Sitting of 10 March 1998

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

  LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 17 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    BBC World Service
    Mr. Cranston: What assessment his Department has made of the role of the BBC World Service in raising the UK's profile in British export markets. [31794]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): The BBC World Service raises the UK's profile in British export markets in two ways. A survey of British business leaders has shown that, through its role as the most trusted international broadcaster, the World Service helps to create a climate favourable to British trade. In addition, the World Service enhances the UK's profile with its reports on the latest developments in science, industry and commerce and presents a picture of Britain attractive to international business.
    Mr. Cranston: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which acknowledges that the BBC World Service is a real asset on the world stage for this country. My hon. Friend is aware that the BBC World Service is now operating in an environment in which competitors are bringing on the internet and using television and modern forms of radio broadcasting such as FM and digital. Will he lend his support to the strategy of the BBC World Service to meet the challenge from those competitors by using on-line television and modern forms of radio broadcasting?
    Mr. Fatchett: I agree with my hon. Friend in his comments about the value of the BBC World Service. It is now broadcasting in 44 languages and reaches more than 140 million people throughout the world. Its reputation is well established. My hon. Friend raises a number of important points about the development of the service. The chief executive had a recent meeting with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and will have a
    300
    further meeting with my noble Friend Baroness Symons to discuss the future. All the issues to which my hon. Friend referred will be taken into account in those discussions.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Is the Minister aware that to remain competitive in the new environment, the BBC World Service believes that it needs a very modest cash injection spread over four years? Is there any hope of that injection being given?
    Mr. Fatchett: I realise that the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of Parliament under the previous Government, but he will know what happened to the BBC World Service under them. It was constantly subjected to cuts by the Conservative Government and during that period morale fell considerably. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that morale has now increased. There is a good relationship between the Government and the World Service and funding will continue to be discussed with it. No announcements will be made without the World Service's knowledge.
    Mr. Howard: Is not short-wave transmission of the BBC World Service to China jammed? Is that not a vivid manifestation of China's attitude to human rights? Is it not an utter disgrace that, next month at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, for the first time in 10 years, the United Kingdom Government will not support a resolution to draw attention to China's record on human rights?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am delighted to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman taking up human rights. When the Government have made a stance on this issue on other occasions, he has been critical. We are always pleased to see a convert on these issues. The United Kingdom, under the Labour Government, has entered into a constructive dialogue with China on human rights. Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, will visit China. That was announced during the visit of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We have a record on dialogue with China on human rights of which we can be proud and we shall continue to play a constructive role.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Mr. Fabian Hamilton: If he will make a statement on Britain's role in the middle east peace process. [31796]
    Mr. Gapes: If he will make a statement on the prospects for a comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and its neighbours. [31800]
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on progress with the middle east peace process. [31805]
    Mr. Quinn: What plans he has to visit the middle east to discuss the peace process. [31811]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With the presidency of the European Union, we have launched an intensive European effort to restore momentum to the middle east peace process. In a speech last Thursday, I set

    301
    out an EU initiative on the peace process, in three parts. First, I detailed six immediate steps that must be taken to restore confidence in the peace process. In particular, I called on the Government of Israel to make substantial, credible and urgent further redeployments of troops. At the same time, I called on a 100 per cent. commitment from the Palestine National Authority in respect of security.
    Secondly, I pledged the EU to provide practical assistance to remove the obstacles in the path of progress. Under the UK presidency, the EU has agreed to renew financial assistance to the peace process which would otherwise expire this year. We shall now work for a joint effort by Europe, the United States, Israel and the Palestine National Authority on how that aid can best boost the peace process.
    Thirdly, we shall undertake intensive diplomatic action to break the current deadlock. On Sunday I leave for a tour of Israel, the Palestine National Authority, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. I shall be pressing, in all six places, the urgent importance of restoring progress towards an agreement that provides peace with security for Israelis and peace with justice for the Palestinians.
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I hope that he will accept my congratulations on his attempt to restart the Oslo peace process with his speech of 5 March. Does he agree with Ziad Abu Ziad, one of Yasser Arafat's deputies, who has said that to be a true friend of Israel one must also be a friend of the Palestinian people? Will my right hon. Friend pass on our congratulations to President Ezer Weizman—a man very much involved in the peace process—on his re-election as President of Israel?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to associate myself with my hon. Friend's congratulations to President Weizman, who has always been a friend of the peace process. My hon. Friend also highlights an important part of the whole issue. At the election, the Israeli people voted for a Government who promised to deliver peace with security. The great majority of Israeli people know very well that there can be no security for them if there is no peace. That is why, in working for a resumption of the peace process, we are working with the overwhelming majority of Israelis.
    Mr. Gapes: When my right hon. Friend goes to Syria, will he emphasise to the Syrian Government the importance of Syria's being engaged in the process? Does he agree that if there is to be a comprehensive settlement in the middle east it is not just a question of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians? All the states neighbouring Israel must also recognise Israel and come to a peace settlement with Israel if there is to be lasting peace in the region.
    Mr. Cook: I shall be taking to Damascus the very message that my hon. Friend suggests. It is important that Syria play its part too. The Syrian Government's negotiating position is that they want to start again from where they allege the negotiations broke off under Yitzhak Rabin—an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan heights. It is, however, difficult to make progress from that starting point in present circumstances.
    302
    My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the importance of other dimensions of the peace process. I very much hope that it will be possible to persuade Prime Minister Netanyahu to make concrete his verbal assurances of interest in an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I welcome Israel's proposal to withdraw troops from southern Lebanon. The Foreign Secretary said in his speech last Thursday that no peace plan would be complete in the middle east if it neglected the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. When he goes to Syria, will he put it to the Syrian Government that since Israel is prepared to get out of southern Lebanon, Syria ought to get out of Lebanon?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point—one of the keys to solving the Lebanese situation and tragedy is to be found in Damascus. I shall certainly raise that issue while I am there. My progress in Damascus will probably be greater if Israel will act on its promises and complete the withdrawal, which the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply had already taken place.
    Mr. Quinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much frustration among hon. Members at the lack of progress in the peace process in the middle east? Why is there no opportunity for him to visit the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, so that it may help to bring about a rapid and successful harmonisation in the middle east?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I visited Saudi Arabia last month. The focus of that visit was to discuss the then confrontation with Iraq, but we did, of course, touch on the peace process. My hon. Friend will be aware that across much of the middle east an unfair comparison was made between our robust approach to Iraq and our alleged weakness towards Israel. I very much hope that the clear, resolute approach that I took in my speech and the comprehensive visits that I am making to the region next week will make it abundantly clear to all that Britain takes fully its responsibility under the resolutions on the middle east—as we do under the resolutions on Iraq.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I, too, commend the Secretary of State on the terms of his speech last week, in particular his recognition of the importance of Syria and Lebanon and his call for an immediate halt to the settlements. As he knows, the settlements are in breach of resolution 242, which sought to provide a homeland for the Palestinian people. Does he accept that not only are the settlements wrong in international law, but they are a continuing and damaging source of provocation to Palestinians?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point and one that is central to the peace process. Mr. Netanyahu has sought an early resumption of final status talks. I would welcome the possibility of proceeding to final status talks, but it will be extremely difficult to engage the Palestine National Authority in final status talks unless some concrete progress can be seen on the ground, in particular an end to provocations such as the expansion of the settlements. We have

    303
    continually condemned such provocation and I hope during my visit next week to visit Har Homa and to express that view there in person.
    Mr. Wilkinson: When the Foreign Secretary goes to Israel on behalf of the EU presidency to try to bring about peace, will he bear in mind the extent to which the Israeli people have grievously suffered from terrorism? Does he believe that the standing and authority of the European Union and Her Majesty's Government will have been enhanced in the eyes of the Israeli Government by the Government's decision not to accede to the extradition request of the German authorities in respect of Miss McAliskey, who was arraigned under terrorism charges in the federal republic? Will he bear it in mind that the European Union should be seen to encourage the rule of law and to be resolute in cross-border co-operation against terrorism?
    Mr. Cook: My general impression is that the middle east peace process already suffers from too many linkages being made. To make a linkage to peace in Northern Ireland is to ensure that no progress is made. On that case, it has been made perfectly clear that the release was on humanitarian and medical grounds. It in no way diminishes the long-standing position of Britain in resolute opposition to terrorism. While I am in the Palestine National Authority I will make it clear that progress on the peace process must be matched by tough progress on security as well.
    Dr. Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of his visit to encourage progress towards the construction of a Palestinian airport in Gaza? We have seen press reports suggesting that the Israeli Government are ready to move on that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a substantial step forward, which would encourage Palestinians to feel that the process was working in their favour too?
    Mr. Cook: There are four interim agreements on which progress could be made, which would help immensely to boost the political process. One is the airport; another would be the industrial estate on the border; the third would be the sea port; and the fourth would be the southern free passage. Europe currently puts a great deal of financial assistance into the peace process. We put in twice as much as the United States. I would like to see our money targeted more on helping projects that would break through the obstacles to the peace process. I shall explore in particular how Europe's commitment to continuing aid can be used to unblock the obstacles to the airport and the sea port. My hon. Friend is quite right: if we could achieve that, not only would it be a visible help to the Palestinian economy, but it would go a long way towards building confidence between the parties to the peace process.
    Mr. Faber: I, too, return the Foreign Secretary to his speech of last week, particularly to the six key steps that he rightly identified as marking the start to unblocking the peace process—five of which I believe require joint or unilateral action by Israel. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that, during his meeting with Mr. Netanyahu at the weekend, the Prime Minister forcefully pressed all five of those issues? Did he seek, and indeed receive,
    304
    any commitments from the Israeli Prime Minister? If he did not receive any assurances, what action do the Government propose to take to bring further pressure to bear on the Israeli Government to see that the demands are met, and within what time scale?
    Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that they are the right six steps: I am glad that the approach has bipartisan support. I am glad also that the hon. Gentleman asked that question as it gives me the opportunity to rebut some of the claims that I understand have appeared in the Israeli press in the past 24 hours to the effect that the Prime Minister took a different position from me in my speech last week. I am pleased to tell the House that there is absolutely no difference between the Foreign Office and No. 10 on this issue: every word in my speech was cleared and discussed with No. 10 before the speech was made.
    The whole Government stand behind the speech and the points that I spelled out in it. As to what further pressure is now required, I discussed with my opposite number, Madeleine Albright, on Monday where we go from here. We shall jointly increase pressure for a positive response from Israel.

    Zambia
    Mr. Goggins: What representations he has made about the state of emergency in Zambia. [31798]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr.Tony Lloyd): We have urged the Zambian Government quickly to complete their investigations into the coup attempt, to charge or release detainees, to address claims of torture and to lift the state of emergency soon. We note that most of the detainees have now been charged.
    Mr. Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for his reassuring answer. Does he agree that last October's failed—some might say rather pathetic—coup attempt in Zambia is symptomatic of a country that spends four times as much on debt relief as on health care, which is rife with corruption and where, in the words of ex-President Kaunda, there are no jobs, only people dying of hunger? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will do everything within their power to encourage good governance and sensible economic reform in that country so that the impoverished people of Zambia can look forward to a more hopeful and stable future?
    Mr. Lloyd: In many ways, the real tragedy of Zambia is that the present Government seemed to be making real progress, so when the attempted coup took place and President Chiluba quite correctly told his people to go about their business, it was all the more bizarre and surprising that he then announced a state of emergency. Even more deplorable was the continuation of that state of emergency in January.
    We want Zambia to get back on a proper path of reconstruction for the benefit of its people. However, that will mean lifting the state of emergency and bringing to speedy and fair trial those who have been detained. Before the rest of the world is ready to begin the real process of helping those who are most impoverished by the situation

    305
    in Zambia, the Zambian Government must commit to a drive against corruption and to the restoration of constitutional order.
    Mr. Wells: What representations have Her Majesty's Government made to the Government of Zambia, and particularly the President, on behalf of ex-President Kaunda? Is it not outrageous that, first, he has been banned from standing in Zambian elections and, secondly, as I understand it, he remains under house arrest? If he has been charged, I do not believe that he has been brought to justice. That is thoroughly anti-democratic and something that we cannot possibly support.
    Mr. Lloyd: I make it quite clear that former President Kaunda is only one of some 100-plus people who were detained, initially without charge. I am glad to inform the House that subsequently the former President has been charged—although we are very concerned about the nature of the charges that have been laid. They include having knowledge of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government, which is very unusual. I cancelled my visit to Zambia at the time of the former President's detention because it would have been impossible to go ahead in the circumstances. We shall continue to urge the Zambian Government to lift the state of emergency and ensure that the former President, as well as all the other detainees, has a fair and speedy trial.

