeks as is agreed between the union and the members' employer."

      Notice of industrial action
      9.—(1) Section 234A (notice to employers of industrial action) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (3)(a) (notice relating to industrial action must describe employees intended to take part in industrial action) for "describes (so that he can readily ascertain them) the employees of the employer who" substitute "contains such information in the union's possession as would help the employer to make plans and bring information to the attention of those of his employees whom".
      (3) After subsection (5) insert—
      "(5A) These rules apply for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (3)—

      (a) if the union possesses information as to the number, category or work-place of the employees concerned, a notice must contain that information (at least);

      (b) if a notice does not name any employees, that fact shall not be a ground for holding that it does not comply with paragraph (a) of subsection (3)."

      (4) In subsection (7)—

      (a) insert at the beginning the words "Subject to subsections (7A) and (7B),", and

      (b) in paragraph (a) the words "otherwise than to enable the union to comply with a court order or an undertaking given to a court" shall cease to have effect.

      (5) After subsection (7) insert—
      "(7A) Subsection (7) shall not apply where industrial action ceases to be authorised or endorsed in order to enable the union to comply with a court order or an undertaking given to a court.
      (7B) Subsection (7) shall not apply where—

      (a) a union agrees with an employer, before industrial action ceases to be authorised or endorsed, that it will cease to be authorised or endorsed with effect from a date specified in the agreement ("the suspension date") and that it may again be authorised or endorsed with effect from a date not earlier than a date specified in the agreement ("the resumption date"),

      (b) the action ceases to be authorised or endorsed with effect from the suspension date, and

      (c) the action is again authorised or endorsed with effect from a date which is not earlier than the resumption date or such later date as may be agreed between the union and the employer."

      (6) In subsection (9) for "subsection (7)" substitute "subsections (7) to (7B)".'.—[Mr. Byers.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 2
  SCHEDULE
    EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES
      Introduction
      1. The Employment Agencies Act 1973 shall be amended as provided in this Schedule.
      Introduction

        General regulations
        2.—(1) Section 5 (power to make general regulations) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) In subsection (1) there shall be substituted for paragraphs (f) and (g) and the proviso following paragraph (g)—

        "(ea) restricting the services which may be provided by persons carrying on such agencies and businesses;

        (eb) regulating the way in which and the terms on which services may be provided by persons carrying on such agencies and businesses;

        (ec) restricting or regulating the charging of fees by persons carrying on such agencies and businesses."

        (3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
        "(1A) The reference in subsection (1)(eb) of this section to services includes a reference to services in respect of—

        (a) persons seeking employment outside the United Kingdom;

        (b) persons normally resident outside the United Kingdom seeking employment in the United Kingdom."

        Charges
        3. For section 6(1) (restriction on demand or receipt of fee for finding or seeking to find employment) there shall be substituted—
        "(1) Except in such cases or classes of case as the Secretary of State may prescribe—

        (a) a person carrying on an employment agency shall not request or directly or indirectly receive any fee from any person for providing services (whether by the provision of information or otherwise) for the purpose of finding him employment or seeking to find him employment;

        (b) a person carrying on an employment business shall not request or directly or indirectly receive any fee from an employee for providing services (whether by the provision of information or otherwise) for the purpose of finding or seeking to find another person, with a view to the employee acting for and under the control of that other person;

        (c) a person carrying on an employment business shall not request or directly or indirectly receive any fee from a second person for providing services (whether by the provision of information or otherwise) for the purpose of finding or seeking to find a third person, with a view to the second person becoming employed by the first person and acting for and under the control of the third person."

        Inspection
        4.—(1) Section 9 (inspection) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) In subsection (1) (power to inspect)—

        (a) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—

        "(a) enter any relevant business premises;", and

        (b) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—

        ";and

        (d) take copies of records and other documents inspected under paragraph (b).".

        (3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
        "(1A) If an officer seeks to inspect or acquire, in accordance with subsection (1)(b) or (c), a record or other document or information which is not kept at the premises being inspected, he may require any person on the premises—

        (a) to inform him where and by whom the record, other document or information is kept, and

        (b) to make arrangements, if it is reasonably practicable for the person to do so, for the record, other document or information to be inspected by or furnished to the officer at the premises at a time specified by the officer.

        (1B) In subsection (1) "relevant business premises" means premises—

        (a) which are used, have been used or are to be used for or in connection with the carrying on of an employment agency or employment business,

        (b) which the officer has reasonable cause to believe are used or have been used for or in connection with the carrying on of an employment agency or employment business, or

        (c) which the officer has reasonable cause to believe are used for the carrying on of a business by a person who also carries on or has carried on an employment agency or employment business, if the officer also has reasonable cause to believe that records or other documents which relate to the employment agency or employment business are kept there.

        (1C) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

        (a) "document" includes information recorded in any form, and

        (b) information is kept at premises if it is accessible from them."

        (4) For subsection (2) (self-incrimination) there shall be substituted—
        "(2) Nothing in this section shall require a person to produce, provide access to or make arrangements for the production of anything which he could not be compelled to produce in civil proceedings before the High Court or (in Scotland) the Court of Session.

        (2A) Subject to subsection (2B), a statement made by a person in compliance with a requirement under this section may be used in evidence against him in criminal proceedings.

        (2B) Except in proceedings for an offence under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made otherwise than on oath), no evidence relating to the statement may be adduced, and no question relating to it may be asked, by or on behalf of the prosecution unless—

        (a) evidence relating to it is adduced, or

        (b) a question relating to it is asked,

        by or on behalf of the person who made the statement."

        (5) In subsection (3) (offence)—

        (a) for "or (b)" there shall be substituted ", (b) or (d)", and

        (b) after the words "paragraph (c) of that subsection" there shall be inserted "or under subsection (1A)".

        (6) In subsection (4)(a) (restriction on disclosure of information) in sub-paragraph (iv) (exception for criminal proceedings pursuant to or arising out of the Act) the words "pursuant to or arising out of this Act" shall be omitted.

      Offences
      5. After section 11 there shall be inserted—
      Offences

        Offences: extension of time limit
        11 A.—(1) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section a relevant offence is an offence under section 3B, 5(2), 6(2), 9(4)(b) or 10(2) of this Act for which proceedings are instituted by the Secretary of State.
        (2) Notwithstanding section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (information to be laid within 6 months of offence) an information relating to a relevant offence which is triable by a magistrates' court in England and Wales may be so tried if it is laid at any time—

        (a) within 3 years after the date of the commission of the offence, and

        (b) within 6 months after the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the Secretary of State to justify the proceedings came to his knowledge.

        (3) Notwithstanding section 136 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (time limit for prosecuting certain statutory offences) in Scotland proceedings in respect of an offence under section 3B, 5(2), 6(2), 9(4)(b) or 10(2) of this Act may be commenced at any time—

        (a) within 3 years after the date of the commission of the offence, and

        (b) within 6 months after the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the Lord Advocate to justify the proceedings came to his knowledge.

        (4) For the purposes of this section a certificate of the Secretary of State or Lord Advocate (as the case may be) as to the date on which evidence came to his knowledge is conclusive evidence.

        Offences: cost of investigation
        11B. The court in which a person is convicted of an offence under this Act may order him to pay to the Secretary of State a sum which appears to the court not to exceed the costs of the investigation which resulted in the conviction."

        Interpretation
        6. In section 13(2) (definition of employment agency) for "workers" (in each place) there shall be substituted "persons".'.—[Mr. Byers.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      Schedule 1

        COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
        7.45 pm
        Mr. Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 19, line 25, leave out from second 'to' to end of line 26 and insert
        'the matters listed in section 178(2)(a).'.
        I am pleased that the amendment has been selected, as it is an important example of the Report stage doing exactly as it should; ensuring that there is proper scrutiny of the amendments made in Committee. A cursory glance at the report of the Committee proceedings of 16 March would demonstrate how quickly the Government amendments relating to this part of the Bill were made, with relatively little debate. I must admit that that was an occasion when I was not present in Committee, for which I apologise.
        It is important that we focus on this critical aspect of the Bill, which defines those aspects of employment relationships that ought to be considered to be a part of the Bill's collective bargaining proposals.
        The amendment relates to section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Act refers to the terms and conditions of employment, or the physical conditions in which any workers are required to work. The objective is to specify the precise dimensions of the issues that are appropriate to the collective bargaining proposals.

        1159
        That is complicated by the Government amendments made in Committee. In Committee, the Minister said:
        "The amendments ensure that the Bill achieves the policy set out in the White Paper. We tabled them because we realised that the original wording went wider than originally intended. The union and the employer are free to include other matters in the collective bargaining agreement—that is a deliberate feature of the legislation, to encourage voluntary agreements by giving the parties room for manoeuvre."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 16 March 1999; c. 359.]
        I welcome the Government's actions in defining those aspects of the Bill more tightly.
        Mr. Fabricant: I am a little puzzled. What is voluntary about the scheme if, under the Bill, just 40 per cent. of those actually voting can force collective bargaining on both employees and management?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendment before us, which is narrow.
        Mr. Brady: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suspect that my hon. Friend may have some opportunity to go down that route in looking at later amendments that are relevant to automatic recognition, which may leave him slightly less baffled than he is at the moment—at least if the Government have the wisdom to accept those later amendments.
        The Government's original intention, as set out in the White Paper, "Fairness at Work", was for collective bargaining procedures to cover pay, hours and holidays as a minimum. The White Paper went on:
        "There are conflicting views on whether training should also be included. The Government would welcome responses on this point. The parties may add other items if they wish."
        That is all very fine, but the Bill, as amended, raises a number of significant questions.
        As it stands, the Bill specifies that negotiations relating to pay, hours and holidays should be those that are included in collective bargaining arrangements, but new subsection (6) states that the effect of that will be subject to sub-paragraph (7), which says that wider matters can be included by the parties subject to their agreement, but that in turn is complicated by the exception provided in paragraph 27(3).
        Mr. Eric Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will explain the effect of the removal of the reference to subparagraph (7). Is he satisfied that the connection between subparagraphs (6) and (7) will be as strong? I fear that the amendment may destroy the effect of sub-paragraph (7).
        Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that specific aspect of amendment No. 46. [Interruption.] He is indeed a fine example of the products of the Scottish education system, and does it great credit. I am sure that that is what the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was trying to suggest from a sedentary position.
        Sub-paragraph (7) expressly gives the parties the right to vary agreements. Surely the specification of such terms in legislation is unnecessary, given the voluntary tradition of labour relations in this country. What are the Government driving at? By implication, does not the Bill in its present form perversely suggest to those who may
        1160
        come into contact with it in the courts that any elements that do not carry a specific endorsement of the right to engage in wider issues on a voluntary basis constitute a presumption against it?
        It is being considered appropriate to say that it is possible for the parties to engage in wider voluntary agreements, but that specific power is not conferred in other parts of the Bill. It could be said that the implication is that there is no power or freedom for the parties to engage in free bargaining in whatever manner they choose. I hope that the Minister will deal with that, and, in particular, with the exemption relating to paragraph 27(3), which is consequential on the amendment.
        The fact that paragraph 27(3) does not apply to voluntary arrangements raises further questions. What scope will the Central Arbitration Committee ordinarily have, under other parts of the schedule, to dictate the conduct of collective bargaining?
        Mr. Bercow: In the light of those last remarks, I wonder whether my hon. Friend is encouraged by paragraph 140 of new section 81. Page 35 of the explanatory notes refers to the scope for "collective or workforce agreements". Some adumbration of the significance of that from the Secretary of State would be extremely helpful.
        Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although my memory is not as photographic as his and the explanatory notes are not at the forefront of my mind.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): Shame.
        Mr. Brady: I freely admit that the fault is entirely mine, and that it does me no credit; but I was educated south of the border, albeit at a very fine grammar school. I know that you would not want me to pursue matters relating to the English education system, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not do so. [Interruption.] I am sure you know very well that I was educated at Altrincham grammar school, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have made many references to it in the House, and I shall continue to do so—but not on this occasion. You will be pleased to hear that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        The aim of amendment No. 46 is to probe the Government's thinking. What led them away from the relatively definitive terms in the "Fairness at Work" White Paper? What—with no reference in Committee to the inclusion of training—led them to think that training should be excluded, presumably following the consultation that resulted from the White Paper? Whatever that was, it then led the Government to move on to the first draft of the Bill, which widened the scope of collective bargaining for these purposes to a considerable extent by including all the matters referred to in section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. That took the Bill into the spheres of discipline, workers' membership or non-membership of trade unions, facilities for trade union officials, machinery for negotiation and consultation, and numerous other matters.
        It was clearly a deliberate move on the Government's part to move from a tight definition in the White Paper to a wide definition in the first draft of the Bill. Having given only limited explanations in Committee, they have seen

        1161
        fit to table amendments further tightening the scope of collective bargaining for these purposes. I must say that I welcome that.
        Mr. Fabricant: Might not the Government have decided to narrow the field on which collective bargaining can be fought out because collective bargaining is being imposed on both parties? True collective bargaining, as Adair Turner has said, should be based on trust and mutual consent.
        Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and makes it cogently. Such matters should indeed be conducted on a voluntary basis, with no imposition of collective bargaining arrangements that one or the other party may not want. It must be said that, given the automatic recognition procedures provided by the Bill in its present form, collective bargaining arrangements may not be wanted by either party. Perhaps that is part of the reason why the Government chose to tighten the definitions, but why has training been excluded? So far, we have heard no answer to that question.
        8 pm
        Why has it been considered necessary to include sub-paragraph (7)—which deals, as far as I can see, with something that would in any case have been presumed in the wider context of employment law—yet then apply paragraph 27(3) to only part of the collective bargaining arrangements, which allows the parties to be directed in how to conduct certain elements of collective bargaining, but not others? Even if there is statutory collective bargaining within the terms of the Bill, that collective bargaining will be better conducted freely and openly, as decided by the parties, rather than in a way that is constrained by the CAC's intervention. That is a point of considerable concern.
        The passage of the Bill has "form." I have sought to outline its history. It began with the "Fairness at Work" White Paper. It has had extensive public consultation, particularly in relation to the training provisions. Further comment was implicitly invited by the Government in paragraph 8 of the White Paper. It has become a Bill, which goes far wider. The Government have seen fit to amend the Bill in a way that comes much closer to the tighter terms of section 178(2)(a), which is entirely appropriate.
        Given that these matters were not extensively debated in the Standing Committee and that the Minister has given rather scant explanation for the to-ing and fro-ing of Government thinking on the matter, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope that some assurance will be given on my particular concern. By including sub-paragraph (7) and by specifically providing for voluntary flexibility, the Bill may, by implication, mean that, where there is no explicit permission for voluntary variations or voluntary flexibility in arrangements between employers and employees, flexibility does not exist. It is a legal point, but I should be grateful for the Minister's reassurance on it.
        Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has, as those of
        1162
        us who have had the privilege of serving with him on the Standing Committee had anticipated, moved the amendment with characteristic perspicacity and modesty. He has sought to get a clearer view from the Secretary of State and from his advisers as to the legal effect of the schedule, which he rightly says was not extensively debated in Committee.
        I make two or three more general points; I am conscious that we wish to make progress in the consideration of the Bill. My hon. Friend has laid out the scene and other colleagues wish to contribute. Therefore, I need not delay proceedings unduly.
        The general principle on which my hon. Friend is surely right is that parties should be able, wherever possible, to reach voluntary arrangements for collective bargaining. That is not an issue across the Chamber; it is generally understood. Those arrangements should be as flexible and appropriate as the circumstances permit. I think that that is understood, too.
        There is, however, a difference between us as to whether statutory arrangements should be made for the imposition of collective bargaining in particular cases of failure, where it does not seem possible to achieve those by voluntary agreement. The point that my hon. Friend makes is that the Government need to make it clear why they have selected the scope of collective bargaining that is to be imposed after the procedures that are set out in great detail in schedule 1. Ultimately, a declaration by the CAC as to what was required would be needed.
        Two tensions can be identified. First, if collective bargaining is to be imposed—as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said, it should be a voluntary matter—it should be imposed on the narrowest possible scope, and there should be as much freedom outwith that as possible. That is an understandable principle.
        The second point to some extent conflicts with that. It is usually better, where legal concepts exist and have been codified in the 1992 trade union legislation, not to depart from those without good reason. At least their scope and definition have become matters of general awareness among practitioners of employment law, trade unions, employers and others. If we introduce a new set of definitions, we will get ourselves into a muddle.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West has identified that there is a tension. It is for the Secretary of State to explain, after my hon. Friends have made their comments, exactly how he intends his provisions to work.
        Mr. Forth: It is of course with enormous trepidation that I enter the debate, surrounded as I am by those who spent many hours discussing the Bill in Committee, but I wanted to take the opportunity to raise a couple of questions with the Secretary of State.
        I am intrigued by the fact that the amendment would remove the reference to sub-paragraph (7). I want to ask two questions about that. First, does that weaken the link that currently exists, as I read it, between sub-paragraphs (6) and (7)? I want some reassurance on that. At least, I thought that I wanted some reassurance until I started to consider the implications of sub-paragraph (7) itself.
        I read sub-paragraph with extreme difficulty. It says:
        "If the parties at any time agree matters as the subject of collective bargaining".

        1163
        It does not say how they will agree those matters. The term "agree" always raises more questions than it answers. We are left wondering—unless it is spelt out somewhere else that I have not found yet—exactly what mechanism there is to give effect to that agreement.
        It is simply assumed that agreement will be reached. As we all know, that is easy enough to say. It is much more difficult to achieve, particularly in what are sometimes tense or confrontational environments.
        Therefore, even though sub-paragraph says:
        "If the parties at any time agree matters",
        that is not the end of the matter. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to satisfy me as to how he envisages that agreement will be reached in the different contexts in which discussions take place in the workplace environment.
        Mr. Ian Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that collective bargaining agreements and recognition of procedural agreements are arrived at by negotiation between the economic partners. It is right that those agreements will be completely reviewed only from time to time. In the in-between time, some agreements may be reached. That is normally done by exchange of letters between the parties. When the whole agreement is reviewed at a future date, earlier agreements are incorporated.
        Mr. Forth: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's explanation. I am interested that he believes that that answers all the possible questions that might arise from the words that I have read out. That may be the case, but I need the Secretary of State's confirmation of that. I want to hear him say that that, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, concludes the matter. It does not necessarily conclude the matter, however, because the schedule continues to say that
        "references to collective bargaining are to negotiations concerning the agreed matters; but this does not apply in construing paragraph 27(3)."
        That seems to take us into deeper waters. The paragraph in question brings in the CAC, and refers to its specifying
        "to the parties the method by which they are to conduct collective bargaining."
        According to my reading of the provisions, there is a danger that we shall get into a vicious circle, going round and round and round. I am sure that that was not intended by those who drafted the Bill, and I hope that the Secretary of State will assure me that is not the Bill's effect. However, I am worried that my hon. Friend's amendment appears to remove the consequential link between paragraph 2(6) and paragraph 2(7), and that point must be explored.
        The lack of a satisfactory definition of "agree" may also give rise to problems, unless the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) was right. The reference to paragraph 27(3) may in addition be inconclusive when it comes to closing the loop that I have identified. Indeed, it may perpetuate that loop.
        The amendment, well intentioned as it is, could complicate matters and weaken this part of the schedule. A cursory reading implies those consequential effects of the amendment, and I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State set these matters straight so that we may make ready progress.
        Mr. Fabricant: One of my greatest fears is that when I drop dead, my tombstone will read, "He meant well." That phrase also sums up the Bill. It means well, but what will be its effect? More to the point, what will be the effect of its definition of collective bargaining?
        I did not serve on the Bill's Standing Committee. However, I have had experience of running a company, a point that I mentioned at some length last night. One thing that I have learned is that collective bargaining is dynamic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) would agree. If it is to be dynamic, it cannot be constrained by a narrow definition of what can be discussed, particularly if it is not entered into freely, as may be the case under the Bill.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has identified, with his customary incisiveness and perception, two tensions in the Bill. If collective bargaining is imposed, there must be freedom to scale many heights and to discuss matters that develop one into another. To reach a voluntary agreement between the two parties, as the hon. Gentleman whose constituency I do not know has said—
        Mr. Ian Stewart: Eccles.
        Mr. Fabricant: I am sorry.
        Mr. Forth: Go on, give us your Eccles impression.
        Mr. Fabricant: To continue, there are two economic forces—labour and capital, in the shape of the employer. If they are to reach agreement, it cannot be imposed. An imposed agreement is a frail agreement which will not stand the test of time.
        Mr. Bercow: I understand my hon. Friend's point that agreement cannot be imposed. However, on reflection, would he not accept that the prospect, which it seems to me his argument conjures up, of substantial numbers of employers across the country manning the barricades, in support of the extension of the range of matters over which collective bargaining can and should take place, is remote in the extreme? I accept that my hon. Friend has a fertile imagination, but it is difficult to envisage such a circumstance.
        8.15 pm
        Mr. Fabricant: I do not like to argue with my hon. Friend, but that question was rather circuitous, with at least three double negatives in it. If he would like to repeat it more simply so that I can understand what information it is that he wants of me, I shall happily give way again.
        Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend to whom I apologise if, inadvertently, I have, at a not particularly late hour, led him astray. The purport of my inquiry was simple. Does he believe, on reflection, that many employers will want, and argue for, an extension of the range of matters subject to collective bargaining beyond those set out by the Government?
        Mr. Fabricant: I truly believe that if collective bargaining, by which I mean bargaining of any kind, is voluntarily entered into by both parties, each should be free to discuss whatever it wishes. As we debate the Bill,

        1165
        similar bargaining is going on in Belfast, and we all hope that it will succeed. If it is to be successful, however, it is impossible to set constraints, saying, "We will discuss these issues, but under no circumstances will we discuss those ones." That is no way for bargaining to work.
        If two parties are forced to discuss matters, forcing them to debate two or three issues to the exclusion of others will doom the bargaining to failure. I find it strange that the Government, who rightly identify the importance of training, have chosen to exclude it from collective bargaining. What is the motivation for that? Is there something cynical behind it, or something subtle? Is there some sub-plot that we do not understand? Or, as I suspect, are the Government simply naive? The Secretary of State, nice as he is, does not come from a management background, although the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry comes from both a management and a broadcasting background, which is as fine as a background can be.
        There are tensions in the Bill, then. If we make a change in statutory provisions, it will, if my brief reading of the Committee Hansard is correct, be made with very little discussion. Will the Secretary of State tell us the philosophy behind the changes and the basis on which he will make changes to statutory provisions in place since 1992?
        Finally, some costs must arise from the matters raised in this debate and the debate on Government amendment No. 59. I asked early last night what the costs of balloting would be, and I have heard no reply. I am suspicious that the Government have not done their sums, as they have failed to do on many other occasions. They have not taken into account the costs for corporations large—a corporation employing more than 20 people—or small.
        Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble my hon. Friend once again, but I am concerned about the potential opening of the floodgates if his argument in favour of extending the range of matters that may be subject to collective bargaining is adopted. Does he agree that, if his idea is followed—employers do not want the range of matters to be extended beyond what the Government envisage, but some organised employees do—the only way in which the matter may be resolved is by a determination by the Central Arbitration Committee? Is he not concerned that, if the Central Arbitration Committee is in future composed of—from our point of view—undesirable or unreliable persons, the consequences could be hazardous for firms in the British economy?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In dealing with arbitration issues, we most definitely are going wide of amendment No. 46, which is narrowly drawn.
        Mr. Fabricant: I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who argues on the premise that imposition of collective bargaining is already a fact. For all we know, the Government may see reason. Heaven knows, we may even win in a Division on Third Reading and defeat the Bill. The very imposition of collective bargaining is undesirable. We are arguing that, if it is imposed, it should be wide-ranging. However, if my hon. Friend is asking me whether that is what
        1166
        employers and employees want, I should say no, as I do not believe that collective bargaining should be forced on anyone.
        I remind the House that great friends of Labour—although I do not think that they will be friends for much longer—such as News Corporation, and especially Rupert Murdoch, are only too aware that, had the Government's current proposals been law, Mr. Murdoch would not have been able or motivated to save The Times, after its staff had been on strike for six months, or to crack the stranglehold of the print unions.
        Mr. Bercow: Perhaps my hon. Friend was envisaging a breaking of the stranglehold?
        Mr. Fabricant: No, I prefer a cracking of the stranglehold, as it is more illustrative and imaginative.
        Mr. Ian Stewart: How would the hon. Gentleman resolve a situation in which a company has 100 employees, all of whom are trade union members and wish to have a collective bargaining agreement with the employer, but the employer does not wish to have such an agreement?
        Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has got to the crux of the matter. The situation will be resolved because it is impossible to run a company in those conditions. If I were running a company in which 80 or 90 per cent. of employees were members of a trade union, it would be impossible not to have bargaining. That is the reality. I am not against the closed shop—although I shall not stray too far into that issue, which is beyond the scope of amendment No. 46, although it addresses the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised.
        Many companies—such as Unilever's subdivisions—prefer dealing with only one trade union, but they do so by voluntary arrangement, which is convenient for both trade union and employer.
        Mr. Forth: I am not ready for this.
        Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend, who lounges on the same Bench as me, disagrees, but he is being a little naive in the matter. If such arrangements are not imposed by law, they may be advantageous.
        Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is being unduly provocative at this stage in the proceedings. He seems, uncharacteristically, to have forgotten or overlooked the rights of individuals. He seems to be taking us back to the dark days when a cosy arrangement between an employer and unions could sweep away the rights of individual employees. I am sure—knowing my hon. Friend as I do—that he would not want that to happen; would he?
        Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. However, as in all these matters, one has to balance various tensions—to use the word used by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry. If both an employer and a group of employees feel that there is an arrangement by which a majority will be able to operate collective bargaining, anarchy may be avoided. If there is no agreement on that basis, there may be anarchy.

        1167
        I tell the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) that, in practice, the type of situation that he described does not occur.
        Mr. Ian Stewart: It does.
        Mr. Fabricant: If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me an example in which it does, I should be interested to hear it.
        Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is trying to approach the matter reasonably. In 20 years as a practitioner and negotiator in industry, I have often encountered many situations in which recognition has been applied for but rejected, although more than 80 per cent. of employees were union members.
        Mr. Fabricant: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Nevertheless, I asked him for a specific example, but he failed to give me one.
        I do not want to take up any more of the House's time. I have made it clear that I believe that collective bargaining may be successful only if both parties wish to enter into it, and both parties are free to explore a number of different matters. I do not think that the Government can impose successful collective bargaining, just as I do not think that the Government can create wealth—which is created by entrepreneurs, and by the hard sweat of labour.
        As I said, the Government's proposals are just another example of their good intentions—which, sadly, will harm and not enhance labour relations.
        Mr. Byers: If amendment No. 46 is pressed to a Division, I shall ask the House to reject it—which will disappoint some right. hon. and hon. Opposition Members, although probably not the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who would be alarmed by the amendment's effect in extending the matters subject to collective bargaining. If the amendment is pressed to a Division, the Government Whips may have some difficulty in keeping some of my hon. Friends from supporting the amendment, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).
        Mr. Brady: I advise the right hon. Gentleman not to continue on that tack—as he is beginning to tempt me to press the amendment, and I might otherwise be easily placated.
        Mr. Byers: I should warn the hon. Gentleman that, although there are many measures in the Bill dealing with security of employment, they do not protect hon. Members. If he were to press the amendment, he may well find his own security of employment threatened.
        Mr. Brady rose—
        Mr. Byers: I should like to press on and reply briefly to the debate, as the situation is fairly straightforward.
        The Bill provides that, where there is recognition through the statutory procedure, collective bargaining will be required in matters of pay, hours and holidays. There is nothing to stop employers and employees agreeing to increase the topics beyond those three specific ones, but it
        1168
        will be a matter for decision and for agreement to be reached. We believe that that is the appropriate approach to take.
        The White Paper, "Fairness at Work", made it very clear that those were the three, very discrete topics on which we should expect there to be negotiations in collective bargaining, when it is subject to the statutory procedures. We did not want to go beyond that, as we recognised that the provisions would have to be tightly focused. However, there was a residual issue on training, on which we consulted separately.
        Mr. Bercow: In view of what the Secretary of State said about the potential scope for voluntary extension of the matters subject to collective negotiation, will he confirm that this is an example of a situation in which paragraph 141 on page 35 of the explanatory notes to the Bill would apply?
        Mr. Byers: I have to concede to the hon. Gentleman that, off hand, I cannot recall the precise details of that page—for which I do apologise. What I do know is that amendment No. 46 would extend the three specific topics that we have in mind. There is nothing to prevent the parties from agreeing to that, but when the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West moved the amendment, he referred specifically to the reasoning behind the proposal for training being dealt with in a slightly different way. In the White Paper, we identified this issue as one on which we wanted genuine consultation, which has now taken place. Our view is that it would not be appropriate to extend the three areas to include training, and thereby make it four areas—my numeracy skills are improving. It would be better if training were dealt with by consultation. There is a requirement elsewhere in the Bill that if a union is recognised, it will have to be consulted on training. So the matter is covered in that way.
        To clarify the position for the benefit of hon. Members who were not on the Committee or who could not attend when this matter was debated, I confirm that the collective bargaining procedures that go through the statutory process are restricted to pay, hours and holidays. By agreement that can be extended, but it is otherwise restricted to those three areas.
        8.30 pm
        Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, because he is being most helpful. I detect that he is drawing his remarks to a close, and I want ask him to deal with the matter of the inclusion of sub-paragraph (7)—with his legal background he should be well able to do so—which seems to me to be otiose. It provides a right to voluntary extension, but, as I understand it, that would ordinarily be assumed.
        Mr. Byers: My understanding is that sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) address two different situations. Sub-paragraph (6) states that references to collective bargaining are to negotiations relating to pay, hours and holidays, but sub-paragraph (7) addresses the situation in which parties agree further matters as the subject of collective bargaining. We need to cross-reference to paragraph 27(3), which states:
        "If at the end of the agreement period the parties have not made such an agreement the CAC must specify to the parties the method by which they are to conduct collective bargaining."

        1169
        That is if there is eventually a failure to agree, whereas paragraph 2(7) deals with a situation in which an agreement has been reached. That distinction needs to be made. For those reasons, we need paragraph 2(7), because it addresses a different situation in which there is a statutory recognition and the parties enter discussions to extend collective bargaining beyond the three areas. If those discussions subsequently break down, they revert back to the Central Arbitration Committee to establish procedures by which an agreement can be reached. I hope that that has clarified the matter for the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.
        Mr. Bercow: I should like to clarify the Government's fixity of purpose in this matter. An employer may be forced against his will to engage in the collective negotiation provided for in the Bill. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's position that that negotiation should be obliged to take place even if an employer, as a conscientious objector, begins procedures to wind up his company?
        Mr. Byers: If there is statutory recognition, an employer will be under an obligation to address only the matters of pay, hours and holiday. Employers do not have to embark on a discussion or negotiation to extend collective bargaining beyond those three discrete areas. Our concern about amendment No. 46 is that it would extend it beyond those three areas.
        I hope that I have addressed the concerns of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. In the light of the observations that I have made and the clarification of Government thinking that I have given, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
        Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, and to colleagues on both sides of the House who have contributed to a helpful debate. As I began by saying, this issue was not fully investigated in Committee, and it has been helpful to have on the record wider and fuller discussion on the points raised.
        We had excellent contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), as well as interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who was at one point uncharacteristically illiberal. He seemed to be seeking to constrain the rights of parties voluntarily to enter into agreements. I would certainly not follow him in that direction.
        The Secretary of State, in an obviously jocular way, suggested that the Government's current overlarge majority might become larger. I can set his mind at rest on that. Yesterday, he invited my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to stand against him in Tyneside, North. The Secretary of State is welcome to stand against me in Altrincham and Sale, West at the next general election. We would probably gain some support from the elements of his party who would vote for my amendment to achieve its ends.
        The Secretary of State is right to say that the Government's amendment draws these matters tighter than amendment No. 46. The Government were right to
        1170
        do that. My purpose in tabling the amendment was to explore some of the wider issues around the Government's amendments. We have had a useful debate, and we have had helpful reassurances from the Secretary of State. His style is always persuasive—even if the substance is not—and, in a spirit of generosity, I can say that I have been reassured and to some extent persuaded by him. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendment made: No. 66, in page 20, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert—
        '(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a), any worker employed by an associated company incorporated outside Great Britain must be ignored unless the day the request was made fell within a period during which he ordinarily worked in Great Britain.
        (3A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), any worker employed by an associated company incorporated outside Great Britain must be ignored in relation to a week unless the whole or any part of that week fell within a period during which he ordinarily worked in Great Britain.
        (3B) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A), a worker who is employed on board a ship registered in the United Kingdom shall be treated as ordinarily working in Great Britain unless—

        (a) the ship is registered at a port outside Great Britain,

        (b) the employment is wholly outside Great Britain, or

        (c) the worker is not ordinarily resident in Great Britain.'—[Mr. Wills.]

        Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 20, line 35, leave out '10' and insert '15'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 20, in page 22, line 43, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

        No. 21, in page 23, line 15, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

        No. 22, in page 33, line 2, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

        No. 23, in page 33, line 26, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

        No. 24, in page 35, line 3, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

        No. 25, in page 35, line 26, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

        No. 26, in page 36, line 19, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

        No. 27, in page 37, line 7, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

        No. 28, in page 42, line 22, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

        No. 29, in page 43, line 2, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

        No. 30, in page 43, line 34, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

        No. 31, in page 45, line 31, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

        No. 32, in page 50, line 16, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

        No. 33, in page 51, line 47, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

        Mr. Boswell: For those who were studying the progress of the amendment paper, I should point out that we tabled this amendment early on and had a brisk debate in Standing Committee on the morning of 16 March. The background to the amendments is concern about the reasonable period of notice for an employer to respond to the request of a union or unions for collective bargaining. During the debate in Committee, a number of hon. Members and I challenged the 20-day period which the Secretary of State had assigned. With no disrespect to the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), it is a pity that he is not present now. In Committee, he dealt with

        1171
        some of the briefing that had been received by members of the Committee from the Engineering Employers Federation. He said:
        "I have some sympathy for the case that the Engineering Employers Federation is making, particularly in relation to small businesses. I am not sure that I would want to go as far as it does and ask for 20 working days' notice. However, a response period of two working weeks could unnecessarily cause problems for some small employers".
        He went on:
        "A compromise of three weeks would be more flexible."
        He then, no doubt, alarmed some of the Government Whips by saying:
        "I am minded to support the amendments of the hon. Member for Daventry."—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee E, 16 March 1999; c. 373.]
        It was kind of him to say that. We would not hold it against him. He was unable to sustain that in a Division, because we did not give him the opportunity to do so, but he would have that opportunity were we to press the amendment to a Division tonight.
        Mr. Ian Stewart: The Minister convinced him.
        Mr. Boswell: I am not wholly sure that he did, as he did not speak again, but we shall leave that as it is. It is for the hon. Gentleman to speak for himself.
        We press amendments with different degrees of force and conviction, either in a probing way or, as in this case, with a rather strong feeling. The important thing is that Governments should legislate for an appropriate period.
        One concern, which I think was in the hon. Gentleman's mind, and was certainly in my mind when I tabled the amendment suggesting a longer period of 20 days, rather than the 10 days that the Government have prescribed as the first period of response—forgive me if I read the signals wrongly a moment ago; there are rather a lot of figures in the schedule—was that that might not be a reasonable period in which a small employer could respond.
        As small employers do not necessarily have elaborate support and administrative systems and legal and other advice on tap—circumstances that have been discussed elsewhere during our consideration of the Bill—if they received a letter out of the blue from a union requesting the initiation of recognition procedures, they might have some difficulty in responding within only 10 days. Therefore, they would be on the way to what, in shorthand, I will call delinquency, and a decision might be taken over their heads.
        Some might receive a letter or a phone call and deal with it immediately—it is good business practice to get on with one's correspondence, as I hope all hon. Members would—but there are such things as pressures to get an order out, as the hon. Member for Dudley, South mentioned in his brief intervention, and people might go away on holiday or letters might be mislaid, although that might not be an easy matter with which to deal. There are many situations in which a response may not be immediate. I readily concede to the Secretary of State, before he bases his argument on it, that a mere failure to respond within 10 days does not automatically lead to the imposition of statutory collective bargaining. There are a variety of hoops through which to go.
        1172
        However, I think that the feeling in Committee was that the period has been drawn unreasonably tightly for the small employer. I mentioned the hon. Member for Dudley, South, but the general tone was that the Committee was not averse to the amendment. In order to pick up what I described in Committee as a growing consensus, I have tabled these amendments which prescribe not 20 working days or four working weeks, which we set out in Committee, but a more modest, compromise version, of 15 working days or three working weeks. I hope that that will commend itself to the Minister.
        Another possible approach was adumbrated by the Under-Secretary in his response to the debate. He explained the Bill's various interlocking provisions and suggested that it was not necessary to extend the period in general terms. However, towards the conclusion of his remarks—perhaps as a debating point, but it was an interesting point—he said:
        "If he"—
        the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who is temporarily out of the Chamber—
        "is suggesting that we take a general power to amend all aspects of the schedule, we shall consider that interesting suggestion."
        Immediately before that, he said:
        "we shall consider a general evaluation of the law."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 16 March 1999; c. 376.]
        I have detected no general amending power in the schedule, even in those many pages, and we have heard no further details of a general evaluation of the law. Events may show that 10 days is an adequate period for a first response, but I am inclined to think that it is not. In Committee, I tabled a proposal for a 20-day period. That may have been unduly generous because, again, I immediately concede to the Secretary of State, before he makes the argument, that we do not want to send a signal that people should put such a letter behind the clock and hope that it will go away; they need to respond.
        The amendments therefore suggest that 15 working days is appropriate. There is no science in the precise number. We are trying to produce what the Secretary of State said that he intends to produce: a sensible working understanding of how the legislation might work. It is an attempt to maintain its credibility and coherence. The worst possible initiation for his legislation would be a technical slip by a comparatively innocent, well-intentioned employer who did not respond in the prescribed period and was caught in a process from which he could not readily escape. I fear that that will happen.
        8.45 pm
        Mr. Stewart: In 20 years, I have not come across an experienced full-time officer who would act in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. That is because such officers immediately seek to form good relationships with employers. It would not be to a trade union's advantage to press the issue in the way that he described, unless the employer was antagonistic in the first place.
        Mr. Boswell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He made many constructive comments from his deep industrial experience in Committee. I understand what he is driving at. I am sure that he describes the typical situation. If a union decided, in normal circumstances, that the moment had come to go for collective bargaining under the new rules, it would ring

        1173
        up the employer to say so and ask him to negotiate. It would send a formal letter confirming that as evidence to establish its position vis-a-vis any subsequent statutory proceedings. That is not an issue between us, but, with respect, he describes the situation that has existed for most of his experience, when there has not been a statutory collective bargaining procedure; it has been an option. We may debate more widely elsewhere whether that is a good idea. Unions have had to be conciliatory to elicit positive responses from employers.
        I am worried about where industrial relations between union members, a union representative and employers are comparatively poor, which neither the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) nor I want, and where there is no statutory recognition. Someone might think that the right way to get such recognition would be to bang in a formal application and dare the employer to resist it. In those circumstances, the union might think that it would help its case if the employer failed to respond in the statutory first period. If it sent a letter in a buff envelope requesting collective bargaining, unheralded by a warning telephone call, it would add to the file, if nothing else, if it were able to say that the employer took no notice of it.
        Mr. Stewart: That situation would not arise because it would not be to the trade union's advantage to go for a legally imposed agreement. As the hon. Gentleman said, the scope of voluntary agreements is much wider and more attractive than that of legally enforced ones.
        Mr. Boswell: I readily agree with the hon. Gentleman in respect of what I hope is the normal case. We will consider later whether we should beef up the context in which the Central Arbitration Committee will work. We have tabled an amendment on the promotion of good industrial relations in the procedure, which we will debate in the proper place. Despite his positive experience and, I am sure, his positive practice when he represented a union in such matters, there will be cases where people try it on, whether out of malice or for another reason.
        Mr. St. Aubyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that a longer period would be to the advantage of the unions in such cases, because an employer who was presented with almost a fait accompli would be far more likely to say no and go for the extended 28-day secondary period than the one who had the extra time to give the proposal the proper consideration that it deserved?
        Mr. Boswell: Indeed. I commented in a rather more vernacular way in Committee on that precise point, when I said that the employer might respond to such an approach by saying:
        "'if you think that is where I am going, sunshine, I don't want anything to do with it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 16 March 1999; c. 378.]
        That is perhaps the point that my hon. Friend has in mind.
        I say to the hon. Member for Eccles that there are cases in which relations are rather poor, and we do not believe that the statutory procedure will deal with them. We wish it well in the sense that we hope that it will, but it is precisely in such circumstances that the various provisions of the law will be required to work. Therefore, we think that a more reasonable period for the first response would be appropriate.
        1174
        I want to draw my remarks to a close, but there is one other aspect of the matter to which I wish to draw attention. We laboured long and hard and, the Under-Secretary will concede, not unconstructively for many hours in Committee. We had a good, balanced debate on the issue. The Opposition made some compelling points. There was a degree of what might loosely be termed "emerging consensus" in favour of 15 days. It would not subvert the Government's intentions to accept the amendment, and I rather hope that they will.
        Mr. Fabricant: I think that I will take issue with my hon. Friend for the first time this evening. He normally has an analytical mind, but he said that there was no science in the proposal that he was making today. I suggest that there is a little science in it. As we know, the Bill does not apply to small businesses. The definition of a small business under the terms of the Bill is any business with 20 employees or fewer. I would say that, in practice, firms of 50, some would say 100, employees or fewer were still small businesses. Small businesses operate under difficult conditions. It is only too apparent that a letter can be received from a union requesting collective bargaining at a time when people are away on maternity or paternity leave or on holiday, and it can be difficult for the employers to respond within two weeks.
        We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) about the importance of the temporary labour market. We all accepted in the Chamber a few hours ago that that is important for the mobility of labour and to enable people such as married women to enter and leave jobs flexibly. However, it is a fallacy to assume that key people who are away on holiday or maternity leave can be easily replaced. They cannot. I can well envisage a smaller company that comes within the ambit of the Bill in which some key person is away when the request from a union is received, so that the two-week limit is exceeded.
        The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart), who has temporarily left the Chamber, has said that it is unlikely that a trade union will wish to cause difficulty in relations with the company by taking action that would precipitate a court appearance, but, if that is the case, one can argue that the provisions in the Bill are not necessary. The fact that the provisions are there demonstrates that it could happen. Although I have not tabled an amendment, given our debate last night about the size of companies, the Secretary of State might consider the following alternative. If he were to be rigid and say that, for large companies, two weeks—10 working days—are long enough, he might consider those companies that fall within the ambit of the Bill, but have fewer than 50, or fewer than 100, employees. Why could they not be allowed a full month—20 working days?
        Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend will recall that there is already a break in the seamless uniformity of the Bill, because a different regime for the initiation of collective bargaining procedure is allowed for small firms with 20 or fewer employees. It would be easy to extend that exemption to small firms with a rather higher number of employees so as to include those time limits.
        Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a most helpful suggestion. Indeed, there is nothing seamless about

        1175
        the legislation; it is digital in its step functions from one area to another. It would be consistent with the shape of the Bill if another such step function were introduced. It would at least be an acknowledgement by the Secretary of State that a small company can be one that has more than 20 employees.
        Mr. Boswell: I am sorry to trouble my hon. Friend again. His use of the word "digital" prompts me to ask whether he has any information about the Government's appointment of their digital e-envoy. That was scheduled for 31 March, so they have three hours and four minutes to make an announcement.
        Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are looking at me as if to say that this is not an area into which I should move. I shall not do so, but would add that I was expecting a statement yesterday about the Freedom of Information Bill. That did not occur either, but I shall say no more on that matter.
        If the Secretary of State were to acknowledge tonight that a large company is not one with 21 or more employees, that would show that he understands the pressures under which companies work. Of course many small companies—many large companies—allow people to take two-week holidays. I ask the Secretary of State to imagine that the accounts director or the bookkeeper of a small company has gone away on holiday not expecting any important communications to arrive, but that something important does arrive and by the time that the bookkeeper—I use that word advisedly—returns, the two-week period for dealing with that communication has expired.
        Mr. St. Aubyn: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks and noted his concentration on the number of workers for the purpose of defining a small business. Does he think that the Government would find it more acceptable if large, medium and small businesses were defined according to turnover?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the amendment.
        Mr. Fabricant: I shall not pursue my hon. Friend's point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        However, the capability of a company to respond within two weeks is based less on turnover than on the number of people employed by that company. For example, there is an American corporation—I had better not mention its name; it is based in Seattle and it is not Microsoft—which has a paid-up value of £44 billion, but has only 24 employees. Nearly all of us use that company's software to allow us to see television pictures.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is woolgathering. He should come back to the amendment.
        9 pm
        Mr. Fabricant: My point is that it is not a company's turnover or profitability that defines its ability to deal with the notice from a union requesting collective bargaining, but the number of people employed by that company. The definition of a small and a large company in the Bill
        1176
        reflects the Secretary of State's acknowledgement that companies employing fewer than 20 should be subject to a different number of legal requirements than a company employing more than 20. However, I believe that a company employing 21 people should not be regarded as a large company.
        The amendment requesting three weeks—15 working days—in which to deal with the notice from the union is not unreasonable in respect of a smaller company. If the Minister rejects the amendment, large public companies, such as Unilever, will continue to be well able to deal with requests within a two-week period; but I would ask him to consider that companies of an interim size—employing up to, say, 50 employees—should be allowed rather more time.
        Accepting the amendment would demonstrate a recognition of the fact that companies operate in difficult times and that the implementation of this Bill and others that have recently been enacted—including one that will come into force tomorrow, the name of which I shall not mention, lest you rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—might restrict the number of employees employed by a company, force the individuals employed by that company to work even harder and so restrict the amount of time available to them to comply with the requirements of the Bill.
        I simply ask the Secretary of State to demonstrate tonight that he is not the enemy of small business, but its friend. I ask him to show not only a little flexibility and a little heart, but a little of the mind and intelligence needed to ensure that small businesses survive. I ask him to accept the amendment, or at least introduce some suitable compromise on the basis that I have suggested.
        Mr. Byers: This issue was debated at some length in Standing Committee. There is clearly a strongly held view among Opposition Members that 15 days—or perhaps 20—is the appropriate period, but I am not sure that that is correct. It is a question of balance, and we believe that 10 days is right in the circumstances. We have heard the argument and considered the issues, but the Government's view remains the same. I am sorry that I cannot agree with Opposition Members' points, but I hope that, having had the debate, they will withdraw the amendment.
        Mr. Boswell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 23, line 48, at end insert—
        '(c) the proposed recognition of the union or unions would contribute to good industrial relations.'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 45, in page 24, line 15, leave out from '18' to end of line 18.
        Government amendments Nos. 71 and 72.
        Mr. Boswell: I shall be brief, as I now sense that the House might wish to conclude these matters. I shall be able to compress my remarks in view of the express willingness of the Secretary of State to listen to us, and perhaps to some extent he can take some of my points as read.

        1177
        The amendment would build into the Central Arbitration Committee's criteria a test that
        "the proposed recognition of the union or unions would contribute to good industrial relations."
        That is a objective which we all share.
        The context in which we tabled the amendment was the concern reportedly expressed by John Monks in respect of the restructuring of the trade union movement to produce a modern trade union structure. As the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry knows from our previous debates, I wish no ill toward the trade union movement; in fact, my feelings are to the contrary. The amendment also reflects our desire to eliminate potential conflicts of interest, one of which arises from inter-union disputes, which we are anxious to avoid.
        My understanding of the Government amendments in the group is that they would put the CAC more in the driving seat, instead of its relying on union certification. That appears sensible and likely to reduce evidential arguments. Subject to what the Secretary of State has to say about his amendments, I am inclined to welcome them.
        Mr. Andrew Welsh: The two Conservative amendments cause me some concern. Under paragraph 17, union recognition is based on very clear and exact criteria, such as 10 per cent. union membership or where the majority of workers are likely to favour recognition of the union. The Conservatives wish to introduce a much vaguer criterion in amendment No. 8, which states:
        "the proposed recognition of the union or unions would contribute to good industrial relations."
        I should like to hear an explanation of how the CAC would judge, on any objective basis, which unions would contribute to good or to bad industrial relations.
        If the amendments were passed—I hope they will not be—how would the criterion be measured? How would the new Tory criterion fit with the idea of the democratic choice of the work force? It is surely up to the workers to decide the efficacy or otherwise of the union that they choose to represent them. We should offer the work force more freedom of choice, not less. The amendments are basically anti-democratic and are designed to restrict workers' freedom of choice.
        The second Conservative amendment, which refers to "a majority", underlines my suspicions. I have the feeling that the amendments are designed to hamper rather than help the legislation. I believe that the Government have got it right in this case and the amendments have got it wrong.
        Mr. Byers: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) believes, at least on this occasion, that the Government have got it right. I am inclined to agree with him, and I shall ask hon. Members to resist amendments Nos. 8 and 45 if they are pressed to a Division.
        Government amendments Nos. 71 and 72 clarify the way in which the Central Arbitration Committee is to decide on automatic recognition. They allow the CAC to examine in a little more detail whether a majority of workers are likely to favour recognition or de-recognition. They alter slightly the criteria by which the CAC decides whether a union has 50 per cent.membership in a
        1178
        bargaining unit. Instead of the union merely showing that it has 50 per cent. of members, the CAC must be satisfied that that is the case. In the vast majority of cases, the results should be the same. However, if they are not, it is better for the CAC to decide to hold a ballot.
        The amendments make the method of the CAC's scrutiny of applications clearer and a little more rigorous. That is a desirable result, and I hope that hon. Members will be able to accept Government amendments Nos. 71 and 72.
        Mr. Boswell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendments made: No. 71, in page 24, line 17, leave out
        'union shows (or unions show)'
        and insert 'CAC is satisfied'.
        No. 72, in page 24, line 46, leave out
        'union does not show (or unions do not show)'
        and insert 'CAC is not satisfied'.—[Mr. Byers.]
        Mr. Welsh: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 27, line 17, leave out from 'voting' to end of line 18.
        I should like also to discuss amendment No. 38, in page 48, line 26, leave out from 'voting' to end of line 27.
        Schedule 1 is concerned with the recognition of trade unions by employers for the purpose of conducting collective bargaining on behalf of the workers. Voluntary agreements are still promoted as the best solution, but schedule 1 legislates for statutory recognition. If more than half the workers are already union members and the CAC is satisfied that there is no need for a ballot, the union can be recognised automatically at that stage; otherwise, there will be a secret ballot of the work force.
        In order for a trade union to succeed in a ballot on recognition under schedule 1, it must be supported by at least 40 per cent. of the work force—not just a simple majority of those voting. However, the 1997 Labour manifesto did not refer to any such threshold. It said:
        "People should be free to join or not to join a union. Where they do decide to join and where a majority of the relevant workforce votes in a ballot for the union to represent them, the union should be recognised. This promotes stable and orderly industrial relations."
        I certainly agree with that.
        Mr. Richard Page: I realise that the hon. Gentleman wants to make progress. However, would his proposal not be divisive for the small business man who knows every one of his 20 or 25 employees? Would it not create two different authorities inside a company?
        Mr. Welsh: There is recognition of small companies, and they would not be involved.
        Mr. Page: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Welsh: No, I want to make progress.

        1179
        A review of the 40 per cent. threshold was promised in the White Paper of May 1998, which stated:
        "This number will be reviewed after legislation has been in place for a period of time so that it can be altered if it is shown to be unworkable".
        Whether such a review will come to pass remains to be seen.
        The amendments would settle the matter by abolishing the 40 per cent. threshold rule, especially because employment relations and trade union law remain reserved to Westminster and are not to be devolved to a Scottish Parliament. Hon. Members should understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and I are justifiably wary of any 40 per cent. voting threshold, having lived through a similar rigged referendum method in Scotland in the 1970s.
        In any 40 per cent. rule, the dead, those who are ill and those who abstain are all considered to have been against the proposition and to have voted no. All of them will add to the 40 per cent. barrier, whether or not that was their true intention. Even if a majority yes vote is obtained, it can be nullified by a 40 per cent. rule. Under such a rule, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would have failed in the Labour party leadership election. He would not even have met a 20 per cent. threshold. If a 40 per cent. rule had been set, London would not have its own government, even though that proposal got a 72 per cent. yes vote.
        It is better to let the decision rest with the democratic majority of those who bother to vote, and a maximum turnout should be encouraged to ascertain the true wishes of the work force.
        Our amendments have the support of the GMB, Unison, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the TUC. Given past experience, I hope that the amendments will be supported.
        Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) made interesting points, but I should like to pose a question to the House, particularly the Secretary of State.
        The presumption in the hon. Gentleman's argument is that a ballot for the selection of a union to represent a work force is in all cases and in all ways the same as the election of a democratic representative to the Government of a country or an area. There are different philosophical views about whether that is correct. Will the Secretary of State clarify for me and my colleagues why he believes that it is correct and fair to impose a threshold for the selection of union representation and not to have a full, democratic election among those who decide to vote, as would be the case in elections for representation to a Government or local councils?
        9.15 pm
        Mr. Dennis Canavan: I support amendments Nos. 37 and 38. The 40 per cent. hurdle was included in the Bill simply because of pressure from the Confederation of British Industry and other employers organisations. It has nothing to do with industrial democracy or democratic principles. It is intended to make trade union recognition that bit more difficult to obtain.
        It is a well-established part of this country's democratic tradition that those who participate in a democratic process such as a ballot should determine its outcome.
        1180
        However, if the 40 per cent. hurdle is allowed to stand, those who do not participate will also be taken into account in determining the result because that threshold relates not to those who participate but to those who are eligible to participate, whether they vote or not.
        We could have a scenario in which, for example, 66 per cent., or nearly two thirds, of the relevant work force could participate in a ballot, and 60 per cent. of them could be in favour of trade union recognition, yet that would not pass the 40 per cent. hurdle. Alternatively, 60 per cent. of the relevant work force could participate in the ballot, and 66 per cent., or nearly two thirds, of that 60 per cent. could vote for trade union recognition, yet they would fail to reach the 40 per cent. hurdle.
        To my mind, that makes a mockery of democracy. As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) pointed out, if that were applied to parliamentary elections, it would make parliamentary democracy virtually unworkable. Even this Government, with their massive majority in the House, cannot say that they have the support of 40 per cent. of all those eligible to vote in the UK. If the 40 per cent. hurdle were applied to parliamentary constituencies, many hon. Members would not be in the House today.
        There was an unhappy precedent in Scotland exactly 20 years ago this month, when we had a referendum on the then Labour Government's proposal to set up a Scottish Assembly, as it was called at that time. George Cunningham, a Labour Member of Parliament, had tabled a 40 per cent. wrecking amendment, the effect of which was similar to what is proposed in the Bill. In that referendum, the majority of people who participated in the ballot voted in favour of a Scottish Assembly, but the people of Scotland were denied it because of the 40 per cent. wrecking amendment. That led to 18 years of bitterness and caused much ill feeling in Scotland and elsewhere.
        If we translate that situation into the sphere of industrial relations, and if we had a similar situation as a result of an industrial ballot, it would be a recipe for conflict and could lead to bitterness for some time between employers and employees until another ballot was held. I hope that the Government can be persuaded to think again and will learn from past mistakes.
        I never thought that I would see the day when any Labour Government would be resisting a pro-trade union amendment tabled by the Scottish National party. More than 20 years ago, when I was already a Member of Parliament, I remember a Scottish trade unionist sending telegrams to hon. Members. There were no e-mails, faxes or other sophisticated methods of communication at that time. Indeed, the most sophisticated was the telegram. The Scottish trade union movement sent telegrams to Scottish Members of Parliament of various parties, pleading with them to vote for the Bill to save the aircraft and shipbuilding industries in Scotland. I remember the disdain with which those telegrams were treated by some members of the SNP. I think that it was Hamish Watt—[Interruption.] It was not the hon. Members for Angus or for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), but Hamish Watt who made a point of tearing up the telegrams on the Floor of the House.
        As I say, I never thought that I would live to see the day when a Labour Government would refuse to listen to the voice of the trade union movement of Scotland or anywhere else. The Scottish Trades Union Congress is certainly in favour of the amendments.

        1181
        When Ron Hayward was general secretary of the Labour party, one of his favourite sayings was, "Never forget whence you came." He was referring to the fact that the Labour party was born out of the trade union movement. I wonder sometimes what has happened. I think that sometimes the present lot have forgotten whence they came. More seriously, I think that there is growing concern in Scotland and elsewhere about where they are going.
        I hope that the Minister will bear my points in mind and think again. If the amendments were agreed to, that would lead to greater recognition of the trade union movement and its democratic rights.
        Mr. Page: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), I shall not delay the House with a one-hour speech. I found the speech of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) interesting, and it was obviously supported by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey).
        Those people who have responsibility for these matters have no idea how small business operates. They are in a dream world. In small businesses there are no management messages, metaphorically carved in stone, which are sent down from the boardroom to the deputy manager and to the foreman, to be put on the office notice board. Nor are such messages sent through the wage packet.
        In a small business, the manager knows everyone by name. Management and staff work together, they know their problems and they know their individual requirements. The various figures and percentages that are presented in this part of the Bill will not be helpful for small businesses. Indeed, they could be damaging or harmful to them. As unemployment starts to climb, we all know that we shall need small businesses to create jobs for the future. I have to exhibit and state to the House my concern over this part of the Bill as it will affect small businesses.
        Mr. Boswell: The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) and others have eloquently explained the ambiguities, inconsistencies and lack of principle in the Government's policies in this part of the Bill. It will be obvious to the House that amendment No. 9 would work in the opposite sense by taking one of the two ambiguous interpretations of the Labour party manifesto and requiring a higher hurdle rate. I would say that for that purpose it is defensible. We are seeing the imposition by statute of collective bargaining. If that is to happen, it should have the widest possible consent. It is for the Minister now to answer our observations.
        Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I will be very brief because I appreciate the exigencies of the time. It is appropriate that I should speak in a debate in which the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and I find ourselves in a situation which goes back for many years when he was my boss and I worked with him as a teacher. We had different political viewpoints, but we are essentially in agreement on the very important issue of democracy.
        I remind the House of early-day motion 291 of last year which was signed by 22 Labour Members. It rested on the concept of basic democracy, which is the basis of the
        1182
        amendment. I hope that the 22 Labour Members might at least have the courage of their convictions, which they had when they signed the early-day motion, to join us in the Lobby in support of a basic principle.
        I was involved in the 1979 referendum in Scotland. The 40 per cent. rule applied, and if someone did not turn out, it meant a no vote. That ridiculed the whole idea of democracy and the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) moved so eloquently are a challenge to the concept of basic democracy in this country.
        Mr. Wills: All the amendments deal with recognition ballots, which is undoubtedly a very important issue. The Government are concerned to get it right. I regret that all the amendments are unhelpful and that some of them are more unhelpful than others. I am certainly not convinced that amendments Nos. 37 and 38. are in the best interests of good industrial relations. Amendment No. 37 would remove the requirement that at least 40 per cent. of workers in a bargaining unit must vote in favour of union recognition. We believe that 40 per cent. is the right figure, and I shall come back to that in relation to amendment No. 9.
        The basic principle is that a significant proportion of workers must be in favour of recognition before it should be granted. That seems self-evident and deviating from that basic principle would run the risk of a vocal minority overriding the wishes of the vast majority of those affected. That would disrupt good industrial relations. The Government have no wish for that to happen and we cannot accept an amendment that runs such a risk.
        For exactly the same reasons, we cannot accept amendment No. 38, which would remove the converse requirement that at least 40 per cent. of workers in the bargaining unit must vote against the continuation of recognition for it to end.
        Amendment No. 9 would alter the figure for minimum support in a recognition ballot to 50 per cent. I have already explained the reasons for having a threshold. We have set a threshold of 40 per cent. Precisely where the level is set is a matter of judgment, and we have made our judgment on the basis that we believe that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, 40 per cent. plus a ballot majority will mean that 50 per cent. or more of the work force support recognition, or at least do not oppose it.
        Why not set the threshold at 50 per cent? Because that would, in practice, mean that an even greater proportion of workers—perhaps 60 or 70 per cent.—would have to be in favour of recognition before it would be granted. That is a high hurdle, particularly when, we should remember, the union must also win a ballot. In those circumstances, we do not believe that the amendment would be conducive to good industrial relations—it is unnecessary and unhelpful. I hope that Opposition Members will withdraw all the amendments.
        Mr. Welsh: I regret the Government's stance. The 40 per cent. rule has met widespread opposition and has, for example, been described by GMB Scotland in the following terms:
        "The fly in the ointment is the 40 per cent. rule. It's a pity the same commitment to giving workers rights as individuals is not extended to them when they group together in a union."

        1183
        John Edmonds, the leader of the GMB has said that the 40 per cent. rule turned the White Paper into a "flawed jewel". The Scottish Trades Union Congress has said:
        "Our position is quite clear—there should be no additional hurdles erected. The only requirement should be that a majority of those in a workplace voting for trade union recognition should get it, and we will not accept anything less than that."
        We share those sentiments and they would be delivered by the amendments.
        I note not only the support of the trade unions. On 9 January 1999, 22 Labour and five Liberal Democrat Members supported an early-day motion on that issue, even though both parties will oppose the amendments. We intend to make the point by pressing this principle to a vote.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 1, Noes 301.

        Division No. 139]

        [9.28 pm

        AYES

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Mr. Dennis Canavan and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Ainger, Nick

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        Allen, Graham

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Clelland, David

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Clwyd, Ann

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Coaker, Vernon

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Austin, John

        Cohen, Harry

        Banks, Tony

        Coleman, Iain

        Barnes, Harry

        Colman, Tony

        Barron, Kevin

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Beard, Nigel

        Corbett, Robin

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Cox, Tom

        Beggs, Roy

        Crausby, David

        Bell, Martin (Tatton)

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Benton, Joe

        Cryer, John (Homchurch)

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Berry, Roger

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Best, Harold

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Betts, Clive

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Blackman, Liz

        Darvill, Keith

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Blizzard, Bob

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Boateng, Paul

        Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

        Borrow, David

        Dawson, Hilton

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Denham, John

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Dismore, Andrew

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Dobbin, Jim

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Doran, Frank

        Burden, Richard

        Dowd, Jim

        Burgon, Colin

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Edwards, Huw

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Efford, Clive

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Ennis, Jeff

        Cann, Jamie

        Fisher, Mark

        Caplin, Ivor

        Fitzsimons, Lorna

        Caton, Martin

        Flint, Caroline

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Flynn, Paul

        Clapham, Michael

        Follett, Barbara

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Clark, Dr Lynda

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        1184

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        Lock, David

        Fyfe, Maria

        Love, Andrew

        Gapes, Mike

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Gardiner, Barry

        McCabe, Steve

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        McIsaac, Shona

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Godsiff, Roger

        McNulty, Tony

        Goggins, Paul

        MacShane, Denis

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        McWalter, Tony

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        McWilliam, John

        Grocott, Bruce

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Grogan, John

        Mallaber, Judy

        Hain, Peter

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Marek, Dr John

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Martlew, Eric

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Maxton, John

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Merron, Gillian

        Heppell, John

        Michael, Rt Hon Alun

        Hesford, Stephen

        Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Hill, Keith

        Miller, Andrew

        Hinchliffe, David

        Mitchell, Austin

        Hodge, Ms Margaret

        Moffatt, Laura

        Hoey, Kate

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Hood, Jimmy

        Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Moriey, Elliot

        Hope, Phil

        Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Mountford, Kali

        Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

        Mullin, Chris

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Norris, Dan

        Hurst, Alan

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Hutton, John

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        O'Hara, Eddie

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

        Olner, Bill

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Jamieson, David

        Osborne, Ms Sandra

        Jenkins, Brian

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Pearson, Ian

        Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

        Pendry, Tom

        Perham, Ms Linda

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Pickthall, Colin

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Pike, Peter L

        Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

        Plaskitt, James

        Pollard, Kerry

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Pond, Chris

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Pope, Greg

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Powell, Sir Raymond

        Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Prescott, Rt Hon John

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Kemp, Fraser

        Purchase, Ken

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

        Khabra, Piara S

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Kidney, David

        Radice, Giles

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Rapson, Syd

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Raynsford, Nick

        Kingham, Ms Tess

        Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Lawrence, Ms Jackie

        Rooker, Jeff

        Laxton, Bob

        Rooney, Terry

        Leslie, Christopher

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Levitt, Tom

        Roy, Frank

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Ruane, Chris

        Linton, Martin

        Ruddock, Joan

        Livingstone, Ken

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Salter, Martin

        1185

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Todd, Mark

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Trickett, Jon

        Sawfond, Phil

        Truswell, Paul

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Singh, Marsha

        Vaz, Keith

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Snape, Peter

        Wareing, Robert N

        Soley, Clive

        Watts, David

        Spellar, John

        White, Brian

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

        Stevenson, George

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        Wills, Michael

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Winnick, David

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Wise, Audrey

        Straw, Rt Hon Jack

        Woolas, Phil

        Stringer, Graham

        Wray, James

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Mr. David Hanson and Mrs. Anne McGuire.

        Tipping, Paddy

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Mr. Byers: I beg to move amendment No. 152, in page 28, line 30, at end insert—
        '(IA) In applying sub-paragraph (1) an agreement for recognition (the agreement in question) must be ignored if—

        (a) the union does not have a certificate under section 6 that it is independent,

        (b) at some time there was an agreement (the old agreement) between the employer and the union under which the union (whether alone or with other unions) was recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers which was the same or substantially the same as the group covered by the agreement in question, and

        (c) the old agreement ceased to have effect in the period of three years ending with the date of the agreement in question.

        (1B) It is for the CAC to decide whether one group of workers is the same or substantially the same as another, but in deciding the CAC may take account of the views of any person it believes has an interest in the matter.'
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 150. 151 and 153.
        Mr. Byers: I commend the amendments. However, there is an issue that the Government want to consider further: where a staff association or a non-independent union has applied for a certificate of independence, whether the CAC should not consider any application for derecognition until the outcome of that process is known.
        The Government want to give some thought to that issue. We have not arrived at any conclusions as to what our response should be. We will give it further thought and may return to that aspect during the House of Lords consideration of those matters.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the outstanding groups of Opposition amendments are not to be moved. I see that that is so.
        Amendments made: No. 167, in page 29, line 12, at end insert—
        '32A.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

        (a) the CAC accepts for decision an application under paragraph 10 or 11 relating to a bargaining unit, and

        (b) the CAC has not issued a declaration under paragraph 19(2), 25(3) or 25(4) in relation to that bargaining unit.

        (2) Another application under paragraph 10 or 11 is not admissible if—

        (a) at least one worker falling within the relevant bargaining unit also falls within the bargaining unit referred to in sub-paragraph (1), and

        (b) the application is made by a union (or unions) other than the union (or unions) which made the application referred to in sub-paragraph (1).

        (3) The relevant bargaining unit is—

        (a) the proposed bargaining unit, where the application is under paragraph 10(2) or 11(2);

        (b) the agreed bargaining unit, where the application is under paragraph 11(4).'

        No. 168, in page 29, line 44, at end insert—
        'Competing applications
        35A.—(1) For the purposes of this paragraph—

        (a) the original application is the application referred to in paragraph 32A(1), and

        (b) the competing application is the other application referred to in paragraph 32A(2).

        (2) This paragraph applies if—

        (a) the CAC decides that the competing application is not admissible by reason of paragraph 32A,

        (b) at the time the decision is made the parties to the original application have not agreed the appropriate bargaining unit under paragraph 15, and the CAC has not decided the appropriate bargaining unit under paragraph 16, in relation to the application, and

        (c) the 10 per cent test (within the meaning given by paragraph 13) is satisfied with regard to the competing application.

        (3) In such a case—

        (a) the CAC must cancel the original application,

        (b) the CAC must give notice to the parties to the application that it has been cancelled,

        (c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule in relation to the application, and

        (d) the application shall be treated as if it had never been admissible.'

        No. 73, in page 30, line 22, leave out from beginning to 'the employer'.
        No. 74, in page 30, line 24, at end insert —
        '(lA) The application is not admissible unless—

        (a) the condition in sub-paragraph (2) is satisfied, and

        (b) one of the conditions in sub-paragraph (2A) is satisfied.'

        No. 75, in page 30, line 28, at end insert—
        '(2A) The conditions are that—

        (a) the parties have not agreed a method by which they are to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit;

        (b) the parties have agreed such a method but have failed to carry out the agreement.'

        No. 67, in page 30, leave out lines 34 and 35 and insert—
        '(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a), any worker employed by an associated company incorporated outside Great Britain must be ignored unless the day the application was made fell within a period during which he ordinarily worked in Great Britain.
        (4A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b), any worker employed by an associated company incorporated outside Great Britain must be ignored in relation to a week unless the whole or any part of that week fell within a period during which he ordinarily worked in Great Britain.
        (4B) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (4) and (4A), a worker who is employed on board a ship registered in the United Kingdom shall be treated as ordinarily working in Great Britain unless—

        (a) the ship is registered at a port outside Great Britain,

        (b) the employment is wholly outside Great Britain, or

        (c) the worker is not ordinarily resident in Great Britain.'

        No. 76, in page 30, line 36, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.
        No. 77, in page 30, line 39, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.
        No. 78, in page 30, line 43, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
        No. 79, in page 31, line 2, leave out
        'references to the applicant are'
        and insert
        'the reference to the applicant is'.
        No. 80, in page 31, line 4, leave out
        'references to the other party are'
        and insert
        'the reference to the other party is'.
        No. 81, in page 31, line 7, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 16 and insert—

        '(1) The CAC must give notice to the parties of receipt of an application under paragraph 38.

        (2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether the application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 38 and 39.

        (3) In deciding whether an application is admissible the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the employer or the union (or unions).

        (4) If the CAC decides that the application is not admissible—

        (a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the parties,

        (b) the CAC must not accept the application, and

        (c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.

        (5) If the CAC decides that the application is admissible it must—

        (a) accept the application, and

        (b) give notice of the acceptance to the parties.

        (6) The acceptance period is—

        (a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or

        (b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.

        40A.—(1) If the CAC accepts an application'.

        No. 82, in page 31, line 37, leave out
        'receives the application under paragraph 38'
        and insert
        'gives notice of acceptance of the application'.
        No. 133, in page 32, line 36, leave out line 36 and insert
        'An application under paragraph 44 is not admissible unless the CAC'.
        No. 134, in page 32, line 46, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) and insert—

        '45A.—(1) The CAC must give notice to the parties of receipt of an application under paragraph 44.

        (2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether the application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 45 and 65.

        (3) In deciding whether the application is admissible the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the employer or the union (or unions).

        (4) If the CAC decides that the application is not admissible—

        (a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the parties,

        (b) the CAC must not accept the application, and

        (c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.

        (5) If the CAC decides that the application is admissible it must—

        (a) accept the application, and

        (b) give notice of the acceptance to the parties.

        (6) The acceptance period is—

        (a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or

        (b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.'

        No. 135, in page 33, line 9, leave out
        'under paragraph 45(3) of a decision to accept an'
        and insert 'of acceptance of the'.
        No. 136, in page 33, line 27, leave out 'under paragraph 45(3)' and insert
        'of acceptance of the application'.
        No. 137, in page 33, line 31, leave out
        'under paragraph 45(3) of a decision to accept an'
        and insert 'of acceptance of the'.
        No. 138, in page 34, line 44, leave out '25' and insert `35'.
        No. 139, in page 35, line 1, leave out 'This paragraph' and insert 'Paragraph 52A'.
        No. 140, in page 35, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
        No. 141, in page 35, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph
        (5) and insert—

        '52A.—(1) The CAC must give notice to the parties of receipt of an application under paragraph 52.

        (2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether the application is admissible within the terms of paragraph 65.

        (3) In deciding whether the application is admissible the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the employer or the union (or unions).

        (4) If the CAC decides that the application is not admissible—

        (a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the parties,

        (b) the CAC must not accept the application, and

        (c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.

        1189

        (5) If the CAC decides that the application is admissible it must—

        (a) accept the application, and

        (b) give notice of the acceptance to the parties.

        (6) The acceptance period is—

        (a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or

        (b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.'

        No. 142, in page 35, line 30, at beginning insert—

        '(A1) If the CAC accepts an application it—

        (a) must give the employer and the union (or unions) an opportunity to put their views on the question or questions in relation to which the application was made;

        (b) must decide the question or questions before the end of the decision period.'

        No. 143, in page 35, line 49, at end insert—

        '(4A) The decision period is—

        (a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC gives notice of acceptance of the application, or

        (b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.'

        No. 144, in page 38, line 47, leave out
        'union shows (or unions show)'
        and insert 'CAC is satisfied'.
        No. 145, in page 39, line 32, leave out
        'union does not show (or unions do not show)'
        and insert 'CAC is not satisfied'.
        No. 146, in page 40, line 23, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.
        No. 147, in page 40, line 28, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.
        No. 148, in page 40, line 32, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.
        No. 149, in page 40, line 35, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) to (6).
        No. 69, in page 41, line 44, leave out 'less' and insert 'fewer'.
        No. 70, in page 42, line 2, leave out 'less' and insert 'fewer'.
        No. 83, in page 42, line 6, leave out '25' and insert '35'.
        No. 68, in page 42, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert—
        '(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), any worker employed by an associated company incorporated outside Great Britain must be ignored in relation to a week unless the whole or any part of that week fell within a period during which he ordinarily worked in Great Britain.
        (5A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5), a worker who is employed on board a ship registered in the United Kingdom shall he treated as ordinarily working in Great Britain unless—

        (a) the ship is registered at a port outside Great Britain,

        (b) the employment is wholly outside Great Britain, or

        (c) the worker is not ordinarily resident in Great Britain.'

        No. 84, in page 42, line 23, leave out '(or unions) make' and insert 'makes (or unions make)'.
        No. 85, in page 42, line 26, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.
        No. 86, in page 42, line 29, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.
        No. 87, in page 42, line 33, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).
        No. 88, in page 42, leave out line 37 and insert—

        '71A.—(1) The CAC must give notice to the parties of receipt of an application under paragraph 71.

        (2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether the application is admissible within the terms of paragraph 71.

        (3) In deciding whether an application is admissible the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the employer or the union (or unions).

        (4) If the CAC decides that the application is not admissible—

        (a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the parties,

        (b) the CAC must not accept the application,

        (c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule, and

        (d) the bargaining arrangements shall cease to have effect on the date specified under paragraph 70(2)(d).

        (5) If the CAC accepts an application it must give notice of the acceptance to the parties.

        (6) The acceptance period is—

        (a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or

        (b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.

        71B.—(1) If the CAC accepts an application it-'

        No. 89, in page 43, line 2, leave out 'receives' and insert
        'gives notice of acceptance of.
        No. 90, in page 43, line 12, leave out
        ', and if the request'
        and insert—
        '(1A) The request is not valid unless it'.
        No. 91, in page 43, line 16, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
        No. 92, in page 44, line 12, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.
        No. 93, in page 44, line 15, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.
        No. 94, in page 44, line 19, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
        No. 95, in page 44, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'decides' in line 24 and insert
        'An application under paragraph 74 or 75 is not admissible unless the CAC'.
        No. 96, in page 44, line 27, leave out
        'there is prima facie evidence that'.
        No. 97, in page 44, line 30, leave out from 'must' to 'give' in line 31.
        No. 98, in page 44, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—

        '77A.—(1) The CAC must give notice to the parties of receipt of an application under paragraph 74 or 75.