    Mexico
    Helen Jones: What representations he has made to the Government of Mexico about human rights in Mexico. [31801]
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the human rights situation in Mexico with the new Foreign Minister, Mrs. Green, on 12 February in Panama City. He made clear our concerns that those arrested in connection with the massacre in Chiapas should be brought to trial and that there should be no immunity for those with connections with municipal or state government. I discussed human rights issues with Mrs. Green's predecessor last November.
    Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the best ways to protect human rights in Mexico is to support the growth of free and independent trade unions, which already receive support from the Trades Union Congress and other democratic unions? What plans does he have to assist trade unions in their development?
    Mr. Lloyd: I agree with my hon. Friend. The development of a fair and democratic society in Mexico depends not only on the growth of proper, democratic political parties and a political system but the growth of civil society more generally. The trade union movement in Mexico is an important component—as it is in this country, certainly under this Government—in underwriting the freedoms of the people of Mexico. I met the Mexican trade unions when I visited Mexico just before Christmas and had long and interesting conversations with them about the future of democratic and free trade unions in that country.

    Iraq
    Mr. Ian Taylor: If he will make a statement on the role played by the EU presidency in the negotiations over the situation in Iraq. [31802]
    Mr. Robin Cook: As we have the presidency of the European Union, Britain has maintained close contact with our partners throughout the crisis. In early February, I chaired a special meeting of the General Affairs Council on Iraq. On the weekend of the Secretary-General's visit to Baghdad, the General Affairs Council agreed a policy statement that welcomed the outcome, insisted that Iraq comply with Security Council resolutions and noted that the international community had needed to show firm resolve to achieve agreement.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke in person or by telephone to the Heads of Government of many other European member states and all the major nations. In New York, the United Kingdom worked closely with Sweden and Portugal, which are currently members of the Security Council, in co-sponsoring the resolution that more than doubles the oil-for-food programme.
    Mr. Taylor: Although the Foreign Secretary finds close proximity with Madeleine Albright exhilarating and, over the Iraq affair, there was absolutely no doubt that our interests and those of the United States were very much in harmony, will he recognise that that will not always be the case? What practical steps is he taking to ensure moves to more effective common European foreign policy? In what aspects will that be likely to be deployed during the EU presidency and immediately thereafter?
    Mr. Cook: I am not sure that exhilarating is quite the word that I would choose to describe it, but it is a great asset for Britain that the two Foreign Secretaries work closely together and often share each other's thinking.
    On the wider question of common foreign and security policy, during the short period of our presidency we have already demonstrated large agreement in taking forward initiatives. For instance, we now have a new common position on Iran, and I hope that on the basis of that common position in Europe we shall be able to bridge some of the transatlantic gulf. We also acted speedily to find both a foreign and a domestic response to the emigration of Kurdish refugees from Turkey and Iraq. We took a quick initiative in relation to Algeria. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), led a troika to Algeria and, over the past week, we have been working hard to ensure that Europe is in the lead in response to the current crisis in Kosovo. I shall discuss all those issues and others with my Foreign Minister colleagues when I welcome them to my home town of Edinburgh at the weekend.
    Mr. Winnick: Do our EU partners fully accept that if the Iraqi regime breaks the agreement which, fortunately, has been reached, there will be most serious consequences, as stated in the latest United Nations Security Council resolution, and the most serious consequences will mean precisely that—there will be no second chance?

    307
    Will my right hon. Friend consider further the possibility of humanitarian relief to the first victims of that criminal regime—the civilians? Is there any possibility of aid being flown in, albeit only on the basis that we are satisfied that it will be used for civilians, particularly children, who are undoubtedly suffering—not from sanctions, but from the Iraqi Government's policy?
    Mr. Cook: I can confirm that the resolution that we drafted and presented to the Security Council makes it clear that if Iraq breaks the agreement there will be the severest consequences. We resisted attempts to produce a lesser phrase.
    My hon. Friend raises an important issue that we must now address: the humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq. In my speech last Thursday I set out our intention as presidency of the European Union to convene a meeting with the European nations, some leaders of the Arab world and non-governmental organisations to work out how we can make best use of the doubling of the oil-for-food programme that we have steered through the United Nations. It is not enough to ensure that that money is not mis-spent; we must ensure that it is spent properly. If Saddam Hussein blocks our initiative to bring medicine, food and humanitarian relief to his people, it will be clear to all the world that it is not the west or the international community but Saddam who is responsible for their suffering.
    Mr. Howard: Is not the simple truth that there was no agreement in the EU about the nature of action to be taken on Iraq and that contrary to the question just asked by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), France revealed in the discussions at the Security Council an interpretation of the resolution that differed sharply from that of the UK Government? Why does not the Foreign Secretary say in a straightforward manner that there was no agreement in the EU on that, instead of indulging in self-satisfied waffle?
    Mr. Cook: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is genuine about putting pressure on Iraq and wants Saddam Hussein to listen to the international community, it might be responsible for him to tell Saddam Hussein and the House the self-evident truth that the great majority of members of the EU shared Britain's position and that when Kofi Annan went to Baghdad he went with the agreement of all five permanent members. The right hon. and learned Gentleman undermines the efforts of the international community when he tries to suggest that there are deep divisions.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mean that he rejects the view of the Chinese ambassador to the United Nations, that in no way does the Kofi Annan agreement give authority for Anglo-American—
    Mr. Winnick: It does.
    Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is very sure that it does; I am just asking the question. Does it give authority for Anglo-American military action without going back yet again to the Security Council?
    Mr. Cook: I would say gently to my hon. Friend that when we want legal advice we may look elsewhere than to
    308
    the Chinese ambassador at the United Nations. He himself voted for the resolution, which is explicit: if Iraq breaks the agreement, there will be the severest consequences.

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. Pickles: Which countries will be represented at the EU enlargement summit on 12 March. [31803]
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Luxembourg European Council agreed that the member states of the European Union, the 10 countries of central Europe that have applied to join the Union, Cyprus and Turkey should be invited to participate in the European conference.
    Accordingly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited his colleagues in those countries to attend the first meeting of the European conference, which he will convene in London on Thursday. It is expected that the conference will agree to practical co-operation in areas of immediate relevance to the public, such as combating the drugs trade and organised crime, improving the environment and building competitive economies. The European conference will be important chiefly because it represents an historic first step towards a stronger, enlarged European Union and a final end to the division of Europe which has scarred our continent for half a century.
    Mr. Pickles: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the progress made by the Polish people since the fall of communism has been truly breathtaking, and that there is great vitality among the upcoming leadership there? Does he believe that it is in the interests of not only Poland, but this country and the strengthening of the European Union that Poland should become a member? Given that not all our partners share our enthusiasm for Polish entry, will he give an undertaking to the House that sufficient momentum will be built up under the British presidency to ensure that any qualifications and problems can be quickly addressed?
    Mr. Cook: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Britain fully backs the enlargement of the European Union and recognises that Poland is a prime candidate for enlargement. I said that in a speech in Warsaw when I visited that city just before Christmas. In the past three days, I have spoken twice to the Foreign Minister of Poland, who currently occupies a position of great importance as the chairman of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe for the whole of Europe. We are working closely with him and with his Government, and we shall be delighted to assist them in the process of negotiations because we regard the negotiations not as confrontational, but as between two partners seeking a common objective—the enlargement of the European Union, and stability and democracy throughout central Europe.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be in the best interest of all Cypriots if Cyprus were to accede to the European Union? In that context, will he take the opportunity to confirm that accession talks will not be dependent on or linked to progress in peace negotiations and, in particular, that accession talks will not be subject to veto by the regime in northern Cyprus?
    Mr. Cook: I can confirm that there will be no veto for the regime in northern Cyprus. However, the people of

    309
    northern Cyprus have more to gain than anybody else in Cyprus from EU membership as their income level is currently a quarter of that of the Greek Cypriot part of Cyprus. For those reasons, we have urged the Government of Cyprus to bring a mixed delegation of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot negotiators. I am pleased to say that there are signs that President Clerides and his Government are willing to do that. I regret to say that the present stubbornness on the Turkish Cypriot side may prevent that from happening.
    Mr. Streeter: Does the Foreign Secretary recall saying, on 14 January, that the Government would be working hard to strengthen relations between the EU and Turkey? Does he recall the Prime Minister saying, in December last year, that he wanted to see Turkey as a closer partner in Europe and as part of the European conference that would be held in Britain in the next year? Does he accept that Turkey's decision to boycott the conference on Thursday represents a major diplomatic failure by the Government? Will he tell the House what he intends to do to secure Turkey's future involvement in that vital process?
    Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman says that in Ankara, he will be given a robust raspberry by the Government there, who know perfectly well how hard Britain has worked to involve Turkey and to resist the Luxembourg conclusions which they have found so offensive. I discussed this with my opposite number in Turkey over the weekend. Turkey is invited and it is for that country to decide whether to attend. It has decided that, in view of the conclusions of the Luxembourg conference, it will stand by the view it expressed then that it will not be coming. My colleague, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), and I have agreed that after the European conference, we will look for other ways in which to take forward our dialogue, probably through the association partnership, on which the Commission is about to produce interesting and detailed proposals.
    Mr. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the people of Romania welcome the fact that he has indicated that it is possible for that country to get on to the fast track for entry into the European Union? Will he be meeting President Constantinescu of Romania this week to spell out what steps need to be taken in Romania to ensure that it can enter the European Union on the earliest possible date?
    Mr. Cook: I am pleased to say that Romania will be one of those participating in the European conference. Like all the other conference members from central and eastern Europe, it will participate in a meeting with the Prime Minister, and its Foreign Minister will participate in a meeting with me. I have met the new Foreign Minister of Romania to discuss how we take forward the enlargement process. The Foreign Office has agreed to provide specific technical expert help to the Romanian Foreign Office to help it build up expertise for the negotiations. My hon. Friend's first point is quite right; just because negotiations start with six specific members does not mean that those six will be the first across the line. All 11 have every incentive to make as much progress as possible. Those who get in first will be those who have made the most progress.

    Iraq
    Mr. Leigh: If he will make a statement on Iraq. [31806]
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: If he will make a statement on progress towards removal of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. [31808]
    Mr. Robin Cook: Britain played a key role in drafting Security Council resolution 1154 which was adopted unanimously by the Security Council last week. It provides a clear endorsement by the whole of the international community of the agreement between the Secretary-General and the Iraqi authorities. The resolution makes it clear that if Saddam Hussein breaks the agreement, there will be the severest consequences. I am pleased to report that inspections resumed in Iraq last Friday. International inspection has made good progress in halting the Iraqi nuclear and missile programmes. The United Nations Special Commission has now dismantled more weapons than were destroyed during the Gulf war. However, the Iraqi capacity for chemical and biological weapons production remains immense. We are determined that such a capacity cannot be left in the hands of Saddam Hussein, who has repeatedly used chemical weapons in the past and cannot be trusted not to use them in the future.
    Mr. Leigh: Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied that Iraq is fully complying with the UN accords? Would he like to comment on the accusation that it is fairly worthless allowing inspectors into presidential sites because, by the time of inspection, they will be cleared of any weapons of mass destruction, which will be taken elsewhere? Therefore, there must be continued access. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that if, at any future date, the Americans decide to use force, we shall stand four square with them?
    Mr. Cook: The answer to the last point is that we remain in constant contact with the United States. We stood resolutely together during a confrontation, and we will do so if there should be a future confrontation. I am not sure whether I shall disappoint the hon. Gentleman if I say that inspections have been proceeding well over the three days since Friday. There is no question of one-off inspections—that was one of Saddam' s initial bargaining positions, and it was one of the issues on which he was forced to climb down. The agreement represents a success for our strategy and, if properly carried out, will enable us to halt him in developing weapons of mass destruction.
    Mr. Williams: It is seven years since the Gulf war, and it has taken that long for UNSCOM to uncover these chemical and biological weapons. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present inspection crisis has to be resolved in a matter of weeks or months rather than years, that those weapons must be rendered harmless and that, if Iraq co-operates, economic sanctions can be lifted in that time scale?
    Mr. Cook: The resolution we drafted and presented to the Security Council makes it clear that there is light at the end of the tunnel for the Iraqi people. Sanctions

    311
    can be lifted if Saddam carries out the obligations to which he has again signed up. The reason we are here, seven years on from the original resolution, is precisely because Saddam has practised a continuous programme of deception and concealment. I cannot accept that we should put a deadline on when the inspectors withdraw; when they withdraw must be decided by when they have finished their business. However, I agree that it could be done in weeks if Saddam Hussein would, for once, honestly accept his responsibilities and fully co-operate with inspectors.
    Mr. Cash: The Foreign Secretary and the Government deserve congratulations on the solidarity they have shown with the United States over Iraq. To refer to a previous question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to indicate what sort of phone calls the Prime Minister had with the other member states in Europe? Furthermore, what did the Prime Minister mean in his statement to the House the other day when he said that we had support from the EU member states? What specific and practical military commitments were the other member states prepared to make to support the United States and the United Kingdom in what could have turned out to be the necessity for direct military action?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Belgium and the Netherlands provided a frigate for the fleet; Denmark provided transport aircraft; Sweden was willing to provide medical and logistical troops for support; and Portugal, Spain and Germany offered and made available use of their bases for planes flying on to the Gulf. Those European nations that were asked to help all did so.
    Ann Clwyd: Given the growing support among our European Union partners and many other countries in the world for the indictment of Saddam Hussein and some of his closest associates before an international criminal court, has my right hon. Friend thought about some of the other ideas proposed by the Iraqi opposition, which include lifting the sanctions in northern Iraq, supporting the installation of a provisional Government in northern Iraq and installing a no-drive zone in that area to protect it in the same way as the no-fly zone is protected?
    Mr. Cook: This is an issue that we keep constantly under discussion, not just among ourselves, but with our partners. However, what my hon. Friend asks for involves a step that can be taken only with great seriousness and solemnity. We are very much aware that when people in Iraq were invited to rise up in 1991, they were then abandoned and there were many casualties among those who had taken us at our word. For that reason, there is a grave responsibility on us not to encourage people to take action which we then cannot follow through.

    Agenda 2000
    Mr. Boswell: What activities in relation to Agenda 2000 have been initiated under the British presidency. [31809]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): The Council has
    312
    approved the framework regulation for the accession partnerships, which will be the principal plank of the EU's relationship with the countries of central and eastern Europe over the coming years. We shall launch the European conference, which will bring together the member states and candidate countries, in London on Thursday.
    We expect the Commission to table draft regulations for the reform of the common agricultural policy and the structural and cohesion funds, and proposals for the future financing of the EU on 18 March. Those are only the most immediate activities. We expect that the Cardiff European Council in June will record good progress on Agenda 2000 during our presidency.
    Mr. Boswell: Although the Minister will have heard the discouraging noises coming from Brussels last week about the possible withdrawal of Community support for aid to the British regions, will he ensure, in the forthcoming conference and subsequently, that he sits down with our existing partners in Europe so that any burdens of transfer to the applicant countries under Agenda 2000 are fairly shared and so that British interests are robustly represented?
    Mr. Henderson: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the position that he outlines is the one that the Government will adopt. As we support the enlargement process, it is important to have a funding system, which means that some of the structural funds must find their way to central and eastern European countries to help them. That means that less funding will be available from the structural cake for the existing European Union states, so it is important to have a fair burden share. That will be a principal objective in our negotiations.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Does my hon. Friend accept the great importance of the structural funds to many of our regions, particularly Humberside, because of the economic development of those regions? Will he assure the House that during our presidency, he will lay the foundations necessary to ensure fairness and equity in the distribution of the structural funds so that our regions may continue with their economic progress?
    Mr. Henderson: I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that a principal objective in our negotiations will be to seek a fair solution, part of which is that areas within the European Union that have similar characteristics and a similar need for help will get help. Many areas near my hon. Friend's constituency would qualify, and I hope that we can protect them on the basis of achieving a fair settlement.
    Mr. Gill: The Minister mentioned reform of the common agricultural policy; he will appreciate that to get any fundamental reform of the CAP will require unanimity. What realistic prospect is there of achieving unanimity in the European Union at present?
    Mr. Henderson: There is a growing recognition in the European Union that the current agricultural policy is wasteful and that a better way in which to support agricultural interests in the Community could be found. That is recognised in many countries that have previously

    313
    taken a pretty reactionary view. The prospect of enlargement will force the European Union to look at agricultural policy. I believe that with tough negotiation and perseverance, we can begin to make progress towards bringing agricultural prices in Europe down towards world prices, which will be good for the consumer. Finding the right sort of support for agricultural interests will give the greatest support to those parts of the industry with the greatest need.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have been talking about reform of the common agricultural policy ever since Britain joined the Common Market on 1 January 1973? I do not see it coming any nearer. If it ever comes about that a policy is presented here in Parliament to reform the CAP, those 142,000 people, or however many went on the countryside march, will be knocking at every single door here, telling the British Government that they do not want it. All those Tory and Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament who theoretically support CAP reform will say, "No, we can't afford it."
    Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I had thought that he was more of an optimist and would be looking forward to changes in agricultural policy. I think that he can reassure me that, in the event of large numbers of sectional interests arguing against changing agricultural policy, he will be able to persuade many millions of consumers in our country that some of the changes, at least, will be in their interests—and they will turn up to show their support.

    Departmental Commercial Sections
    Ms Jenny Jones: If he will make a statement on his Department's commercial sections' priorities for 199873x2013;99. [31812]
    Mr. Fatchett: Our priorities will be to implement a new export initiative based on the recommendations of the Export Forum, and to continue to make the Foreign Office more businesslike through interchange with the private sector.
    Ms Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What action is he taking to ensure that the relevant overseas posts are aware of the new priorities in this Government's export drive? What arrangements will be put in place to ensure that, in future, all commercial inquiries are dealt with quickly and effectively?
    Mr. Fatchett: On the final point, we work closely with our colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and we will ensure that there is an improved service for potential exporters. It is fair to say that the Foreign Office has become more commercially minded. More than one third of our full front-line staff time is now devoted to export and commercial activity. We have 217 commercial posts, and we are determined to ensure that we become more businesslike and are more successful in selling Britain. We have to improve on the record of the previous Government; we shall do so and are taking all the right steps to do so.
    Mr. Soames: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Does he agree that the Foreign Office has, for a long time,
    314
    been moving towards becoming much more commercial? When I had anything to do with the Foreign Office, I was always very impressed by its effectiveness in promoting British trade. Will the Minister acknowledge the extraordinarily powerful role that is played by defence in commercial diplomacy, not just in terms of weapon sales—where, clearly, the expertise of the British forces and the sophistication of their equipment commands ready markets overseas—but through a range of other goods and services, where the skills of our forces are well deployed in showing how they work so well?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I will certainly ensure that those remarks are drawn to the attention of those staff involved in commercial activities. It is important for all of us that we continue to make strong efforts to promote Britain's exports. As the hon. Gentleman knows, defence sales are an important part of Britain's export activities and an important signal of Britain's export technology. We regulate those sales in a manner that has always been exercised by Government. Although we are determined to do that, we shall ensure that there is due process and due support for export industries, including the defence industry.

    Bosnia
    Ms Southworth: When he next intends to visit Bosnia. [31813]
    Mr. Robin Cook: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that I visited Bosnia on 4 March. I was encouraged by the significant progress that has been made—particularly on the key issues of corruption, black-marketeering and poor transparency in the use of public funds, which I highlighted on my visit in July. It is a sign of the new mood in Bosnia that I was invited to address an assembly of the Republika Srpska—the first Foreign Minister to do so.
    The new Government of Prime Minister Dodik have made more progress on the Dayton peace process in two months than his predecessor did in two years. However, much remains to be done. I stressed during my visit the need for more rapid results in the return of refugees to their homes, and the central importance that Britain attaches to the prosecution of all those indicted for war crimes. If we want to build a future for Bosnia based on ethnic tolerance, we must be resolute in bringing to justice those who committed the atrocities of ethnic cleansing.
    Ms Southworth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the dramatic changes that have occurred in Bosnia since last summer. I congratulate him also on the moves that have been made towards implementing the Dayton treaty, which is so important to so very many people. Does he agree that those changes are a vindication of the tough stance that he and his colleagues took at their meeting, last June, in Sintra?
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the progress that has been made in Bosnia is entirely the result of the resolute approach from outside Bosnia, coupled with the will of many people in Bosnia for peace. One of the central challenges that we now face, if we are to secure and stabilise that peace, is to ensure that we

    315
    also tackle the regional dimension provided by Bosnia's neighbours. One very important message that I sent in Sarajevo is that there is no map of Europe that has on it any place for a greater Croatia or a greater Serbia.

    Algeria
    Mr. Waterson: What assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Algeria following the recent EU troika mission. [31815]
    Mr. Fatchett: The Government continue to be concerned about the situation in Algeria. We discuss human rights in our bilateral contacts with the Algerians and as the European Union presidency. We are encouraging parliamentary exchanges, greater access by international media and visits by United Nations rapporteurs to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in Algeria.
    Mr. Waterson: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that it is an absolute disgrace that, in this day and age, a country such as Algeria is being terrorised and brutalised, that many people are being murdered in terrorist activity, and that those atrocities have so little resonance in the world outside? Is there not more that we could do, as an individual nation and through the European Union, not only to put the spotlight on those dreadful atrocities, but to try to end them?
    Mr. Fatchett: In our presidency, the United Kingdom has already taken one initiative on behalf of the European Union, responding to public concern in Europe. I led a European Union troika visit to Algeria. We established a political dialogue with the Algerian Government—part of which was to discuss the terrorist situation there—which we hope will continue. On behalf of the European Union, I invited the Algerian Minister of Foreign Affairs to come to London during the United Kingdom presidency to meet my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Corbyn: Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss the proceedings of the parliamentary human rights group, which held an open meeting to take evidence on abuses of human rights in Algeria from a wide variety of sources—although the ambassador himself refused to attend? Is he aware that much of the evidence received by
    316
    the group seemed to suggest that many of the human rights abuses and illegal killings in Algeria emanated from the army or from elements in Algerian society that are close to the army, and that there must be a very robust exchange with the Algerian Government if we are to put a stop to the killings there?
    Mr. Fatchett: I have had the opportunity to read that evidence, which was shocking. It again made the point that, sadly, life is cheap in Algeria, and that too many lives have been lost there. During my visit to Algeria, I stressed to the Algerian Government that it was important for them to be open and accountable in their human rights record. I also suggested that the United Nations special rapporteurs should visit Algeria, so that they have an opportunity to report on some of the issues that have been raised by my hon. Friend. I think that that is very much the best way for the Algerian Government to deal with all the allegations and potential criticisms that have been made of them.

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. McNulty: What progress he has made towards achieving enlargement of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [31816]
    Mr. Doug Henderson: Our preparations for enlargement are on schedule. In two days, we will inaugurate the European conference. We will launch the accession process in Brussels on 30 March, and accession negotiations with six candidates will begin the next day.
    Mr. McNulty: I welcome the Government's initiative in holding the conference between EU member states and applicants this Thursday. Can my hon. Friend assure me that enlargement will remain a top priority throughout the United Kingdom's presidency, and in years to come? Does he agree that we have learnt something that the Tories have never learnt—that it is not possible to be serious and positive about enlargement while being negative about the European Union?
    Mr. Henderson: That is a good point. The difference between our approach to enlargement and that of the previous Government is that we believe that enlargement is important for the security of Europe and for its economic prospects. We do not favour it simply as an alternative to the deepening of the European Union.