        (2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether—

        (a) the request is valid within the terms of paragraph 72, and

        (b) the application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 76 and 77.

        1191

        (3) In deciding those questions the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the employer or the union (or unions).

        (4) If the CAC decides that the request is not valid or the application is not admissible—

        (a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the parties,

        (b) the CAC must not accept the application, and

        (c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.

        (5) If the CAC decides that the request is valid and the application is admissible it must—

        (a) accept the application, and

        (b) give notice of the acceptance to the parties.

        (6) The acceptance period is—

        (a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or

        (b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.'

        No. 99, in page 44, line 40, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
        No. 100, in page 44, line 45, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.
        No. 101, in page 45, line 1, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.
        No. 102, in page 45, line 5, leave out sub-paragraphs (5) and (6).
        No. 103, in page 45, line 12, leave out from beginning to 'decides' in line 13 and insert
        'An application under paragraph 78 is not admissible unless the CAC'.
        No. 104, in page 45, line 16, leave out
        'there is prima facie evidence that'.
        No. 105, in page 45, line 19, leave out from 'must' to 'give' in line 20.
        No. 106, in page 45, line 21, leave out from beginning to 'the application' in line 24 and insert—

        '79A.—(1) The CAC must give notice to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions) of receipt of an application under paragraph 78.

        (2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether the application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 78 and 79.

        (3) In deciding whether the application is admissible the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the employer, the union (or unions) or any of the workers falling within the bargaining unit.

        (4) If the CAC decides that the application is not admissible—

        (a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions),

        (b) the CAC must not accept the application, and

        (c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.

        (5) If the CAC decides that the application is admissible it must—

        (a) accept the application, and

        (b) give notice of the acceptance to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions).

        (6) The acceptance period is—

        (a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or

        (b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions) by notice containing reasons for the extension.

        1192

        79B. If the CAC accepts'.

        No. 107, in page 45, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
        No. 108, in page 45, line 36, leave out
        'after the CAC decides to proceed with'
        and insert
        'the CAC gives notice of acceptance of'.
        No. 109, in page 45, line 39, leave out 'parties' and insert
        'worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions)'.
        No. 110, in page 45, line 41, leave out from 'CAC' to end of line 42 and insert
        'accepts an application under paragraph 74 or 75.'
        No. 111, in page 45, line 44, leave out from 'CAC' to ',and' in line 45 and insert
        'accepts an application under paragraph 78'.
        No. 165, in page 49, line 17, at end insert—

        '86A.—(1) This Part of this Schedule also applies if the CAC has issued a declaration under paragraph 62(2) that a union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit.

        (2) In such a case references in this Part of this Schedule to the bargaining arrangements are to—

        (a) the declaration, and

        (b) paragraph 62(6)(b).'

        No. 112, in page 49, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'the union' in line 24 and insert
        'The employer may after the relevant date request'.
        No. 113, in page 49, line 25, leave out
        ', and if the request'
        and insert—
        '(1A) The request is not valid unless it'.
        No. 114, in page 49, line 31, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
        No. 115, in page 49, line 46, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.
        No. 116, in page 50, line 2, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.
        No. 117, in page 50, line 6, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
        No. 118, in page 50, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'is' in line 11 and insert
        'An application to the CAC under paragraph 90 is not admissible unless the CAC'.
        No. 119, in page 50, line 13, leave out from 'must' to 'give' in line 14.
        No. 120, in page 50, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—

        '92A.—(1) The CAC must give notice to the parties of receipt of an application under paragraph 90.

        (2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether—

        (a) the request is valid within the terms of paragraph 89, and

        (b) the application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 91 and 92.

        (3) In deciding those questions the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the parties.

        (4) If the CAC decides that the request is not valid or the application is not admissible

        (a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the parties,

        1193

        (b) the CAC must not accept the application, and

        (c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.

        (5) If the CAC decides that the request is valid and the application is admissible it must—

        (a) accept the application, and

        (b) give notice of the acceptance to the parties.

        (6) The acceptance period is—

        (a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or

        (b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.'

        No. 121, in page 50, line 21, leave out from 'CAC' to '(as' in line 22 and insert
        'accepts an application under paragraph 90.'
        No. 150, in page 50, line 44, leave out paragraph 95.
        No. 151, in page 51, line 8, leave out 'after the relevant date'.
        No. 122, in page 51, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
        No. 123, in page 51, line 15, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.
        No. 124, in page 51, line 18, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.
        No. 125, in page 51, line 22, leave out sub-paragraphs (5) and (6).
        No. 126, in page 51, line 29, leave out from beginning to 'decides' in line 30 and insert
        'An application under paragraph 98 is not admissible unless the CAC'.
        No. 127, in page 51, line 35, leave out from 'must' to 'give' in line 36.
        No. 128, in page 51, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'the application' in line 40 and insert—

        '99A.—(1) The CAC must give notice to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions) of receipt of an application under paragraph 98.

        (2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether the application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 98 and 99.

        (3) In deciding whether the application is admissible the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the employer, the union (or unions) or any of the workers falling within the bargaining unit.

        (4) If the CAC decides that the application is not admissible—

        (a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions),

        (b) the CAC must not accept the application, and

        (c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.

        (5) If the CAC decides that the application is admissible it must—

        (a) accept the application, and

        (b) give notice of the acceptance to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions).

        1194

        (6) The acceptance period is—

        (a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or

        (b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions) by notice containing reasons for the extension.

        99B. If the CAC accepts'.

        No. 129, in page 51, line 46, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
        No. 130, in page 52, line 4, leave out
        'after the CAC decides to proceed with'
        and insert
        'the CAC gives notice of acceptance of'.
        No. 131, in page 52, line 7, leave out 'parties' and insert
        'worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions)'.
        No. 132, in page 52, line 10, leave out from 'CAC' to ', and' in line 11 and insert
        'accepts an application under paragraph 98'.
        No. 153, in page 52, line 18, at end insert—

        Derecognition: other cases
        100A.—(1) This paragraph applies if as a result of a declaration by the CAC another union is (or other unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers at least one of whom falls within the bargaining unit.

        (2) The CAC must issue a declaration that the bargaining arrangements are to cease to have effect on a date specified by the CAC in the declaration.

        (3) If a declaration is issued under sub-paragraph (2) the bargaining arrangements shall cease to have effect accordingly.

        (4) It is for the CAC to decide whether a group of workers is the same or substantially the same as the bargaining unit, but in deciding the CAC may take account of the views of any person it believes has an interest in the matter.'

        No. 169, in page 52, line 28, leave out 'Part I of'.
        No. 170, in page 52, line 30, leave out 'Part I of.
        No. 171, in page 52, line 31, leave out
        'of bargaining arrangements under Part IV, V or VI of this Schedule'
        and insert
        'under this Schedule of bargaining arrangements'.
        No. 172, in page 52, line 33, leave out
        'of bargaining arrangements under Part IV, V or VI of this Schedule'
        and insert
        'under this Schedule of bargaining arrangements'.
        No. 173, in page 54, line 17, leave out 'Part I of'.
        No. 174, in page 54, line 19, leave out 'Part I of'.
        No. 175, in page 54, line 20, leave out
        'of bargaining arrangements under Part IV, V or VI of this Schedule'
        and insert
        'under this Schedule of bargaining arrangements'.
        No. 176, in page 54, line 22, leave out
        'of bargaining arrangements under Part IV, V or VI of this Schedule'
        and insert
        'under this Schedule of bargaining arrangements'.—[Mr. Pope.]

      Schedule 5

        THE CERTIFICATION OFFICER
        Amendments made: No. 154, in page 71, line 49, leave out from 'shall' to second 'the' in line 50 and insert'—

        (a) make such enquiries as he thinks fit, and

        (b) give the applicant and the trade union an opportunity to be heard.

        (2AA) Where'.
        No. 155, in page 72, line 13, at end insert—
        '(3A) Where the Certification Officer requests a person to furnish information to him in connection with enquiries made by him under this section, he shall specify the date by which that information is to be furnished and, unless he considers that it would be inappropriate to do so, shall proceed with his determination of the application notwithstanding that the information has not been furnished to him by the specified date.'
        No. 156, in page 72, line 25, at end insert—
        '(1A) In subsection (2) (Certification Officer's powers and duties) insert before paragraph (a)—
        "(aa) shall make such enquiries as he thinks fit,".
        No. 157, in page 73, line 6, at end insert—
        '(6A) Where the Certification Officer requests a person to furnish information to him in connection with enquiries made by him under this section, he shall specify the date by which that information is to be furnished and, unless he considers that it would be inappropriate to do so, shall proceed with his determination of the application notwithstanding that the information has not been furnished to him by the specified date.'
        No. 164, in page 73, line 15, leave out 'this Chapter' and insert
        'section 25, 31 or 45C'.
        No. 158, in page 75, line 11, at end insert—
        '(5A) Where the Certification Officer requests a person to furnish information to him in connection with enquiries made by him under this section, he shall specify the date by which that information is to be furnished and, unless he considers that it would be inappropriate to do so, shall proceed with his determination of the application notwithstanding that the information has not been furnished to him by the specified date.'
        No. 159, in page 76, line 44, at end insert—

        'Political fund
        16A.—(1) Section 82 (rules as to political fund) shall be amended as follows.

        (2) After subsection (2) insert—
        "(2A) On a complaint being made to him the Certification Officer shall make such enquiries as he thinks fit."

        (3) After subsection (3) insert—
        "(3A) Where the Certification Officer requests a person to furnish information to him in connection with enquiries made by him under this section, he shall specify the date by which that information is to be furnished and, unless he considers that it would be inappropriate to do so, shall proceed with his determination of the application notwithstanding that the information has not been furnished to him by the specified date." '

        No. 160, in page 76, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 47 and insert—
        'Section 103 (complaints about procedure relating to amalgamation or transfer of engagements) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) After subsection (2) insert—
        "(2A) On a complaint being made to him the Certification Officer shall make such enquiries as he thinks fit."
        (3) After subsection (5) insert—
        1196
        "(5A) Where the Certification Officer requests a person to furnish information to him in connection with enquiries made by him under this section, he shall specify the date by which that information is to be furnished and, unless he considers that it would be inappropriate to do so, shall proceed with his determination of the application notwithstanding that the information has not been furnished to him by the specified date.'
        No. 60, in page 77, line 15, leave out '(5)' and insert '(5A)'.
        No. 62, in page 77, line 24, leave out 'conference or other body' and insert 'decision-making meeting'.
        No. 61, in page 77, line 33, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
        '(5) An application must be made—

        (a) within the period of six months starting with the day on which the breach or threatened breach is alleged to have taken place, or

        (b) if within that period any internal complaints procedure of the union is invoked to resolve the claim, within the period of six months starting with the earlier of the days specified in subsection (5A).

        (5A) Those days are—

        (a) the day on which the procedure is concluded, and

        (b) the last day of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the procedure is invoked.'

        No. 63, in page 78, line 1, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
        '(8) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a committee is an executive committee if—

        (a) it is a committee of the union concerned and has power to make executive decisions on behalf of the union or on behalf of a constituent body,

        (b) it is a committee of a major constituent body and has power to make executive decisions on behalf of that body, or

        (c) it is a sub-committee of a committee falling within paragraph (a) or (b).

        (8A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a decision-making meeting is—

        (a) a meeting of members of the union concerned (or the representatives of such members) which has power to make a decision on any matter which, under the rules of the union, is final as regards the union or which, under the rules of the union or a constituent body, is final as regards that body, or

        (b) a meeting of members of a major constituent body (or the representatives of such members) which has power to make a decision on any matter which, under the rules of the union or the body, is final as regards that body.

        (8B) For the purposes of subsections (8) and (8A), in relation to the trade union concerned—

        (a) a constituent body is any body which forms part of the union, including a branch, group, section or region;

        (b) a major constituent body is such a body which has more than 1,000 members.'

        No. 161, in page 78, line 35, at end insert—
        '(aa) shall make such enquiries as he thinks fit,'.
        No. 162, in page 79, line 3, at end insert—
        '(4A) Where the Certification Officer requests a person to furnish information to him in connection with enquiries made by him under this section, he shall specify the date by which that information is to be furnished and, unless he considers that it would be inappropriate to do so, shall proceed with his determination of the application notwithstanding that the information has not been furnished to him by the specified date.'
        No. 163, in page 79, line 47, leave out '(6)' and insert '(2A) and (5A)'.—[Mr. Pope.]

      Schedule 6

        REPEALS
        Amendments made: No. 52, in page 80, line 16, at end insert—

        'A1. BALLOTS AND NOTICES

        Chapter

        Short title

        Extent of repeal

        1992 c. 52.

        Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

        In section 226(2) the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) Section 227(2). In section 234A(7)(a) the words "otherwise than to enable the union to comply with a court order or an undertaking given to a court".'.

        No. 64, in page 81, leave out lines 27 and 28.
        No. 56, in page 82, leave out lines 13 and 14.
        No. 65, in page 85, line 23, at end insert—

        '9. COMPENSATORY AWARD: REMOVAL OF LIMIT IN CERTAIN CASES

        Chapter

        Short title

        Extent of repeal

        1996 c. 18

        Employment Rights Act 1996

        In section 112(4), the words "or in accordance with regulations under section 127B".

        In section 117(2) and (3), the words "and to regulations under section 127B".

        In section 118(1), the words "Subject to regulations under section 127B,". Section 127B.

        1998 c. 23.

        Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

        Section 8. Section 18(4)(b).'

        —[Mr. Pope.]

        Order for Third Reading read.
        9.41 pm
        Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        It is an historic occasion. I am delighted that I will joined shortly by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who has been absent from illness.
        The Bill establishes and fosters a new culture in the workplace, removing the outdated notion of conflict between employers and employees with a sense of new partnership—a partnership of rights matched by responsibilities. It will address the fundamental imbalance in the workplace that we inherited from the Conservative party.
        Now more than ever, we need to foster a new culture in the workplace. The world is dramatically changing and the workplace has changed with it. More people are working part-time and on temporary contracts. More women than ever are working. More families depend on two earners. Those new working patterns put new responsibilities on Government, business and employees.
        1198
        We want people to be partners in change, not the victims of that change. That places a responsibility on Government to ensure minimum standards of fairness and treatment for all in society and in the workplace. That places a responsibility on business to ensure that the task of making a reality of the flexible labour market does not fall solely and exclusively on working people, and a responsibility on employees to demonstrate loyalty and commitment to their employer.
        The Bill will do three things: it will promote family-friendly policies; promote a new culture of partnership in the workplace; and ensure equal and fair treatment for all in the workplace, regardless of whether they work full or part-time, for a single employer, or through an agency. Those are all sensible and achievable goals. It is a matter of great regret that the Opposition will not support them.
        We are just a little over two hours away from the introduction for the first time in this country of a national minimum wage, which will benefit 2 million of our fellow citizens by taking them out of poverty pay, and ensuring that they will not be exploited. Two million people will benefit from the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, but even more people will benefit from the Employment Relations Bill.
        About 135,000 mothers will benefit from our improved maternity provisions. The 1 million people who work through employment agencies will have greater protection. Some 3.3 million people will benefit from our parental leave proposals. More than 6.5 million part-timers will be protected from discrimination.
        The Government are acting for all our people, not just a privileged few. The Bill will play an important part in modernising our country, creating a better Britain and a more modern and fair society in which all the people will have rights coupled with responsibilities. The Bill discharges our responsibility by ensuring that we meet our manifesto commitment. We are a Government who deliver on our promises.
        The Employment Relations Bill begins a new era in industrial relations, an era based on partnership and on putting aside the divisions and disagreements of the past. It is a new beginning for industrial relations that will benefit millions of our fellow citizens. I commend the Bill to the House.
        9.45 pm
        Mr. Boswell: In rising to oppose the Bill on the Opposition's behalf, may I agree with the Secretary of State on one matter by expressing our pleasure at the fact that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry is shortly to return from his indisposition. We are pleased that he is able to be with us again.
        Now, let me resume normal hostilities by saying that what we have just heard from the Secretary of State was, even from him, a disappointing concatenation of soundbites. The Secretary of State claimed as a credit to himself the imminent introduction of the national minimum wage, but he simultaneously omitted to mention the propensity of both that and of the Employment Relations Bill to destroy jobs by increasing the costs of business. The Government have taken no adequate account of that fact. For all their honeyed words and all their alleged readiness to consult, they are bent on doing damage to British business by imposing costs on it.

        1199
        The conduct of the Bill has been remarkable. Two reordering motions were required, one on the very first day of consideration. Four major schedules have been tabled during the Bill's proceedings. Consultation and regulations were issued in pre-draft form 90 minutes before we considered them. That does not suggest that the Government understand much of the business about which they lecture real business people.
        The Bill will impose statutory collective bargaining. Last time that was done, six short clauses damaged British industry and proved to be unworkable. This time, there are 27 long pages of a schedule, which will damage British industry and which will prove unworkable.
        The Bill introduces, for the first time, parts of the European social chapter, which have not yet been fully discussed. The Government have gold plated some of the obligations that they have voluntarily undertaken, adding further to those obligations in ways that will increase costs on British business. The pattern of their policies—including the family-friendly policies—is to put burdens on to business and to reduce competitiveness while increasing costs.
        Some loose ends will be left over. The Confederation of British Industry has expressed general concern about the Bill, but has gone along with it. Concerns remain about the importance of asserting the voluntary principle, the best by which to conduct industrial relations. Concerns remain about disciplinary and grievance hearings and about definitions in the Bill, some of which we have been able to explore and others of which we have had no time to explore.
        The Bill is an extraordinary confection. There is little in the clauses, more in the schedules, and most of all has lain in the soundbites. Today, the Government are ringing their bells and making their claims, but, in the years to come, British industry will pay the bills and suffer the damage of a Bill which we are pleased to oppose.
        9.49 pm
        Mr. Chidgey: It falls to me, in the three remaining minutes of the debate, to have almost the last word on the Bill. I should like to reinforce what Liberal Democrat Members have been saying from the outset—that we have always supported the principles of fair and free industrial and employment relations. I should like also to sum up the past several weeks of our consideration of the Bill.
        The Bill's provisions may be divided into three categories: on individual rights, on collective rights and on family-friendly policies. Despite our long debates and Committee sittings, the Bill's provisions—particularly in the first category, on individual rights—still do not provide the clarity that we should have liked. The problem of discrimination—on the basis of age, and of sexual orientation—is outstanding. We are still not satisfied that the Government have properly addressed the issue.
        The Government's proposals on collective rights have left us wondering how they decided on the 40 per cent. threshold. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State and other Ministers would give us some further guidance on how they reached that conclusion, so that the wider community—the many whom they claim to represent—might be able to understand it.
        We have concerns also about the Bill's proposals on family-friendly policies. Although we appreciate and welcome the introduction of European Community
        1200
        directives on family-friendly policies, we still do not understand why it was necessary for the Government to indulge in what can only be called the gold-plating of specific matters. We are particularly concerned about how the Government dealt in the Bill with leave for urgent family reasons. We feel that much more could have been done to make the provision simple, clear and efficient in operation.
        This is an "enabling Bill". Time and again in Committee, we were told by Ministers that, "The detail will come later. We have not finished consulting. In fact, we are continually consulting." I thought that Governments were elected to legislate, but perhaps I have it wrong. We still have to wait. Time and again, massive Government amendments were tabled but with no time to study or analyse them, or to share in the Secretary of State's ambition—which he expressed again today—of improving the Bill.
        We are left with an enabling Bill, and still await the regulations. The doubts that I have been expressing are about exactly how those regulations will work. On the Bills and Acts that the Secretary of State has trumpeted today—such as the National Minimum Wage Act 1998—to make them work, the Government have had to think again, to change their mind and to introduce new strictures and regulations. Will the same happen with this Bill after it becomes an Act of Parliament?
        When the regulations are tabled, I look forward to examining them forensically, although—because of the way in which this place works—we shall have little time to do so. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government are listening, and that they will do their best to make the Bill work—not only for the many, but for those who employ the many.
        Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 328, Noes 124.

        Division No. 140]

        [9.52 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Ainger, Nick

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Allen, Graham

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Burden, Richard

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Burgon, Colin

        Austin, John

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Banks, Tony

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Barnes, Harry

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Barron, Kevin

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

        Beard, Nigel

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Beggs, Roy

        Canavan, Dennis

        Berth, Rt Hon A J

        Cann, Jamie

        Bell, Martin (Tatton)

        Caplin, Ivor

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Caton, Martin

        Benton, Joe

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Chidgey, David

        Berry, Roger

        Clapham, Michael

        Best, Harold

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Betts, Clive

        Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Blackman, Liz

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Blizzard, Bob

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        Borrow, David

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        1201

        Clelland, David

        Hesford, Stephen

        Clwyd, Ann

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        Coaker, Vernon

        Hill, Keith

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Hinchliffe, David

        Cohen, Harry

        Hodge, Ms Margaret

        Coleman, Iain

        Hoey, Kate

        Colman, Tony

        Hood, Jimmy

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

        Hope, Phil

        Corbett, Robin

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

        Cousins, Jim

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Cox, Tom

        Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

        Crausby, David

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Hurst, Alan

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Hutton, John

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Dalyell, Tam

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Darvill, Keith

        Jamieson, David

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Jenkins, Brian

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Jones, Barry (Alyn &Deeside)

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Denham, John

        Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Dismore, Andrew

        Dobbin, Jim

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Doran, Frank

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Dowd, Jim

        Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Edwards, Huw

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Efford, Clive

        Kemp, Fraser

        Ennis, Jeff

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Etherington, Bill

        Khabra, Piara S

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret

        Kidney, David

        Fearn, Ronnie

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Fisher, Mark

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Fitzsimons, Lorna

        Kingham, Ms Tess

        Flint, Caroline

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Flynn, Paul

        Lawrence, Ms Jackie

        Follett, Barbara

        Laxton, Bob

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Leslie, Christopher

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Levitt, Tom

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Foulkes, George

        Linton, Martin

        Fyfe, Maria

        Livingstone, Ken

        Gapes, Mike

        Livsey, Richard

        Gardiner, Barry

        Lock, David

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Love, Andrew

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        McAllion, John

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        McCabe, Steve

        Godsiff, Roger

        McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

        Goggins, Paul

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        McDonnell, John

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        McIsaac, Shona

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Grocott, Bruce

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Grogan, John

        McNulty, Tony

        Hain, Peter

        MacShane, Denis

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        McWalter, Tony

        Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

        McWilliam, John

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Healey, John

        Mallaber, Judy

        Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Marek, Dr John

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Heppell, John

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        1202

        Martlew, Eric

        Sawford, Phil

        Maxton, John

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Merron, Gillian

        Sheerman, Barry

        Michael, Rt Hon Alun

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Short, Rt Hon Clare

        Miller, Andrew

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Mitchell, Austin

        Singh, Marsha

        Moffatt, Laura

        Skinner, Dennis

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Morley, Elliot

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Snape, Peter

        Mountford, Kali

        Soley, Clive

        Mullin, Chris

        Spellar, John

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Norris, Dan

        Stevenson, George

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        O'Hara, Eddie

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Olner, Bill

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Öpik, Lembit

        Straw, Rt Hon Jack

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Stringer, Graham

        Osborne, Ms Sandra

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Stunell, Andrew

        Pearson, Ian

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Pendry, Tom

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Perham, Ms Linda

        Pickthall, Colin

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Pike, Peter L

        Tipping, Paddy

        Plaskitt, James

        Todd, Mark

        Pollard, Kerry

        Trickett, Jon

        Pond, Chris

        Truswell, Paul

        Pope, Greg

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Turner, Dr Desmond (kemptown)

        Powell, Sir Raymond

        Turner,Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Twigg Derek (Halton)

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Prescott, Rt Hon John

        Vaz, Keith

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Purchase, Ken

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

        Wareing, Robert N

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Watts, David

        Radice, Giles

        Welsh, Andrew

        Rapson, Syd

        White, Brian

        Raynsford, Nick

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

        Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Wills, Michael

        Rooker, Jeff

        Winnick, David

        Rooney, Terry

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Wise, Audrey

        Roy, Frank

        Woolas, Phil

        Ruane, Chris

        Worthington, Tony

        Ruddock, Joan

        Wray, James

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Salter, Martin

        Sanders, Adrian

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Mr. David Hanson and

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Mrs. Anne McGuire.

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Boswell, Tim

        Amess, David

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Brady, Graham

        Baldry, Tony

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Bercow, John

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Burns, Simon

        Blunt, Crispin

        Butterfill, John

        1203

        Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Chope, Christopher

        Malins, Humfrey

        Clappison, James

        Maples, John

        Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

        Maude, Rt Hon Francis

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Colvin, Michael

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Moss, Malcolm

        Cran, James

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Norman, Archie

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        Ottaway, Richard

        Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

        Page, Richard

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Paice, James

        Evans, Nigel

        Pickles, Eric

        Faber, David

        Prior, David

        Fabricant, Michael

        Randall, John

        Fallon, Michael

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Flight, Howard

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Ruffley, David

        Gale, Roger

        St Aubyn, Nick

        Garnier, Edward

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Gibb, Nick

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        Gill, Christopher

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

        Soames, Nicholas

        Gray, James

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Green, Damian

        Spring, Richard

        Greenway, John

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Grieve, Dominic

        Streeter, Gary

        Hague, Rt Hon William

        Swayne, Desmond

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Syms, Robert

        Hawkins, Nick

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Hayes, John

        Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

        Heald, Oliver

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Horam, John

        Townend, John

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Trend, Michael

        Hunter, Andrew

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Viggers, Peter

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Walter, Robert

        Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Wardle, Charles

        Wells, Bowen

        Key, Robert

        Whitney, Sir Raymond

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Whittingdale, John

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Wilkinson, John

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Willetts, David

        Lansley, Andrew

        Wilshire, David

        Leigh, Edward

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Letwin, Oliver

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Lidington, David

        Woodward, Shaun

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Yeo, Tim

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Loughton, Tim

        Luff, Peter

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Mr. Tim Collins and

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

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

        Kosovo
        10.4 pm
        The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Just a week ago, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that, in the face of rising violence against civilians in Kosovo, our armed forces and those of our NATO allies were involved in combat operations on the continent of Europe. That evening, Harrier aircraft of the Royal Air Force delivered the first of their attacks on military targets in Yugoslavia.
        A week has now passed and the House has had regular reports. I gave evidence to the Defence Committee on 24 March. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I opened and closed the full day's debate on 25 March, and the Prime Minister briefed the House yesterday. On Monday, when I visited RAF personnel at Gioia del Colle air base in southern Italy, I was accompanied by the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), and the Liberal Democrat foreign and defence spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). I am sure, however, that hon. Members would expect me to provide an account of the latest position before the House rises for Easter, and by doing so at this time I can be as up to date as possible.
        Some things have become clearer with the passage of these seven days. First, we were absolutely right to act when and in the way that we did. Anyone still unconvinced about the need to act should listen to the voices of the Kosovar Albanians themselves because they are making it absolutely clear that they welcome NATO action, and see it as their only salvation. Yesterday, at the press conference at the Foreign Office, one of the representatives of the Kosovar Albanians in London said:
        "the people of Kosovo are fully in accord with NATO action and rather than claiming that NATO brought destruction to them, they only hope and desperately ask for an increase in NATO activity".
        The second point that has come out is that the violence being perpetrated against the Kosovar Albanians has been in preparation for some time. There is a clear pattern of organisation behind these atrocities. It is not just murder; it is premeditated murder. What we are witnessing is nothing less than a systematic campaign of destruction against a whole people just because they are from a different ethnic group.
        To those who try to argue that the ethnic cleansing started after NATO's air strikes began, I say go and speak to the people of Poljance, Cigala, Lausa, Devicha Suma and the other towns and villages in Kosovo where Milosevic's thugs wreaked havoc before a single NATO bomb was dropped.
        The international community can, and it will, take steps to bring those who planned this violence—Milosevic and his military commanders—to account. We know who they are, where they live, and what they are doing now. We are watching them, and there will be no hiding place. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have both made clear, information about the involvement of individuals in atrocities will be provided to the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. I am glad to report that Judge Louise Arbour has now issued an indictment against the man known as Arkan for war crimes in Bosnia.

        1205
        NATO has now decided to increase the intensity of the air effort. Yesterday evening, following discussions in the North Atlantic Council, NATO confirmed its resolve to intensify and broaden still further the air strikes against Milosevic and his thugs who are repressing the Albanian population in Kosovo. We do not do so lightly. Last night's decision, however, gives Milosevic a very clear signal of our collective intent.
        Yesterday, I gave my agreement to the stationing of five United States B-1 bombers at RAF Fairford, in addition to the 13 B-52s that are already there. These aircraft will add considerably to NATO's ability to strike at military targets supporting the killings in Kosovo.
        Since the beginning of the campaign, NATO aircraft have done considerable damage to the Serb war machine. To date, they have made around 100 attacks, against more than 70 sites. NATO planes have seriously damaged the potential effectiveness of the Yugoslav air force. Four Mig 29s—the Serbs' most modern and capable fighters—and one Mig 21 have been shot down. Overall, these losses represent around half of their best operational and serviceable fighters. In addition, in attacks on eight airfields, at least seven aircraft and one helicopter have been destroyed on the ground. It is possible that others have also been destroyed.
        Attacks by NATO aircraft have also substantially reduced the Yugoslav air defence systems. Eighteen surface-to-air missile sites and 16 radar and early warning sites have been attacked, as have 12 of the other 15 air defence facilities. These attacks have been so effective that the Serbs have been forced to move their remaining missile systems in order to protect them. While there still remains a threat to our aircraft, it is clear that good progress has been made.
        NATO has heavily targeted headquarters and other static facilities. The headquarters of the MUP—the Ministry of the Interior police—and the headquarters of the Yugoslav army have been attacked. So have a range of support buildings containing stores of ammunition and other military stores. Those attacks will reduce the ability of the commanders to direct troops on the ground. It will also reduce the ability of troops to sustain their operations.
        Royal Air Force Harriers have been in action since the first day of the campaign. On the night of 25–26 March, they attacked explosive ammunition storage buildings within a military barracks at Leskovac. Two of the three targets were successfully destroyed. On the night of 28–29 March, aircraft attacked an ammunition storage site in Pristina which stored ammunition for the Interior Ministry police. Three targets were destroyed.
        Harrier aircraft were active on a number of other occasions, but, for various reasons, including poor weather and fire and smoke, they did not press home the attacks. It is our policy, and that of our allies, that aircraft should launch their weapons only when they are as confident as they can be that they will hit the target accurately, without causing unnecessary collateral damage or putting civilian lives at risk. Milosevic may randomly kill, but we operate to higher standards.
        This pressure is having an effect. Milosevic is clearly rattled, as his so-called offer of last night demonstrates. If he really thought that the international community would entertain this worthless proposal, he knows now that it was just his latest miscalculation.
        1206
        First, he miscalculated our intention to attack if he kept on killing. Then he miscalculated over alliance resolve and determination, which is now stronger than it was seven days ago. Last night, he miscalculated again. Milosevic's offer is simply this—NATO stops bombing and he only slows down the killing. He has not offered a ceasefire. He has not offered to reduce troop numbers in Kosovo to the levels that he himself promised in October last year. He has not offered guarantees of safety to returning refugees. He has simply offered to take out a few of the 40,000 troops if we stop the bombing and take off the pressure. This was not a peace move. It was a panic move.
        So let me remind the House what Milosevic must do to stop the bombing. There must be an immediate and permanent halt to the killings, and, to show that he means it, there must be a verified withdrawal of Serb troops. He must sign up to a political settlement, including an international guarantee force which permits the refugees and displaced persons to return safely to their homes.
        Of course huge damage has already been done. Lives have been ruined, villages destroyed, communities expelled. The British Government are heavily involved in supporting the efforts that are going on to tackle the developing humanitarian crisis. On Tuesday, and to the House today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development described the Government's contribution to the international efforts to assist with the huge refugee crisis. I can confirm tonight that the first RAF Hercules carrying badly needed blankets, tents and plastic sheeting left Prestwick airport at 8 o'clock this evening, and is expected to arrive in Skopje in Macedonia at approximately 2 o'clock tomorrow morning.
        Today, on our continent of Europe, the most horrific crimes against humanity are being perpetrated. They must not be forgotten; they must not go unpunished; and most of all they must not continue. NATO forces are determined to stop this grisly process and to ensure that those who have started it do not profit from it.
        Mr. Milosevic is not addressing his own Parliament tonight. I imagine he would be deeply ashamed to do so. He is huddled in his bunker, calculating how he can possibly extricate himself from his predicament. It is time for him and his military commanders to think again. If it helps to make up their minds, I can tell them this. NATO's military action is going to strengthen, it will continue, and it will be increasingly painful. We are not going away before the violence stops and the people of Kosovo can go home and live in peace.
        Mr. John Maples: In last week's debate on Kosovo, I think that we were all agreed that in President Milosevic, we are dealing with a very evil man. If anyone had any lingering doubts about that, they must have been dispelled by what we have read in our newspapers and by the truly tragic scenes that we have seen on television over the past few days of refugees evicted from their homes, sleeping in the open and having to flee for their lives. We welcome the aid that the Government are helping to organise and the role of the RAF that the Secretary of State has described. We continue to support the Government in their efforts to resolve this crisis and bring an end to the atrocities.
        During the past few days, the Secretary of State has set out some objectives for the military campaign. I want to ask him some questions about two of them. One objective

        1207
        was to do very serious damage to Serbia's military capabilities and another was to stop the atrocities in Kosovo. The Secretary of State has reported considerable progress in achieving the first objective. He tells us that many of the SAM—surface-to-air-missile—sites and planes have been destroyed. Will he confirm that quite a bit of Serb air defence capability is still intact? Serb troops still have missile sites and can operate hand-held, shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles that are a particular danger to low-flying aircraft in the daytime.
        There has been some success in that matter, but there has not been success in the second objective of stopping the atrocities. The atrocities plainly and brutally continue and the bombing appears to be having little effect on the ground. The Secretary of State has told us that he is convinced that the matter can be resolved by air power alone. Will he tell us whether there are any plans to alter the nature of the air campaign to achieve that? The problem seems to be that although sophisticated bombing techniques are very good at taking out large military installations, they are not much use in attacking individual trucks, tanks or the groups of soldiers perpetrating the atrocities in Kosovo. He has told us that there are additional B-1 bombers at Fairford and that they will help. I understand that there are also American JSTARS—joint surveillance target attack radar system—and A-10s in the area. Does he think that those new military assets will help NATO forces to restrict Serb ground forces and prevent them from committing atrocities in Kosovo?
        I think that I am correct in saying that there were eight and there are now 12 RAF Harriers and about 240 people in Italy, plus tankers. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether there are plans to deploy any more UK air forces in the region? Will the NATO force in Macedonia—the potential peacekeeping force—be brought up to the planned 28,000 from its present strength of about 14,000?
        The use of ground troops to fight their way into Kosovo has been ruled out by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and by the President of the United States. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there has been no alteration to that policy? Has he seen the announcement by the Russian Defence Minister that seven ships of the Russian Black sea fleet, including missile-carrying and anti-submarine frigates, are leaving their Black sea port to—in the Defence Minister's words—
        "monitor the conflict in Kosovo".
        Those troops will have to pass through the Bosporus and I understand that that requires Turkish permission. Has NATO been consulted on that matter and does the Secretary of State believe that it presents an additional threat?
        Today, the Prime Minister set a new objective for the military mission—that the test of success is for the Kosovars to be able to return home. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether that rules out not only any outcome that involves leaving Kosovo in Serb hands, but any partition of Kosovo? In last week's debate, we asked the Secretary of State whether the Government had a longer-term strategy for achieving Balkan stability. We express the hope that there is one. I should be grateful if the Government would address that question and if the Secretary of State would share his thinking with us, if not tonight at some other time.
        1208
        I hope that the Secretary of State is right—that President Milosevic is rattled and that he is huddled in his bunker—but I fear that this is all going to be more difficult and will take much longer than the Government seem to think. I am sure that the whole House is thinking of our armed services in the theatre, especially those who are in danger. We wish them good fortune, great success and a speedy homecoming.
        Mr. Robertson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's final comment. The whole House sends its good wishes and thoughts to those who are close to the conflict and those who, at this moment, may be in the line of danger, and he is right to speak out in that way.
        I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, although a lot of his questions are interesting, the answers would provide considerable information, not only to him and the House, but to those who might well be ranged against our forces now and in succeeding days. Therefore, in being reticent on certain subjects, I am not being discourteous to him or the House, but being sensibly prudent. I have given more information tonight than I have ever given before to the House of Commons so that it knows, as it goes into the Easter recess, what has been done.
        I believe that most hon. Members recognise how much has yet to be achieved. There is no instant overnight knock-out blow that can be delivered. Some defence manufacturers might say that this bit of kit or that bit of kit is ideal in the circumstances, but modern conflict is not some sort of arcade game, in which you press a button and the enemy disappears. The fact is that we are up against somebody who is ruthless, merciless and unprincipled. He is engaged in systematic operations inside a tiny part of our continent and we have to stand against him. That will involve risks for many people in the area-—for the population who have been driven from their homes, and for our armed forces and those of the other 18 countries of NATO. We must recognise that.
        We have been successful in the air campaign so far. Of course, the problems with weather create complications. They would not create complications for Milosevic, because, to him, bombing through the clouds—bombing blind—using dumb bombs would be a simple exercise, without any scruples attached to it. It is different for us and it will remain different for us. We are not in the business of creating civilian casualties, but interested only in precision attacks on military installations.
        The hon. Gentleman asked about the forces currently present in Macedonia, ready to be part of an implementation force if, as we all hope, a peace agreement comes about. There are currently some 14,000 NATO troops there, and that is the number that the force will remain at until we are ready to move to the implementation stage of an agreement. We all send our good wishes to them. I hope that, in the next few days, some of them will be engaged in helping with the refugee crisis.
        There is no change to the view that we have taken on ground troops. The decision was taken by NATO—by the NATO military authorities: 19 chiefs of defence and the Ministers who supervise their decisions. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the announcement by Marshal Sergeyev, the Russian Defence Minister, about sending a

        1209
        certain number of the Black sea fleet through the Bosporus. The Bosporus is an international waterway and access cannot be prevented. The Russian ships are on the high seas and it remains to be seen what they will do, but they have the freedom of the seas, just as we have.
        We have made clear our objectives in political terms: a situation that will allow the refugees to go back, and to rebuild their communities and their lives. That will necessitate having an international peacekeeping force to allow it to happen. Milosevic is not going to get away with ethnically cleansing that part of the former Yugoslavia and then claiming that it is partitioned for ever.
        The hon. Gentleman states the obvious, but it is worth stating that this action is going to be long and difficult. We took it on knowing that it was important to do and the right thing to do, and that the only alternative was to stand back and wring our hands, as people were slaughtered, murdered and driven out of the country that they believed to be their home. Yes, it is risky—nobody in this House will face those risks—but the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and I met some of the people who will be taking those risks: they expect us to do the right thing, and that is what we will do.
        Mr. Menzies Campbell: I thank the Secretary of State for the opportunity to accompany him on Monday and meet some of those who are accepting in a matter-of-fact way risks that we here can only guess at.
        Is the truth not this: that it is time now for steadiness and a calm determination to see these events through to the end? Does the Secretary of State understand that there is widespread support in the House for the summary rejection of the empty and cynical gesture made by Mr. Milosevic yesterday? Does he understand also that there is, if anything, even greater support for the robust reminder given today that those who are complicit at any level—military or political—in the hideous barbarity that is being enacted in Kosovo may pay for it by facing the war crimes tribunal?
        As a condition for the cessation of bombing, the Secretary of State outlined the need for Mr. Milosevic to accept the deployment of troops on the ground. If Mr. Milosevic refuses to consent to that, he surely cannot, by withholding consent, exercise a veto over the deployment of troops on the ground if NATO considers that that is appropriate.
        Mr. Robertson: I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words of thanks about the visit on Monday. The visit was conducted not in our interests, but in the interests of serving RAF personnel, who appreciated the fact that the defence spokesmen from the three principal political parties had taken the time and the trouble to meet them and to learn what was happening. We all came away with nothing short of huge admiration for the skill, commitment, ability and sheer bravery of those who are flying the Harriers, and who will, from tomorrow, fly the Tornadoes from RAF Bruggen.
        The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to highlight the risks involved, but he is also right to underline the determination that NATO expressed last
        1210
        night—and which we share—to ensure that the job is done. If this job is not done and if this sort of ethnic cleansing were to become the norm against which we could not stand, I, for one, would despair for the future of the continent for succeeding generations. Although last night's agreement was a crack in the wall of obstinacy that Slobodan Milosevic has erected and behind which he does his killing, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that it was no real offer and was a great disappointment to the Russians. It was insulting to Mr. Primakov, who had to deliver the message.
        We are absolutely committed on the war crimes issue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have made it clear that we will publicise some of the information that we have about some of those who have committed war crimes as a warning to others who may be tempted to obey the orders of ethnic warfare. I hope that the open indictment of Arkan will end the television interviews that he seems able to give with impunity. Someone who is indicted for war crimes should be returned to The Hague, not given star billing on television or in the newspapers.
        An international force must be sent to that country because I do not believe the refugees will go back without it. That is why those parts of the Rambouillet agreement that relate to an international force remain so important.
        Mr. Donald Anderson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on the regular reports to Parliament since last Thursday, which have proved to be a model for our allies in their parliamentary relations. My right hon. Friend said that we had provided evidence to Judge Louise Arbour, the chief prosecutor at the International War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague, in respect of President Milosevic. It is clear that President Milosevic is guilty of ethnic cleansing on an horrific scale. He has broken every agreement that he has reached with NATO and with other allies. In those circumstances, we must recognise that he cannot be part of the solution.
        Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the reports to Parliament. It is the principle behind what we do, and it is right that we keep the House informed and on side. I know that not all hon. Members agree 100 per cent. with what the Front-Bench spokesmen are saying. There is unease and anxiety, and that is shared equally by those who are in charge of the military. However, we must do what is right and what is necessary.
        My hon. Friend made a point about Judge Arbour and the international criminal tribunal. It will be for Judge Arbour to decide whether an indictment is arraigned against any individual. It is not for any politician to decide who should be the subject of indictment. The process is fair and judicial. When the indictments are served, it will be up to the rest of the international community to deliver on them.
        Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the political track is kept running in tandem with the military track? Does he further agree that if anyone should have much more influence on the Serbs, it is the Russians? Will he confirm that the Foreign Secretary will continue to

        1211
        impress on the Russians that, if they want to be taken seriously in international affairs, they need quickly to achieve their aim with the Serbs?
        Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right on the first point. We must keep the political track running because only a political settlement will return peace and stability to that troubled part of the world. He is right to say that the Russians also have a stake in that. Out-of-control ethnic warfare in the Balkans is a danger to stability that is much closer to Russia than it is to those on the other side of the Atlantic, although NATO has accepted that challenge.
        I am sure that the Russians were deeply unhappy with the offer that Milosevic made, which they took to Bonn last night. After all, they signed up to UN Security Council resolution 1199, which called for an end to the violence, withdrawal of the troops and a political settlement. I hope that they will continue to use what influence they have to try to tell that man that he must think again.
        Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why does the Defence Secretary think that Belgrade families, the intelligentsia, trade unionists and others, 200,000 of whom demonstrated two years ago against President Milosevic, are this week demonstrating in similar numbers in favour of him? Can a people such as the Serbs be bombed into submission?
        Mr. Robertson: The people of Serbia are, by and large, decent people with a fine tradition. If they knew, or were allowed to know, what their Government are doing in their name, they would not countenance it for a moment. They are being lied to, so perhaps it is not difficult to understand why they are demonstrating in the streets. We have no contest with them at all. No bombs are falling on them; bombs fall only on the military installations and apparatus that keep the terror going. I hope that if my hon. Friend has the chance to get that message across, he will do so.
        To those who might be listening in Yugoslavia, I say that there are internet sites that are difficult for the secret police to get hold of. Yesterday, 1,400 people hit the Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office websites. They are trying to find out the truth; if they do, they will not support Milosevic for very long.
        Mr. Martin Bell: As someone who knows a little about the realities on the ground, I wonder whether the Secretary of State will consider, if not full military intervention, at least the establishment, by force if necessary, of a relief corridor or safe area to save the lives of some of the tens of thousands of Albanians in Kosovo which, without such action, will surely be lost.
        Mr. Robertson: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the area, but I have studied, along with the military commanders in the area, some of the possibilities to which he alluded. We shall continue to examine what we can do to help relieve the refugees, without ruling out those options. However, we should not delude ourselves that the time that it would take to put together a ground force organised for forced entry into Kosovo would not be exploited by Slobodan Milosevic in the bloodiest
        1212
        possible way. Instead of seeking the simple solutions, we must continue down a difficult road that the majority of military commanders still believe will produce results.
        Mr. David Winnick: Does the Secretary of State agree that to blame NATO for the latest crimes and atrocities being carried out by the Serbian warlords makes as much sense as blaming the Allies for Nazi crimes in the last war? Is it not perfectly clear—as it should be to critics, in the House or outside—that the full responsibility for the mass murders, rapes and atrocities lies entirely with the dictator in Belgrade and his fellow murderous thugs?
        Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I get angry, with some justification, I think, at people suggesting that NATO air attacks started the violence that Milosevic was meting out to his people. Night after night on television, the Kosovar Albanian refugees themselves give ample testimony to the fact that the violence started before the NATO bombs began to fall, and that only the NATO air attacks are likely to stop them.
        Mr. Crispin Blunt: Can the Secretary of State for Defence name a single independent commentator who believes that NATO's military strategy will deliver the political objectives laid out by the Prime Minister to the House last Tuesday? If he cannot, will he undertake urgent consultations with our NATO partners to change the military strategy so that we can have the expectation, not just the hope, that we will deliver the political objectives that we all share?
        Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman was in the Army some time ago. I say to him in all reasonableness that he may have a point of view, but I am not concerned with independent commentators. There are military commanders in this country with experience, a Chief of the Defence Staff with one of the most outstanding records of service in the British Army, who is now at the head of all of our defences, and 18 other chiefs of defence in NATO who all came to the same conclusion. Their political masters have also agreed that this is the correct strategy. We do not lean on them, but their advice is quite clear. Frankly, if it came to a choice, I would trust them rather than the average, so-called independent commentator.
        Mr. John Austin: The whole House owes a debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary for the political skill that has enabled them to ensure a unified international response to the atrocities that have been perpetrated by the Milosevic regime.
        Last night, the Grand Committee Room was filled with Kosovars who live in London, many of them with families still in Kosovo, and some of whom do not know where their families are. I assure my right hon. Friend that they not only gave their full and absolute backing to the action that has been taken, but said that now is not the time for hesitation or pulling back from that action. I would add only one reservation. While accepting the view of the 19 defence chiefs that the use of ground troops at this stage may not be practicable, there was some concern that that had been announced to the world in advance—that may be one of the problems of living in a democracy.

        1213
        Does my right hon. Friend share my view that, by his actions, Milosevic has forfeited any right or claim that he may have had to sovereignty over Kosovo, and that the time has come for the international community to consider making Kosovo an international protectorate?
        Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words of commendation for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and me. We are doing our best, but I cannot say that this is the easiest or least troubled period of our political lives. It is made all the more difficult by the complexities of the situation, or perhaps by the normality that has been the Balkans in recent years. We are doing what we believe to be right, and we are doing, as my hon. Friend says, in the words of the Kosovar Albanians, what is vital and necessary, there being no alternative.
        I take what my hon. Friend says about ground troops, but there are those who say that without considering the implications: the time that it would take to assemble such forces, where those forces, properly trained and equipped, would come from, or how they are to fight their way into the country which surrounds Kosovo, and which has a unique topography. Those were the reasons that were pretty obvious to our military commanders and probably to President Milosevic as well. In a democracy, we are right not to hide those facts from the people or to raise false expectations of what can be done by that kind of military power. That is why we took the route that we did. I still hope and believe that it will produce results.
        Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has described what is happening in Kosovo as premeditated murder, and I agree with him. In response to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), he made it plain that he regards President Milosevic as the principal instigator of the premeditated murder, and I agree with that, too. Given that, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is his policy? Is it to make an agreement with President Milosevic or to arraign him as a war criminal?
        Mr. Robertson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a Queen's Counsel. It is not for me to arraign anybody on a charge of war criminality. It is a fact that is not known or appreciated by very many people that there is an International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. There is a prosecutor, and it is for that prosecutor and nobody else to assess the evidence and to make the decision about indictments. I have no doubt that she will consider all the evidence of what is happening today and the evidence that is being provided daily by refugees and by Governments, and come to a conclusion.
        Mr. Andrew Miller: In parallel with the increased intensity of NATO activity, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is also increased intensity of activity in trying to communicate the truth to the people of Serbia? He has mentioned the use of the internet site, and obviously we can strengthen our radio communication. Will my right hon. Friend look for alternative ways of strengthening our message? It is
        1214
        important that people throughout Serbia understand the strength of determination of the House and of the NATO allies.
        Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We are spending a lot of time examining how best we can get the truth through to Serbia. Serbia is not Iraq, distant from other countries. It is in the heart of Europe and the footprints of satellites and other communication systems should not leave it isolated from information. The internet is one way in which people inside the country can get information. Only this week, the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence websites started to publish in Serbian, so we will get information to people directly in that way. The World Service performs its usual admirable task in relaying the news in an unbiased way and unaffected by propaganda. As my hon. Friend rightly recommends, we will continue with our efforts to ensure that the truth gets through. Milosevic keeps telling lies, we will keep telling the truth.
        Mr. John Randall: Earlier today, we heard a welcome statement from the Secretary of State for International Development about a package of aid for refugees coming out of Kosovo, including, I think, aid for Montenegro. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if we are giving aid to Montenegro, we shall not be bombing it any further?
        Mr. Robertson: Where Montenegro is part of the integrated air defence system of the former Yugoslavia, clearly we are driven to certain conclusions if we are to ensure that allied planes will be safe. Much more serious than that are the reports that appear to be coming out of Montenegro about the position of President Djukanovic, and the threats to him and to his position by Milosevic sitting in Belgrade. We treat those reports with the utmost seriousness. I would warn Mr. Milosevic—sitting in his bunker—that he would be ill advised to tamper with the democratically elected Government of Montenegro.
        Mr. Alan Williams: If we reach the stage, as the whole House prays that we will, where the insertion of an international peacekeeping force becomes a real possibility, and if the only stumbling block is the composition of that force, would my right hon. Friend be willing to be open minded on the composition, as long as its effectiveness could be guaranteed?
        Mr. Robertson: We have always thought that an international implementation force could include troops from beyond the immediate membership of NATO. The Stabilisation Force in Bosnia includes troops from Russia, Ukraine and a number of other non-NATO countries, so I would hope and expect that an implementation force in Kosovo would have a similar broad composition.
        Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it not sadly obvious that the right hon. Gentleman's statement makes no practical sense, even in purely humanitarian terms, unless NATO intends to send in a large army—which the experts estimate would have to be about 200,000 men—to occupy Kosovo and hold it thereafter? As he has ruled that out completely, and bearing in mind the experience, which the world saw, of the French in Indo-China and Algeria, and the Americans in Vietnam,

        1215
        does he accept that, even if we were able to occupy Kosovo, we would be committed to years and years of guerrilla warfare, in terrain that lends itself to that sort of attack, among a violently hostile people who have been resisting foreign occupation for 2,000 years?
        Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that if we cannot put together a force of 200,000, we do nothing, stand back and watch people being slaughtered. That is not a view that I take; nor is it the view of my military commanders. Although he has been around for a long time, and has been a Member of this House for even longer than I have, if it comes to his advice or the advice of the Chief of the Defence Staff, I do not have much trouble deciding which to take.
        Mr. Alan Simpson: In all the horror of killing and ethnic cleansing that is Kosovo, the Secretary of State will be aware of growing disquiet about whether bombing, and bombing alone, can deliver any of the objectives that he set out to the House. Will he give the House an assurance that if he were to be persuaded by the growing speculation that the presence of ground troops is the only way to make military progress, he would not act before the House reconvened and was told, in precise terms, the basis of a plan for such involvement, its limitations and its objectives and terms?
        Mr. Robertson: We are engaged at the moment in air assaults on military targets in Kosovo, which we believe are succeeding and which are already damaging the military capability that is repressing the Kosovar Albanians. We are confident that that will produce a result. I point out to my hon. Friend that, last night, President Milosevic gave an offer—it may have been spurious or worthless, but it was an offer none the less—to the Russians to carry to the European Union and to the international community. We are having an effect on what is his behaviour pattern at the moment. It is not enough at present, but the pressure will increase with every day.
        My hon. Friend talks of disquiet. Of course there is disquiet about air strikes, which are one military mechanism that can be used. They are being used at the moment, but if anybody can come along and tell us a more sensible, more practical and better alternative that will quickly stop the carnage that is going on in Kosovo, let him do so. I have not heard one that is plausible.
        Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State and I are contemporaries. We grew up believing that we would never see ethnic cleansing ever again in Europe. That was an aspiration. All of us share the anger at the behaviour of Milosevic and we all extend our support to the troops who are there in the front line, and to the various organisations, including the Department for International Development, which are working so hard to bring humanitarian aid to the refugees. The refugees make all of us deeply concerned about what is happening because we seem to be experiencing almost virtual reality as we watch the news broadcasts.
        How will the Secretary of State respond to the letter, which I know that he received today, from Action of Churches Together in Scotland, which is united and deeply concerned about the fact that observers had been pulled out of the area? It is also worried about how the UN will be involved in future developments. Our deepest
        1216
        concern is to protect all the unprotected Balkan civilians. Will he respond to that letter from the churches in Scotland?
        Mr. Robertson: I have not yet received a letter from Action of Churches Together in Scotland, although I saw some reference to it in some of the Scottish media today. I will address it as quickly as I can. I understand the anxieties of the churches. However, an anxiety about taking out the verifiers is not well founded. The verifiers told us of the build-up of forces, and they warned the international community that the violence was escalating and was soon to become systemic. I think that I will be able to persuade them on that matter.
        I do not know whether the hon. Lady goes along with the views of the national convener of her party; I can only doubt it. She represents a constituency with one of the biggest RAF bases in the country, and I do not think that she could subscribe to the sickening views of her party leader the other night. On the very day that our pilots were flying into danger and planning their operations in Kosovo to stop the ethnic cleansing that the hon. Lady quite rightly says that she and I are united against, her party leader told the people of Scotland that the answer was economic sanctions.
        I do not think that the hon. Lady, or any other sensible person, believes that stopping the bombing and imposing economic sanctions at this time would stop the carnage. If she does not believe that, I hope that, in the interests of her constituents and the RAF personnel in her constituency, she will speak out and denounce the crazy views of her party leader.
        Mr. Frank Cook: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Governments of Ukraine and Azerbaijan are insistent that they maintain a continuing strong and supportive relationship with NATO? Will he confirm that, despite the rebuke of Russian rhetoric and the reprimands from the Duma, the Russian Foreign Secretary Igor Ivanov is insistent that phase 2 of the strategic arms reduction talks be signed without delay? Will he assure the House that, unless the Milosevic Government accept unconditionally, and implement fully, the terms as proposed at Rambouillet, no gesture of abatement will be considered until phase 2 of the NATO mission has been fully prosecuted, so as to eradicate the large-calibre weapons and heavy armour assets that have wrought this inhumane havoc and to ensure that no repetition can be conducted on a similar scale of callousness?
        Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend speaks with authority, as a vice-president of the North Atlantic Assembly, and we listen carefully to him. He mentioned the role of Ukraine. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Foreign Minister of Ukraine yesterday, and the Minister had been in Belgrade to give a strong message. My right hon. Friend is in regular contact also with Foreign Minister Ivanov of the Russian Federation. There is no interest for any of them in allowing Milosevic to get away with what he is doing. It is a danger not just for the Balkans, but for the wider area that would be affected; ourselves to the west, and Russia and Ukraine to the east. I hope that that is a message which they will put powerfully to Milosevic in Belgrade.
        Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I thank the Secretary of State for the detailed statement that he

        1217
        has given to the House this evening? He has provided as much information as it is appropriate to give, and I know that the House and the people of this country are grateful for that.
        May I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)? It is clearly appropriate for military action to be intensified against Mr. Milosevic, the Serbian army and the Serbian police, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to intensify the political negotiation involving Russia, Ukraine and other countries referred to tonight?
        Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has pointed out to me that the Russians were extremely disappointed that, after six hours of discussion in Belgrade, this was all that Milosevic was willing to offer. As one who is not in the Foreign Office, I can vouch for how much my right hon. Friend has done in the past few weeks—for the hours that he has put in, the commitment that he has displayed, and his passionate search for an agreement that would avoid the bloodshed and any further violence that might prove necessary. He and the French Foreign Minister, Hubert Vedrine, deserve a vote of thanks. I do not think that they will look for it until we have a settlement, but no one is working harder than they are to achieve it.
        Mr.Jeremy Corbyn: Everyone must be well aware of the horrors of what is happening in Kosovo, and of the dreadful treatment of ordinary people there by the Serbian forces as a result of Milosevic's orders.
        I was disappointed that my right hon. Friend's statement made no reference to the United Nations, or to any effort to persuade the UN to introduce a monitoring force with the possibility of a ceasefire. What urgent efforts will be made to contact the UN, to bring in Kofi Annan and to bring about a ceasefire, protect refugees and secure a long-term settlement guaranteeing the autonomy of Kosovo? Many people believe that the bombing campaign will not resolve the problem, and will land us with a long-term disaster.
        Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend has a long record of campaigning against tyrants. Perhaps he will tell us how he would deal with this particular tyrant: we should all be interested to hear his practical proposals.
        As for what my hon. Friend said about the United Nations, it was the UN Security Council which passed resolution 1199 last October, with the support of the Russians. That resolution called for an end to the disproportionate violence, called for the troops to be pulled out of Kosovo, and said that there should be a political agreement that all other parties should sign. It was the UN Security Council which, last week, considered a resolution from the Russians condemning the NATO action. That resolution was defeated by 12 votes to three, the biggest defeat of a resolution since 1993. It is the United Nations which is involved in the humanitarian emergency, and in delivering supplies that will help the victims of Milosevic's aggression.
        Mr. Michael Colvin: Does the Secretary of State agree that, while it is vital for the NATO summit
        1218
        scheduled for next month to proceed, there might be some merit in postponing any decision on NATO's new strategic concept—as it is described—until the lessons of the Kosovo operation have been learned?
        Mr. Robertson: I have reached the opposite conclusion. I think that there is all the more reason for us to press ahead with a new strategic concept that takes into account the new rules that NATO is being expected to observe.
        The hon. Gentleman is, however, right to refer to the 50th anniversary of NATO that is to take place in three weeks or so. NATO is in action now, and its organisation has kept together 19 allies. Without NATO, the Kosovar Albanians would be at the mercy of an unprincipled and unscrupulous butcher. NATO is our proving ground, and I believe that it will prove itself for the next 50 years as a result of what happens in the next few weeks.

        DELEGATED LEGISLATION
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation)

        CIVIL AVIATION
        That the draft Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of Protocol No. 4 of Montreal, 1975) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.
        That the draft Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Fifth Amendment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
        Question agreed to.

      PETITION

        Nuclear Waste
        10.59 pm
        Ms Jackie Lawrence: I wish to present a petition with about 20,000 signatures collected by people living in the area of the village of Trecwn in my constituency. The petition expresses total opposition to efforts by Omega Pacific Ltd. to promote the former Royal Naval Armaments Department Trecwn site for the storage of intermediate and low-level nuclear waste. The site is in an environmentally sensitive area adjacent to the Pembrokeshire Coast national park. It is in close proximity to Skomer marine nature reserve and the Pembrokeshire Islands special area of conservation. In addition, proposals would create economic blight in an already depressed local economy when opportunity is offered through objective 1 status.
        The petition asks the House of Commons to urge the Government to recognise the environmental and ecological importance of Pembrokeshire, and
        to 'call-in' any planning applications and reject any such proposals to store nuclear waste or any other toxic substances at Trecwn.
        To lie upon the Table.

        Cystic fibrosis
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Mike Hall.]
        11 pm
        Mr. Archie Norman: I am glad, even at this late, have a chance to raise the cause of cystic fibrosis sufferers. I am grateful, too, to the Minister for remaining here late to hear what I have to say.
        Cystic fibrosis is a serious genetic disease. It is the United Kingdom's most common life-threatening inherited disease. It causes great suffering throughout life and is, in most cases, the eventual cause of death for sufferers. One in 25 of the UK population is a carrier of the CF gene, and one in 2,500 babies is afflicted with the disease.
        Cystic fibrosis used to be a children's disease. In 1968, when the prescription charge exemption list was first developed, adult cystic fibrosis was virtually unknown because of the simple fact that the children did not survive long enough to last into adulthood; they died in childhood. Now, as a result of advances in medical research and the improvement in palliative care, many sufferers are surviving into adulthood. Therefore, the question of prescription charge exemption is relevant.
        I have a personal interest in the matter because my father, Dr. Archie Norman, devoted much of his working life to research into cystic fibrosis and the care of CF patients. He tells me that few of his former patients live on even into their 50s. Dr. Wallis of Great Ormond Street hospital for children estimates that, today, the average life expectancy of a new-born CF baby is 30 years.
        Therefore, the time has come to reassess eligibility of CF sufferers for prescription exemption. That issue has been clearly identified by the Labour party as a serious issue and was set out as an explicit commitment in "Health 2000", which was published in February 1994 by the Labour party. It says:
        "we will undertake a thorough review of all ancillary charges. This will include an overhaul of prescription charges. We will seek to provide free medication as part of on-going treatment or long term requirements. For example, those suffering from cystic fibrosis who reach adulthood should not have to rely on some other category such as diabetes in order to obtain free prescriptions".
        That commitment was clear cut and unambiguous. The Minister will also be aware of the early-day motion that was tabled last November, which was signed by 120 hon. Members, 75 of whom were Labour Members, including the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe).
        Today, the Prime Minister reaffirmed that commitment when, in answer to my question, he stated:
        "I am well aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. We shall carry out all our commitments in 'Health 2000'."
        Those are fine words and noble sentiments. Regrettably, however, to date—and it is nearly two years—we have heard little from Ministers regarding any specific intention to act.
        Despite that clear and reaffirmed commitment, despite the hope and belief that it gave to many CF sufferers who voted at the general election, after nearly two years we have had no announcement of any time scale. I ask the
        1220
        Minister to give a clear indication of the position and to come clean as to when, not whether, the pledge will be delivered.
        In particular, will the Minister clarify a statement made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who, when he was Minister of State at the Department of Health, wrote to the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, in November 1998, saying:
        "the list of medical conditions conferring prescription charge exemptions was introduced in 1968 after being discussed with the medical profession"—
        we knew that—
        "and no clear consensus for extending it has since emerged"?
        That statement seems completely blind to the consensus that has indeed emerged on CF. The right hon. Gentleman seems also to have been unaware of the Labour party's commitment on the subject.
        There is widespread support for exemption for cystic fibrosis sufferers. It may be that other conditions are good candidates for exemption, but are more contentious. It seems absurd, however, to penalise CF sufferers because other cases may be more doubtful.
        The British Medical Association agrees that the current system is widely seen by the public as unfair. The BMA supports exemption for CF sufferers. Dr. George Rae, chairman of its general practitioner prescribing committee, has said:
        "it is unfair that a person with diabetes can pay absolutely nothing for medication when they are otherwise young and healthy, while a person with CF or chronic obstructive airway disease can end up paying for all their drugs"
        In March 1999, the BMA also stated that
        "there are many unacceptable inequalities and anomalies in the present system. Those with cystic fibrosis are more disadvantaged than some of those presently exempt. There is no doubt that applying the original criteria"—
        the 1968 criteria—
        "for prescription charge exemptions…CF would qualify now that sufferers are living into adulthood."
        The National Association of Community Health Councils has endorsed that view, and Rosie Barnes, a former Member of Parliament as well as being chief executive of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, has said:
        "We believe that all adults with cystic fibrosis should be exempt from prescription charges on the grounds that they have a chronic medical condition which requires continuous essential medication"
        The financial problems facing many CF sufferers as they grow into adulthood, and their families, are acute. Living costs are higher as a result of the condition, and not just because of medicines. Sufferers have a continual requirement for medication throughout their lives. Life as a CF sufferer from birth is a struggle to stay alive and to stay healthy.
        I have spoken to many CF sufferers about the extent of the medication that they require just to stay alive. Rachel Lawrence, a working barrister who has CF, and the daughter of Sir Ivan Lawrence, the former hon. and learned Member for Burton, said:
        "there have always been fistfuls of drugs. Enzyme replacements, antibiotics, which I can never stop taking, to ensure that my lungs don't get infected…Periodically, the pills don't work and I have to go to hospital to have the drugs intravenously".
        She must also take vitamins and other supplements, and she has insulin four times a day.

        1221
        Mark Barron, a constituent from Tunbridge Wells, also suffers from CF. He says:
        "It is so unfair that I have to pay for drugs that keep me alive: especially when people with other chronic medical conditions do qualify for free prescriptions. It is a tax on living longer".
        In addition, CF sufferers face other living costs that are naturally high. They need a high-calorie diet, which means that they cannot rely on normal junk food. Their life support costs are greater than for normal individuals, because it is essential that their homes are kept very warm and dry. Often, they cannot use public transport. They need oxygen on flights if they travel by air. They need a nebuliser, but, unfortunately, those provided by the national health service are not portable. For any kind of independence, they must pay £300 plus maintenance for their own portable nebuliser.
        The cost of suffering from CF is therefore very great. A modest estimate for an adult would be in excess, above normal living costs, of £1,000 a year.
        Dr. Ian Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is asking for an exemption for just 1,000 people or even fewer?
        Mr. Norman: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. His expertise on this matter is a benefit to the House. We are indeed considering a population of about 1,000 adults who suffer from CF and who are in work. The total population of adult sufferers is believed to be about 2,500, and I shall explain later the cost to the Exchequer of free prescriptions, which would be small.
        It is believed that, despite the great suffering caused by CF, about 1,000 of the 2,500 people with CF are in work. In many cases—almost by definition—that work is part-time or relatively lowly paid, and it is flexible to allow for the particularly acute periods of periodic suffering.
        It is vital to CF patients that they are able to stay in work, not least for their own self-esteem. Many CF sufferers show remarkable resilience, and, from early childhood, learn to live with continuous suffering and hospital visits, usually in the knowledge that the disease will get them in the end. Those patients have displayed remarkable courage, and they deserve our support.
        I should like to read out an excerpt from a short, but moving, letter. It states:
        "John was, perhaps, the most courageous person I have ever known. Ours was a friendship borne out of adversity because, for almost the entire time I knew him, he was lying in bed. John's great strength was that he paid so little attention to his own weakness…he showed no sign of anger, no trace of bitterness, but touched us all with an aura of optimism and hope for the future, such as I have never before encountered".
        The letter was written by Diana, Princess of Wales, after one of her many visits to the Royal Brompton hospital, in London. She was a full supporter of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and its work.
        Most cystic fibrosis sufferers, like John, end up in hospital, dying as a consequence of the disease. Meanwhile, ever more of them are struggling to support themselves, to lead a normal life and to eke out a living. It is vital that we provide CF sufferers with the support
        1222
        that they need to work, rather than encouraging them to fall back on benefit to be able to pay for their health care costs.
        I fully appreciate that the Minister will not want to make an unlimited extension of prescription charge exemption, because of the cost implications of doing so. However, the cost of exemption for CF sufferers is small, and it is affordable. There are only a very few adult CF sufferers, and, regrettably, they still do not live for very long. As most of them are paying an £85 annual prescription charge, the estimated cost of extending the exemption could be about £100,000 a year—perhaps as little as 0.03 per cent. of total prescription income. It seems a small price to pay for fair treatment for some of the most vulnerable and courageous people in our society.
        The Government have made a clear commitment, which the Prime Minister has reaffirmed. The cause is a just and a fair one. The commitment is also a matter of public trust, as a commitment on it was made, as a pledge, throughout the general election. The Government have a moral obligation to act, and not to prevaricate.
        There is no need for further reviews. It is a small item to the Exchequer, but a big item for the many courageous and deserving CF sufferers who pin their hopes on the words of the Prime Minister, and who now expect that word to be honoured.
        11.13 pm
        The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on his success in the ballot, on raising some very important issues in the debate, and also on the way in which he has addressed them.
        As the hon. Gentleman said, cystic fibrosis is the commonest genetic disease found in Caucasian people. Approximately one in 2,500 children are affected by the condition, which is a disorder of the mucus-secreting glands of the lungs, the pancreas, the mouth, the gastro-intestinal tract and the sweat glands of the skin.
        Soon after birth, babies may have bowel obstruction due to thick bowel contents. They develop repeated chest infections because of sticky bronchial secretions, and do not absorb food normally because of a lack of normal pancreatic secretions. The symptoms are, among other things, a failure to gain weight despite a good appetite and repeated attacks of bronchitis. We know that between 10 and 30 per cent. of people with cystic fibrosis also develop diabetes mellitus because of complications with the pancreas.
        These days, management of cystic fibrosis is often done largely at home, and specialist nurses are of value in supervising treatment—which consists of regular physiotherapy and postural drainage, antibiotics and the taking of pancreatic tablets and vitamins. It has become more common for acute exacerbation of infections to be treated by intravenous antibiotics at home, rather than by admission to hospital. That is particularly true because of the spread of pseudomonas cepacia within cystic fibrosis units.
        It is heartening to see that, with significant improvements in the care and services for people with cystic fibrosis, 75 per cent. of today's sufferers survive into adult life. Two decades ago, only 12 per cent.

        1223
        of affected children survived into adolescence. We continue to work closely with health professionals, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and all those with an interest to continue to look for ways to improve the care of people with cystic fibrosis and their quality of life.
        I am aware of the progress that has been made in the study of gene replacement therapy, and I know that the Cystic Fibrosis Trust is hopeful that a cure for the condition can be found within the next decade or so. Trials are now in progress at the Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung hospital to test the introduction of the gene into the nasal mucosa of patients.
        In another area of work, the national screening committee chaired by the chief medical officer, which includes health care professionals and media and consumer representatives, is looking at screening programmes throughout the United Kingdom. The criteria against which the committee is assessing programmes include good evidence of the effectiveness of the screening programme; whether the condition can be effectively treated; and whether quality assurance mechanisms have been developed. The national screening committee is approaching national programmes systematically and offering advice in the light of commissioned research. The committee has established an expert sub-group to review child health issues.
        Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Denham: I shall take only one intervention, at least until I have been able to address the issues raised by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, who secured the debate.
        Mr. Stunell: I wanted to draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 500, which calls in particular for those screening tests to be conducted nationwide. I hope that he will take that point on board.
        Mr. Denham: As I was saying—this is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's point—the national screening committee has established an expert sub-group to review child health issues. That sub-group is currently waiting for the health technology assessment report on cystic fibrosis screening to be published, so that it can consider the effectiveness of screening for this condition in the light of emerging evidence. We expect the national screening committee to report to Ministers later this year.
        When we were in opposition, we promised a review of prescription charges, and we have undertaken that review. The current prescription charge exemption arrangements and all other aspects of Government spending were reviewed as part of the recent comprehensive spending review, which reported to Parliament in July last year.
        The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned the document "Health 2000", which was published by the Labour party. It was a consultation document, which suggested that if people were receiving free medication as part of on-going treatment or long-term requirements, they should not automatically receive all other medications free of charge. When we looked at that issue as part of our review of prescription charges, we concluded that it would be difficult to charge some people for medication that they currently receive free. We also
        1224
        concluded that the proposal would impose an onerous burden on doctors, who would have to decide whether any particular prescription item would be charged for or free. We noted that there was no consensus on what additional conditions might be included in any revised list of medical exemptions, or how distinctions could be drawn between one condition and another.
        For all those reasons, we concluded that all current prescription charge exemptions would be protected for the rest of this Parliament. We also decided that prescription charges would rise by no more than the rate of inflation over the next three years.
        It is clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he is aware that the list of conditions conferring entitlement to free prescriptions was drawn up in 1968. The list, which excluded cystic fibrosis, was agreed following discussions between officials of the then Ministry of Health and representatives of the medical profession.
        I appreciate that, due to clinical development, many cystic fibrosis sufferers are now living longer and fuller lives. Sadly, that was not the case in 1968. For that reason, some, including the hon. Gentleman, have argued that sufferers should now receive free prescriptions. However, many groups consider that they, too, should receive free prescriptions, and it would not have been right to consider one group in isolation. That had to be taken into account in our review.
        In 1968, when medical exemptions were first introduced, only 42 per cent. of all NHS prescription items were dispensed free of charge. I am pleased to say that now more than 85 per cent. of prescription items are dispensed free.
        People likely to have the greatest difficulty in paying for prescription charges—for example children under 16, people over 60 and those on low income—get their prescriptions free. Those arrangements ensure that no one need be deterred from obtaining necessary medication for financial reasons.
        Equally, cystic fibrosis sufferers on mean-tested benefits, such as income support, also receive free prescriptions while others may get full help under the NHS low income scheme. For those not entitled to free prescriptions, prescription pre-payment certificates offer real savings for anyone who needs more than five prescription items in four months or 14 items in 12 months.
        The hon. Gentleman referred to what I believe he called the financial plight facing sufferers from cystic fibrosis who now, happily, live on to adulthood. Prescription pre-payment certificates mean that no one has to pay more than £84.60 for 12 months for as many prescriptions as are needed. We recognise that, because of the difficulty some people might have in finding that amount as a lump sum, we also make available pre-payment certificates for £30.80 for four months.
        It is also the case that on 25 February, the Government announced the lowest prescription charge increase for 20 years. The charge for a single prescription will rise by only lop from £5.80 to £5.90 from 1 April 1999. That represents a cash increase of 1.72 per cent., which actually means that prescription charges will fall in real terms. That small increase will protect the contribution that charges make to NHS income and help to maintain the valuable services provided to patients.

        1225
        In Britain, the prescription charge is an important contribution towards the cost of medication, to be paid only by those who can afford to do so. It is not, and never has been, directly related either to the particular item prescribed or to the actual cost to the NHS of dispensing it.
        I draw hon. Members' attention to the comprehensive publicity campaign about the introduction of "point of dispensing" checks. That campaign started on 15 March and will run for three weeks with press and poster advertising. It is being backed up by a nationwide, free telephone advice line to help patients unsure about their exemption and to advise practitioners and staff.
        I refer to that only to reassure hon. Members that patients will not go without medication as a result. Those who do not show evidence of exemption from prescription charges will still have their medicines dispensed, but their prescription forms will be marked to aid subsequent checking.
        1226
        The Government applaud the invaluable work of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, which continues to campaign on behalf of its members, carers and families with children who suffer from the condition. Through its efforts, it has succeeded in educating both Government and the general public of the difficulties experienced by sufferers from cystic fibrosis. That is why my Department has funded, and continues to fund, several projects that support its work—the cystic fibrosis advocacy project and a user involvement project. It is through initiatives such as the advocacy project that we can increase public awareness and look for ways to help those who suffer from cystic fibrosis.
        I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an important issue in what I hope has been a useful and informative debate.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Debt Relief
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what mechanisms her Department is developing to ensure that the proceeds of debt relief are invested in measures aimed at reducing poverty. [79519]

  Clare Short
  I strongly agree that the resources freed up by debt relief need to be invested in poverty reduction programmes if we are to achieve the international development targets, including halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. We are pressing for the link between debt relief and poverty reduction to be examined and strengthened during the fundamental review of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, which is underway.