Kosovo
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the crisis in Kosovo.
On Monday, I chaired a meeting of the six-nation contact group, which consists of Britain, the United States, the Russian Federation, France, Germany and Italy. The group met in London at my invitation. We issued a comprehensive statement, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
The whole House will share the grave concern expressed by all nations at the contact group meeting about the events in Kosovo of the past two weeks. The security operations around Dreniza in the last week appear to have left at least 80 dead. It is simply not credible that all those killed were terrorists. Of the 51 corpses released yesterday by the Serb police, less than half are believed to have been men of military age. The local press reports that 12 were children, 13 were women and four were elderly men.
Belgrade cannot claim that such extra-judicial killings are a purely internal matter. The international community has a legitimate right and a duty to condemn such gross violations of human rights. Europe has a particular responsibility to reduce violence in the Kosovar region before it produces instability in neighbouring countries.
I visited Belgrade last Thursday. I made it clear that I did so not just on behalf of Britain, but as the presidency of the European Union. I regret to tell the House that President Milosevic sought to present the events in Kosovo as a legitimate police response to terrorism. Britain's record against terrorism is firm and resolute. We strongly condemn the use of violence for political objectives, including the terrorism of the self-styled Kosovo Liberation Army. Terrorism, however, cannot be used as a pretext for the indiscriminate use of force against the civilian population.
While I was in Belgrade, I spoke to leaders of the Kosovar people, including Dr. Rugova. That leadership advocates a peaceful pursuit of legitimate political views. The international community does not support separatism in Kosovo; we do demand that Belgrade provide enhanced and real autonomy for Kosovo, without which the demands for independence are only too likely to grow. It is the tragic irony of Kosovo that its people enjoyed more autonomy under the communists than they have under President Milosevic.
On Monday, the contact group approved a lengthy statement expressing our dismay at the current repression and condemning the excessive use of force. We approved a 10-point action plan to stabilise the security position in Kosovo. Let me highlight four key objectives.
The first is justice. We urged the prosecutor of the war crimes tribunal to investigate the recent violence in Kosovo, and we invited independent forensic experts to investigate the allegations of extra-judicial killings. Those responsible for repression in Kosovo are now on notice that they cannot act with impunity.
The second objective is international monitoring within Kosovo. We called for access to Kosovo for the Red Cross and for all embassies of the contact group in
318
Belgrade. We also supported a new mission by Felipe Gonzalez as the personal representative of the chairman of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. If Belgrade has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear from an increased international presence.
The third objective is regional security. The contact group agreed to arrange an early meeting with representatives of neighbouring countries, in particular to determine how to enhance the monitoring of their borders. After yesterday's meeting, I phoned the Prime Minister of Albania and the President of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. Both expressed strong support for the contact group statement, and President Gligorov gave a warm welcome to our commitment that an international military presence must continue on the border with Serbia after the current United Nations mandate expires in August.
The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), will tomorrow visit Tirana and Skopje as a representative of the presidency of the European Union in order to discuss what more can be done to strengthen their security.
The fourth priority of our action plan is sanctions against Belgrade. The contact group resolved to take specific sanctions to underline our condemnation of its acts of repression and to encourage it to co-operate with the action plan. We endorsed four measures for immediate action.
The measures are: a resolution in the UN Security Council for a comprehensive arms embargo against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including the supply of weapons to terrorists; a refusal to supply equipment that might be used for repression or terrorism; denial of visas for senior Ministers and officials responsible for repressive action; and a moratorium on official credit for trade and investment, including privatisations, which are currently vital in maintaining the Yugoslav budget.
Five members of the contact group agreed to all those measures with immediate effect. I spoke by phone at the end of the meeting to Mr. Primakov, the Russian Foreign Minister. He agreed that Russia could support with immediate effect the arms and equipment embargo and would be willing to consider the denial of visas and the moratorium on official credit if there was no progress in Kosovo within two weeks.
We have given President Milosevic 10 days to withdraw the paramilitary forces from Kosovo and to commit himself to a process of dialogue with the leadership of the Kosovar community. If President Milosevic takes those steps, we will immediately reconsider the sanctions that we have adopted. If he fails to do so, the contact group will take further measures, including a freeze on the funds held abroad by his Government. The contact group meets again on 25 March to assess the Belgrade Government's response.
While I was in Belgrade, I also met representatives of the Serbian opposition, and gave an interview to the independent B92 broadcasting station, which has had material support from Britain. It is important that we recognise that many people in Serbia also reject the police action over the past two weeks, and want their country to accept the human rights standards of a modern European democracy.
We also want the day to come when we can welcome the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia into the family of democratic nations of Europe. We cannot do so, though,

319
unless Belgrade starts to behave by the standards of modern Europe. It is for President Milosevic now to decide whether the future of his state and its people will be deepening isolation from Europe or enhanced co-operation. I ask for the backing of the whole House for a firm message to President Milosevic and his Government that the essential first step must be to stop the violence now.
Mr. Michael Howard: May I thank the Foreign Secretary for making his statement, and echo on behalf of the Opposition his condemnation of the appalling violence of the past few days? We join him in condemning the continuing repression that has caused such suffering to the majority Albanian community in Kosovo.
Like the Foreign Secretary, we condemn all violence, including that of the Kosovo Liberation Army, and welcome Dr. Rugova's continued commitment to peaceful negotiation. Will wider economic sanctions, along the lines of those that were in force before the Dayton agreement was reached, follow if Serbia does not abide by the terms proposed by the contact group? Does the Foreign Secretary consider there to be a role based on the Macedonia model for United Nations monitors in Kosovo? What progress has been made in securing access to the affected area of Dreniza to allow medical and humanitarian aid to be given?
What prospects does the Foreign Secretary see for a return to the autonomy enjoyed by Kosovo before 1989? Does he agree that Kosovo's unique position makes it crucial to the stability of the region, and, given recent remarks by President Tudjman of Croatia, does he share my anxiety at reports that Serbian Croats have also been rounded up? Can he confirm recent reports that there is growing evidence of ethnic cleansing in the Sandzak area—not in Kosovo. but on the Serbian side of the border with Bosnia east of Sarajevo? Has he had reports that women and children are arriving in Tuzla, in buses, from that area?
Will the Foreign Secretary say what steps are being taken to keep the situation under review so that the suffering of the majority population in Kosovo is brought to an end, and the danger to the stability of the region is kept to a minimum?
Mr. Cook: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support. It is welcome to be able to speak for both sides of the House when discussing an issue of such importance in international forums, and President Milosevic should not underrate the degree of unity in the western community.
It is indeed the case that we shall consider wider economic sanctions if there is no progress on the matter between now and 25 March, when the contact group meets again. We have specifically committed ourselves to examining a freeze on the assets of the Governments outside Serbia and Montenegro.
Other steps must be considered. One of the criteria by which we shall judge on 25 March whether sanctions should be further imposed is whether President Milosevic has co-operated with the action plan, a key part of which is increased monitoring throughout Kosovo, particularly in the most affected areas. That is why our statement calls for Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
320
monitors and representatives of contact group embassies in Belgrade to be admitted to the region. I hope that we can at some stage secure a European Union presence in Kosovo, which would increase the openness of the region.
We have not at present managed to put medical and humanitarian assistance into Kosovo, which is a matter that we want to pursue in a broader dialogue with the Belgrade Government. We are pressing to put monitors in to find what can be done.
We have not had reports of an exodus from Sandzak. Our ambassador to Belgrade frequently travels throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and was in Kosovo last week. We shall keep the situation under close review, and report to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as we receive evidence of any such exodus, but he is right to say that ethnic cleansing continues throughout the former Yugoslavia.
While I was in Banja Luka, it was confirmed that a significant number of refugees from eastern Slavonia continue to arrive, where we wound up the United Nations mission on the ground that we had achieved stability and security for the minority Serb population there.
While in Sarajevo, I deeply deprecated the speech made by President Tudjman, which suggested a return to the politics of ethnic hatred and ethnic confrontation. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will visit Zagreb on his tour of the Balkan countries, and will make it plain that the way forward for the Balkans is through ethnic reconciliation, not ethnic cleansing.
Mr. John Austin: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the warm support from the Albanian and Kosovar communities in London for his swift response to and condemnation of the ethnic violence of the Serbian authorities. He referred to the actions of President Rugova, who has used every constitutional and democratic means, and has been an advocate of non-violence. Is he aware of President Rugova's intention to hold elections on 22 March? What action will the contact group take to ensure that those elections proceed peacefully, so that the democratic wishes of the Albanian majority may be determined?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words about the speed with which we have responded. We have all learned lessons from the period in 1991 when the international community failed to respond with determination and speed; for that reason, we are anxious to try to ensure that we bring pressure to bear when the situation can be contained, rather than when it has deteriorated.
My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to say that Belgrade is fortunate in the leadership of the Albanian community in Kosovo. I met several of them while I was in Belgrade, and I was humbled by the moderation, reason and good sense of many of them in situations of intense provocation.
The elections on 22 March are what are termed parallel elections, which is to say that they are not official elections: we do not recognise those elections; we are turning a blind eye to those elections. While I was in Belgrade with President Milosevic, I urged him also to

321
turn a blind eye to such elections, in order that they may be organised and may go forward among the local people without disruption from Belgrade.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I from these Benches support the right hon. Gentleman's determination to send a firm message to President Milosevic? However, does he agree that, in spite of his best efforts, there is unwelcome gap between the legitimate and robust language of condemnation used by himself and Madeleine Albright at the weekend and the measures adopted so far by the contact group?
Does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that it would be unfortunate in the extreme if we were to allow the achievements in Bosnia over the past two years to be undermined in any way by instability in the region? Has NATO made any assessment of the consequences for Bosnia if there is continuing unrest in Kosovo? Has NATO made any assessment of the steps it might take, if invited by the UN, to assist in the restoration of order in Kosovo?
Mr. Cook: I met the Secretary-General of NATO, Javier Solana, yesterday, and discussed the situation with him. However, at a time when we are trying to de-escalate the violence and promote peaceful political dialogue, it may not be helpful to escalate what consequences may be necessary some way down the track, if the situation were to deteriorate. We are all focusing now on finding a diplomatic and political solution. If NATO has a role to play, it may well be in the follow-on force in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, when the UN mandate expires in August. That is currently the only military commitment that might be in contemplation.
The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed to a gap between rhetoric and action. I should be the first to say that it is important that we are not complacent about how much has been achieved; indeed, the situation in Kosovo remains as disturbing as it was when we called the contact group.
One of the tragedies of the events of the past two weeks is that their legacy will make it more difficult to achieve the reconciliation which is our objective. However, in the 10 points of the action plan, the four points of sanctions are a robust response—much more robust than the response of the international community in the early days of the collapse of Yugoslavia, and possibly a more robust response than I would have been prepared to put money on before we had the meeting on Monday.
That meeting was five hours of intense talks, which produced substantial support, not only for robust rhetoric, but for a clear statement of our resolve expressed through specific action. I urge hon. Members not to underrate the extent to which that will increase pressure on Milosevic, especially if he is unable to finance future privatisations.
Mr. John Home Robertson: As one of the many people who took part in relief work in Bosnia and who witnessed scenes that were a disgrace to European civilisation during four dreadful years, before NATO took a grip on the situation in that country, I urge my right hon. Friend not to allow time for any further atrocities to take place in Kosovo. Can we depend on him
322
to insist on firm, urgent and resolute action, and, if necessary, intervention by the European members of NATO?
Mr. Cook: As I said in answer to the previous question, any question of military intervention has not been contemplated, and is not on the agenda. We seek to ensure that we achieve progress that averts the need for military intervention. Nor would such military intervention, if it were to happen, have a simple or uncomplicated impact on the region as a whole. It is much better that we make progress on the strategy that has been adopted by the contact group, but I agree with my hon. Friend: if we had intervened earlier in the conflict in Bosnia, we might not now be dug in for several years' presence, putting together a country that we allowed to fall apart.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the methods used by the security forces bear a sad resemblance to things that we have seen before? However, does he agree that perhaps one significant difference is that the war crimes tribunal is now well established? There was much cynicism about it 18 months or a year ago, but there can be no doubt about how effective it is going to be. Does he believe that a clear message must go out that, no matter how high or how low a person is in a particular country, people who have committed or ordered these atrocities will eventually face justice?
Mr. Cook: I am delighted to agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. At Dayton, President Milosevic signed up to an obligation to co-operate with the International Court in The Hague. Its writ runs throughout the whole of former Yugoslavia, including Kosovo. There is therefore nothing to prevent the court from seeking to indict people who it believes may have committed an offence under its terms.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have managed to make serious progress at The Hague. One third of the people who have been indicted by the prosecutor have been arrested and brought for trial at The Hague. That is more progress than we could have dared hope for a year ago, and I echo his words. People who remain indicted and have not yet been brought to justice should consider surrendering themselves, because there is no hiding place in the international community for those who break the law of that community.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that even those among us who are most cautious about military intervention must recognise the appalling complexity and, indeed, peril of the situation that we have to face? In the light of the Minister of State's visit to Skopje, I recall that, two years ago, when the all-party arts and heritage group went to Thessalonika, we were harangued on the issue of greater Macedonia. What will be said about the Macedonia position? Are we talking to the Government of Greece, a European partner, which has an immediate stake in this, and what is it saying?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a point that is an important part of the complexity of the situation, which is why I keep using the tortuous mouthful, "the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia"; if I did not, I would receive a letter from the Greek ambassador, so I am very

323
happy to stick to the terms of that agreement. I am pleased to say that, over the past year, relations between Greece and the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia have considerably improved. They would be at one on the issue of ensuring that instability in Kosovo does not spill over the border.
My colleague the Foreign Secretary of Greece was in Belgrade. I will meet him on Friday when he attends the meeting of European Union Foreign Ministers in Edinburgh, and I am arranging to have a bilateral with him to discuss the position. In the meantime, I seize with delight the opportunity for my hon. Friend and me to bat on the same side again.
Mr. Martin Bell: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the effect of broader sanctions on the Serbs last time, which was to reward the black marketeers and racketeers and to punish and sometimes to kill the poor, the sick, the weak and the old? Can we be very careful before going down that road again?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's words are wise and fair. It is not just the ordinary people of Serbia but Serbia's neighbouring countries who have concern on that matter. We have received representations from one or two of them expressing their deep concern that the effect of sanctions was to promote smuggling and black marketeering in their countries. That is a down side that must be fairly reflected in any decision that we make.
We must seek to impose sanctions that do not hit the poorest but hit the elite to whom we are trying to get the message across. That is why the initial list includes an arms embargo, a denial of visas to top people and the withdrawal of credit for the financing of privatisations. That is crucial to the Government of Yugoslavia, but is not so important to the daily shopping list of its people.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Further to the earlier remarks about the Macedonian problem, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the key task now from the west's perspective is to stop the spread of this conflict throughout the region, and that Macedonia is the linchpin in that task? Does he think that 700 front-line troops—the UN troops at present in Macedonia—are remotely enough to protect Macedonia from the spread of the conflict? Does he support the urgent request that President Gligorov has often made in public and in private that the UN presence be replaced by more sizeable NATO forces at the key strategic points on the frontier with Kosovo?
Mr. Cook: There may be only 700 troops and they may therefore be of limited immediate military effect on a very difficult border, but they are overwhelmingly American troops, and that immensely concentrates the minds of Belgrade if they ever think of doing anything on that border.
I spoke to President Gligorov yesterday after the contact group meeting. I am pleased to say that he said several times that the result was a good one. He was particularly pleased that we had obtained a commitment to a follow-on force after August. For the first time, Russia raised no objection to that. In the current state of Kosovo, that is an important step forward. Precisely what
324
that follow-on force might be has yet to be resolved, but we now have strong international commitment to making sure that it continues.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the main objective of policy, at least for the present, must be to re-establish the autonomous status that Kosovo enjoyed before 1989? Will he take every opportunity in his discussions with Dr. Rugova and others to stress that the separatist solution would not receive the backing of the western community, and that the western community would not support an independent state of Kosovo or any union between Kosovo and the adjoining states, other than, of course, Serbia?
Mr. Cook: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no map for a greater Croatia or a greater Serbia, and equally there must be no map for a greater Albania. We said in the statement of the contact group yesterday, and I repeated in my statement this afternoon, that it was not our position to support an independent Kosovo. Of course, if Belgrade does not respond to the legitimate political demands of the people of Kosovo—for instance, to have control over their own education and to be taught in their own language—that will fuel demands for independence.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned restoration of the pre-1989 autonomy. When I discussed that with some of the younger Albanians from Kosovo, they said that, while that would be welcome, for it to work there would need to be changes within Serbia. A successful solution to the crisis does not simply require greater autonomy for Kosovo. It also requires more freedom of expression, more pluralism, more democracy and more participation of the people within Serbia in the political process.
Mr. John Randall: I thank the Foreign Secretary for speaking to the independent radio station B92, as I have been involved with its efforts to maintain independence during the period of repression. While I in no way condone the actions of the Serbs, I urge that we remember the importance to the Serbian national identity of the whole region of Kosovo. The battle of Kosovo is as important to Serbian history as Magna Carta is to England.
Mr. Cook: Yes, I have had that view expressed to me several times in Belgrade. The battle was fought in 1389: the Serbs lost. The case was made to me by President Milosevic that Kosovo was the spiritual home of the Serb kings. I respect people's identity with their cultural history—it should be handled with dignity—but that is a difficult basis on which to found a territorial claim so many hundreds of years later.
When I was interviewed by the people at B92, I was impressed by the fact that they were as lively, cosmopolitan and pluralist in outlook as young people in any other country of Europe. In that generation there is hope for the future of Serbia and the Balkans—but they must be given the opportunity to express themselves.
This week, the Belgrade Government make an important series of decisions about the awarding of radio frequencies for the independent stations. I very much

325
hope, particularly at this moment in history, that they will not close down any of the independent stations by denying them a frequency.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The Foreign Secretary has referred to mistakes made in the past. I welcome the broad thrust of his remarks this afternoon, but does he agree that one mistake made by politicians on both sides of the House and by certain parts of the Foreign Office in the past was to regard President Milosevic as a moderating force on the excesses of the Bosnian Serbs? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, far from being a moderating force, he was an instigator of those excesses? Would he further agree that it is unwise to say "never" to the use of force, because, if the atrocities get worse, force will have to be used?
Mr. Cook: I know that the hon. Gentleman's wing of his party does not regard the Foreign Office as really having been a part of the previous Government—but I am afraid that it was. If errors were made last time, they are errors for which Ministers in power at the time must accept responsibility.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Foreign Secretary is to be commended on his prompt response in going in person to Belgrade to confront the malign reality in power there. Can he state unequivocally that, for a settlement to endure, it will ultimately have to be based on the fundamental democratic principle of self-determination for the people of Kosovo?
Is it not that principle which distinguishes our system in the free part of Europe from what has existed in the Republic of Yugoslavia in the past, be it under communism or under the rump that remains? Can he assure the House that he will keep together the contact group—not least the Americans, who should maintain a military presence in whatever force is located in Macedonia in the medium and longer term?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is important to maintain unity, and we shall work hard to do so. I felt that yesterday's discussions, particularly my phone call with Foreign Minister Primakov, demonstrated the extent to which peer group pressure now produces a much more common front among nations in the international community. I am pleased that we managed to achieve that much agreement.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that there is a long way to go; we must watch the situation with the greatest of care. I assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that we will do so.

Adoption and Fostering
4.3 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities, when considering adoption or fostering, to make use of married couples unless they can show that no such couples are available who meet the needs of the child; and for connected purposes.
I am grateful to Members of all parties who have agreed to co-sponsor my Bill.
We have a special responsibility to unwanted children. Not only do they have no voice of their own, but it is very sad that any child should be without a loving home. We all read from time to time, with a shudder, of young lives that have been ruined by physical and sexual abuse, drug taking or child prostitution. We are failing the most vulnerable and defenceless members of our community.
Perhaps the worst features are the horrendous statistics associated with children in care—the very children whom the state has taken as its own responsibility. The occasional inquiries into the torture and abuse of children in some children's homes represent only a small part of the total picture. We know, of course, that there are many workers in children's homes who struggle to provide a decent life for some very difficult and damaged children, but the overall statistics for children leaving care are terrible.
A child leaving care is 50 times as likely as a typical youngster of the same age to end up in prison, and far more likely to become a drug addict. Perhaps most shocking is the fact that a quarter of all the girls who have been in care became pregnant while they were in care, and one in seven are pregnant at the point of leaving care. The abuse among boys is at much the same level.
Those evils are passed on to the next generation. We remember the tragic case of Rikki Neave, the six-year-old who was repeatedly beaten, tortured and finally choked to death by his natural mother, herself a graduate of our so-called system of care.
Yet there is one highly underrated institution that serves so many of those children so well: adoption. Studies from the United States, Australia, New Zealand and this country have shown the astonishing success of adoption. Adopted children not only do much better than those in care, which is perhaps to be expected because some of the most damaged children must be kept in care, as no one wants to adopt them; children adopted from care also do very much better than those children from care who are returned to their natural parents.
Perhaps most surprising of all, the studies show that damaged children adopted from care by married couples do better on average than children who have never been in care, who are raised in certain categories of natural family, including those raised in single-parent families headed by a young, never-married mother.
However, adoption has collapsed numerically. From 21,000 adoptions 20 years ago, the figure was down to less than 6,000 last year. I draw the attention of the House to three features of current adoption practice, besides the dramatic fall in the absolute numbers.
First, while most adoptions are still with married couples, there is a growing tendency for some local authorities to place children with individuals who are in other forms of union. There was the celebrated case last

327
year, for example, of the 11-year-old boy whom Southwark sought to place with a homosexual who was in a supposedly stable relationship with another man. What was Southwark trying to achieve?
I believe that we should be tolerant towards adult unions of all sorts, where only adults are concerned, but a child of 11 does not have the mature sexuality that would allow it to make a free choice as to the sort of sexual relationship in which it wants its minders to be involved. Indeed, I do not know whether the child in that case tried to make such a choice. Children must not be allowed to become the pawns of some social workers in the battle that they are fighting for their own social and political agenda.
The institution of marriage, even in this era of divorce, is still an astonishing success. A child born to a married couple has a better than four in five chance that 10 years later its parents will still be together. On the other hand, according to the latest British household panel survey, a child born to a couple who are not married but in an allegedly stable relationship has only a one in five chance of his parents remaining together for 10 years—unless they subsequently marry.
So many married couples who are unable to have their own children would dearly love the opportunity to adopt a child and, in some cases, are willing to adopt very damaged children from the care system. It is sad to hear that such couples are often denied that opportunity. In one case, a mixed race couple were denied the opportunity to adopt a coloured child because social services in the authority concerned considered that they had suffered insufficient racial harassment to provide a good home for the child. What nonsense.
Alongside the practice of placing some children with unmarried individuals in other relationships and imposing unfair restrictions on some married couples who would dearly love to adopt, there is a third feature of adoption that I believe has been insufficiently examined: the financial risk to a family who take on a severely emotionally damaged child from care. I am at present dealing with a constituency case involving a married couple who adopted two girls who had been severely sexually abused. One of the adoptions succeeded, but, sadly, after a long struggle, the couple were forced to relinquish the other girl back into care.
At the time of adoption, the parents were forced to take on the full legal responsibilities that natural parents would assume. That is fair enough when a child is adopted at birth. However, the social services department is pursuing this couple for an enormous bill for the care of the second child, even though the couple have provided a good home for one child and struggled very hard with the other. That hardly seems just.
That brings me to the specific proposals in my Bill. First, local authorities should be required to consider adoption for all children who have been taken into care as a result of being severely physically or sexually abused, putting the interests of the child, not the natural parents, first. Secondly, wherever possible, adoption should be granted to married couples unless it can be shown that no suitable married couple are available.
Thirdly, when adoption is not an option—probably because a child is so damaged that no one can be found to take him on—the alternative should be fostering by a married couple. I do not deny the splendid work done by
328
some individual carers. However, where possible, it is best that fostering should be undertaken by married couples, for the reasons I have outlined.
Fourthly, when children are adopted out of care, the authority should have to sign a financial waiver so that, if an adoption fails and the child returns to care, the parents are not put at financial risk. Finally, the Bill seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to intervene when a local authority fails to follow those rules, and to give that authority's control over adoption to a voluntary agency.
In our country today—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's 10 minutes have expired. I understand that there is opposition to the Bill.
4.13 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: In rising to speak against the Bill, I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on at least raising in the House the tremendously important subject of fostering and adoption. I come from a professional background of managing fostering and adoption, and have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's genuine, obvious desire to ensure that children in care are given the security, consistency, respect, consideration, guidance and all-round care they need.
I would counsel the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that adoption is not a panacea. It is an over-simplification to say that it can be a solution for all children who have been abused and then come into care. Nor is fostering as an alternative to adoption invariably better than residential care. Many young people, particularly adolescents, make a positive choice for residential care rather than go back into a family.
No adult has a right to be a foster carer or adopter, but, like the hon. Gentleman, I want children in care to be offered excellent placements where they can have good experience of family life that meets their needs and helps them to prepare for the future. I just do not think that the hon. Gentleman's Bill is the way to do it, because, despite what it says, it would run the risk of undoing the Children Act 1989 principle—the good social work practice principle—that the needs of children are paramount. The very act of requiring local authorities to show that no married couples are available who could meet needs means that some aspects of real needs could be compromised to avoid criticism.
Matching children with foster carers or adopters is an extremely complex task, wherein all the growing and developing needs of children from a vast variety of backgrounds, who have often been abused, rejected and neglected, must be matched carefully to the assessed abilities and qualities of prospective carers. It is not an exact science—far from it. It is a matter of delicate and subtle judgment. At its heart, it is about working with human relationships.
In assessing foster carers, it is, of course, vital to gauge the quality and commitment of people's personal relationships, but it seems inappropriate to elevate a couple's marital status so that it could begin to be more important than factors such as whether the prospective carers really have the skills to work with children who have been sexually abused; whether they have the ability to work with birth families; and whether they share a

329
cultural background, which is important, or can tolerate extreme acting-out behaviour. Social work is extremely sensitive, acute—sometimes intuitive—work that does not always fit comfortably within the bureaucracy of local authorities. The Bill would establish another unhelpful rule.
Children in care need flexibility and tolerance. They need to have their views heeded, and sometimes they need very caring people to be prepared to take risks. They do not need the imposition of moral imperatives that are nothing to do with keeping them safe or meeting their individual needs.
In this day and age—let us face it—one does not have to be married, or even be in a relationship, to provide excellent care for children. Indeed, there is evidence that, in some circumstances, one group of much-maligned potential carers—single parents—can have more to offer than couples. Crucially, it may be easier for a child, especially one from a disturbed background, to attach to one new adult rather than two.
Research carried out by Dr. Morag Owen from the university of Sussex and published by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, considered the experience of 48 children who had been adopted by single people. Some of the children felt that it was an advantage to have one parent: the views of two adults did not have to be reconciled, and there was real consistency. Girls who had been sexually abused valued the opportunity to have a one-to-one relationship with a caring woman. The study concluded that, given the needs of children in the care system, single people are often uniquely equipped to parent them.
However, single people are often deterred from coming forward for assessment as foster carers or prospective adopters. We need more placements, particularly for older children with more complex needs and challenging problems. But giving priority to married couples could well mean that even fewer single parents or couples living together would present themselves for what should in any case be the challenging and rigorous process of assessment.
I am concerned about the Bill. It is highly unlikely that it will become law, but were it to do so, it could undermine the chances of some of the most needy children in our society to have a decent childhood. I do not intend to take up the time of the House by pressing the matter to a Division, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect upon what I have said, and decide not to proceed with the Bill.
330
A Bill which celebrated the rich variety of adoptive and foster placements in Britain, which promoted adoption and fostering as some of the most profoundly important tasks which all sorts of adults in all sorts of relationships and none can undertake, and which offered better training, support and recognition, would be a much better Bill, and that would have my whole-hearted support.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Julian Brazier, Sir Peter Lloyd, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Tom Cox, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. John Burnett, Mr. Peter Bottomley and Rev. Martin Smyth.