  HIPC debt relief is available only to countries following programmes agreed with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. We are working with these organisations to ensure that programmes are designed to promote high quality growth, and that the resources freed up by debt relief are allocated to poverty reduction programmes. Following last year's review of IMF's Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF), we are working with the Fund to ensure that more priority is given to the social impact of programmes, and that more attention is paid to including civil society in the design of programmes, to increase their poverty impact.

  In addition, following proposals put forward by the UK, the World Bank is developing a set of general principles of good practice in social policy in consultation with the IMF. We envisage these principles should be drawn upon by the IMF and the World Bank in the design of programmes, to ensure that they protect and promote spending on health and education.

  Primary Education
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is currently giving to developing countries to improve the quality of primary education. [79531]

  Clare Short
  Our education programmes for developing countries in support of the international goals of universal primary education and gender equity in primary and secondary education include agreements on policies which ensure that our assistance has a beneficial and sustainable effect, and that quality is not compromised in pursuit of the quantified development targets.

  Where required, we provide technical assistance to address quality issues such as teacher training and the curriculum, and make substantial contributions to quality
  672
  in the form of books and learning materials. In Uganda and India, we are supporting the development of appropriate and good quality schools and classroom learning environments as part of our wider support to primary education in those countries.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving to developing countries to meet the target of universal primary education by 2015; and what progress has been made to date. [79524]

  Clare Short
  In our White Paper we undertook to seek to meet the target of universal primary education by 2015. We have committed over £200 million to basic education in a number of countries including Ghana, India, Zambia, Malawi, South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and our largest ever single education pledge of £67 million for Uganda. These and substantial new programmes under development will contribute to the international target for universal primary education. It is too early to report progress towards the development goals. DFID programmes cannot be measured in isolation. Progress will be monitored through international education statistics collated and published by UNESCO and other multilateral organisations, including the OECD.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to increase the proportion of bi-lateral aid invested in primary education. [79518]

  Clare Short
  As we set out in our White paper, we are committed to the international development targets, including Universal Primary Education by 2015. In the Government's first year in office (1997/98), we spent over £13 million of bilateral funds on primary education. This was an increase of £5 million over the previous year. Subsequent major commitments of over £200 million, plus new programmes currently being developed in a number of countries, amounting to at least £200 million will substantially increase the proportion of our bilateral assistance invested in primary education.

  Education (Gender Equality)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress to date towards the achievement of the international development goal of gender equality in education. [79520]

  Clare Short
  As we made clear in our White Paper in November 1997, we are committed to the international goals of universal primary education by 2015 and gender equity in primary and secondary education by 2005.

  We have committed over £200 million to basic education in a number of countries including Ghana, India, Zambia, Malawi, South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and our largest ever single education pledge of £67 million for Uganda. These and other new programmes under development are a reflection of our understanding—based on strong evidence—that investment in the education of girls is the single, most effective way to reduce poverty.

  We are committed to supporting governments that give priority to the education of girls within their education systems. It is too early to report progress towards the

  673
  development goals. DFID programmes cannot be measured in isolation and progress towards the education development targets will be monitored through international education statistics collated and published by UNESCO and other multilateral organisations, including work by the OECD on indicators of development.

  Montserrat
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent scientific re-assessment she has received of volcanic risks in Montserrat; and if she will make a statement. [79060]

  Clare Short
  The latest volcanic assessment was undertaken earlier this month. The review concluded that there has been no resumption of magmatic eruption since March 1998, and that risk levels of a major volcanic eruption are now similar to those in other Caribbean volcanic islands.

  I have placed copies of the full report in the Libraries of the House.

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list all those task forces and policy reviews with external members established by her Department since May 1997 which have set up(a) sub-groups, (b) working parties and (c) other subsidiary committees. [79255]

  Clare Short
  There are no bodies which fall into these categories.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list for all task forces and policy reviews with external members established by her Department since May 1997(a) their dates of establishment, (b) those which have issued final reports and their dates of publication, (c) those which have been terminated and their dates of termination and (d) for those bodies still in existence, expected reporting and termination dates. [79278]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 13.

  Soviet Military Testing
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government to provide aid to(a) Kazakhstan and (b) other former Soviet republics to tackle the effects of radioactive fallout from Soviet military testing. [79545]

  Clare Short
  Following discussions with the Kazakh authorities, the Department for International Development has plans to support a community based land-use plan for the Semipalatinsk region of Kazakhstan. We plan to implement the project later this year after consultation with representatives of provincial government, local communities, NGOs, and central Government in Kazakhstan.
  674
  There are no other former Soviet republics receiving aid to tackle the effects of radioactive fallout from Soviet military testing.

  Asbestosis Sufferers (Legal Aid)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which officials had discussions with GJW, on how many occasions and on what dates, concerning the wish by Cape plc to amend the Access to Justice[Lords] Bill to ban foreign workers suffering from asbestosis obtaining legal aid. [78740]

  Clare Short
  No officials in my Department have had any discussions with G. J. Ward concerning any wish by Cape plc to amend the Access to Justice[Lords] Bill.

DEFENCE

  Harrier GR7 Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the average flying hours in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998 for Harrier GR7 aircraft in service with the RAF. [67693]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In both 1997 and 1998, Harrier GR7 aircraft have each flown an average of 23 hours per month.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the overseas trips on his behalf. and who met the costs, undertaken by each of his special advisers since May 1997. [74641]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: Overseas visits (on my behalf) undertaken by my two special advisers since 1 May 1997 are as listed. The costs of these visits were met as appropriate either from my travel budget or from that of the senior official or military officer whom the special adviser was accompanying. In most cases travel was by military flight.

  Alasdair McGowan

  2–3 June 1997 Washington accompanying Secretary of State for Defence

  30 June–1 July 1997 Bosnia accompanying Chief of the General Staff

  5–9 October 1998 Cyprus accompanying Secretary of State for Defence

  27–28 October 1998 Bosnia accompanying Secretary of State for Defence

  Bernard Gray

  30 September–1 October 1997 Maastricht accompanying Secretary of State for Defence

  2–3 December 1997 Brussels—NATO Ministerial—accompanying Secretary of State for Defence

  13 March 1998 Cyprus one visit—accompanying Secretary of State for Defence

  14–16 March 1998 Saudi Arabia one visit—accompanying Secretary of State for Defence

  2 April 1998 Munich—DASA Meeting—Defence Industry Restructuring

  8 April 1998 Villacoublay, France—talks with French MOD—accompanying Chief of Defence Procurement

  20 April 1998 France—talks with French MOD—accompanying Secretary of State for Defence

  675

  10–11 June 1998 Brussels accompanying Secretary of State for Defence

  18 September 1998 France accompanying Secretary of State for Defence

  23–25 September 1998 Portugal—NATO Informals—accompanying Secretary of State

  21 October 1998 Munich—DASA Meeting—accompanying Chief of Defence Procurement

  17–20 November 1998 USA accompanying Secretary of State for Defence

  5–7 January 1999 Bosnia accompanying Chief of the Defence Staff

  31 January–2 February 1999 Macedonia accompanying Chief of the defence Staff

  4–5 March 1999 USA—Defence Industry Restructuring—accompanying Deputy Chief of Defence Procurement (Support).

  British Deployment (Balkans)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British personnel are currently deployed in the Balkans; and if he will make a statement. [78407]

  Mr. George Robertson
  On 30 March, there were some 9,680 personnel committed to operations in the Balkans region, excluding Defence Attache staff. This includes some 4,700 personnel in Greece and Macedonia in connection with operations relating to Kosovo, some 4,500 personnel serving with SFOR in Bosnia and Croatia, and some 480 Royal Navy personnel in the area aboard the frigates HMS Iron Duke and HMS Somerset and the submarine HMS Splended. In addition, there are some 450 RAF personnel in Italy supporting NATO air operations over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and in support of SFOR.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requirements his Department has given to tenderers concerning the construction of the Royal Navy's future aircraft carriers. [78780]

  Mr. Spellar
  The potential prime contractors have been informed that the future aircraft carriers will be built and outfitted in the UK in line with current Government policy and that the first ship should be in service with the Royal Navy by 2012 and the second by 2015.

  Mine Counter-measures (Adriatic Sea)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on maritime mine counter-measures in the Adriatic; and what assessment he has made of the dangers to shipping from an increase in tensions in Kosovo. [79423]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We assess that there is no substantial threat to shipping in the Adriatic as a result of the current Kosovo crisis. Should this situation change, NATO has Mine Counter-measures assets available to meet any threat which might arise.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the formation of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency; and what key targets have been set for 1999–2000. [79893]
  676
  Mr. Spellar
  On 1 April 1999 the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA) will be established as a Defence Agency. The DARA will be responsible for the provision of deep aviation repair and overhaul facilities to meet the UK's Defence needs. It will enable the MOD's requirements for third line aircraft servicing to be focused on one primary provider. The DARA's Chief Executive will be Mr. Steve Hill and its Head Office will be at RAF St. Athan, Vale of Glamorgan. The Agency will employ 1,726 military and 5,099 civilian staff at four locations in the UK—Almondbank, Fleetlands, RAF Sealand and RAF St. Athan.

  The creation of the Agency will improve Defence aviation repair delivery by focusing on customer requirements. It will also offer scope for exploiting the synergy between helicopter and fixed wing repair facilities and provide a clear line of accountability for service delivery. The DARA's corporate aim will be
  "To meet the needs of the UK's armed forces for responsive and cost effective in-house deep aviation repair".

  The Chief Executive has been set the following Key Targets for the first year of operation:

  Quantity

  To achieve 95 per cent. of the agreed programme of aircraft repair work.

  Cost

  To keep within the approved operating cost budget while delivering the agreed programme of work.

  Timeliness

  To meet 95 per cent. of the agreed turn round times for aircraft, helicopter engines and transmission systems.

  Quality Standard

  To achieve a high quality index rating to be specified in the DARA Business Plan based on the following quality elements:

  Acknowledgement of a customer concern.

  Investigation and response to customer concerns.

  Attributable quality failings.

  Attributable incident reports.

  Efficiency

  (i) To increase overall efficiency by 5 per cent.

  (ii) To achieve an increase in sales of repayment work (i.e. non-MOD) of at least 25 per cent. in FY 99–00 from a baseline of £9 million.

  Defence Procurement Agency
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the formation of the Defence Procurement Agency; and what key targets have been set for 1999–2000. [79989]

  Mr. George Robertson
  As we announced following our Strategic Defence Review the Defence Procurement Agency, DPA, will be launched as a Vote funded agency on 1 April 1999. It will be an executive agency under the Chief of Defence Procurement, Sir Robert Walmsley. He will be the Chief Executive and will be directly accountable to Ministers. The aim of the DPA will be to procure new equipment for the Armed Forces in response to approved requirements and to provide other procurement related services to its customers in and beyond the Ministry of Defence.
  677
  The Agency's main presence will be at its headquarters at Abbey Wood, Bristol, as well as at other locations in the UK and overseas.

  The Agency will be organised in accordance with the principles underlying the Strategic Defence Review and specifically the Smart Procurement Initiative. The majority of its people will belong to Integrated Project Teams arranged in groups and accountable to the Agency's executive board. The executive board will be collectively accountable through the Chief Executive for the aggregate performance of the agency.

  We have established five Key Targets to determine the effectiveness of the Agency during its first year of operation. We shall report results in the summer of next

  Key Targets

  1. Predicted achievement of customers' core requirements for projects1

  85%

  2. Average cumulative slippage of in service dates2 at 31 March 2000 not to exceed

  26 months

  3. Average cumulative cost variation3 at 31 March 2000 not to exceed

  4%

  4. Obtain customers' assessments of standards of DPA performance4, to set a baseline for targets in subsequent years

  March 2000

  5. While continuing to meet the demands of the procurement programme, reduce the operating costs of the DPA in relation to the 1997–98 costs of the Procurement Executive by

  10%

  1About ten core requirements per project will be agreed between the DPA and MOD headquarters, defining the essential characteristics of the equipment. This target has been pitched at a level consistent with achievement of a target of 97% by March 2002.

  2Variation between in service date (ISD) approved at "Main Gate" (the major investment decision point) and currently predicted ISD.

  3Variation between cost approved at Main Gate and current estimate.

  4Assessments will be made in relation to agreed outputs specified in Customer Supplier Agreements relating to pre and post Main Gate project management, provision of technical, safety and other services and management of certain nuclear activities. The aggregated score will be used as the basis for progressively higher targets year by year.

  Smart Procurement
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement(a) on progress in implementing the Smart Procurement Initiative and (b) the Defence Logistics Organisation. [79889]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Smart Procurement Initiative launched in our Strategic Defence Review offers major improvements in the way in which the Ministry of Defence buys and maintains equipment, and supports the Armed Forces. Smart Procurement encompasses the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA), the formation of which we are announcing separately today, and the new Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO), headed by the new Chief of Defence Logistics. Both of these new organisations will form on 1 April 1999.

  We remain committed to deliver the £2 billion of savings over 10 years which we promised from Smart Procurement, and we have identified clear scope for further savings on top of that. The close working relationship between the DPA and DLO, needed to help deliver these savings, is being achieved in part through the creation of Integrated Project Teams or IPTs. These include staff from both the procurement and support organisations, as well as necessary contracts, finance, operational user and—in particular—industry expertise. We want to foster an enhanced partnership with industry, to reduce risk, encourage innovation and increase the competitiveness of defence industry.

  The 10 pilot projects where we have been trialling Smart Procurement techniques and the IPT concept are already starting to indicate new savings running to several hundreds of millions of pounds over their life. They have also identified significant opportunities to get equipment
  678
  year. In addition to these in year targets the Agency remains committed to achieving savings of at least £2 billion by March 2008 by the application of Smart Procurement techniques.

  The first three Targets apply to the range of projects covered by the Major Projects Report, which my Department submits annually to the House. Like the other Targets they are a starting point in what we intend to be a process of continuous improvement. Targets 2 and 3 are compatible with goals set in the 1999–2002 Public Service Agreement (PSA), adapted to enable cumulative performance to be measured. Target 5 also reflects one of the goals featured in the PSA.

  The DPA's Key Targets for 1999–2000 are:

  into service faster, or—for equipment already in service—improve its availability and reliability. For example, the Type 23 frigate IPT is looking to reduce the length of an upgrade programme by 30 per cent. and the VC10 IPT has already identified initiatives to achieve a 10 per cent. increase in serviceability.

  Soon after Easter we will launch the first wave of IPTs covering 23 projects or groups of projects in the DPA and DLO. Over the course of the coming year, the remainder of projects will migrate to this new structure, with a total of about 150 Teams forming in all, some 90 in the DPA and 60 in the DLO.

  We have streamlined our internal procedures for taking decisions on equipment procurement, and will be reconfiguring MOD Headquarters to ensure that there is a clear central customer for equipment.

  The Chief of Defence Logistics, General Sir Sam Cowan, will formally take up his post on 1 April 1999, bringing together the areas of the Chief of Fleet Support, the Quartermaster General and the Air Member for Logistics into a single Defence Logistics Organisation. This will be the largest Joint organisation in Defence, and accounts for some £4.6 billion of expenditure each year. The DLO will become a fully unified logistics structure in April 2000. This offers real prospects for delivering an improved service to the front line at lower cost. A significant proportion of the savings we foresee will come from the Defence Logistics Organisation applying Smart Procurement techniques. There will also be savings in downstream support costs, by ensuring that the whole life costs of equipment are properly considered when procurement decisions are taken.
  679
  We expect the DLO to make significant improvements in our logistic support, for example: in the ways we procure, manage, repair and store defence munitions; in the procurement and management of fuel; and in the use of lean support techniques. We hope to be able to make further announcements here in the coming months. We are also committed to delivering major reductions in our current holdings of non-explosive stores and to rationalisation of our stock procurement, leading to reductions of £130 million a year from 2001–02 onwards.

  Defence Transport and Movements Agency
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the formation of the Defence Transport and Movements Agency; and what key targets have been set for 1999–2000. [79897]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The formation of the new Defence Transport and Movements Agency (DTMA), providing defence-wide operational and administrative transport and movements services, was announced as part of the Strategic Defence Review. The DTMA will form on 1 April this year incorporating the Defence Transport and Movements Executive, the Defence Freight Distribution Group, the Joint Transport and Movements staff from Northwood, the Passengers Reservation Centre in London, and the Air Movements Executive from High Wycombe. The Chief Executive has been set the following Key Targets for 1999–2000:

  Key Target 1:

  To meet customers' requirements as specified in Customer Supplier Agreements to deliver:

  at least 90 per cent. of Agency transactions within agreed criteria;

  at least 90 per cent. of the services provided under call-off contracts at a satisfactory level.

  Key Target 2:

  To establish baseline data for administrative unit costs by 31 December 1999.

  Key Target 3:

  To demonstrate net added value.

  Key Target 4:

  To achieve at least a satisfactory rating in the provision of operational transport and movements support.

  I have endorsed the Framework Document and Corporate Plan for this new Agency and will place copies of these documents in the Library of the House.

  Defence Estate Organisation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Defence Estate Organisation. [79991]

  Mr. Spellar
  One of the major issues addressed during the Strategic Defence Review, was how to improve the overall management of the Defence Estate, an important strategic and national asset.

  A number of key recommendations were made affecting the role of the Defence Estate Organisation (DEO), which was originally launched as a Defence Agency in 1997. These were, that the Chief Executive should be accountable for working to users to ensure that the Defence Estate is managed efficiently as a whole to support the deliver of Defence Capability, that the Agency
  680
  should assume responsibility for all aspects of the surplus property disposal programme and that the Agency should develop a new model for construction procurement.

  The effect of these recommendations has been to place major new responsibilities on the Agency and a fundamental review of the role, processes and organisation of the DEO was undertaken and a major change programme has been put in place.

  A new Framework Document and Corporate Plan have been produced and copies will be placed in the Library of the House. Key Targets for the Agency, which will now be known as Defence Estates (DE), are being finalised and will be published shortly.

  The work to be undertaken by DE, under the title SMART CONSTRUCTION, aims for the widest possible use of Prime Contracting. Whilst focusing on the MOD's estate requirements, it is also an integral part of the necessary reform of the UK Construction Industry which is a Government-wide initiative.

  Logistics Support Services (RAF) Agency
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Logistics Support Services (RAF) Agency. [79896]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The roles and responsibilities of the organisations involved in the provision of integrated logistic support to new projects and in-service equipments in the RAF have been reviewed in order to streamline process, remove duplication and overlap and implement efficiencies.

  Changes include:

  a. combining two related functional areas already located in Glasgow into a single business unit;

  b. transferring related work form RAF Logistics Command at RAF Wyton to the new business unit in Glasgow;

  c. brigading all integrated logistic support activities within an enlarged Logistic Support Services (RAF) Agency but with constituent elements remaining at their current locations.

  The net effect of these changes is to save 43 posts at a saving of just over £ 1 m per year. In doing so, and from 1 April 1999, the Defence Codification Agency (DCA) in Glasgow will cease to be a separate Defence Agency and be absorbed into the Logistic Support Services Agency (RAF).

  Key targets for the Logistic Support Services (RAF) Agency for the financial Year 1999–2000 are:

  To produce 85 per. cent of all deliverables by the target date agreed with the sponsor.

  To deliver 80 per. cent of all outputs at the cost agreed with the sponsor.

  To produce 90 per. cent of all deliverables to the sponsor's complete satisfaction.

  To achieve a 3 per. cent reduction in the cost of a productive hour.

  Copies of the revised Framework Document and Corporate Plan for the Agency will be placed in the House Library.

  Defence Storage and Distribution Agency
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the formation of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency; and what key targets have been set for 1999–2000. [79894]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The formation of the new Defence Storage and Distribution (DSDA), for the storage and distribution of non-explosive stores, was announced as part of the Strategic Defence Review. The DSDA will form on 1 April this year incorporating the majority of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency, storage functions at RAF Stafford, the Central Services Establishment at Llangennech and the Procurement Executive Storage Depot at Aston Down. The Chief Executive has been set the following Key Targets for 1999–2000.

  Key Target 1:

  To meet customers' requirements as specified in Customer Supplier Agreements (CSAs), against the following standards:

  at least 95 per. cent of issues to consumers to be within specified supply chain processing times;

  at least 95 per. cent of receipts to be processed within agreed time limits;

  no more than one in every thousand issues to be subject to an accepted discrepancy report;

  the level and value of stock written off as a result of DSDA actions to be less than agreed levels.

  Key Target 2:

  To achieve and average 2.5 per. cent reduction in the unit cost of output.

  Key Target 3:

  To achieve an average 5 per. cent reduction in receipts processing times.

  Key Target 4:

  To achieve a 2.5 per. cent reduction in the cost of quality failures.

  I have endorsed the Framework Document and Corporate Plan for this new Agency and will place copies of these documents in the Library of the House.

  Long Service Awards
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the review of long service awards in the armed forces. [79892]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Her Majesty the Queen has graciously approved the institution of a new award to be known as the Queen's Volunteer Reserves Medal to recognise outstanding service in the volunteer reserve forces. It will apply to volunteer reserves in all three Services and will be open to service men and women of any rank.

  Her Majesty the Queen has also graciously approved the institution of a new award to be known as the Volunteer Reserves Service Medal to recognise 10 years continuous efficient service in the volunteer reserve forces. The Volunteer Reserves Medal will replace the Royal Naval Reserve Decoration, the Royal Naval Reserve Long Service and Good Conduct Medal, the Efficiency Decoration, the Efficiency Medal and the Air Efficiency Award. It will apply to volunteer reserves in all three Services and will be open to serve men and women of any rank.
  682
  As far as the Long Service and Good Conduct Medals of the Regular Armed Forces are concerned, I have concluded that it is not necessary to recommend to Her Majesty any change in the existing awards.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which British land troops would be sent into Kosovo; and in what capacity they would act. [78766]

  Mr. George Robertson
  As the Government have repeatedly made clear the UK will only deploy troops into Kosovo to help implement a peace agreement, with the consent of both parties.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information members of the British armed forces have been given in relation to possible posting to Kosovo. [78767]

  Mr. George Robertson
  It has been made clear to our Armed Forces that we would deploy ground forces to Kosovo only if the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia authorities accept the entry of a NATO-led force in order to implement a peace agreement. Our people are well aware that we have no plans to fight our way into Kosovo.

  Glen Road
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and to whom in his Department Lieutenant Colonel Worsley-Tonks reported the contents of his conversation with Chris Aindow at the end of 1994 concerning events on the Glen Road on 30 September 1990; by whom it was considered; and what action was taken. [78737]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Ministry of Defence officials have spoken to Lieutenant Colonel Worsley-Tonks, who has retired from the Army, who said that he has no recollection of the alleged conversation with Mr. Aindow. Therefore the issue of onward reporting within the MOD does not arise.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and to whom in his Department Colonel Fletcher of the Parachute Regiment reported the contents of his conversation with Chris Aindow in January 1995 concerning events on the Glen Road on 30 September 1990; by whom it was considered; and what action was taken. [78738]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Ministry of Defence officials have spoken to Colonel Fletcher who remembers that a conversation took place with Mr. Aindow, who was no longer a serving soldier, some four years ago. Although he cannot recall the precise details Colonel Fletcher recalls that Mr. Aindow discussed the possibility of a further court case. Colonel Fletcher advised him to tell the truth at any subsequent hearing and took no further action.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what approach his Department made to the lawyers acting for Chris Aindow requesting a copy of Chris Aindow' s affidavit describing the events on the Glen Road on 30 September 1990. [78739]
  683
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No approach has been made by my Department to the lawyers of Chris Aindow for a copy of the affidavit describing the events on the Glen Road on 30 September 1990, although a reporter from the Sunday Express provided the MOD Press Office with extracts from the affidavit in which Chris Aindow alleges that he spoke to two Senior Officers after his release from prison in 1994.

  NATO (Spain)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Spain's joining of NATO's integrated military structure has created impediments to the use of Gibraltar by NATO naval, military and air forces. [78969]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No impediments in the use of Gibraltar by NATO forces have been created by Spain's joining NATO's Integrated Military Structure.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the restrictions in the movements of(a) NATO ships and (b) NATO aircraft that were being applied by Spain at the point when Spain joined NATO' s integrated military structure; and whether any of those restrictions have now been lifted; [78970]

  (2) if he will list the restrictions in the movements of (a) Royal Navy ships and (b) RAF aircraft that were being applied by Spain at the point when Spain joined NATO's integrated military structure; and whether any of those restrictions have now been lifted. [78971]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Spain maintains restrictions on all NATO military aviation movements into and out of Gibraltar, including a ban on military overflights and an air exclusion zone to the North and West of Gibraltar. By means of reservations footnoted to the relevant NATO Standing Agreement, Spain restricts access of UK and other NATO warships to Gibraltar. Discussions in June 1998 between FCO/Spanish MFA officials led to agreement on the lifting of some of the restrictions, air diversions in an emergency and the use of Gibraltar-based assets in NATO exercises.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1999,Official Report, column 209, on British Gulf war veterans, if the available tests under a medical assessment programme will include a test specifically to detect the presence of depleted uranium. [79067]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answers of 10 March 1999,Official Report, columns 208–09, and 15 March 1999, Official Report, columns 502–04, and to the detailed paper, "Testing for the presence of depleted uranium in UK veterans of the Gulf conflict: The Current Position", which I published on 19 March. A copy of the paper was sent to my hon. Friend last week and copies were also placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Housing Executive
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Defence Housing Executive. [79990]
  684
  Mr. Spellar
  Following a review of options it has been concluded that the most appropriate way forward would be for the Defence Housing Executive to become an Agency of the Ministry of Defence with effect from 1 April 1999.

  In order to ensure that the Agency operates in the best interests of its customers and in an efficient and cost effective manner, I have agreed five Key Targets with the Chief Executive for the first year of the Agency's work.

  The following four key targets will measure the extent to which the Defence Housing Executive is delivering housing in the correct quantity, to the required standard and within the appropriate time frame.

  Key Target 1:

  To house at least 60 per cent. of families in accommodation that matches their entitlement by posting date or on return to Great Britain from overseas, and at least 90 per cent. within 28 days of that date.

  Key Target 2:

  Less than 10 per cent. of occupants should experience significant defects within 14 days of moving in.

  Key Target 3:

  To complete the planned upgrade of 1,766 properties by 31 March 2000.

  Key Target 4:

  To complete:

  .at least 95 per cent. of emergency repairs within 24 hours of notification;

  at least 90 per cent. of urgent repairs within 5 working days of notification;

  at least 90 per cent. of routine repairs within 2 months of notification.

  The fifth and final key target will measure the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Defence
  Housing Executive, including the aim to reduce the number of empty properties to achieve a
  management margin of 13 per cent. by April 2002.

  Key Target 5:

  To achieve a unit cost of housing of less than £5,400.

  Copies of the Defence Housing Executive Framework Document and 1999 Corporate Plan will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his advisers and (d) his PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79652]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168. The Ministerial Code also applies to Parliamentary Private Secretaries when attending any meetings in an official or semi-official capacity.

  Wellington Barracks, Chelsea
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future development of Wellington Barracks, Chelsea. [79421]
  685
  Mr. Spellar
  Initial planning is in hand for the possible refurbishment of Wellington Barracks in the London Borough of Westminster during the early years of the next decade.

TREASURY

  Dividend Tax Credits
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of the average amoun of tax credits reclaimed on dividends in 1995–96 and 1996–97 by each decile for(a) non-taxpayers aged over 65 years and (b) all non-tax paying individuals. [67471]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: Latest available estimates for 1995–96 and 1996–97, derived from the Survey of Personal Incomes, are given in the table.

  £

  Decile

  Amount of dividend tax credit claimed

  Non taxpayers aged 65 or over—1995–96

  Lowest

  2

  2nd

  5

  3rd

  10

  4th

  15

  5th

  25

  6th

  45

  7th

  65

  8th

  95

  9th

  145

  Highest

  290

  Non taxpayers aged 65 or over—1996–97

  Lowest

  3

  2nd

  7

  3rd

  15

  4th

  20

  5th

  35

  6th

  55

  7th

  80

  8th

  130

  9th

  220

  Highest

  480

  All non-taxpayers—1995–96

  Lowest

  2

  2nd

  5

  3rd

  10

  4th

  15

  5th

  25

  6th

  45

  7th

  65

  8th

  95

  9th

  145

  Highest

  320

  All non-taxpayers—1996–97

  Lowest

  3

  2nd

  7

  3rd

  15

  4th

  20

  5th

  35

  6th

  55

  7th

  80

  8th

  125

  9th

  210

  Highest

  480

  686
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will provide a breakdown of the number of(a) non-taxpayers aged over 65 years and (b) all non-taxpaying persons reclaiming tax credits on dividends in 1996–97 in the categories (i) under £20, (ii) £21 to £50, (iii) £51 to £100, (iv) £101 to £200 and (v) over £200 reclaimed; [67636]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the average value of shares held by (a) non-taxpayers aged over 65 years and (b) all non-taxpaying individuals reclaiming tax credits in 1995–96 and 1996–97 in the categories (i) under £20, (ii) £21 to £50, (iii) £51 to £100, (iv) £100 to £200 and (v) over £200 reclaimed. [67473]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: Estimates of the numbers of people claiming payments of dividend tax credits, derived from the 1996–97 Survey of Personal Incomes, are given in the table, but share holdings or values are not known, so it is not possible to estimate the average value of shares held by these people.

  1996–97

  Amount of dividends tax credit claimed (£)

  Number of non-taxpayers aged 65 and over with claims (Thousand)

  Number of non-taxpayers with claims (Thousand)

  under 20

  105

  225

  21–50

  65

  130

  51–100

  55

  110

  101–200

  50

  95

  201 and over

  60

  105

  Total

  335

  660

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the(a) average and (b) medium amount in sterling of tax credits on dividends reclaimed in 1995–96 and 1996–97. [67472]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: Latest available estimates for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are given in the table.

  £

  Year

  Average amount of divided tax credit claimed

  Median amount of divided tax credit claimed

  1995–96

  75

  35

  1996–97

  105

  40

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [77153]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer met the US Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, on 2 October (Washington), 16 December (Washington), 29 January (Davos, Switzerland) and 20 February (Cologne).

  Married Couples Allowance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many couples with children, in the tax year 2000–01, will face a loss as a result of abolition of the married couples allowance in April 2000, broken down by type of housing tenure; and what the average loss will be. [76842]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: An approximate breakdown by housing tenure of the number of married couples who will no longer benefit from the married couple's allowance in 2000–01 and have children eligible for child benefit is shown in the table. These estimates are based on the Family Expenditure Survey.

  Housing tenure

  Number (Million)

  Rented

  0.6

  Housing Association

  0.1

  owned

  4.1

  Rent free

  0.1

  Total

  4.9

  Childless Couples
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what data his Department has collated on the number of individuals in childless married couples who pay income tax; and if he will breakdown that number by housing tenure. [77008]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: The Inland Revenue does not currently collect data on the number of taxpayers with or without children, but an approximate breakdown by housing tenure of the number of married couples who benefit from the married couple's allowance in 1998–99 and have no children eligible for child benefit is shown in the table. These estimates are based on the Family Expenditure Survey.

  Numbers (Million)

  Rented

  0.5

  Housing association

  0.1

  Owned

  5.1

  Rent free

  0.1

  Total

  5.8

  Budget
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 of his budgets to date on the total tax burden in (i) cash terms and (ii) as a percentage of GDP. [78808]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Table B9 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report shows forecasts of taxes and social security contributions, net of tax credits, as a per cent. of GDP. Forecasts of taxes and social security contributions, net of tax credits, in cash terms are published in Table B10. Forecasts of money GDP are published in Table B4.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government adopted the international national 688
  accounting convention which requires mortgage interest tax relief to be shown as public expenditure for budgetary purposes. [79059]

  Mrs. Roche
  National accounts are prepared in accordance with internationally agreed guidelines. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) decided to adopt the new European System of Accounts (ESA 95) as the standard for the National Accounts Blue Book published in September 1998. In national accounts prepared under ESA95, all payments of Mortgage Interest Relief are shown as part of Total Managed Expenditure (TME).

  Budget Leaflets
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of(a) preparing, (b) printing and (c)distributing the Budget 99 leaflet. [79398]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 23 March 1999,Official Report, columns 207–08.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 24 March 1999,Official Report, columns 255–56, if he will explain the reason for the fall in the number of pensioners from 10,700,000 in 1998–99 to 9,950,000 in 1999–2000. [79170]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: The figure of 10.7 million in 1998–99 covers all pensioners whereas the figure of 9.95 million for 1999–2000 excludes those paying income tax at a marginal rate of 20 per cent., as specified in the question.

  Public Service Agreements
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government intends to publish the remaining public service agreements and the measures which will be used to monitor their success. [80117]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government are today publishing a White Paper (CM 4315) which is a supplement to "Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability" (CM 4181 published in December 1998). It includes PSAs for the Department of Social Security, Sure Start, the utility regulators (Offer/Ofgas, Oftel, and Ofwat), the Office of Fair Trading and the Charity Commission. PSAs for the Countryside Agency and the Northern Ireland Office will follow later in the year. I have today also published a booklet, "The Government's Measures of Success: Output Performance Analyses", which includes the measures the Government will be using to track progress against the PSA targets. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

  Scottish Variable Rate
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish his assessment of the regulatory impact of the Scottish Variable Rate. [80118]

  Mrs. Roche
  Copies of the regulatory impact assessment have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Funding Policy
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish details of funding arrangements between the Government and the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. [80119]

  Mr. Milburn
  I have today placed in the Library of both Houses of Parliament copies of. a Statement of Funding Policy. This document fulfils the Government's commitment to make the financial arrangements with the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly a matter of public record.

  Petroleum
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the proportion of the retail price of petroleum taken by tax in each member state of the European Union, the United States of America and Canada; [76571]

  (2) if he will list the average retail price of petroleum in each OECD country, taking account of his Budget measures. [76570]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Unleaded petrol prices in mid-December 1998 and the percentage of taxes in the price are as follows:

  Average price (pence per litre)

  Total

  Of which taxes

  Percentage of tax

  United Kingdom

  63.9

  53.5

  83.7

  Austria

  54.7

  38.2

  69.9

  Belgium

  58.5

  45.7

  78.2

  Denmark

  56.3

  43 0

  76.4

  Finland

  61 0

  50.3

  82.5

  France

  62.7

  52.1

  83.1

  Germany

  55.4

  42.8

  77.3

  Greece

  41.1

  28.3

  68.8

  Ireland

  51.3

  35.5

  69.1

  Italy

  62 0

  47.4

  76.4

  Luxembourg

  42.6

  28.9

  67.9

  Netherlands

  64.3

  49.9

  77.6

  Portugal

  54.9

  40.8

  74.4

  Spain

  44.1

  31.7

  71.8

  Sweden

  58.5

  44.7

  76.4

  Canada1

  20.4

  11 0

  53.8

  USA1

  19.1

  6 0

  31.5

  1Q4 1998

  Note:

  The Duty on UK premium unleaded petrol was increased by 3.22 p/litre in the Budget of 9 March 1999, taking the average price to around 66.4 p/litre, and the total tax component to 86 per cent.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Government Codes and Cypher School
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the following documents, relating to the Government Codes and Cypher School's work in the Second World War, will be released to the Public Record Office:(a) "The History of Hut 8" by A. S. Mahon, (b) "Turing's Treatise on the Enigma" and (c) "The German Navy's Use of Special Intelligence"
  690
  by McMahon; if these documents have been made available outside the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [75132]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 23 March 1999,Official Report, columns 142–43.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessments have been made of the environmental and social impact of the remaining options for the development of GCHQ; and if he will publish them; [76376]

  (2) when he expects to announce the location for the redevelopment of GCHQ; [76377]

  (3) which sites are currently being considered for the redevelopment of GCHQ; [76374]

  (4) what representations he has recently received regarding (a) retention of GCHQ at Benhall and (b) development of a site for GCHQ at Brockworth. [76375]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Since October 1998 two sites have been under consideration for the redevelopment of GCHQ: GCHQ's existing Benhall site and a site at the Gloucester Business Park, Brockworth. I have received a number of representations in support of the Benhall site, including from the hon. Member.

  I expect to consider a recommendation from GCHQ shortly. That recommendation will take account of all relevant factors, including environmental and social considerations. When I announce my decision, I will set out the role which those factors played in it.

  Former European Commissioners
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the payments due to be made by the European Commission to those Commissioners who recently resigned. [79156]

  Ms Quin
  Payments to outgoing Commissioners are governed by the provisions in Council Regulation 422/67/EEC. We have made clear our belief that payments should not be paid to any Commissioner found guilty of fraud or misconduct.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 22 and 23 March; and if he will make a statement. [79095]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 22 March 1999. Foreign Ministers met on Sunday 21 March in advance of the General Affairs Council to discuss Agenda 2000 and the future of the European Commission.

  The Council adopted the A points listed in document 6859/99 and noted the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament in its sessions of 8–12 February and 24–25 February listed in documents

  691
  5793/99 and 5796/99. Copies of the documents listing the A points and resolutions will be placed in the House Libraries as soon as they become available.

  The Council agreed as an "A" point that the Commission should start screening Maltese legislation as soon as possible for compatibility with the Union acquis, and that Malta will be invited to the next meeting of the European Conference, at Foreign Minister level under the Finnish Presidency. We welcome the Council's decision, which is in line with our support for Malta's accession to the EU.

  Future of the European Commission
  Ministers discussed options for appointing a new Commission in preparation for a decision at the Special European Council in Berlin on 24–25 March. The General Affairs Council issued a declaration on the resignation of the Commission.

  Agenda 2000
  Ministers also prepared for negotiations by Heads of State and Government in Berlin on the Agenda 2000 package. Ministers' discussion focused mainly on the future financing of the EU.

  Statute of Members of the European Parliament
  Ministers discussed progress in the negotiations on a Statute for MEPs. All Member States supported the need for early Council agreement, including tough action on allowances. The Council hopes to reach political agreement with the European Parliament before the June European Elections.

  EU/South Africa
  Ministers once again discussed a compromise package to conclude the long-running negotiations on a Trade and Co-operation Agreement with South Africa. Although differences narrowed to some extent, final agreement was not possible. The Council asked the Commission to continue contacts with member states with a view to reaching agreement at the Berlin Council.

  EU/US Relations
  The Council debated the trade disputes with the US on the EU's banana regime, the EU ban on hormones in beef and the proposed regulation on aircraft fitted with hushkits. On bananas, the Council reiterated its support for the Commission in seeking a resolution of the dispute which respects WTO rules. On hormones, the Council agreed that the Commission should continue to explore with the US and Canada options for reaching agreement on a temporary compensation package, as well as labelling. On hushkits, the Council encouraged the Commission to continue its discussions with the US with a view to finding possible solutions.

  EU/Egypt
  The Council discussed the ongoing negotiations with Egypt for an Association Agreement. The Council concluded that the Commission should continue negotiations and report back to a future Council.

  Western Balkans
  Ministers discussed the deteriorating situation in Kosovo, and in particular the latest offensive by the FRY security forces. The Council urged the FRY authorities in the strongest terms to stop the violence immediately, recalled the warning of severest consequences for the FRY from the international community if they did not comply, and expressed its support for the international community's determination to take the necessary action
  692
  to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe. The Council also urged the KLA to refrain from acts of violence. It condemned the killing of civilians on both sides. The EU urged President Milosevic to reverse his course of obstruction, to seize the last chance for a peaceful solution and to accept the fair and balanced outcome represented by the Rambouillet Accords.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Ministers discussed the MEPP and the implications of a possible unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians on 4 May 1999 (the expiry of the five year transitional period established under the Oslo Accords). This was the first Ministerial level discussion of the 4 May issue. It was agreed that discussion should continue at a later date.

  Human Rights/China
  The Council decided that the EU would not change its position on China at this year's UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). The EU would continue to express publicly its growing concerns about human rights in China at the UNCHR, as well as at bilateral and EU high-level meetings with China. It would remain in close contact with its main partners in pursuit of the common objective of achieving concrete improvements in human rights in China, and keep its policy under regular review in the light of developments there.

  ASEM Foreign Ministers' Meeting

  The Presidency briefed partners on preparations for the Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers' Meeting to be held in Berlin on 29 March.

  EU/ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting

  The Presidency informed partners that the EU/ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting (planned for 30 March in Berlin) would not now go ahead.

  Common Strategy on Russia

  The Council discussed preparation of the first of the EU's common strategies, designed to strengthen the EU's relationship with Russia and to increase coherence of work on Russia across the Pillars. Ministers welcomed progress so far and called for the Common Strategy to be ready for the Cologne European Council in June.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals have been made by the presidency of the European Union at(a) the General Affairs Council and (b) other ministerial councils concerning the development of the role of the Western European Union; on what date he expects the Treaty of Amsterdam to take effect; and if he will place related European Union and Western European Union documents in the Library. [78998]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Presidency of the European Union have made no formal proposals considering the development of the role of the Western European Union at the General Affairs Council or any other ministerial councils.

  The Treaty of Amsterdam will enter into force once the last remaining countries, France and Greece, have deposited their instruments of ratification with the Italian Government. They are expected to do so shortly. If they do so before 15 April 1999, the Treaty will enter into force on 1 May 1999.

  Foreign Ministers Conference
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the agenda for the Euro-Med Foreign Ministers Conference on 15 to 16 April. [79576]

  Ms Quin
  The draft agenda is as follows:

  Wednesday 15 April
  Official Opening Session
  Working Session 1

  1.1 Contribution of the EuroMed Partnership to constructive developments in the Mediterranean Region

  1.2 Political and Security Partnership

  Friday 16 April
  Working Session 2

  2.1 EU Financial Assistance to MED Partners

  2.2 Economic and Financial Partnership

  2.3 Partnership in Social, Cultural and Human Affairs

  Closing Session.

  Mr. Clive Allison
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 1 February 1999,Official Report, column 431, what discussions with French Ministers and officials (i) have taken place and (ii) are scheduled to take place concerning (a) the death of Mr. Clive Allison in May 1998 and the degree of co-operation with the British coroner in that case and (b) the degree of co-operation of French officials with British coroners. [79525]

  Mr. Fatchett
  On 30 November, Baroness Symons, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, met senior French officials of the Ministry of Interior to discuss the handling of deaths of British Nationals and to press for more vigorous investigations by the French authorities.

  We have had no discussions with French Ministers specifically concerning the death of Clive Allison in France. Nor have Ministers discussed the degree of co-operation with British coroners in this case. No Ministerial discussions are scheduled to take place on either topic.

  The Consular Division of the FCO forwarded HM Coroners's letter requesting a police report into Mr. Allison's death to the French authorities in June 1998. The French authorities issued a report which was passed to HM Coroner on 4 September. In a letter dated 5 October, HM Coroner requested more information regarding Mr. Allison's death. His request was translated and forwarded to the French authorities on 6 November. Our Consulate in Lyon continues to press for a response.

  French officials have no direct contact with British Coroners. Requests from HM Coroner for reports into the death of a British national in France are directed to the French authorities through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Co-operation is good; the French authorities have to comply with their own formalities. Requests for supplementary information may take longer for the French to process.

  Cornish
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if a Department has been identified to co-ordinate policy on the Cornish language. [79890]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  It has now been agreed that the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions, through the Government office for the south-west, should co-ordinate Government policy on the Cornish Language. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will retain overall responsibility for the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

  GJW
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which officials in his Department had discussions with GJW, on how many occasions and on what dates concerning the wish by Cape plc to amend the Access to Justice Bill[Lords] to ban foreign workers of British companies obtaining legal aid; and if the statement by his Department's officials that the decision to pursue the case in the UK courts would be seen as a lack of faith in the South African legal system was made with the knowledge of Ministers. [78745]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No discussions have been held between the FCO and GJW on possible amendments to the Access to Justice Bill.

  Telephone calls were received from an unidentified caller who asked about the case, but no opinion of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend was expressed by FCO officials.

  This is not a foreign policy issue. It is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department. Inquiries on this issue have been referred to them.

  Council of Europe (Membership)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries within the former Soviet Union are eligible in principle to be admitted to the Council of Europe by virtue of their geographical position. [79199]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Countries within the former Soviet Union eligible in principle to be admitted to the Council of Europe are:

  Armenia

  Azerbaijan

  Belarus, and

  Georgia.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries formerly within the Soviet Union have applied for admission to the Council of Europe. [79198]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Countries formerly within the Soviet Union which applied for membership of the Council of Europe and which are now members are: Moldova, Russia and Ukraine. Countries formerly within the Soviet Union which have applied but have yet to become members of the Council of Europe are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus and Georgia. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are also now members of the Council of Europe.
  695

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 58, if he will make a statement on the measures which the Government of Gibraltar and the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission need to have in place before Her Majesty's Government will be in a position to approve the passporting by Gibraltar-based credit institutions of banking services into the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the European Union. [79442]

  Ms Quin
  The remaining measure which the Government of Gibraltar need to have in place before Her Majesty's Government will be in a position to approve pas sporting of banking services by the Gibraltar-based credit institutions is the establishment of a Deposit Guarantee Scheme. We understand that the necessary legislation has been passed by the Gibraltar House of Assembly and will enter into force shortly.

  In addition, Her Majesty's Government will need to amend the Banking Act 1987 before Gibraltar-based credit institutions will be in a position to passport banking services into the United Kingdom.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the establishment of staff at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate offices at Croydon by civil service grade; and how many vacancies at each grade currently exist. [78797]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The following lists staff by grade employed at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate offices in Croydon:

  Grade

  Number

  Senior Civil Service Grades

  13

  Grade 6

  5

  Grade 7

  43

  Senior Executive Officer

  50

  Higher Executive Officer

  169

  HEO(D)

  2

  Executive Officer

  455

  Administrative Officer

  91

  Administrative Assistant

  482

  Immigration Inspector

  6

  Chief Immigration Officer

  33

  Immigration Officer

  46

  Assistant Immigration Officer

  8

  Senior Personal Secretary

  3

  Personal Secretary

  27

  Chief Typing Manager

  1

  Typing Manager

  3

  Typists

  15

  Support Manager

  1

  Support Grade 1

  14

  Support Grade 2

  111

  Industrials

  8

  Total

  2,007

  696
  The following table lists current vacancies in Croydon. They are being filled through internal selection, including promotion boards, or external recruitment.

  Grade

  Number

  Grade 7

  2

  SEO

  1

  HEO

  15

  EO

  100

  AO

  65

  AA

  98

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average number of members of the public who attended the Immigration and Nationality Directorate offices in Croydon per day in the last 12 months; and what is the average number of such persons interviewed by officials. [79298]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The average number of callers who attended the Immigration and Nationality Directorate offices per day during the 12 month period from March 1998 to February 1999 was:

  Public Caller Unit (PCU): 673

  Asylum Screening Unit: 362.

  With the exception of the four days in March 1999 when the doors were closed early in the PCU as the result of a temporary problem, all callers to the PCU during this period were assisted by officials.

  Immigration and Asylum Bill
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those organisations which have made representations to his Department since the publication of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. [78796]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Government proposed that the Bill should be considered by a Special Standing Committee. The representations submitted by organisations in response to the Committee's request for evidence will be published in the Official Report

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications have been determined finally in the last five years; and how many were(a) allowed and (b) refused. [79296]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested in not available.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications have been made in each of the last 12 months by(a) persons already in the UK and (b) persons arriving at ports of entry. [79297]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The requested information is given in the table.
  697

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by location of application 1

  Total applications

  Applied at Pord

  Applied in Country

  March 1998

  3,200

  1,555

  1,640

  April 1998

  3,135

  1,500

  1,635

  May 1998

  3,110

  1,465

  1,645

  June 1998

  3,575

  1,790

  1,785

  July 1998

  4,215

  1,940

  2,275

  August 1998

  4,420

  2,395

  2,025

  September 1998

  4,455

  2,585

  1,870

  Octobe 1998

  5,010

  2,295

  2,715

  November 1998

  4,620

  2,230

  2,390

  December 1998

  4,770

  2,495

  2,275

  January 1999

  4,700

  2,200

  2,500

  February 1999

  4,185

  1,800

  2,385

  Total

  49,395

  24,250

  25,140

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will estimate the annual cost to(a) central Government and (b) local authorities of providing financial support to persons whose rights of appeal under immigration and asylum law have been exhausted; [79306]

  (2) how many persons whose rights of appeal under immigration and asylum law have been exhausted are receiving (a) NHS treatment, (b) state financial benefits, (c) local authority housing and (d) state education. [79304]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the monetary cost in the past three years for which figures are available to(a) central Government and (b) local government of support for asylum seekers. [79305]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Asylum support costs are currently divided between the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health. In 1996–97, asylum support cost £407.7 million, of which £395 million was borne by the Department of Social Security. In 1997–98, asylum support cost £375 million, of which £305 million was borne by the Department of Social Security. Department of Health costs for 1998–99 are estimated at £190 million. Comparable costs for the Department of Social Security for 1998–99 are not yet available.

  The Department of Health has responsibility for three types of grant to local authorities for asylum seeker support. These are for asylum seekers who are supported under the National Assistance Act 1948, asylum seekers with families supported under the Children Act 1948 and unaccompanied children. As local authority expenditure above a set threshold is subject to only partial reimbursement, the full costs of asylum seeker support to local government are not known.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take(a) to discover the whereabouts of and (b) to deport those who have lost all their appeals under immigration and asylum law and who remain unlawfully in the UK. [79292]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration Service has established procedures to discover the whereabouts of those persons who remain unlawfully in the United 698
  Kingdom, based upon the use of intelligence, the work of a dedicated absconder tracing team and liaison with other agencies such as the Department of Social Security and police. Details of absconders are also entered on the Police National Computer.

  The Immigration and Asylum Bill currently before Parliament contains a range of measures to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws. Among proposed changes that will assist immigration officers in this respect are increased powers of arrest, and new powers to search for and seize evidence. We also intend extending the present powers to fingerprint inadequately documented passengers and immigration offenders.

  The Bill also provides for a new combined appeal process to prevent those at the end of the process from making further appeals in an attempt to frustrate removal, and a simplified administrative procedure to replace deportation in routine cases.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of people who have lost all their appeals under immigration and asylum law and remain unlawfully in the UK. [79289]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is not available in the form requested.

  The available information relates to the number of failed asylum seekers, excluding dependants, who have exhausted their rights of appeal (including any who did not submit an appeal against the refusal of asylum) and who are the subject of port or enforcement action. As at November 1998, that figure was estimated to be 24,000.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of asylum applicants currently in the UK with whom the authorities have lost contact. [79294]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at November 1998, the number of known asylum absconders—those who have applied for asylum at some stage—was 20,000. This covers persons subject to port or enforcement action who have breached conditions of temporary admission, temporary release or restriction order, or are otherwise known to be out of contact with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND). Some persons recorded as absconders may have departed from the United Kingdom without the knowledge of IND. Information is not available on the numbers of in-country asylum seekers who have not had enforcement action initiated against them but who are out of contact with IND.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department takes to renew contact with asylum applicants with whom contact has been lost. [79293]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is the responsibility of the asylum applicant to remain in contact with the Home Office. Failure to do so will result in refusal of the asylum claim for non compliance and consequent action to enforce departure, subject to any appeal.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were deported from the UK in each of the last five years following final refusal of asylum applications. [79295]
  699
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information, relating to removals and voluntary departures under port and enforcement procedures of persons who have applied for asylum at some stage, is given in the table. Failed asylum seekers are only removed once all their rights of appeal in the United Kingdom have been exhausted. It should be noted that the figures may include some persons who withdrew their asylum application or appeal before a decision or determination had been reached.

  Removals and voluntary departures of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, 1994 to 1998p

  Number of persons

  Removed

  Departed voluntarily

  1994

  1,640

  580

  1995

  2,270

  900

  1996

  3,680

  1,140

  1997

  5,340

  1,790

  1998p

  15,020

  11,770

  11998 removed and departed voluntarily figures are estimated>

  p1998 data are provisional

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the annual cost of enforcement action against failed asylum applicants by(a) the immigration service and (b) the police service in each of the last five years. [78659]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to secure agreement for a European Union directive to require member states to take action to eliminate racial discrimination. [79011]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government welcome the new provisions in Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which will provide a legal base for taking Community action against racism and other forms of discrimination. The Government plan to continue to play a full and positive part in the development of Community action to tackle racial discrimination once the Treaty comes into force.

  Money Forgery
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the nature of the outstanding issue relating to the term forgery of money and means of payment to be re-examined by COREPER, pursuant to the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council of 12 March. [79491]

  Kate Hoey
  The issue relates to a request from one member state for this form of crime to be legally defined before the Justice and Home Affairs Council agrees to extend Europol's mandate. The request is in line with Article 43(3) of the Europol Convention.
  700

  Prison Service
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on continued agency status for the Prison Service; if a revised Framework Document has now been finalised; when he intends to publish the Prison Service's Corporate and Business plans; and what changes he has made to the Prison Service's Key Indicators for 1990–2000. [80077]

  Mr. Straw
  I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on 1 February 1999,Official Report, columns 430–31, that the Prison Service will remain an agency of the Home Office.

  The new Framework Document is now complete and I am today placing copies of it in the Library. The Framework Document governs the relationship between the Prison Service and the core Home Office, setting out the roles of the principal players and bodies including the Prison Service Strategy Board to be chaired by my noble Friend, Lord Williams, the Minister with responsibility for prisons and probation, within a framework of responsibilities and accountabilities. The document reflects the Government's commitment to take proper ministerial responsibility for the service and the role of the Prison Service as a major component of the wider criminal justice system. It includes material about the planning framework and the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

  The Prison Service's Corporate Plan for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 and Business Plan for 1999£2000 is published today. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  The Prison Service's KPIs are kept under review regularly to ensure that they reflect current key priorities for the Service. For 1999–2000, the Prison Service will introduce new performance measures arising from the Home Office Public Service Agreement. I have approved new measures for escapes from contracted-out escorts, staff sickness, cost per prisoner and the time taken to respond to correspondence.

  The KPI on overcrowding will be changed to measure the percentage of the prison population held two to a cell designed for one. This will better reflect the impact of overcrowding on individual prisoners.

  Two existing measures will be discontinued next year: time out of cell and staff training. With the emphasis now being given to regimes designed to reduce re-offending, and the gradual introduction of in-cell TV, it is becoming more important to measure what prisoners do when out of their cells than the length of time they are unlocked. Staff training will remain important. A primary focus for the Service in 1999–2000 is to gain Investors in People accreditation which requires evidence of properly targeted training and development for all staff.

  The full list of KPI measures, and specific targets for 1999–2000 are:

  Escapes:
  To ensure no category A prisoners escape.
  To ensure that the number of escapes from prisons, and escorts undertaken by Prison Service staff, expressed as a proportion of the prison population, is lower than 0.05 per cent.
  To ensure that the number of escapes from contracted-out escorts is no more than 1 per 20,000 prisoners handled.
  701
  Assaults:
  To ensure that the number of positive adjudications of assault on staff, prisoners, and others, expressed as a proportion of the average population, is lower than 9 per cent.

  Drugs:
  To ensure that the rate of positive results from random drug tests is lower than 18.5 per cent.

  Overcrowding:
  To ensure that the number of prisoners held two to a cell designed for one, expressed as a percentage of the population, does not exceed 18 per cent.

  Purposeful activity:
  To ensure that prisoners spend on average at least 24 hours per week engaged in purposeful activity.

  Offending behaviour programmes:
  To ensure that there are at least 3,600 completions by prisoners of offending behaviour programmes accredited as being effective in reducing re-offending, of which 700 should be completions of sex offender treatment programmes.

  Cost per place:
  To ensure that the average cost per uncrowded prison place does not exceed £26,208

  Cost per prisoner:
  To ensure that the average cost per prisoner does not exceed £27,392.

  Staff sickness1:
  To ensure that average staff sickness does not exceed 12.5 working days per person.

  Correspondence handling:
  To ensure that 95 per cent. of correspondence receives a reply within 20 days by October 1999.

  1The target for staff sickness is provisional and will be reviewed later in the year following an independent audit of data quality.

  Prisons Ombudsman
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the changes to the terms of reference of the Prisons Ombudsman. [80078]

  Mr. Straw
  Following an internal Home Office review last November (a copy of which is in the Library), I have decided to revise and extend the terms of reference of the Prisons Ombudsman. The revised terms of reference, which have been agreed with the Ombudsman, will come into effect from 1 May. They will allow the Ombudsman a wider role in considering complaints made by prisoners, by additionally including investigation of official advice upon which Ministers' decisions are made. A full copy of the Prisons Ombudsman's revised terms has been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Mileage Rates
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the mileage rates applicable from January 1999 to staff, indicating changes which have been made to encourage staff to switch from cars to public transport and other less polluting forms of travel. [79441]

  Mr. Straw
  The Mileage Allowance Rates applicable from January 1999 are as follows.702

  Engine capacity/p per mile

  Home Office (excluding Prison Service)

  Motor Vehicle Rates:

  Public Transport Rate

  23.8p per mile

  Standard Rate Mileage

  Engine Capacity up to 1500cc

  35.7p for first 5,000 miles

  19p for over 5,000 miles

  Engine Capacity 1501–2000cc

  43p for first 5,000 miles

  23p for over 5,000 miles

  Engine Capacity over 2000cc

  46p for first 5,000 miles

  31p for over 5,000 miles

  Motor Cycle Rates:

  Public Transport Rate

  Engine Capacity up to 125cc

  12.9p per mile

  Engine Capacity over 125cc

  23.8p per mile

  Standard Rate Mileage

  Engine Capacity up to 125cc

  16.2p for first 4,000 miles

  6.2p for over 4,000 miles

  Engine Capacity over 125cc

  26p for first 4,000 miles

  9p for over 4,000 miles

  Pedal Cycle Rates:

  6.2p per mile

  Lease Car Rates:

  9p per mile

  Rates last revised 1 September 1994 but revision pending subject to Union agreement

  Prison Service

  Motor Vehicle Rates:

  Public Transport Rate

  24.9p per mile

  Standard Rate Mileage

  Engine Capacity up to 1000cc

  28p for first 4,000 miles

  17p for over 4,000 miles

  Engine Capacity 1001–1500cc

  35p for first 4,000 miles

  20p for over 4,000 miles

  Engine Capacity 1501–2000cc

  45p for first 4,000 miles

  25p for over 4,000 miles

  Engine Capacity over 2000cc

  63p for first 4,000 miles

  36p for over 4,000 miles

  Motor Cycle Rates:

  Public Transport Rate

  Engine Capacity up to 125cc

  13.4p per mile

  Engine Capacity over 125cc

  24.9p per mile

  Standard Rate Mileage

  Engine Capacity up to 125cc

  17.5p for first 4,000 miles

  6.5p for over 4,000 miles

  Engine Capacity over 125cc

  27.2p for first 4,000 miles

  9.7p for over 4,000 miles

  Pedal Cycle Rates:

  7.4p per mile

  Official Car Rates:

  Petrol up to 1800cc

  9.9p for first 10,000 miles

  8.4p for over 10,000 miles

  Petrol over 1801 cc

  10.74p for first 10,000 miles

  9.24p for over 10,000 miles

  All Diesel

  9.9p for first 10,000 miles

  8.4p for over 10,000 miles

  Heavy Trailer addition

  2.5p per mile

  Rates last revised 1 November 1998

  703
  The Home Office is committed to reducing the impact that its business travel has on the environment. Before undertaking any business travel, staff and their line managers consider whether the visit/attendance at a meeting is really necessary, whether the objectives of the meeting could be met through correspondence, e-mail, fax or telephone and whether Video-conferencing facilities could be used. If it is considered necessary, staff must use public transport unless there are operational grounds for using private vehicles/hire cars, for example, carrying heavy equipment, or if the route is poorly served by public transport. There are currently two rates of mileage allowance—Standard Rate and Public Transport Rate. The Home Office operates a strict policy when considering the payment of allowances to officers who use their private vehicles for business travel, including prior authorisation from line managers when Standard Rate Mileage Allowance is claimed. This ensures that private vehicles are only used when absolutely necessary.

  Whilst those areas which have higher than average business travel have been targeted since January 1999 in an effort to promote the switch to public transport, it is also proposed to pursue the option of a single rate of Standard Rate Motor Mileage Allowance in the new financial year. If adopted, this should encourage the use of smaller cars and further encourage the use of public transport through a reduced rate of Motor Mileage Allowance for larger engine cars. The Home Office also has allowances for the use of motorcycles and pedal cycles for official travel and increases to the rates will also be sought in the new financial year.

  Millennium Celebrations
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to issue guidance on the operation of the licensing laws and late night extensions for millennium celebrations on 31 December 1999 and 1 January 2000; and if he will make a statement. [79550]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We will announce shortly the outcome of the consultation on proposals for extending permitted hours on the Millennium Eve and subsequent New Year's Eves.

  Election Candidates
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the decision by some returning officers not to allow candidates to describe themselves as Labour and Co-operative Party on the ballot paper. [79336]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My Department has issued advice to returning officers suggesting that a candidate who wishes to use a description on the ballot paper which might lead voters to associate him or her with more than one political party should be able to do so as long as the description is authorised by certificates issued by, or on behalf, of the nominating officers of both parties.

  Departmental Capital Investment
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's strategy for managing capital investment and assets by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [79517]
  704
  Mr. Straw
  In line with the requirements outlined in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, the Home Office now has a comprehensive strategy for capital investment and asset management.

  The strategy covers both the Home Office's approach to future capital investment and the efficient use of existing assets. The strategy provides a framework for longer term plans to be built upon. It is the first such investment strategy for the Home Office. The Department intends to publish an updated strategy each year.

  A copy of the strategy has been placed in the Library and on the Home Office website. Additional copies are available from the Home Office Press Office. The published document include the Capital Investment Strategy of the Charity Commission, which has also been placed in the Library.

  Passports
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what security checks on passport applications were waived at the(a) Liverpool and (b) Newport offices; and for what period. [79372]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Security checks have never been waived in the Liverpool and Newport passport offices. The question appears to be directed at recent media reports of a suspension of security checks by the Passport Agency. Managers have allowed staff to exercise wider discretion on issuing passports if they had no significant doubt about the identity of the applicant.

  These instructions were withdrawn but they did not imply any suspension or relaxation in the Agency's proper security checks on passport applications.

  A range of automatic and discretionary checks are undertaken at different stages of the passport issuing process to prevent and detect fraud. Additional automatic security checks are undertaken under the new issuing system operating in our Liverpool and Newport offices which also require examiners to adopt a more systematic approach to confirming an applicant's eligibility for passport facilities.

  The Agency is now doing more security checking than it has ever done.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the roll-out of the new IT systems for the passport offices is currently expected to take place. [79370]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The new high technology driven passport issuing arrangements have already been introduced into the Liverpool and Newport passport offices. The Passport Agency's present plans are for the roll-out of these new arrangements to commence in the Belfast passport office on 30 July, in the Peterborough office on 10 September, in the Glasgow office on 17 September and in the London office in early January 2000.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average turnaround for passport applications at(a) Liverpool, (b) Newport and (c) all other offices. [79369]
  705
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Passport Agency does not measure its turnround time by averages, but by the maximum turnround time. The current position in working days on maximum turnrounds for non-urgent passport applications is shown:

  Office

  Number

  Belfast

  16

  Glasgow

  16

  Liverpool

  27

  London

  6

  Newport

  34

  Peterborough

  13

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed at(a) Liverpool and (b) Newport passport offices (i) at the latest available date and (ii) one year previously. [79373]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of staff employed in the Liverpool and Newport Passport Offices at the end of February 1999 and February 1998 broken down into permanent and seasonal staff is shown in the table:

  Liverpool

  Newport

  February 1998

  February 1999

  February 1998

  February 1999

  Permanent Full time

  189.5

  192.5

  192

  167

  Permanent Part Year

  86

  77.5

  30

  65

  Fixed Term Contracts

  3

  —

  62

  58

  Casuals

  174

  25

  161

  17

  Total

  452.5

  295

  445

  307

  During this 12 month period, around 100 Liverpool staff and 94 Newport staff transferred to Siemens Business Services as part of the outsourcing project.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports were being processed at the(a) Liverpool and (b) Newport offices in the latest month for which figures are available; what is the target for the rate of processing; and when that target was originally expected to be reached. [79371]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In February 1999, the Liverpool and Newport passport offices processed 72,702 and 74,547 passports respectively. The monthly target for each office is 120,000 issues. That target was originally expected to be achieved by the end of 1998.

  Senator Pinochet
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost of court proceedings to date in connection with the extradition of Senator Pinochet; and if he will make a statement. [79092]

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  There have been proceedings in Bow Street Magistrates Court, the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court and the House of Lords. These hearings have involved work by lawyers and officials in the Crown Prosecution
  706
  Service, the Home Office and the Treasury Solicitor's Department as well as counsel instructed for the Spanish Authorities, the Home Office, Senator Pinochet, Amnesty International and the Amicus Curiae.

  It is not possible at this stage to provide a detailed estimate of all the cost of court proceedings. However, for costs incurred by the Home Office I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 9 February 1999, Official Report, column 143. Additionally, costs incurred by the Treasury Solicitor's Department in respect of counsel instructed as amicus curiae total approximately £14,000.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list for all task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997(a) their dates of establishment, (b) those which have issued final reports and their dates of publication, (c) those which have been terminated and their dates of termination and (d) for those bodies still in existence, expected reporting and termination dates. [79271]

  The Attorney-General
  On 12 June 1997 I established the review of the Crown Prosecution Service under the chairmanship of the right hon. Sir Iain Glidewell, a retired Lord Justice of Appeal. He was assisted by Sir Geoffrey Dear (a retired HM Inspector of Constabulary) and Mr. Robert McFarland (a retired Chief Executive of a multinational company). Their Report was published on 1 June 1998.

  In February 1998 I established a Working Party to review the system of appointing Counsel to act for the Crown in civil cases and to monitor the use of advocates appointed to act. The Working Party was chaired by the then Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer QC) and included representatives from the Bar Council (Laura Cox and Lincoln Crawford) and the two First Treasury Counsel.

  I announced I had accepted their recommendations in a written answer on 30 July 1998, Official Report, column 407. A copy of the Working Party's report has been placed in the Library of each House.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all those task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 which have set up(a) sub-groups, (b) working parties and (c) other subsidiary committees. [79249]

  The Attorney-General
  On 12 June 1997 I established the review of the Crown Prosecution Service under the chairmanship of the right hon. Sir Iain Glidewell, a retired Lord Justice of Appeal. In February 1998 I established a Working Party to review the system of appointing Counsel to act for the Crown in civil cases and to monitor the use of advocates appointed to act. Neither of these set up sub groups, working parties or subsidiary committees.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the impact of reforms to the Crown Prosecution Service on the performance of the service, with particular reference to(a) the working relationship between the Police and the CPS and (b) the proportion of successful prosecutions. [79383]

  The Attorney-General
  Reforms to the CPS following the Glidewell Report are still being implemented. Under its new DPP and Chief Executive, the CPS is making good progress, but key recommendations such as those concerning the relationship between the Police and CPS remain under consideration at this stage. I hope to be able to make a further announcement soon.

  Mainstream bands 1 to 6 (Equivalent to Senior Civil Service) and Bands A to E1

  Refreshment Department craft grades

  Parliamentary Works Directorate craft grades

  Number of staff on whom information is held in group

  884

  138

  50

  White

  835

  90

  42

  White as percentage of employees in group on whom data is held

  94.5

  65

  84

  Asian/other

  22

  11

  8 employees (16%) black, Asian or other

  Asian/other as percentage of employees in group on whom data is held

  2.5

  8

  Black

  27

  37

  Black as percentage of employees in group on whom data is held

  3

  27

  1 Includes the old grades 7 to 15

CABINET OFFICE

  Commissioner for Public Appointments
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which ministerial appointments remain(a) outside the scope of the Nolan rules and (b) the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. [79247]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The First Nolan Report set out a draft Code of Practice for public appointments procedures and recommended the establishment of an independent Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Commissioner's current Code of Practice reflects the Nolan rules. Ministers make appointments to a wide range of bodies, for example the judiciary, tribunals, boards of visitors and time-limited bodies, which are outside the remit of the Commissioner. The Commissioner's remit covers ministerial appointments to advisory and executive non-departmental public bodies, NHS bodies, the utility regulators, and the boards of public corporations and nationalised industries.

  Marsham Street Offices
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Government offices in Marsham Street will be demolished. [79493]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. John Locke, to write to the hon. Member.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Employees
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will provide a breakdown by ethnicity and grade of employees of the House of Commons Commission. [79053]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Employees of the House of Commons Commission are asked to supply information about their ethnic origin on a voluntary basis. Not all choose to reply, so our database is incomplete.

  The ethnic origins of those staff who have chosen to supply information are set out in the table. In order to preserve confidentiality, we have grouped together some categories which would otherwise have contained fewer than five people.

  Letter from John C. Locke to Mr. James Gray, dated April 1999:
  The Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, Peter Kilfoyle, has asked me as Chief Executive of Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) to respond to your Parliamentary Question about the demolition of 2 Marsham Street.
  2 Marsham Street is being considered by a major Government Department as temporary decant space in a PFI scheme whilst its premises are being refurbished. The current position is that the decision on the re-use of the building has been delayed because the assessment of the PFI bids which will form the basis of Departmental funding for the programme of works is taking longer than expected. Current thinking is that the evaluation will be completed by September 1999, but re-use is integral to all the bids being considered.
  If re-use of 2 Marsham Street cannot be justified in Exchequer terms then the demolition process will be restarted and PACE will seek Ministerial approval to place the contract for demolition. The work is expected to take some 18 months following the letting of a contract.

  Drug Misuse
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the overall equality in provision of drug misuse education and treatment across the United Kingdom since the publication of the Government's strategy document, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain". [79332]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  None. The UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator will report shortly on his assessment of provision of drugs education and treatment in England, based on the information in the local plans of Drug Action Teams which he received at the beginning of the year. It
  709
  is for the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively to provide support for drugs education and treatment appropriate to their needs.

  UK Anti-drugs Co-ordinator
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) when he intends to publish the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's first annual report and national plan; [79334]

  (2) what criteria he will use to assess the effectiveness of Her Majesty's Government's anti-drugs misuse strategy since the appointment of the Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator. [79335]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Progress towards key performance targets will be carefully monitored over the 10 years of the strategy. The targets relate to reducing young people's drug misuse and drug-related offending, increasing participation in drug treatment programmes and reducing access. Details of targets will be included in the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's first annual report and national plan due to be published shortly.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his answer of 16 November 1998,Official Report, column 354, what was the average increase in the salaries of special advisers in 1998–99; and how many special advisers are in each pay band. [79857]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  There was no single annual pay award for 1998–99. Special Advisers' pay was restructured as set out in my answer of 16 November 1998. The increases varied depending on the individuals, the work they are now doing compared with previously, and the extent to which their jobs and responsibilities had been restructured. There was also an attempt to correct anomalies created by the previous arrangements, particularly as regards the lowest paid Special Advisers. Performance pay, which used to apply, was dropped.

  The increases was staged giving an average in year increase of 5.9 per cent. This was achieved within the pay bill for the year of £3.6 million, which the Prime Minister announced on 11 June 1998, Official Report, column 664.

  The table sets out the number of Special Advisers in each of the new pay bands.

  Special Advisers in each pay band

  £

  Pay Band A

  Pay Band B

  Pay Band C

  26,000–45,000

  40,000–60,000

  54,000–76,056

  Total

  30

  21

  15

  The following three appointments are outside the Special Adviser pay range and therefore excluded from the above totals:

  salary

  Jonathan Powell

  Prime Minister's Chief of Staff

  91,014

  Alastair Campbell

  Prime Minister's Chief Press Secretary

  91,014

  Keith Hellawell

  UK Anti Drugs Co-ordinator

  106,057

  710
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the total number of occasions when(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997. [76833]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Between 2 May 1997 and 28 February 1999, my Special Advisers have made visits overseas on 14 occasions in an official capacity. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Asbestosis (Legal Aid)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what instructions were given to the head of the Better Government Unit to co-ordinate policy towards the wish of Cape plc to achieve changes in the Access to Government Bill[Lords] to prevent former workers suffering from asbestosis receiving legal aid; and on how many occasions he met representatives of G J W or Cape plc. [78744]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The report to which this question refers has no foundation in fact. No instructions were given, and the official named had no meetings or other contacts with the firms concerned.

  Reviews and Task Forces
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many of the Government reviews and task forces announced since I May 1997 have concluded their work; and which have yet to report. [72899]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I am sorry for the delay in replying to the hon. Member.

  Responsibility for the establishment and management of task forces and reviews rests with individual Ministers. Detailed information about Task Forces and Reviews is not held centrally.

  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House a list of those established since 1 May 1997 which have yet to report, together with anticipated report dates.

  Select Committee Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the leaked Select Committee documents that reached(a) him, (b) his Ministers, (c) his officials, (d) his advisers and (e) departmental parliamentary private secretaries during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [77928]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's answer to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 17 March 1999,Official Report, columns 709–10.

  Departmental Staff (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin, at 1 March, of(a) his private office, (b) Government special advisers, (c) his Policy Unit and (d) staff in total. [78512]
  711
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Information about the ethnic origin of civil servants is collected in Government Departments through voluntary, confidential questionnaires.

  (a)As at 1 March there were 7 staff of ethnic minority origin in the Department's Private Office. This represents 24 per cent. of staff in the Department's private office.

  (b)My answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 39, refers to this matter.

  (c)I do not have a policy unit.

  (d)Civil Service personnel statistics are collated and published annually for staff in post at 1 April by the Cabinet Office. Information for staff in total for 1 April 1998 is the latest available and is given in the table.

  Number and percentage of ethnic minority staff in post at 1 April 1998

  Department

  Ethnic minority staff

  % of staff with known ethnic origin

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  40

  7.3

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  398

  5.4

  Cabinet Office

  98

  7.2

  Charity Commission

  71

  12.8

  Crown Prosecution Service

  410

  8.3

  Culture, Media and Sport

  33

  9.9

  Customs and Excise

  1,485

  6.8

  Defence

  1,312

  2.0

  Education and Employment

  2,254

  10.8

  Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED)

  18

  10.1

  Environment, Transport and the Regions

  857

  7.0

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  49

  16.7

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  191

  4.4

  Friendly Societies, Registry of

  36

  26.9

  Government Actuary

  1—

  8.7

  Health

  595

  13.7

  Health and Safety Executive

  178

  5.0

  HM Prison Service

  1,095

  3.2

  Home Office

  1,138

  12.4

  Information, Central Office of

  25

  9.3

  Inland Revenue

  3,278

  6.0

  International Development

  68

  8.7

  Intervention Board

  67

  8.0

  Land Registry

  384

  4.9

  Legal Secretariat

  1 —

  25.0

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  933

  9.5

  National Investment and Loans Office

  5

  18.5

  National Savings

  26

  0.6

  National Statistics, Office for

  168

  5.7

  Northern Ireland Office

  18

  20.9

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  26

  11.4

  Office of Fair Trading

  66

  25.0

  Office of Gas Supply

  14

  13.9

  Office of the National Lottery

  1—

  16.0

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  9

  7.4

  Ordnance Survey

  20

  1.3

  Public Records Office

  11

  12.1

  Royal Mint

  1—

  1.1

  Scottish Office

  14

  0.4

  Other Scottish Departments

  18

  0.4

  Security and Intelligence Services

  14

  0.3

  Serious Fraud Office

  32

  21.1

  Social Security

  5,107

  6.5

  Trade and Industry

  880

  11.9

  Treasury

  103

  13.1

  Treasury Solicitors Department

  45

  15.0

  Welsh Office (including OHCMI)

  14

  0.7

  Total

  21,615

  5.7

  1 less than 5 staff

  Notes:

  1. Number of non-industrial staff who responded to departmental surveys on ethnic origin

  Source:

  Cabinet Office: Mandate and Departmental returns
  712

  Advisory Committee Appointments
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his answer of 17 March 1999,Official Report, column 710, for what reasons current information on appointments to Government advisory committees is not held centrally; and if he will make it his policy that such information be held centrally in future. [79504]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  There are over 36,000 appointments to non-departmental public bodies including advisory committees. These are the responsibility of the relevant sponsoring Minister and department. Departments post information on current appointments every six months to the Public Appointments Unit Internet Directory at (http://www.open.gov.uk/pau/paupoint.htm).