Adoption and Fostering
  ADOPTION AND FOSTERING
  Mr. Julian Brazier accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities, when considering adoption or fostering, to make use of married couples unless they can show that no such couples are available who meet the needs of the child; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed [Bill 141].

Ministerial Correspondence
4.22 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have a letter in my hand purportedly from the Minister for Local Government and Housing. It is not addressed in the form that is customary in this place, it is not signed and, although I wrote on 14 January, I did not receive a reply until 9 March. Would you agree that such conduct is discourteous, and if Ministers demonstrate by their actions a belief that Parliament no longer matters, it is not surprising that the BBC follows suit?
Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to an exchange which took place on various points of order last Thursday, when the Leader of the House was in her place. The right hon. Lady answered questions at the Dispatch Box only yesterday, and she will not be doing so again until 6 April. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman forms a question for the Leader of the House, setting out the matter and asking for reasons for the delay and the lack of signature. In the meantime, no doubt Ministers concerned will report the matter to the appropriate place.

Opposition Day
[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Taxation
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.23 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the fact that the Government broke its pledge not to raise taxes by raising 17 taxes in its first Budget; notes that, although the full impact of many of these taxes, such as the Pensions Tax and higher business taxes, was not immediately apparent to the public, these taxes will undermine Britain's economic success and people's retirement incomes in the long term; and urges the Government not to introduce any further hidden taxes in the forthcoming Budget.
  With the Budget only a week away, I am sure that the House will not expect Ministers to give us details of their tax plans today. Hon. Members are becoming used to the fact that the House is the last to be informed of any Government policy. But we expect Ministers to answer for the hidden taxes that the Government have introduced so far—hidden taxes on pension funds, savings and business, not to mention extra taxes on motorists, students, smokers and home owners.
  Before the last election, Labour had to convince a sceptical electorate that it had changed. It said that it was no longer the party of tax and spend. It claimed to have undergone a conversion, so it invoked biblical language to persuade people that it was genuine. The Prime Minister, in messianic mode, told his conference:
  "I vow that promises we make on tax, we will keep. This is my covenant with the British people. Judge me upon it."
  New Labour, Old Testament. When the Prime Minister said,
  "We will not increase taxes at all",
  people believed him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took a high moral tone. He said:
  "We will not make promises we will later break, we will not say one thing before the election and another after. Above all, we will be straight with the British people about tax."
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the promise we made was that we would not increase the top or basic rate of income tax?
  Mr. Lilley: I was quoting the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition. According to a report in the Financial Times on 21 September 1997, the right hon. Gentleman said at a meeting in Birmingham a few months before the election:
  "We have no plans to increase tax at all."
  332
  If the Chief Secretary wishes to dissociate himself from the Prime Minister, he should have done so before the election, not afterwards.
  As I was saying, the Chancellor also took a high moral tone. He said:
  "We will not make promises we will later break, we will not say one thing before the election and another after. Above all, we will be straight with the British people about tax. That is why at the General Election we will spell out quite clearly our tax plans, so the British people know what we intend to do. There will be no lies, no deceit."
  When he said,
  "Apart from the Windfall Tax, Labour's plans do not require any extra taxes",
  people felt that they could believe him. They did not realise that the Chancellor intended to impose hidden taxes—taxes that he had hidden from the voters before the election and which he hoped would be largely invisible after their implementation.
  Dr. George Turner: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Labour party said that it would spell out to the electorate what its tax promises were. As a candidate I know that they were explained in the manifesto on which I fought and won my seat. Can he cite a single promise from that manifesto—not from newspaper reports or cuttings—that the Government have broken?
  Mr. Lilley: I was quoting from a speech by the Chancellor given just before last year's Budget—I will be addressing the same audience tomorrow. He said that he would spell out clearly the Government's tax plans so that the British people would know what they were. When did he spell out clearly to people with pensions that he planned a £5 billion annual tax on their pension funds? When did he spell out to business men that he planned £22 billion of extra taxes on the corporate sector? When did he spell out to savers that he would impose the savings tax that we debated last week?
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: No, I will get on because I have many questions to which the Chief Secretary may wish to reply.
  When did the Chancellor spell out to home owners that he would tax their mortgages by cutting relief even while interest rates were rising? When did he spell out to students that he would impose a pay-as-you-learn tax on higher education? When did he spell out clearly to motorists, especially rural motorists, that he would raise extra taxes on petrol?
  Those are the questions that the Chief Secretary must answer today. The Government think that they can get away with deceiving the British people, betraying their pledges and concealing the cost. The cost will come through and then the facts will be clear. They will not get away with it: the facts will not let them; we will not let them; and the British people will not let them.
  Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman will find a clear reference in our manifesto to the fact that we intended to review corporation tax. And does he accept

  333
  that the previous Government, of which he was a member, were committed to a real increase in road fuel duties every year?
  Mr. Lilley: During the election campaign, I warned people with pensions that Labour might be planning to abolish tax credits, and that that would hit them. The Times reported the then shadow Chief Secretary as saying:
  "there was no basis for the Tories' claims. They were desperate talk intended to frighten."
  I will give way to the Chief Secretary if he wishes to explain that. Since the election, the Chancellor has dropped the Chief Secretary from his circulation list—what a shame that the Chancellor did not send him his "no lies, no deceit" speech about taxes before the election.
  Labour thought that people would not understand the changes that it was making to taxes on dividends. Labour hoped that people would not recognise that money was being siphoned out of their pension funds until they retired and found that their pensions were smaller than they expected or, if they had already retired, until they found that their pensions did not rise as much as they hoped. The last person who thought he could get away with robbing pensions was another Labour Member of Parliament and business colleague of some absent Treasury Ministers, Robert Maxwell—the original bouncing Czech. That is why I dubbed the July Budget the Robert Maxwell memorial Budget at the time.
  The Chancellor cannot claim that this back-door tax was foisted on gullible new Ministers by Treasury officials. All the evidence suggests that it was cooked up in opposition. It was concealed from the electorate—and even civil servants were not consulted until the last minute. That is why the tax has stumbled like a drunken man from one change to the next. The Paymaster General was supposed to have brought his immense business expertise to bear on it. All 1 can say is that if this is the best example of his work, he is not worth the money he is not paid.
  Ms Ruth Kelly: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that tax credits on pension funds were a gross distortion of the tax system? Will his party reinstate those tax credits if it returns to power?
  Mr. Lilley: Of course I do not accept that the credits were a distortion. On the contrary, the imputation tax system was the least distorting form of tax. I am glad that the hon. Lady accepts that we will form the next Government. I cannot tell her how many of the Labour party's messes we will restore because I fear that there will be many more on top of this.
  Mr. Caplin: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the UK has the lowest rates of corporation tax?
  Mr. Lilley: The changes introduced by the Government reduce the rate but increase the tax take by £8 billion during this Parliament. We reduced the burden of tax on business, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) can vouch for that.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if a company issues a false prospectus and its directors ask for support on the basis of promises that they have no intention of keeping, those directors go to gaol? What does he think should happen to the Labour party, which asked for, and got, the support of the people on the basis of false promises?
  Mr. Lilley: In politics, the penalty is usually inflicted by the electorate—as we ourselves have been known to find out.
  What is particularly appalling about Labour's pensions tax is that it threatens a great Conservative success. We encouraged people to build up personal and occupational pension funds. As a result, Britain has more money invested to pay for future pensions, not just than any other country in Europe but than all the other countries in the European Union put together. It is criminal to put that at risk, as this tax does.
  Faced with the charge that the tax was being levied at the expense of pensioners, the Government have come up with the most preposterous defence. They claim that the tax is unique. It might raise £5 billion at the expense of pension funds, but the Financial Secretary said that that would be good for pensions, good for pension funds and good for pensioners. In short, she thinks that taxation is good for people—except for the Paymaster General, for whom it is too good. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He is probably in Guernsey.
  The Chancellor flatly denied that the pensions tax would have an impact on the value of pensions, but the Government Actuary said otherwise. He concluded:
  "The tax changes resulting from the July 1997 budget … potentially affect all forms of contracted-out pension funds."
  He calculated that pension contributions need to go up by some 12 per cent. For most members of pension schemes, that is equivalent to more than 1 p on their income tax. Labour raises taxes whereas we cut them.
  Mr. Steve Webb: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he was a member of the Cabinet when Mr. Lamont first cut the tax credit on dividends and raised £1 billion by doing so?
  Mr. Lilley: Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that the then Chancellor introduced a target 20p rate of tax and aligned the tax credit with it at that time.
  The pension tax will come through gradually, but the extra petrol tax was slipped in overnight. By introducing an extra rise in July, slapping on 4p per litre and accelerating future increases, the Chancellor pocketed a cool £730 million of extra tax. If he jacks up petrol taxes yet again next week, there will have been three such new tax rises in 16 months.
  Many people have no choice but to pay that extra tax. For most people in rural areas, driving is a necessity, not a luxury. The trouble is that the Government simply do not understand the countryside. They do not care about people who live in rural areas and they do not realise that they need to be able to plan for the future. If the Chancellor wants to regain respect for his party in the countryside, he should drop his plans for yet another petrol tax hike next week.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: No, I wish to make progress.
  We must hope that the Chancellor makes a better fist of next week's Budget than he did of last July's. As millions of mortgage holders and business men have been finding out, that Budget was seriously misjudged. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor argued that higher taxes were needed to cool consumer spending. Then, far from taxing consumers and spending, he piled the bulk of his extra taxes on business and savings: £22 billion of extra tax on the corporate sector over the course of this Parliament; taxes on pensions; and taxes on PEPs and TESSAs. Despite his own arguments, he left consumers largely unchecked and the Bank of England has been raising interest rates every since.
  Businesses have had the worst of both worlds: higher taxes and higher interest rates, leading to an overvalued pound, clobbering exports, hitting manufacturing, and putting jobs at risk. Does not the Chancellor realise that taking £22 billion from industry leaves it with that much less to invest and create jobs? Do not Labour Members realize—they must see evidence of it in their constituencies—that the Chancellor has brought manufacturing industry to the brink of recession? They may not be able to see that, but we can. Labour is bad for business and we shall defend business against Labour's tax rises.
  The Chancellor cannot claim that he opened the books and found that he needed all that extra tax—so much that he had to break his solemn pre-election pledges. On the contrary, he opened the books and found that we had left him with a golden economic legacy. The Budget deficit is falling even faster than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe forecast in his last Budget. That should mean that borrowing can be eliminated with less of a rise in the tax burden than anticipated, but instead the Chancellor has been deliberately adding to it.
  According to the Government's own figures, the Chancellor now plans, by the turn of the century, to take nearly 3 per cent. more of national income in taxes than in the last year of the Conservative Government. That is equivalent to nearly 10 extra days of tax paying in the course of the year. In the last year of the Conservative Government, taxpayers had to work from 1 January to 10 May to pay off their dues to the state—10 May was tax freedom day. Thereafter, every penny that they earned was their own to spend, give, save or invest as they chose, but under the Labour Government, people will have to work until 20 May to clear their taxes. They will have to do 10 more days of hard labour. That is the price of Labour's plans.
  Labour Members cannot claim that it does not matter because the bulk of the taxes fall on businesses, not individuals. All taxes are paid by ordinary people, through higher bills, lower pensions or less take-home pay. As Professor John Kay, a new Labour business guru, says:
  "There is no such thing as a tax on firms: the effective incidence of all taxes is ultimately on individuals."
  336
  All taxes fall on individuals, but not all individuals pay taxes—indeed, not all Treasury Ministers pay taxes, or not as much as they should, according to the Chancellor, who said:
  "It cannot be right that the decent hard-working majority, paying their share of tax, should watch a minority abusing the system, using scams, loopholes and dodges; distortions in the tax system which must be eliminated."
  Mr. Simon Burns: Where is the Paymaster General?
  Mr. Lilley: In Guernsey.
  It is true that on Friday the Treasury announced that it was cracking down on offshore trusts. It said that a tax loophole would be closed to prevent wealthy individuals from bringing their trusts onshore to avoid capital gains tax. That is all well and good, but the new policy fails the Robinson test: it leaves the Paymaster General in the clear. He is still a tax-free zone. While the rest of us have to work for an extra 10 days a year to finance the Government, he keeps his £12 million offshore to finance his retirement. It seems that the only tax that the Chancellor will not raise is a tax on his hon. Friend the Paymaster General.
  In his pre-Budget report, the Chancellor reaffirmed his promise to introduce a 10p starting rate of income tax. We now learn from the newspapers that he may defer it—how typical of Labour. The Government drive ahead with raising taxes in defiance of their pledges, but hold back on the one tax cut that they promised.
  Let there be no doubt where we stand on a lop tax rate. Any reduction in tax is welcome, especially after the hidden tax rises that we have had from the Government so far. We shall hold the Chancellor to all his promises on the 10p rate. Does he recall his pre-election pledge, when he said:
  "We would ensure that all lower and middle-income families receive the full benefit of the tax cut"?
  Will he guarantee that he will not claw back the benefit of the 10p rate from basic rate taxpayers by starting the basic rate at a lower rate of income or by cutting allowances? It is bad enough that the Chancellor has broken his promise not to raise taxes; it would be a disgrace if he did not carry out one of his few tax-cutting commitments in full.
  The Government were elected on the basis of the most solemn pledges—
  Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is urging my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to reduce the starting rate of income tax to 10p, but in today's Financial Times he said that he was against that measure.
  Mr. Lilley: I certainly did not. On the contrary, I said in the document reported in the Financial Times that we would support the reduction but that we thought that the Government would introduce it in a way that merely clawed back higher up the income scale and, that in that case, it would not be a genuine tax cut. That is the point that I have been making while the right hon. Gentleman has not been listening. The right hon. Gentleman should get his interventions right and ensure that he is on sounder ground than he has been so far.
  The Government were elected on the basis of the most solemn pledges not to raise taxes, but they say one thing and do another. Before the election, the Chancellor said that he wanted to encourage investment, yet he is siphoning £5