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his advisers and (d) his PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79654]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168. Any meetings involving PPSs in an official or semi-official capacity are conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Fund
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the Northern Ireland Social Fund discretionary budget will be for 1999–2000. [79992]

  Mr. McFall
  I am pleased to announce that the Social Fund gross discretionary budget for 1999–2000 will be £42.82 million. £9.86 million will be allocated to grants; £32.86 million to loans and £0.1 million will be held as a contingency reserve. The new allocations represent an increase of £2.27 million over the gross budget set at April 1998.

  This increase in the Social Fund budget will ensure that more people receive help and that the Fund continues to play an important role in targeting resources to those most in need. Details of the individual District budget allocations, together with a note explaining the basis on which they have been made, have been placed in the Library today.

  Violent Incidents
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will list for the week ended 20 March the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland; and how many involved (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups; [78928]
  713
  (2) if she will list for the week ended 20 March the number of (a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland; and how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [78929]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of security incidents during the period 14 March–20 March 1999 are as shown:

  Deaths—2

  Shooting incidents—2

  Bombing incidents—2.

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

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  2

  0

  Shootings

  0

  0

  Total

  2

  0

  Notes:

  1. Figures may be subject to minor amendment.

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

  Murders (Clear-up Rates)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information she has obtained on the clear-up rates for murders committed by Loyalists and Republicans since 1969. [79993]

  Mr. Ingram
  From 1969, to March 24 1999, there have been 882 murders attributed to Loyalist groups. Murder charges have been brought in relation to 421 of these, a clear up rate of 49.5 per cent.

  Salaries for Ministers and Office-holders (Paid in addition to a Member's salary)

  £

  Ministerial Salary for First Minister for Scotland, First Secretary for Wales, and First Minister for Northern Ireland

  62,556

  Ministerial Salary for Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland

  47,504

  Salary for Ministerial duties in the Executive of the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly

  32,451

  Office-holder Salary for Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly

  32,451

  The Government have decided that they will accept all of these recommendations with the exception of that for the Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland. In view of the unique political situation in Northern Ireland and the joint responsibility which the Deputy First Minister is expected to exercise with the First Minister, the Government believe that there should be parity of salary between these two posts. Consequently, the salary for the Deputy First Minister will also be £62,556.

  In accordance with the Review Body's recommendation on an annual pay review for the salaries in the devolved institutions, these figures will be uprated with effect from 1 April 1999 and annually thereafter by the same percentage as the average of the movements in the mid-points of the nine Senior Civil Service pay bands below Permanent Secretary. This is the same mechanism as is used for Westminster Parliamentary salaries.

  On the recommendations on allowances which the Review Body makes in the two Reports, the Government has decided that they form a useful starting point for the development of comprehensive and tightly controlled
  714
  With regard to Republican murders, out of 1,926 murders murder charges have been brought in relation to 515 cases, a clear up rate of 28 per cent.

PRIME MINISTER

  Senior Salaries Review Body
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest reports and recommendations of the Review Body on Senior Salaries. [80172]

  The Prime Minister
  Two Reports from the Review Body on Senior Salaries are published today. One on the initial pay, allowances, pensions and severance arrangements for Members of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly; and a second on the salaries for Ministers and Office-holders and office support for Members in those bodies, and on certain Parliamentary Development Recommendations outstanding from the Review Body's 1996 Review of Parliamentary pay and allowances. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Libraries of the House. I am grateful to the Chairman and the Members of the Review Body for their work.

  The main recommendations of the Review Body with regard to pay in the devolved institutions are:

  Members' Salaries

  £

  Scottish Parliament

  39,000

  Northern Ireland Assembly

  37,000

  National Assembly for Wales

  33,500

  allowance systems within the new institutions. As the Review Body itself acknowledges, it is not yet possible to know exactly what the allowances will need to cover and some of the recommendations themselves point to further work. The Government believe that further work needs to be done on the basis of the recommendations and that this is best done by the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly themselves. We would expect them to put in place as soon as possible an appropriate but closely controlled system, mindful of the need for a prudent approach and the need to justify to the taxpayer any significant divergence from the recommendations made by the Review Body.

  In both of the Reports on the new devolved institutions the SSRB noted the difficulty of judging the correct level of pay and allowances when the institutions were not yet in operation. In both cases the SSRB recommended an early review, in 2001, which would be based on the evidence of two years of operation rather than on the current basis of the anticipation of roles and responsibilities. The Government recognise the difficulty expressed by the SSRB and fully accept the arguments for a review in 2001.
  715
  In relation to Ministers in the UK Government, the Review Body recommends that the salaries for Ministers below Cabinet level in the House of Lords and certain

  Junior Ministers and other Office Holders in the House of Lords

  Current salary

  Salary after SSRB recommendation

  Salary from 1 April 19991

  Minister of State

  53,264

  61,764

  64,426

  Parliamentary Under Secretary

  44,832

  53,332

  55,631

  Government Chief Whip

  53,264

  61,764

  64,426

  Deputy Chief Whip

  44,832

  53,332

  55,631

  Government Whip

  40,547

  49,047

  51,161

  Leader of the Opposition

  44,832

  53,332

  55,631

  Opposition Chief Whip

  40,547

  49,047

  51,161

  Chairman of Committees

  53,264

  61,764

  64,426

  Principal Deputy Chairman

  49,052

  57,552

  60,032

  1Increase in line with SSRB recommendation for these and other Ministerial and Parliamentary salaries

  This recommendation reflects the Review Body's finding that, since the 1996 changes to the pay arrangements for Ministers in the Commons, the salaries of these posts in the Lords has fallen behind to an unreasonable extent. The proposed one-off increase of £8,500 is broadly equivalent to the amount by which the MP's salary paid to Ministers in the Commons was abated prior to the 1996 changes and so restores the relativity. The Government support the arguments put forward by the Review Body that such an increase for these posts is fair and reasonable. We shall be bringing forward a draft Order for consideration by each House to implement the recommended changes.

  The Review Body also makes a series of recommendations relating to the central provision of IT equipment for Members' offices, both at Westminster and in their constituencies. The Government are not persuaded by the arguments put forward for enforced central provision of such equipment as this would remove Members' choice in determining what equipment they needed, and how much of the Office Costs Allowance they wish individually to spend on it. The Government agree, however, that there may be cost and other advantages in central bulk procurement of IT equipment for those Members who wish to pursue such an approach. We propose therefore to invite the Information Committee to explore this option further and report its views to the House.

  Al Shifa
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of the letter from the former engineer of the Al Shifa factory in Khartoum dated 19 March to him and his reply in the Library. [78723]

  The Prime Minister
  I am aware that my hon. Friend raised this issue in the House on 24 March 1999,Official Report, columns 366–68, and read extracts from a letter from Mr. Carnaffin into the record of the House. I also note that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), agreed in that debate to meet Mr. Carnaffin to talk to him about the engineering involved in the factory. I am happy to place any exchange of correspondence with Mr. Carnaffin in the Library of the House.
  716
  other Office holders in the House of Lords, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip, should be increased as follows:

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the answer by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 19 March 1999,Official Report, column 857, with paragraphs 1(iii) to (iv) of the Ministerial Code. [78526]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) today, Official Report, column 1080.

  Berlin Summit
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the outcome of the Berlin Summit held on 24 and 25 March; and if he will make a statement. [79496]

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions took place at the Berlin Council on new methods to counter fraud and mismanagement in the Community; and what new measures were agreed. [79775]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 29 March 1999,Official Report, columns 731–47.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the effect of the EU Summit Agreement in Berlin on the net UK contribution to the EU budget. [79572]

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost to the United Kingdom for each of the years from 1999–2000 to 2007–08 of the agreement on the United Kingdom's EU budget rebate reached at the Berlin summit on 25 March; and if he will make a statement. [79582]

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will express in (i) sterling and (ii) euros the level of the United Kingdom's(a) net contribution to the EU budget and (b) EU budget rebate against which he has calculated gains and losses in describing the outcome of the Berlin summit; [79561]
  717
  (2) if the United Kingdom will continue to be the second largest net contributor to the EU budget over the planning period on which the Berlin summit reached agreement. [79562]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. and hon. Members to my statement to the House on 29 March 1999,Official Report, columns 732–47.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what structural budget reforms in the European Union were achieved at the Berlin summit; and if he will make a statement. [79581]

  The Prime Minister
  Following agreement at the Berlin European Council on 26 March, it was agreed that for the Structural Funds the budget for 2000–06 will be 213 billion euro (1999 prices). This is an 11 per cent. reduction on the Commission's original proposal, and is in line with the UK's objective of stabilising the overall EU budget.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment(a) NATO leaders and (b) Her Majesty's Government made at the time they announced that there would be no question of ground forces of NATO being used in Kosovo of the likelihood of retaliatory action by (i) Serb armed forces and (ii) Serb militia units against unprotected persons in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [79812]

  The Prime Minister
  From the beginning of the negotiations for a political settlement in Kosovo, we and our allies have been agreed that any such settlement would require the presence in Kosovo of a multi-national military force to oversee its implementation. This remains the position. NATO forces in Macedonia would deploy into Kosovo once a settlement has been concluded, and with the consent of the parties involved. We have all along made it clear that a force of the size and capability required to dictate and enforce a settlement would take a long time to assemble, and would not prevent Milosevic from carrying out his ethnic cleansing activities in the intervening period. The murderous actions of the Serb security forces against the Kosovar Albanian population began before NATO launched its air strikes. However, unless Milosevic complies with the demands of the international community, NATO airstrikes are the only way of stopping him.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 29 March 1999,Official Report, column 496, to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), if he will publish his definition of child poverty. [79811]

  The Prime Minister
  Child poverty is complex and can be defined in a number of ways. Below half average income is used by some as a proxy for those living in poverty, and using that proxy the last two budgets will lift 700,000 children out of poverty. But we are past the definition debate; we are tackling the causes of poverty. The most important priority is to understand and tackle the factors that damage the life opportunities of our children.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his advisers and (d) his PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79655]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168. The requirements of the Ministerial Code also apply to Parliamentary Private Secretaries when attending any meetings in an official or semi-official capacity.

  Articles (Foreign Media)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to deposit in the Library those articles which he writes for publication in the foreign media. [79492]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), on 10 March 1999,Official Report, column 232.

  Ministerial Interests
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers have declared interests with(a) pharmaceutical and (b) biotechnology committees; and if he will indicate in the case of each such Minister the nature of the interest declared. [79503]

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally. Section 9 of the "Ministerial Code" makes it clear that it is for individual Ministers to order their affairs so that no conflict arises or is thought to arise between their private interests (financial or otherwise) and their public duties. They should normally make their own decisions on how best to proceed, consulting me only when there is any doubt. Ministers are also covered by the terms of one of the Registers of Members of Lords' Interests as appropriate.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last discussed issues related to the World Trade Organisation with President Clinton. [78985]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: I am in regular contact with President Clinton on a range of matters. It is established practice under Section 1(c) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose or discuss information received in confidence from foreign Governments.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what role he plays in co-ordinating Government policy on issues relating to the World Trade Organisation. [78987]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: All Government Ministers are collectively responsible for Government policy. Decisions are taken in a variety of

  719
  ways depending on the subject. My role in World Trade Organisation issues is no exception to this general principle.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he takes to ensure that members of his staff who are aware of donations to the Labour Party from biotechnology companies are not responsible for advising him on decisions on matters related to biotechnology issues. [78988]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: All advice is submitted to me in accordance with the requirements of the "Ministerial Code" and the "Civil Service Code".

WALES

  Water Levels
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions proposals to change the statutory water levels currently in force for(a) the Clywedog and (b) other dams in Wales. [78066]

  Mr. Michael
  Reservoir levels in Wales are a matter for the Environment Agency and relevant water undertakers. The statutory water levels set for the Clywedog and other dams in Wales reflect the balance between the principal purpose of the management of water resources and the mitigation of flooding.

  Cwm Bypass
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the bypass road proposed for Cwm in Blaenau Gwent. [78067]

  Mr. Hain
  Although regrettably we were unable to include the Cwm bypass scheme in our priority list of projects to start in the next five years, we have allocated Blaenau Gwent Borough Council £200,000 in this coming year to enable preparation work on the scheme to continue.

  Following the transfer of functions, any further bid for Transport Grant support will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Health Authorities and Trusts
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate of the current year deficits of the health authorities and health trusts in Wales; and what steps is he taking to ensure that they have adequate funds for 1999–2000. [78068]

  Mr. Michael
  Welsh health authorities and their trusts are currently forecasting an income and expenditure deficit of £21 million in 1998–99. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, I announced an additional £1 billion for the NHS over the three years from 1999–2000. £175 million of this is for next year. I am able to add to this some £65 million from funds being carried forward from the current year and following careful consideration of previous spending plans. Of the £240 million thus available 720
  in 1999–2000, health authorities will receive a cash increase of £168 million, including £134 million for hospital and community health services. This is additional to £18 million waiting lists funding now being made recurrent.

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

  Road Signs
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to standardise road signs in Wales. [78069]

  Mr. Hain
  Monolingual traffic signs for use on roads in the UK are prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994. In order to ensure that bilingual traffic signs are designed to the same national standards, the Department has produced a full set of drawings which have been issued to local authorities in Wales.

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

  Community Health Councils
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the outcome of the consultation on community health councils in Wales. [78070]

  Mr. Michael
  Responses to public consultation on "Involving the Public" confirmed the need to strengthen the role of Community Health Councils at all levels. The decisions I announced on 16 March were based on a careful consideration of the community interests to be represented in different parts of Wales, the local authority areas concerned and the need for an effective interface with NHS trusts and health authorities.

  Increasing the number of CHCs to 28 based on nine "federations" will allow the Councils to retain and develop their local roots and at the same time exert more effective influence within the NHS. I will be meeting representatives of the CHCs shortly to discuss the implementation of the new arrangements.

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

  Agenda 2000
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the Agenda 2000 proposals on farm incomes in Wales. [78071]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Welsh Office economists are working to estimate the likely impact of the CAP reform agreement on farm incomes. These estimates will be available shortly.

  National Assembly Building
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the additional costs involved in moving from the temporary National Assembly building to the Assembly's permanent location. [78072]
  721
  Mr. Michael
  The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Government of Wales Bill stated that the estimated capital costs of establishing the National Assembly would be £17 million. The costs of the temporary accommodation in Crickhowell House and the construction of the new Assembly building were included in this estimate. It is too early to estimate the costs of transferring some functions of the Assembly from Crickhowell House into the new building.

  A5/A55 (Compensation)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from landowners and tenants on compensation for the loss of land taken up by improvements to the A5/A55 on Anglesey. [78073]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Office has received representations from landowners and occupiers affected by the road scheme as part of the negotiation process between their Agents and the Department's Agents on the appropriate level of compensation for the land taken for the road scheme.

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

  Drugs Misuse
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to increase awareness of the dangers of drugs misuse in rural areas of Wales. [78074]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Drug misuse is prevalent in all areas of Wales. The current Welsh Drug and Alcohol Strategy, "Forward Together", addresses the needs of both rural and urban areas in Wales. Throughout Wales Drug and Alcohol Action Teams are responsible for tackling drug and alcohol misuse and for encouraging local agencies to develop activities and services appropriate to

  £000

  1998–99 plans

  1999–2000 plans

  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)

  7,032

  9,223

  Financial Instrument Fisheries Guidance (FIFG)

  254

  150

  European Regional Development Fund

  36,046

  29,046

  Total

  43,332

  18,319

  1 Figures are consistent with Welsh Office Departmental Report (Cm 4216) hut provision available for FIFG for 1999–2000 has been increased to 964, to reflect current commitments and to assess new bids.

  2 In addition £35.7 million which has been carried forward as a result of underspends in previous years is available to this programme.

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

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the total sums received as a result of assisted area status for (i) the former area of Alyn and Deeside District Council, (ii) the former Clwyd County Council and (iii) the current Flintshire County Council since the status was conferred; and if he will make a statement. [78955]
  722
  the local situation. In rural areas this has included, for example, a reconfiguration of service provision, enabling greater access for those in need.

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

  Welsh Assembly Hotline
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is(a) the total cost to date of, (b) the total number of calls received to date and (c) the estimated annual cost of the Welsh Assembly information hotline. [78075]

  Mr. Michael
  There has been no cost for dealing with the 550 calls made to the information line since it opened. The cost of managing the information line, line rental and sending out booklets to callers is £1,400. There will be no annual cost for the helpline which is supported by BT.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress on obtaining EU structural funds for Wales. [78076]

  Mr. Michael
  I am pleased that the Council of Ministers meeting in Berlin last week agreed the Agenda 2000 proposals which include the regulations for the Structural Funds programmes for the Union from 2000–06. These programmes will include Objective 1 status for West Wales and the Valleys. Agreement of areas eligible for Objective 2 status is subject to further discussions with the UK according to the agreed regulations. The remaining areas of the Principality will secure Objective 3 support. The Berlin agreement is subject to ratification by the European Parliament.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sum has he earmarked from within the Welsh block for 1999–2000, for spending on projects associated with European structural funds; and what is the figure for the current financial year. [78078]

  Mr. Michael
  The information is set out in the following table:

  Mr. Hain
  The Assisted Area is designated for the purpose of allocating aid to industry. The beneficiaries of that aid are companies seeking financial assistance toward investment projects which will create or safeguard employment in that area. All, or parts, of these authorities have been included in the Assisted Area since 1972. In that time a wide range of assistance, including grant aid, has been provided to companies by the Welsh Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the
  723
  Wales Tourist Board, the Training and Enterprise Councils, local authorities and other business development organisations. Information on all of these is not held centrally.

  Grants offered since 1984 under Regional Selective Assistance (the main form of regional aid in Wales), the revised Regional Development Grant and Regional Enterprise Grant were as follows:

  £ million

  Former District of Alyn and Deeside1

  Former County of Clwyd1

  Flintshire2

  Regional Selective Assistance

  40.2

  129.2

  12.9

  Regional Enterprise Grants3

  1.9

  6.0

  0.4

  Regional Development Grants4

  43.4

  119.4

  —

  1 Information up to 31 March 1996

  2 Information since 1 April 1996

  3 Regional Enterprise Grant scheme began 1 April 1988

  4 Regional Development Grant scheme began 29 November 1984, closed 31 March 1988

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

  CAP Reform
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has met representatives of the farming unions in Wales to discuss the impact of CAP reform on Welsh agriculture. [78077]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have met with representatives of the farming unions in Wales on numerous occasions during the negotiations on the CAP reforms. The provisional agreement reached by the Agriculture Council represents a significant change in the direction of the CAP—a direction for which the UK Government has been strongly pressing.

  The Welsh Office is currently assessing how the proposed reforms will affect farmers in Wales and we will be discussing this further with the industry in due course.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to identify and reduce the incidence of clinical negligence in the health service in Wales. [78079]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I take the need to identify and reduce the incidence of clinical negligence very seriously. Work has been in hand for some time to achieve this aim. We have changed the funding basis of the Welsh Risk Pool so that those with bad claims records pay more. We have also implemented minimum risk standards for pool members, to identify and address potential problem areas. Failure to achieve these standards again means higher Pool contribution levels. Finally, in our consultation document, "Quality Care and Clinical Excellence" we focus on improving the quality of care, ensuring that clinical decisions are based on the most up-to-date evidence of what is known to be effective.

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

  Welsh Economy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact of the agreements reached at the Council of Ministers' meeting on the Welsh economy. [78080]

  Mr. Michael
  The Council of Ministers' meeting in Berlin reached agreement on the Agenda 2000 package of reform to the EU. This package includes the next wave of enlargement of the Union, reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the next round of Structural Funds programmes. The economy of west Wales and the Valleys will receive a major boost from the award of Objective 1 status which will bring around £1.2 billion in aid for economic and social development over seven years. Reforms to the CAP will help the agriculture sector in Wales increase competitiveness, enhance food safety and food quality and ensure a fair standard of living and stable farm incomes.

  Employment (Non-Welsh Speakers)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding employment opportunities for non-Welsh speakers. [78081]

  Mr. Michael
  I have personally received no such representations.

  Since I took office, my officials have received one such representation. My Department has also dealt with one representation made to the Deputy Prime Minister, and is dealing with one made to the Prime Minister.

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

  National Assembly (Transport)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what transport facilities will be provided to Ministers in the National Assembly. [78082]

  Mr. Hain
  It will be for the Assembly to determine what transport facilities if any it provides for its elected members.

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

  Trade Relations
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet representatives of the CBI Wales to discuss trade relations with Europe. [78083]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend and I and my officials regularly meet with representatives of the CBI Wales to discuss a range of issues.

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the funding of the arts in Wales. [78084]

  Mr. Michael
  I am pleased that, as part of the Internal Review settlement, I was able to provide the Arts Council of Wales with the first increase in its budget for five years. Decisions on the grant aiding of individual projects are matters for the Council itself.
  725
  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Employment (Parents)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress in introducing employment policies to encourage parents to take up employment opportunities in Wales. [78085]

  Mr. Hain
  Good progress is being made with a range of policies to help parents take up employment. The National Childcare Strategy in Wales will create many more childcare places and the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships and the New Opportunities Fund are now getting into their stride to deliver the strategy. The New Deal in Wales is proving very effective. Take-up of the New Deal for Lone Parents is increasing and already over 800 people have obtained jobs through this programme. The Government's Employment Relations Bill contains important new provisions for family-friendly employment practices and the Welsh Office will play a full part in promoting these practices among employers in Wales.

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

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for developing the aerospace industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [78086]

  Mr. Hain
  Welsh Office officials are regularly in touch with the aerospace companies in Wales. My right hon. Friend and I take a keen interest in its future and have met some of the companies. Officials together with the WDA and the TECs are working with the South Wales Aerospace Group to develop effective solutions to the skills needs of the sector. A study of the Group's recruitment and training needs was completed in 1998, with Welsh Office support, and the results of this, together with the recommendations of the Future Skills Wales survey are being used as the basis for taking forward action to ensure that the aerospace industry has the skilled personnel it needs.

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

  Welsh Assembly (Devolution of Powers)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) representations he has received on and (b) plans he has for further devolution of powers to the Welsh Assembly. [78087]

  Mr. Michael
  I and my department have received several thousand representations on all aspects of the Welsh devolution settlement. It would be possible to determine how many of those advocated a transfer of further functions only at disproportionate cost.

  As to plans for the Assembly to gain further powers, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on 3 March 1999, Official Report, column 779–80.

  National Minimum Wage
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the prospective impact of the national minimum wage on the Welsh economy. [78088]

  Mr. Hain
  The national minimum wage is a UK wide policy. No separate assessment of the impact on the Welsh economy has been made, however, latest research shows that 109,000 people in Wales will benefit from the national minimum wage.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total number of occasions when(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997. [76820]

  Mr. Michael
  Between 2 May 1997 and 28 February 1999, special advisers made visits overseas on two occasions in an official capacity. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the primary schools he has visited in his Ministerial capacity in the last four months. [77460]

  Mr. Michael
  During the last four months I have visited Evenlode Primary School and Grangetown Infants School in the constituency of Cardiff, South and Penarth and Cornist Park County Primary School in the constituency of Delyn. I have also visited Croesyceiliog Comprehensive School, Cwmbran; Mold Alun School, Mold and Newport Duffryn Comprehensive School, Newport as well as Llandrillo College (Rhyl campus), Bridgend College and Coleg Glan Hafren.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what purpose he used his ministerial car on Monday 15 March. [78004]

  Mr. Michael
  I used my ministerial car to travel to and from official engagements on Monday 15 March. I started the day with visits to a number of homeless projects in Cardiff followed by speaking engagements in the city, the opening of a new Housing Association Development in the city and in the evening I visited Carmarthen where I took part in a public question and answer session on my role as Secretary of State and on the future role of the Welsh Assembly.

  New Deal
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have entered(a) full-time jobs and (b) further education under the New Deal to date; and if he will make a statement. [78958]

  Mr. Hain
  The latest data published by the Department for Education and Employment shows that, between 5 January 1998 and 29 January 1999, almost 4,400 people had been helped into work in Wales through the New Deal and more than 2,300 others had entered full-time
  727
  education or training (some of whom had subsequently also moved into jobs). Within these totals, separate information is not available on the number of jobs which are full-time or the number of people undertaking further education as distinct from training.

  I am very pleased with the positive start which the New Deal has made in Wales, and the tremendous support it has received from employers and partner organisations. I am also delighted with the enthusiasm of the New Deal participants themselves.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he had taken to improve rail services in Wales, with particular reference to the Wrexham-Bidston rail line; and if he will make a statement. [78952]

  Mr. Hain
  I am keen to see high quality rail services throughout Wales, and I have announced recently that the Welsh Office will be working closely with the North Wales Economic Forum to improve rail services between North and South Wales. The creation of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority is an important first step in ensuring that the train operators in Wales deliver the service which the public have a right to expect. This includes the Wrexham to Bidston line, where services are provided by First North Western with financial support from the Franchising Director and, for certain services, a consortium of local authorities.

  Following the transfer of functions, responsibility for the regulation and financial support of passenger rail services will remain with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Drinking and Driving
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was spent by his Department in 1998 to discourage drinking and driving. [79390]

  Mr. Hain
  In 1997–98 the Welsh Office spent £33,174 on measures to discourage drinking and driving using the medium of Welsh. The Department of Environment Transport and the Regions is responsible for measures to discourage drinking and driving in Great Britain.

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

  Social Inclusion
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to promote Social Inclusion in Wales; and if he will make a statement on his Department's programmes to protect and promote the interests of(a) children and (b) other vulnerable groups in Wales. [80120]

  Mr. Michael
  As part of the Comprehensive Spending Review I have established a Social Inclusion Fund that will provide £48 million over three years to tackle some of the most intractable problems in deprived communities across Wales. It will work alongside mainstream programmes, all of which are being harnessed to promote social inclusion in support of my Department's corporate aim: to increase economic prosperity and improve the quality of life for all of the people of Wales, to promote 728
  social inclusion, to extend democratic accountability and to deliver better services throughout Wales. The initial tranche of money from the Social Inclusion Fund, totalling £8 million for 1999–2000 will be targeted at three key areas;
  £5 million will go to a new Children and Youth Partnership Fund, to promote local initiatives to life youngsters educational attainment, engage them in creative activities in their communities and to encourage them away from crime, drugs, vandalism and truancy;
  £1.5 million will go to support drug and alcohol treatment services, improving access to treatment particularly for vulnerable younger people; and
  £1.5 million will go to encourage people to participate in their communities through joining in the work of local voluntary sector initiatives.

  It is important to recognise the cross-cutting nature of this work. In targeting their proposals for action, local authorities and their partners will be expected to draw out the relevant conclusions from the local crime and disorder audit as well as specific measures of deprivation. They will need to be clear about the intended outcomes and to highlight both their targets and their measurements of success.

  In addition, I am making available £1.5 million for 1999–2000 and for each of the following two years to continue and expand the People in Communities programme, which is aimed at tackling social exclusion in disadvantaged communities. £1 million has been allocated to support the existing eight projects and £750,000 will be available for new projects in 1999–2000. I want to see the new projects being brought forward by local partnerships, including partnerships led by the voluntary sector and development trusts, and I have asked my officials to consult the WLGA, WCVA and other key players as they develop this proposal.

  I am also making available £25 million over three years through Sure Start to give Welsh children the best possible start in life. The programme, which has been developed in consultation with local government, the health service and the voluntary sector in Wales, will provide extra services to boost the development of very young children especially those from the most deprived communities. It will complement existing mainstream programmes and link with other social inclusion initiatives including those developed under my People in Communities programme. It will also work closely with the initiatives for early years development and child care for which I have announced over £2.5 million to support local partnerships in 1999–2000.

  In addition to targeting these new funds on particular groups at risk of becoming socially excluded, I am also placing a greater emphasis on social inclusion within mainstream programmes. As one example of this I am also announcing today a £4.5 million Classroom Support Fund. This will provide £1.5 million over each of the next three years to provide additional classroom assistance for those schools that have the furthest to travel to meet the national targets for Wales.

  I expect the support provided under this heading to take a variety of forms, reflecting the differing needs of LEAs. Some may choose to recruit classroom assistants to support work on literacy and numeracy. Some may wish

  729
  to give a priority to raising levels of achievement within ethnic minority communities. There will also be flexibility to provide support for teachers in other ways.

  I have also introduced a new element with a focus on social inclusion within the Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) programme. The new School Improvement Fund will be worth £1.5 million during 1999–2000. It is designed to enable authorities to bring a new focus to the work of achieving the targets set out in their Education Strategic Plans. I would expect authorities to give a particular emphasis to work aimed at bringing standards in the lowest performing schools up to the level of the best.

  Taken together these programmes will provide a foundation of seamless services for children and their families, to enrich children's lives and enable them to fulfil their potential.

  Further details of my analysis of the challenges facing Wales and the approach my Department is taking to ensure they are addressed effectively are set out in a statement "Building an inclusive Wales: tackling the social exclusion agenda". This will provide the National Assembly with a useful starting point from which to develop its own policies. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  In addition local authorities have a key part to play in responding to the needs of children who require specialist support. Too often in the past, they have failed children in their care with the result that the lives of some of the most vulnerable of our children have been damaged. That is completely unacceptable. Much has been done to implement recommendations from the Children's Safeguards Review. To build on that work and to ensure key recommendations are carried forward I have made available £5 million within the local government settlement for 1999–2000 for 'Children First', a three year programme to modernise and transform local authority social services for children. This is an ambitious and far-reaching programme and one we are determined to see through.

  My Department is writing to local authorities and others with responsibilities for children in their care to set out the details of the improvements we expect to see and the arrangements for the National Assembly to monitor progress. I am also writing to elected members to remind them of their personal responsibilities for children in the care of their authorities, to underline my commitment to improving services for children and to challenge them to use the extra resources being made available through all of these programmes to secure real and lasting benefits.

  Planning Inspectorate Agency
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what performance targets he has set for the Planning Inspectorate Agency's work in Wales for the financial year 1999–2000. [80121]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I have today set the following key targets for the Agency's work in Wales in 1999–2000. I believe these continue to be challenging, but realistic targets for the Planning Inspectorate to meet next year. I am confident that the Planning Inspectorate will continue to maintain the impartiality and quality and efficiency of its work. I have decided not to include a specific target for 730
  responding to inquiries and correspondence in Welsh this year as the Inspectorate now has its own Welsh Language Scheme in place which requires the Inspectorate to deal with inquiries and correspondence in Welsh and English within the same timescales.

  Timeliness

  (a) 80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by written representations to be determined within 17 weeks;

  (b) 80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by hearings to be determined within 22 weeks;

  (c) 80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by inquiries to be determined within 30 weeks;

  (d) to provide an Inspector for local plan inquiries in at least 80 per cent. of cases on the date requested by a local authority provided that the objection period has ended and at least 6 months' notice has been given;

  (e) to deliver 90 per cent. of Inspectors' reports on local plan inquiries to local authorities according to timescales agreed under service agreements.

  Financial
  Unit costs of planning appeals decided by written representations not to exceed £839.

  Efficiency
  Contribute to the generation of a 3 per cent. efficiency improvement in the use of running costs for all the Inspectorate's work compared with 1998–99.

  Quality
  To satisfy the Advisory Panel on Standards, and thus the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales, annually and following rigorous monitoring, that the quality of the Inspectorate's work is being maintained at a high standard with 99 per cent. of its casework free from justified complaint.

  Information and Guidance
  To carry out a customer survey of satisfaction with the inquiry and hearing processes for dealing with planning appeals, including the quality of Inspectors' reasoning in reaching a recommendation/decision.

  Following the transfer of functions, the setting of targets for the Planning Inspectorate in Wales will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he is proposing to make to the cash limits for his Department for the current financial year. [80122]

  Mr. Michael
  The local authority capital cash limit (WO/LACAP) will be reduced by £1,470,000 from £377,644,000 to £376,174,000; the cash limit on class XIV, vote 3 will increase by £1,470,000 from £469,689,000 to £471,159,000.

  The transfer of £1,470,000 from the non-voted local authority capital cash limit to the vote 3 cash limit is in respect of work undertaken by Housing Associations on behalf of local authorities.

  The above changes will not add to the overall level of public expenditure.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the winding-up of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, with particular
  731
  reference to the main successor bodies and the Corporation's functions, assets and liabilities to be passed on. [79018]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]I have given careful consideration to the views of the CBDC Board, the Cardiff and Vale authorities, the Welsh Development Agency and other interested parties and I am able to confirm, as previously announced, that the Corporation shall wind up its activities on 31 March 2000 with dissolution taking place on 30 June 2000.

  I regard it as essential that the momentum of development within Cardiff Bay is maintained. I have therefore decided that, from March 2000, as with other local authorities in the rest of Wales, Cardiff County Council and the Vale of Glamorgan authority should regain responsibility for the economic, social and environmental regeneration of the whole of their areas. As elsewhere, they will be able to rely on the services available from the WDA and other economic bodies on the basis of partnership. I have also discussed with those authorities the implementation of projects planned by CBDC which may not be completed within the lifetime of the Corporation, including the Penarth Link, Hamadryad Park, a significant environmental upgrade in the Bay area and an access road to the Cardiff Yacht Club. I have also considered the provision necessary for the new responsibilities and liabilities which each authority will inherit: and transitional support for certain local services in South Cardiff. For these purposes, I shall be making available over a period of 3–5 years a total of up to £13 million to Cardiff County Council and up to £8.2 million to the Vale of Glamorgan. Copies of the understandings reached with the local authorities will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Corporation's non-development assets and liabilities will be transferred to Cardiff County Council and to the Vale of Glamorgan Council respectively. Development assets and liabilities, including management of the proposed Bute Avenue PFI, will be transferred to the Welsh Development Agency. I shall invite the parties to discuss together and agree with me the timing and terms on which these transfers will take place. Land currently held by CBDC at the Ferry Road Peninsula will be transferred to Cardiff County Council, subject to terms and conditions to be agreed between the Department and the Council and taking into account the relevant provisions of the Development Agreement between CBDC and Associated British Ports.

  Future sponsorship of the Techniquest organisation will transfer to my Department. Responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Gwent Levels Bird Reserve will pass to the Countryside Council for Wales.

  I attach particular importance to the efficient and safe operation and maintenance of the Barrage and to the exploitation of the impounded lake for the public benefit. These responsibilities, including groundwater monitoring and control and management of water quality in the Bay,
  732
  are also of direct and significant interest to the local communities in Cardiff and the Vale. As foreshadowed in the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993, I propose to establish a dedicated body with responsibility for the operation, maintenance, and management of the Barrage, the outer harbour and the inland Bay. I shall enter immediate discussions with the Corporation regarding the purpose, functions and funding of such a body and will also fully explore the opportunities for partnership between the public and private sectors. I shall consult with local authorities and other interests before final decisions are taken.

  On the basis of a thorough review of Barrage costs, I have decided to increase the financial cap for the project from £191 million to £197 million, subject to settlement of any unresolved and future claims. This is the best available estimate of the final outturn cost, subject to settlement of any unresolved and future contract claims. The increase is mainly attributable to the increased cost of the Bird Reserve on the Gwent Levels and additional costs arising from new legislation. A Budget Review report on the Barrage will also be available shortly and I shall place a copy in the Library of the House.

  I am also pleased to announce a public consultation on the Corporation's proposal to install a dewatering network in the area of South Cardiff most at risk from rising groundwater. Copies of the Corporation's submission, including a report by Professor Stoner, can be obtained from Mr. D. Lowe at CBDC, Baltic House, Mount Stuart Square, Cardiff CF1 8DH. Comments should be sent by Friday 30 April to Mr. G. A. Fagan, Regional Development Division, Welsh Office, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF1 3NQ.

  Finally, I should like to place on record my personal admiration for the great achievements of the Chairman, Board and staff of the Corporation, in removing the legacy of dereliction in South Cardiff, transforming it into an area internationally acclaimed as a major development success and in the first rank of investment locations. I am confident that the successor arrangements I have announced today will secure the continued successful regeneration of Cardiff Bay.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage

  A breakdown of the costs, including a comparison with the estimates that formed the basis for the previous announcement on 24 April 1995, are in the table.

  £ million

  Estimated cost 1995

  Revised estimate 1999

  Change

  Barrage Structure

  134.0

  137.6

  +3.6

  Groundwater

  11.0

  11.2

  +0.2

  Birds Reserve

  5.7

  9.5

  +3.8

  Environment

  6.7

  6.2

  -0.5

  Legal Agreements

  7.5

  6.4

  -1.1

  Drainage

  10.6

  9.4

  -1.2

  Pre-1993 Expenditure

  15.4

  15.4

  0

  Additional Works

  0

  0.7

  +0.7

  Total

  190.9

  196.4

  +5.5

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Trainees (Tax)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if a young person on non-employed status training is liable for(a) income tax and (b) national insurance contributions. [78726]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Young people who are participating in employment and training programmes funded by the Department for Education and Employment, on a non-employed basis, are not liable for income tax on any training allowance. They are, however, able to attract a credited National Insurance Contribution through their benefit claim.

  Employment on Trial
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if a jobseeker's allowance claimant who has used Employment on Trial but returned to jobseeker's allowance can qualify again for Employment on Trial after 13 weeks of further unemployment; and whether such a claimant would subsequently be eligible for extended payments of housing benefit and council tax benefit. [78727]

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

  Letter from Peter Collins to Mr. John Healey, dated 26 March 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question about eligibility for Employment on Trial and its linked eligibility to extended payments of Housing Benefit and Council Tax benefit. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying in his absence.
  It may be helpful if I begin by confirming that Employment on Trial can only be considered when a jobseeker accepts a job having being unemployed for a period of at least 13 weeks. The job must be for at least 16 hours a week and the jobseeker must stay with the employer for at least four weeks, but no more than 12 weeks, to be eligible. Jobseeker's Allowance regulations, can qualify again for Employment on Trial after a further period of 13 weeks unemployment.
  To be eligible for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit extended payments, the jobseeker must have been continuously registered as unemployed and in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance for at least 26 weeks before starting work. If someone has a second Employment on Trial period after having been unemployed for the minimum of 13 weeks, they will not have had the period of unemployment of at least 26 weeks which is required to re-qualify for extended benefit payments.
  In such circumstances, people who do not re-qualify for extended benefits may still be eligible for Housing Benefit and Council Tax reductions. This will depend on the amount of earnings and the individual's personal arrangements. Advice can be sought through the local council offices of Employment Service adviser.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Carers
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how he intends to inform all of his Department's and Employment Service staff of the developing policies towards carers outlined in the National Strategy for Carers. [78549]

  Ms Hodge
  Earlier this month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the DfEE Board and the ES Chief Executive issued a message to all staff in the Department and the Employment Service letting them know what was happening on childcare and family friendly policies in DfEE and ES and emphasising their commitment to continue to make progress in this area. The message has been placed in the Library.

  Both the Department for Education and Employment and the Employment Service have a programme of work in hand which will provide support for carers. This includes developing family friendly policies to meet the needs of staff with a range of caring responsibilities. We will be taking account of the National Carers Strategy as we develop our own family friendly policies. We will be keeping staff informed of progress through a variety of internal communications.

  Departmental Staff (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin, at 1 March, of(a) his private office, (b) Government special advisers, (c) his Policy Unit and (d) staff in total. [78510]

  Mr. Mudie
  (a) Private office The ethnic origin of staff in the Department of Education and Employment's Private Office as at 1 March 1999 are as follows:

  Category

  Numbers

  Percentages

  White

  45

  85

  Black

  1—

  1—

  Asian

  1—

  1—

  Other

  1—

  1—

  1Represent numbers of 5 or less and percentages which correspond to numbers of 5 or less. This presentation of the statistics is in line with the DfEE code of practice on disclosure of ethnic origin to maintain confidentiality of the data for individuals.

  (b) Government special advisers The numbers of special advisers are so few in the Department that I should like to refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 39.

  (c) Policy unit This area is not applicable to the Department.

  (d) Staff in total My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will provide a response to this part of the question for all Departments.

  New Deal
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the proportion of under25-year-olds on the New Deal for Young People who sign off without known destination at the point when they have
  735
  to choose one of the four full-time options in benefit offices in the parliamentary constituencies of (a) Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend, (b) Copeland, (c) Islington, South and Finsbury, (d) Hamilton, South, (e) Sheffield, Brightside, (f) Kingston upon Hull, East, (g) Livingston, (h) Holborn and St. Pancras, (i) Blackburn, (j) Birmingham, Ladywood, (k) Redcar, (l) Derby, South, (m) Glasgow, Anniesland, (n) Edinburgh, Central, (o) North Tyneside, (p) Sedgefield, (q) Dunfermline, East, (r) Darlington, (s) Dewsbury and (t) Cardiff, South and Penarth. [78542]

  Percentage of young people leaving the New Deal Gateway for whom no known destination was recorded at the end of January 1999

  Constituency

  Unit of Delivery (UoD)

  Percentage

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East and Wallsend

  Newcastle, Gateshead and South Tyneside and Tyneside, North (covers 2 UoD)

  13

  Copeland

  Cumbria

  13

  Islington South and Finsbury

  Hackney and city

  10

  Hamilton, South

  Lanarkshire

  39

  Sheffield, Brightside

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  12

  Kingston-upon-Hull, East

  Hull

  15

  Livingston

  West Lothian

  12

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  Camden and North Islington

  18

  Blackburn

  East Lancashire

  34

  Birmingham, Ladywood

  Birmingham

  19

  Redcar

  Tees North and South

  25

  Derby, South

  North Derbyshire

  12

  Glasgow, Anniesland

  Glasgow

  15

  Edinburgh, Central

  Edinburgh, East and Mid Lothian

  17

  North Tyneside

  Tyneside, North

  13

  Sedgefield

  Tees North and South

  12

  Dunfermline, East

  Fife

  15

  Darlington

  Durham North and South

  12

  Dewsbury

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  18

  Cardiff, South and Penarth

  Cardiff and Value

  18

  Key Stage 2 SATs
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in 1998, 1997 and 1996 by(a) local education authority and (b) by type of school entered no pupils for the level 6 (i) Science, (ii) English and (iii) Mathematics paper in Key Stage 2 SATs test. [79245]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of schools that entered no pupils for the level 6 test in the Key Stage 2 National Curriculum Assessment tests broken down by subject and school type is shown in the following table.

  Number of schools with no children participating in the Key Stage 2 level 6 tests by subject and school type

  English

  Mathematics

  Science

  Maintained mainstream

  1996

  8,491

  10,506

  13,372

  1997

  9,107

  10,585

  13,228

  1998

  9,609

  10,835

  13,349

  Independent

  1996

  224

  289

  454

  1997

  326

  392

  566

  1998

  316

  394

  564

  Special

  1996

  866

  868

  867

  1997

  858

  862

  865

  1998

  862

  866

  868

  736
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is not available in the form requested and Government Statistical Service figures are produced for Employment Service Units of Delivery which cannot currently be disaggregated to individual constituencies. The following table is drawn from all those who leave the Gateway. It lists the constituencies, the Unit of Delivery each forms a part of and those leaving the Gateway with an unknown destination expressed as a percentage of all Gateway leavers. As more data are collected the numbers in this category may subsequently be revised downwards.

  Number of schools with no children participating in the Key Stage 2 level 6 tests by subject and school type

  English

  Mathematics

  Science

  All schools

  1996

  9,581

  11,663

  14,693

  1997

  10,291

  11,839

  14,659

  1998

  10,787

  12,095

  14,781

  Tables showing the maintained number of schools broken down by subject Local Education Authority have been placed in the Library.

  Grant-maintained Schools (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the grant-maintained schools in the London Borough of Wandsworth. [79057]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Grant-maintained schools in Wandsworth at March 1999 are as follows:

  Eardley GM Primary School

  Honeywell Junior School

  Honeywell Infant School

  Albemarle Primary School

  Ethelburga Primary School

  Hillbrook Primary School (GM)

  Graveney School

  737

  Burntwood School

  Elliott School (GM)

  Salesian College

  John Paul II School

  Southfields Community College (GM).

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to relieve the burdens on heads of small schools who teach full-time. [79078]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The funding arrangements for schools enable Local Education Authorities to take account of the particular needs of small schools. That will continue under the new funding arrangements.

  In addition, in the Green Paper teachers: meeting the challenge of change we proposed the establishment of a Small School Support Fund to help encourage small schools to invest in shared resources and working together. This recognises that sharing services can relieve hard-pressed heads of small schools.

  Teachers (Induction Year)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money will be available from the Standards Fund to cover the costs of introducing the induction year for newly qualified teachers; and if money will be made available directly to schools to cover the extra costs incurred. [79025]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: In 1999–2000 we have made available additional funds through the £251.5 million School Improvement Standards Fund grant to support activity designed to improve standards of pupil performance in order to meet school, local education authority and national targets. Support provided through this grant explicitly includes induction. We have made clear in the Standards Fund guidance (Circular 13/98) local education authorities' responsibilities to pass on adequate funds to schools in respect of such induction programme for newly-qualified teachers through devolvement of the School Improvement grant.

  Nutritional Standards
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what progress is being made with introducing national nutritional standards for school meals and healthy eating initiatives in maintained schools; [79323]

  (2) what guidance his Department issues to local education authorities regarding (a) the level of fat, (b) the proportion of sugar, (c) the amount of fibre, (d) the amount of fresh fruit and (e) the amount of fresh vegetables in the diet of schoolchildren; [79325]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the impact of the Government's best value approach to local government on nutritional standards for school meals; [79326]

  (4) to what nutritional guidelines local education authorities are required to adhere in delivering a school meals service to their school pupils. [79246]
  738
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The consultation period for Ingredients for Success has finished and the views we have received are helping us to draw up draft regulations setting out the standards. These will be the subject of a further consultation exercise. We are on target to introduce the new standards from Autumn 1999. Until then, local education authorities can decide their own nutritional guidelines for delivering a school meals service. The Government offer more general advice on healthy eating which applies to everyone over the age of five years. This is set out in The Balance of Good Health and Eight Guidelines for a Healthy Diet. We plan to issue further guidance to local education authorities and schools alongside the forthcoming regulations.

  When the new standards take effect, local education authorities which provide meals will be under a duty to ensure that the standards are met and that prospective suppliers, selected in line with the best value legislation, can comply with them.

  Staff Mileage Rates
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the mileage rates applicable from January 1999 to staff, indicating changes which have been made to encourage staff to switch from cars to public transport and other less polluting forms of travel. [79523]

  Mr. Mudie
  The standard motor mileage rates reimbursed to staff in the core Department are set out in the following table:

  Engine size

  Up to 4,000 miles

  Over 4,000 miles

  Up to 1500cc

  35p/mile

  20p/mile

  1501cc+

  45p/mile

  25p/mile

  The Department has strict rules to ensure that any travel on official business is only authorised when it is absolutely necessary and that cars may be used only when they are the most cost effective method of transport. The standard mileage allowances, which have stood without change since April 1997, are designed to discourage the use of cars with an engine capacity over 2,000cc.

  A close review of travelling arrangements is planned as part of the Green Transport initiative. This will explore whether more could be done to encourage the use of cycling and public transport.

  Medical Students
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many medical students are currently studying in the United Kingdom; and of these how many are of Afro-Caribbean origin. [79521]

  Mr. Mudie
  In 1997/98, the last year for which figures are available, there were 41,039 students studying medicine and dentistry in the UK of whom 118 were of Black Caribbean origin.

  Individual Learning Account
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress he has made with individual learning accounts and plans for their future. [80076]
  739
  Mr. Blunkett
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his statement on 9 March 1999,Official Report, columns 173–190, announced a long term incentive structure for learning accounts. This proposes significant progress towards achieving a sustainable national framework from next year. Through the substantial development work undertaken over the last few months we have also learned some important lessons about the design of learning accounts.

  Training and Enterprise Councils have led development by testing various options for accounts in 15 areas. These projects are reaching completion. We are also undertaking extensive market research to assess the reaction of individuals and other stakeholder to the design of learning accounts. We are consulting employers through projects led by National Training Organisations, and financial institutions about their potential involvement.

  From April 1999 individuals will be able to open learning accounts with Training and Enterprise Councils; if people invest £25 of their own money they will receive £150 to set up their account.

  I will be shortly publishing details of our progress on this work, and our plans for an national framework.

  Consultants (Hackney)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he has appointed consultants to help to improve education services in Hackney. [80074]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I am pleased to announce that we have appointed KPMG to work with Hackney LEA to secure urgent improvements in the education service in the light of the recent OFSTED/Audit Commission report.

  KPMG will start work immediately on specifications which can be used as a basis for contracting out certain LEA functions, as set out in the Secretary of State's letter on 19 March to the authority.

  In addition, KPMG will work with the LEA on revising its Education Development Plan and drawing up an Action Plan to address the other recommendations in the Ofsted Inspection report.

  The decision to appoint KPMG was made on the basis of quality of their proposals, the calibre of their personnel and overall value for money.

  Schools Adjudicators
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will announce the appointment of the adjudicators for schools organisation and admissions issues. [80075]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I announced the appointment of Sir Peter Newsam as Lead Adjudicator on 28 January 1999, and have now offered appointments to fifteen Adjudicators to work with him. They are Dr. Alan Billings, June Brown, John Clarke, Andrew Collier, Peter Downes, John Evans, Gordon Hainsworth, Ann Holt, Louise Kidd, Robert Lanwarne, Peter Neafsey, Professor David Newton, Dr Hilary Nicolle, Robin Squire and Anthony Webster. I am confident that their wealth of educational experience will ensure a professional and high quality service.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) sheep exported for slaughter, (b) sheep exported for further fattening, (c) sheep exported for breeding, (d) pigs exported for slaughter, (e) pigs exported for further fattening and (f) pigs exported for breeding were deemed unfit to travel in 1996, 1997 and 1998 by local veterinary inspectors when undertaking certification procedures of live animals destined for export; and if he will make a statement. [74325]

  Mr. Morley
  The figures available relate only to movements from Great Britain to other EU Member States and Northern Ireland. They relate to animals recorded by Local Veterinary Inspectors as being rejected as unfit when undertaking export certification procedures and are set out in the following table.

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Sheep

  for slaughter

  447

  146

  536

  for further fattening

  3,720

  6,796

  13,003

  for breeding

  17

  76

  13

  Pigs

  for slaughter

  —

  1

  —

  for further fattening

  —

  120

  113

  for breeding

  837

  1,396

  1,734

  These statistics are for Great Britain, they are provisional and may be subject to amendment.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the consultation document reviewing legislation on the live transport of animals to be issued. [78434]

  Mr. Morley
  We hope to undertake full public consultation as soon as possible, once the elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have taken place.

  Departmental Budget
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [77331]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]The information requested is set out in the following table:

  £ million

  Year

  Cash terms

  1998–99 prices

  1992–93

  701.2

  816.5

  1993–94

  754.0

  855.3

  1994–95

  705.1

  788.5

  1995–96

  767.0

  833.4

  1996–97

  880.4

  928.1

  1997–98

  709.3

  728.8

  1998–99

  768.8

  768.8

  1999–2000

  765.3

  746.6

  2000–01

  722.3

  687.5

  2001–02

  760.3

  706.0

  Potatoes
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to encourage retailers to promote sales of organically grown potatoes; and if he will make a statement. [78930]

  Mr. Morley
  Decisions on the sourcing of produce at retail level are matters for the commercial judgment of the various food retail companies. It is not the Government's role to interfere in such decisions. However, Regulations were laid before Parliament on 11 March which will significantly increase aid for fanners in England converting to organic practices. We expect that this will result in an increase in the area of land being farmed organically and potentially more organic produce available for sale to consumers.

  River Wye Conservation Area
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to draw up habitat regulations for the River Wye candidate special area of conservation. [78881]

  Mr. Morley
  The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2716) apply to all sites classified as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive and sites which have been put forward as candidate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the Habitats Directive from the point when they have been agreed as Sites of Community Importance. As a matter of policy, sites such as the Rive Wye which have been submitted to the European Commission as candidate Special Areas of Conservation, are treated as if the Regulations apply when considering new proposals.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to protect the traditional grasslands and meadows along the banks of salmon rivers, with particular reference to those of the River Wye candidate special area of conservation; and if he will make a statement; [78882]

  (2) which national authority is responsible for regulating agricultural activities in respect of spring salmon fishing within the catchment of the River Wye candidate special area of conservation; and if he will make a statement. [78880]

  Mr. Morley
  The Countryside Stewardship scheme provides payments for farmers to conserve and enhance traditional grassland and meadows along rivers. The scheme is targeted to meet national and local priorities such as the protection of species rich meadows. The River Wye has been identified as a target area for the scheme in 1999.

  MAFF is aware of the potential damage to salmon rivers and their spawning grounds which can occur as a result of sediment deposition caused by soil erosion. It has therefore recently produced a series of publications, including the revised Soil Code, aimed at helping farmers and growers to both protect the soil and prevent soil erosion.

  In addition, MAFF officials are working closely with the statutory environmental agencies to develop workable proposals for implementation of the "uncultivated land or semi-natural areas" provisions in the EU Directive on environmental impact assessment (EIA). Projects to bring
  742
  such land into intensive agricultural use will require an environmental statement if they are likely to give rise to significant environmental effects.

  Dairy Processing Industry
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the competitive position of the dairy processing industry in each EU member state. [790821

  Mr. Rooker
  None, but some information is available in publications such as "Europe's Dairy Produce 1998–99".

  Illegal Fishing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many skippers of fishing vessels have been convicted in the courts for offences relating to illegal fishing activities in each of the past three years; what was the average financial penalty imposed; if he will list the nationality of the(a) skippers and (b) vessels; if the catch and gear were confiscated in all cases; and if he will make a statement. [78402]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: Substantial resources are devoted to fisheries enforcement and appropriate action is taken where infringements are detected.

  Information about fisheries prosecutions in courts in England and Wales is set out in the following table:

  1996

  1997

  1998

  No. of skippers successfully prosecuted for one or more infringements1

  59

  46

  72

  Average financial penalty imposed2

  £4,663

  £2,878

  £2,126

  Nationality of skipper3 and vessels

  Vessel

  Vessel

  Vessel

  Belgian

  6

  5

  5

  Dutch

  2

  2

  0

  French

  3

  2

  5

  Lithuanian

  1

  —

  —

  Norwegian

  2

  —

  —

  Russian

  1

  —

  —

  Spanish

  1

  1

  —

  UK

  43

  35

  62

  Irish

  —

  1

  —

  Number of cases where gear and/or catch were confiscated

  Gear

  1

  0

  0

  Catch

  2

  2

  0

  1 Includes skippers who are owners

  2Calculated as the total value of penalties imposed (fines and any financial penalties to the value of the catch and/or gear (as appropriate) divided by the number of skippers prosecuted

  3Information on the nationality of skippers is not readily available

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the species of genetically modified plants used during his Department's research into the safety of genetically modified crops; how many such plants were used; and what was the duration of the tests. [79328]

  Mr. Rooker
  Genetically modified varieties of the following species of crops plants have all been used in MAFF-funded research to assess the safety of genetically
  743
  modified crops in the agricultural environment: sugar beet, maize, potato and oilseed rape. All of the projects have a duration of three years, in most cases the research is still on-going and for this reason it is not possible to say how many plants were used.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the independent scientists and institutions which his Department has consulted during their research into the safety of genetically modified crops. [79327]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following institutions have all carried out research for MAFF to assess the safety of genetically modified crops in the agricultural environment:

  AEA Technology Consultancy Services

  Central Science Laboratory

  Institute of Arable Crops Research, Broom's Barn

  Institute of Arable Crops Research, Rothamsted

  Imperial College and Queen Mary and Westfield College

  Institute of Freshwater Ecology

  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research

  Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology

  John Innes Centre

  Morley Research Centre

  National Institute of Agriculture Botany

  Scottish Agricultural College

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  University of Newcastle

  University of Surrey

  University of Wales.

  Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards the establishment of the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs; and if he will make a statement. [79855]

  Ms Moran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards the establishment of the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs; and if he will make a statement. [79988]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am pleased to announce the first appointment to this Committee. Professor Phillip Thomas, formerly Principal of the Scottish Agricultural College, has been appointed as Chairman of the new Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs. The full membership will be finalised within the next few weeks.

  I believe that the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs will play a key role in ensuring that animal feed is safe for both animals and the ultimate food consumer. Professor Thomas has considerable knowledge of agricultural issues and animal nutrition and has the personal qualities needed to build an effective committee drawing together new members from diverse background. I am therefore delighted that he has accepted the invitation to Chair this important new independent advisory committee.

  Covent Garden Market Authority
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the Covent Garden Market Authority to begin negotiations with market tenants concerning new leases. [79998]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  It is clear from the legislation which set up the Covent Garden Market Authority that is for the Authority to determine the length of leases offered to market tenants. I understand that the Authority will shortly begin negotiations on a basis which best meets the needs of the Market.

  We will shortly be beginning discussions with all those with an interest on the future of the market.

  Easter 1998 Floods
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress the Environment Agency has made in implementing its action plan in response to the independent report on the Easter 1998 floods. [79856]

  Mr. Morley
  The Chairman of the Environment Agency has provided a report of progress to date, copies of which are being placed in the House Libraries.

  In line with the priorities I set out last October, the Agency has completed the checking of flood warning dissemination plans for errors and omissions. It has also been elaborating, in conjunction with other operating authorities and the Ministry, its current general supervisory responsibilities for flood defence matters.

  In addition, the Agency has reported substantial progress with work scheduled for completion later in the year, including the development of a flood warning strategy and review of telemetry requirements. With financial support from the Ministry, the Agency has taken forward work on flood plain mapping, public awareness of flood warning arrangements and auditing the content of its current flood warning dissemination plans. The latter work is intended to lead to development of more standardised and effective plans.

  I am pleased to be able to report such positive progress and will ensure that the House is updated on future developments.

  Ms Moran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress the Environment Agency has made in implementing its action plan in response to the independent report on the Easter 1998 floods. [79987]

  Mr. Morley
  The Chairman of the Environment Agency has provided a report of progress to date, copies of which are being placed in the House Libraries.

  In line with the priorities I set out last October, the Agency has completed the checking of flood warning dissemination plans for errors and omissions. It has also been elaborating, in conjunction with other operating authorities and the Ministry, its current general supervisory responsibilities for flood defence matters.

  In addition, the Agency has reported substantial progress with work scheduled for completion later in the

  745
  year, including the development of a flood warning strategy and review of telemetry requirements. With financial support from the Ministry, the Agency has taken forward work on flood plain mapping, public awareness of flood warning arrangements and auditing the content of its current flood warning dissemination plans. The latter work is intended to led to development of more standardised and effective plans.

  I am pleased to be able to report such positive progress and will ensure that the House is updated on future developments.

  Fish Landings
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to amend the measures to control landings by vessels of 20 metres and over landing whitefish and shellfish into the United Kingdom. [79986]

  Mr. Morley
  Following representations from the fishing industry, the Fisheries Departments have looked at the designated port arrangements which came into operation on 5 January 1999 to see whether any changes should be made in advance of the wider review to be undertaken this Autumn.

  The main concern was over the lack of flexibility in providing notice of landings into non-designated ports and outside specified hours at designated ports. After careful consideration, we are allowing fishermen to give between 4 and 24 hours notice of landing and 4 to 72 hours notice where landings take place on a Sunday or Monday. The Department will also exercise discretion to waive the requirement to give 4 hours notice of landing in cases of force majeure or exceptional difficulty. Additionally, some adjustments are being made to the specified landing times for Brixham, Grimsby, Hull, Kinlochbervie, Lerwick, Lochinver and Oban and the specified landing location for Kinlochbervie.

  As part of the Autumn Review, the Fisheries Departments will consider the role which satellite monitoring will play in the operation of the designated port arrangements from 1 January 2000 and the provision of satellite position reports as an alternative to the prior notification of landings at non-designated ports and outside designated landing times at designated ports.

  The changes will take effect from 19 April and are being notified to the owners of all vessels of 20 metres and over.

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to issue a consultation paper on the management of the under10-metre fishing fleet. [79985]

  Mr. Morley
  A consultation paper on steps to improve the management of the under-10-metre fleet is being published today and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The paper is being sent to inshore fishermen and other interests for comment by 30 June this year.
  746
  The paper confirms that the Fisheries Departments are looking at ways in which the management of quota allocations for this part of the inshore fleet can be developed with the objective of avoiding early or mid-year closures of fisheries. At the same time, it seeks views from fishermen and other interests on the steps that might be taken to constrain fishing effort. Action is also planned to deter unlicensed fishing activity, to prohibit the transshipment of fish between under and over-10-metre vessels, and to deal with vessels which have been shortened, re-registered and relicensed as under-10-metre vessels, and subsequently re-lengthened to fish as over10-metre vessels without the necessary consequential adjustments to their registration and licence status.

  The under-10-metre fleet is an important and integral part of the UK fishing industry. Its members hold wide ranging and diverse opinions, often reflecting local needs and conditions. The consultation process, which is now under way, will help to draw together these views so that informed decisions on the way forward can be taken later in the year in partnership with the newly devolved administrations. It is expected that any change in the present quota management and licensing arrangements will take effect during the year 2000.

  Fishing Vessel Licensing
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he received the report of the working group announced by him in December 1997 to review the operation of the current fishing vessel licensing arrangements; and what action he is taking to implement its recommendations. [79984]

  Mr. Morley
  I have now received the Report of the Working Group, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. I am most grateful for the valuable contribution made by industry representatives in the preparation of this Report. They have had a difficult task to perform, balancing the complexities of the existing licensing arrangements against the wide ranging interests of fishermen throughout the UK.

  I am also pleased to note that the primary recommendation of the Working Group is that the overall structure of the present licensing regime should be retained. However, having weighed the arguments carefully, I have concluded that there are grounds for two small changes to the current structure, to upgrade moratorium licences and those Category B licences to which are attached individual species licences to full Category A status. These changes will take effect from 1 May 1999.

  Industry members of the Working Group have made a further 10 recommendations relating to various aspects of the licensing regime. These will be followed up by Fisheries Departments with one exception. The Group has recommended that there should be no further linkage between fishing licences and vessel safety certificates. This is a sensitive issue, and one which is the subject of on-going talks between Fisheries Departments and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions following the publication last autumn of the MAIB report into the sinking of the Pescado. I attach great importance to the safety of fishing vessels, and

  747
  believe that it is essential that all ways of improving vessel safety are fully explored.

  As a result of recommendations from the Group, three further changes to the present licensing rules will take effect from 1 April 1999. First, we are amending the provision whereby the capacity penalty may be waived where a vessel being replaced has been destroyed or permanently disabled as a result of fire, sinking or other accidental cause, so that it is no longer necessary for the age difference between the replaced and replacement vessel to be no more than seven years. The requirement for the capacity of the replacement vessel to be no greater than that of the replaced vessel (measured in VCUs) will remain.

  Second, with regard to licence entitlements, the deadline for submitting a valid licence application to Fisheries Departments is extended from two years to three years from the date that the entitlement first arose. This will apply to all existing licence entitlements as well as to entitlements created after 1 April 1999.

  Third, a new licence will be made available to owners of vessels fishing exclusively in external waters who have taken advantage of the arrangements announced on 31 March 1998 to replace the vessel with a vessel of larger capacity, without acquiring additional domestic water licences to cover the increase in capacity. This licence will allow them to continue to fish for non-TAC stocks in those parts of ICES Sub Areas VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV which lie outside Community waters. All other conditions relating to the licensing of the replacement vessel remain in force.

  Finally, I have noted the Group's offer to give further consideration to measures to improve the present capacity penalty arrangements, and to act as a forum for the discussion of licensing issues in the future. I welcome this recognition of the value of constructive engagement of the industry in developing policy and envisage that this forum will be used in future. We shall be reconvening the Group later this year to look at the scope for improving the capacity penalty arrangements.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the results of the pilot study commissioned by him on tuberculosis in cattle; and if he will make a statement. [80072]

  Mr. Rooker
  Following the Krebs report, it is clear that TB in cattle is a complex problem with a multiplicity of causes. A wildlife reservoir is a significant factor, but we need to be clear why it is that some farms suffer TB incidents while others in the same vicinity do not.

  In order to focus our efforts on understanding these processes, and to illuminate the detailed differences between farms, we are now launching the epidemiological investigation which was piloted on a small number of farms last November.

  A new database will be compiled from information collected from all farms which have suffered TB incidents, and from a number of other farms. The pilot
  748
  study has proved invaluable in enabling us to streamline the collection of this information. The public consultation held at the same time has produced a number of extremely helpful suggestions which we have also been able to take on board. Copies of the new questionnaire (form TB99) have been placed in the Library.

  As soon as there are enough entries in the database, we shall start to analyse the information to try and identify those factors which, either individually or in combination, are associated with TB incidents. Information on cattle movements, husbandry and farm management practices, wildlife on farms and the local environment will be analysed alongside other data, for example on local weather conditions and patterns of badger activity. The results will be used to develop new control strategies and will feed through into improved guidance for farmers.

  Import Sanctions
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has(a) made to the United States Government to secure a lifting of the import sanctions on United Kingdom products and (b) received from the Government of the United States of America following the imposition of trade sanctions on United Kingdom and European Union export products. [79157]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  As it is an external trade matter, responsibility for making representations to the United States over the EU/US banana dispute rests primarily with the European Commission, on behalf of the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have also made a number of representations direct to the US Administration in the course of this dispute. In particular, the Secretary of State summoned the US Ambassador on 4 March to protest about the unauthorised American action of withholding liquidation on a range of UK and EU export products. For its part, the United States has made known its views on the banana dispute direct to HM Government on a number of occasions, including on 4 March.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the monitoring of genetically modified crops. [74100]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: Monitoring is a key requirement for the safe release of GM crops. Monitoring enables the assumptions made in the risk assessment to be verified, and any unanticipated effects of GMOs to be identified. The legislation in place is quite clear: if evidence comes to light of harm to the environment, action must be taken to restrict or suspend the release.
  749
  All research releases of GM crops are monitored throughout the duration of consent, and in most cases post-trial monitoring is also required. This is carried out by the consent-holder on the basis of a monitoring plan which forms part of the application. At least once a year a monitoring report must be submitted to the Secretary of State, and a copy is placed on the statutory public register.

  To date, authorisations to place GM products on the market under Part C of Directive 90/220/EEC have not included conditions requiring monitoring. The Directive is currently being amended, to include the introduction of provisions for post market monitoring. The Government strongly support the amendment of the Directive to incorporate these requirements.

  Pending the revision of the Directive, EU Environment Ministers agreed in December 1998 to use the flexibility within the existing Directive to introduce with immediate effect new monitoring provisions, based on monitoring proposals in the draft amending Directive. These take into account direct and indirect, and immediate and delayed, effects of GMOs on the environment. Monitoring requirements would be set out on a case by case basis for each product authorisation and enforced by the relevant competent authority.

  On top of the new EC requirements, the UK Government have introduced additional measures for the monitoring of GM crops. I announced the agreement reached with the plant breeding industry for a managed development programme for herbicide tolerant GM crops with my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, before the House of Lords Select Committee on 21 October 1998.

  Farm-scale evaluations will ensure that first commercial plantings of herbicide tolerant GM crops will be strictly limited and monitored for ecological effects alongside comparable plantings of conventional crops. The Government are funding ecological studies of the diversity and abundance of plants and invertebrates associated with the management of GM and non GM crops to test whether there are any significant differences, initially over a four year period. This will assist consideration of what effects GM crops may have on higher species and our agricultural landscape. If ecological monitoring reveals adverse effects then appropriate action will be taken.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the commercial approval of genetically modified crops is required before the farm-scale field trials into their ecological effects begin. [78477]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: Such approval is not necessary for the evaluations to begin. The farm-scale evaluations of genetically modified oilseed rape which will start this year are covered by an approval for research or other purposes issued under Part B of Directive 90/220/EEC. This year the gm oilseed rape will remain the property of the seed company concerned and will be destroyed at harvest.

  The genetically modified maize, which is also to be studied, has Europe wide approval for general cultivation
  750
  issued under Part C of the Directive by the French Competent Authority on 3 August 1998. However the maize has not yet been entered onto the National List of Seeds in the UK and so the seeds may not be sold. This year the gm maize will remain the property of the seed company concerned and will be destroyed at harvest.

  In both cases experimental permits are also required for use of the herbicide, based on gluphosinate ammonium, on the genetically modified crop.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government will allow the sale of products for(a) human and (b) animal consumption from the farm-scale field trials into the ecological effects of genetically modified crops. [78476]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: All genetically modified crops produced this year from the farm-scale evaluations will be destroyed. A decision on the fate of products in subsequent years has not yet been taken, but any sale for human or animal consumption will be dependent on the product receiving all the necessary consents and authorisations.

  London Underground
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the level of Government grant to London Underground for the year 2000–2001. [78710]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government aimed to establish the public private partnership (PPP) for the Underground by 2000–01, removing the need for subsidy beyond that point. We have consistently made clear, that we will not be driven by an artificially imposed timetable. The Government's overriding objective is to secure the best value solution for London Underground. In the light of this, we are keeping funding for London Underground under review with London Transport and will take decisions in the context of LT's overall financial position.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to expand the capacity of London Underground. [78711]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The immediate priorities of the Government and London Transport are to see improved reliability and increased service levels on the existing network, plus the completion of the Jubilee Line Extension. Service levels increased by 12 per cent. over the past five years, and London Transport plans a further 8 per cent. increase in 1999–2000.

  In the longer term, capacity increases will be written into the performance specifications for contractors under the Public-Private Partnership, as signalling, trains and other key assets on individual lines reach the stage when they need replacing.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the forecast increases in fares on London Underground on a yearly basis, expressed as a percentage, for each of the years 2000 to 2005. [78712]
  751
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The forecast on which the financial modelling for the PPP has been based is for fares to rise by 1 per cent. above the rate of inflation in 2000 and 2001, and following that, for fares to rise by the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the public-private partnership for London Underground. [78890]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Good progress is being made, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced on 15 March 1999,Official Report, column 474, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas).

  Brown-field Sites (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many brown-field sites have been identified in the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement. [78935]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is being collected in Phase 1 of the National Land Use Database. Summary results will be published soon showing the amounts of previously developed land that may be available for redevelopment.

  Overloaded Vehicles (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions there were for the overloading of goods vehicles travelling in the Greater London area in 1998. [78891]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Enforcement officers from the Vehicle Inspectorate weighed 3,983 heavy goods vehicles in the Greater London area in 1998 and 234 prohibition notices for overloading were issued. A prohibition notice may include more than one offence and not all offences are necessarily reported for prosecution. The Inspectorate prosecuted 239 defendants for 270 overloading offences as a result of 135 prohibition notices which were reported for prosecution. This resulted in 263 convictions.

  Buses (New Delhi)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions from which

  Regeneration Expenditure by Government Office

  £million

  Government Office

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Forecast 1998–99

  Eastern

  14.6

  9.4

  8.5

  11.7

  11.3

  East Midlands

  75.6

  73.6

  58.8

  49.4

  29.7

  London

  320.8

  351.6

  336.5

  384.2

  314.8

  Merseyside

  104.6

  105.4

  101.8

  91.8

  79.6

  North East

  160.9

  151.8

  142.8

  146.2

  82.6

  North West

  148.8

  142.9

  142.4

  110.3

  80.1

  South East

  13.7

  9.9

  13.5

  24.8

  30.2

  South West

  42.7

  29.9

  30.4

  34.2

  21.8

  West Midlands

  176.1

  147.7

  141.6

  127.0

  92.2

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  161.5

  131.5

  128.6

  110.7

  91.5

  Total

  1,219.3

  1,153.7

  1,104.9

  1,090.3

  833.8

  752
  departmental budget the cost of providing New Delhi with the buses which he offered on his recent visit will be met; and how much they will cost. [79055]

  Mr. Prescott
  I made no offer of UK government funding for buses in New Delhi. However I offered to assist in any way I could in consideration by UK bus companies and the Indian authorities of ways of resolving the shortage of buses in the Indian capital.

  Council Houses
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many council houses were sold in each English shire county in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [78906]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: I have placed in the Library a table presenting the latest available information, reported by local authorities, on sales of council dwellings in each English shire county (as in existence before the creation of unitary authorities), for the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98. Not all authorities have provided full returns during these periods and so some totals for shire counties are incomplete, as indicated. Component figures for individual districts and unitary authorities are also presented.

  National Bus Pensions Trustees
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met the National Bus Pensions Trustees. [79075]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the trustees on 15 February 1999.

  Regeneration Programmes
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much funding was received by(a) Government offices for the regions, (b) English Partnerships and (c) the Rural Development Commission for regeneration programmes by region annually over the last five years. [79494]

  Mr. Caborn
  (a) The table gives the breakdown of regeneration funding by Government Office Region. The figures include expenditure on programmes which formed the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB), excluding English Partnerships. A forecast figure has been provided for 1998–99.
  753
  (b) The following table gives a breakdown of expenditure by English Partnerships regions. Before 1998–99, English Partnerships regions were not coterminous with those of Government Offices for the

  Spend by English Partnerships Regions, excluding Greenwich

  £ million

  Region

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Forecast 1998–99

  North East

  47.7

  34.3

  31.8

  46.9

  47.0

  North West

  52.9

  52.0

  50.4

  78.0

  92.0

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  43.8

  55.0

  40.5

  58.0

  53.0

  Midlands

  63.4

  58.0

  67.8

  55.6

  —

  East Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26.5

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  48.0

  South East

  10.3

  25.6

  36.0

  38.7

  9.9

  Eastern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4.6

  London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20.3

  South West

  7.3

  11.8

  8.5

  15.3

  38.0

  Total

  225.4

  236.7

  235.0

  292.5

  339.3

  (c) The following table gives figures for allocations made to the Rural Development Commission for regeration.The Rural Development commission's

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Forecast 1998–99

  England

  22.0

  23.6

  24.4

  25.5

  —

  North East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.6

  North West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.2

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.1

  East Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.1

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.7

  East Anglia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.8

  South East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.6

  South West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.0

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account will be taken of sparsity factors in determining the budgets for RDAs. [79495]

  Mr. Caborn
  Most of the funding for Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in 1999–2000 will be in respect of the regeneration programmes which they will inherit. The distribution of those resources is determined largely by statistical indicators of need. While sparsity is not an explicit factor, regeneration funding to rural development areas has been on the basis of a formula designed to reflect rural needs.

  For later years, resources will be allocated to RDAs in response to the corporate plans which they submit to the Secretary of State. Allocations will take account of the needs of the regions, the soundness of the RDAs' plans for tackling those needs and their performance in implementing their programmes.

  A review is currently underway of the Index of Local Deprivation, which is used in the distribution of the Single Regeneration Budget. It will cover all aspects of the Index, including the methodology and the indicators which make up the Index. The review will explore the possibility of introducing a measure of sparsity. However, the key consideration in determining the content of the
  754
  Region. Spend across the year is therefore not recorded by Government Office Region A forecast figure has been provided for 1998–99.

  region are not coterminous with those of the Government Offices. Regional figures for years before 1998–99 are not available. A forecast figure has been provided for 1998–99.

  Index is that it is a good measure of deprivation and is based on robust data which are available on a nationally consistent basis for small areas across England.

  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to exercise his powers under paragraph 8(5) of Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [79705]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has today issued a Dispensation under paragraph 8(5) of Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. The effect of the Dispensation is that, in certain circumstances, members of the boards of Regional Development Agencies are not debarred from participating in the deliberations or decisions of the Agencies in respect of matters in which they have a direct or indirect interest. The purpose of the Dispensation is to ensure that, so long as the requirements of propriety are met, members are not debarred from participating in discussion or decisions for which they have a relevant expertise. I have placed copies of the Dispensation in the Library.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he will give to the regional development agencies on their strategies. [79706]
  755
  Mr. Caborn
  Developing a new strategic vision for the English regions will be the first and most important task for the RDAs. I am today issuing statutory guidance to advise them on what Government expects of their strategies. The guidance has been prepared in consultation with all relevant Government Departments, in particular the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Employment. Its publication follows a wide public consultation launched last October. The comments we received enabled us to refine the guidance and I am grateful to all those who responded to our request for comments.

  The fundamental purpose of RDAs' strategies will be to improve regional economic performance and enhance regional competitiveness. The guidance stresses the need for RDAs to develop an integrated and sustainable approach in their strategies. The aim should be to tackle business competitiveness and the need to increase productivity and to address also the underlying problems of unemployment, skills shortages, inequalities, social exclusion and physical decay. By integrating economic, social and environmental issues in this way, the strategies will set the context for sustainable economic growth in the English regions.

  We want the RDAs' strategies to support and enhance national policies while addressing the particular needs of regions. In this way they will be able to inform and influence national Government's economic policies and to provide a framework for the delivery of national and European programmes.

  RDAs' strategies will provide focus and coherence not only to the RDAs' own work, but also to the work of their regional partners. The strategies should be the product of regional dialogue, and should identify priorities for action which regional partners can buy in to and help to deliver. Only through strong and effective partnership will the RDAs ensure that their strategies command support. Their relationship with the emerging regional chambers will be of particular importance.

  I am also giving to the RDAs today a supplementary package of non-statutory policy and programme guidance to underpin the statutory guidance on their strategies. This will include material on regeneration, competitiveness, skills, sustainable development, rural policy, equal opportunities and working with the voluntary and community sectors.

  Copies of all the guidance have been placed in the Library and will also be available on the DETR website.

  Millennium Village
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the dwellings at the Greenwich Millennium village will be available for habitation by 31 December 1999; and how many will be available to accommodate visitors to the Millennium Experience. [79544]

  Mr. Caborn
  Subject to the necessary planning consents, at least 90 dwellings should be under construction by 31 December 1999. It is hoped that the first residents will be able to move in early in 2000.
  756
  A Visitor Centre should be open from September 1999 which will include two show flats and information on all aspects of the Village.

  EU Transport Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 29 March; and if he will make a statement. [79768]

  Dr. Reid
  The Transport Council met in Brussels on 29 March. I represented the United Kingdom. The Council held policy debates on a number of legislative proposals. Council Conclusions were agreed unanimously on two other issues.

  Two of the items on the Council agenda for policy debate—proposals for a regulatory framework for the Community's railways, and a proposed package of measures designed to promote combined transport—had already been considered at previous meetings, while two—a draft Directive to regulate working time in the road transport sector, and a Commission proposal to amend the transport Trans-European Network guidelines to include ports and inter-modal terminals—had not been discussed in detail by the Council before. In each of these debates, once Member States had given their views the Presidency invited the Committee of Permanent Representatives to undertake further work, with the aim of enabling decisions to be taken at the June Council.

  Council conclusions were agreed on the position to be taken by Member States at the forthcoming Diplomatic Conference to modernise the Warsaw Convention on air carrier liability. The Council also agreed conclusions explaining its decision to delay adoption of the Regulation restricting the use of aircraft modified ("hushkitted") or re-engined to meet current noise standards. The Council agreed that the Regulation should be adopted, by the end of April, to allow time for discussions with affected third countries.

  The Commission gave a presentation of its recent Communication proposing a new European satellite navigation and positioning system, which it has named "Galileo". Delegations identified a number of questions for further consideration at an informal meeting of EU Transport Ministers in April.

  Under other business, the Commission reported on two legislative proposals on which it was working. One would amend the Second Directive on driving licences, to allow certain professional drivers who met the previous, but not the latest eyesight standards, to renew their licences. The other consisted of a replacement for the draft Directive on airport safety checks, on which the Council had reached a common position but which could not be adopted because of objections by Spain over its application to Gibraltar Airport. These proposals could not however be put forward formally until the new Commission was appointed.

  Water Abstraction
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what decisions he has reached about changes to the water abstraction licensing system in England and Wales. [79819]
  757
  Mr. Meacher
  Together with the Welsh Office, my Department will today publish a document entitled "Taking Water Responsibly: Government decisions following consultation on changes to the water abstraction licensing system in England and Wales". Copies are available in the Library of the House. Those decisions reflect the Government's intention that the abstraction authorisation system should contribute to sustainable development by protecting and, where possible, enhancing the aquatic environment whilst facilitating economic growth and higher living standards with minimum impact on water customers' bills. These decisions relate to changes which:provide the Environment Agency with additional tools for the conduct of its duty to manage water resources, whilst encouraging a voluntary approach to necessary changes by abstractors;
  increase the scope and public availability of information on water resources, enabling abstractors to review their present operations and plan ahead in an environmentally responsible manner;
  increase the system's flexibility, accountability and administrative efficiency, thereby increasing the ease of access to sustainable water resources for existing and new entrants to the sectors for which water abstraction is vital; and
  incorporate appropriate transitional arrangements, both for existing abstractors and for those who will be subject to controls for the first time.

  The package of changes will also provide improved scope for the application of economic instruments in relation to water abstraction which might emerge from research work currently in progress and the further consultation thereafter to which the Government are already committed.

  Many of the changes will be made within the existing legal framework, but the Government will bring forward the legislation necessary for other changes as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Waste Exports and Imports
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the policies in the United Kingdom Management Plan for Exports and Imports of Waste. [79820]

  Mr. Meacher
  Existing policies on exports and imports of waste are set out in the United Kingdom Management Plan for Exports and Imports of Waste, which came into effect on 1 June 1996. These reflect the long-standing UK commitment to self-sufficiency in waste disposal and the well-established proximity principle, namely that waste should be disposed of in, or as close as possible to, the country or origin.

  Since the Plan has been in force, there have been a number of changes at national and international level which have altered the arrangements for transfrontier shipments of waste. My Department, along with other Government Departments, therefore intends to begin a review of the plan in the near future. We would aim to produce a document for public consultation in the Autumn of 1999.

  Soil Conservation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the draft proposals of the committee chaired by Mrs. Pam Williams on soil conservation; and if he will make a statement. [79180]
  758
  Mr. Meale
  The Soil Strategy for England and Wales will be published for formal public consultation later this spring.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many acres of contaminated land are in urban areas. [78404]

  Mr. Meale
  The information requested is not currently available. When the new Contaminated Land regime under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is brought into force later this year, local authorities will have a duty to inspect their ideas to identify, and require the remediation of contaminated land which is causing unacceptable risks, assessed in the context of the current use of the land. Part IIA will also place a duty on the Environment Agency to prepare a periodic statistical report on contaminated land, based on information produced by local authorities.

  Vacant Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many acres of vacant land in urban areas are currently in(a) private ownership and (b) public ownership. [78405]

  Mr. Meale
  This information is not currently held centrally. My Department is, however, developing phase 1 of the National Land Use Database, which will provide estimates of vacant previously developed land in urban areas by public and private ownership.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many acres of public vacant land remain on the land registers; and when the registers were last updated. [78406]

  Mr. Meale
  All requirements for local authorities, government bodies and other public bodies to maintain and publish registers of unused and underused land were cancelled in 1996. The information requested is consequently not available. However my Department is currently developing the National Land Use Database Phase, collecting information on vacant previously developed land including that in public ownership.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his advisers and (d) his PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79650]

  Mr. Prescott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168. The requirements of the Ministerial Code also apply to Parliamentary Private Secretaries when attending any meetings in an official or semi-official capacity.
  759

  Regional Eurostar Services
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish a response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's fifth report of Session 1998–99 into Regional Eurostar Services (HC89); and if he will make a statement. [79853]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Government welcome the Committee's report which contained a considerable number of detailed recommendations which have been invaluable in drawing up the terms of reference for the Government's independent review. We are today publishing our formal response which has been laid before the House.

  Transport Safety
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to consult bodies with an interest in transport safety, as part of the review announced in the Transport White Paper. [79854]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department is today publishing a consultation document seeking views on arrangements for transport safety. Nothing is more important than safety, and I am determined that we will continue to work towards the highest possible standards of safety in transport. Part of that means making sure that transport safety is organised in ways which are modern, effective and efficient, and which are capable of delivering continued improvements.

  The results of the consultation will form a key input to the review of transport safety arrangements which we announced in our transport White Paper.

  The review is concerned, not with specific safety strategies or measures, but with the principles which should govern the organisational and institutional framework for ensuring safe transport. In our consultation we are asking for views on that, and on the relationship between accident investigations and inquiries, and the pursuit of legal proceedings.

  The consultation document is being distributed widely to bodies with an interest in transport safety, and is also available on the Internet. The closing date for responding is 14 June 1999. Copies of the document have been placed in the Library, and are available in the Vote Office.

  Airport Transport Forums
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish guidance on the setting up of airport transport forums, announced in the New Deal for Transport White Paper; and if he will make a statement. [79994]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government's White Paper on the Future of Transport "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" (Cm 3950) indicated that all airports in England with scheduled services should establish Airport Transport Forums and prepare Airport Surface Access Strategies to feed into Local Transport Plans. The Forums should have three specific objectives:to draw up and agree challenging short and long-term targets for increasing the proportion of journeys to the airport made by public transport;
  760
  to devise a strategy for achieving those targets, including green transport plans to cover commuting and business travel for all employees based at airports; and
  to oversee implementation of the strategy.

  Draft guidance on the setting up of Airport Transport Forums and on the scope, content and handling of Airport Surface Access Strategies has been published today as a consultation documents, and copies have been placed in the House Libraries. We propose that those airports which have 1,000 or more scheduled passenger air transport movements per annum should be required to set up Forums. It has been agreed that the requirements to set up Forums, and the guidance, will apply to Wales as well as to England. Separate guidance will be published in respect of Scotland.

  A separate good practice guide with illustrations of surface access improvements which have been implemented at airports is in preparation and will be published alongside the final guidance note later in the Spring.

  Rating Revaluation
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will continue to prescribe the rateable value of some industries at the 2000 rating revaluation; and if he will make a statement. [79995]

  Mr. Meale
  Most ratepayers have their rateable values assessed using conventional methods by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) and the Assessors in Scotland. However, this has to date been problematic for certain industries. Instead, these industries have had their rateable values prescribed by Order by the respective Secretaries of State. The industries currently in prescribed assessment are:

  Electricity generators

  National Grid

  Regional Electricity Companies

  British Gas Transco

  Railtrack

  London Underground

  the water companies

  large docks and harbours.

  The VOA and the Scottish Assessors' Association have been examining whether it would be feasible for these industries to have their rateable values assessed by conventional methods. Although they have concluded that conventional assessment would be possible, the results would be far from clear. Conventional assessment would lead to significant differences of opinion over possible values which in many cases, would be properly resolved by only the courts. The level of uncertainty is significantly above that which could be expected from most properties. Resolving this uncertainty could take several years.

  Therefore, the Secretary of State has, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, concluded that the industries currently subject to prescribed assessment will continue to have their rateable value prescribed by the respective Secretaries of State for the 2000 revaluation. We will begin discussions with the industries in prescribed

  761
  assessment with a view to agreeing their new rateable values for the 2000 revaluation. In Scotland, by 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Prescribed assessment is not an ideal way of setting rateable values but it is the best available at this time. We will continue to work towards ending prescribed assessment in the future.

  Flooding (Huntingdonshire)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to Huntingdonshire district council under the Bellwin scheme for costs incurred following the severe flooding on the weekend of 9 to 12 April 1998. [79996]

  Mr. Meale
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified in the case of Huntingdonshire District Council given the exceptional nature of the floods and the damage caused. A scheme will, therefore, be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to the authority to cover 85 per cent. of eligible costs above a threshold and which have been incurred by the authority in dealing with the flooding.

  Plant and Machinery Rating
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the report of the second Wood Committee on the Rating of Plant and Machinery currently subject to prescribed assessment; and if he will make a statement. [79997]

  Mr. Meale
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, published the report of the Second Wood Committee as a Command Paper which has been laid before the House today. The Committee examined the Rating of Plant and Machinery in Industries currently subject to Prescribed Assessment.

  The Committee has made a series of recommendations which we will consider in time for the 2000 revaluation in England, Scotland and Wales. The Government would welcome views on the report before considering changes to the plant and machinery regulations.

  The Committee has recommended that a tools of the trade exemption should apply to generating plant and machinery belonging to the power generators, although such plant which was in the nature of a building or structure should continue to be rated. If accepted, this exemption would not extend to many Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants which are used in wider industry. The Government are committed to encouraging CHP technology and, therefore, will consider extending the tools of the trade exemption to all CHP technology if the Committee's recommendations are accepted.

  The Committee also recommended that sewers be brought into rating. We do not intend to end sewers' exemption in 2000: it would create a significant and unexpected burden on the water industry and would cause considerable uncertainties in the periodic review of water prices currently being undertaken by the Director General of Water Services and similar work in Scotland.
  762
  The Government would welcome views on the report by 14 May 1999.

  Planning Procedures
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he intends to proceed following the response to the improving planning appeal procedures consultation paper published in August 1998. [79999]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am pleased by the very positive reaction to the proposals in this consultation paper. The Government's objectives of streamlining appeal procedures and speeding up planning decisions, while safeguarding public participation and the fairness, openness and quality of decision-making, were widely welcomed. All the proposals were supported by a majority of the 122 respondents and there were also a number of helpful suggestions for improving individual proposals which are reflected in our final conclusions. I am grateful to all those who took the trouble to comment. Their views have been given careful consideration in deciding how to proceed.

  The changes we have made to our published proposals are designed to introduce a measure of flexibility into the timescales proposed while delivering real reductions in the overall time taken to handle appeals whether by written representations, hearings or inquiries. It is incumbent upon all parties to co-operate with the Planning Inspectorate in introducing greater discipline into the procedures and observe the deadlines which are set.

  I am putting in the Library a list of our proposals, showing the changes made following consultation. The Department is now preparing the necessary statutory instruments and guidance to implement the changes. As indicated in the consultation paper, we shall monitor the modified procedures, and review their effectiveness after the first 12 months of operation. If necessary, we shall consult on further measures to ensure compliance with procedures in the light of that experience.

  Planning Inspectorate Agency
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what performance targets he proposes to set for the Planning Inspectorate Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [80000]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have set challenging Key Performance targets for the Planning Inspectorate for 1999–2000. These underline the importance I attach to the role of the Inspectorate in helping to improve the efficiency of the planning system as part of our drive for better public services. Business and the community want a system which combines good quality decision-making with speed and certainty. I have therefore set the Inspectorate especially demanding targets for handling planning appeals and these will become even more demanding in subsequent years. It is vital, however, that parties to the appeals process play their part by co-operating with the Inspectorate in meeting deadlines and agreeing dates offered for inquiries.
  763
  The targets for 1999–2000 are as follows:

  Timeliness

  (a) 80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by written representations to be determined in 18 weeks;

  (b) 80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by hearings to be determined in 24 weeks;

  (c) 80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by inquiries to be determined in 36 weeks;

  (d) to provide an Inspector for local plan inquiries in at least 80 per cent. of cases on the date requested by a local authority provided that the objection period has ended and at least 6 months' notice has been given.

  (e) to deliver 90 per cent. of Inspectors' reports on local plan inquiries to local authorities according to timescales agreed under service agreements.

  Financial
  Unit costs of planning appeals decided by written representations not to exceed £839;

  Efficiency
  Generate a 3 per cent. improvement in the use of running costs compared with 1998–99.

  Quality
  To satisfy the Advisory Panel on Standards, and thus the Secretary of State and National Assembly for Wales, annually and following rigorous monitoring that the quality of all the Inspectorate's work is being maintained at a high standard, with 99 per cent. of its casework free from justified complaint.

  Information and Guidance
  To carry out a customer survey of satisfaction with the inquiry and hearing processes for dealing with planning appeals, including the quality of Inspectors' reasoning in reaching a recommendation/decision.

  Future Targets for Appeals
  The timeliness targets for appeals represent the first step towards achieving the very significant improvements in handling times for 2001–02 set out in the Public Services Agreement for DETR. These are that the Inspectorate should decide:

  80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by written representation within 16 weeks

  80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by hearings within 22 weeks

  80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by inquiries within 30 weeks

  I am also setting the Inspectorate provisional targets for handling planning appeals for the interim year 2000–01. These are to decide planning appeals as follows:

  80 per cent. by written representations within 17 weeks

  80 per cent. by hearings within 23 weeks

  80 per cent. by inquiries within 33 weeks.

  I shall confirm the planning appeals timeliness targets for 2000–01 in the light of performance in 1999–2000.

  Flooding (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council under the Bellwin scheme for costs incurred following the severe flooding between 25 October and 1 November 1998. [80061]

  Mr. Meale
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified in the case of Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council given the exceptional nature of the floods and the damage caused. A scheme will, therefore, be established under section 155 764
  of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to the authority to cover 85 per cent. of eligible costs above a threshold and which have been incurred by the authority in dealing with the flooding.

  Haringey
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent financial arrangements he has made to assist the London Borough of Haringey. [80062]

  Mr. Meale
  Haringey has serious short-term financial difficulties brought about by a variety of circumstances which have combined to put their revenue budget under severe pressure. After having regard to all the relevant factors, and in view of the fact that some of the Council's circumstances could not reasonably have been foreseen and planned for by the authority, I have concluded that Haringey should receive some form of assistance in order to protect the delivery of local statutory services.

  The most appropriate form of assistance is the offer of a Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA) of £1.3 million in 1998–99. This, with a capitalisation direction, will allow the Council to spread some of its costs in 1999–2000 over a number of years and so bring its budget back to a manageable level. It will be for Haringey in the first instance to decide which costs they intend to finance through the SCA.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements he is making to ensure that the Greater London Authority can discharge its responsibilities. [80063]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Subject to the passage of the GLA Bill now before Parliament, the GLA will assume its responsibilities on 3 July 2000. We have commissioned consultants, KPMG, to advise on transition arrangements for the GLA. KPMG have now completed their report and copies are being placed in the Library. Among their conclusions, KPMG recommend that a dedicated Transition Team be established under the leadership of a Head of Transition and that the latter should be recruited as a matter of urgency.

  The Audit Commission has kindly agreed to second to my Department Dr. Robert Chilton, Director Local Government Studies at the Commission to be the Head of Transition. Dr. Chilton, who will report to Ministers through the Director of the Government Office for London, will work closely with my officials to plan a smooth transition for the GLA and to ensure that the necessary financial controls and administrative machinery are in place. He will also be available, should the Authority so decide, to act as statutory Chief Administrative Officer of the Authority and is in a position to make a permanent appointment. I am most grateful to the Audit Commission for making this assistance available. It will be for the GLA, once elected, to make its own arrangements for permanent appointments to senior positions.
  765

  London Taxi Fares
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about London taxi fares. [80065]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Secretary of State is making an Order increasing London taxi fares by 4.32 per cent. on average with effect from Saturday 24 April 1999. The new tariff will incorporate a minimum charge of £1.40 (including a hire charge of £1.00) for the first 438 metres (479.2 yards) or 96 seconds. The rate will then be 20p for every 219 metres (239.6 yards) or 48 seconds until the fare exceeds £10.00, and 20p for each 146 metres (159.7 yards) or 32 seconds thereafter.

  In addition, the Order will increase the supplements for evenings, nights, weekends and public holidays, which have not been increased since the early 1980s. The supplement for hirings during weekday evenings and during the day on Saturdays will therefore go up from 40p to 60p; the supplement for night-time hirings on weekdays and hirings around Sundays and public holidays will increase from 60p to 90p; and the supplement for hirings over the Christmas and New Year period will increase from £2.00 to £3.00.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what performance targets have been set for the Ordnance Survey Department and Executive Agency in 1999–2000. [80066]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following performance targets have been set for Ordnance Survey in 1999–2000:

  1. To achieve a revenue target of £83.4 million (excluding the National interest in Mapping Service Level Agreement);

  2. To achieve a return on sales (excluding the National Interest in Mapping Service Level Agreement) of not less than 5 per cent.;

  3. To ensure that, by 31 March 2000, 98.8 per cent. of existing major detail is surveyed and available to customers in the National Topographic Database at any one time. The target will increase to 99 per cent. by the year 2001;

  4. In order to provide a quality service to customers, to despatch 92 per cent. of small scale products within 5 working days.

  These targets have been reviewed in the light of Ordnance Survey's change to a Trading Fund from 1 April 1999. They demonstrate the Agency's continuing commitment to customers whilst increasing the emphasis on key financial monitors.

  Valuation Tribunals
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the conclusion of the financial management and policy review of valuation tribunals. [80067]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House copies of the FMPR report of Valuation Tribunals. The report has also published on the DETR's web site.

  This is the second FMPR of the VT service. It covers the full range of judicial, management and procedural issues. It takes account of extensive consultations with the VT service, the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), local authorities and the private sector.
  766
  We have decided that VTs should remain lay, independent and local bodies. A move to the private sector is considered inappropriate for such quasi-judicial bodies. A national agency is also considered inappropriate at the moment, although an efficiency scrutiny might consider the scope for rationalising jurisdictions and support services for a range of similar services.

  A new Management Board, supported by a new national office, is needed to set standards and spread best practice within the service. To raise the quality of the service requires a review of membership levels, new arrangements for their appointment, and a requirement for new members to attend appropriate training and to provide written certain undertakings.

  Significant savings are to be made by the establishment of 14 administrative units to replace the 38 offices which existed at the start of the review. New staffing arrangements are needed to support the new administration structure. Consultants have recently been appointed to bring forward detailed proposals.

  Effective administration needs the continued modernisation of the VT IT system, and better use of IT for communicating with the 'outside world'.

  The appeal procedures need reform to reduce delays, improve information and guidance to rate and tax payers, and to address the existing culture of brinkmanship. The review recommends more effective incentives and a simpler system. These proposals are the subject of a further consultation paper, which I am also publishing today (copies of which have also been placed in the House Libraries and on the DETR's web site).

  The aim is to implement recommendations on judicial management and staffing aspects by 1 April 2000. Changes to office accommodation and the establishment of the 14 administrative units will be phased in over a longer period. New appeal procedures need to be developed in time for appeals arising from the non-domestic rating revaluation on 1 April 2000, though implementation may need to be phased.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he intends to take in response to the consultation exercise for amending the Special Waste Regulations 1996 and Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. [80068]

  Mr. Meacher
  The proposals set out in the consultation paper issued by my Department, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office on 2 April 1998 were generally welcomed by both industry and the Environmental Agencies. Having analysed the responses, we intend to proceed with the proposed amendments to the Special Waste Regulations, together with some further minor changes to the format of the consignment note and to the schedule under which carrier's notify movements of multiple loads—aimed at assisting monitoring and enforcement. In response to representations from business, we also intend to amend the Regulations to enable registers of Special waste to be retained in exceptional cases at sites other than those from which special waste has been removed, subject to consent by the local Environment Agency. Two consequential changes will also be made. First, to update references in the
  767
  Regulations to the latest versions of the Approved Supply List and Approved Classification and Labelling Guide. Secondly, the Government's powers to set fees in respect of Special waste will be repealed, in order to enable the Agencies to utilise powers to set charges under the Environment Act 1995.

  A number of respondents to the consultation exercise said that lower fees should apply to wastes being recycled or recovered. Although it is not feasible to consider this issue as part of the current exercise, the Environment Agencies will in the longer term be reviewing the fees for Special waste in the context of making a charging scheme. This would be subject to consultation and subsequent approval by the Government. Later this year, it is also intended to undertake a general review of the Regulations.

  Following advice from the Environmental Agencies, we also intend to proceed with a small number of adjustments to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 aimed at encouraging the recycling or recovery of Special waste. Exemptions from licensing will be provided, subject to various conditions, to enable:

  i. storage of up to 23,000 litres of unused (waste) household paint pending re-use;

  ii. laundering of up to 250 tonnes of waste textiles contaminated with oil, together with associated storage;

  iii. storage of up to 5 tonnes of nickel cadmium or nickel metal hydride batteries and up to 10 tonnes of lead acid batteries pending recovery;

  iv. storage of up to 23,000 litres of silver-bearing waste from printing or photographic processing pending recovery.

  The consultation paper additionally proposed that the existing exemption for operations recovering silver from waste should be extended to include Special waste. There was very little support for this proposal and strong arguments against it which we have discussed with the Environment Agency in the context of ensuring proper protection for the environment and human health. As a consequence we have decided not to proceed. The Government have been considering the introduction of regulations to set standards for oil storage installation on which an announcement is planned later this year. The proposal in the consultation paper to amend the exemption for temporary storage of Special waste to include a separate limit for waste oil will be considered in the context of that announcement.

  A further announcement will be made when the amending Regulations for England are ready to be laid before Parliament. As a devolved matter, the amendments for Scotland and Wales will be for consideration by the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

  Small Cetaceans
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he intends to take to minimise disturbance to small cetaceans in accordance with the United Kingdom's obligations under the agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North seas. [80069]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have today published two sets of guidelines aimed at minimising disturbance to cetaceans in UK waters. The first is aimed at those involve in whale watching, both tour operators and members of the public 768
  who participate in tours; the second at those involved in recreational activities in UK coastal waters who may incidentally encounter cetaceans.

  The Government are committed to protecting all species of whales, dolphins and porpoises and to maintaining healthy population levels for our and future generations. Where guidelines do not already exist we hope that this initiative will stimulate the development of locally targeted codes of conduct based on the over-arching principles contained in these guidelines.

  Works Notice Powers
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the works notice powers to come into force. [80070]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have laid before the House new regulation, the Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 1999, which will enable new powers for the Environment Agency to serve works notices on polluters or potential polluters to be brought into force.

  The works notice powers will enable the Environment Agency to serve a notice on polluters or potential polluters requiring them to carry out works or operations to remedy or prevent water pollution. They represent a more direct regulatory measure for the Agency than its existing powers to carry out anti-pollution works itself and then recover costs from the person responsible.

  Works notices provide an additional regulatory goal for the Agency that will help prevent pollution incidents which in the past have occurred when a potential polluter has failed to respond to an informal approach.

  The Regulations are largely procedural and make provision for the content of work notices, appeals against works notices, compensation for rights of entry and entry on to the Agency's public pollution control registers of particulars relating to works notices.

  The Regulations have been subject to wide public consultation. In addition to comments on procedural matters some concerns were raised about the service of works notices in relation to other regulatory regimes, in particular the contaminated land powers. As a result the Environment Agency has set out its policy on the use of the works notice powers in a statement which my Department has agreed. Essentially, where other powers apply, for example the contaminated land regime, action would be taken under those powers.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Staff (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide a breakdown by ethnic origin and grade of (1) the judiciary, (2) members of tribunals and (3) the magistracy. [79049]

  Mr. Hoon
  The available information is as follows: (1) The Judiciary: the figures for the ethnic origin of judges are believed to be correct, but as the ethnic origin of candidates for judicial office was not sought before October 1991, the data may be incomplete. (see table).
  769
  2. Tribunals: this information is only available for the Employment Tribunal and Social Security Appeals Tribunal where it has been collected on the same basis as for the judiciary since October 1991. It is set out below. Information in respect of other tribunals has only been collected on a consistent basis since 1998. (see table).

  Table 1. The Judiciary Judges of ethnic minority origin as at 1 March 1999

  Post

  Black

  Asian

  Other non white

  Total

  % Ethnic minorities

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  Lords Justices of Appeal

  —

  —

  —

  35

  —

  High Court Judges

  —

  —

  —

  98

  —

  Circuit Judges

  —

  3

  2

  562

  0.9

  Recorders

  5

  4

  4

  879

  1.5

  Assistant Recorders

  5

  5

  4

  385

  3.6

  District Judges

  2

  7

  3

  741

  1.6

  Stipendiary Magistrates

  —

  2

  —

  93

  2.2

  Acting Stipendiary Magistrates

  2

  —

  2

  96

  4.2

  Note

  The statics have only been recorded since October 1991

  Table 2. Tribunals Employment Tribunal and Social Security Appeals Tribunal Chairmen of ethnic minority origin as at 1 March 1999

  Post

  Black

  Asian

  Other non white

  Total

  % ethnic minorities

  Chairman of Employment Tribunals (full time)

  1

  3

  —

  84

  4.8

  Chairman of Employment Tribunals (part time)

  2

  1

  1

  205

  2.0

  Full time Chairman of Social Security Appeals Tribunals

  1

  —

  1

  54

  3.7

  Part time Chairman of Social Security Appeals Tribunals

  4

  6

  1

  532

  2.1

  Note:

  The statistics have only been recorded since October 1991

  Table 3. Magistrates in post at May 1997 Lay Magistrates (excluding the Duchy of Lancaster): Analysis of the Public Appointments and Equal Opportunities Survey— as at 12 May 1997

  Post

  Black

  Asian

  Other non white

  Total

  % ethnic minority

  Magistrates in post as at May 1997

  374

  465

  187

  23,461

  4.4

  Note:

  There were 25,124 Lay Magistrates in post (excluding the Duchy of Lancaster at May1997.1,663 did not return their questionnaire

  Task Force
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of State Lord chancellor's Department if he will list all those task forces and policy review with external members

  Reviews and Task Forces

  Review/Task force

  Other subsidiary committee

  Review of Enforcement of Civil Court Judgments

  Panels of Experts:

  General cross-cutting issues

  Oral examinations/judgment summons

  Attachment of Earnings/Charging Orders/Garnishee Orders

  Warrants and Writs

  Quality Task Force

  Note:3 working groups set up

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of State Lord chancellor's Department if he will list all those task forces and policy review with external members established by his Department since May 1997(a) their dates of establishment, (b) those which have issued final
  770
  3. Magistracy: complete information is not readily available. It is held on individual records and not yet collated centrally. It could therefore only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, an ethnicity questionnaire was sent out to Lay Magistrates in England and Wales (excluding the Duchy of Lancaster) in May 1997 to which there was a 93 per cent. response rate. The details are set out in the table.

  established by his Department since May 1997 which have set up (a) sub-group, (b)working parties and (c)
  other subsidiary committees. [79261]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  reports and their dates of publication, (c) those which have been terminated and their dates of termination and (d) for those bodies still in existence, expected reporting and termination dates. [79273]
  771
  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Reviews and Task Forces

  Review/Task Force

  Date of establishment

  Anticipated Report and Termination Date

  Review of the Lord Chancellor's Department Funding for Marriage Support and Research Services

  November 1998

  Report due 31 March 1999 termination due 31 March 1999

  Review of Enforcement of Civil Court Judgments

  March 1998

  First report due June 2000 termination unknown

  Quality Task Force

  February 1999

  Expected to report to the Lord Chancellor by end of 1999 termination due end 1999

  Review of Crown Office List

  March 1999

  Expected to report to the Lord Chancellor by end 1999 termination due end 1999

  Bus Employees
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how much his Department spent on legal fees including those of the BEST trustees relating to the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust,(a) in total and (b) in connection with the High Court hearing of 1 March. [79541]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

  HM Land Registry Key Performance Indicators and Targets 1999–2000

  Indicator Financial

  Target

  Percentage return on average capital employed1

  6%

  Efficiency

  Cost per unit in real terms

  £25.13

  Cost per unit in cash terms2

  £29.89

  Service First Standards Speed

  Percentage of office copy and official search applications handled within two working days and

  98%

  Percentage of office copies and official searches processed in three working days

  100%

  Percentage of all registrations processed within in 25 working days3

  80%

  Accuracy

  Percentage of registrations processed free of any error

  98.5%

  Percentage of customers responding to the Annual Survey who perceive the accuracy of registrations to be excellent or good

  Better than 90%

  Delivery of Electronic Services

  Percentage of dealings (key customer interactions) capable of electronic delivery

  30%

  Percentage of titles in the Land Register capable of electronic delivery

  95%

  Percentage of titles plans in the Land Register capable of electronic delivery

  60%

  Number of scanned pages of filed documents (millions).

  8.5

  1ROCE below 6% reflects agreement with HM Treasury to apply surplus income generated in 1993–95 (when ROCE exceeded 25% in each year) to fee reductions in 1996–99. The ROCE for 1999–2000 is subject to confirmation by HM Treasury.

  2The inflation factor for the cost per unit in cash terms is derived from the GDP indices announced by HM Treasury on 9 March 1999.

  3 Denotes the aim in the Registry's Statement of 'Service First' Standards which are detailed in Annex C of the Business Plan 1999–2000.

  Note:

  Fuller details of the agency's targets are given in its Business Plan,which is available from Her Majesty's Land Registry.

  Public Record Office Key Performance Indicators and Targets 1999–2000

  Indicator

  Target

  1. Efficiency

  Unit costs of key activities:

  (a) selecting and preserving the public records

  £107.64 per metre: i.e. limit increase to 5%

  (b) giving access to records

  £3.82 per information transaction: i.e. reduce by 50%

  Backlog of records in departments reported as being over 30 years old and awaiting review.

  Process backlog by:

  (a) reviewing 480 metres

  (b) preparing for review an additional 1,000 metres

  Provision of acceptable storage conditions i.e. meeting the preservation and environmental standards recommended by BS 5454: 1989

  Recommendations for storage and exhibition of archival documents (BSI, 1989).

  Increase the proportion of records stored to the standards from 88.29% to 88.45%

  772

  Performance Targets
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the key performance targets for Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office, the Public Trust Office and the Court Service executive agencies for 1999–2000. [79852]

  Mr. Hoon
  The following tables set out the key performance targets that the Lord Chancellor has set for, Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office, the Public Trust Office and the Court Service for 1999–2000.
  773

  Public Record Office Key Performance Indicators and Targets 1999–2000

  Indicator

  Target

  Management efficiency in running support services and projects.

  (a) reduce the level of staff sick absence in 1999 by 4.3%

  (b) increase the proportion of invoices paid within thirty days from 97.5% to 99%

  2. Quality of Service

  The achievement of Charter Standards (a) Charter Standard targets for answering letters, delivering documents to users and reprographic services

  Achieve 98.5% against the targets.

  (b) User satisfaction surveys

  Achieve assessment of 'excellent' on 56% of survey forms returned.

  3. Effectiveness

  Performance in achieving specified milestones towards strategic objectives in the light of emerging government policies.

  (a) increase revenue by 3% against the 1998–99 target

  (b) make our lists of records available on the Internet by 31 October

  (c) complete and disseminate three quality standards to guide public record bodies on the selection of records in line with the new Acquisition policy

  Note:

  Full details of the Office's targets are given in its Business Plan, which is available from the Public Record Office.

  Public Trust Office Executive Agency Key Performance Targets 1999–2000

  Indicator

  Target

  1. To carry out accounting transactions within target times.

  To bring to account at least 99 per cent, of receipts and payments transactions within turnaround targets by volume wrighted performance.

  2. To achieve investment targets.

  To pay interest on the special rate account at an annual rate at or above the average of the agreed comparator, and to pay at least 75% of that rate on basic rate accounts; to ensure that 92.5% of all funds which have a Dedicated Investment Portfolio' have a formal investment review2 at least once a year.

  3. To achieve Charter Standards.

  To achieve 98% of the 19 Charter Standards of most importance to the Office's users'

  4. To meet the unit cost target.

  To operate within a unit cost of £198.41.

  5. Percentage of full costs recovered.

  To ensure that 100% of full costs are recovered.

  1 A Dedicated Investment Portfolio is one which has been constructed to accommodate the specific requirements of the client and has a sufficiency of funds and duration to allow it to be adjusted in line with stockmarket or client circumstances.

  2 The formal investment review is a full consideration of the overall investment strategy being pursued for a particular portfolio. It is complemented by PTO policies of unitising smaller funds and benchmarking larger portfolios against stock exchange models. The investment media held in the funds are subject to on-going review as company announcements or relevant research material becomes available and actioned at any time.

  3 The target includes two new standards for the review of receivership accounts, they are to: complete a review of 80% of receivers' accounts within 12 weeks of receipt; review 80% of the Receiver's accounts within 12 weeks.

  These standards will be reviewed on receipt of the Committee of Public Accounts' recommendations on the Comptroller and Auditor General's report 'Protecting the Financial Welfare of People with Mental Incapacity'.

  Note:

  Fuller details of the Office's performance targets will appear in the PTO Plan, which will be available from the Public Trust Office later in the year.

  Court Service Key Performance Indicators and Targets 1999–2000

  Indicator

  Target

  Provide a courteous, reliable and accurate service, relevant information and suitable facilities

  KPI 1 the quality of service provided to court users.

  83%

  Complete all administrative processes promptly

  KPI 2 the percentage of administrative work in the civil courts dealt, with within target time

  92%

  Reduce waiting times for trial or hearing

  KPI 3 the percentage of Crown Court cases that commence within target.

  78%

  KPI 4 average waiting time for Asylum Appeals from receipt at Immigration Appellate Authorities to promulgation of the Adjudicator's decision.

  23 weeks

  774

  Court Service Key Performance Indicators and Targets 1999–2000

  Indicator

  Target

  Reduce the cost of the services we provide

  KPI 5 the unit cost of a case in the Crown Court.

  £2,118

  KPI 6 the unit cost of an item of originating process in the civil courts.

  £118

  Achieve full cost recovery in the civil courts

  KPI 7 the percentage of the cost of the civil courts recovered through fees

  94%

  Barristers' Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the sets of barristers' chambers in London who have rendered
  775
  services for his Department since 1 May 1997 and the remuneration made in respect of such services in each case. [68623]

  Mr. Hoon
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 February 1999,c. 480]: I regret that some of the figures given in the answer were incorrect. The correct figures as at the date of my original answer are set out in the table.

  £

  London Chambers

  Total paid

  Blackstone Chambers, Blackstone House, (formerly 2 Hare Court)

  13,565

  4 Breams Buildings

  6,373

  1 Brick Court

  3,995

  Brick Court Chambers 15–19 Devereux Court

  731

  1 Crown Office Row, Ground Floor

  5,551

  Devereux Chambers, Devereux Court

  1,486

  5 Essex Court

  164

  39 Essex Street

  20,180

  Falcon Chambers

  2,361

  4–5 Gray's Inn Square

  3,624

  1 Hare Court

  3,348

  Keating Chambers, 10 Essex Street

  1,686

  1 King's Bench Walk

  3,378

  6 King's Bench Walk

  7,832

  11 King's Bench Walk (Chambers of Mr. Eldred Tabachnik QC and Mr. James Goudie QC)

  (i) excluding fees paid to Mr. Philip Sales

  3,143

  (ii) fees paid to Mr. Philip Sales whilst on the Attorney General's Panel, but prior to his appointment as First Treasury Counsel on 1 December 1997

  9,370

  (iii) fees paid to Mr. Philip Sales since his appointment as First Treasury Counsel on 1 December 1997

  39,596

  11 King's Bench Walk (Chambers of Mr. Franz Muller QC)

  1,645

  Monckton Chambers, 4 Raymond Buildings

  2,355

  13 Old Square, 1st Floor

  2,393

  3 Pump Court, Upper Ground Floor

  2,585

  6 Pump Court, Ground and Lower Ground Floor

  2,350

  Queen Elizabeth Buildings

  18,682

  3 Raymond Buildings

  1,092

  3 Serjeants' Inn

  840

  7 Stone Buildings, Ground Floor

  1,175

  1 Temple Gardens

  34,213

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Parliament (Costs)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the initial budget for converting and fitting out the Church of Scotland Assembly Hall and adjacent buildings as a temporary home for the Scottish Parliament; and what is the latest estimate of the cost. [70210]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: The current estimates are:

  Converting the buildings: £4.5 million

  Fitting out (including IT, telecom, security equipment, furniture, office equipment): £3.1 million.

  The initial estimate was given in my answer on 12 May 1998, Official Report, column 88, to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and included rent and rates. This was a provisional estimate and I made it
  776
  clear then that it did not include fitting out costs, which were still being assessed. The estimate of building conversion costs at that time was £2m. Full building condition surveys were carried out on the CEC office buildings when the Scottish Office took occupation at the end of November 1998. These surveys revealed that significantly more work would have to be carried out in these building than was previously envisaged. In particular, work was required to ensure that lighting throughout the office buildings complied with current statutory requirements and to improve electrical systems, fire alarms and emergency lighting to meet current building regulations. In addition special services to meet the needs of the Parliament such as IT networks, security measures and provision for broadcasters have had to be provided.

  The costs of these items could only be properly assessed once the Scottish Office had occupation of the buildings.

  All of these costs will be met from the financial provision made for the establishment of the Parliament in 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of those roadworks made necessary by the siting of the new Scottish Parliament building. [77939]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him earlier today.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost in relation to the new Scottish Parliament building of(a) VAT, (b) fees, (c) site purchase, (d) site clearance and preliminary works and (e) road works; and which of these are included in the £50 million cost referred to in his answer of 28 January 1999, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell),
  Official Report, column 385. [77438]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: The figures requested (with the exception of (e)) are shown in the table, along with the estimated construction cost of £50 million (excluding VAT and fees) referred to in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 28 January 1999, Official Report, columns 385–86.

  Cost estimate £ million

  Site Purchase

  4

  Site Preparation

  1

  Construction

  50

  Fees

  10.5

  VAT on construction and fees

  10.6

  The figures shown are estimates and subject to review in the light of the development of the detailed design for the building and, in due course, of the results of the competitive procurement of works packages. The costs for item (e) will be estimated once the proposals for the surrounding area have been developed further.

  Reviews and Task Forces
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory

  777
  groups have been established by his Department since 1 May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. [71514]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: Details of reviews, task forces and advisory groups established since 1 May 1997 and of the reports they have

  Title

  Costs incurred(£)

  Report published

  (a) Reviews

  Review Countryside Access Legislation in Scotland

  —

  Access to the Countryside for Open Air Recreation (December 1998)

  Review into the System of Land Ownership and Management in Scotland

  51,400

  Recommendations for action (January 1999)

  Review of EA and SEPA Environmental Legislation (with DETR)

  —

  —

  Review of National Air Quality Strategy (with DETR)

  —

  Review of the National Air Quality Strategy Consultation Document (January 1999)

  Review of Protection Orders made under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976

  —

  —

  Review of Rural Water and Sewerage Grant Scheme

  8,400

  —

  Review of SSSIs in Scotland

  8,500

  —

  Review of the Scottish Water Industry

  6,800

  —

  Review to Identify Areas of Scotland Appropriate for Designation as National Parks

  —

  National Parks for Scotland (January 1999)

  Strategic Study of Organic Wastes to Land

  —

  Strategic Review of Organic Waste Spread on Land (October 1998)

  Planning Policy Review on Opencast Coal in Scotland

  700

  —

  Review of Skye Bridge Tolls

  77,200

  —

  Review of the Law and Practice of Compulsory Purchase and Land Compensation

  31,200

  Inception report (January 1999); Interim report (February 1999)

  Review of the Scottish Roads Programme

  241,000

  —

  Review of Transport Policy in Scotland

  20,200

  Travel Choices for Scotland—White Paper (July 1998)

  Scottish Homes' Support for Owner Occupation

  4,000

  —

  Scottish Enterprise Strategy Review

  —

  —

  Scottish Homes' Support for Social Rented Housing

  15,000

  —

  Committee on Review of Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984

  —

  —

  HIV Health Promotion Review Group

  —

  —

  National Review of Health Resource Allocation

  23,500

  —

  Review of the Public Health Function

  5,900

  —

  Review of Public Health Legislation

  —

  —

  A Review of Aspects of Gaelic Broadcasting

  7,000

  A Review of Aspects of Gaelic Broadcasting (May 1998)

  Review of Community Education

  14,650

  Communities Change Through Learning (November 1998)

  Review of Community Disposals and the use of Custody for Women Offenders in Scotland

  16,800

  A Safer Way, A Review of Community Disposals and the use of Custody for Women Offenders in Scotland (May 1998)

  Lord MacLean's Committee on Serious Offenders

  —

  —

  Review of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  —

  —

  Review of Arrangements for the Supervision of Sex Offenders in Scotland

  20,000

  A Commitment to Protect: Review of the Arrangements for the Supervision of Sex Offenders in Scotland (December 1997)

  Review of Domestic Violence

  650

  —

  Scottish Interdepartmental Review of the Treatment of Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses

  600

  Towards a Just Conclusion (November 1998)

  Review of the Processing of Cases in the Children's Hearings System

  25,000

  Just in Time (March 1999)

  Learning Disability Review

  50,000

  —

  (b) Task forces

  Task Force to Follow the Outcome of the Review of Protection Orders made under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976

  800

  Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976. Review of the arrangements for Protection Orders (December 1998)

  Joint COSLA/Scottish Office Best Value Task Force

  —

  Best Value Task Force Report (July 1997); Best Value Task Force Second Report (July 1998)

  Joint COSLA/Working Group on Council Tax Collection

  200

  —

  Coronary Heart Disease Task Force

  2,000

  —

  Action Group on Standards in Scottish School

  3,150

  —

  Borders Working Party

  1,700

  Rebuilding the Borders Economy Interim Report (December 1998); Rebuilding the Borders Economy Final Report (March 1999)

  Prestwich Task Force

  2,150

  Reaching the Full Potential Interim Report (September 1997); Prestwick—A Leading Edge Location Final Report (December 1998)

  Scottish Advisory Task Force on the New Deal

  6,400

  —

  778
  published follow. Where the information is readily available, approximate costs incurred on matters such as members' expenses, publication of reports and consultation exercises are shown. Staff costs are not included as these are subsumed within the Department's running costs.
  779

  Title

  Costs incurred (£)

  Report published

  (c) Advisory groups

  Air Quality Forum

  —

  —

  A Comprehensive Review of the Food-Related Scientific Services in Scotland

  26,000

  Review of Food-Related Scientific Services in Scotland (October 1998)

  National Goose Forum

  10,850

  —

  Review of Scotland's Bathing Waters

  —

  —

  Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament

  163,200

  —

  National Transport Forum for Scotland

  2,900

  —

  New Housing Partnerships Advisory Group

  3,500

  —

  Scottish Social Inclusion Network

  1,150

  Social Inclusion Strategy—Opening the door to a better Scotland (March 1999)

  Social Inclusion Partnerships Advisory Group

  —

  Report of the Social Inclusion Partnerships Advisory Group's Consideration of Expressions of Interest (November 1998); Report of the Social Inclusion Partnerships Advisory Group's Consideration of Full Social Inclusion Partnership Bids (March 1999)

  Acute Services Group

  700

  —

  Health Targets Working Group

  —

  —

  Scottish Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee

  —

  —

  Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service Users Group

  —

  —

  Waiting List Support Force

  23,700

  —

  Scottish Cancer Group

  2,700

  Cancer Genetics Services in Scotland (November 1998)

  Scottish Childcare Board

  2,650

  —

  Inter-Agency Forum on Women's Offending

  350

  —

  Lady Cosgrove's Expert Panel on Sex Offending

  —

  —

  Riddell Advisory Committee on Severe Low Incidence

  5,150

  —

  Disabilities

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

  Hypothermia
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths, where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate as the main or contributory cause of death, took place in each(a) region and (b) parliamentary constituency of Scotland in 1997, amongst those (i) of all ages, (ii) aged 60 to 74, (iii) aged 74 to 84 and (iv) aged over 85 years; what were the winter mortality rates in each of those areas for (1) the population as a whole, (2) people aged 60 to 74, (3) people aged 75 to 84 and (4) people aged 85 years and over; and what the percentage increase was in each group in each area compared to non-winter deaths in 1997–98. [72593]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: The information requested is presented in the following tables.

  There is no universally recognised definition of winter mortality. The information presented in the second table is based on a formula that has been used in recent years by the Office for National Statistics when presenting data for England and Wales. This defines 'excess' winter deaths as the difference between the number of deaths during the four months December to March and the average number of deaths during the preceding four months (August to November) and the following four months (April to July). A negative figure occurs when the average non-winter deaths exceed the winter deaths. As this is a crude measure of the increase in mortality associated with winter conditions the numbers of excess deaths have been rounded to the nearest ten.
  780

  Deaths where hypothermia was mentioned as a main or contributory cause of death, by health board area and selected age group, Scotland, 1997

  All ages

  60–74

  75–84

  85 and over

  Scotland

  89

  23

  21

  20

  Argyll and Clyde

  10

  2

  4

  1

  Ayrshire and Arran

  6

  1

  0

  5

  Borders

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fife

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Forth Valley

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Grampian

  8

  0

  4

  1

  Greater Glasgow

  24

  6

  6

  3

  Highland

  4

  0

  2

  1

  Lanarkshire

  11

  5

  1

  1

  Lothian

  19

  7

  4

  6

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tayside

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Deaths where hypothermia was mentioned as a main or contributory cause of death, by parliamentary constituency and selected age group, Scotland, 1997

  All ages

  60–74

  75–84

  85 and over

  Aberdeen Central

  3

  0

  0

  1

  Aberdeen South

  3

  0

  3

  0

  Angus

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Argyll and Bute

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Ayr

  3

  ]

  0

  2

  Banff and Buchan

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Central Fife

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  2

  1

  0

  1

  Clydesdale

  3

  2

  1

  0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Dumbarton

  1

  1

  0

  0

  781

  Deaths where hypothermia was mentioned as a main or contributory cause of death, by parliamentary constituency and selected age group, Scotland, 1997

  All ages

  60–74

  75–84

  85 and over

  East Kilbride

  1

  0

  0

  0

  East Lothian

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Eastwood

  2

  1

  1

  0

  Edinburgh Central

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  3

  2

  0

  0

  Edinburgh North and Leith

  4

  1

  0

  2

  Edinburgh West

  3

  1

  1

  1

  Glasgow Anniesland

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Glasgow Baillieston

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Glasgow Govan

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Glasgow Kelvin

  4

  1

  1

  1

  Glasgow Maryhill

  2

  1

  0

  1

  Glasgow Pollock

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Glasgow Shettleston

  4

  1

  1

  0

  Glasgow Springburn

  2

  0

  2

  0

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Winter mortality by health board area and selected age group, Scotland 1997–981

  All ages

  60–74

  75–84

  85 and over

  Excess winter deaths

  % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  Excess winter deaths

  % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  Excess winter deaths

  % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  Excess winter deaths

  % % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  Scotland

  2,270

  12

  650

  12

  830

  14

  720

  16

  Argyll and Clyde

  70

  9

  10

  5

  40

  17

  10

  5

  Ayrshire and Arran

  210

  13

  60

  14

  70

  14

  80

  17

  Borders

  220

  14

  70

  16

  50

  10

  100

  24

  Dumfries and Galloway

  80

  6

  10

  3

  60

  14

  20

  6

  Fife

  320

  12

  100

  14

  110

  13

  80

  12

  Forth Valley

  0

  0

  10

  9

  20

  14

  -20

  -14

  Grampian

  140

  15

  20

  7

  70

  23

  50

  21

  Greater Glasgow

  300

  18

  80

  16

  140

  28

  80

  20

  Highland

  440

  12

  150

  13

  120

  11

  120

  15

  Lanarkshire

  320

  17

  140

  23

  90

  15

  70

  19

  Lothian

  120

  8

  30

  7

  20

  4

  80

  24

  Orkney

  10

  2

  -20

  -10

  20

  11

  30

  19

  Shetland

  20

  27

  0

  0

  10

  43

  10

  53

  Tayside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  20

  16

  10

  37

  0

  0

  10

  24

  1 Provisional

  Winter mortality by parliamentary constituency and selected age group, Scotland 1997–981

  All ages

  60–74

  75–84

  85 and over

  Excess winter deaths

  % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  Excess winter deaths

  % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  Excess winter deaths

  % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  Excess winter deaths

  % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  Aberdeen Central

  40

  15

  0

  0

  40

  51

  0

  0

  Aberdeen North

  40

  22

  10

  17

  20

  38

  20

  56

  Aberdeen South

  50

  22

  10

  19

  10

  15

  10

  13

  Airdrie and Shotts

  30

  11

  20

  23

  20

  25

  10

  17

  Angus

  60

  21

  10

  13

  10

  10

  50

  59

  Argyll and Bute

  30

  9

  10

  11

  30

  32

  10

  10

  Ayr

  60

  20

  0

  0

  10

  10

  20

  23

  Banff and Buchan

  30

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20

  31

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  30

  14

  20

  35

  20

  32

  0

  0

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  50

  16

  30

  32

  20

  20

  10

  15

  Central Fife

  10

  4

  0

  0

  30

  39

  -10

  -17

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  20

  8

  -10

  -13

  10

  11

  20

  37

  Clydesdale

  60

  20

  30

  41

  20

  20

  20

  27

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  50

  21

  10

  11

  0

  0

  30

  81

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  20

  12

  10

  15

  10

  21

  0

  0

  Cunninghame North

  10

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20

  27

  Cunninghame South

  -10

  -4

  -20

  -24

  20

  31

  0

  0

  Dumbarton

  60

  22

  20

  26

  30

  42

  20

  27

  Dumfries

  0

  0

  -20

  -20

  0

  0

  20

  24

  Dundee East

  30

  9

  10

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  782

  Deaths where hypothermia was mentioned as a main or contributory cause of death, by parliamentary constituency and selected age group, Scotland, 1997

  All ages

  60–74

  75–84

  85 and over

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Hamilton South

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  3

  0

  0

  3

  Linlithgow

  3

  3

  0

  0

  Livingston

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Moray

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  2

  2

  0

  0

  North East Fife

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Ochil

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Paisley South

  4

  1

  2

  0

  Ross, Skye and Inverness West

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Stirling

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  2

  0

  1

  0

  West Renfrewshire

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Note:

  There were no such deaths in constituencies not listed
  783

  Winter mortality by parliamentary constituency and selected age group, Scotland 1997–981

  All ages

  60–74

  75–84

  85 and over

  Excess winter deaths

  % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  Excess winter deaths

  % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  Excess winter deaths

  % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  Excess winter deaths

  % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  Dundee West

  60

  20

  30

  34

  20

  23

  10

  14

  Dunfermline East

  -10

  -4

  0

  0

  10

  12

  -10

  -18

  Dunfermline West

  30

  14

  0

  0

  10

  14

  20

  42

  East Kilbride

  20

  8

  20

  24

  0

  0

  -10

  -18

  East Lothian

  60

  21

  30

  45

  0

  0

  20

  26

  Eastwood

  20

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20

  28

  Edinburgh Central

  30

  12

  10

  16

  0

  0

  20

  28

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  60

  20

  0

  0

  30

  35

  10

  14

  Edinburgh North and Leith

  60

  24

  20

  30

  20

  28

  10

  13

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  50

  26

  30

  71

  10

  16

  10

  19

  Edinburgh South

  20

  6

  10

  14

  10

  10

  -10

  -8

  Edinburgh West

  40

  16

  20

  27

  10

  12

  10

  18

  Falkirk East

  30

  12

  10

  12

  30

  42

  0

  0

  Falkirk West

  50

  19

  0

  0

  30

  36

  20

  30

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  10

  3

  -10

  -11

  20

  23

  10

  13

  Glasgow Anniesland

  70

  21

  30

  34

  20

  16

  10

  12

  Glasgow Baillieston

  10

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Glasgow Cathcart

  20

  8

  -10

  -12

  20

  27

  10

  18

  Glasgow Govan

  10

  3

  20

  26

  -10

  -12

  0

  0

  Glasgow Kelvin

  30

  12

  30

  38

  -10

  -14

  10

  18

  Glasgow Maryhill

  60

  20

  20

  21

  10

  12

  10

  20

  Glasgow Pollock

  60

  20

  20

  21

  30

  32

  10

  16

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  40

  15

  30

  38

  10

  11

  -10

  -16

  Glasgow Shettleston

  30

  10

  0

  0

  20

  24

  10

  20

  Glasgow Springburn

  40

  12

  10

  9

  30

  34

  10

  17

  Gordon

  30

  14

  20

  37

  0

  0

  10

  16

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  40

  14

  10

  12

  20

  22

  10

  17

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  40

  18

  10

  14

  10

  14

  10

  26

  Hamilton South

  30

  14

  10

  14

  10

  15

  0

  0

  Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  11

  -10

  -11

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  10

  3

  20

  20

  -20

  -16

  10

  15

  Kirkcaldy

  20

  7

  20

  28

  0

  0

  20

  26

  Linlithgow

  0

  0

  10

  13

  0

  0

  -10

  -21

  Livingston

  20

  8

  -10

  -12

  20

  33

  10

  21

  Midlothian

  10

  4

  -10

  -13

  10

  12

  10

  21

  Moray

  30

  12

  10

  14

  0

  0

  20

  27

  Motherwell and Wilshaw

  90

  35

  30

  33

  30

  38

  20

  42

  North East Fife

  30

  11

  0

  0

  10

  11

  0

  0

  North Tayside

  40

  14

  0

  0

  10

  10

  20

  24

  Ochil

  40

  15

  20

  26

  10

  11

  20

  31

  Orkney and Shetland

  30

  19

  0

  0

  10

  20

  10

  21

  Paisley North

  60

  26

  30

  37

  20

  33

  20

  48

  Paisley South

  60

  22

  20

  24

  20

  24

  20

  30

  Perth

  30

  9

  20

  24

  0

  0

  10

  11

  Ross, Skye and Inverness West

  30

  12

  -10

  -14

  10

  11

  30

  49

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  10

  4

  10

  17

  20

  23

  -10

  -14

  Stirling

  30

  13

  0

  0

  10

  14

  20

  30

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  20

  8

  10

  14

  10

  13

  10

  21

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  -20

  -8

  -10

  -17

  0

  0

  -10

  -14

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Renfrewshire

  30

  14

  0

  0

  10

  14

  10

  20

  Western Isles

  20

  16

  10

  37

  0

  0

  10

  24

  1Provisional

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

  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths, where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate as the main or contributory cause of death, took place in Scotland in(a) 1997, (b)1992, (c) 1987, (d) 1982 and (e) 1977 amongst those (i) of all ages, (ii) aged 60 to 74, (iii) aged 74 to 84 and (iv) aged over 85 years; what were the winter mortality rates for (1) the population as a whole, (2) people aged 60 to 74, (3) people aged 75 to 84 and (4) people aged 85 years and over; and what the percentage increase was in each group compared to non-winter deaths in 1997–98, 1992–93, 1987–88, 1982–83 and 1977–78, respectively. [72594]
  784
  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: The information requested in presented in the following tables.

  There is no universally recognised definition of winter mortality. The information presented in the second table is based on a formula that has been used in recent years by the Office for National Statistics when presenting data for England and Wales. This defines 'excess' winter deaths as the difference between the number of deaths during the four months December to March and the average number of deaths during the preceding four months (August to November) and the following four months (April to July). As this is a crude measure of the increase in mortality associated with winter conditions the numbers of excess deaths have been rounded to the nearest ten.
  785
  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Winter mortality by Selected age group, Scotland 1977–78 to 1997–98

  Age group

  All ages

  60–74

  75–84

  85 and over

  Excess winter deaths

  % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  Excess winter deaths

  % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  Excess winter deaths

  % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  Excess winter deaths

  % increase compared to non-winter deaths

  1977–78

  4,890

  25

  1,630

  21

  1,770

  31

  1,020

  40

  1982–83

  4,390

  22

  1,310

  18

  1,690

  27

  1,130

  40

  1987–88

  2,390

  12

  760

  11

  890

  14

  630

  18

  1992–93

  2,630

  13

  610

  10

  920

  14

  930

  23

  1997–981

  2,270

  12

  650

  12

  830

  14

  720

  16

  11997–98 figures are provisional

  Deaths where hypothermia was mentioned as a main or contributory cause of death, selected age groups, Scotland,1977–97

  Year

  All ages

  60–74

  75–84

  85 and over

  1977

  158

  42

  70

  29

  1982

  196

  61

  73

  38

  1987

  153

  39

  51

  34

  1992

  117

  39

  31

  26

  1997

  89

  23

  21

  20

  Note:

  because of coding changes in 1979,information for 1977 is not directly comparable to that for later years.

  Higher Still (English)
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the schools which are ready to implement the Higher Still in English. [73083]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: I list the 71 local authority schools which, according to returns received from local authorities by the beginning of February 1999, are planning to implement "Higher Still" Higher English in 1999–2000.

  Authority

  School

  Aberdeen City

  —

  Aberdeenshire

  Kemnay Academy

  Angus

  Arbroath Academy

  Arbroath High School

  Montrose Academy

  Brechin High School

  Argyll & Bute

  Rothesay Academy

  Tobermory High School

  Clackmannanshire

  Alva Academy

  Lornshill Academy

  Dumfries & Galloway

  Castle Douglas High School

  Kirkcudbright Academy

  Langholm Academy

  Maxwelltown High School

  Moffat Academy

  Stranraer Academy

  Wallace Hall Academy

  Dundee City

  Craigie High School

  East Ayrshire

  —

  East Dunbartonshire

  —

  East Lothian

  —

  East Renfrewshire

  St. Ninian's High School

  Edinburgh City

  Balerno Community High School

  Holy Rood High School

  Liberton High School

  Portobello High School

  786

  Authority

  School

  Falkirk

  Grangemouth High School

  Fife

  Balwearie High School

  Beath High School

  Buckhaven High School

  Glenrothes High School

  Inverkeithing High School

  Kirkcaldy High School

  Kirkland High School

  Madras College

  Waid Academy

  Glasgow

  Smithcroft Secondary School

  Highland

  Wick High School

  Gairloch High School

  Inverness High School

  Inverness Royal Academy

  Grantown Grammar School

  Kinlochleven High School

  Lochaber High School

  Mallaig High School

  Plockton High School

  Inverclyde

  Port Glasgow High School

  Midlothian

  —

  Moray

  —

  North Ayrshire

  Auchenharvie Academy

  Irvine Royal Academy

  North Lanarkshire

  Braidhurst High School

  Coatbridge High School

  Columba High School

  Our Lady's High School (Cumbernauld)

  St. Aidan's High School

  St. Margaret's High School

  Taylor High School

  Orkney

  —

  Perth & Kinross

  Auchterarder High School

  Renfrewshire

  Castlehead High School

  Scottish Borders

  Earlston High School

  Eyemouth High School

  Galashiels Academy

  Hawick High School

  Jedburgh Grammar School

  Kelso High School

  Selkirk High School

  Shetland

  —

  South Ayrshire

  Girvan Academy

  South Lanarkshire

  Blantyre High School

  Duncanrig Secondary School

  Stirling

  Bannockburn High School

  Stirling High School

  Wallace High School

  West Dunbartonshire

  —

  West Lothian

  Armadale Academy

  Linlithgow Academy

  Eilean Siar

  The Nicolson Institute

  Castlebay School

  787

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 143, for what reasons he did not supply an estimate for spending on special advisers in 1996–97; if he will provide estimates of total spending on special advisers for (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, and (c) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [74165]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 143. Details of costs relating to the Special Advisers in 1996–97 could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the total cost of special advisers in his Department for each of the years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [74240]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 143. Details of costs relating to the Special Advisers in 1995–96 and 1996–97 could only be supplied at disproportionate cost.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost of funding the private offices of the First Minister and the other Ministers of the Scottish Executive in the Scottish Parliament. [74980]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: The number of Ministers in the Scottish Executive will not be known until after the election on 6 May 1999. However, the question of private office support for the First Minister and other Ministers is currently being considered as part of the general planning associated with devolution. No estimate of the cost of funding the private office has yet been made. The cost will be met from within the overall provision made for expenditure on administration of the Scottish Executive.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the annual cost, for each of the next 20 years, of replacing the university maintenance loan with a maintenance grant for Scottish students at United Kingdom universities; if he will set out the figures in terms of(a) their cash accounting and funding impact and (b) their effect in terms of resource accounting; and if he will make a statement. [74711]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: The information is set out in the table. Figures have been provided by statisticians from the Department for Education on a U.K. wide basis and the Scottish share has been calculated as approximately 11% of the total. Information is not available for each of the next twenty years. However a selection of years was modelled for illustrative purposes.
  788

  £ million

  Year

  Cash accounting

  Resource accounting

  1998–99

  16.5

  38.5

  1999–2000

  44

  115.5

  2000–01

  71.5

  176

  2005–06

  159.5

  231

  2010–11

  264

  253

  2015–16

  308

  236.5

  Salmon Farmers (Compensation)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to pay salmon farmers compensation when they are required to slaughter their stock as a consequence of a List 1 disease. [76210]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The Government have no plans to pay compensation but have proposed a financial aid package for the industry. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) dated 8 February 1999, Official Report, column 62.

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

  Schools
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(i) pupils and (ii) teachers there were in Scottish (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in 1998–99. [76625]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  Provisional numbers of pupils and full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers in publicly funded primary and secondary schools in Scotland in 1998–99

  Primary

  Secondary

  Pupils

  435,518

  311,277

  FTE teachers

  22,493

  23,459

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

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the Scottish Office budget for Highlands and Islands Enterprise in cash terms and at 1998–99 prices for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98 and (g) 1998–99; and what is his estimate for (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02. [76864]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: The Scottish Office Budget for Highlands and Islands Enterprise in cash terms and at 1998–99 prices for the years 1992–93 to 1998–99 and the plan figures for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 are as follows.
  789

  £ million

  Year

  Budget

  1998–99 prices

  1992–93

  78.8

  91.5

  1993–94

  79.2

  89.5

  1994–95

  76.3

  85.0

  1995–96

  77.7

  84.2

  1996–97

  75.8

  79.6

  1997–98

  79.1

  81.1

  1998–99

  79.7

  79.7

  1999–2000 (plans)1

  78.7

  76.8

  2000–01 (plans)

  77.0

  73.3

  2001–02 (plans)

  77.0

  71.5

  1Plan figures for 1999–2000 are subject to adjustment to reflect annual and in-year post CSR changes to baseline provision. The budget figure shown for 1999–2000 includes the £1.7 million recently announced for the purpose of attracting inward investment projects to the Highlands and Islands.

  Future year plans reflect a realignment of Highlands and Islands Enterprise's existing training programmes to reflect the introduction of the New Deal, in which the enterprise network will play a key role. About £300 million of New Deal resources will also be available in Scotland over the lifetime of this Parliament by way of Employment Service spending. A proportion of this will be available for delivery of the New Deal programme in the Highlands and Islands.

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

  Police Budget
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was his Department's policing budget in cash terms and at 1998–99 prices for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98 and (g) 1998–99; and what is his estimate for (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02. [76861]

  Passes in Highers at C or above for school pupils in Scotland

  1997–98

  1992–93

  1987–88

  1982–83

  1977–78

  French

  3,678

  4,046

  4,561

  6,506

  6,417

  German

  1,525

  1,414

  1,178

  1,593

  1,650

  Other Modern Languages1

  699

  497

  451

  631

  627

  English

  21,776

  20,970

  21,960

  24,467

  19,179

  Mathematics

  13,532

  12,866

  13,242

  15,036

  10,919

  History

  5,074

  5,039

  6,189

  6,718

  6,437

  Geography

  6,095

  5,747

  6,489

  6,752

  5,632

  Modern Studies

  5,228

  5,116

  3,843

  2,604

  1,979

  Physics

  7,945

  8,790

  8,319

  9,893

  8,150

  Chemistry

  7,774

  8,217

  9,098

  10,443

  8,749

  Biology

  6,997

  7,375

  7,649

  6,724

  4,271

  Art and Design

  5,810

  4,941

  5,126

  3,963

  2,112

  Music

  2,453

  1,569

  863

  617

  479

  Computing Studies2

  2,993

  1,856

  —

  —

  —

  Latin, Classical Greek and Classical Studies3

  604

  385

  650

  1,137

  1,852

  1 Includes Spanish, Italian, Russian, Swedish, Norwegian and Portuguese

  2 The Higher in Computing Studies was introduced in 1989

  3 The Higher in Classical Studies was introduced in 1994. Latin,Classical Greek and Classical Studies are separate Highers

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

  Consultancy Fees
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what fees to consultants have been paid or incurred in
  790
  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Cash Terms

  1998–99 Prices

  1992–93

  537

  625

  1993–94

  567

  643

  1994–95

  626

  700

  1995–96

  622

  676

  1996–97

  666

  702

  1997–98

  735

  755

  1998–99

  741

  741

  1999–2000

  768

  749

  2000–01

  795

  757

  2001–02

  815

  757

  Sources:

  For the years 1992–93 to 1998–99: Departmental Reports and GAE announcements.

  For the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02: Comprehensive Spending Review.

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

  Highers
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils in Scottish schools gained passes in Highers at C or above in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1992–93, (iii) 1987–88, (iv) 1982–83, (v) 1977–78 in(a) French, (b) German, (c) other modern languages, (d) English, (e) mathematics, (f) history, (g) geography, (h) modern studies, (i) physics, (j) chemistry, (k) biology, (l) art, (m) music, (n) graphic design, (o) computing and (p) Latin, Greek or classical studies. [77264]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: The information is shown in the following table, except for Graphic Design for which a Higher was not available. The figures will be affected by the overall increase in the number of S5 and S6 pupils from around 51,700 in 1977–78 to around 74,300 in 1997–98.

  (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and in (iii) 1998–99 so far by (a) each section of the Scottish Office, (b) each local enterprise company, (c) Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, (d) each health board in Scotland, (e) each water authority in Scotland, (f) each of the Lottery-fund distributors in Scotland, (g) each local

  791
  authority in Scotland, (h) the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Sports Council and (i) Scottish Homes. [77420]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: Expenditure on external consultancy by The Scottish Office, its executive agencies and associated departments in the years requested, is as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97

  2.7

  1997–98

  2.5

  1998–99

  2.1

  The information requested about expenditure by other public bodies is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Actual expenditure

  £ million in cash terms

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Early and primary education

  775

  836

  844

  858

  890

  904

  Secondary education

  842

  888

  889

  910

  937

  932

  Further education

  237

  258

  273

  294

  300

  300

  Higher education

  431

  508

  835

  900

  924

  924

  Community education

  73

  81

  83

  85

  88

  86

  Special educational needs

  128

  140

  144

  156

  164

  168

  Other

  266

  290

  321

  323

  344

  367

  Actual and planned expenditure

  £ million in cash terms

  Planned expenditure

  Actual expenditure 1997–98

  Estimated outturn1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Further education

  293

  289

  330

  359

  395

  Higher education

  841

  849

  896

  1,039

  1,068

  Other Central Government Expenditure

  138

  182

  222

  259

  264

  Local Authority Expenditure

  2,375

  2,438

  2,591

  2,703

  2,809

  Total

  3,647

  3,758

  4,039

  4,360

  4,536

  Actual expenditure

  £ million in constant 1998–99 prices

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Early and primary education

  929

  970

  954

  956

  964

  950

  Secondary education

  1,009

  1,031

  1,005

  1,014

  1,015

  979

  Further education

  284

  299

  309

  328

  325

  315

  Higher education

  517

  590

  944

  1,003

  1,001

  971

  Community education

  88

  94

  94

  95

  95

  90

  Special educational needs

  153

  162

  163

  174

  178

  177

  Other

  319

  337

  363

  360

  373

  386

  Total

  3,299

  3,483

  3,831

  3,930

  3,950

  3,867

  792
  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much(a) has been and (b) is planned to be spent in Scotland in each year between 1991–92 and 2001–02 on (i) early and primary education, (ii) secondary education, (iii) further education, (iv) higher education, (v) community education, (vi) special educational needs, (vii) other categories of education and (viii) education in total in (1) cash terms and (2) at 1998–99 prices. [77273]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: The actual and planned expenditure figures are set out in the following tables. It should be noted that planned figures cannot be compared with actual figures. The actual expenditure figures include local authority expenditure funded by both Central Government and council tax, whilst the figures for planned expenditure include only estimates of grant aided expenditure.
  793

  Actual and planned expenditure

  £ million in constant 1998–99 prices

  Actual expenditure

  Estimated outturn

  Planned expenditure

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Further education

  300

  289

  322

  342

  367

  Other Central Government Expenditure

  141

  182

  217

  246

  245

  Local Authority Expenditure

  2,435

  2,438

  2,528

  2,573

  2,608

  Total

  3,739

  3,758

  3,941

  4,150

  4,212

  Notes:

  1. A split of local authority expenditure in the categories requested is not available for 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  2. Local authority plans for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 are not yet known. The table shows Government estimates of Grant Aided Expenditure for these years. Expenditure figures for earlier years include funding from council tax in addition to support from central Government.

  3. Planned expenditure for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 has been adjusted to take account of 1999 budget decisions.

  4. Local authority capital expenditure is not included. Nor are loan and leasing charges or capital funded from revenue accounts.

  5. Figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 include the proceeds of the sale of student debt.

  6. Other includes the Careers Service; transport, residential accommodation and bursary assistance for school pupils; education administration costs; school meals and miscellaneous education expenditure.

  7. Higher education includes student support costs.

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

  Special Needs
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to change the current arrangements whereby employers are expected to pay a training allowance to special needs trainees in Scotland. [77422]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: Trainees in Skillseekers who are designated as having special training needs (STN) and who are on placement with an employer do not receive a training allowance from the employer. The training allowance is paid by the training provider at a level set by the LEC. An employer who is delivering the training under contract to the LEC and is, therefore, acting as the training provider, would be responsible for managing the training allowance. If an employer has chosen to employ an STN trainee, then he will pay the trainee a wage, not a training allowance.

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

  EU Subsidies
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total amount of EU subsidies paid to farmers in each year since 1992 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1998–99 prices. [77762]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]: Outturn figures since 1992–93 for direct subsidies to Scottish farmers which are 100 per. cent EU funded (these include livestock premium schemes and arable aid payments but exclude HLCAs and agri-environment schemes) are given in the table at both current and 1998–99 prices.

  £ million

  Year

  Current Prices Real Terms (1998–99 prices)1

  1992–93

  132

  153

  1993–94

  243

  275

  1994–95

  284

  317

  1995–96

  345

  374

  1996–97

  417

  439

  1997–98

  319

  327

  1 Converted to 1998–99 prices using the GDP deflator.

  794
  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Departmental Staff (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin, at 1 March, of(a) his private office, (b) Government special advisers, (c) his Policy Unit and (d) staff in total. [78507]

  Mr. Dewar
  Information on the ethnic origin of the civil servants is collected using a voluntary, confidential questionnaire. To protect the privacy of individual staff, data relating to fewer than five people are not disclosed in equal opportunities monitoring. Information is therefore not available for(a) my private office and (b) government special advisers in my department. My department does not have a separate Policy Unit.