  337
  billion a year from Britain's biggest source of investment capital. The Prime Minister said that he wanted pensioners to be cherished and valued to the end of their days. If so, why is he plundering their pension schemes? So much for the giving age; it is more like the give and take age: they take and we give.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is it not precisely those people on low income who will be hit by the changes in advance corporation tax credits? Their pensions will be lower and their savings in the form of PEPs and TESSAs, on which they were relying for their old age, will be less, so they will become a greater burden on the state.
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government have actually reduced the reliefs available to low-income savers and reduced the system that we set up so that it is attractive only to upper rate income tax payers.
  The one thing of which we can be sure is that Labour Budgets mean higher taxes. When the former right hon. and learned Member for Putney, David Mellor, said that
  "dogs bark, cats miaow and Labour puts up taxes",
  he did not just mean old Labour. Old Labour was honest about raising taxes. New Labour introduces hidden taxes. Old Labour taxed wealth. New Labour taxes by stealth, and it is a racing certainty that there will be more taxes in the next Budget.
  In just 10 months we have had a pensions tax, a savings tax, a student tax, more business tax, higher petrol tax, higher tobacco tax, higher mortgage tax and the highest ever council tax. The Government have broken their promises, abandoned their vows and cast aside their covenants, but they cannot escape the judgment of the British people. Labour cannot be trusted on taxes.
  4.46 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "commends the Government for honouring its election promises not to increase the top or basic rate of income tax, to reduce VAT on domestic fuel to five per cent. and to introduce the levy on the windfall profits of the privatised utilities; approves the Government's determination to put in place a fair tax system, to encourage investment and long-term sustainable growth; believes that Britain's interests lie in the pursuit of sound economic policies that will benefit the many and not just the few, and which are in the long-term interests of the whole country; and urges the Government to reject any return to the boom and bust policies of the past which resulted in the 22 tax rises imposed by the previous administration.".
  As regards the judgment of the British people, within recent memory the British people have shown which party they trust to form the Government of this country.
  The Labour Government are delighted to be having this debate, even if to a large—
  Mr. Lilley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: I shall certainly give way a little later.
  The Labour Government are delighted to be having this debate, even if it is, to a large extent, a re-run of the general election. That is not surprising because, in many ways, the
  338
  Conservative party has still not come to terms with its defeat. It cannot accept that it lost the last election because it lost the trust of the country. No one believed the Conservatives then, and no one believes them now: nothing has changed.
  I shall demonstrate that proposition by looking at two winning manifestos. No doubt Conservatives will remember the first one—
  Mr. Lilley rose—
  Mr. Darling: I shall give way because I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers what was in the Tory manifesto of 1992. It said that the Conservative party wanted to continue to reduce taxes as fast as it could. But during the last Government's term of office a typical family—this afternoon Conservative Members have been professing concern about families and people on lower incomes—paid an extra £2,000 in tax. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify that?
  Mr. Lilley: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to apologise to the British people for what he said before the election, which has been rebutted and refuted since?
  Mr. Darling: I shall come to our manifesto in just a minute.
  The Conservatives fought the 1992 election explicitly on tax, and they won. We all remember the pollsters and the so-called double whammy. The Conservatives won the election because they fought it on tax; indeed, they tried to fight the last election in 1997 on exactly the same grounds, but they failed because they had been condemned by their very own actions.
  We also remember the then Prime Minister saying in March 1992:
  "Low tax opens doors…High tax slams the doors on the hopes that are common to all."
  There have been a lot of slamming doors in the course of the last few years.
  Mr. Sayeed rose—
  Mr. Darling: How does the hon. Gentleman justify that? He should know because he lost his seat in 1992.
  Mr. Sayeed: The right hon. Gentleman said that an average family paid £2,000 more tax during the previous Parliament, from 1992 to 1997. Will he remind the House by how much the income of an average family increased during that period?
  Mr. Darling: Incomes have been rising over many years. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues fought the 1992 general election on an explicit promise of reducing taxes—[Interruption.] They said:
  "Conservatives have an 'allergy to tax'",
  and that they were
  "fighting for low taxation"—
  [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We can hear only one speech at a time.
  Mr. Darling: Memories of 1992 seem to be painful for Conservative Members—although they are perhaps rather less painful than memories of 1997. So I shall turn to that manifesto. Labour's 1997 general election manifesto made it clear that we would not increase the top or the basic income tax rates. That was our promise—which we kept in our first Budget, last year, and which we will keep in every single year of this Parliament.
  Mr. Nick Gibb: If the Chief Secretary says that the Labour party did not rule out tax rises before the Budget, does he deny also that, on 8 January 1997, on "The World at One", the Prime Minister said:
  "What I have said is the programme of the Labour party does not imply any tax increases at all"?
  Mr. Darling: The charge that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was referring to was one that had been made by the previous Government—that we had all sorts of hidden spending plans, which we did not have. We are sticking to the previous Government's spending plans, as we said we would.
  As for hidden taxes, our manifesto was absolutely clear about what we would do. Moreover, we were repeatedly questioned on our pledge on the top and basic income tax rates. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were questioned on that pledge, as was everyone else. The only ones who might not have noticed our pledge were Conservative Members—but that does not surprise me. On most days of the general election campaign, they were not fighting us so much as they were fighting each other. It is therefore not surprising that they did not notice what was in our manifesto.
  Everyone who went to the polls on 1 May 1997 would have been very aware of our statements, and of our explicit promise on the top and basic income tax rates. I remember my right hon. Friend the Chancellor saying that no prudent Chancellor or shadow Chancellor could ever exclude examining other aspects of the tax system—which was the same point that was made, to his credit, by the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is in the Chamber. No Chancellor would want to box himself in in such a manner.
  We have kept our promises on the top and basic rates of income tax, and we have kept two other tax promises. First, we delivered on our promise to reduce to 5 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel. Secondly—yes, we will plead guilty to a tax rise—we delivered on our promise to impose a windfall tax on the privatised utilities. We implemented that tax, and the new deal—which that tax is largely financing—is about to be rolled out across the country.
  The shadow Chancellor said that we inherited a "golden legacy"—but we inherited a situation in which the national debt had doubled in six years. We are now paying £26 billion annually on servicing that debt, which is more than we spend on schools.
  Again in 1992, the Conservative party presented itself as the party of sound finance—which was one of the many reasons why it lost the 1997 general election. People did
  340
  not believe Conservatives on tax, or in their ability to control public spending. People remembered what the Conservative party said in 1992—that it would not increase taxes. In March 1992, Norman Lamont said that he could not
  "see any circumstances in which that would be necessary."
  Yet, a year later, he was piling on taxes at every opportunity.
  What about VAT? Let us recall what the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said about that. In March 1992, he said:
  "We have no plans and no need to increase the impact of VAT."
  Two days later, he said:
  "There will be no VAT increase." — [Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 808.]
  He said that he had
  "made it clear. We have no need and no plans to extend the scope of VAT."
  Yet, on 16 March 1993, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer increased VAT on domestic fuel.
  The VAT increase did not come as a surprise to Labour Members. We remember that, in 1979, we were accused of telling lies when we said that the Tories, if they were elected to government, would double VAT. The first thing that they did in government was to increase VAT from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Chief Secretary explain why he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer continue alleging that the previous Government left such a terrible debt legacy, whereas only three countries in Europe meet the Maastricht debt criteria—Britain being one of them, ahead of France, Germany and Italy, all of which will not meet those criteria? How can we have left such a terrible debt legacy?
  Mr. Darling: It is a pleasure to hear Conservative Members praying in aid, rather than abusing, other European countries. I repeat that the situation that we inherited was one in which debt was being added annually. We cannot sustain a situation in which the country spends more on servicing those debt levels than on education. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear in his Budget last year, and again when he introduced last year's pre-Budget report, our strategy has been to ensure that we have sustainable and sound public finances—which the Conservative party did not see to during its 18 years in government.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, between November 1996 and November 1997, the forecast for net public sector debt towards the end of the century decreased by £16 billion, which will be a £1 billion annual saving in interest costs?
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Because of Conservative policies.
  Mr. Davies: That decrease is not a hidden tax cost but a hidden tax reduction—which we would not have achieved with a Conservative Government.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said that the saving was achieved by

  341
  Conservative policies, but it was achieved by the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in ensuring that debt levels are reduced, so that our public finances are sustainable.
  Mr. Sayeed: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarkerose—
  Mr. Darling: No, I will not. I am very conscious that this is an Opposition debate, and I should not wish to intrude on the speeches that Opposition Members would like to make. However, I shall certainly give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe.
  Mr. Clarke: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that I have been fairly patient while listening to his bizarre interpretation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's inheritance. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government took over a situation in which I had underestimated the rate at which the public sector borrowing requirement was falling and in which we were on course for a balanced Budget before the end of the century—with the inevitable consequence that we were on course to reduce the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product?
  Will the Chief Secretary also recall that, when we fought the general election, our only economic debate was on Labour's plans to increase taxation? The then Chief Secretary and I stated possible ways in which we thought that the Labour party would raise taxation for various reasons—including its spending commitments to allow local authorities to spend capital receipts and to ease capping limits, which the Government have implemented.
  The Chief Secretary and the Chancellor denied any intention of raising taxes. During the general election campaign, we were accused of scaremongering, as the Chancellor denied in terms that he would touch PEPs or TESSAs, or that he would tackle the tax treatment of pension funds. As the Chief Secretary looks back to the general election, he should look back with shame.
  Mr. Darling: Last night, when I wrote to the right hon. and learned Gentleman stating that I might refer to him in the debate, I knew that he would probably turn up just to hear what I said about him. I shall deal with some of those points— [Interruption.] My letter merely demonstrates that we observe the courtesies of the House.
  I shall deal now with some of the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, and return to one or two of them later in my speech. I was particularly struck by his point that, in November 1996, he and the then Chief Secretary launched an allegation that Labour had 89 spending promises. I remember that very well, and was very grateful that the Conservative party should tell us about those promises several months before the general election. As he knows, most of those allegations simply did not stand up. One or two of them—such as a reduction in class sizes—formed part of our manifesto. However, the point is that the Conservative party accused us of having all sorts of quite fantastic spending commitments that were simply not true.
  342
  Privately, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might accept that. I shall return to the subject of company taxation shortly.
  Mr. Sayeed: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. Darling: No, I will not. This is an Opposition day debate, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman and others will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. Darling: I have made it clear that I am not giving way for the moment.
  The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) did not mention national insurance. Hon. Members will recall that the then Prime Minister said explicitly that he had no plans to raise the top rate of tax, but a year later the Conservatives increased it from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. Reference has been made to mortgage interest tax relief. It was said that we had done a terrible thing. The 1992 manifesto stated explicitly:
  "We will maintain mortgage tax relief'—
  but listen to this, a year later:
  "Luckily we didn't say at what rate."
  That was the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, who, in his candid and appealing way, was quite frank about what had happened.
  This is the essential point about the Conservatives. First, they made promises that they did not keep. Secondly, they raised taxes because of economic failure and misjudgment of economic signals in the late 1980s. Thirdly, it was not tax reform that was driving the increases; tax increases were necessary because of the Conservatives' failed policies. There was no long-term vision, and no strategy. It was simply a matter of rushing around with a biscuit tin trying to gather money—a series of short-term fixes that ended in economic and, certainly, political failure.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. Darling: I will do so in a moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may wish to deal with the point that I am about to make.
  One thing that illustrates the short-term nature of the last Government is what they did to the corporate sector. We have been criticised for removing major distortions of the company tax regime by scrapping the payable tax credits and ACT, but the point is that businesses gain in the long term, after the transitional period. We took that action because we believed that managers or investors, not the tax system, should decide on companies' strategy—whether they should retain or invest profits. We think that that decision is right in principle.
  When I looked back to see why the Tories had cut ACT in 1993, and to see what issue of principle obtained then, I found it quite revealing. The then Financial Secretary,