  As regards information on special advisers and staff in total, I refer to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, as follows:

  (b) special advisers—22 February 1999, Official Report, column 39;

  (d) staff in total— 31 March 1999, Official Report, column 711.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many claims for payment by objective 1 projects have been delayed for more than(a) three months, (b) six months and (c) one year since the inception of the Highlands and Islands partnership programme. [78252]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: This information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Since the beginning of the Highlands and Islands Objective 1 programme in 1994, more than 80,000 separate payment claims have been processed. The processing of individual claims may have been delayed for various reasons, including the need to clarify with the project sponsor the information provided in the claim. Until recently, payments could only be made when the relevant funds had been transferred from the EU Commission. New arrangements have now been introduced to ensure that payments are no longer delayed for this reason.
  795
  With effect from 1 July 1999, the administration of the European Structural Funds in Scotland will be the responsibility of the Scottish Administration.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Objective 1 project claims for payment, and to what value, are currently awaiting settlement; and how many of these have been waiting in excess of(a) six months and (b) 12 months. [78251]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: 3001 payment claims with a value of £20,082,092 are currently awaiting payment. 106 of these, with a value of £1,817,145, have been outstanding for more than six months, while 69 payment claims, with a value of £470,847, have been outstanding for more than 12 months, mostly due to the need to seek additional information on the claims.

  With effect from 1 July 1999, the administration of the European Structural Funds in Scotland will be the responsibility of the Scottish Administration.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on which dates the 1996 annual progress report in respect of the Highlands and Islands partnership programme was(a) submitted and (b) re-submitted to the European Commission; for what reasons the report was required to be re-submitted; and if he will make a statement. [78253]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: The Highlands and Islands 1996 Annual Report was first submitted to the European Commission on 21 September 1998. Following the Commission's request for amendments, it was re-submitted on 17 November.

  The format of the 1996 Annual Report was originally based on the format of the 1995 Annual Report which was agreed by the European Commission on 3 July 1998. When the Commission initially received the 1996 Annual Report, it requested certain further changes to the format, which was why it had to be re-submitted.

  With effect from 1 July 1999, the administration of the European Structural Funds in Scotland will be the responsibility of the Scottish Administration.

  Multi-layer Democracy Report
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) on the basis of whose request the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) agreed to let the Secretary of State see extracts from the Scottish Affairs Committee report on Multi-Layer Democracy (HC 460 of Session 1997–98); [79353]

  (2) if he, other Ministers or advisers contacted any other members of the Scottish Affairs Committee seeking information on its report on Multi-Layer Democracy (HC 460 of Session 1997–98) prior to its publication; [79354]

  (3) if he initiated the contact with the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), which led to him receiving extracts from the Scottish Affairs Committee report on Multi-Layer Democracy (HC 460 of Session 1997–98); [79355]

  (4) if he will list the people in his Department who saw the leaked copy of the Scottish Affairs Committee report on Multi-Layer Democracy (HC 460 of Session 1997–98) prior to publication and the approximate dates when this occurred; [79356]
  796
  (5) what use (a) he, (b) his Ministers and (c) his advisers made of the leaked copy of the Scottish Affairs Committee report on Multi-Layer Democracy (HC 460 of Session 1997–98) in briefing the press. [79352]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 24 March 1998, Official Report, column 324.

  The Herald newspaper carried extensive extracts from the Select Committee's report on 26 November, together with a feature and a leading article on the subject. The newspaper confirmed to my office that it had a leaked copy of the entire report. The story was followed up by many Scottish and UK newspapers and by the broadcast media.

  As a result of that coverage, I received many requests for a response from journalists and complaints from members of the Select Committee who felt that the press reports misrepresented their position. This led me to comment, when approached by journalists during an unrelated engagement on the morning of 26 November, that the report appeared to have been subject to selective quotation.

  I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) later that day. Our conversation centred on his disquiet and that of other Members of the Committee about the leaking of the report and the omission from the quoted extracts of the sole conclusion, which he described to me.

  At the time of our conversation, the report had already been made to the House, was at the printers, had been leaked in its entirety, had been extensively quoted and commented on in the press and was the subject of many requests for comments made to my office. It was already in the public domain, and the possibility of influencing its contents, which would have been wholly improper, could not arise.

  My conversation with my hon. Friend was on that basis. To the best of my recollection, I asked him if he could confirm the accuracy of the quotations and findings of which I was already aware. Given the concerns which he had already expressed to me, my hon. Friend said that he was prepared to give that confirmation. He told me he would do so after consulting the report, which he did not then have to hand. Relevant extracts were sent by fax to my office a short time later. They were seen by no-one other than me, staff in my Private Office and my Special Advisers and no further use was made of them.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he asked the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) to show him a pre-publication copy of the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee into Multi-Layer Democracy (HC 460 of Session 1997–98); and if he will make a statement. [79351]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) today, Official Report, column 796.
  797

  Registers of Scotland Executive Agency
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the prior options review of the Registers of Scotland Executive Agency. [80169]

  Mr. Dewar
  A prior options review of the Registers of Scotland Executive Agency was carried out recently for my Department. The review concluded that there will continue to be a need for a function to maintain a register of title to land with the power to make independent decisions in cases of dispute, and recommended continuation of both Agency and Trading Fund status.

  Extensive recommendations on issues such as governance and target setting were made to enhance the strategic management of the Agency and to improve its commercial approach.

  I have accepted the recommendations on Agency status and on improvements to the coverage and stringency of the Agency's targets, which will be revised as soon as possible.

  I have not, however, accepted the review's recommendation that decisions on the Agency's accommodation strategy should be brought forward. As recently as last November, I agreed that the Agency should maintain its presence in its existing, or similar, locations in Edinburgh and Glasgow until 2007. This option will have the least impact on the Agency's productive capacity at a time when it will be undertaking the major task of completing the extension of the Land Register to the whole of Scotland.

  The recommendations on Trading Fund status, governance arrangements and the future strategic management of the Agency will be considered by Ministers of the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. Interim arrangements have been made to continue Trading Fund status until 31 March 2000.

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

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will issue finalised planning policy guidance on opencast coal. [80170]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Government's planning policy for opencast coal is being published today in National Planning Policy Guideline 16: Opencast Coal and Related Minerals. This NPPG, which replaces NPPG 4: Land for Mineral Working as the relevant guidance for opencast coal and related minerals, indicates the considerations which planning authorities should take into account in framing development plan policies and in determining planning applications for the extraction of opencase coal and related minerals. NPPG 4 continues to provide policy guidance for all other minerals.

  The new guidance takes account of the Ten Point Plan prepared by the Government before the Election, the outcome of the Energy Fuels Review and the responses made to consultation on the draft revised guidance which I announced to the House on 22 October 1998. The guidance ensures that a robust framework is in place to protect communities and the environment from any
  798
  potential harm caused by proposed opencase coal developments. It will ensure that all proposals are subjected to tough scrutiny and if consent is granted the highest environmental standards will apply.

  As a result of the new guidance, planning authorities will need to review existing development plan policies for controlling opencase coal and related mineral extraction. To ensure early action, the Secretary of State is issuing a direction requiring all the relevant planning authorities to prepare and submit an alteration to their structure plan policies to bring them into line with the guidance. The Direction relating to the notification of certain applications to the Secretary of State, issued on 22 October 1998, remains in force, although it will be reviewed once the new guidance is reflected in planning authorities' structure plans.

  The Government do not envisage a prohibition on the working of opencast coal. However, NPPG 15 properly puts concern for communities and the environment at the heart of decision making by seeking to apply a sustainable approach in determining where extraction may take place. Full weight should be given to the effect and potential disturbance on local communities as well as other environmental considerations including nature conservation and the impact on the landscape. Where a proposal would cause demonstrable harm, the guidance is clear that permission should not be granted except where the benefits of the development proposal to the community would out-weigh the potential harm. The Government look to planning authorities to steer proposals to environmentally acceptable sites and, where necessary, to refuse consent where they judge such developments would not be in the overall best interests of the affected local communities and environment.

  A copy of the guidance is being placed in the House Library. Copies are also being widely circulated to those with an interest including planning authorities, the industry and environmental interests.

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

  Packaging Regulations
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the outcome of the review of the operation of the Packaging Waste Recovery Note system to demonstrate compliance with the Packaging Regulations. [80171]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I have considered the conclusions of the Advisory Committee on Packaging together with representations made in the course of the review of the Regulations. Obligated parties are keen to see greater transparency in reprocessors' treatment of Packaging Recovery Note (PRN) revenue so that they know that the resources they are putting in are being used as intended. I therefore propose the following changes to the PRN system in Scotland:(i) that as a condition of accreditation, reprocessors should provide an annual return to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) showing PRN revenue for the previous year; the proportion of PRN revenue that has been passed to others to develop the collection infrastructure; and what proportion was directed at either developing reprocessing capacity or at developing end-use markets for recycled materials. Details

  799
  should also be provided as to what additional capacity is planned and what steps have been taken to develop markets for recyclate.
  (ii) that PRNs should be issued to obligated parties only or to those representing them. In addition, individual businesses who are obligated members of the packaging chain and bring waste for reprocessing, should be given first refusal on the PRN when such waste is accepted for reprocessing.

  Reprocessors should therefore make reasonable forward provision for such obligated parties who wish to have PRNs, and I would expect the obligated parties also to do what they can to ensure that the reprocessors are informed as soon as possible about their PRN requirements.

  I will be asking SEPA to amend their Guidance Note to reflect these changes.

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

  Scottish Parliament (Tax)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the proportion of expenditure on the set-up costs of the tax varying powers of the Scottish Parliament which will have been incurred before the end of the 1999–2000 fiscal year for the(a) Inland Revenue and (b) Department of Social Security; and if he will make a statement. [79551]

  Mr. Dewar
  Work is currently in progress to ensure that all the necessary arrangements are in place to allow the tax varying powers to be used with effect from 6 April 2000 if the incoming Scottish Executive wishes to do so. If that work continues, therefore, all of the set-up costs for Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security will have been incurred by then. It will, however, be a matter for the incoming Scottish Executive to decide whether or not this preparatory work should continue.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 16 February 1999,Official Report, columns 644–45, on the Scottish Parliament's tax-varying powers, if he will update his answer to reflect the changes to income tax bands and rates announced in the Budget statement. [78523]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]: Following the measures announced in Budget 99 it is currently estimated for 2000–01 that the yield from a decision to increase the basic rate of income tax by one penny for Scottish taxpayers would be as follows:

  £million

  Gross

  230

  Net1

  225

  1 Net of Working Families Tax Credit and income related benefits: Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax benefit

  Social Inclusion
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the amount of resources to be made available to increase the level of social inclusion under(a) working families tax credits, (b) the national minimum wage, (c) general practitioners for deprived communities,
  800
  (d) Listening To/Working for Communities and (e) New Deal for Communities Pathfinder projects for each of the next three years.[78714]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The estimated net value of the Working Families Tax Credit to families in Scotland is £170 million in 2000–01 and £180 million in 2001–02.

  It is estimated that 157,000 workers in Scotland will benefit from the introduction of the National Minimum Wage. An estimate of the value of this initiative to workers in Scotland is in preparation, and a letter will be sent to my hon. Friend.

  A total of £7.5 million in each of the next 3 years is being invested in payments to general practitioners working in deprived communities.

  Investment in the 2 strands of the New Deal for Communities in Scotland (Working for Communities and Listening to Communities) amounts to £3.3 million in 1999–2000, £3.3 million in 2000–01 and £6.3 million in 2001–02.

  From 1 July 1999, funding of health services in Scotland and the Working for Communities and Listening to Communities programmes will be matters for the Scottish Parliament.

  Census (Religious Affiliation)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what factors underlay the decision not to include a question about religious affiliation in the 2001 census form in Scotland; [79367]

  (2) what representations he has received from church and ethnic minority groups requesting a question about religious affiliation in the 2001 census form in Scotland. [79368]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Government's proposals for the 2001 Census of Population set out in the White Paper (CM 4253) published on 4 March were made after extensive consultation. Potential users were asked to submit business cases setting out the uses and value of collecting information from the Census for each topic. The criteria against which these cases were judged included an assessment of the resources that are distributed on the basis of the information, the value of the information for very small areas (which the Census in particular can provide), the existence or otherwise of alternative sources, the acceptability of the question to the form-filler, the quality of the information obtained, and the costs of collection.

  The main reason for the proposal not to include a question about religious affiliation in Scotland was that no strong case has been made by users in central and local government or elsewhere that the uses to which information from such a question would be put require a Census question (rather than obtaining the information from alternative approaches such as a sample survey). A change in primary legislation would also be required to ask a religion question in Scotland.

  Although, during consultation, Action of Churches Together in Scotland and the Scottish Council for Racial Equality indicated that they would like to see a religion question in the Census, a strong case was not established.
  801
  Since publication of the Government's proposals, representations have been received from Bailie Bashir Maan and Councillor Hanzala Malik, both of Glasgow City Council and the latter in his role as Chairperson of the West of Scotland Community Relations Council.

  Final decisions on the content of the Census in Scotland will be for the Scottish Parliament.

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

  Sheriffs (Retirement)
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy regarding the retirement ages of(a) sheriffs and (b) temporary sheriffs and (i) what policy change in relation to the retirement age of temporary sheriffs he has made since May 1997, (ii) what consultation he had about such policy change and (iii) with whom such consultation took place. [78763]

  Mr. McLeish
  Retiral ages for all Sheriffs are set by statute and no changes have been made, or are proposed, in relation to permanent sheriffs. Temporary Sheriffs are appointed for one year at a time and commissions are subject to review annually in the light of the needs of the courts. On the recommendation of the Lord Advocate, a number of Commissions of older Temporary Sheriffs have not been renewed to make way for the appointment of younger recruits who can be tested on their ability to move on to permanent posts. This policy has been discussed on two occasions with the Temporary Sheriffs Association. Individuals affected by the ruling have been invited to make representations and some Commissions have been extended where exceptional cases have been put forward.

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

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his advisers and (d) his PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79642]

  Mr. Dewar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168. The requirements of the Ministerial Code also apply to Parliamentary Private Secretaries when attending any meetings in an official or semi-official capacity.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Secondments
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff, at what grade and what cost, are currently seconded from Overseas Trade Services to(a) Government Offices and (b) Business Links as export development consultants. [78437]
  802
  Mr. Wilson
  None.

  Export Development Counsellors are employed directly by Business Links and are recruited from the private sector with recent overseas commercial experience.

  There are currently 82 Export Development Counsellors (EDC) based at 69 Business Links. All Business Links require access to an EDC to obtain accreditation.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the grades and locations are of the staff seconded from Government Offices to Business Links to act as access points for overseas trade missions as set out in paragraph 19 of Sir Richard Wilson's review of export promotion. [78441]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have placed copies of the information matrix entitled "International Trade Teams in Business Links" in the Library of the House. The information is kept by British Trade International.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in the United Kingdom are currently employed in the production of electricity from(a) wind power, (b) solar power and (c) wave power. [73773]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK renewables industry currently employs some 3,500 people in 700 companies. The British Wind Energy Association estimate that of these there are around 2,600 full-time equivalent jobs currently engaged in the production of electricity from wind power. As I said in my recent announcement of the publication of our Renewables Review Document, on 30 March 1999,Official Report, columns 577–78, through creating an export drive, and by further developing the industry and the UK market, up to 45,000 jobs could be created.

  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the United Kingdom's energy needs were met by renewable energy sources(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1997. [73887]

  Mr. Battle
  In 1979 less than one third of a per cent. of the inland consumption of primary fuels in the United Kingdom were met from renewable sources, that is less than ¾ million tonnes of oil equivalent. This rose to 1.0 per cent. by 1997, equating to 2.3 million tonnes of oil equivalent.

  Currently, approximately 2 per cent. of UK's electricity is generated from renewable sources. We expect this to rise to 5 per cent. by 2003.

  The Government are working towards a target of renewable energy providing 10 per cent. of UK electricity supplies as soon as possible. We hope to achieve this by 2010.

  Structural Funds
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the UK has received in EU structural funds during the last five years; and what is his estimate for the next five years as a result of the Berlin summit. [79578]
  803
  Mr. Wills
  The UK has received total allocations of 11,990 meuro for the years 1995–99. At this time we cannot say what allocations will be for the next five years.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what ceiling for expenditure on structural funds in the period 2000 to 2006(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of GDP was agreed at the Berlin summit. [79569]

  Mr. Wills
  Following agreement at the Berlin Council, the overall allocations for the Structural and Cohesion Funds in the 15 Member States over the period 2000–06 will total 213 beuro. In 1999 prices this is likely to be about 0.35 per cent. of the EU-15 GDP for the seven years.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the percentage of EU GDP which will be spent on EU structural funds in each of the next five years as a result of the agreement at the Berlin summit. [79570]

  Mr. Wills
  Following the agreement at the Berlin Council the allocations for the EU Structural and Cohesion Funds in the 15 member states is likely to be about the following percentages of the EU-15 GDP in each of the next five years;

  Year

  Percentage of EU GDP

  2000

  0.40

  2001

  0.38

  2002

  0.37

  2003

  0.35

  2004

  0.34

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which areas in the United Kingdom which are currently in receipt of Objective 2 and Objective 5b structural funds will continue to receive funds throughout 2000 to 2006 as a result of the Berlin summit agreement; [79567]

  (2) which areas in the United Kingdom which are currently in receipt of Objective 2 and Objective 5b structural funds will cease to be eligible as a result of the agreement at the Berlin summit; [79566]

  (3) what proportion of the United Kingdom population currently resides in areas eligible for Objective 2 and Objective 5b structural funding; and what proportion will reside in such areas from 2000; [79565]

  (4) what percentage of the population currently benefiting from EU structural funding under objectives 2 and 5b will continue to benefit as a result of the safety net agreed at the Berlin summit; [79563]

  (5) what proportion of the population of the EU will be eligible for EU structural funds as a result of the Berlin summit; [79560]

  (6) what arrangements for enabling the United Kingdom to have increased flexibility in designating eligible areas for assistance under the structural funds were concluded at the Berlin summit. [79564]
  804
  Mr. Wills
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on 30 March 1999,Official Report, columns 576–77.

  Cohesion Fund
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which members of the EU which have been admitted to stage 3 of EMU will still be eligible for assistance from the Cohesion Fund; and to what extent after 1 January 2000 as a result of the Berlin summit; [79558]

  (2) what was agreed at the Berlin summit in respect of the future of the Cohesion Fund. [79568]

  Mr. Wills
  Following agreement of the Agenda 2000 package at the Berlin Council of Ministers on 25 March.

  It was concluded that the four current beneficiaries: Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland should continue to be eligible for funding in 2000 while they met the criteria. A review of eligibility based on 90 per cent. average GNP criterion will be undertaken at mid-term in 2003. In the event of a Member State becoming ineligible, resources for the Cohesion Fund will be reduced accordingly.

  The Council agreed that the overall level of resources available to be committed under the Cohesion Fund for the years 2000 to 2006 should be 18 billion euros. On the financial management and control provisions in the regulation it was concluded that there should be consistency with the relevant provisions of the Structural Fund regulation, subject to taking due account of the specific features of the Cohesion Fund.

  Timber Production Costs
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate what proportion of the differential in timber production costs between the Baltic States and the United Kingdom is attributable to lower wages. [74149]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: Recent information from UK industry sources, consistent with official data, indicates that in the UK an average wage in a modern sawmill is approximately an hourly rate of £7 (including employers' costs).

  Information from official statistical sources in the Baltic States indicates that the daily average rates in the Baltic States industry are in the range of £7–11 (including employers' costs). However, information from UK industry sources suggests that wage rates in some individual mills, such as modern sawmills, may be somewhat higher. The range of £7–11 is broadly consistent with International Labour Organisation estimates for wages in the much broader agriculture and timber products industries in the Baltic States.

  Assisted Area Status
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the working population of the United Kingdom is at present covered by assisted area status; and if he will estimate the percentage after 1 January 2000. [79559]
  805
  Mr. Wills
  The Commission Guidelines designate levels of coverage in terms of residence-based population. The current level for the United Kingdom is 38.3 per cent. In December 1998, the Commission informed the UK that the coverage of its Assisted Areas designated under Article 92(3)a and 92(3)c after 1 January 2000 should be no more than 28.7 per cent.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the criteria which are being used in drawing up the new map of assisted areas in the UK for submission to the European Commission. [79580]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government have not yet decided the criteria which it will use in drawing up the new Assisted Areas map. They will be published as soon as possible.

  Nuclear Waste Storage Plants
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has to expand nuclear waste storage plants at(a) Winfrith, (b) Aldermaston and (c) Harwell. [79510]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: I have no plans to expand the storage of nuclear waste at Winfrith and Harwell as this is an operational matter for the UKAEA which is subject to independent regulation by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) and the Environment Agency (EA) to ensure compliance with nuclear safety and environmental standards. I have therefore asked the Chairman of the UKAEA to write to my hon. Friend with the information required and to place a copy of his reply in the Library of the House.

  Aldermaston is a Ministry of Defence establishment and I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for information about that site.

  Advisory Services
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what surveys he has undertaken of the provision of advisory services by(a) citizen's advice bureaux, (b) law centres, (c) local authorities and (d) voluntary bodies in each London borough; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the level of provision. [76233]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: The level of support for advisory services is a matter for local authorities to consider in the light of local needs and priorities and the resources available to them. We are, however, concerned to ensure the provision of good quality, accessible advice to anyone who needs it. This is a central strand in our consumer strategy aimed at furthering our commitment to giving consumers a fair deal. A White Paper will be published in the summer.

  Northern Cyprus (Exports)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the value of exports from the territory of the Turkish Cypriot regime in Northern Cyprus to the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [79548]
  806
  Mr. Wilson
  The information requested is not available. HM Customs and Excise collect statistics for UK trade in goods with Cyprus as a whole. These data do not separately identify Northern Cyprus. Information on trade in services with Cyprus is not available.

  Company Law Harmonisation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to promote the harmonisation of company law in the EU. [78917]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: A number of harmonising Directives in the field of company law have already been adopted or proposed.

  In addition, during its Presidency in 1998, the UK achieved significant progress on the proposal for a European Company Statute which will make it easier for companies with operations in more than one Member State to restructure their business.

  European Space Agency
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) each other EU member state provided to the European Space Agency in the last year for which figures are available. [78945]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: The UK's commitment to the European Space Agency in 1998 amounted to 186 MEuros. Other ESA Member States' commitments, including those which are not EU Member States, were as follows (also in MEuros):

  Member States

  Amount

  France

  632

  Germany

  553

  Italy

  269

  Belgium

  125

  Spain

  93

  Netherlands

  78

  Switzerland

  72

  Sweden

  60

  Austria

  30

  Denmark

  24

  Norway

  22

  Finland

  14

  Ireland

  6

  Export Licences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 1999,Official Report, column 406, if he will give details of the four licences granted for the export of military equipment to the Rwandan Government since 1 May 1997. [78980]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: These licences covered communications equipment, as noted in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 25 March. Inquiries have been made under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, and I can accordingly disclose the following further details about these licences.
  807

  Issue date

  Goods covered

  Enduser

  4 June 1997

  50 HF Manpack stations comprising:

  Ministry of Defence

  50 HF transceiver 5 watt c/w technical manual

  100 Nicad batteries 12V

  50 battery chargers c/w technical manual

  15 September 1997

  2 HF transceiver 20 watt (export after repair)

  Ministry of Defence

  4 August 1997

  2 HF transceiver 20 watt (export after repair)

  Ministry of Defence

  9 December 1997

  2 HF transceiver 20 watt (export after repair)

  Ministry of Defence

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the professional bodies with responsibility for the conduct of those acting for his Department's Insolvency Service. [79035]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: Under the Insolvency Act 1986, only authorised persons may act as insolvency practitioners. Authorisation may be granted either by a professional body recognised by the Secretary of State or directly by the Secretary of State. Professional bodies are recognised on the basis that they have rules to ensure that practitioners have appropriate educational qualifications and experience and that they remain fit and proper.

  The recognised professional bodies are:

  The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

  The Insolvency Practitioners Association

  The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

  The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland

  The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

  The Law Society and The Law Society of Scotland.

  Workplace Surveillance
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had about placing a legal obligation on employers to consult their employees on surveillance at work; and if he will make a statement. [78491]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]: I have not had any such discussions.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of employers using surveillance cameras in the workplace; and if he will make a statement. [78490]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]: I have not made any estimate.

  Corporate Governance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on when the consultation process on corporate governance will end. [78295]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department is playing an active role in promoting discussion on issues relating to good corporate governance both within the United Kingdom and in international fora. The rules on the governance of companies are, for example, being considered by the major review of company law announced by the Government in 808
  March 1998. The review is planning to publish a consultation document on key areas of corporate governance around the turn of the year.

  Utility Regulation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his plans to make progress with the proposals which appear in his Department's White Paper, "A Fair Deal for Consumers: Modernising the Framework for Utility Regulation the Response to Consultation". [78294]

  Mr. Byers
  Many of the proposals announced in the White Paper will require legislation. We will introduce this as soon as Parliamentary time permits. Other elements of the reform package either do not require legislation, or can be advanced ahead of legislation. Where this is the case, the Department is acting itself, or asking others to act. For example, the Department has appointed a single individual as both gas regulator and electricity regulator. The Department has also encouraged the regulators to carry forward work on the regulatory issues associated with multi-utilities.

  Employment Tribunals
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will review the expenses paid to witnesses attending employment tribunal hearings. [80125]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The expenses payable to parties, witnesses and others attending employment tribunal hearings were reviewed in December and increases took effect from 1 February. The following expenses may now be claimed:travel expenses in excess of £5 including, exceptionally, the cost of travel from overseas where this is in the interests of justice;
  overnight expenses of up to £81 per night (previously £63.30) in central London and £71 (previously £54.30) elsewhere. Additional payment may be made to people with a disability where there is a shortage of suitable local accommodation within a reasonable price range;
  a loss of earnings allowance of up to £45 per day (previously £40);
  child and adult care allowances of up to £5 per hour (previously limited to child care and a limit of £2 per hour). Additional payments may be made where special needs are established;
  the cost of a helper where, because of a medical condition, a party/witness needs to be accompanied;
  reasonable charges for professional interpreters, including interpreters for the deaf/blind; and
  reasonable charges for the attendance of medical professionals or the production of medical reports.

  These changes will be particularly important in responding to the needs of those with family

  809
  commitments or who have a disability. They will be of extra benefit to those who need the money most and will ensure that people can obtain access to the tribunals.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce a statutory right to time off work to serve as an employment tribunal wing member. [79009]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Section 50(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides the right to reasonable time off work for this purpose.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he plans to take to increase the number of wing members of employment tribunals from minority ethnic groups. [79008]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are reviewing the process of recruitment and appointment of employment tribunal wing members and a consultation paper setting out our proposals has been sent to the social partners.

  A major aim of the review is to ensure that members are drawn from as wide a variety of backgrounds as possible, including the ethnic minorities. Measures to achieve this include placing advertisements which will foster applications from the ethnic minorities amongst others, and ensuring that all stages of the recruitment and selection process are in line with equal opportunities principles. We are taking advice on this from bodies such as the Commission for Racial Equality.

  Competition Commission
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the establishment of the Competition Commission. [801231

  Mr. Byers
  I am pleased to announce that the Competition Commission will be established on 1 April. The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs made the relevant commencement and other necessary orders on 25 February and 2 March.

  The current Chairman of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Dr. Derek Morris, will become the first Chairman of the Competition Commission.

  I am further pleased to announce, following consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, the appointment of Judge Christopher Bellamy QC, currently British judge at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Luxembourg, as the first President of the Appeal Tribunals of the Competition Commission.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate his Department has made of the likely impact on the targets for emissions of gases agreed at Kyoto of(a) the lifting of the moratorium on gas-fired powered stations in the UK and (b) the lifting of the moratorium on gas-fired powered stations in the UK accompanied by the phasing out of coal-fired power stations. [79358]
  810
  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: The White Paper of October 1998, '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), set out the Government's programme of reform in the electricity market and introduced a stricter policy on consents for gas-fired stations to protect diversity and security of supply while the programme of reform was under way. The White Paper discussed the environmental aspects of the Government's policy in chapter 9 (`Achieving sustainable energy supplies'). An environmental appraisal was provided as Annex H.

  Unfair Dismissal Claims
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for(a) small and medium enterprises and (b) larger companies the number of claims for unfair dismissal that were made after (i) two, (ii) three, (iii) four, (iv) five and (v) 10 years employment, in each of the three most recent years. [76668]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made for(a) small and medium enterprises and (b) larger companies of the extra number of employees who will receive maternity leave as a result of the reduction in the minimum employment period for eligibility to one year. [76673]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: The Regulatory Impact Assessment which was published alongside the Employment Relations Bill estimates that 23,000 mothers will take more maternity leave as a result of this change. The data are not broken down by size or firm.

  Consumer Affairs Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the agenda for the EU Consumer Affairs Council of 13 April. [79577]

  Dr. Howells
  The Consumer Council on 13 April 1999 will debate the following issues:Exchange of views and adoption of a Council Resolution on the Commission Communication on the Consumer Policy Action Plan 1999–2001;
  Policy debate on a Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Distance Marketing of Consumer Financial Services and amending Directives 90/619/EEC, 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC.

  Civil Servants (Appraisal)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the appraisal performance markings awarded to civil servants in 1998 for(a) each agency in his Department and (b) the Department broken down by (i) grade, (ii) gender, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) part-time/full-time working and (v) disability; and for (1) each agency and (2) the Department, if the Cabinet Office's four fifths rule for detecting potential adverse impact was applied to the appraisal markings of civil servants in the 1998 report round. [78139]
  811
  Dr. Howells
  The appraisal performance markings awarded to civil servants in Department of Trade and Industry headquarters in 1997–98 broken down by the various groups are given in the percentages.

  Per cent.

  Box mark

  1

  2+

  2

  3+

  3 and under

  Ranges 1–2

  3.59

  11.21

  23.32

  39.46

  22.42

  100.00

  Ranges 3–4

  2.88

  14.66

  33.46

  37.47

  11.53

  100.00

  Ranges 5–6

  2.29

  15.59

  36.77

  35.62

  9.73

  100.00

  Ranges 7–8

  3.02

  18.79

  41.00

  31.01

  6.18

  100.00

  Ranges 9–11

  4.38

  23.71

  40.04

  28.49

  3.39

  100.00

  SCS

  11.11

  28.99

  29.95

  28.99

  0.97

  100.00

  Per cent.

  Box mark

  1

  2+

  2

  3+

  3 and under

  Men

  3.30

  18.51

  36.20

  33.39

  8.60

  100.00

  Women

  4.32

  19.10

  37.25

  32.39

  6.95

  100.00

  White

  4.10

  20.31

  37.42

  31.08

  7.09

  100.00

  Ethnic

  2.15

  11.94

  30.53

  42.47

  12.92

  100.00

  Status unknown

  2.54

  14.86

  39.49

  35.51

  7.61

  100.00

  Part-time

  2.88

  15.23

  34.16

  41.15

  6.58

  100.00

  Full-time

  3.77

  18.99

  36.79

  32.42

  8.03

  100.00

  Disabled1

  2.61

  18.95

  30.72

  37.26

  10.46

  100.00

  1 self-nomination of a disability, not necessarily falling within the definition in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  The Department's statistics directorate was commissioned to analyse data for headquarters staff to ascertain whether there is evidence to suggest any potential adverse impact in box markings received. The technique of categorical modelling was used for this analysis, being far more robust than the 'four-fifth' rule and with the advantage of being able to identify any interrelationships between several factors, for example, ethnicity, gender, grades and box mark as opposed to the relationship between just two variables, for example, ethnicity and box mark received.

  I have asked the chief executives of the DTI's Agencies to write to my hon. Friend direct. Copies of these letters have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Race Discrimination Cases
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many race discrimination cases have been heard at employment tribunals in London since May 1997. [79006]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  There are three employment tribunals which cover London and its surrounding areas, London North, Stratford and London South. Since April 1997 these tribunals have heard 1,889 race discrimination cases.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of those employment tribunals in London which heard race discrimination cases since May 1997, included a wing member from a minority ethnic group. [79010]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  There are three employment tribunals which cover London and its surrounding areas. 391 lay members have been appointed to hear cases 812
  in these tribunals, 50 of whom are known to be from ethnic minority groups. In addition to member from ethnic minority groups there is a panel of special members who are available to sit on discrimination cases because of their experience and knowledge.

  Information is not readily available to enable us to identify how many ethnic minority members have heard race discrimination cases and could only be supplied at disproportionate cost.

  The Government are reviewing the process of recruitment and appointment of employment tribunal wing members and a consultation paper setting out our proposals has been sent to the social partners. A major aim of the review is to ensure that members are drawn from a wide variety of backgrounds as possible, including the ethnic minorities.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Low Pay Commission's Review of the National Minimum Wage Accommodation Offset. [80124]

  Mr. Byers
  During the drafting of the National Minimum Wage regulations 1999 the Government received a number of submissions from employers and intentional communities about the operation and amount of offset that may be allowed to count against the National Minimum Wage where a worker is provided with accommodation, and its long term future. The Government fully recognise that the offset is an important factor in pay in some sectors, such as hotel and catering, and that if set at the wrong level it would have a detrimental impact for those sectors and their employees.

  Because the offset in the regulations reflects the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission, the Government asked the Commission to look again at this issue as a matter of urgency and report to Government. The Government is today publishing its report and copies are available in the Vote Office.

  The Government would like to thank the Commission for looking at this matter so quickly.

  The Commission has made three recommendations:
  (1) There should be no immediate change to the rate of the accommodation offset in the national Minimum wage regulations, but the Commission should monitor the use and impact of the accommodation offset on business and employees.
  (2) The Commission should monitor the administration of the accommodation offset and, in the light of practical experience, report on its future application in their second report.
  (3) Members of intentional communities should be regarded as volunteers rather than workers, and not covered by the National Minimum Wage.

  In considering the matter the Commission looked again at the evidence and basis for their earlier recommendation and took further oral and written evidence. They also looked at current practice through collective agreements, arrangements under the Agricultural Wages Boards, previous practice under the Wages Council and arrangements in other countries. The Commission concluded that there was little evidence at this stage that businesses could not cope with the level recommended and that therefore no changes should be made at this time.

  813
  However, it recognised that it would be important to monitor the operation of the offset in light of practical experience and the application of the National Minimum Wage Regulations. It proposes that it should do this as part of its remit to monitor and evaluate the introduction and impact of the national minimum wage. The Commission has agreed with the Office for National Statistics a trailer question to the 1999 New Earnings Survey which it is hoped will provide a clearer insight into the practice of providing an accommodation allowance.

  The Government agree with the Commission's conclusions and accept their recommendations not to change the offset at this time. However, the Government are keen that the Commission should closely monitor the practical effects of its application. The Government also note the Commission's acknowledgement that the continuation of the offset is of significance for a number of businesses and workers and welcome its intention to undertake a full review of its next Report.

  The Commission also looked at the position of individuals who follow a particular lifestyle living and working as members of a religious or charitable community—intentional communities—in receipt of board and lodging and a small amount of subsistence. The Commission concluded that the position of members of intentional communities was similar to that of volunteers, who are specifically excluded from the National Minimum Wage, and that they should be treated as such. The exclusion of volunteers in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, which was agreed with the support of all parties and the voluntary sector, is drawn very narrowly and does not cover members of intentional communities. It will therefore be necessary to amend the 1998 Act to provide an exclusion.

  The Government accept the Commission's recommendation that members of intentional communities should not be covered by the National Minimum Wage and propose to introduce a suitable amendment to the 1998 Act through the Employment Relations Bill which is currently before Parliament.

  Kenya (Tear Gas and Rubber Batons)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about licences issued to Pains-Wessex Ltd. and Haley and Weller Ltd. for the export to the Kenyan security forces of tear gas canisters and rubber batons. [80168]

  Dr. Howells
  I can confirm that a licence was issued to Pains-Wessex Ltd. on 16 December 1992 for the export to the Kenyan Police of 150 Mk 2 multi-purpose guns, 2,000 rubber batons and 1,500 CS gas grenades. Another licence was issued to Haley and Weller Ltd. on 22 July 1994 for the export to the Kenyan Police of 500 rubber batons and 500 CS gas grenades. I am disclosing this information in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Finally, my officials have been informed by the Chief Executive of Chemring Group plc, the parent company of both of these companies, that neither Haley and Weller nor Pains-Wessex Ltd. has supplied any further products of this type to Kenya, and also that Chemring Group plc is keen to establish an ethical policy and has had a meeting with Amnesty International on this matter.
  814

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) of 12 March 1999,Official Report, column 407, on nuclear waste, what was the source of the advice on which he based his answer. [78989]

  Mr. Battle
  The answer in question reflected the situation at the time it was given, which remains unchanged. I also refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 23 March 1999,Official Report, column 140.

  Trademarks
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the Government's policy in relation to trademarks and the effects on parallel imports; and if he will make a statement. [80126]

  Dr. Howells
  The Silhouette Judgment of the European Court of Justice last July confirmed as a matter of law that the European trade marks Directive does allow trade mark owners to use their rights to prevent import of their goods into the Community after they have been marketed elsewhere.

  The Government are keen to ensure that European legislation gives high priority to the interests of consumers, whilst recognising the legitimate interests of producers in securing reasonable protection for their intellectual property. Parallel importing can apply downward pressure on prices in some markets to the advantage of consumers, but producers' investment in innovation and in developing product quality and reputation could be impaired to the detriment of consumers. Price differences in some consumer sectors now indicate that there is a need to consider the effects of the current law, and whether any change would be of benefit.

  The effects of trade mark rights and parallel imports vary greatly between market sectors and this would have to be taken into account. In particular, there are sectors where special factors apply, for example where there are material differences between products for different international markets sufficient to lead to consumer confusion or where there is risk to health or safety.

  The Government have considered the recent report from the European Commission on the results of a study it has had made into the economic effects of the present trade marks regime, and is pleased that this will be discussed at the next meeting of the Internal Market Council. We are also aware of recent research conducted in Sweden, which indicates net benefits from a change in the law. We will be looking closely at the methodology and results of this Swedish study, and will be analysing the benefits and costs that could accrue to the United Kingdom.

  Exhibitions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will reassess his Department's decision to delete the Nederlands Tuinbuow Vakbeurs Exhibition from the list of exhibitions to receive support in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [79848]
  815
  Mr. Wilson
  No. My Department received three times as many bids for support from the available budget and I regret it was not possible to assist a group at this event in that year. We are ready to consider a bid for support in the 2000–2001 programme.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what environmental appraisals of policy his Department has(a) completed, (b) started and (c) planned. [79623]

  Mr. Battle
  This information is being collated and a written answer will be forthcoming from a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, following the Easter recess.

  UK balance of trade with the EU countries 1969–98

  £ million, current prices

  Austria

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  Denmark

  Finland

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Balance of trade in goods

  1969

  8

  105

  -49

  -72

  -12

  -48

  42

  1970

  10

  95

  -54

  -64

  -30

  -44

  39

  1971

  6

  66

  -69

  -72

  -52

  -114

  56

  1972

  -8

  19

  -112

  -109

  -95

  -259

  52

  1973

  -42

  -33

  -149

  -163

  -294

  -580

  51

  1974

  -49

  -57

  -147

  -264

  -430

  -888

  38

  1975

  -38

  -185

  -177

  -136

  -457

  -728

  55

  1976

  -21

  -184

  -47

  -271

  -345

  -948

  86

  1977

  -16

  -280

  -12

  -246

  -523

  -1,122

  128

  1978

  -86

  -156

  -124

  -288

  -696

  -1,458

  113

  1979

  -89

  -382

  -65

  -381

  -987

  -1,631

  122

  1980

  -32

  -137

  -76

  -268

  -247

  -545

  92

  1981

  -106

  -387

  -131

  -324

  -342

  -437

  90

  1982

  -151

  -542

  -238

  -410

  248

  -2,061

  104

  1983

  -164

  -560

  -353

  -454

  633

  -3,706

  115

  1984

  -208

  -649

  -463

  -545

  1,127

  -3,711

  75

  1985

  -251

  -688

  -342

  -617

  1,143

  -3,832

  15

  1986

  -304

  -272

  -546

  -679

  -1,141

  -5,698

  45

  1987

  -319

  -504

  -643

  -754

  -580

  -6,476

  89

  1988

  -350

  -637

  -842

  -974

  -969

  -8,032

  116

  1989

  -333

  -787

  -1,018

  -962

  -1,237

  -8,890

  179

  1990

  -258

  -100

  -875

  -734

  -863

  -6,879

  281

  1991

  -152

  374

  -833

  -681

  778

  -3,158

  289

  1992

  -146

  -10

  -824

  -680

  -697

  -3,816

  405

  1993

  -57

  342

  -533

  -761

  -1,388

  -3,982

  575

  1994

  15

  204

  -373

  -983

  -1,495

  -4,753

  580

  1995

  203

  311

  -83

  -785

  -1,076

  -5,989

  627

  1996

  114

  -93

  -143

  -843

  -738

  -6,580

  767

  1997

  -246

  -699

  -246

  -1,001

  -1,337

  -5,223

  647

  1998

  -190

  -1,131

  -130

  -949

  -1,345

  -4,848

  670

  Balance of trade in services

  1988

  -198

  163

  71

  44

  -157

  -374

  -394

  1989

  -129

  159

  72

  79

  -449

  -452

  -372

  1990

  -148

  110

  74

  80

  -707

  -469

  -433

  1991

  -126

  153

  81

  65

  -786

  -324

  -447

  1992

  -98

  200

  130

  109

  -962

  46

  -515

  1993

  -115

  241

  158

  106

  -942

  409

  -554

  1994

  -93

  424

  130

  99

  -1,139

  400

  -661

  1995

  -34

  430

  159

  158

  -1,106

  747

  -536

  1996

  11

  506

  146

  286

  -966

  168

  -360

  1997

  -15

  249

  317

  229

  -1,773

  1,284

  -314

  1998

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  816

  Trade Balance
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the United Kingdom's trade balance with other EU countries in each year since 1969. [78943]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: The information is in the following tables. Figures for trade in goods have been provided on an Overseas Trade Statistics (OTS) basis. Figures for trade in services are on a Balance of Payments (BOP) basis. The main difference between trade on an OTS and BOP basis is that BOP figures exclude goods not changing ownership. In 1998 this resulted in a difference of less than 1 per cent. in the export values. Import figures on a BOP basis also exclude the cost of insurance and freight. In 1998 this resulted in a difference of just under 3 per cent. in the import values.
  817

  UK balance of trade with the EU countries 1969–98

  £ million, current prices

  Austria

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  Denmark

  Finland

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Balance of trade in goods and services

  1988

  -548

  -474

  -771

  -930

  -1,126

  -8,406

  -278

  1989

  -462

  -628

  -946

  -883

  -1,686

  -9,342

  -193

  1990

  -406

  10

  -801

  -654

  -1,570

  -7,348

  -152

  1991

  -278

  527

  -752

  -616

  -8

  -3,482

  -158

  1992

  -244

  190

  -694

  -571

  -1,659

  -3,770

  -110

  1993

  -172

  583

  -375

  -655

  -2,330

  -3,573

  21

  1994

  -78

  628

  -243

  -884

  -2,634

  -4,353

  -81

  1995

  169

  741

  76

  -627

  -2,182

  -5,242

  91

  1996

  125

  413

  3

  -557

  -1,704

  -6,412

  407

  1997

  -261

  -450

  71

  -772

  -3,110

  -3,939

  333

  1998

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Ireland

  Italy

  Netherlands

  Portugal

  Spain

  Sweden

  EU total

  Balance of trade in goods

  1969

  42

  -12

  -110

  1

  21

  -31

  -115

  1970

  39

  -9

  -81

  1

  13

  -7

  -92

  1971

  -6

  -34

  -100

  -1

  14

  -24

  -322

  1972

  24

  -68

  -165

  -12

  33

  -107

  -803

  1973

  84

  -121

  -307

  -41

  -4

  -224

  -1,824

  1974

  2

  -212

  -651

  -50

  -4

  -200

  -2,903

  1975

  -27

  -243

  -753

  -44

  21

  -58

  -2,769

  1976

  200

  -276

  -921

  27

  -6

  -138

  -2,829

  1977

  325

  -556

  -348

  71

  25

  -66

  -2,593

  1978

  422

  -805

  -266

  29

  -71

  -168

  -3,541

  1979

  862

  -1,016

  -381

  -34

  -188

  -61

  -4,228

  1980

  877

  -401

  449

  56

  -113

  160

  -183

  1981

  994

  -604

  105

  33

  -79

  71

  -1,105

  1982

  885

  -713

  128

  48

  -49

  266

  -2,537

  1983

  766

  -918

  337

  -79

  58

  340

  -4,044

  1984

  758

  -907

  11

  -259

  -351

  484

  -4,674

  1985

  814

  -830

  786

  -256

  -238

  563

  -3,730

  1986

  499

  -1,210

  -1,181

  -298

  117

  -450

  -11,137

  1987

  344

  -1,071

  -1,291

  -148

  75

  -630

  -11,941

  1988

  243

  -1,645

  -2,602

  -103

  268

  -1,136

  -16,663

  1989

  465

  -2,060

  -2,923

  -122

  359

  -1,311

  -18,640

  1990

  801

  -1,146

  -3,011

  -146

  868

  -896

  -12,958

  1991

  853

  -245

  -1,837

  36

  1,679

  -696

  -3,593

  1992

  693

  -612

  -1,396

  -1

  1,513

  -841

  -6,412

  1993

  785

  -655

  -974

  117

  1,134

  -708

  -6,105

  1994

  1,219

  -736

  -561

  -36

  1,426

  -837

  -6,330

  1995

  764

  -366

  851

  5

  1,770

  -376

  -4,144

  1996

  1,448

  -795

  1,090

  17

  1,711

  -356

  -4,401

  1997

  1,896

  -1,434

  1,468

  -32

  1,588

  -292

  -4,911

  1998

  1,673

  -1,147

  -624

  -90

  1,298

  -22

  -6,835

  Balance of trade in services

  1988

  261

  265

  109

  -277

  -1,605

  129

  -1,793

  1989

  279

  225

  64

  -252

  -1,391

  209

  -1,862

  1990

  274

  285

  44

  -251

  -1,177

  241

  -1,972

  1991

  286

  326

  -13

  -278

  -1,181

  239

  -1,894

  1992

  354

  384

  37

  -288

  -1,301

  326

  -996

  1993

  358

  345

  114

  -278

  -1,659

  324

  -1,135

  1994

  584

  231

  33

  -274

  -2,107

  297

  1,763

  1995

  880

  323

  157

  -339

  -2,391

  366

  -813

  1996

  991

  233

  292

  -322

  -2,164

  374

  -588

  1997

  802

  -56

  598

  -511

  -2,604

  435

  -1,100

  1998

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  -2,328

  Balance of trade in goods and services

  1988

  504

  -1,380

  -2,493

  -380

  -1,337

  -1,007

  -18,456

  1989

  744

  -1,835

  -2,859

  -374

  -1,032

  -1,102

  -20,502

  1990

  1,075

  -861

  -2,967

  -397

  -309

  -655

  -14,930

  1991

  1,139

  81

  -1,850

  -242

  498

  -457

  -5,487

  1992

  1,047

  -228

  -1,359

  -289

  212

  -515

  -7,408

  1993

  1,143

  -310

  -860

  -161

  -525

  -384

  -7,240

  1994

  1,803

  -505

  -528

  -310

  -681

  -540

  -8,093

  1995

  1,644

  -43

  1,008

  -334

  -621

  -10

  -4,957

  818 819

  Ireland

  Italy

  Netherlands

  Portugal

  Spain

  Sweden

  EU total

  1996

  2,439

  -562

  1,382

  -305

  -453

  18

  -4,989

  1997

  2,698

  -1,490

  2,066

  -543

  -1,016

  143

  -6,011

  1998

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  -9,163

  Note:

  Figures for trade in goods are on an Overseas Trade Statistics (OTS) basis. Figures for trade in services are on a Balance of Payments (BOP) basis. Trade with EU institutions is included in the EU Total. Information on UK trade in services is only available from 1988.

  Sources:

  Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics (MRETS), ONS

  UK Trade in Services, ONS

  Annual Abstract of Statistics, ONS

  Oftel
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what preparations are being made by Oftel 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. [77686]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: Oftel is a member of the Concurrency Working Party, which is chaired by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and is working to ensure that a consistent approach is being taken by all regulators. 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 Concurrency Working Party and issued by the DGFT. Oftel has also published draft guidelines on how the Competition Act will be applied in the telecommunications sector, and the final version is to be published in May. A compliance forum for the industry is to take place at the end of April 1999. In February, the DTI issued a consultation document, "Concurrency: consultation on the possible need and scope for regulations".

  Oftel has put in place a structured training programme to ensure that staff are prepared for the coming into force of the Act, and is also participating in the training programme organised by the OFT. The issue of whether additional staff are required is reviewed regularly. Oftel has not yet bid for more staff.

  Cassini Space Probe
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been made by the British Government to the European Space Agency about the environmental risks of the Cassini space probe; and when such representations were made. [77935]

  Mr. Battle
  The British Government have been in close contact with the European Space Agency in both the preparation and elaboration of the Cassini-Huygens mission and have discussed all aspects of the mission with ESA on a number of occasions.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the British Government have obtained a copy of the European Space Agency's evaluation of the Cassini space probe. [77936]

  Mr. Battle
  The Cassini-Huygens mission to Saturn and its moon Titan is a collaborative programme between NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA). Within this collaboration, NASA was responsible for developing 820
  the Cassini spacecraft. NASA commissioned two independent safety assessments and has produced a document summarising the findings which is available on the internet.

  ESA was responsible for developing the Huygens space probe. Senior ESA Directors attended major NASA programme reviews during the development of Cassini and reported to member states on major milestones. These reports were given orally during the course of the Agency's normal programme board meetings.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been made by the British Government to the Government of the United States about the environment risks of NASA's Cassini space probe; and when such representations were made. [77933]

  Mr. Battle
  The BNSC has examined the two independent environmental impact statements commissioned by NASA prior to the launch of the Cassini-Huygens mission. Both of these endorsed the use of plutonium on the mission. In addition, under US law, NSA has a duty to minimise the risks associated with its work, as well as a responsibility to conform to the United Nations Principles on the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space (1992), an initiative in which the UK took a leading role.

  Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if Scottish miners will be compensated for exposure to coal dust from 1947 onwards in any handling agreement concluded in respect of Scottish cases; [78758]

  (2) by what date he expects that a handling agreement will be concluded in respect of bronchitis and emphysema care involving Scottish miners; [78759]

  (3) if he will ensure that exposure to coal dust in the period before 1954 is not discounted for the purposes of compensation in any handling agreement concluded in respect of claims for compensation by Scottish miners for bronchitis and emphysema. [78757]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: Officials held constructive and positive talks with Scottish solicitors on 30 March, and are due to meet in April, to discuss handling arrangements for the 5,000 or so claims from Scottish miners. Although we offered the handling arrangements that were agreed on 26 March for England and Wales, we recognise that there are differences in Scottish law and we discussed with the Solicitors how

  821
  those differences might best be dealt with in any Scottish handling arrangements. We hope to finalise the arrangements for handling Scottish claims shortly.

  Multinational Companies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which members of his Department had discussions with GJW, and on how many occasions and what dates concerning the wish by Cape plc to amend the Access to Justice Bill [Lords] to ban foreign workers of British companies obtaining legal aid; and whether the statement by officials that they would not be keen to see any developments which discouraged multinationals from locating their headquarters in the United Kingdom was made with the knowledge of Ministers. [78747]

  Mr. Wills
  One of my officials recalls receiving a telephone call in early March from a Mr. Weeks, who did not identify himself as being from GJW, about inward investment. During this conversation the point was made that HMG supports inward investment into the UK. Cape plc were not mentioned during the conversation and it was not reported to Ministers.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria he uses in relation to a multinational's conduct and working practices abroad to assess the desirability of the company locating its headquarters in the United Kingdom. [78743]

  Mr. Wills
  Multinationals who choose to locate their headquarters in the UK do so because the UK provides the right business environment in which they can flourish. Key features of top performing companies are the effectiveness and quality of their management and the commitment which that inspires in their workforce. Whilst the Government seek, through international bodies such as the UN, to improve working practices abroad they do not seek to vet the practices of individual companies that wish to establish headquarters in the UK. The Government are committed to creating a corporate culture in the UK where fairness is second nature. The National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the Working Time Regulations and the Employment Relations Bill will ensure that workers have minimum standards of protection.

  Oil Spills
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the oil spills from BHP platforms in Liverpool Bay on(a) 2 March and (b) 6 March; and if he will make a statement. [77955]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 17 March 1999, Official Report, columns 701–02.

  The field remains shut in and the investigation continues. In the course of this investigation, on 15 March, BHP Petroleum also reported an oil spill from their Douglas installation that had occurred on 2 March. This is being investigated in conjunction with the spill of 6 March.

  Pangea Resources Inc.
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning BNFL Ltd. investment in Pangea Resources Inc. [77096]
  822
  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: My Department has received no representation concerning BNFL Ltd. investment in Pangea Resources Inc. However, I have received representations from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on behalf of a constituent who expressed concern over the impact of the Pangea project on Aboriginal communities and lands.

HEALTH

  Free Eye Checks (Pensioners)
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate how many pensioners in the Barnsley East and Mexborough constituency are eligible for free eye checks. [73374]

  Mr. Denham
  We are unable to make meaningful estimates for such a small area. Nationally, we estimate that about 21 million people are eligible for free National Health Service sight tests and, from 1 April 1999, some 6 to 7 million more people aged 60 and over will become eligible. The number of people aged 60 or over in 1997 in the North and Yorkshire Regional area was 1,321,000.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will forecast what the average weekly earnings of nurses will be in 1999–2000 using April 1998 prices. [74023]

  Mr. Denham
  Based on the Department's August 1997 Earnings Survey, uprated to take account of pay settlements up to and including 1 April 1999, the estimate of average gross earnings for all nursing and midwifery staff in 1999–2000 is £361 per week (equivalent to £18,800 per annum) and for qualified nurses alone £400 per week (equivalent to £20,800 per annum). It is not possible to express this estimate in April 1998 prices until inflation data are available for the 1999–2000 period.

  Nurse Statistics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent(a) bank, (b) agency and (c) contract nurses were employed, and at what cost, by each NHS trust for each year since their creation. [75038]

  Mr. Denham
  The information that is available centrally will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities which do not make beta interferon available on the NHS to patients suffering from multiple sclerosis. [78451]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: The information requested is not available. Guidance to the National Health Service was issued in November 1995 asking health authorities to develop and implement local arrangements to manage the entry of this drug.
  823
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities in the United Kingdom which prescribe beta interferon to treat MS sufferers. [78994]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available, since the majority of beta interferon prescribing should take place in hospitals and hospital prescribing and dispensing data are not held centrally.

  A and E Departments (Wakefield)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the allocation of additional funds for the accident and emergency departments at the(a) Pontefract and (b) Pinderfields hospitals in the Wakefield district. [78720]

  Mr. Hutton
  Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospitals National Health Service Trust has been allocated £115,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund to improve the resuscitation, assessment and waiting room facilities in the accident and emergency departments at both Pinderfields General hospital and Pontefract General infirmary.

  Waiting Lists
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the numbers of patients on waiting lists in each NHS trust and health authority in the north-west region(a) currently, (b) one year ago and (c) two years ago. [78786]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Numbers of patients on waiting lists in the north west region—health authority

  March 1997

  March 1998

  February 1999

  Bury and Rochdale

  9,894

  10,943

  9,824

  East Lancashire

  13,173

  15,339

  13,374

  Liverpool

  12,711

  12,883

  11,680

  Manchester

  12,172

  12,851

  11,162

  Morecambe Bay

  7,436

  7,550

  7,007

  North West Lancashire

  13,001

  14,170

  12,948

  North Cheshire

  8,923

  10,484

  9,652

  Salford and Trafford

  13,455

  14,352

  13,200

  Sefton

  9,239

  8,915

  8,086

  South Cheshire

  16,628

  18,048

  15,273

  South Lancashire

  10,092

  10,414

  9,354

  St. Helen and Knowsley

  9,920

  9,966

  8,935

  Stockport

  6,541

  8,262

  7,774

  West Pennine

  14,223

  15,016

  13,684

  Wigan and Bolton

  16,122

  16,379

  14,917

  Wirral

  6,354

  6,661

  5,722

  Regional Total

  179,884

  192,233

  172,592

  Numbers of patients on waiting lists in the north west region—NHS Trusts

  March 1997

  March 1998

  February 1999

  Aintree Hospital

  10,251

  9,105

  8,364

  Bay Community

  6

  6

  0

  Blackburn, Hyndbum and Ribble

  5,840

  6,569

  5,450

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital

  8,392

  9,866

  8,838

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde Corn

  36

  20

  22

  Bolton Hospitals

  5,938

  5,794

  5,210

  824

  Numbers of patients on waiting lists in the north west region— NHS Trusts

  March 1997

  March 1998

  February 1999

  Burnley Healthcare

  4,903

  6,157

  5,257

  Cardiothoracic Centre

  1,426

  1,417

  1,400

  Central Manchester Healthcare

  12,319

  12,531

  11,564

  Chorley and South Ribble

  1,857

  2,121

  2,185

  Christie Hospital

  964

  965

  1,073

  Clatterbridge Centre

  67

  89

  80

  Countess of Chester

  7,618

  7,436

  6,488

  East Cheshire

  2,022

  2,824

  2,261

  Halton General

  1,922

  2,280

  1,801

  Liverpool Women's

  1,114

  1,109

  919

  Manchester Children's

  2,801

  3,260

  2,881

  Mental Health Services Salford

  54

  114

  70

  Mid-Cheshire Hospital

  5,873

  6,933

  5,863

  Morcambe Bay Hospitals

  7,482

  7,148

  6,706

  North Manchester

  5,787

  6,002

  4,727

  North Mersey Community

  239

  158

  92

  Oldham

  8,436

  8,332

  7,467

  Preston Acute

  8,970

  8,500

  7,658

  Rochdale Healthcare

  4,464

  4,684

  4,183

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen

  8,934

  9,170

  8,642

  Royal Liverpool Children's

  1,695

  2,275

  2,140

  Salford Royal Hospitals

  5,241

  6,368

  6,074

  South Manchester University

  6,764

  7,292

  6,877

  Southport and Formby Community

  1

  0

  0

  Southport and Formby Acute

  4,197

  4,122

  3,664

  St Helens and Knowsley Hospitals

  8,596

  8,217

  7,216

  Stockport Acute Services

  6,323

  8,120

  7,739

  Stockport Healthcare

  1

  0

  0

  Tameside and Glossop Acute

  3,216

  3,704

  3,334

  Trafford Healthcare

  4,109

  3,754

  3,193

  Walton Centre

  669

  669

  586

  Warrington Hospital

  6,446

  8,127

  7,775

  West Lancashire

  2,411

  2,735

  2,481

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services

  7,694

  8,234

  7,343

  Wirral and West Cheshire Comm

  88

  36

  8

  Wirral Hospital

  5,504

  5,678

  4,943

  Wrightington Hospitals

  2,643

  2,604

  2,683

  Regional Total

  185,536

  196,962

  177,445

  Nurse Recruitment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls from former nurses in(a) total and (b) Portsmouth have been received by the recruitment helpline since its inception. [78946]

  Mr. Denham
  As at 29 March, the number of inquiries to the response line for the national nursing recruitment campaign was 52,344. Our analysis of these inquiries shows that of these 4,972 were from former nurses and that 72 of these were form the Portsmouth area.

  Allergies
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the five most frequent sources of reported allergies deriving from(a) food, (b) over the counter medicines and (c) prescription only medicines and the number of recorded cases in each category during the last 12 months for which figures are available. [78996]

  Ms Jowell
  It is not possible to list the five most frequent sources of reported allergies deriving from food because information on the number of cases is not available. However, foods which can induce allergic reactions in some individuals include peanuts and nuts, wheat, eggs, fish, shellfish, milk and seeds.
  825
  The five drug substances for which suspected allergic reactions to medicines have been reported most frequently through the Yellow Card Scheme since 1964 are: amoxycillin, diclofenac, trimethoprim, bacillus clostridium tetani and measles virus vaccine. These drug substances were included in both single constituent and multi-constituent products and are only available on prescription.

  For drug substances which may be supplied over the counter, the five most common drug substances for which these suspected reactions have been reported through the Yellow Card Scheme since 1964 are: ibuprofen, pyridoxine, ascorbic acid, riboflavine and nicotinamide. These drug substances were included in both single constituent and multi-constituent products.

  This information should not be used to compare the drugs. It is not possible to determine the incidence of a particular adverse drug reaction from spontaneous reporting data because neither the total number of reactions occurring, nor the number of patients exposed to the drug in known. The number of suspected adverse drug reactions reported for a particular drug substance depends on various factors, including the extent of use of the drug and the reporting rate for the drug.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if dentists working in the general dental services will come within the remit of the Commission for Health Improvement. [79416]

  Mr. Denham
  It is not intended that individual dentists will be reviewed or investigated by the Commission for Health Improvement. However clinical governance arrangements will apply to all parts of the National Health Service including primary care and the Commission will have a leading role in developing advice and guidance for the NHS on clinical governance. We would expect dentists to have regard to this advice.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is taken by local health authorities where the Dental Practice Board has made a reference to them on the grounds that the standard of work of a dentist is a cause for concern; and if he will make a statement. [79415]

  Mr. Denham
  Health authorities have the power to discuss the issue with the dentist, refer the matter to the local dental discipline committee or the General Dental Council, or prosecute, as appropriate.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many dentists were placed on a regime of prior approval by targeting in each of the last five years; [79418]

  (2) how many dentists have been placed on a prior approval regime by the relevant dental service committee in each of the last five years. [79419]

  Mr. Denham
  The table shows the number of general practitioners in England and Wales subject to prior approval at the end of each financial year as a result of either action by the relevant dental service committee or targeting by the Dental Practice Board.
  826

  General dental practitioners subject to prior approval at the end of each year1

  Subject to prior approval by:

  Year

  Dental Service Committee 2

  Targeting

  1993–94

  3

  1

  1994–95

  10

  2

  1995–96

  7

  1

  1996–97

  9

  0

  1997–98

  3

  0

  1 These numbers are as at the end of each year and so will exclude any dentists subject to prior approval regimes which do not last until the end of the year. Dentists who are on the regimes at the end of two successive years would be counted twice.

  2 Dental Disciplinary Committee from 1 April 1996.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have been referred by the Dental Practice Board for England and Wales to(a) the police, (b) the dentist's local health authority and (c) the General Dental Council in each of the last five years. [79413]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is given in the table. Referrals are counted once, in the year in which they were referred.

  Cases referred by the Dental Practice Board: England and Wales

  Referred to:

  Year

  Police

  Health authority

  General Dental Council

  1993–94

  5

  88

  1

  1994–95

  5

  83

  2

  1995–96

  11

  100

  2

  1996–97

  10

  117

  4

  1997–98

  13

  231

  0

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have been referred to the National Health Service Tribunal in each of the last five years; and what was the outcome in each case. [79417]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, details of the total number of cases, for all practitioners, are published in the Annual Report of the Council on Tribunals, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the number of additional patients who have obtained access to NHS dentistry through the Investing in Dentistry initiative; [79529]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the reasons for the underspend in the Investing in Dentistry budget; [79527]

  (3) what funding will be made available for Investing in Dentistry in 1999–2000. [79528]

  Mr. Denham
  All the funding available for 1998–99 for investing in dentistry (IID) is expected to be assigned by the end of the financial year. Funding available in the first year of IID was not fully utilised, as most approvals during this period only became due for payment in the second year of the scheme.
  827
  To date, we have approved 279 Investing in dentistry funding requests, which should enable over 650,000 patients to register with an National Health Service dentist.

  No decision has been made yet about the funding of another General Dental Services access initiative in the next financial year. However, funds will be available in the financial year 1999–2000 to meet the treatment costs and any outstanding grant payments arising from IID proposals which have already been approved, or which have been received and are subsequently approved.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will be publishing his Department's strategy for NHS dentistry. [79526]

  Mr. Denham
  Our strategy for National Health Service dentistry will be published later this year.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend assistance with travel costs under the health benefits scheme to visits to dentists in areas where there is a shortage of NHS dentists. [79530]

  Mr. Denham
  Patients receive help with travel costs only under the hospital travel cost scheme; it does not include primary care services such as general dental services. The situation will be kept under review.

  Kidderminster District General Hospital
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received from the West Midlands NHS Executive regarding the future of Kidderminster district general hospital. [79579]

  Mr. Denham
  It is established practice under successive Administrations not to disclose details of confidential advice received by Ministers from civil servants.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the seventh annual report of the national Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit. [79895]

  Mr. Dobson
  The National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit's seventh annual report has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library. The report documents the Unit's findings in relation to sporadic, familial, iatrogenic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) and new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (nvCJD) up to 31 December 1998.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of the Medicines Control Agency and the Medical Devices Agency. [80064]

  Mr. Denham
  Quinquennial reviews of both Agencies are now due. They will address the performance of each Agency and will re-examine the options ("Prior Options") which were considered before each Agency was established. They will look at all options, although they will be informed by the study which we announced on 9 December 1998 to investigate the longer-term 828
  organisational arrangements—including merger—which would best support the effective regulation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. This study has just been completed and has recommended that the Agencies should not be merged at this time. The report of the study has been placed in the Library.

  Schoolchildren's Diets
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues to health authorities regarding(a) the level of fat, (b) the proportion of sugar, (c) the amount of fibre, (d) the amount of fresh fruit and (e) the amount of fresh vegetables in the diet of schoolchildren. [79324]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has not issued any guidelines to health authorities regarding schoolchildren's dietary needs. However, the Department offers general advice on healthy eating which applies to everyone over the age of 5 years. This is contained in "The Balance of Good Health" which shows the different types and proportion of five categories of foods, including fruits and vegetables, which make up a well-balanced and healthy diet. "Eight Guidelines for a Healthy Diet" extends this advice to cover the important dietary changes needed to eat healthily.

  Fieldwork for the joint Department of Health/Department for Education and Employment National Diet and Nutritional Survey of young people aged 4 to 18 years has been completed and the results are being analysed. A report is expected at the end of this year. We hope the report will help inform the way forward for health promotion initiatives and public health strategies to improve the diet of schoolchildren.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 1999,Official Report, columns 185–86, if he will place in the Library the documents disseminated through the NHS Executive's regional offices for those private finance initiative schemes which have reached financial close. [78986]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Executive does not prepare a formal written report on the lessons learned from each private finance initiative scheme. Any lessons that are to be learned are disseminated through training events, networking days or through ad-hoc guidance. All of the existing PFI guidance will be replaced shortly by codified advice, which will be disseminated to the whole of the NHS and will be available from the Stationery Office and on the Internet. Copies of the guidance will also be placed in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance Contributions
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the effects of the transfer of the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue. [80073]
  829
  Mr. Timms
  I can confirm that from 1 April responsibility for National Insurance contributions (NICs) operations and policy will pass from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to the Board of the Inland Revenue and the Chancellor of the Exchequer respectively. A new Executive Office of the Inland Revenue to be called the National Insurance Contributions Office (NICO) will be formed from those Contributions Agency (CA) units based in Newcastle, amounting to about 4,500 staff in all. Some 3,500 CA staff working in field offices in locations around Great Britain will be integrated into Inland Revenue regions.

  This change is important in two ways. It marks a step towards more modern and effective Government and also towards improved service to the public. Our aims for this transfer are to reduce burdens on business; give better customer service; strengthen compliance; and over time promote greater alignment of the rules for income tax and National Insurance.

  For instance from 6 April, through the New Enterprise Support Initiative based in the Inland Revenue, new employers will have access to a telephone helpline which will provide help and guidance on both NICs and tax. Other early benefits of the transfer include a new route for appeals against contributions decisions to the Tax Commissioners alongside tax appeals.

  As a result of the transfer of responsibility for NICs policy to Treasury Ministers correspondence and parliamentary questions on NICs policy issues should in future be addressed to them. Parliamentary questions on NICs operational issues will also be for reply by Treasury Ministers. The Board of Inland Revenue will be responsible for NICs operations and, where appropriate, replies to correspondence on operational issues will be provided by Inland Revenue officials.

  The Inland Revenue and Treasury Ministers will respond to correspondence and parliamentary questions on NICs in just the same way as they deal with their other responsibilities.

  The Social Security Benefits Agency will continue to be responsible for contributory benefits and State Retirement Pension matters as now. Social Security Ministers retain responsibility for policy on the contributory principle and policy on non-State pensions.

  The respective responsibilities of the two Department and their working relationship are set out in a Memorandum of Understanding between the Principal Accounting Officers. The Memorandum reflects share commitment to modern Government and improved public service across a wide range of complex arrangements. Copies have been placed in the Libraries and it is also available at the Internet sites of the DSS and the Inland Revenue.

  Supported Accommodation
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the outcome of the consultation exercise on the future funding arrangements for supported accommodation. [80071]
  830
  Mr. Darling
  On 10 December we published the consultation paper "Supporting People: A new policy and funding framework for support services". This proposed replacing the current complicated funding arrangements with one single budget targeted specifically at support services for vulnerable people, which would be administered by Local Authorities. The new arrangements will encourage coherent planning at a local level to deliver more cost effective and high quality services to many thousands of vulnerable people.

  Consultation ended on 5 February, and we received a substantial number of responses which have helped inform our decisions on the way forward.

  We are pleased to announce that the consultation shows that there is strong support for the principles underlying the Supporting People proposals, and the fact that, for the first time, the provision of support services for vulnerable people is being given the priority it deserves. We have therefore decided to proceed with implementing the long-term proposals from April 2003.

  Some respondents had concerns about whether the new arrangements were suitable for sheltered housing. We have looked carefully at these concerns and concluded that including sheltered housing in the new single budget will enable greater flexibility in service models, and bring the benefits of a joint commissioning approach.

  In taking work forward, we will work closely with interested parties to develop the detail of the new arrangements to ensure that the long-term objectives become a workable and effective reality.

  The new single budget will be preceded by a time-limited transitional Housing Benefit scheme. Although there was a convincing welcome for the proposed transitional Housing Benefit scheme, there were a number of concerns expressed about the date of its introduction. In direct response to these concerns, we have decided to extend the current interim scheme thereby delaying the introduction of the new transitional scheme until April 2000. Aligning the start date of the transitional scheme with the beginning of the financial year will help local authorities in their financial planning.

  I am placing a list of the organisations and academic bodies who responded, excluding those who requested confidentiality, in the Library. Copies of the list and specific responses are available on request from the Department of Social Security, by contacting The Inter-Departmental Review of Funding for Supported Accommodation, 5th Floor, The Ade1phi, 1–11 John Adam St, London WC2N 6HT.

  Occupational Pension
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the size of(a) the occupational pension payments referred to in paragraph 5 of his consultation paper on bereavement support and (b) such payments currently. [76105]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The average size of the occupational pension payments referred to in the consultation paper was around £80 for both of the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97.
  831
  Notes:

  1. These figures are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data set which is based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The FRS does not include Northern Ireland.

  2. The financial year 1995–96 was the basis for the figures quoted in paragraph 5 of the consultation paper on bereavement support. The financial year 1996–97 is the latest for which data are available. Sample sizes for the requested cross-section of the population are small and therefore liable to a large degree of year on year variation due to sampling error. The estimate for both years is subject to this error.

  3. The figures quoted refer to the gross amount of occupational pension payments where they are received by widows who are both under the age of 60 and in receipt of widow's benefit. All monetary values are given in April 1998 prices.

  State Pension
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of women for each year from 1999–2000 to 2009–10 who will receive(a) reduced SERPS pensions and (b) reduced widow's pensions as a result of the changes in payments to beneficiaries being introduced in April. [77757]

  Mr. Timms
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Forecast information on the average number of women pensioners and widows who could be affected at any one time in each year

  Thousand

  Potential number of women pensioners affected

  Potential number of widows affected

  1999–2000

  145

  15

  2000–01

  430

  50

  2001–02

  710

  90

  2002–03

  1,010

  130

  2003–04

  1,325

  175

  2004–05

  1,650

  225

  2005–06

  1,975

  275

  2006–07

  2,335

  330

  2007–08

  2,720

  390

  2008–09

  3,090

  450

  2009–10

  3,435

  515

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to the total number of women pensioners. Some will have no SERPS entitlement and will not be affected by the change.

  2. All numbers have been supplied by Government Actuary's Department.

  3. Numbers are given in thousands and are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  4. There is some double counting as widows over pension age appear in both columns.

  5. The proposed new schemes for widows and widowers under state pension age have not been taken into account, nor have the half rate inheritance changes beginning in April 2000.

  6. Figures are for GB only.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much would it cost to increase the old age pension to £75 per week for a single pensioner and £116.60 per week for a married couple; and what the net cost would be taking into account savings in respect of other benefits and tax revenue. [78894]
  832
  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not available. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Estimated gross cost of raising Retirement Pension rates to £75 per week for a single person and £116.60 per week for a couple from April 1999

  £ million

  Excluding linked benefits

  Including linked benefits

  Gross cost (1999–2000)

  3,580

  4,280

  Estimated cost net of tax of raising Retirement Pension rates to £75 per week for a single person and £116.60 per week for a couple from April 1999

  £ million

  Excluding linked benefits

  Including linked benefits

  Cost net of tax (1999–2000)

  3,280

  1—

  1 Tax offsets have been provided by the Inland Revenue. Cost net of tax including linked benefits not available.

  Notes:

  1. Means-tested benefit offsets are not available as the Family Resources Survey which is used to calculate these cannot differentiate between married women who receive a Category A pension on their own insurance (and would require a 12.4 per cent. increase) and those who receive a Category B pension based on the their husbands' contributions (these would require a 4.1 per cent. increase). Offset calculations cannot therefore be made where, as here, different percentage changes are made to different categories of Retirement Pension.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10 million and are expressed in cash terms.

  3. Contributory benefit estimates have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  4. Linked benefits are those statutorily linked in value to basic State pension, for example widows' pensions.

  Bereavement Allowance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of extending the Bereavement Allowance to unmarried partners. [78032]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: It is proposed that Bereavement Allowance will be paid for six months only to widows and widowers aged 45 or over on bereavement who have no dependent children. Entitlement to Bereavement Allowance will be based on the deceased spouse's National Insurance contribution record.

  It would be very difficult to establish who were "partners". As a result, there is limited information available on the circumstances of cohabiting partners and we are able to provide only broad estimates of the gross costs of extending it to unmarried cohabiting partners. We estimate this would cost less than £5 million in the first year, and less than £25 million in 2020–21.

  It is estimated that extending basic bereavement benefits to unmarried partners would cost around £100 million per year by 2020–21.

  Notes:

  1. The estimates are provided by the Government Actuary's Department and do not include means-tested benefit offsets.
  833
  2. The estimates are based on 1998–99 benefit rates. Estimates for 2020 are rounded to the nearest £25 million.

  3. There would also be an additional cost to Retirement Pension (RP) which has not been estimated.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of children aged(a) under five years and (b) five to 15 years from two-parent families in the United Kingdom were in families in receipt of Family Credit in each of the last five years. [78279]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Children in two parent families receiving Family Credit: Great Britain

  Under 5

  5 to 15

  Thousand

  Percentage

  Thousand

  Percentage

  May 1994

  238

  7.6

  451

  7.1

  May 1995

  258

  8.6

  486

  7.7

  May 1996

  286

  9.6

  555

  8.8

  May 1997

  307

  10.0

  579

  9.1

  May 1998

  293

  9.6

  566

  9.0

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are based on a 5 per cent. sample of Family Credit awards and as such are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Caseload figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Children are defined as aged under 16.

  Sources:

  1. Family Credit 5 per cent. sample.

  2. Office for National Statistics Labour Force Survey Household Datasets.

  Departmental Staff (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin, at 1 March, of(a) his private office, (b) Government special advisers, (c) his Policy Unit and (d) staff in total. [78508]

  £

  Benefit

  Rate when introduced

  Date of introduction

  Current rate

  Value at April 1999 if increased in line with prices since date introduced1

  Value at April 1999 if increased in line with prices earnings since date introduced2

  Widow's payment

  1,000

  April 1988

  1,000

  1,608.15

  1,827.15

  Income Support—Capital limits

  Lower

  3,000

  April 1988

  3,000

  4,627.35

  5,481.25

  Upper

  6,000

  April 1988

  8,000

  9,254.60

  10,962.35

  Child's

  3,000

  April 1988

  3,000

  4,627.35

  5,481.25

  Family Credit—Capital limits5

  Lower

  3,000

  April 1988

  3,000

  4,627.35

  5,481.25

  Upper

  6,000

  April 1988

  8,000

  9,254.60

  10,962.35

  Child's

  3,000

  April 1988

  3,000

  4,627.35

  5,481.25

  Income Support

  5.00

  April 1988

  5.00

  7.70

  9.20

  Earnings

  10.00

  October 1996

  10.00

  10.70

  11.40

  Disregard3

  15.00

  April 1988

  15.00

  23.15

  27.40

  Housing Benefit

  5.00

  April 1988

  5.00

  7.70

  9.20

  834
  Mr. Timms
  Information on the ethnic origin of civil servants is collected using a voluntary, confidential questionnaire. The number and percentage of ethnic minority staff in Ministers' private offices in this Department are set out in the table.

  Number of Staff

  Number of ethnic minority staff

  Percentage of ethnic minority staff

  Private Office

  45

  6

  13.3

  Note:

  The number of staff is based on the number of respondents.

  For information on staff total, my right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office will be providing a central response. For information on special advisers, I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 39.

  Family Resources Survey
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 799, regarding tabulations of the Family Resources Survey, if he will place copies of the tabulations in the Library. [78876]

  Mr. Timms
  Yes. Copies of the tabulations will be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate what the rates would be if they had been uprated in line with the increases in (i) prices and (ii) average earnings since they were introduced of(a) widow's payment, (b) capital limits for income support and family credit, (c) earnings disregard for income support, (d) earnings disregard for housing and council tax, (e) war pension disregard for income-related benefits, (f) income disregarded as income from a boarder, (g) maternity payment from the Social Fund, (h) capital limits for maternity and funeral payments from the Social Fund, (i) Christmas bonus and (j) 25p age additions to retirement pensions. [78793]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.
  835

  £

  Benefit

  Rate when introduced

  Date of introduction

  Current rate

  Value at April 1999 if increased in line with prices since date introduced1

  Value at April 1999 if increased in line with prices earnings since date introduced2

  Earnings

  10.00

  April 1988

  10.00

  15.35

  18.35

  Disregard4

  15.00

  April 1988

  15.00

  23.15

  27.40

  Housing Benefit/Family Credit Child Care Disregard5

  40.00

  October 1994

  60.00

  45.00

  48.35

  War Pension Disregard for income-related benefits6

  5.00

  April 1988

  10.00

  7.70

  9.20

  Income Disregarded as income from a boarder7

  20.00

  April 1988

  20.00

  30.90

  36.55

  Maternity Benefit from Social Fund

  80.00

  April 1987

  100.00

  127.35

  157.55

  Capital Limits for Maternity Benefit and Funeral Payment from the Social Fund

  (under 60)

  500.00

  April 1987

  500.00

  795.85

  984.85

  (over 60)

  1,000

  April 1990

  1,000

  1,400.35

  1,530.75

  Christmas Bonus

  10.00

  December 1972

  10.00

  77.20

  114.50

  Retirement Pension—age addition

  0.25

  September 1971

  0.25

  1.80

  3.05

  1 The Retail Prices Index (all items) has been used, except for the income-related benefits where the ROSSI index (Retail Prices Index less rent, local taxes and mortgage interest payments) as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  2 Average Earnings Index Whole Economy (Non Seasonally Adjusted) as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  3 Lone parents, the disabled and certain special occupations such as carers attract the highest disregard of £15, couples are eligible for a £10 disregard on their earnings and everyone else receives a £5 disregard.

  4 The £15 disregard for Housing Benefit was increased for lone parents to £25 in October 1990.

  5 The £40 child care disregard on Housing Benefit and Family Credit was increased to £60 in April 1996.

  6 War pensions £5 disregard was increased to £10 in April 1990.

  7 The total amount of income disregarded as income from a boarder is £20 for each boarder per week and 50 per cent, of the remaining income from the boarder after the £20 deduction has been made.

  Note:

  The figures have been rounded to the nearest 5 pence at each uprating date.

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if any civilians employed in war-related work have received war pensions for asbestosis since 1969; [79038]

  (2) how many civilians employed in war-related work have received war pensions for asbestosis since 1969. [78889]

  Mr. Bayley
  Questions on operational matters concerning the War Pensions Agency are for its Chief Executive, Mr. Gordon Hextall. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Gordon Hextall to Mr. Ben Chapman, dated 30 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the number of civilians employed in war related work who have received War Pensions for Asbestosis.
  Unfortunately, the specific information you have requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In answer to your earlier Parliamentary Question on this subject (Official Report 22 February 1999, Vol 326, Col 175) The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Social Security explained that as at 31 December 1998 (which is still the latest date for which figures are available), there were 3,183 civilians receiving a War Pension.

  DSS reviews (with external members) established since May 1997

  Title

  Date established

  Working party

  Sub-group

  Other subsidiary committee

  Final report published

  Expected reports

  Terminated date

  Expected termination date

  Review of the Scientific basis of the assessment of noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss in War Pensions

  Announced by Baroness Hollis 11 June 1997. Review team of independent hearing loss experts met on 19 November 1997 and January 1998

  Yes, outcome of review announced on 5 March 1998. Copy of report was laid in the House of Commons Library in the same month

  n/a

  March 1998

  n/a

  836
  The War Pensions Agency does not keep statistics relating to the number of War Pensions in payment for specific medical conditions.
  Although I cannot answer your specific questions, I have sought advice about these cases from our more experienced staff. I am told that it would be rare for a War Pension to be paid to a civilian for Asbestosis because a person would have to show that he was exposed to asbestos as a result of a specific incident involving enemy action during World War II. This type of incident would be rather unusual.
  I hope this is helpful and if you need any further information, I will be happy to assist.

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list all those task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 which have set up(a) sub-groups, (b) working parties and (c) other subsidiary committees; [79257]

  (2) if he will list for all task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 (a) their dates of establishment, (b) those which have issued final reports and their dates of publication, (c) those which have been terminated and their dates of termination and (d) for those bodies still in existence, expected reporting and termination dates. [79280]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.
  837

  DSS reviews (with external members) established since May 1997

  Title

  Date established

  Working party

  Sub-group

  Other subsidiary committee

  Final report published

  Expected reports

  Terminated date

  Expected termination date

  Housing Benefit Simplification and Improvement project (HB SIP)

  September 1998

  Yes—A working group, together with associated sub-groups, was established at official level with representatives from the local authority associations to explore ways of simplifying and improving the delivery of Housing Benefit

  No

  No, feeding into the Government's continuing work on the future of Housing Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  The Pensions education Working Group (PEWG)

  September 1997

  Yes

  June 1998. Currently helping to implement it's recommendations

  n/a

  n/a

  Second half of 1999

  The Pension Provision Group (PPG)

  Summer 1997 PPG still in existence to look at self-employed— pension rights, Pension provision— flexible labour market and independent pensions organisation

  Report—We All Need Pensions— the Prospectus for pension provision Published June 1998.

  Any decision on possible publication will be taken individually on the following tasks upon completion:

  n/a

  End 1999

  Response to the Pensions Green paper published March 1999

  Position of the self-employed and how their pension rights might be improved

  The Pension Provision Group cont'd

  The impact on pension provision of an increasingly flexible labour market. Proposals for an independent pensions organisation

  —

  End 1999

  All Work Test
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were summoned for an all work test examination by the Birmingham Medical Services Centre in 1998; and what proportion of those were found to be exempt from such examination. [79046]

  Mr. Bayley
  The number of medical examinations undertaken in connection with claims for Incapacity Benefit in Birmingham in 1998 was 41,968. It is not possible to identify what proportion of the people examined were found to be exempt.

  Income Support (Retired People)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action his Department is taking to encourage retired people to take up income support to which they may be entitled; and if he will make a statement. [79547]

  Mr. Timms
  We are currently considering a strategy on take-up action in the light of the emerging findings from the pensioner pilot projects and research which we undertook last year.
  838
  The Benefits Agency is also actively involved in several of the "Better Government for Older People" prototypes which will begin this April, looking at ways in which services for all pensioners, including access to benefits, can be better integrated.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his Department is doing to help disabled people get jobs. [79717]

  Mr. Bayley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 8 March 1999,Official Report, column 53.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 1999,Official Report, column 435, on disabled people, if he will list which of those individual respondents (a) felt that final decisions on whether to make interviews compulsory should await consideration of the results of piloting and (b) expressed concerns about the proposal to take account of occupational and personal pensions against incapacity benefit entitlement. [79780]
  839
  Mr. Bayley
  All responses to the consultation were read and the results were fed into a qualitative analysis of respondents' views, which provided the basis for my previous answer to my hon. Friend. A record was kept of the policy areas on which each respondent commented but this did not include a record of the detailed points made in each case. To provide a list of individuals and organisations that made the particular points identified would involve re-examining every response and would incur disproportionate cost.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants for Jobseeker's Allowance in each quarter since October 1996 have had their claim rejected on the grounds of non-availability for work due to ill health or incapacity; and how many of those so refused were also deemed ineligible for incapacity benefit. [79716]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not available.

  A decision, following application of the all work test, that a person is capable of work applies across the Social Security system where capacity for work is an issue.

  Claimants for Jobseeker's Allowance are required to be capable of, and available for, work. However, jobseekers may restrict their availability in any way if the restrictions are reasonable in the light of their physical or mental condition.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have had their incapacity benefit stopped in the last 12 months. [79701]

  Mr. Bayley
  When a claim for Incapacity Benefit is made, entitlement for someone with a recent work record depends on the person satisfying the Own Occupation Test for the first 28 weeks of incapacity. In most cases, this is satisfied by the provision of a GP's medical certificate. After 28 weeks of incapacity, or from the start of the claim if the person has no recent work record, the All Work Test applies (though in both cases benefit continues in payment on the basis of a medical certificate pending a decision under the test).

  If a person is found capable of work under either the Own Occupation Test or the All Work Test, Incapacity Benefit is disallowed. The person may however be entitled to Jobseeker's Allowance.

  During the period 1 March 1998 to 28 February 1999 there were 112.858 disallowances of Incapacity Benefit for the reasons set out.

  Reason disallowed

  Number

  Failure to provide information

  10,563

  Failure to attend medical examination

  8,587

  Found capable of work (All Work Test)

  91,038

  Found capable of work (Own Occupation Test)

  2,670

  Notes:

  1. It is possible that a person may be disallowed more than once during the period.

  2. The figures do not take account of claimants who may appeal against the decision, and may have their benefit reinstated.

  3. Figures are taken from a 100 per cent. count of the computer system, and exclude a small number of cases not on the system.
  840
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce national guidelines to ensure incapacity benefit claimants' eligibility for income support six months after top-up ceases is made known to them by local Benefit Agency offices. [79695]

  Mr. Bayley
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Andrew Stunell, dated 31 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will introduce national guidelines to ensure Incapacity Benefit claimants' eligibility for Income Support (IS) six months after top-up ceases is made known to them by local Benefits Agency offices.
  The current position is that anyone ceasing to be entitled to IS is given a formal decision which clearly indicates the amount by which their income exceeds the IS threshold.
  New IB customers also receive leaflets and information on claiming benefit that indicate how their future entitlement could change should they remain incapable of work.
  I will review existing procedures and information provided to customers to ensure that they receive appropriate advice.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  New Deal Interviews
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to defer a decision on whether to make New Deal interviews compulsory until after the results of pilot schemes are known. [79781]

  Mr. Timms
  From April 2000, we plan to implement new legislation to make it a condition of receiving benefit that people take part in interviews to talk about their prospects of finding work. This requirement will initially affect only the 12 Single Work-Focused Gateway pilot areas and will be introduced in ways that take account of individual circumstances. The evaluation of the pilots will enable us to consider whether to extend this approach more widely.

  Adapt 98 Scheme
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the operation of the Adapt 98 Scheme in the Yorkshire area; what is the reason for the delay in the introduction of CAPS; and by how much the private sector estimate of cost has exceeded the set target. [79179]

  Mr. Timms
  The ADAPT Partnership period ended on 12 November 1998. We are currently considering the way forward for this project.

  The Customer Accounting Payment Strategy (CAPS) project is a Benefits Agency initiative that is developing the systems that will change the way the Agency records customer's details and accounts for benefit expenditure. It also supports payment of benefit by way of the payment card that is being introduced as part of a PFI project to automate Post Offices and benefit payments. The CAPS project has met all its contractual obligations and is proceeding to plan.

  Information about the cost to the private sector of the payment card and Post Office Automation Project is confidential to the PFI supplier, ICL Pathway.
  841

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the eight day maximum application period for extended payments under the Housing Benefit Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [79692]

  Mr. Timms
  We have received a number of letters from members of the public about the eight day application period. We are currently considering ways of easing the transition into work. We know that worries about housing costs are crucial to people when thinking about moving into work. The Extended Payments scheme, which eases the transition from benefit dependency to working, is one of a number of areas which we are looking at with the aim of improving incentives provided by the Housing Benefit Scheme.

  Staff Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the mileage rates applicable from January 1999 to staff, indicating changes which have been made to encourage staff to switch from cars to public transport and other less polluting forms of travel. [79522]

  Mr. Timms
  For some years the Department has operated a single mileage rate based on the average of the bands set by the Inland Revenue Authorised Mileage Rates. This acts as a disincentive for the use of larger engine capacity cars (over 1500 cc).

  The rates are payable irrespective of the type of fuel used thus benefiting staff driving alternative fuelled vehicles.

  We are currently revising the pedal cycle rate to encourage the use of bicycles.

  The tables give details of the current rates.
  842

  Departmental standard mileage scheme (DSMS)

  Category

  Up to 4,000 miles

  Over 4,000 miles

  Motor cars

  40.0p

  22.5p

  Motor cycles (third party insurance)

  Up to 125cc

  14.6p

  6.1p

  Over 125cc

  22.1p

  9.0p

  Motor cycles (comprehensive insurance)

  Up to 125cc

  16.2p

  6.1p

  Over 125cc

  25.3p

  9.0p

  Public transport rate (PTR) of motor mileage allowance

  Category

  Amount

  Motor car

  22.5p

  Motor cycles

  Up to 125cc

  6.1p

  Over 125cc

  9.0p

  Other mileage rates

  Category

  Amount

  Private use cars

  7.5p

  Pedal cycle

  6.0p

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his advisers and (d) his PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79641]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168. The requirements of the Ministerial Code also apply to Parliamentary Private Secretaries when attending any meetings in an official or semi-official capacity.

Preamble
The House met at half two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELOR on the woolsack
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop Of Bradford.

Genetically Modified Food: UN Biosafety Protocol
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What view they advocated during the United Nations Biosafety Protocol negotiations in Colombia with regard to trade in genetically modified food.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the UK, as part of the European Union, wanted a protocol covering the transboundary movement of all living modified organisms that may have an adverse effect on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking human health into account. The EU pressed for reference to the precautionary principle; advanced informed agreement procedures for LMOs intended for intentional introduction into the environment, including those for use as food, feed or for processing; and for documentation to specify that a shipment contains LMOs. We supported an enabling provision for international rules on liability and redress. We opposed provisions that would subordinate the protocol to other international agreements. The aim is a protocol securing environmental safety which will not hamper trade.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that clear Answer to my very simple Question. Perhaps it would be only fair if I could expand a little to explain the reasons for my Question. I am concerned because the talks on the biosafety protocol in Cartagena broke down. Does the Minister agree that that was a great disappointment because we had an opportunity there to introduce an international protocol to ensure that GM foods are segregated at the country of source? Does the Minister agree that this is a difficult and confusing area fill- consumers and that it would help if manufacturers labelled products to make clear their contents? Can the Minister tell me the Government's next move?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it was a fairly long Answer, and that was a fairly long supplementary question. The EU and the UK in particular were concerned that an agreement was not reached. The EU tried hard to reach an agreement, but it proved impossible to reconcile the views of the developing countries and of the Miami Group of producer countries. The aim was not so much to ensure segregation at source as to ensure that where such products cross boundaries it would be possible to provide sufficient information to enable importing countries to take their own decisions. That remains our
432
aim. We believe that a large degree of consensus was reached. We shall return to the fray with our European partners.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, on a more local level, my local trading standards department in Worcestershire recently tested 24 samples of animal and human food for soya and maize GMs and about five of them contained genetically modified products. Is the Minister aware that it turned out that the manufacturers of three of the samples were not aware that the products that they had used had been genetically modified? Does not that indicate the urgent need for proper labelling at source so that manufacturers and consumers can know whether food has been genetically modified, and so that the manufacturers can tell the truth?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the United Kingdom is very much in favour of labelling to ensure that consumers know which foods are genetically modified. Only three forms of genetically modified food are available for human consumption in Europe. As the noble Countess indicates, the problem is that if such foods originate in the United States, genetically modified maize or soya may be mixed with non-genetically modified products and may not always be appropriately labelled. We want to improve labelling through both EU regulations and our own practice. However, the Question was about the protocol and whether countries have the ability, on the basis of reasonable information, to make decisions on whether or not to allow such imports. The protocol would not have covered labelling as such.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can my noble friend summarise the line taken by the United States in those negotiations? Does there remain a risk that the United States will act unilaterally to enforce its 'will on countries which want to adopt proper safety precautions, including labelling?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the United States in this context was acting with other agricultural exporting countries—Canada, Australia, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, what is known as the Miami Group. There was no agreement and therefore, until we reach agreement, there is the possibility that different groups involved in those negotiations will adopt different practices. However, that has no implication for EU or UK rules because those rules already make stringent requirements on the availability and the information required for the import of such products.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all South American GM crops are grown from Monsanto and Du Pont seeds? Does the Minister therefore agree that Monsanto and Du Pont should be approached by the British Government to ensure that they do not penetrate the marketing areas of South America?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the British Government made it clear to all producers and potential producers that they will not be allowed commercially to develop

433
crops or sell food without obeying the UK and EU regulations and that is the case for Monsanto and any other potential producer.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether the Government fear the short—term effects of genetically modified grain—as it now is—or whether they fear the long-term effects which we may see in the environment?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are no proven negative effects of GM food. Those foods that are allowable within the UK and Europe have been subject to rigorous food testing. The food dimension of those that have been allowed appear to be safe. Our concern is the question of whether genetically modified crops will affect other crops and biodiversity in general. That is why we insist, first, on small-scale trials and subsequently on controlled, farm-scale trials to assess the biodiversity effects. We will await the results of that before we take it further.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does it occur to the Government that in the regrettable circumstance that it is impossible to bring the banana dispute to a proper conclusion, it might be worth treating genetically modified imports in the same way as the United States is treating cashmere exports?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for me in this House to escalate what is in danger of becoming a serious trade war. I hope that both on the banana front and on other WTO-related matters, agreement can be reached between the EU and the United States. I do not wish to inflame that situation.

Early Years Learning
2.44 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that the early years plans of all local authorities make provision to support and fund early years provision by the voluntary sector where such provision is already in existence and is of satisfactory quality.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government have made it clear that the voluntary sector should be engaged in drawing up the early years development and childcare plans and should share in providing early education places. The Government announced a review to examine how pre-schools and playgroups can best contribute to the expansion of nursery education and childcare.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and also for the £500,000 which the Government made available on 17th March to pre-school groups. Does the noble Baroness agree that
434
the problems of illiteracy and alienation in our schools will not be solved until we can be sure that most children coming into school at four or five years of age have the self-confidence and social skills to enjoy school and to succeed? Does she agree also that most children from disadvantaged backgrounds and with special educational needs are at present being provided for by local authorities in reception classes, many of which are big and none of which is controlled by the regulations in relation to staff/pupil ratios or as to the suitability of accommodation? How soon will the Government introduce regulations to ensure that all local authorities are subject to the same standards of staff/pupil ratios and accommodation as are presently—quite rightly—applied to pre-schools and nursery schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, says about a good start to schooling if we are to avoid problems later. There can be no question but that what happens to three, four and five year-olds can be a positive experience but it can also be less than a positive experience, which may have lasting effects. In relation to the specific questions relating to reception classes, the Government consider that the quality of learning opportunities, on the whole, is good. It is important that if young children are admitted early to reception classes, their specific needs are taken into account. So the Government are looking into issues of further support for teachers, including teaching assistants and nursery nurses. Many reception classes already have that kind of support. Moreover, the Government are also encouraging local authorities to make sure that there is deferred entry to reception classes for those parents who prefer their children to start later.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the early years period in a child's life is probably the most significant of all periods in the development of aptitude skills which make for good learning in later life? Does she agree also that resources placed into that sector would make more difference than any other in educational attainment?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate. It is for that reason that the Government have already taken steps to expand the provision of pre-school education. The Government have made a firm commitment to ensuring that every child aged four has a place. In addition, the Government are committed to expanding provision for three year-olds so that by 2002 two-thirds of all three year-olds will have a place either in a maintained nursery class or in the voluntary or private sector.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the impact that the minimum wage is having on deeply rural communities where some playgroups simply cannot cope with the new designation of their workers who have hitherto been paid on a sessional, and almost honorarial, basis? It means now that such facilities will be lost to those communities.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government are absolutely aware of the impact of the national

435
minimum wage which we regard as an extremely important development in relation to adequate and fair pay for all employees. As to pre-school provision, the further £500,000 that the Government are making available over the next year will support playgroups experiencing financial problems and facing potential difficulty because they now have to pay an adequate hourly rate to those who work in the groups.
Lord Tope: My Lords, can the Minister explain the huge discrepancy between the figures of the Preschool Learning Alliance which says that 1,500 groups have closed since 1997 and her own department's figures which suggest that the correct figure is 100? Whatever the correct figure may be, does the Minister agree that voluntary playgroups are now under very serious pressure? Further, can she say when she expects the review that she has just mentioned to report?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there is a discrepancy between the figures produced by the alliance and those which have been collected by the Government. I suspect that some of the discrepancy is explained by different definitions. I believe that the figures of the preschool alliance cover a much wider range of provision than those which apply to the government figures. It is also the case that we get closures in this area followed by re-opening of a slightly different kind of prevision in the same locality. So we need to take into account the fact that there have been substantial numbers of new playgroups as well as some closures. Many closures derive from the previous government's very damaging voucher scheme which led to unnecessary competition between the sectors. This Government are keen to ensure that there should be co-operation. I cannot give a precise date as to when the review will be completed, but I shall let the noble Lord know when it is close to that time.

Mobile Telephones On Aircraft
2.52 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest in that I am president of the Air Safety Group.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what information is available relating to the danger of mobile telephones being used on board passenger aircraft in flight; and whether they will take any action to increase the amount of such information which is available.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the use of mobile phones on board an aircraft may cause interference with the aircraft's systems and is prohibited under the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995. It is the responsibility of each airline to ensure that its passengers are aware of, and comply with, this requirement. Consequently, as
436
part of the safety briefing on UK aircraft, passengers are instructed to switch off their mobile phones for the duration of the flight.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, has he any evidence concerning the recent air accident where it was alleged that use of mobile phones by passengers interfered with air crew and ground communication? If so, is any such evidence available as yet?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is no evidence of an accident actually having been caused. However, the CAA has reports of six incidents in the past 10 years, five of them occurring during last year, where the use of mobile phones is suspected of having interfered with aircraft equipment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a current television advertisement featuring a lady in her home telephoning her husband who is in an aeroplane? The lady is shown talking to him, the telephone is then passed to their dog who barks at the phone and the husband smiles happily. Nevertheless, the husband is still in the aeroplane and the dog is still at home.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not aware of that particular advertisement. However, there are a number of other advertisements where I believe that the performers in them are probably breaking the law in one way or another. Nevertheless, I am glad that the noble Baroness has drawn this particular advertisement to my attention.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any similar dangers are involved in the use of mobile phones on board trains and indeed on the Underground railway system? Are there not warnings to discourage the use of mobile phones on trains? If there are not, perhaps the Minister can invent some.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the main danger identified thus far in terms of rail transport is that of being lynched by the other passengers. As the noble Lord will know, a number of operators have introduced quiet carriages mainly for that effect. However, there is no indication that such phones interfere with the actual mechanics of the train.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the CAA is carrying out any trials to detect mobile phones that are inadvertently left on and which may have caused these six incidents, or whatever? Further, can he tell us what systems are being affected by the use of such phones?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is difficult to identify precisely which systems because in the confined space of an aircraft all of the avionics could be affected. Therefore, a number of systems could potentially be affected. The interference which is suspected of actually having occurred relates to the communications system.

437
As far as I am aware, no special equipment is available for detecting whether such equipment is switched on within an aircraft.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, would it be possible for the Minister to give the House further information about allegations in newspaper reports that it is even dangerous to use mobile phones on terra firma?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, when the noble Baroness said "terra firma" I thought she was referring to some obscure airline—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: However, the Government are obtaining advice from the National Radiological Protection Board as regards the risk to human health from radiation, and that includes the use of mobile phones because they are low-power microwave transmitters. There is some alleged concern in that area. Although we have no reason to suppose that there is a serious problem, this is a new situation which involves large numbers of people. My colleagues in the Department of Health are supporting various research studies into the matter both in this country and internationally.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government have been in a position to advise air companies as to cheap and effective screening methods which obviate the necessity for these people being put to inconvenience?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure of the available technology in this area. However, if my advisers can identify such information, I will let the noble Lord know.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, further to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, can my noble friend the Minister say which agency would be responsible for ensuring that advertisements do not promote illegal activity?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand that the Advertising Standards Authority would be the appropriate body. My earlier comment was made in my other capacity as road safety Minister. It seems that a fair number of motor manufacturers show cars exceeding the speed limit by substantial amounts. I think that the Advertising Standards Authority has quite flexible rules in this respect. However, it would be that body because it is required to ensure that such advertising is not illegal.

Special Advisers: Business Appointments
2.59 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a standard interval of time is required for special advisers between departure from a position in government service and taking up a business appointment.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): No, my Lords. The business appointment rules apply to special advisers in the same way as they do to other civil servants. The imposition of a waiting period or any other condition depends on the circumstances of each individual case.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. However, on departure from their jobs working for Ministers, are special advisers subject to the same rules and periods of quarantine as those which apply to senior civil servants, advice being sought in the individual cases from the Business Appointments Committee of which I was a member for its first eight years?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the answer is that they are subject to the same rules. That arose as a result of recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan—who I am happy to see is present—which were accepted by the Government and also by the previous government. However, in effect, they only began to bite in substance after this Government came to power because there were existing contracts. There is one material difference; namely, when a special adviser has to make an application, which is considered on a case-by-case basis, the ultimate decision-maker will not be the Minister but the permanent head of the department in which the special adviser worked. That is a sensible and fair safeguard. It means that special advisers are subject to consideration that is just as rigorous as that which applies to senior civil servants, but at the same time they do not have that security of employment.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, will the Minister remind all special advisers that they must cease political activity as from next week if their Ministers are involved in the Scottish and Welsh elections?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am quite sure that all special advisers know the limits on their legitimate activity.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that there are three special advisers attached to the Scottish Office? What will happen to them after the creation of the Scottish Parliament? Will they be able to move seamlessly with

439
their existing contracts from working for Ministers in the Scottish Office to working for Ministers in the Scottish executive?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as regards the period of time during the election, it is for special advisers to comply with the provisions that the noble Lord, Lord Monro, mentioned. As regards the period subsequent to that, if a person has continued to be a special adviser, for example to the Secretary of State for Scotland, if that Minister then becomes the First Minister, it will be possible for the special adviser to continue as special adviser to that person in that capacity. However, he or she must remember at all times that special advisers are civil servants and that what we want is a unified Civil Service.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the press report correct that there are now as many as 69 special advisers working for Ministers and they seem to have become a new species which is not in danger of extinction?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that figure is about right. 1 am glad to say that they are not in danger of extinction. Before this Government came to power it was said that we wanted strong political leadership and special advisers play a part in that. The committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, considered the role of special advisers and was perfectly content that there was no abuse of the system.
Lord Renton: My Lords, so that we can all understand our language as well as possible, can the noble and learned Lord say when is an adviser not a special adviser?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, a special adviser is a species of adviser recognised by the Civil Service and given a contract—a copy of which has been placed in the Library—which permits a special adviser to be selected in a way other than under the normal Civil Service rules. As regards advisers, it is open to Ministers to take advice from whomsoever they wish.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, as we are talking about standard intervals of time, will the noble and learned Lord care to comment on a Question which I tabled for Written Answer dated 13th January, to which I have not received any response?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord certainly has me where he wants me, as it were. I shall look into that matter.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, as special advisers are, I assume, political appointments, can the individuals continue in the Civil Service which is supposed to be apolitical when they leave their appointments as special advisers?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, when they cease to be special advisers they cease to be employed in the Civil Service.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the first debate today my noble friend Lady Amos will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on humanitarian assistance for Kosovo refugees.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in the context of the Business statement that the noble Lord has just made, he will, of course, be aware that on Monday afternoon in the Statement on the European Summit commitments were given that we would have a Statement on the military situation in Kosovo before the Recess. The House will not know—although the noble Lord certainly does—that the Government have offered a Statement this evening to be taken at 10.30 p.m. In view of the fact that the House has been up until three o'clock in the morning for the past two days, the Opposition have decided not to accept that Statement. Apart from anything else, the business of the House would dictate that we would have to adjourn for some four or five hours, with all the attendant costs and problems that that would cause for the staff of the House.
Will the Government Chief Whip help us by offering to meet the commitment that was given on Monday afternoon by providing that the Minister for the Armed Forces in this House may come to the House between the debates today to give us a short address rather than a Statement about the military situation in Kosovo which would not necessarily cover the specific ground that is to be covered later in the evening by the Secretary of State? I am sure the House would welcome that way of dealing with the situation before the Recess. I hope that the noble Lord will consider that suggestion in a positive manner.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, from these Benches I add my support for the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. As the noble Lord said, it would not be possible for the Minister to repeat at 5.30 p.m. today a Statement to be made this evening. However, in the experience of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, has always been willing to address the House. As we move into the Recess there is deep concern about the exposed position of British service personnel involved in the campaign. It would be a small but acceptable gesture for the noble Lord. Lord Gilbert, to address the House at that time.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for their comments. However, they have rather sprung this matter on me. The only Statement that I know about is, of course, the Commons' Statement to be made this evening. I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Opposition parties for not asking for that Statement to be repeated late tonight. The Secretary of State will make a Statement this evening at 10 o'clock and it is therefore not possible to repeat that at four o'clock this afternoon, if noble Lords follow me. I shall make inquiries about the matter, but I am not sure that it will be possible to meet the noble Lords' request. I understand what the noble Lords are saying. As I say, I shall make

441
inquiries in this regard, but as the matter has been sprung on me it is rather hard for me now to give the answer that the noble Lords would like.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the arrangements that the noble Lords have suggested cannot be achieved, will it be possible at least to have the Commons' Statement printed in the Lords' Hansard so that we shall know tomorrow what it said?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I shall inquire whether that is possible and, if it is, it shall be done.

European Community Legislation (Impact) Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to require the provision of information on the impact of European Community legislation. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
Standing Order 32, line 4, after ("sitting") insert ("other than a Friday")
Standing Order 51(4), line 1, leave out ("six") and insert ("eight").—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Motor Vehicle Crime
3.8 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to call attention to the amount of crime in the United Kingdom involving theft of road vehicles or breaking into them to steal the contents; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the hazards of the ballots for debate in the House has led to this debate being held on the day before the Recess and after two late nights of a marathon Second Reading debate on a Bill. I am therefore extremely grateful to those noble Lords who have put down their names to speak.
As parliamentarians we should be doing what we can to reduce car crime. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom has the worst record in western Europe, although the position has been improving over the past five years. We must continue the efforts that have been made and try to change attitudes towards car crime. Recent
442
improvements are largely due, I believe, to the work of organisations that have been co-operating to this end in ways I shall describe.
Nonetheless, there is still a large number of criminal offences being committed, regrettably by young people, very often teenagers. Stealing a vehicle, or from it, is regarded by some young people as a game, an acceptable pastime. Combined with joyriding, this becomes a serious threat to life. A driver not qualified by training and with no licence or insurance causes a crash. It can be fatal. For example, a press report early in January indicated that in Hampshire two people had been killed in a crash in which the other vehicle, a Range Rover, was being driven by a 14 year-old. That vehicle had been, as it is described, taken without the owner's consent. Two passengers in the vehicle were aged 15 and 16. It was an episode which, I believe, the 14 year-old will regret for the rest of his life.
It is important to influence young people and to dissuade them from starting on this course. I initiated a debate in your Lordships' House on 9th February last year on a computer game entitled "Grand Theft Auto", which appeared to bless the stealing of cars and associated criminal offences as normal pastimes. It almost glamorised them. I shall not repeat what I said then but I described it as a disservice to the general public to produce that kind of computer game. Although the game was classified with an 18 certificate, making it a criminal offence to supply or sell it to a person under the age of 18, it is clear that the game is played usually by teenagers under that age and that very few people of 18 or over play it. The producers and suppliers of the game said, "Oh, well it's just a game. It's not serious". The trouble is that that is exactly the impression given for the real world as vehicles continue to be stolen.
Later last year, in a speech on the publication of the Consumers' Association's Car Security Guide, the Home Secretary was reported to be taking a similar line to the one I have taken about the regrettable number of young people committing car crimes. He was concentrating on the absence of deterrents or punishments for youngsters who offend. He pointed out that under the youth court system a conditional discharge or similar "let-off' is normal. No wonder the police have named this court process "the revolving door." The young offenders know that nothing unpleasant will happen to them if they are caught and they go out and do it again. I understand, however, that steps are being taken to change that situation in the courts described by Mr. Straw. The right honourable gentleman also said that he himself had been the victim at least three times of car crimes of this kind. So have I, my Lords. In one case, my car, parked near the House, was broken into by two young teenagers who smashed the side window with a brick in a sack. They were seen and chased by helpful "have-a-go" pedestrians and dropped the contents of my overnight bag—the only object that was worth stealing—as they ran. Usually, thieves go for car radios, cassettes or items more valuable than an overnight bag.
In any group of adults, if one asks, "Is there anyone here whose car has not at some time been stolen or broken into?", one seldom finds someone who comes forward because so many have experienced the inconvenience and distress that car crime can cause.
I am glad that the Home Secretary accepts that this is a serious subject and that he has made many of the points that I articulated in my debate earlier in the year. He intends to be tougher in dealing with young offenders when caught, and he has my support. There is also a positive side. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, who I am glad to know is to reply to the debate, this question. Can more be done in educating youngsters to look forward to being legitimate drivers and owners, acquiring the skills and ability to look after a vehicle and enjoy the benefits?
An organisation that brings together a wide variety of bodies whose aim is to suppress car crime is the European Secure Vehicle Alliance, ESVA. Its membership includes the police and it enables useful exchanges of ideas and information to be made. I am myself a member. Its chairman is my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux. He intended to speak in the debate but I am sorry to say that he is not able to do so because of medical advice. I commend to the House the booklet recently published jointly by ESVA and two other bodies entitled Tackling Vehicle Crime.
Vehicle crime has been reduced by about 30 per cent. in the past six years. I understand that the Government are aiming at a 30 per cent. improvement over the next five years. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, could comment and expand on that point. Last September the Government established a vehicle crime reduction team, which should now be at work. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give the House the latest information on that.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to some significant ways of defeating both the hardened criminals and the young offenders. First, a few years ago the locating system called "Tracker" became available. A small object was incorporated and concealed in a vehicle's structure. If stolen the vehicle could be traced and found. It proved very successful. In its early days it not only led to the recovery of the single vehicle but also revealed secret hiding places where 20 or 30 other stolen vehicles had been collected together by the thieves. The Tracker Network (UK) has successfully recovered well over 4,000 vehicles since it was launched in 1993 and has renewed its operating agreement until 2003 with all the 52 police forces in the United Kingdom, with which it has worked closely.
Another new protection is resistant laminated side glazing in vehicles. Cars are more secure if all the glass is so strong as to be virtually unbreakable. The glass industry and motor manufacturers have been collaborating to produce laminated glazing. The youths who attacked my car in the incident I described would have been frustrated and unsuccessful if that glass had been in the car. It inevitably makes a car more expensive and purchasers will have to choose how much they value security.
I should mention here a further consideration—the safety of the driver and the passengers in an accident. If the glass is unbreakable, there should nonetheless be ways of getting out if the car body is damaged or the doors are jammed. Furthermore, helpers and ambulance crews should be able to get in to release injured occupants. I hope that this development is proceeding and overcoming such problems to enable owners to make a choice in future.
Defeating car crime can be approached from different directions. About 30 per cent. of vehicle crime occurs in car parks, so measures to make them safer would help. Six years ago the secured car parks scheme was launched by the Association of Chief Police Officers. It is supported by other organisations and administered by the Automobile Association. Under the scheme awards are granted to car parks which meet the requirements of certain security criteria. On my latest count, some 600 car parks are in the scheme, with the prospect of many more joining. The striking result, shown by a recent survey, was a 70 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime in those parks after they qualified under the scheme.
I should not fail to mention another scheme which noble Lords may have heard about in connection with other kinds of crime. I refer to a registered charity called Crimestoppers. Telephone calls can be made, anonymously and free of charge, to provide instant information about a crime or suspected crime. It operates in close co-operation with the police and has proved successful in leading to recovery of stolen vehicles and to arrests. I carry the telephone number with me always. Noble Lords will no doubt ask me for it, so I shall give it now: it is 0800 555 111. That organisation has done very useful work in helping the police over thefts.
Another approach to reducing thefts exists in the scrap metal and vehicle salvage trades. Here I ask the Government to do more, as legislation will probably be needed. Of course, crooks remove identity marks, such as engine and chassis numbers, if it suits them. Vehicles are twinned by them or cloned with legitimate vehicles. Older vehicles near the end of their lives are welcome prey to crooks who can cannibalise them and use parts to construct supposed second-hand vehicles for sale, which are often extremely unsafe on the roads. This illegal trade is practised in particular with motorcycles. I draw to the attention of the Government the fact that a simple legislative measure could reduce these fraudulent ploys by incorporating vehicle salvage operations into the current scrap metal dealer legislation.
I remind your Lordships that some years ago, at the time when lead was being stripped off church roofs by thieves, legislation was introduced that gave the police powers to inspect the records of scrap metal dealers in order to establish that they were trading legitimately. The unscrupulous trade in elderly or damaged vehicles is a factor in the organised theft of vehicles. I suggest that police inspection of premises and records of the dealers in question should be permitted, as with those dealing in lead.
It is estimated that car crime represents about a quarter of all recorded crime in the United Kingdom. It causes distress and great inconvenience. It can be

445
devastating to those who have to rely on their vehicles for their livelihood and for disabled people who depend on their cars. I urge everyone to give help and co-operation in reducing car crime. I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for his successful initiative in securing a debate on this important subject. I do not wish to detain the House long, but I have a few points to offer which I believe are of significance.
The noble Lord is right to say that people depend on their cars. We need to extend and improve public transport, but the car is an essential item, both socially and economically. For people, particularly poorer or disabled people, to be denied the use of their car because of theft is tragic. We tend to forget that for millions of people acquiring a car is not easy. It represents a substantial part of a family's budget. Because a car will be insured, the courts and the community may think that penalties are sufficient; but the loss of a no-claims bonus can be a substantial item.
As the noble Lord said, car theft represents a substantial part of the total number of crimes which occur in Britain. In my own area, South Yorkshire, the police campaigned for at least 10 years to try to persuade people to lock their cars and not to leave valuables visible inside. Many people took very little notice. Some took the view that breaking into a car was then so easy that there was no point in locking it. Valuables continued to be stolen because people were careless.
The pace at which car theft rose in my area was substantial. In 1988, for example, there were 8,522 recorded cases of car theft in South Yorkshire. The figure had risen to 22,500 by 1993. It peaked at about that figure until the South Yorkshire police acquired a helicopter. I confess that when the chief constable at that time, Richard Wells, told me that the Home Office had given his force permission to obtain a helicopter, I was a little concerned. I recognised that a helicopter could be very valuable, but I did not trust the previous administration. I could see it wanting the political adulation for allowing the South Yorkshire police to acquire a helicopter, but helicopters are very expensive to run. I asked the chief constable whether he was quite sure that the Home Office would give sufficient support to allow the helicopter to be used after it had been purchased.
I accepted that the helicopter would be useful, and useful it certainly has been. As soon as it came into operation, it began to have an effect upon car crime. In the first year of its operation, 1997, the number of car thefts fell to 15,245 and in the past 12 months has fallen again to 13,326, which is 10,000 fewer car thefts than in the peak year of 1993. I accept that the reduction is not only as a result of the use of the helicopter. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, told us of the organisational arrangements which seek to respond to
446
the problem of car crime. But having a helicopter looking down has certainly proved quite a deterrent to many opportunist car thieves.
I believe that the police in my area, and probably everywhere else, as the noble Lord may have indicated, would recognise that professional car thieves may be less deterred than the opportunists. We need to see action of the kind recommended by the noble Lord to try to tackle this matter in a rather more sophisticated way. I take the point that the noble Lord made about introducing an arrangement similar to that which applies in the case of theft of lead from church roofs. There needs to be adequate mechanistic arrangements. The trouble is that all these measures increase the prices of cars, which makes the purchase of a car even more of a burden and makes it even more distressing when a car is stolen.
I have one suggestion which the Home Office might care to consider. We have to look at definitions. When a car is stolen, it is recorded as a theft. However, if the car is subsequently recovered—and many of them are—the crime is recorded as a taking without consent. It was a theft when the car was stolen and should be recorded and regarded as a theft even if the car is subsequently recovered. When the vehicle is recovered it may not be in quite the same condition or command the same respect as the driver had for it before it was taken away. Heaven knows what may be the effects of teenage joyriding, especially if the vehicle has been driven over rough ground which may not have done the suspension any good. Therefore, the question of definition should certainly be considered. That may well encourage those courts that tend to be a little complacent about the matter because of the benefit of insurance to recognise that this offence is likely to cause distress, great inconvenience and economic disadvantage to the vehicle owner.
I am very pleased with the work of the helicopter unit in South Yorkshire. I hope that many other forces that are now developing this particular facility will have the same experience. We need a sharper, more incisive attack on the professionals who are responsible for the possible disposal of vehicles in scrapyards, their illegal sale in England and an export trade in them that we can well do without. When the noble Lord gave a telephone number some noble Lords took out their diaries, as I did. By the time that I had found my diary and a pen I had forgotten the number. Perhaps at the end of the debate the noble Lord will remind us of it.
3.31 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is to be congratulated on the way in which he set out the agenda for this debate, which is most important. Like him, I am a member of the European Secure Vehicle Alliance. In all of its work to reduce the level of vehicle crime throughout most of this decade there is one area which potentially offers great success but which to date has received little attention: education. I refer particularly to the education of young people to become responsible road users and citizens and, in the process, to reduce vehicle crime and road accidents. Vehicle crime is mainly a young people's crime.

447
Last year a publication entitled Tackling Vehicle Crime was produced by the ESVA, an associate parliamentary group, together with Crime Concern and Vauxhall Motors. Referring to some of the Home Office statistics quoted in that publication, 75 per cent. of vehicle crime offenders are under the age of 21 and 36 per cent. are 16 years of age and under. That key issue has been focused upon by the ESVA since its formation in 1992. At that time one of the key aims was to seek to establish the driving test within the context of lifelong learning. The intention was to harness the enthusiasm of the young for cars and motorcycles within their education. However, as the philosophy of lifelong learning becomes more widely adopted, there is still no linkage being made between the driving test and learning for life. The driving test has fallen into the divide between the traditional school-based curriculum and the vocational-based provision associated with employers. Each has left the matter to the other. The newly-constituted Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is mindful of the issue but considers that no ready solution is apparent.
In response to the Queen's Speech on 30th November last year my noble friend Lord Brougham was able to report that considerable success could be achieved when the subject of education was addressed. For example, the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, which launched an initiative entitled Operation Impact in 1992, has produced figures which reveal that since then vehicle crime has fallen by 37 per cent. in its area as compared with 32 per cent. in England and Wales over the same period. That difference of 5 per cent. applied to the whole country could represent a very considerable improvement. Its assessment concluded that the work of its diversion team for young people was the most significant element of that programme. For example, 13 young people lost their lives in accidents involving stolen vehicles between 1992 and 1994. In 1997 there was only one fatality involving a stolen vehicle—12 young lives were saved by that initiative. In 1992 the research of Avon and Somerset Constabulary revealed that 33 per cent. of car thieves were under 16 and some were as young as 10, 11 or 12. The percentage of offenders aged 16 or under fell from 33 per cent. in 1992 to 13 per cent. in 1997.
The efforts of many competent practitioners in an area that can be defined as "community education involving vehicles" is detailed in the Tackling Vehicle Crime guide. But a shadow has been cast over the work since the publication of a Home Office report on motor projects last autumn. That Home Office report evaluated the 42 Probation Service-led schemes designed to deal with road crime. Reconviction rates after two years were examined in the case of over 1,000 offenders who attended projects between 1989 and 1993. It is unfortunate that it has taken until September 1998 for the report to be published, especially as the nature of most motor projects has changed dramatically over that time. The report concluded that actual reconviction rates were higher than predicted. The average reconviction rate was measured at 79 per cent. Yet a project operating since 1994 in Northumbria with a similar aim to those
448
projects assessed in the original study reports only a 20 per cent. re-offending rate. That is a markedly more positive finding.
It is vital that the Home Office not only commissions new research into current projects which work with offenders but also recruits young people at risk and young people in general. In these circumstances outcomes such as "coursework accreditation" and "pathways into employment" are as appropriate as the measurement of re-offending rates. I hope that my remarks have highlighted that there remains an area of government policy that is (in common parlance) waiting to be joined up.
The Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team formed last autumn has as its target the reduction of vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over the next five years. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places considerable emphasis on reducing the incidence of vehicle crime. Similarly, the Department for Education and Employment is concentrating on reducing truanting and exclusions and finding pathways into employment. The Department of Health is committed to reducing the accident rate among young people. The work of the Social Exclusion Unit also touches on these issues.
There is much to be done at government department level, as there is at local level, to take full advantage of this approach—which could be described as "community education involving vehicles". That will not only reduce vehicle crime and road accidents, but also provide pathways for young people to become responsible road users and citizens.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has, in introducing the debate, taken us into the realms of a £3½ billion crime business. That figure sounds fairly staggering. As my noble friend pointed out, it represents about a quarter of all reported crime. I say "reported" crime, because offences involving motor cars, particularly theft of the motor car and/or the valuables inside, are frequently not reported at all to the police, insurance companies or anyone else. So all the figures bandied about in this kind of debate are hugely suspect.
My noble friend Lord Oxfuird concluded his remarks by saying that there is much to be done. He emphasised the role of government departments. A vast number of the motor cars that are taken or broken into are left unlocked. Figures resulting from surveys by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders prove that categorically. So measures must begin with the owner.
In the motor business one of the hardest things to sell to a buyer is security. The next, oddly enough, is safety. One should not, therefore, he overly alarmed at press reports such as the recent report referring to tests on 35 motor cars, 16 of which were opened within seconds. Motor manufacturers can only put into a motor car what they can actually sell. They are continually playing catch-up. Experts will find a way of getting into the most secure vehicle or premises. What one is in fact doing is buying time. Many people are not prepared to buy that amount of time.

449
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, spoke about the export business in stolen vehicles, a business that we do not want. Of the 400,000-odd cars reported stolen—whether or not they are subsequently recovered is a moot point—the vast majority are older vehicles. They will never be able to be made secure. It is physically impossible. One can buy a steering-wheel lock, a clamp or something of that nature, but such devices are comparatively easy to disengage. Those cars are stolen for spare parts for re-identification of other motor cars. They are mainly stolen from car parks or on the street. My noble friend referred to the secured car parks scheme. That has proved enormously successful, with some very good reduction rates. But it is a great problem persuading car park operators to join the scheme. I should like car park operators to be required compulsorily to provide some elements of security.
Here, I must take a side-swipe at the railways. They seem more concerned with revenue earning and contracted clamping, which, incidentally, I believe is a crime in itself. There is nothing one can do at half-past one in the morning but pay one's £100 to have the motor car freed.
Another aspect of the stealing of cars relates to the more expensive, luxurious motor car. Most are stolen to order. Few cannot be entered within seven to 10 minutes, despite fairly sophisticated locking systems. Such cars mainly find their way into eastern Europe on the black market. It surprises me that they can be shipped within 12 hours of being stolen. The manifest will already have been made out, not describing the contents of the container as a motor car. Often the description is "farming machinery". Within 12 hours the motor car is in a container, on a boat, on its way ultimately to eastern Europe. I should like to see greater support and resources given to Customs and Excise to make the necessary examinations. This is big business. My noble friend has given the kind of figures we are talking about. I suggest that it is the responsibility of owners to look after their goods. If they did, much of this type of crime would be reduced.
I am not unhappy at the idea of compulsory excess payments where it can be shown that an insurance company's customer, the owner of the vehicle, has not demonstrated personal responsibility. It would be very difficult to introduce that provision into a policy. But there are well-known cases of people knowing that they can "steal" their own car, sell it and receive the insurance value. Loss adjusters have been able to find the so-called stolen motor car, which was never stolen in the first place. Insurance companies have a far greater responsibility to help the police, manufacturers and owners to combat crime.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, figures from the Metropolitan Police Stolen Vehicle Unit indicate that nearly 52,000 motor cycles were stolen in 1997. Motor cycle sales were less than double that figure, at 93,000. Those figures show the appalling level of motor cycle
450
thefts in this country. I am personally familiar with the problem, having twice had a powered two-wheeler (PTW) stolen in London in the past couple of years, one of which was lifted from a PTW parking space outside the High Court buildings.
Manufacturers ensure that PTWs have extensive primary security devices such as immobilisers and data tags. Even so thieves steal the vehicles by simply lifting them with relative ease into vans and lorries. Therefore, secondary anti-theft devices are needed, such as stands or racks to which PTWs can be secured. The Home Office puts the cost of all vehicle crimes at nearly £4 billion when one adds the hidden costs. We all have to pay higher prices, taxes and raised insurance premiums because of these thefts.
PTW registrations continue to rise. The number of registrations in May 1998 was up 55 per cent. on the 1997 figure and is up 33 per cent. in the year to date. All sections of the community use this means of transport, including many women and, believe it or not, disabled bikers who have specially modified PTWs.
In order to help to address this appalling theft dilemma, I presented the Road Traffic Regulation (Cycle Parking) Bill which received its First Reading yesterday. Briefly, the Bill will amend Section 63 of the Road Traffic Act so that authorities will be able to provide stands or racks or devices for securing motorcycles. The Bill aims to be as non-contentious as possible. The new powers would be discretionary on the authorities. I am particularly grateful to the Government for their help and support in enabling this Bill to be brought forward.
All parties pledged support for PTWs in their general election manifestos. When this Bill comes to your Lordships' House I hope that it will be allowed a speedy passage. The Bill is due for Second Reading on 28th April.
3.51 p.m.
The Earl of Haddington: My Lords, perhaps I may rise in the gap to point out that most of the car crime committed today involves the misappropriation of vehicles rather than theft. The crime of theft is extremely hard to prosecute successfully in relation to the illegal appropriation of a vehicle. When the thief is caught he could say that he intended to dump the vehicle and not to remove it on a permanent basis. Theft can be proved as a crime only if the vehicle is exported or resold. That is the one point that I would like to make. It is a pity that misappropriation was not included in the Bill.
3.52 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not in my place a few seconds earlier. I was inquiring the name of the noble Lord who has just spoken in the gap. I had not been informed that he was going to speak. It may be that the courtesies have changed in recent times. Nevertheless, his points were interesting and I welcome him to the debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for giving us the chance to discuss what has become a very important problem.

451
One thing I have learnt in 15 years in your Lordships' House is that if it is an issue on which one seeks action one needs the support of No. 10 Downing Street. The Prime Minister has given support to a vigorous attack on vehicle crime. I congratulate him on taking that initiative. Vehicle crime has been with us for some time.
I have to declare an interest. I am the unpaid chairman of the motorcycle industry's Motorcycle Theft Action Group, which was formed in 1991 during a period of crisis as regards the theft of motorcycles—a crisis of such proportion that in 1990–91 the insurance industry said that it was not going to write any further business for motorcycles. It was even considering withdrawing existing cover, including that for despatch riders. It was a moment of crisis.
I have enjoyed my position as chairman over the years. That is largely due to the fact that the all-party motorcycle group, of which I have the honour to be secretary, made quite a lot of noise about the problem of motorcycle theft and other issues. I am glad to see my fellow member, the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, here today. He is a very valuable member. As noble Lords heard, he has taken a very important step by introducing legislation to increase the safety of parking. I congratulate him on that initiative.
I believe that the group we set up was successful. I would like to think that in some way it gave inspiration to the ministerial group set up in response to the Prime Minister's concern. It is called the Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team. It has asked the Motorcycle Theft Action Group to take part and to be one of the task groups. We are very willing to co-operate. When we set up our group it comprised everyone concerned with the issues and got them around the table to discuss the problems. We did not expect such an immediate response. It was very heartening for me to see such a disparate group working together within a very short time, throwing off individual prejudices and joining in targeted action against motorcycle theft. The group included manufacturers, dealers, riders, insurance organisations. spokesmen for sporting and motoring organisations and, importantly, the Home Office and the police.
The remit of the group initially was to attempt to persuade the insurance industry that it needed to take a different view of motorcycle insurance cover which had been provided in a rather uninspired way over a number of years. It should look at the statistics and identify where the risks lay. We also encouraged the introduction of certain secondary security measures, including locks and chains and a very important electronic device which made it more difficult for criminals to take motorcycles. It made the recovery of the vehicles more likely. Progress was slow. The police needed a scanner for vehicles which appeared to be suspiciously concocted from stolen parts. Gradually, an impact was made; eventually, it became profound. By 1996, a gradual reduction in motorcycle theft had been achieved.
Since 1996 we have returned to a steeper climb. That is largely due to the reintroduction on our streets and roads of scooters and mopeds in great numbers. Scooters have become a fashion item which young people find
452
essential, including a rather large pair of white shoes and often a baseball cap. They are expensive machines. As noble Lords know, everything in this country is expensive.
Parts, in particular, are expensive. Noble Lords who drive cars know that it is far more expensive to buy spares in this country than in Germany or France. I have a cracked lens on a foglamp on my car. It would cost about £20 to replace in Belgium, France, Holland or Germany. Here it costs £150. That is repeated throughout the motor car and motorcycle industry.
As noble Lords have said, vehicle crime is somewhere near 30 per cent. of total crime. There is a great temptation for young people to scour the trade papers and small advertisements to buy parts cheaply from vehicle breakers. Young people nowadays like to ride motorcycles for leisure purposes rather than for travelling to work. I agree with the noble Lord who suggested that registration of vehicle breakers might be an important step in making it more difficult and less desirable for criminals to sell stolen vehicles to breakers.
One of the fundamental problems with motorcycles is that they fall over; cars bash into them. They are expensive to repair, and there is good business to be done by dishonest breakers. I hope that the Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team will address the problem. I know that it is on the team's 14-point plan.
Why do people steal vehicles? For a criminal it is a relatively low risk reward ratio activity. If, on leaving this House, any noble Lord attempted to become a criminal (which I hope he will not) I suggest that he does not burgle my house but considers vehicle crime. It is more remunerative and one is less likely to be caught. A dispiriting factor for those who have done excellent work in the stolen vehicle squads is that when they have set up long and expensive operations to catch thieves—we have been told that the theft of vehicles represents about £3 billion a year—the Crown Prosecution Service says that it is unlikely that there will be a conviction. We have even had cases where individuals have committed crimes when they are on bail for serious offences of stealing motorcycles. It is a worrying area.
Other noble Lords have given statistics. They are worrying. Overall the figures are on the increase. There has been a decrease as regards expensive saloon and other cars. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said. Nowadays it is at least possible to protect a car pretty thoroughly if one is prepared to spend the money. Although people spend a large amount on motor cars, as they do on houses, they do not act to protect their property until they suffer a loss. One can protect a car adequately now for about £250. That is a small part of the cost of a new car.
Vehicle crime pays. I hope that through their efforts the Government will make it a crime which does not pay. It is clear that through No. 10 we now have the political will to do so. We have the expertise in the police. We have the support of ACPO. It is a time-consuming business for police officers. It is extremely worrying and expensive for those who own vehicles to have them stolen. The cost of the whole

453
exercise is prohibitive. It is a self-perpetuating problem in society. I do not think that it is as bad as statistics indicate because, as noble Lords have said, the basis on which the figures are calculated is slightly different in different countries. Nevertheless, this country is probably the Mecca for motorcycle thieves.
It is possible to deal with the problem. I hope that we shall now hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, that the initiative is under way. It has the full support of motorcyclists. I hope that together we can substantially reduce the problem.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for initiating the debate with his customary clarity and careful research. It has given rise to a debate which has been particularly well informed. It so happens that five hereditary Peers spoke one after another; that may not have been sheer coincidence but it is a fact.
Many have suffered from car crime. I have to tell my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth that my car was stolen from a railway car park several years ago when I was a Member of another place. It was used in an attempted robbery of the bar of the local rugger club. Fortunately Hansard provided me with a first class alibi; and I therefore have even more reason to be grateful to that noble institution.
I do not ride a motor cycle these days except occasionally with the excellent motor cycle chauffeurs, which provide an excellent way to get about town. My noble friend was quite right to say that car crime has come down because of a series of actions encouraged by the former government and this Government. A number of factors are involved, as has been demonstrated already in the debate. First, the police are targeting car crime much more. The force I know best is the Avon and Somerset force, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird. It gave the matter high priority several years ago, and showed me recently what it was doing. Like the South Yorkshire Police, about four years ago it also acquired a helicopter which has proved valuable. It is particularly effective in dealing with criminals who use stolen cars to smash shop fronts, to steal from the shops and race away. That crime was becoming prevalent outside Bristol. The helicopter has been valuable in dealing with that rather specialist form of car crime.
Giving a high priority to improved intelligence gathering and improved analysis of the details of the car crimes committed is extremely valuable. My noble friend Lord Oxfuird mentioned the initiatives to handle young offenders which are important in reducing re-offending.
Car manufacturers have also given a higher priority to security. My noble friend Lord Lucas is right to tell us from his own experience of the difficulty of selling security to car buyers. But there is no doubt in my mind that it has been a real sales point on the part of the manufacturers and dealers to emphasise that new cars are now made more difficult to steal because of
454
electronic locks, the tracker systems for the more desirable types of expensive cars, and so on. Car radios have been made more difficult to steal. They are coded and have removable fronts so that they can be disabled and difficult to operate in another car.
Mention was rightly made of secure car parks with the use of closed-circuit television. The use of CCTV is effective in providing security and in bring subsequent prosecutions of the criminals. It is also an extremely good deterrent, even if the cameras are dummy cameras. I was recently shown a video by the police force in which the criminal had been clearly photographed by a concealed camera doing his best to damage the dummy camera before stealing a car. I am pleased to say that his efforts were ineffective.
We were also right to be warned today that motorists have a part to play. In particular, they should not leave items in cars and should lock their cars properly. Warnings have been given by the police, by successive governments and other bodies, but it cannot be said too often that one is personally responsible for one's own property, including a car and anything in it. The suggestions about insurance were a valuable contribution to the debate.
All those factors have contributed to the reduction in car crime, but we, the Government and other agencies involved must not relax our efforts. It was rightly said that car crime is proportionately high in this country as compared with others. Those fighting car and motor cycle crime need some encouragement and I am sure that the debate will have provided the right kind.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Cope, sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. I apologise if it was answered before I entered the Chamber. Does he agree that the reduction in the maximum sentence for taking a car without consent from two years to six months, for which the previous Conservative administration were responsible, must to some extent be to blame for the high level of car theft?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, during the past five or six years, the figures relating to car theft have fallen dramatically. Whatever the effects of the change to which the noble Lord drew attention, fewer cars have been stolen. That is to the credit of all the agencies involved, including both governments.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating our debate today drawing attention to the problem of vehicle crime.
While much progress has been made in recent years, as has been said by noble Lords, much more needs to be done. The Government agree and are placing a high priority on tackling vehicle crime. An important sign of the Government's determination to reduce vehicle crime was given in the Prime Minister's announcement last year of a target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over the next five years. Setting the target is important because it raises the profile of vehicle crime and provides a stimulus for action across the board.

455
It is tough and challenging, but we believe that it is achievable with concerted effort by all those who have a part to play.
That is why we have established the vehicle crime reduction action team, referred to by many noble Lords. It is chaired by Mike Wear, the Director of Fleet Operations at the Ford Motor Company, Most importantly, it comprises representatives of the motor manufacturers and retailers, the insurance industry, the Automobile Association, the police and government departments concerned: the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Scottish Office and the Home Office. Its programme of work, which was mentioned today, is known as the "14 point plan", drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the former Vehicle Crime Prevention Group.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, whether I would identify the key issues the team is examining. One of them is improving car park security, which will help to reduce car crime. Another is improving the levels of security on new and used vehicles. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, say that used vehicles cannot be made secure. However, they can be improved and the team is examining that and trying to ensure that the idea is sold to the public.
It will enhance the contribution made by the police and government departments, including bringing forward proposals for legislation wherever necessary. Of course, it will take time for potential solutions to develop and take effect. That is why we have set a target of five years to bring down the level by 30 per cent.
I turn to some of the points that were made during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned the tracker network. That is the vehicle recovery system, of which the network is an example. It is a very valuable aid in the recovery of stolen vehicles, but we must also concentrate on the important issue of making them more difficult to steal.
As regards salvage, legislation may be necessary in order to protect manufacturers' marking of parts. That is being considered by the action team, which is important. The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, mentioned that 75 per cent. of the offenders are under the age of 21 and he asked what is being done to bring forward the driving test. I could not agree more that it is an important life skill, but one of the problems is that the national curriculum applies only until the age of 16. Provisional driving licences cannot be issued to younger people and they are not allowed to drive cars. Despite all that, we must consider all these problems together and see what we can do to solve them. Youngsters can consider participating in the motor project schemes, acquiring individual skills. We should do all we can to educate young people about motor vehicles, which may have a beneficial effect. However, recent Home Office research showed disappointing figures in relation to the motor project schemes. Poor results were found to exist on the part of young offenders where there was a racing element. We hoped that it would prove that fewer people were offending but it did not achieve that. Nevertheless, we must consider the development of those schemes and
456
we shall work to determine how such initiatives can be made to be more effective in reducing offending. We must bring all that together and do all that we can to make sure that we look at the best projects available. Indeed, Avon and Somerset was referred to in that respect. I am sure that lessons can be learnt from what has been done.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that England and Wales is the car-crime capital of Europe. We do have a major problem but, in that respect, it is difficult to compare like with like because different definitions are used to produce the recorded crime figures.
It is important also that we improve car park security. We strongly support ACPO in the secure car park schemes because it has been shown that, where car parks are secure, there can be an average reduction in car crime and theft from cars of about 70 per cent. CCTV plays an extremely important part in that. The Government are providing additional funding of more than £150 million for CCTV. We shall bring that to the attention of owners of car parks and, in particular, to the attention of local authorities which own many of the car parks.
There has also been the creation of the new award status for car parks, but that has been very disappointing up to now. There are only 303 car parks involved. That is because local authorities have other priorities. Nevertheless, we intend to try to persuade more local authorities to make their car parks more secure.
I was very interested in the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Hardy when he told us what has been done in South Yorkshire. There is no doubt that the helicopter has played an important part not only in assisting the South Yorkshire Constabulary but in assisting many other police forces as well.
My noble friend asked about various crime statistics and whether a stolen car was classified as the crime of theft or taking without the owner's consent. That depends on the circumstances. However, both sets of figures come together in the overall theft statistics which are recorded.
I bow to the expertise and knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I agree with him that very often car owners can help themselves. Too often, they leave their vehicles unlocked. I am sure that many noble Lords in this House as well as many others—and I could have a red face in this regard—have, on a very cold winter's morning, left the engine running and have been very fortunate that the car has not disappeared. Another example of that is at the filling station. Unfortunately, many people pay for their petrol and leave the keys in the car. That is extremely foolish but, nevertheless, it happens. It is difficult to know how many stolen vehicles have been left unlocked because owners, due to their insurance, are very reluctant to admit that they have been foolish in that respect.
Mention was made of the courts and penalties. Those must be examined and, if need be, changes must be made because we must do all we possibly can to reduce theft.

457
The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, mentioned the Bill which he is to bring before the House to deal with motor cycle theft. I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased to know that that Bill will receive the support of the DETR which I am sure will be extremely helpful.
The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, mentioned the Crime and Disorder Bill in a rather surprising intervention. He raised an extremely interesting point and I shall make sure that that is passed on. Somerset and Avon has been mentioned as one of the forces which has been extremely successful. I should mention too, for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Parry, that Dyfed and Powys have been successful particularly in relation to licence plate numbers and printing them on agricultural vehicles. That county has certainly been at the forefront of the fight against car crime.
I was extremely interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said about motor cycles. It is true that there is a very low recovery rate. I believe that it is about 14 per cent. for motor cycles compared with 70 per cent. for cars. So it is particularly important that thieves should be discouraged. We must also look to motor cycle manufacturers themselves. Car manufacturers have improved the security of cars and motor cycle manufacturers must also look to see what can be done in that regard. The noble Viscount made the point that the vehicle crime reduction action team has a task group which is looking at that. So let us hope that together they may be able to reduce the numbers of thefts.
Moreover, there is no doubt that cars have been made more secure by motor manufacturers. The electronic demobilisation of cars has been extremely important. It is possible that more can be done in relation to locks, the glass and so on. Nevertheless, a great deal has been done. But we must not be complacent. I repeat that vehicle crime is a high priority for the Government because it is such a high-volume crime. Despite a reduction under successive governments, in 1998 there were 1.1 million recorded offences of vehicle crime which accounted for 24 per cent. of all recorded crime. I am sure noble Lords will agree that that figure is far too high.
Noble Lords have referred to the valuable market for selling cars. But other serious offences are also commissioned, including drug trafficking, terrorism and other forms of criminality.
Tackling vehicle crime successfully will have substantial knock-on effects and will enable those other offences, which are very serious indeed, to be tackled as well. I am encouraged by the great interest which has been shown and the expertise displayed by your Lordships in putting forward suggestions to tackle vehicle crime. Tackling it successfully is not just the job of the Government or of the police alone. We shall not succeed merely by passing and enforcing new laws, although that does have an important part to play. We shall succeed by working with others who have important contributions to make to ensure that we tackle vehicle crime. Therefore we set up the vehicle crime
458
reduction action team, with its wide spread of representation, to implement the work which is necessary to achieve the target.
Finally, I thank all who have participated for drawing attention to the need to wage war on vehicle crime.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I too am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I could only raise a limited number of points on what is an extremely diverse subject and I am glad that other speakers have been able to fill in the gaps.
I particularly valued the support from the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, and his experience from the north of England, and the support from my noble friend Lord Oxfuird, whose emphasis, as at the beginning of my speech, was on young people and how they can be guided in the right directions. I hope, like him, that something can be done to incorporate the motor car into their upbringing and education.
My noble friend Lord Lucas described the disappearance of vehicles in disguise and misdescribed in speedy export abroad. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and my noble friend Lord Rotherwick, both spoke about motorcycles, to which I only had time to make a single reference in my initial speech. My noble friend Lord Cope helped our debate by raising yet other related matters, and I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, for having replied to, I think, everything on which we asked him to comment. I am of course particularly interested when he says that the whole subject of salvage and scrap merchants, which is a very important element in this field, is under consideration.
By special request, I shall now slowly repeat the telephone number of Crimestoppers, which should appear twice in Hansard. It is: 0800 555 111. That can be an extremely useful number to have on one's person. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Business
4.31 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on humanitarian assistance for Kosovo refugees, I should like to take the opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.
I wonder whether if I might also take the opportunity to say to the House that, following further discussions between the usual channels, it has been agreed that there will not be any additional Statements today. Noble

459
Lords wishing to read tonight's Commons Statement will be able to obtain a copy of the relevant Hansard from the Printed Paper Office.

Kosovo Refugees: Humanitarian Assistance
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development.
"Madam Speaker, with permission I will make a Statement on humanitarian assistance for Kosovo refugees. I will set out what we understand the latest position to be, and what our and the international response has been. But first, I want to make one point clear. I reject absolutely suggestions that we should have been prepared in advance for a movement of population on this scale. It would have been an appalling act of complicity in ethnic cleansing to set up in advance a network of camps to await the Albanian population of Kosovo. That would only have assisted Milosevic's objectives. What is now happening is a reflection of unimaginably outrageous behaviour on the part of the Serbian forces. People's outrage must be directed at the Serbian aggression and not the UN agencies struggling to cope with the crisis.
"Our objective is clear. It is to secure a verified withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo so that the refugees, including those displaced internally, can return to their homes. Meanwhile I can assure the House that we will do all in our power to support the international effort to provide as quickly as possible shelter and food for those who have been driven over the borders.
"As the House knows, there were over a quarter of a million internally displaced people within Kosovo, and a further hundred thousand in neighbouring countries, before NATO intervened. But the situation has sharply deteriorated in recent days.
"As people have seen on their television screens, more than 100,000 people, mostly women, children and elderly people, have been driven from their homes. They are very frightened. They are bringing with them stories of gross brutality and killing which forced them to leave and often forced their menfolk to stay. The numbers in Albania are now 100,000 and the flow continues. In Macedonia there were 16,000 refugees before 24th March and another 14,500 have arrived. More are expected.
"We share the concern of the House and people worldwide that the response to the crisis needs to be speeded up. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is leading a co-ordinated international response. We are doing all we can to support UNHCR, other UN agencies, the International Red Cross and NGOs, which are providing assistance.
460
"At the beginning of this week the Prime Minister announced that we had made available up to a further £10 million as an initial response to the current crisis. We are using this funding to get the most urgently needed items to where they are required. This is in addition to the £3 million provided for emergency relief in Kosovo since March 1998.
"The first UK emergency flight, carrying 42 tonnes of tents and blankets, arrived in Tirana early this morning, and the supplies are being distributed. A further flight using an RAF C130 aircraft is taking more tents and blankets to Skopje today. A UK-funded flight with UNHCR emergency personnel and supplies is also leaving Amsterdam today for Tirana. We have also agreed to help airlift supplies into the region from UNHCR warehouses in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. A further eight UK organised relief flights into Albania and Macedonia are planned for the coming week. We have, in the last hour, provided £500,000 for the world's food programme to assist in the distribution of food to those in need.
"We are identifying other ways of meeting urgent needs. We are providing emergency health kits through the World Health Organisation to cover the needs of 70,000 people for three months. We have provided £500,000 to help support the Red Cross operations in the region. We have asked NGOs working in the region to tell us their needs and have offered them logistical assistance to get into the field.
"We will make further allocations over the coming days as needs become clear. To help identify these needs, we are sending an assessment and monitoring team to the region. They will leave the UK this weekend, led by the head of my conflict and humanitarian affairs department.
"The situation in Kosovo is a terrible tragedy—just as was the suffering inflicted in Bosnia by the same regime engaging in the same monstrous behaviour. This time the difference is that the international community is acting militarily to halt the aggression. Everyone should be clear that the Kosovo refugees support the military action. They need urgent help with food, shelter and other emergency provisions. But they are clear that they want NATO to succeed and they want to return to their homes. We are doing all in our power to support the UN effort and to speed up the humanitarian response. We will remain committed until we can assist with the more welcome task of helping the refugees to return home."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State. We on this side of the House welcome much of the action that has been taken. I am grateful, too, for this Statement covering the humanitarian side of the war in Kosovo as it was due to the humanitarian atrocities committed by President Milosevic that NATO became involved initially.