  343
  the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Done11), gave this explanation of why the Tories had cut ACT. They needed to raise revenue
  "from a group of people with taxable capacity, but who are not taxpayers, in a way that does minimum economic damage".— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 June 1993; c. 377.]
  No principle was involved. The Tories cut ACT because they needed the money. Norman Lamont, who was then Chancellor, was quite up front about that. No issue of principle drove the Tories' company tax reforms.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. Darling: No, I will not.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
  Mr. Darling: Yes, I was going to give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Clarke: I thank the Chief Secretary for being kinder to me than to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). I genuinely appreciate his courtesy.
  The Chief Secretary ignores the fact that Norman Lamont's change brought ACT into line with the 20 per cent. rate. That has already been pointed out. Subsequently, we did not increase corporate taxation—although the Labour party made tremendous play of the tax increases that we made—because we wanted to look after the industrial recovery that was getting under way, which brought about the falls in unemployment that we eventually produced.
  Does the Chief Secretary concede that his Government have loaded £22 billion on to the corporate sector over the lifetime of the current Parliament? Combined with high interest rates and a high pound, that is already bringing what is left of our manufacturing base near to a state of recession. Industrial production is falling because of the Government's tax policies, which were not announced at the time of the last election.
  Mr. Darling: I do not accept any of that. Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman taken the appropriate action on interest rates before the election, some of our difficulties might have been avoided.
  When it comes to making long-term judgments, whether on tax increases or on anything else, the Government's whole record leaves much to be desired. In the late 1980s, which many Conservatives now try to disown as if that period was nothing to do with them, they completely misread the economic signals. They did what the Liberal Democrats want us to do—looked at optimistic figures, and started spending money as if everything was sorted out. That is precisely what the Liberal Democrats' amendment calls on us to do.
  In the late 1980s, the last Government went on a spending spree, with the result that inflation nearly doubled in the space of two years and interest rates went up to 14 per cent. That legacy resulted in one of the deepest recessions that the country has ever seen. When it came down to it, the last Government were always looking for the short-term advantage rather than the long-term interests of the country.
  344
  We are committed to a strategy that is fair and seen to be fair. That is why we reduced VAT. We want to encourage work, and to make work pay. That is why we are examining the whole question of tax and benefits. We have cut the main rate of corporation tax. The Conservatives ask what we have done for business. We have cut the rate of corporation tax, and indicated a further cut to come. That helps the profitability of companies.
  We introduced a windfall tax on the privatised utilities, which had made colossal profits because of the way in which they were privatised. That money is now being used to get the young and the long-term unemployed back into work. We have taken the necessary action to prevent overheating in the housing market—just as the Conservatives did, to give them credit, although they do not like to admit it now. Norman Lamont, whom many of them now pretend never to have known, recognised that there are circumstances in which a Government must take the necessary action to ensure that house prices do not escalate as they did in the late 1980s, when Nigel Lawson completely relaxed any sensible and prudent control.
  We set in place a long-term framework for interest rate decisions, to keep inflation down. We are committed to the golden rule for prudence in public spending. We have set out a tough five-year deficit reduction plan, to which the Government will rigorously adhere. We will not make the mistakes of earlier Governments, Conservative or Labour, who failed to control public spending and then had to cut back as a consequence of that failure.
  We have learnt the lessons of the late 1980s, when public finances and the economy's ability to sustain growth were completely misjudged by the last Government, plunging us into the longest recession since the war. Next Tuesday's Budget will not be a Budget for quick fixes in the short term; it will be a Budget for investment in the long term. We will continue to lay the foundations to build a more dynamic and successful economy, but we will not sacrifice our spending discipline and our commitment to prudence. Instead, there will be consistency to ensure long-term prosperity.
  We have inherited a £400 billion national debt. As I have said, we have inherited £26 billion a year in interest payments, and a borrowing requirement last year of £23 billion, with the deficit due to continue into next year. We need to get that under control, and to ensure prudence in our public finances. That is our priority, not just in one year but in every year across the economic cycle. Just as there will be no return to boom and bust in the economy, there will be no return to soft options in public spending.
  We were elected because we said that we would take the long-term view. We said that we would make tough decisions, because that is the only way in which to guarantee our future in the long term. That is the difference between this Government and the last. We are prepared to look to the long term. We are prepared to make the decisions that we need to make. But, above all, we look to the long term. Encouraging enterprise and work, and making work pay, are at the top of our agenda.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. Darling: No, I will not.
  Today's debate has shown that the Opposition have learnt absolutely nothing from their defeat. When they were asked a simple question about whether they would

  345
  reinstate payable tax credits, they could not answer. The truth is that, nearly a year after the election, they still do not know where they are—which is why they have called a debate today to fight the battles of more than a year ago.
  In contrast, this Government are looking to the long term for the good of the whole country. We are laying the foundations for the future. That is why we enjoy the trust of the people of this country, and the Conservative party does not.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I was astonished to see the Conservatives' motion on broken tax promises. It shows that, despite all the disappointment after the general election, someone at the Conservative party still has a sense of humour. It may be normal for politicians to try to change their spots, but we have never seen such an absurd attempt to re-brand after so short a period of penance.
  Do the Conservatives honestly believe that we have forgotten their record and the broken promises on value added tax, mortgage interest tax relief and general taxation? Have they forgotten their hidden taxes and the way in which they forced council tax up to shuffle off the responsibility to local government?
  Mr. Jenkin: That is what Labour is doing.
  Mr. Bruce: If the Conservative party's complaint is that the Labour Government are playing tricks on the taxpayer, we might ask who taught them those tricks. The Conservative Government had an 18-year history of deception over tax. Did they tell people in manifestos over those years that, when they promised to cut income tax, they intended to finance it by more than doubling the rate of VAT? Of course not.
  Mr. Jenkin: When they were opposing VAT on fuel, did the Liberal Democrats ever explain to the electorate the consequences of a carbon tax?
  Mr. Bruce: We most certainly did. The former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), said that any responsible Opposition party would present a draft alternative Budget, which the Liberal Democrats have done every year. Does the shadow Chancellor intend to produce an alternative Budget this week to tell us what the Conservative party would do, rather than simply attacking the Government for pursuing many of the policies and approaches set in train by the previous Government?
  I asked the Library to look at the effects of both Tory and Labour Budgets since 1992. If the tax rises in the Tories' 1993–94 Budgets were continued, on automatic indexing, to the end of the century, they would amount to £109 billion. That is an extraordinary increase for a party that came to power on a pledge to reduce taxation. After 18 years, the Conservatives presided over higher taxes than they inherited in 1979.
  346
  It is not at all clear from the motion what the Conservative party is opposed to or, indeed, what it is in favour of. It has a record of constantly introducing hidden, deceptive taxes, yet it complains when the new Government do exactly the same.
  Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his thesis that neither the Labour party nor the Conservative party raised taxes as high as his party would raise them?
  Mr. Bruce: We have stated clearly our objectives and priorities and what extra taxation would be involved. The other two parties have said that they can deliver, implying that one can have more for less. That has never added up. The Tories could never deliver, and Labour cannot do so now.
  That is the fundamental reason why we set out in both our manifesto and our alternative Budget the cost difference in our policies compared with those of the Government of the day. This weekend, as we have always done, we shall produce our own alternative Budget. Are the Conservatives prepared to do that? The former Chancellor said that any responsible Opposition party would. I think that it has been confirmed that the Conservatives are not such a party.
  The Tories have experienced 10 months of total shell shock in which they have been all over the place. They have now decided that perhaps they ought to do a little bit of opposing, but when asked what they are in favour of, they do not know. They have not come to terms with that part of opposition, because what they are in favour of is, presumably, what they were doing in government, which the people so firmly rejected. That leaves them in some understandable difficulty.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Liberal Democrats are in favour of everything and nothing.
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman may make abusive remarks, but he knows perfectly well that we are a party that does not merely rhetorically state that we are in favour of "education, education, education" but specifically states which elements of education we would invest in, how much it would cost and where the money would come from. In our view, that is how responsible politics should be conducted.
  It is no wonder that the electorate are disillusioned by politicians who tell them only a quarter of the story. The good news is up front, but the price is hidden.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: When the hon. Gentleman says that politicians say only a quarter of what they mean, does that apply to his penny extra on income tax?
  Mr. Bruce: That extra penny has been clearly costed. At the time of the general election, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that our costed proposals were broadly in line with the outcome. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members are implying that the institute is in some way not independent or responsible, so be it.
  The Labour Government may argue, as the Chief Secretary said, that all that they specifically pledged in the general election campaign was that they would not

  347
  increase the basic or higher rates of tax, but they gave the impression, because they were sticking to Tory spending plans, that there would be no significant additional tax requirements other than the windfall tax. Indeed, the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, seems to have said that in so many words, and that is certainly what the electorate understood.
  The reality is that the Government have introduced massive tax increases, almost exactly comparable to those of the Tories when they were in government. The present Chancellor, as shadow Chancellor, said that he was determined to build a new trust on tax with the British people and to get tax rates down for ordinary families, but that is hardly what has been happening.
  The Library confirms that, since the general election, the Chancellor has raised taxes by £30 billion, excluding the huge rise in council tax that is now taking place. The Government did not want to publish those facts, but they have been calculated by the Library.
  Those tax rises—fuel and tobacco duties, mortgage interest tax relief, taxes on pensions, business taxes, council taxes and many more—affect all parts of society, and the Labour party has been in power for less than a year. Our point is certainly not that all those tax rises were unnecessary or undesirable.
  Mr. Darling: What exactly is the Liberal Democrats' position on tobacco duties? Do they think that they should go down or up?
  Mr. Bruce: Our position is entirely clear. Our manifesto said that we would increase tobacco duties in order to abolish dental and eye test charges. The Labour and Conservative parties are not getting the message. It is a question not of whether one is in favour of taxes but of whether one is prepared to tell the electorate honestly the costs of one' s programme and how one intends to raise the money.
  We said frequently before the general election that the state of public finances meant that any pre-election tax cuts would be unsustainable. We had the honesty to say on the record that taxes could not be cut and would have to rise somewhat after the election.
  Before the election, the Labour party voted in favour of tax cuts. Afterwards, it piled the taxes back on, just as we predicted. How does that strategy help to avoid boom and bust? Such chopping and changing creates uncertainty among voters and businesses and in the economy in general.
  The Conservative and Labour parties are acting like a pair of pickpockets: the quickness of the hand deceives the eye, and the taxpayers' pockets are lighter.
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: Not as light as they would be under the hon. Gentleman's party.
  Mr. Bruce: The tax rises that are now in place, combined with the Conservative tax rises feeding through—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) is out of order, and has a very bad habit of interrupting when other hon. Members are speaking.
  Mr. Bruce: If the tax rises that are in place are fed through, without any change of Government policy,
  348
  the highest taxes in British history will be achieved at about the turn of the century. Not all the tax rises that have been put in place are necessary, and I do not believe that the Government believe that they are necessary.
  The Government are getting their tax rises in now so that they can build up a war chest which may be used to boost spending in the run-up to the general election. That would give the appearance of cutting taxes just before the election and the Government could say how generous they were, but the Government would only be giving back to taxpayers the money that they took from them four years previously.
  Labour Back Benchers should be aware of the implications of what is happening: if reports in today's press are anything to go by, and departmental spending limits are to be frozen for the next three years, control of the war chest will rest entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not in those of departmental Ministers and certainly not those of Labour Members. The Chief Secretary laughs, so I suspect that I have hit the right button, and that will happen.
  It is evident from the projected size of the Government's cyclically adjusted current balance, and from their reluctance to reveal the figures in black and white, that a war chest is being built up. Again, I had to ask the Library to do the calculations. I look forward to the Government passing a fiscal responsibility Act that requires them to publish the figures and put them on the record, so that people are not forced to work them out from the information available.
  The Chief Secretary implied that Liberal Democrats take the view that the Government should be irresponsible. Our view is that the Government are deliberately being extremely cautious. Andrew Dilnot told the Treasury Select Committee:
  "The Treasury and the Government are publishing