461
I should also like to add to what previous noble Lords have said on other occasions: that we on this side of the House take immense pride in our British Armed Forces and the professionalism that has seen them successfully minimalise civilian casualties, at great risk to themselves. I trust that the noble Baroness agrees that, with 500,000 people displaced—one-quarter of a population of 2 million—that is an extremely serious humanitarian crisis. I hope that the noble Baroness will also agree that President Milosevic is responsible for the crisis.
The air strikes started on 24th March. Can the noble Baroness tell the House to what extent her department had already prepared, by that date, an action plan to meet the refugee crisis that would inevitably follow? I understand, as she said in the Statement, that her department was unaware of the scale, but it must have realised that the situation would be serious. When was the interdepartmental Kosovo emergency task force set up? Can the noble Baroness tell the House what co-ordination has taken place between her department and the FCO and the MoD in producing that plan? In other words, did she anticipate the flood of refugees and the awful reprisals carried out on the Kosovan people? Had her department prepared, in any way, for these horrific circumstances?
In this country we are incredibly lucky to have outstanding NGOs. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, reminded us in a previous debate that there are about 16 non-governmental organisations active in Kosovo at the moment. Luckily, and by good management, the Red Cross had stockpiles already prepared. A joint appeal involving the Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, which is all important in this area, with the International Red Cross, will start tomorrow.
Does the noble Baroness understand that many will feel that at the same time as aeroplanes were given the green light to fly, the humanitarian relief effort should have been ready to roll? Can she tell us what co-ordination there has been between herself and aid Ministers in all the NATO countries in preparing for that effort? When did it begin?
Does she agree that, given that this conflict is on the doorstep of Europe, there is an opportunity for the European Community to respond, through the ECHO, which both she and I have rightly criticised in the past, to the challenge and provide focused, urgent and effective aid to the people of Kosovo? Perhaps some of the European Union food surpluses could be sent to Albania and Macedonia for the Kosovan refugees.
Does the noble Baroness believe that the UNHCR has sufficient people on the ground to co-ordinate the humanitarian effort? What specific plans are in place to overcome the logistical difficulties in getting food, blankets and medicine to those who need them? Does she agree that the situation on the ground in north-west Albania, with little by way of law and order, is particularly unsuitable for many of the refugees? Are steps in hand to help the Albanians to put in place the necessary structures? Does the noble Baroness see a role for British troops in Bosnia and Macedonia to help to deliver humanitarian assistance?
462
Finally, what plans are her department making to switch aid once the political situation is restored and convert it into long-term development assistance which the people of Kosovo will need to rebuild their homes and their lives so that they can go back in safety? Will the Government make absolutely certain that the Serbs play a full part, both physically and economically?
4.43 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for her kindness in repeating the Statement made in another place. I congratulate her department on its rapid reaction to the extremely disturbing refugee situation. Perhaps I can also take this opportunity to congratulate the German Government, which I understand intends to call a meeting of all the neighbouring states to try to resolve some of the problems that have arisen. That seems to me a proper use of the German presidency of the European Union.
Perhaps I may ask the indulgence of your Lordships and mention the names of some who have been killed in the last day or two in Kosovo. They include Mr. Agami, one of the leading negotiators for the Albanian team who signed the Rambouillet agreement, and Mr. Haxhiu, the outstanding editor of a newspaper of remarkable independence in Kosovo. Mr. Surroi, a brave and outspoken fighter for human rights and press freedom, has fled and his fate is unknown. Most tragic and ironic of all perhaps is the case of Mr. Ibrahim Rugova, who, as many noble Lords will know, is an apostle of non-violence throughout the Balkans. He is a man who has never advocated violence in his life, whose house has been burned down and who, we understand, has fled into the mountains. That puts into human terms the terrible scale of what is happening in Kosovo, where even negotiators for settlements are now being slaughtered.
I shall make one other comment before I turn to two questions. I shall not detain the House for long. My comment is that the scale of the refugee crisis is such as to threaten destabilisation of the neighbouring countries, in particular Macedonia and Albania. Macedonia is a state held together on the basis of an Albanian minority and a Slav majority. As many will know, it is a flimsy and fragile state whose democracy is important to the stability of this part of south-eastern Europe. Many of us fear that if the Albanian refugees remain for a long period in Macedonia that fragile democracy could be threatened. It is vital that those refugees who wish to move on are given the chance to do so.
On Albania, I concur with what the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said from the Conservative Benches. This is a border in almost total chaos. Some noble Lords will recall that from these Benches we have asked, time and time again, that aid be sent to the Albanian border to assist in protecting that border. That is now more urgent than ever. It is a border characterised as porous to the movement of arms, drugs, people and many other highly undesirable elements in the war currently being fought.
I turn to my two questions. The first is in regard to the troops currently in Kumanovo, some eight or nine miles from the border. Recently, I saw that troop

463
formation. There are large numbers of very well trained troops, 3,200 of them. They are highly motivated British men and women. There are many trucks and personnel carriers and there are many methods of trying to move people and cargo around. As they are a peacekeeping force, I wonder whether the Ministry of Defence will consider their use in a humanitarian capacity, both to register refugees as they come over the border and to help to move some of them away from that dangerous and vulnerable area. The refugees, some of whom need medical help, are pi ling up on the Macedonian border and waiting, in some cases for hours, to be dealt with.
I understand that there are members of the Irish Guards, the King's Royal Hussars and the Fourth Regiment of the Royal Artillery in the Operation Agricola group of troops. Will the Minister commend the idea to her right honourable friend and her colleague in this House that those troops should assist? I do not need to underline how vital it is that we are seen to be engaged in humanitarian relief, and using those resources for that purpose.
My second question concerns the Home Office. Again, I raise an issue concerning a department other than that of the noble Baroness. At present, a number of Kosovars are in detention in this country. Their claim that they are liable to persecution to the limit of their lives is doubted by our immigration authorities. I do not blame them in any way. It now seems clear that that is likely to be a very reasonable argument. Will Her Majesty's Government consider, at least temporarily, allowing those detainees to be resettled for the time being in this country and will they lift the visa regime, which currently means that refugees are piling up in Calais? It is vital that the EU as a whole considers the refugees and how best to deal with them.
Finally, I wish to draw one lesson from this. It is now overwhelmingly clear that any agreement to end the war, dreadful as it is, must include an international protectorate in Kosovo because we cannot expect half a million refugees to return to a country in which they were tortured and raped and where they have seen family members murdered unless they have an absolutely firm guarantee that the territory is under the control of international UN or NATO forces which will not allow such atrocities to occur again.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I should like first to support the statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about our pride in our Armed Forces and their professionalism. That point is consistently made in this House. I agree with the noble Baroness that this is a serious humanitarian crisis. I was asked particularly about whether the department had prepared an action plan. The Department for International Development has considerable expertise and experience in humanitarian assistance, as is recognised worldwide. There has been ongoing co-ordination involving Ministers and officials throughout the crisis, with constant conversations and meetings.
In relation to non-governmental organisations, I am aware that the NGOs have agreed to launch an appeal. Obviously, this is a matter for them, but we are
464
supporting the humanitarian effort, having allocated £10 million to the humanitarian crisis. Other donors have contributed significantly, including the European Union. ECHO has allocated 10 million ecus for humanitarian assistance through UNHCR, the Red Cross and other organisations. On the matter of whether we consider that the UNHCR has sufficient people on the ground, we are assisting that organisation by helping it to fly people into the area. So we do not consider that it has enough people on the ground at this point.
On the question of the logistical difficulties of assisting refugees, there is a problem in the north of Albania. The territory is difficult and it is cold. The Italians have assisted by sending in coaches to move people from the north down to the south. It is proposed to establish refugee camps near Tiranë, using two football pitches.
Both noble Baronesses asked about the role of British troops. We think it desirable that troops assist with the humanitarian effort. We are holding discussions on that point, but clearly the troops also have other military duties to manage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked a specific question on the Home Office and asylum for Kosovar refugees. That point is under active discussion. I understand that the UNHCR has called a meeting. It will take place in Geneva on Tuesday and this is one of the items on the agenda. The noble Baroness will understand that I am unable to say more at this stage, but I undertake to write to her once the outcome of those discussions is known.
4.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. Is everything being done to draw the NGOs fully into the relief effort? Many have partners on the ground. Christian Aid, for example, has partners in both Macedonia and Italy. They have a valuable perspective and much experience. I hope that they are being fully involved.
Secondly, can the Minister comment on the disturbing reports coming through this afternoon that unless relief reaches people in Kosovo within two weeks there is likely to be starvation there? Obviously, with Serbian troops in control of Kosovo, it seems that virtually nothing can be done, but has the Minister any thoughts on whether it is possible to do something to meet that impending further disaster?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we had a meeting yesterday with the NGOs. They are considering the kind of funding applications that they would like to make to the department. We have undertaken to respond to those applications within a very short timescale—as short as between six and 12 hours if necessary—because this is a crisis. We are aware of the reports about the possibility of starvation in Kosovo, but we cannot verify whether they are accurate. Within the past hour, we have allocated £0.5 million to the World Food Programme

465
to help with the logistics of moving the food around. However, I cannot advise the right reverend Prelate whether it will be possible to do that in Kosovo.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. I emphasise what I think we must take the opportunity to state whenever we can. The problem of refugees has not been caused by the activity of NATO, but by the genocide being perpetrated by the Milosevic Government, and that in those circumstances, we still have a continuing obligation to help. Is my noble friend aware that we are very grateful for the fact that the Statement emphasised the collaboration of DfID with the whole of the rest of the international community, with non-governmental organisations and with the European Union, which is represented by Mrs. Bonino in a mission to see Kosovan refugees even while we are debating?
Does my noble friend agree that we should not shrink in the future from finding all the necessary funding and other resources for humanitarian aid, just as we have not measured the cost in taking the necessary action against the Milosevic Government? I think that the one has to follow just as clearly as the other. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that the generosity being shown by the Government at present will be ongoing until the problem is resolved.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Tomlinson that the refugee problem has not been caused by the activities of NATO. We have been clear throughout that this has to be an international effort if it is to succeed. We are working in partnership not only with our European colleagues, but also with the international community. We are also working in partnership across government to enable us to be as effective as possible.
With regard to my noble friend's question about funding and resources, I can assure him that funding is not the issue. The department has found £10 million out of its own budget. We have a budget for humanitarian assistance. Future priorities will be for the whole Government to decide. They will be considered in the light of the outcome of the impact and assessment which a joint MoD/DflD team will be making over the next week, and in the light of other developments in the region.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, is it not true that one lesson that we must learn from this tragedy is that we need to stand up sooner to bullying dictators because injustice breeds instability and that we must back someone like a future Mr. Rugova? As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said, we must fund the humanitarian agencies properly. I believe that I heard the UK representative of UNHCR say last night that in January UNHCR launched an appeal asking for about £360 million and that only one-third has been received. What share of that appeal have the UK Government
466
paid? Will the noble Baroness ensure that in the future we make our full contribution to such appeals because it is a very good investment?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that there are important lessons to be learnt, which I am sure we will continue to learn. With respect to her comments about the UNHCR appeal, I cannot give the detail that the noble Baroness requires but will write to her if there is any additional information I can provide. However, I can say that we are assisting the UNHCR. A total of 10 flights will be going in during the next week, some to transport UNHCR personnel. but others to assist the UNHCR in ensuring that blankets and so forth reach the right places. We have therefore been playing our part fully in supporting the UNHCR.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, will the Minister consider a small practical proposal which may be relevant to the meeting in Geneva? In the last war but one, there was an interesting document called the "Nansen passport". We understand that the regime in Kosovo has been depriving everybody crossing the border of their passports, their pièces d'identité and anything else that proves that they are citizens of Kosovo. When Milosevic was talking to the Russian Prime Minister, he said with some cynicism that anybody who could prove that they were Yugoslav citizens would of course be allowed to return. They have obviously made their best efforts to ensure that those people will be stateless. Can we consider making a proposal for something like a Nansen passport which will give them status and which will have to be accepted unless and until they can make some better arrangements?
There is one other minor matter that I want to raise. Although I utterly support the point in relation to resources, let us remember that we shall also need a lot more defence resources, and nobody ever mentions that.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for her helpful suggestion. We will take it away and consider it carefully. Also, I can assure her that a registration process is ongoing in Albania, both in the north and south of the country. We are conscious of the need to ensure that we maintain proper records. I am sure that the Ministry of Defence agrees with the statement in regard to the need for more defence resources.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I have a general political military question which comes to rest on the refugees. Everybody accepts that the NATO attack is not what caused the Serbian dictator to attack the Kosovars; that was taking place long before. But it gave rise to a great increase in the severity and atrocity of the attacks. The situation now is that Milosevic is attacking the Kosovars; we are attacking Milosevic.
Yesterday, or the day before, Milosevic made known to the world his proposals, not for peace but for a sort of ceasefire, which were announced by the Prime Minister of Russia after his visit; that is, if we stop

467
attacking him, he will stop attacking the Kosovars. That is not a peace proposal; it is not a settlement. But what is against our accepting it and giving it a trial run of two or three days?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Kennet does not expect me to go into the kind of detail that his question implies. It has been made clear by NATO, by our own Secretary of State for Defence and others within the NATO alliance that that statement did not meet our requirements. I repeat: that statement did not meet our requirements.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating a Statement on humanitarian assistance, which is independent of the military situation. The House appreciates that and I hope there will be more such separate Statements on humanitarian affairs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, mentioned the NGOs in Kosovo. Perhaps I can correct both her and myself. Since our debate last week, all the NGOs have left Kosovo—I speak for all the European NGOs—and, having had a word with three of them in UK agencies this afternoon, the situation is extremely delicate for them. They have almost no infrastructure in Albania, and Macedonia is now getting much more protection from NATO. Can the noble Baroness say whether the unit winch has been set up jointly with the MoD is reflected in Brussels so that we have a joint action to protect the NGOs as much as the people of Kosovo who are fleeing? It would be helpful to have clarification of the role that NATO is playing in humanitarian assistance.
Finally, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said about UNHCR. We have all seen on our television screens how frail the UNHCR effort is. It enables us to ask the question: what is the United States, the senior partner in NATO, doing to support the humanitarian back-up which UNHCR should provide?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. with respect to the situation in Kosovo and the NGOs. The last two NGOs in Kosovo—MSF and International Red Cross—actually met last week. In terms of the situation in Albania and Macedonia, NGOs are continuing to work in those two countries. We are doing all we can to support their efforts on the ground. I can confirm that the United States is one of the international donors who has given a significant amount of aid, not only to the UNHCR but also to other NGOs, to the Red Cross and to the World Food Programme.
Lord McNair: My Lords, does the Minister have any information about the conditions the refugees will find when the camps are set up? I refer specifically—I suspect this is probably premature—to what the conditions in terms of drinking water will be? I should declare an interest because I have a connection with a company that manufactures mobile water purification equipment.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are sending out an assessment and monitoring team on Sunday. They will
468
be there for around five days. We have on stand-by a number of technical experts in the area of water, sanitation, health and so forth who can be sent out at very short notice. We are concerned that the situations in the camps do not lead to any further deterioration in terms of the health needs of the refugees.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, what level of co-ordination has there been between the department of the noble Baroness, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm to the House that there has been a significant amount of co-ordination and joint working between the FCO, the MoD and DflD. This co-ordination has been ongoing; it will continue. The assessment and monitoring team that is going out on Sunday is actually a joint team comprising the DflD and the MoD.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I have a certain amount of experience in NGO operations in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, touched on security of NGOs in Albania and the great dangers for them. Can the Minister say what extra physical security measures she is considering providing for NGO workers in Albania?
The Minister described DfID and UNHCR activity. Does the Minister agree that secondary distribution of aid is fraught with management challenges to avoid it going astray? Finally, does the Minister agree that, if the co-ordinated international appeal is unsuccessful, it could result in even more refugees flooding into Europe at great cost to European social security funds?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Earl asked me three questions. The first was in relation to the security of NGOs in Albania. I cannot actually give the noble Earl any details regarding plans which have been put in place for the physical security of NGO workers. However, I should be happy to talk to the noble Earl about this matter in more detail. If necessary, I should be happy to write to him and would of course place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.
I agree with the noble Earl that there are significant challenges to all aid organisations that are working in the field of humanitarian assistance. There are huge logistical problems, there are geographical problems; indeed, numerous problems confront those organisations. However, these organisations have a considerable amount of experience and expertise. The Department for International Development has a great deal of knowledge and experience in this area. I am sure that we can rise to meet any of the kind of management challenges that the noble Earl has in mind. As regards the noble Earl's last question, I can tell him that we do not intend the co-ordination effort to be unsuccessful.

Design
5.11 p.m.
Lord Freyberg Lord Freyberg rose to call attention to the role of design in improving competitiveness and quality of life; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this afternoon's debate on the role of design in improving competitiveness and the quality of life. It is a crucial and yet often undervalued ingredient.
Design, innovation and creativity have the potential to bring great rewards both in the business world and in people's daily lives. While awareness of the importance of design is probably at an all time high in the United Kingdom, many industries have yet to recognise the importance of actually investing in it. Design has an increasingly important place in the country's business and social agenda. As Tony Blair put it in September 1997:
"It is time to show a fresh face to the world and reshape Britain as one of the 21st century's most forward-thinking and modern nations. I challenge companies to demonstrate that the UK can lead the world by creating products and services that exemplify our strengths in innovation, creativity and design".
As co-chairman of the recently formed All-Party Design and Innovation group, I have a particular interest in the potential applications of design and innovation. I have been on a steep learning curve discovering exactly how wide the design field is, and how it affects everything we use and see, from aeronautic engineering to the handle of a teacup. In between come a huge variety of other specialisations, from graphic design to architecture, ergonomics, computers, product design and fashion.
What constitutes innovation is equally broad and difficult to pin down. As the Economist's Survey of Innovation in Industry 1999 states, innovation
"is usually thought of as the creation of a better product or process. But it could just as easily be the substitution of a cheaper material in an existing product, for a better way of marketing, distributing or supporting a product or service".
What is undeniable is the fact that innovation is only possible if companies are prepared to invest in new ideas rather than resting on old laurels.
The Economist survey found that the best record of innovation was in organisations where innovation was pursued systematically rather than being left to chance. According to other surveys, the highest performing companies are those which constantly improve their products and services. A 1995 survey of engineering companies found that, while the average company had introduced just 3 per cent. of its product range within the past five years, the most successful 10 per cent. of companies had introduced 62 per cent. of their product range within the past five years.
Design is an integral part of every successful product and service development. Good design is also profitable. Recent research by the London Business School indicated that an extra 1 per cent. of turnover devoted to product development raises turnover and profits by 3 to 4 per cent. over five years.
It should be emphasised that design is most effective when used as part of a company's overall business strategy rather than an optional extra. Its impact can stretch beyond products, to reducing costs, saving time and effort, delivering innovation, ensuring safety, stimulating and motivating staff, simplifying complex tasks, achieving impact in a crowded market or justifying a premium price. For example, the redesign of the BT Phonebook saved £350,000 in printing costs, enough paper and ink to publish 706,818 copies of War and Peace, and enough aluminium to make 91,150 drink cans. Another field in which design has an important role to play is the environment: products can be designed to use up less energy and materials, thus making huge savings. For example the average weight of a yoghurt pot has fallen from 12 grams to 4 grams over the past 30 years.
It is, however, extremely difficult to spot innovation when it appears. Even in supposedly open-minded countries the hardest task for an inventor is not devising a new product or service but persuading a manager to take it on. The potential of a glue that failed to dry was only picked up when someone used it on bits of paper to mark hymns for a choir practice. Even then, these semi-sticky chits were themselves only turned into a product after a clever campaign to show their worth: the man who believed in them created pads of yellow reminder notes which he distributed among the company's secretaries, thus ensuring they were seen by senior management. When everyone was hooked on them he refused to supply any more until they were officially launched. Thus the hugely successful Post-It notes were born.
If their promoter had not been so persistent, it is unlikely that this enormously successful product would ever have got off the ground. The ability to recognise the potential of a new idea is, therefore, almost as important as the idea itself. Any strategy that can be put in place to recognise and encourage the development of innovation should be welcomed and promoted. You cannot guarantee a lucrative product but you can create the right environment for the germ of a good idea to be properly nurtured. Business needs to cultivate just such a creative milieu.
Another major reason for encouraging design and development with industry is in order to add value to a product. As Sir Terence Conran put it:
"It is about applying values through every stage of a product's development from conception through to retail. Design adds value by creating choice, but it will only work if combined with business sense".
Thus Philippe Starck's futuristic lemon squeezer, seen as hugely desirable and featured in every style magazine, was a runaway success in spite of being far more expensive than comparable—and some would say more effective—squeezers. Good design can be an excellent competitive tool.
Design is one of British industry's chief resources: we cannot compete in a global market in terms of raw materials, land or access to cheap labour, but we can

471
draw on superior knowledge, skills and creativity. The previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Peter Mandelson, claimed that design,
"enables companies to bring desirable new products and services to the global marketplace—it also influences how new products are conceived, made, used and disposed of. In the best companies, design is a central part of the strategic business process, managed with as much professionalism and rigour as marketing and finance".
In the past, Britain has been woefully inadequate at exploiting its own creative ideas. The Japanese Minister of International Trade and Industry found that over 40 per cent. of major discoveries in the past 50 years have come from the United Kingdom. The Daily Telegraph estimated that UK GNP is around £165 billion poorer than if UK inventions had been successfully exploited. As Peter Mandelson put it,
"We have talent and creativity galore. What we lack is sufficient capacity to turn our ideas into business, to turn those natural strengths into products and services that customers want to buy".
Britain must learn to exploit to the full the economic potential of the areas in which she leads the world. Car design is one important example. The heads of design at Peugeot, Citroen, Rover, Mazda and BMW all trained at the Royal College of Art in London, while the head of design at Volvo is British. Nine out of 10 Formula One cars are both designed and built in the UK. And crucially for the future, Porsche and Citroen recruit mainly from the Royal College of Art, which, along with Coventry University, provides the pre-eminent training in this field.
However, there is no cause for complacency even here. In the next few years Britain is likely to suffer a severe shortage of young engineers, while moves to lengthen the standard engineering degree course from three to four years may well deter students from choosing an engineering course. Another likely obstacle to engineering creativity is the technological illiteracy rife among managers.
Other signs are more encouraging. A 1998 survey by the Design Council discovered that the status of the value of design has risen most dramatically in schools and higher education along with large service businesses. The creative industries are making a huge impact on Britain's economic-generating revenues, approaching £60 billion a year. They contribute over 4 per cent. to the domestic economy and employ around one and a half million people. The design industry itself has been valued at £12 billion annually and employs 300,000 workers. The UK's design industry is riding high in the world. Exports by British design consultancies have risen from £175 million in 1987 to £385 million in 1997. It has been estimated that between now and 2006 the creative industries will he the fastest growing source of new jobs.
While the UK design industry has grown enormously in the past. decade, the use of design by other types of business has been slower and more uncertain. One of the UK's biggest problems is in persuading companies to invest in innovation. A 1996 study by IBM revealed that only 3 per cent. of UK companies have world-class design practice and performance, compared to 9 per cent. of German companies.
Innovation is inevitably unpredictable. While universities seem to understand this fact, governments tend to think of innovation as a pipeline, and to expect new technology and commercial applications in direct proportion to the amount of public money put into basic research. There is no guarantee that this will be the case; however money put into design is seldom wasted. Good design represents good value. As Mark Fisher stated when at the DCMS,
"Good design, be it in buildings or equipment, will endure and work well. The cheaper option is not always the best value for money. It may solve short-term options but will not always meet long-term ends".
Educationally Britain lags behind other European countries at GCSE and A-level, though degree level is roughly comparable. While the Government's current focus on literacy and numeracy is understandable, similar attention should be paid to the development of creative and design skills. After all, as Tony Blair has said many times,
"the future depends on our creativity".
The study of design subjects promotes such skills as problem solving, communication, teamwork and information technology—all of which make an important contribution to the workplace as it is now and the direction in which it is moving.
This is not to say that design is merely a teaching tool; instead it encourages a different way of looking at problems and possibilities, and can kindle a lifelong interest in the wider aspects of the subject from the function and appearance of cars and new technology to furniture. Design has a far greater application than business alone. Good design, from public buildings to beautiful clothes, gives enormous pleasure to everyone who encounters it. Ugly buildings depress people and attract vandals. Pleasant surroundings stimulate a positive response. Design is a democratic art form, usually applied to something practical, and preferably good to look at as well. Even a mass-produced object—from a Swiss army knife to a pair of Ray-bans to Duralex glasses—can be raised to iconic status by dint of its handsome, simple design. The more design literate the population becomes, the higher the standards of design will be.
We all respond to good design. It is an astounding and fascinating fact that, when some 17,000 London bus stops were redesigned in 1991 to make them more attractive and improve the clarity of the information they give, the increased bus use exceeded all expectations and rose by 7 per cent. It had previously been on a steady decline.
Businesses that neglect their design strategy are less likely to thrive in the future. It is essential that the Government are seen to set an example in this field., and I am encouraged to note that, besides publishing a White Paper yesterday on modernising government, a number of their departments are working in partnership with the Design Council to develop best practice in design management. The aim is to improve the cost effectiveness of all government departments and agencies through the more effective use of design. The Design Council is an energetic government-funded body whose current schemes include millennium products—

473
highlighting some of the most clever and imaginative products in Britain to encourage British businesses to use innovation and design more effectively.
A country's reputation for creativity can contribute hugely to its economic achievements. I am firmly of the belief that good design is the key to maintaining the UK's position as a strong and competitive nation in a tough global market. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on a remarkable speech and for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. His speech was so remarkable that I may rival the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, in his recently accredited record of making the shortest speech in this House for many years. The seat beside me is littered with everything I have written in the past couple of days, all of which we have just heard. However, I shall try to add a little to the debate, partly by way of definition.
It is said that in order to determine what duty should be levied on an artefact US Customs officials are instructed, "If you can use it, it isn't art". I suppose that today's debate relates to that which is not art. The noble Lord referred to the extraordinary statistic provided by the Japanese equivalent of the CBI; namely, that over 40 per cent.—some say the figure is as large as 56 per cent.—of all Japanese exports around the world since the end of the Second World War have been based on British innovation and British invention.
I argue that we are a remarkably inventive nation. It is the stages after that where things begin to go wrong. We are not innovative in terms of turning our inventions into products. We are even worse at applying those products to markets and we are quite lamentable at the process of product development, which I am afraid includes design. That is not to say that we do not have world class designers. In fact I would say that, pound for pound, our schools, universities and colleges of design in this country probably turn out a better product and more of them than any other nation in the world.
It is simply that British manufacturing still finds itself under the illusion that design is an extra, an afterthought, something that you do because you have to. That is quite strange because we went through that crisis about 140 years ago when Prince Albert and Henry Cole realised that British manufacturing supremacy was being rivalled by Germany in particular, and other countries in Europe, principally because they took design seriously. It was not that our products were not good but other countries were making products that were better designed and therefore more popular. That was one reason for the 1851 exhibition being brought to fruition. It also explains the genius behind the South Kensington collection of museums and colleges. It was a unique concept whereby the Victoria and Albert Museum lay side-by-side with the Royal College of Art and other similar institutions, all designed to sustain and invigorate Britain's competitiveness by way of design
474
and product development. That is why I find it so strange, 140 years later, that we seem somehow to have lost the plot. However, I believe that we are beginning to realise what we have lost.
We will never again, certainly not in my lifetime, be a significant manufacturing nation. We have to learn to live by our wits and our talents and it is absolutely correct, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, that one of our talents lies in inventiveness and design. We now have to begin to apply those qualities to our own products and to the fruits of our workforce. That is the way forward. The noble Lord gave the House some statistics. They are staggering. The creative industries are a £60 billion business. In this country 173,000 people work directly within the design business. Those are large numbers. No longer will great factory gates crash open and men, and just a few women, walk through to large buildings of mass employment. It is a cruel delusion to think that there is any future for this nation in that area.
Our future lies in small, medium-sized and, if necessary, large design companies producing first-class products which are snapped up around the world. That is precisely the way in which the Italians, with far less to go on, have created a fairly vigorous economy for themselves. It is a design-based economy built around small businesses with a lively appreciation of the market place. We have to learn from the Italian example.
Many years ago John Ruskin said:
"The education of a young artist should always be a matter of the head and heart and hand".
I believe that that lesson has begun to sink in. For example, we at last have an Arts and Humanities Research Board which will support funding of research in the arts and humanities specifically including design. On 5th March its chairman, Paul Langford, announced its first round of grants. These covered some 300 awards totalling £4.6 million. So things are moving. The school curriculum, although it has yet to be published, will, I believe, recommend that art courses are redesignated art and design. Again that is a recognition of the value of design within the broad concept of art.
I have the privilege of chairing the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. Our entire thrust will be excellence—finding excellence where we can and promoting it wherever and whenever we can. There is an awareness of the challenge and there is beginning to be a sense of optimism.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has done the nation a great favour by bringing this issue to your Lordships' attention. It will not go away. It will become a greater and greater component of our economy and therefore a greater and greater component of our lives and of our children's lives.
5.33 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for bringing this issue before the House. I think that the only reason the debate is not better supported by noble Lords is that they are on the M.1, M.3 or wherever it may be. Before I speak on the subject perhaps I may declare an interest. I work

475
for a company which is part of a North American group, Young & Ruhicam, which also has a design company in its orbit.
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is right to say that we cannot go backwards. We can only go forwards. I looked up the record of the last debate we had on design. The debate did not even last the dinner hour. So we are already moving forward.
It is always a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on the Front Bench. However, I have a feeling that that says something about the priority given to the subject within the Department of Trade and Industry. I have never noticed a shortage of DTI Ministers but there is not one present today. It is important that the subject should be loved by its own department. I hope that we will overcome that point too.
It is interesting that the Government did not bring together an integrated Front Bench on this subject. It is an integrated subject. 'The issue of design involves many government departments. It involves the Department of Health because disabled people are some of the most important users of good design. The quality of life of disabled people can be changed with appropriate help. It involves the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Environmentalists identify the problems but they do not solve them. One needs designers to solve environmental problems. We have to work on that point and I know that the Design Council is conscious of it.
The noble Lord referred to transport. I find it interesting that there are some small cars around which were designed many years ago. A famous one is the Mini, which celebrates its 40th anniversary this year. I would not say that it is totally British. I do not think that Alec Issigonis can be claimed as a British name but the car did not need to have much spent on it still to be out there. A new Beetle is available. It is just about a brand-new car. However, the fact that the Mini is still going shows how good was the original design.
The Foreign Office must be involved with design. I found it strange going around Foreign Office embassies. There were wonderful paintings and settings but not a piece of Parnham-based furniture. Why are we not putting up our modern and competent designers in that situation? Where are our designers going? There was a stage when the only people who could afford a piece of John Makepeace furniture were overseas buyers.
Children are wonderfully creative. In any house that has four year-olds or five year-olds, the fridge, the freezer and the cooker are covered with brilliant and clear drawings. Although we turn out well-educated students, somewhere along the line we educate that clarity out of people. It is important that we keep that clarity in there.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, gave some figures. I should like to refer for a moment to commitment. I believe that design needs passion. It also needs individuals. A woman in Barnsley, Rita Britten, sells £500 dresses. That used to worry me. When I went to the DTI I asked for a visit to be arranged. I found that she sells the dresses on service. But she also sells them because she is committed to the area and to design. She
476
is based near Grimethorpe, which had a colliery that was closed down. As I left, I was given the Grimethorpe appeal leaflet. But she also set up a design centre in Grimethorpe to give work to women who were married to the miners who lost their jobs at the colliery. Now her business takes her all over the world.
Another person who has brought his passion and standards to the design world is Paul Smith, who would have been a star anywhere. He still manages to retail—he has 75 shops in Japan—when every other retail market is going down. Peta Levi has had a tough time with the DTI. She runs new business designers. She has tried taking these youngsters over the world. The DTI has helped her by providing people "on loan", but never on a permanent enough basis to build. I would mention Conran—but one does not need to mention him; he will do it himself.
The point about Paul Smith and others is that they can move their products into mass production. I find it sad that even in our retail area here in the UK the mass production which allows design to enter the homes of most people is either Japanese—Muji, with its brown cardboard—or IKEA. We must help the design world to move into mass production. There are lovely things out there, but the chances of most people affording them are very slim. Creating aspiration without the ability to satisfy it is not the way to build an industry.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that I am very pleased to praise the Design Council. I helped it in finding a chairman. It was interesting that the people who were initially brought forward were all engineers. The Design Council needs to be led by a charismatic person, as it now is. It must be kept away from bureaucracy. I am sure that no figures are available, but I should like to know how many civil servants have received a design education. I assure the noble Lord that if he produced the answer I should faint. The matter is important. If the effort goes into the paperwork, the results will not come through fast enough. There is at present a new stage, with the rural development associations entering the middle of the process distributing European money.
I do not know whether the noble Lord can offer welcome guidance on how devolution will operate in the design field. If we are to nurture people, we do not need to nurture a species in every part of the new UK. That will be interesting.
For me, design is something I enjoy and envy, something that I could not copy in a million years, and I know its value to industry. I am grateful to the noble Lord for providing the opportunity to debate this subject.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I, too, wish to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for initiating this debate. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield. I can say without fear of contradiction that today is the first time in British history that two former pupils of Rothwell Grammar School have made speeches consecutively from the Benches in this House. I hope that it is the first of many such opportunities.

477
The importance of this subject lies in the fact that in the global market-place Britain can no longer hope to compete on price alone. That point was central to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. The alternative is therefore clear. In order to create a competitive economy we must make better products for which people are prepared to pay a little extra. Design is absolutely key to achieving that. Britain must simply be as creative as, or more creative than, our European partners, Japan, the US, China and Korea. We must make better performing products that sell at a premium. Business must recognise design as a source of advantage and as integral to its success. The design function in business must be viewed as central to a business in the same way that marketing and sales are. I fear that that is still often not the case.
Design must be an identified and central part of all aspects of business strategy. That will require more investment in design R&D than our competitors provide if we are to be successful in international competition. The problem at present is that we are simply not doing that. Last year the worldwide increase in spending on R&D was 10 per cent. In the US, the world's most successful economy, the increase was 17 per cent. The UK only managed an increase of 5 per cent., which meant that we were 27th in the league table of net growth spenders on research and development. Frankly, that is not a satisfactory basis for the future development of our economy.
The challenge must therefore be to promote creativity and design at all levels. That must begin in schools. As the noble Baroness said, very young children are natural designers. One of the problems is that by the time children enter secondary school, in many schools design is not seen as intellectually and academically on a par with many other subjects. Many bright young people are rather pushed away from design towards subjects that are more traditionally academic. Frankly, many of those subjects, although they are typical leaders in the academic field, are often of precious little use to people in later life whereas design develops creativity and the concept of and ability for lateral thinking. It is therefore a central subject and should be seen within the educational world to be equally important to subjects such as physics, chemistry and biology. It will certainly be of more practical significance to young people than many of the more academic subjects they will study.
It is interesting to hear about the UK's success as design education centre. It is the largest such centre in Europe; 30 per cent. of Europe's design graduates are educated in the UK. All that one can say is that they are clearly not working here. They are either coming to the UK from elsewhere in Europe and other parts of the world because of the excellence of the education here and then returning to their country; or, in far too many cases, they are frustrated UK students who find that in order to acquire an outlet for their activity they have to work abroad.
Why are we not spending more on design as part of R&D? What should we be doing? In particular, what might we look to government to do? The macro-economic framework is the starting-point for
478
investment in British industry, of which R&D is a part. This Government have placed tremendous emphasis on moving away from the boom-and-bust that has characterised post-war British economic performance. More than anything else, creating a macro-economic climate which gives business the confidence to invest is the single most important thing that government can do in this area.
There are many other areas where government clearly has a role to play. Government is a major purchaser. It is now beginning to promote good design. An example is the design of Inland Revenue forms. I am always amazed to see that the latest Inland Revenue form is thought to be a masterpiece of design. Perhaps it is, but it still quite hard to follow. However, I am sure that a huge amount of effort goes into that kind of activity.
At the other end of the scale, it also gives great satisfaction that the new parliament and assembly buildings being built in Scotland, Wales and London are not utilitarian. They are dramatic buildings. Not only will they be an addition to the public realm; they will send a signal to the communities in which they are based that design to a high standard is a matter by which the parliament and the assemblies set great store.
The Government also have a major role to play as a promoter of UK design within their overall role of promoting the UK. A poll of business last year showed that 90 per cent. of businesses surveyed said that a modern, creative image of Britain helped exports and helped to attract inward investment. Seventy per cent. thought that the Government could be doing more. I do not think one needs to go overboard on the concept of Cool Britannia to believe that the Government should be spending less time promoting Beefeaters and castles and rather more time promoting the Dyson vacuum cleaner and even the Dome. In that respect, the Millennium Products Initiative, launched about 18 months ago and run by the Design Council, and which has the enthusiastic support of the Prime Minister and the Government, is extremely valuable in demonstrating the Government's commitment to making the most of the best of British design.
The Government are in a plethora of ways a provider of funds and advice which can help the design process. They are a funder of the Design Council, which does tremendous work. But it is not just these national initiatives which will be important in changing attitudes about design. One of the things which the Government do, through the Design Council, is to fund design counsellors through the Business Links network. The role of Business Links in getting in at the grassroots level with a large number of small businesses could be very significant because it spreads good practice at all levels across the economy and does not simply concentrate on the biggest companies in the land.
The devolution of economic decision-making and economic development through the RDAs offers a chance for more of this kind of good practice to operate at regional level. I have been particularly impressed in this respect by an initiative which has been established in Yorkshire called the Yorkshire: European Region of Design Excellence. I am sure that when the noble

479
Baroness was growing up in Wakefield, just as when I was growing up in Rothwell, "design" was not a word that was associated with that part of the country. Many other words were associated with West Yorkshire, but design did not feature among them. The noble Baroness talked about a dress designer. It is interesting that the part of the country in which she is based, Barnsley, and, in particular, Grimethorpe, was a place of huge musical creativity. Men who were brutalised in their working lives used their spare time to make some of the most beautiful brass-band music in the world. We now have the opportunity to encourage those same people and their sons and daughters to develop their lives through creative use of time.
The Yorkshire design initiative was launched in Leeds on a wet Friday evening in late January. It drew over 100 people to it, including the most senior representatives of the design industry and business more generally across Yorkshire. We were fortunate in having the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, newly in post, attend the meeting. I hope that the initiative may serve as a model elsewhere. It has brought people together to look at specific design initiatives, ranging from the possibility of setting up a centre for design excellence to practical matters such as a new design for a Yorkshire taxi. In doing so, it has brought a tangible focus to a tremendous amount of enthusiasm for design. By operating at a regional level rather than looking to the Government or the Design Council, it has released a lot of energy that would not otherwise have been brought to bear.
We have heard some discussion about the importance of design and related activities to GDP in this country. The notable feature about that is that while design-related activities generate 1.8 per cent. of GDP, they employ 1.2 per cent. of the workforce. The whole process of design has significantly higher productivity than the economy as a whole. That in itself demonstrates why it is so important as a driver of economic activity for the future.
I have concentrated on competitiveness rather than quality of life, but one only has to look at the history of public sector housing in this country and both the downside of bad design and now, with some of the housing associations, the upside of good design, to see how fundamental design is. Indeed, it permeates many aspects of human activity. Bad design is economically suicidal and depresses the human spirit. Good design. by contrast, can give us a competitive edge and enrich all our lives. Design is central to our economic and social welfare. I hope that this is an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the House as a whole will return at regular intervals.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, perhaps I too may say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for initiating this debate. I found his speech highly informative, very persuasive and, on the whole, very encouraging.
I suspect that one way of bringing a smile to the face of my noble friend the Minister who will respond to the debate is to quote George Bernard Shaw to him. He is
480
a devotee of the great man, as I am, but he has the advantage over me that he actually met him. I thought that in honour of that I might begin my speech by giving a short quotation from The Doctor's Dilemma. It is the dying Louis's credo in the fourth act. He says:
"I believe in Michael Angelo, Velasquez, and Retnbrandt; in the might of design, the mystery of colour, the redemption of all things by Beauty everlasting, and the message of Art that has made these hands blessed. Amen. Amen".
I note those words "the might of design", and I would add my own, third Amen.
Theatre and design have gone hand in hand for a very long time. The relationship has sometimes been quite unusual. Among the first of the American industrial designers were quite a number who had a theatre background. I think in particular of Norman Bel Geddes, who was first a producer of plays and opera. He moved on to theatre design and then to designing typewriters, refrigerators, radios and even stoves.
Men like Bel Geddes and others from the worlds of theatre and advertising, such as Walter Dorwin Teague and Raymond Loewy, combined the skills of businessmen with their gifts as artists to play a vital role as industrial designers in ensuring that many of the large corporations survived the Depression of the 1930s.
When I speak in your Lordships' House, it is usually on economic subjects. The relationship between design and economics has always held a certain fascination for me, so I do not feel that I am trespassing too much on the terrain of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, if I say something about that today. I shall take just two examples.
The post-war economic miracles in West Germany and Italy owed an enormous amount to design. As noble Lords will recall, economic recovery in Germany in the immediate post-war years was pretty slow off the mark, but, with the boost given to it by the Marshall Plan, German production had reached pre-war levels by 1950 and the Wirtschaftswunder, the German economic miracle, was then up and running. From then on" America influenced not only West German production processes but also product design. I intend no denigration to the German designers of that period when I say that the Opel Kadetts of the 1950s were little more than replicas of American cars. What was crucial and important to Germany's economic future was that the government of that time saw industrial design as a key factor in economic regeneration.
By 1952 the Ministry of Economics had set up a design council and established professorships in industrial design and technical universities. It is interesting and instructive to recall that it was after hearing a lecture on the links between art and industry that the brothers Artur and Erwin Braun took a fresh look at their firm's design policy. They employed top design consultants and the rest was design history. Their functional, monochromatic products, usually in white, grey or black, epitomised by its mechanical products such as electric shavers, calculators and clocks soon became globally famous. It was also extremely helpful to the German economy.

481
Another example is Italy. In the aftermath of the war Italy received much less aid from the United States but, like Germany, it was influenced by American culture, particularly its functionalism and rationalism in design. That predominated in Italian industrial design as the economy modernised in the first five years after the Second World War. Its portable typewriters became world famous as did those quintessential expressions of youthful modernism (if I may so put it), the Lambretta and the Vespa. The Italian consumer boom of the 1950s was boosted by the discoveries of oil and gas and the chemical and plastic industries, the latter providing a very rich field for Italian designers, such as Ettori Sottsass who designed the famous red plastic Valentine typewriter. Italy's post-war economy benefited hugely from the talent of its designers. That is the point that I really want to make.
I make this brief excursion into the post-war economic history of these two countries solely to emphasise the essential link between design and competitiveness and quality of life and to show that they are not new and can have huge economic consequences. Since the 1980s design has become an increasingly important part of daily life in this country. Perhaps we have tended to overuse the word "designer'. with our constant reference to designer jeans, designer vacuum cleaners and even designer stubble. But they are now all part of our lives and "designer" has passed into everyday language.
But it seems to a layman in these matters like myself that we are now redefining design after the conspicuous consumption of the 1980s and now see it more as a tool for improving the quality of life, not least as an expression of our environmental concerns, with (dare I say) a more muted appeal to our strictly aesthetic senses. Others will make more expert judgment on that matter than I do.
I return to the economic dimension. The briefing produced by the Design Council provides some impressive and encouraging statistics, of which the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, gave us some highlights. I should like to cite just a few that particularly caught my eye. As the noble Lord pointed out, across the British economy as a whole expenditure on design and related activities is estimated at over £12 billion annually, which is equivalent to 1.8 per cent. of UK GDP. That is very impressive. It is also pointed out:
"Design contributes directly to the UK balance of payments, with some 70 per cent. of UK design businesses active in overseas markets … Sectors that invest heavily in product development and design—such as mechanical engineering, aerospace and chemicals—are also those in which the UK has a trade surplus".
There is also the employment factor, to which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, referred. In total 173,000 people are employed in support of design and product development within British industry. Further, 20,000 people in the UK work in design consultancies. That is very impressive. But then the following caught my eye:
"Provision of design services is dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises—there are around 4,000 design consultancies in the UK. However, the value is heavily concentrated in the biggest firms—the largest 100 accounting for 75 per cent. of the industry's turnover".
482
This caused me to ask myself a question (which needless to say I could not answer): is this an indicator of under-financing in many small and medium-sized enterprises? Is there a desire there to invest more in design capability which is frustrated by capital restraints? I believe that this was also a matter in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
I am a very great believer in small and medium-sized enterprises. As the Design Council itself said:
"Small and medium-sized enterprises … are a critical part of the UK economy. According to the Design Council, research awareness among SME managers of the importance of design is growing. Between 1997 and 1998 the number of small manufacturers climbed from 44 per cent. to 62 per cent.".
But I ask whether that awareness is matched by an ability to fund access to high quality design capabilities. I do not know and I should very much like to know. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister shares my hope that the recently announced help for small companies in the form of the new 10 per cent. starting rate of corporation tax will encourage more investment in design by small manufacturers. Perhaps the Chancellor's extension earlier this month of first-year allowances for small and medium-sized businesses investing in machinery and plant will free up resources, some of which may be devoted to more investment in design. Maybe serial entrepreneurs can help through their investment in Enterprise Investment Scheme companies. I just wonder whether these types of recent government initiatives in favour of small and medium-sized enterprises could lead directly or indirectly to a greater level of investment in design. I certainly hope so.
As the Design Council informs us,
"Among smaller manufacturers, perhaps perceived as less likely to exploit the potential of design than their larger competitors, those describing design as essential climbed from 44 per cent. to 62 per cent. over the year".
They describe it as essential, but do they have the means to put that into effect? I suspect that for many finance is a constraint. I leave noble Lords therefore with the thought that if there is such a constraint we need to find ways to facilitate a higher level of investment. Design is far too important to our economy to have it left underfunded.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, if I slur my words it is because yesterday morning I returned from China and this morning I went to bed at 4 o'clock. My jaw drops and my eyelids close. Please sit me down quietly. I have been in China to look at two provinces: Sichuan and Chongqing. They hold a fascinating lesson. They are changing their institutional policies. We are helping them to promote good design and environmental planning, tourism, trade, good management and the integration of services—all to achieve economic sustainability. Chongqing includes the Three Gorges Dam area and planning for the future of minority cultures. The resettlement of some 1.2 million people is being done by the Chinese themselves. Vast engineering works have been carried out to consolidate the new 150 foot high change in water level.

483
Having seen China grow over the past 10 years I am fascinated by the fact that they have learnt the lesson of the importance of the design process in responding to function requirements and the need for multi-sectoral co-operation. In projects and products both large and small they are learning how to plan for economic business success. It is very difficult to try to teach them about the market. Assessing market revenues and the limits of affordability are also matters that are just on the fringe of what they are learning to do. The difficulty that we have in introducing design and management initiatives in a totalitarian and relatively closed society, where middle management fears to take the initiative, is also a fascinating challenge.
I am very concerned by the growing power and ability of China, with one quarter of the world's population, to be extraordinarily competitive to what we are trying to do here and our long-term sustainability. I am concerned about the great competition our economies of western Europe are going to have in the next 50 years. Here in Europe I maintain that our safety will be in our innovation, integrity of service and in quality of design if we are to compete with the reinvigorated and possibly fiery dragons.
I came back through the new Hong Kong airport. I was totally fascinated. It is a British product, with a pure economy of concept; grandly impressive and human in scale. It is a wonderful advertisement for the United Kingdom and its humanity held through the ordering of its hierarchy of spaces. It has wonderfully strong detail and appropriate originality and innovation—all of the principles advocated in the Design Council brief. Like a good human perhaps, the design is not excessive in any of its traits, but it is attractive in its quality and considerate towards the function it provides.
As I understand it, Britain has few natural products. We pay for our standard of living through the ingenuity and innovation of our goods and services; through our knowledge and our abilities in applying both knowledge and craft skills; and in the excellence of our design. I believe that Britain's future is going to depend more and more on our competitiveness with such dragons as I have described.
I believe that design relates not only to the physical product, but also to the means of managing the process of manufacture and delivery. Consultant designers, like politicians—they do not think of themselves as designers, but they are some of the most important designers that we have—and many other classes of people are so often good at defining the objectives, as I have seen among engineers in cities like Ningbo in China, but they are weaker at understanding the management requirements for implementation, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, correctly said.
The mistakes that we can see in development situations relate to the lack of management abilities of all the many factors to be considered at the larger scale of project. The small object is easier for an individual to understand, but the individual's ability to relate to the management and teamwork required of a larger project is very demanding. Ultimately, design is for the human being. The ability of the design to reflect human values is often the critical factor in its success.
484
I would like to expand on that idea. In industry the human value of a worker in its mass production process is extraordinarily important. I believe that the humanity in our planning and development of urban areas are all ultimately more important than the simple and more obvious functional operation of the urban infrastructure. The urban task force, led by the great architect, the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, made a useful start in a most complex quest to increase density for good economic reasons, but also to improve the quality of human life.
I believe that there are strong but very hard to measure relationships between the quality of the environment and the levels of crime and alienation caused by the dissatisfaction felt by the residents and workers in a poor quality environment. We have examples of estates such as those in Manchester arid others in Glasgow and Sheffield which have had to be demolished through the ill-considered understanding of the human factors involved when they were created.
I believe that there is a common discipline between the design of the physical world and the creativity needed to design, implement and motivate the new political and social world. Human values underpin all reason for the respect, development and retention of our existing physical environment. So, I believe, those same human values are essential parts of our work in the politics and planning of social and institutional improvements. However, like great planning and engineering projects, proposals for institutional change are often not designed with respect for the inclusive and consultative consensus building that good design should accommodate. In my opinion, policy which is not inclusive sets up opposition among alienated stakeholders.
I believe that we have witnessed the arbitrary nature of change without design proposals in your Lordships' House over the past two days. Good design with adequate respect and the promotion of trust in the human dimension is vital to the quality of both the physical world as well as to the social and political world within the United Kingdom.
I believe that the humanity of our design considerations also applies to the international world where trust, respect for cultural difference and the design of good policy and trusting trading relationships are the core for the United Kingdom's future trading and the prosperity of our children. I suggest that there is a strong relationship between this creativity and orderly thinking; of good design in the physical world and the innovative and detailed considerations that must underwrite the success of human relationships both within the United Kingdom and abroad.
The noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, said that design is an integrated subject. I believe that that is absolutely correct. The danger of our thinking both as sponsors and designers for change and novelty is that we often take a narrow and sectoral view of our roles in life in the design of systems of government, the Greater London Authority, the devolution of regions and the construction of the past

485
as new environments. The human values are often subordinated to the machine, the engineering and the tangible factors or the political ideal.
I am encouraged by the DTI's Creative Industries Export Promotion Advisory Group (CIEPAG) bringing together different departments of government. It can help in the co-ordination and marketing of UK Limited abroad. That is a very essential service especially with the growth in the SMEs, the small and medium-sized enterprises of the United Kingdom. That involves the design of communications between the SMEs of the United Kingdom and the international markets.
I believe that good design requires a holistic approach to the problems of the living and working environment. It is responsible for the success of trade, tourism and, above all, for user satisfaction that all over the world is increasingly intellectual and selective under the influence of television and other forms of media.
I believe that the message is quite clear. We must stay ahead with our education. We must invest in understanding the generalities as well as the particularities of design both for joined-up government and for joined-up private and public sectors. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, as I hope the whole House will, for bringing this fundamental subject to your Lordships' attention.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, when I read the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, I was so interested that I made certain that I should be present to hear his speech. I am glad that I did so. I have seldom heard so much interesting, useful information crammed into such a short period of time. I thank him for that. It is because of that that I am persuaded to break my usual habit over recent years of being a listener rather than a speaker.
I am old enough to remember the days when Japanese manufacturers were accused of being innovators of nothing but masters of copying other people's work. The accusation was that they worked so well on that aspect that they included in their production any fault in the original material. I do not know whether there was any truth in that allegation but, if so, that factor has disappeared over the past 40 years.
The Japanese have shown that they are masters of innovation. But they have done better: they have also made certain that they took advantage of their innovations. We have seen that in so many fields—electronics, the car industry, watch making, calculators, and so on. In this country, we would have been much better off if our manufacturers, in particular the small manufacturers, had had the initiative to follow up their innovative idea by production of it.
It may well be, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said, that the answer is that small manufacturers do not have the necessary support to follow up ideas they have produced. The result is that wonderful ideas which have begun in this country have not been developed here but abroad. I do not know the extent to which industry listens to
486
anything said in your Lordships' House. However, I suggest that it would do industry no harm to read the speech made today by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
6.22 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, began his speech, I thought that he was going to be an example of the Lord who dreamt that he was making a speech in the House of Lords and woke up to find that he was. I can assure the noble Lord that he stayed awake, and so did we.
There was dangerous talk from the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. He said that he had torn up half his speech because his remarks had already been made. If that kind of thing carries on, this place will grind to a halt!
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on this last debate before Easter, turning the eyes of the House outwards after a couple of days of contemplating our own navels. A number of my friends have queried why I am speaking in the debate since I am not noted as a dedicated follower of fashion. Part of the reason is that I have had what American management experts now call a portfolio career. I served in the early 1980s on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. Even then we undertook a study about competitiveness and the factors that damage British competitiveness. Since then I have worked for an electronics trade association, a management quality certification company and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, for an American conglomerate with a design capability—although not the same one.
I draw from those experiences to talk mainly about manufacture. I take slight issue with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. He said that we will never again be a significant manufacturing nation. It is too easy and very dangerous to write off our manufacturing base. That was part of the silliness of the 1980s when, as far as I could see, the theory was that the financial services industry and theme parks would be enough of a base for this country. It was a foolishness warned against with great eloquence, I recall, by John Harvey-Jones in a Dimbleby lecture over 10 years ago.
We need a manufacturing sector; and we need the policies to back it up. But change has occurred. We are no longer an industry of muck or even brass. We are more and more dependent on our small and medium-sized enterprises. The noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Hughes, made vital points which I hope the Minister will convey to the DTI about the importance of helping small and medium-sized enterprises export innovation by access to good design.
As the figures quoted demonstrate, the problem has not been a lack of ideas in Britain over the past 50 years but a skill in taking those ideas to market. Globalisation and technological change offer us a second, third or even fourth chance. We can still catch up with the best if we get our policies right. Again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I belong to the generation who remember jokes about shoddy and imitative Japanese products, and who saw those products become a benchmark for quality and design.

487
Broadly, the priorities of the Government since they came to office are right. They include rights to give priority to education; to invest in technology; and the encouragement of productivity. Britain's future lies in a high skill, high tech, high productivity and high value added economy—a so-called skill-based society. But if we know that, so do others, and they will follow a similar strategy.
So what will be the X factor? I believe that it will be quality and design. I am told that Japanese companies spend twice as long at the product design stage compared with comparable western companies. There are real benefits in investment in design for manufacturers. Assessments can be made of the environmental impact—it is of growing importance—safety implications, product liability, matching performance requirements, risk analysis and the guarantee of overall quality.
That quality and design approach to manufacture has tangible benefits for both manufacturer and consumer. Early identification of manufacturing/service problems reduces the cost of wasted time, effort and materials during production and service. It is estimated that the cost of poor quality is 10 times greater at the end of a process than at the beginning. There is the greater likelihood of completion of projects on time. With effective planning and a clear view of the project milestones and timescales, management can be more in control of progress with early identification of any potential problems that may affect the life of the project.
Design and quality control offer more effective cost control. Estimates are increasingly more important for the viability of commencing any project. Finally, there is customer satisfaction. The end result of all the work and input must result in that.
I mentioned my background in consumer electronics. We are on the verge of what has been described as the digital revolution. That offers a multi-million pound opportunity for Britain as we produce the products to meet the interactive, multi-choice broadcasting age. It is interesting to note that the manufacturing capacity for that is in the UK and much of the research and development has been carried our here.
The digital revolution will be driven by programme quality—and I hope it will not be 200 channels with the best being "I Love Lucy"—reception quality, which is of importance to the Minister, and design. We recently debated digital radio and the Minister may be interested to learn that four British manufacturers are now committed to producing digital radio. Therefore, there is manufacturing and research capacity and design talent. There is also an opportunity for Britain to manufacture and export goods.
However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, that we shall need joined-up government. As my noble friend Lord Newby said, that means a new status for designers and engineers. It means a creative use by the Government of their own procurement capability. As a number of speakers have said, it means design as an integral part of our education.
488
In this millennium year, the great Dome should be used as a showcase for British design. Lottery funds should be used to promote design criteria. Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, came to St. Albans, the city in which I live, to open an extension to our museum built on the basis of lottery money. The very design of that building has lifted the spirit of the city. The same exhibits are on show inside, but a new shape has been given to the museum. The number of schoolchildren who visit has increased incredibly. That is one example of the good use of lottery funds to produce good design. Perhaps I may pay tribute to the Design Council and its millennium products initiative. As a professional in this field, I thought its brief was a model of its kind for a parliamentary debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, mentioned the V&A. Part of my briefing for the debate were V&A notes. The noble Lord gave us a timely reminder of the vision of Henry Cole and the 19th century museum creators. They bequeathed a great legacy in the use of design in museums. Due to time constraint, I will not go through the V&A's programme, but it is entirely contemporary and encourages designers, particularly young ones. In addition to inventing the new, we should appreciate what we already have as a basis for encouraging design within our society.
Design can capture the spirit of an age. Government are not there to back winners; that is for the entrepreneurs. But they can create the climate in which enterprise, creativity and quality can flourish. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, indicated, they can do so by the way in which they manage the economy, the way in which they regulate and use their powers of procurement and persuasion. They must not endorse the tacky and ephemeral—perhaps some Downing Street guest lists could be examined in that regard.
The talent exists. The mistakes of the past have been identified. The millennium is a time to celebrate our national talent for creativity and to recognise our designers as major contributors both to our economic success and our quality of life.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on raising this exciting and important subject today. It was a delight to listen to his speech and I wish him well with his all-party group, which I am sure is in good hands. It has been a privilege to listen to noble Lords bringing their own specialist knowledge to the debate, and the enthusiasm evident in all the contributions has been most infectious.
Design is one of Britain's comparative national advantages. Britain enjoys a £12 billion design industry, which is large by world standards. Design is essentially a creative activity that covers a wide range of industries. Fortunately, creativity is a trait at which the British excel, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, informed the House.
Design is of particular current relevance because of the strain that exporting British manufacturers are experiencing. At a time when they are shedding staff,

489
the trade deficit is widening and people are moving business offshore to avoid the strong pound and increasing tax and social burdens, British design remains a hope for the future. That is particularly so for small business, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
What do we mean by design? It covers a broad range of activities. It is not easy to separate it from the rest of the economy. But in the wise words of Walsh, Roy, Bruce and Potter in 1992, the common link is the creative visualisation through plans, ideas sketches aimed at,
"providing the instructions for making something that did not exist before, or did not exist in that form".
So design comes in the form of some wildly varying fields: experimental design; design engineering; fashion design; production design; interior design; graphic design; and so forth. They all have in common the creative flair to make something better. Fortunately for Britain, creative flair is one of our advantages.
I was intrigued to read that in 1996 the Economist quoted an estimate by Holland's Design Institute that £4 billion was spent on graphic design across the whole of the European Union. Britain alone spends three times that amount. We see examples of British design excellence. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, mentioned the digital age. At home, we have one of the new digital boxes. My son, who is very interested in design, asked me to look at the design of the remote control. Compared with the old television and video remote controls, the design was so exciting and pleasing to the eye.
The potential benefits of these developments are enormous. Vehicles designed by British consultants are in production in Europe, North America and Asia. While the rest of British car manufacturing is suffering under the burden of the strong pound and increasing tax and social burdens, General Motors recently made the decision to give greater independence to its British design team, allowing it to expand and sell its services to other companies.
Glasgow has secured this year's UK city of design and architecture. A recent survey undertaken by the Glasgow Design Initiative showed that industry in Glasgow now includes more than 500 design consultancies, sustaining 5,000 jobs with a turnover of £225 million.
Across the UK economy, design employs more than 300,000 people in both consultancies and manufacturing. The Design Council estimates that a 1 per cent. increase in turnover devoted to design in manufacturing would raise manufacturing growth by 0.7 per cent.
In many ways, the increasing impact of design represents a shift away from the heavy industries which followed the war. The industries of the German and Japanese post-war economic miracles were based on heavy industry, heavy engineering and production excellence in mid-technology products such as cars, chemicals, engineering and metal.
490
Many of today's leading companies depend not on heavy industrial investment but on intellectual capital and IT networks of which design is such a crucial part. How things change. In 1948, there were 900,000 miners and 100 people in the computer industry. Today there are fewer than 10,000 miners and 2 million people in the computer industry and hundreds of thousands in the design industry.
I was intrigued to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about the importance of design for children's development. It is sad to see that many take their talents abroad so that we lose them. But the new jobs are for network engineers, website designers and writers of interactive programmes. Those are creative professions in which design principles are crucial.
Design tends to be an outward-looking, export-orientated activity. The Design Council estimates that design makes up one-quarter of overseas earnings and it has been shown that sectors which invest more heavily in design tend to sell a greater proportion of their output in export markets. It was fascinating to hear of the visit by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, to China, and what he had to tell us.
Design-intensive industries such as aerospace, mechanical engineering and chemicals are areas in which the UK still has a trade surplus. At a time when last month's trade deficit was the highest on record and many firms are being squeezed by the strength of the pound, that is a sector of exporting which cannot and must not be ignored.
But design is vulnerable to the strength of the pound. One of the most important things the Government can do to help export-orientated designers is to ease pressure on interest rates in order to restore our currency to a more realistic level. The level of the pound has been of particular concern to the fashion industry whose manufacturing bases are forced increasingly to go overseas. As the director-general of the British Apparel and Textile Confederation said last August:
"The strength of sterling is causing considerable pain and there will be more closures and lay-offs. Exporters that had built markets in Asia are suffering a double whammy, and they can't easily turn to the domestic market because High Street sales are flat. You cannot replace those markets overnight".
It is extremely difficult to measure with any precision the impact of design on economic growth. Apart from the fact that design of itself is difficult to measure, being so integrated with manufacturing, fashion and other sectors of the economy it also happens in the context of the economy as a whole. Different elements of the design process will almost certainly have some influence over economic growth and trade performance.
It is clear that design has a major role both in manufacturing and consultancies. British manufacturing spends an estimated £10 billion on product development and design, making up 2.6 per cent. of manufacturing turnover. Design and manufacturing is responsible for the employment of 172,000 people which is about 4.5 per cent. of the workforce. Our aerospace and motor vehicles industries are world leaders.
The quality of life has been mentioned and is very important, as illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. Design has other unmeasurable benefits in

491
relation to what we call quality of life. That area is improved by an increase in attractively designed and easy-to-use products. That aspect of design cannot be measured by economists. It often comes down to aesthetics and subjective judgments. But it may mean also that consumers are able to do something with a product which had previously been unimaginable and, just as important, design creates employment in a field where creativity is a prime virtue. Job satisfaction is likely to be higher in a field where a person can see his creative imprint on the final product.
I feel upbeat but not complacent about the future. By allowing people to make products differently and better, design is undoubtedly one of the best ways in which British industry can add value and compete internationally. We are already world leaders in many areas of design. In order to allow it to flourish into the future, we must have an economy which encourages small and flexible firms to compete internationally. We must not fetter them with too many regulations and tax burdens. If we expect them to trade internationally, we must ensure that the exchange rate does not penalise them. We have had some excellent contributions, all pointing to the growing importance of design in all our lives and of course in the life of our country. I am sure that we shall soon revisit this subject.
7.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is only right that I should start by saying a few words to the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, in relation to my being here and not, as she said, a DTI Minister. I must confess to her that when the matter arose at the DTI parliamentary meeting, I begged to be allowed to respond to this debate.
I do that both for public policy reasons and for personal reasons. Fundamentally, the public policy reason is that I speak also for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport which is very heavily involved in design matters together with the DTI and other departments. In the Department of Culture, we have carried out the first comprehensive mapping of the cultural industries in this country. That has been a difficult but pioneering project. It is a huge element of the British economy and the cultural industries taskforce is continuing its work.
But there is also the Design Council's initiative, referred to originally by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to ensure that government procurement itself is design conscious and that we recognise the need for best practice in design management in government itself. After all, the Government are buying £24 billion worth of goods and services every year. That initiative involved originally the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Education and Employment and the DTI. But, as the noble Baroness rightly recognised, there are other departments. She mentioned the Department of Health which has a strong interest. I have
492
no doubt that that department will be joining in that project in times to come.
The other more personal reason that I wanted to take part in the debate is that I share the passion which the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, has evidenced in design, although I do not share her expertise. My noble friend Lord Puttnam referred to the 1851 exhibition and he and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to the work of the V&A and the South Kensington complex which followed the 1851 exhibition.
I am old enough to remember as an 18 year-old the 1951 exhibition. That was certainly the occasion when my eyes were opened to the wonder of design. I remember the Skylon designed by Powell and Moya, and the Dome of Discovery, a small predecessor of our millennium dome, designed by Ralph Tubbs. I remember the Ernest Race antelope chair which was a steel and plywood chair used in all the outside cafés and restaurants on the South Bank. We must not forget typography. Gordon Cullen, who was later a friend of mine, was responsible for all the external lettering of the South Bank part of the 1951 exhibition. I see from the Design Council reports at the time that his chosen typeface—a "square serif egyptian"—was considered better than the characterless Gill which might have been the alternative. I am not sure we would say that about Gill type-faces 48 years later.
I have a personal memory of one of the first concerts at the Festival Hall with Stokowski in May 1951. But it was not just the South Bank; it was also in the Battersea pleasure gardens, in the Lansbury neighbourhood in Poplar, and exhibitions and events all over the country. Those of us who remember them have added reasons to look forward to what is going to happen in millennium year, not least for design, because, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would wish it to be, design is a very heavy and vital element not just in the Millennium Dome but in all the other millennium projects which are going to be unveiled around the country during the next 18 months.
The motto for the 1951 Exhibition was, in the words of Herbert Morrison, to celebrate the British contribution to civilisation in the arts, in science and technology and in industrial design. We probably would not use the phrase "industrial design" now but it is a perfectly good motto to be using 48 or 49 years later.
I have not yet paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for introducing this debate, but everybody who has taken part seems to me to have widened our horizons and to have made this a quite remarkable display not just of expertise but also of enthusiasm. I think it is true to say that the Government agree with the consensus which I have sensed around the Chamber today that design must be at the heart of our economy and of our society. It is not just a thing that happens to create a pleasant appearance after the research and development process has been completed; it is a continuing process, as your Lordships have said, from the idea to the product, through the process and then to

493
the user, the purchaser and the marketplace. The examples that have been given have been enormously valuable and I am very grateful for them.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, with his example of digital radio, that maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, can afford these but before many people can have access to them they, first, had better bring down the price below £800. Of course the quality of life aspect of this Motion is important too. It is important for worthy reasons and for aesthetic reasons. The worthy reasons include a sustainable environment and that can mean, as has been said, providing cheaper and less damaging materials rather than changing the appearance. One can use materials that last a lifetime rather than fading away after a limited period of time. There can be design for lower energy use and also for waste minimisation.
My noble friend Lord Grenfell seemed to think that there could be a conflict between those worthy objectives and the sheer pleasure which we all look to get from good design. I do not think that there is a conflict: the two can very well go hand in hand. If they do, then I think we achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, rightly called Schumann values in design.
I turn now to the economic issues which were referred to by, among others, the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Grenfell. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for virtually quoting from the Treasury weekly economic briefs, when he said that we need a macro-economic climate which gives business the confidence to invest. That of course is exactly what the Chancellor has been saying and doing for nearly two years. His most recent Budget, as the noble Lord knows, provided further tax breaks for research and development, particularly in smaller firms.
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to identify design as an item in an income and expenditure account, just as it is very difficult to identify design in a creative industry's taskforce mapping exercise. However, I think we know it when we feel it, if you see what I mean, and I think the Chancellor is directing his attention in that way to ensure that there is investment in research and development, which in turn will mean investment in design. And when that is coupled with the ongoing reductions in corporation tax, I hope that your Lordships will feel that the Treasury, at any rate, is doing its share in encouraging a climate in industry in which design can flourish.
Of course it is not just the Treasury which has responsibilities. The Department of Trade and Industry is the grant-giving body to the Design Council whose excellent briefing has surfaced—shall I say?—in a number of speeches today. The Design Council, as has been said—I do not need to repeat elements from the briefing—is deeply involved in national partnerships with the CBI, with the British Quality Foundation, with the curriculum authorities and, locally, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, with Business Links, nearly
494
all of whom now have design counsellors as well as marketing counsellors.
Other government departments are involved with the school curriculum where, as my noble friend Lord Puttnam said, there is good hope that art (including design) will be given a more formal place in the national curriculum. There is also the role of the Design Council in Millennium Projects which the Prime Minister launched in September 1997, in the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, quoted. Four hundred and thirty three products have already been designated under the Millennium Projects Initiative, and there will be more later this year; rather similar to the stock list, which was the basis for admission to the pavilions in the 1951 Exhibition. Certainly I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that they will feature in the Dome. They are of course already being exhibited overseas, and will continue to be exhibited.
He spoke about lottery money and I was glad to hear about the Verulanium Museum and also to hear of my noble friend's part in its opening. That is being repeated in dozens of places all over the country and with all these openings and new projects there are new opportunities for design. My noble friend Lord Puttnam is also responsible of course for the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. That has a very great part to play in that most difficult issue identified by many speakers of how to make progress from an idea to something which is actually marketable. NESTA is based in part on the idea that venture capital markets have not proved themselves to be sufficient for that purpose. For that reason, confirmed by the very welcome intervention of my noble friend Lord Hughes, NESTA has its part to play in what we all wish for and what has been expressed in this debate.
I should now like to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. First of all, on devolution, the Design Council will of course remain a body covering the whole of the United Kingdom but it will be working closely with Scottish Design, Welsh Design, the Advisory Service and the Design Directorate in Northern Ireland. Of course, where they overlap with education, education is a devolved responsibility.
The noble Baroness asked about new designers in business. I can confirm that Miss Peta Levi continues to receive support from the department and help towards running costs and to exhibit overseas.
As many noble Lords said, design is one of our great strengths. I am not sure that I believe some of the figures about the size of the industry that were produced, for the reason I have already indicated. It is certainly true that the industry is enormously important both in terms of turnover and employment. Of course, it is important internationally and it contributes to our overseas trade balance. The Department of Trade and Industry and other government departments do everything they can to encourage exporters to make use of design capabilities that exist in this country and can assist in our export drive.
I do not know how many civil servants there are with design qualifications, but with 62,000 design students

495
in 119 universities and colleges it is a fair bet that a considerable number will, in one way or another, enter public service.
I have found the figures I was looking for. The turnover of the creative industries is £60 billion and there are 1.4 million people employed in such industries.
I have reached the end of the recommended time. I reiterate my thanks and the thanks of the Government to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who instigated the debate. I want to conclude with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. Like her, I believe that the Government are upbeat but not complacent about design.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I want to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. We have had a wide-ranging and thought-provoking discussion. I especially want to thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I look forward to reading it in Hansard. In particular, I want to thank the noble Lord,
496
Lord Hughes, for his kind words and for breaking his own rule of not speaking in the gap. In the meantime, I wish all noble Lords a happy Easter. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Adjournment
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn, may I echo the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, that all noble Lords present and those not present have a rejuvenating Easter period. I also thank all our staff, who have had a particularly taxing week, not least those who produce Hansard. They are not seen as clearly by us now, but they too have had a taxing week.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned for the Easter Recess at three minutes past seven o'clock until Monday 12th April next.

  Electromagnetic Fields: Health Risks
  Electromagnetic Fields: Health Risks
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Food Hazard Warnings
  Food Hazard Warnings
  NATO Command Structure
  NATO Command Structure
  Gurkhas: Terms and Conditions
  Gurkhas: Terms and Conditions
  Gulf War: Exposure to Depleted Uranium
  Gulf War: Exposure to Depleted Uranium
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  Reserve Forces: Call-out
  Reserve Forces: Call-out
  Long Service Awards
  Long Service Awards
  Balkans: Number of British Personnel
  Balkans: Number of British Personnel
  Indian Ocean Coral Reefs
  Indian Ocean Coral Reefs
  Genetically Modified Oilseed Hybrid Seeds
  Genetically Modified Oilseed Hybrid Seeds
  North Greenwich Peninsula
  North Greenwich Peninsula
  Severn Rail Tunnel
  Severn Rail Tunnel
  Motorways: Litter Clearance
  Motorways: Litter Clearance
  Greater London Authority
  Greater London Authority
  European Union: Transport Council
  European Union: Transport Council
  Transport Safety: Consultation
  Transport Safety: Consultation
  Eurostar: Regional Services
  Eurostar: Regional Services
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Taxpayers: High Income Statistics
  Taxpayers: High Income Statistics
  Exports to non-EU Countries via EU Countries
  Exports to non-EU Countries via EU Countries
  European Central Bank: Interest Rates
  European Central Bank: Interest Rates
  European Community Budget: UK Contribution 1973 to 1998
  European Community Budget: UK Contribution 1973 to 1998
  Petrol Tax: International Comparison
  Petrol Tax: International Comparison
  European Union: Prosecution of Staff
  European Union: Prosecution of Staff
  Devolved Assemblies: Funding Arrangements
  Devolved Assemblies: Funding Arrangements
  Turkey: Elections
  Turkey: Elections
  Iran: Visit by UK Experts
  Iran: Visit by UK Experts
  Kosovo: Refugee Numbers
  Kosovo: Refugee Numbers
  Iraq: Gulf Co-operation Council Communiqué
  Iraq: Gulf Co-operation Council Communiqué
  Sudan: Al-Shifa Plant
  Sudan: Al-Shifa Plant
  Smallpox Virus: Stocks
  Smallpox Virus: Stocks
  Charter on European Security Co-operation
  Charter on European Security Co-operation
  Iraq: UK Allies and Partners
  Iraq: UK Allies and Partners
  Malaysia: Anwar Ibrahim Trial
  Malaysia: Anwar Ibrahim Trial
  Chevening Scholarships: The Baltic States
  Chevening Scholarships: The Baltic States
  Kuwait: Iraqi Contribution to Mine Clearance
  Kuwait: Iraqi Contribution to Mine Clearance
  Kuwaiti Prisoners of War in Iraq
  Kuwaiti Prisoners of War in Iraq
  The Cornish Language
  The Cornish Language
  Meat Hygiene Service and State Veterinary Service
  Meat Hygiene Service and State Veterinary Service
  Fish Landings: Designated Port Arrangements
  Fish Landings: Designated Port Arrangements
  Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs
  Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs
  Fisheries Council, 30 March
  Fisheries Council, 30 March
  Covent Garden Market: Leases
  Covent Garden Market: Leases
  Veterinary Qualifications in the EU
  Veterinary Qualifications in the EU
  Abattoirs and Cutting Plants: Closures
  Abattoirs and Cutting Plants: Closures
  Flood Action Plan
  Flood Action Plan
  Bovine TB
  Bovine TB
  Inshore Fishing Fleet: Management
  Inshore Fishing Fleet: Management
  Fishing Vessel Licensing
  Fishing Vessel Licensing
  General Pinochet: Leak of Law Lords' Opinion
  General Pinochet: Leak of Law Lords' Opinion
  Judicial Deliberations: Leaks
  Judicial Deliberations: Leaks
  General Pinochet: Visit to Spain by Crown Prosecution Service Representative
  General Pinochet: Visit to Spain by Crown Prosecution Service Representative
  Judicial Appointments Commission
  Judicial Appointments Commission
  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
  Husbands and Wives: Unequal Treatment in Rules of Law
  Husbands and Wives: Unequal Treatment in Rules of Law
  Public Offices: Performance Targets
  Public Offices: Performance Targets
  Race Relations Act: Review
  Race Relations Act: Review
  Prisons Ombudsman: Terms of Reference
  Prisons Ombudsman: Terms of Reference
  The Prison Service
  The Prison Service
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  Joint Committee on Human Rights: Terms of Reference
  Joint Committee on Human Rights: Terms of Reference
  Right of Individual Petition under International Conventions
  Right of Individual Petition under International Conventions
  Schengen Agreement
  Schengen Agreement
  Gibraltar: European Elections
  Gibraltar: European Elections
  Firearm and Shotgun Certificates: Register
  Firearm and Shotgun Certificates: Register
  Prisoners: Temporary Release on Licence
  Prisoners: Temporary Release on Licence
  Asylum and Immigration: MPs' Hotline
  Asylum and Immigration: MPs' Hotline
  Refugee B538623/3(S): Social Security Benefits
  Refugee B538623/3(S): Social Security Benefits
  National Identity Card
  National Identity Card
  Charities and Fundraising Organisations
  Charities and Fundraising Organisations
  Proof of Age Cards
  Proof of Age Cards
  Softwood and Softwood Timber Products
  Softwood and Softwood Timber Products
  EU Internal Market
  EU Internal Market
  Petrol Consumption
  Petrol Consumption
  Coal: Costs
  Coal: Costs
  Mineworkers' Compensation
  Mineworkers' Compensation
  National Minimum Wage
  National Minimum Wage
  Education Spending Commitments
  Education Spending Commitments
  Able Children: Specialist Provision
  Able Children: Specialist Provision
  Learning Units
  Learning Units
  Learning Mentors
  Learning Mentors
  Merrywood and Pen Park Schools
  Merrywood and Pen Park Schools
  Scotland: Bridge Tolls and Costs
  Scotland: Bridge Tolls and Costs
  Meetings with EU Governments
  Meetings with EU Governments
  Library Services
  Library Services
  British Museum: Managing Director
  British Museum: Managing Director
  National Museums and Galleries: Trustee Appointments
  National Museums and Galleries: Trustee Appointments
  Senior Salaries Recommendations
  Senior Salaries Recommendations
  Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform
  Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform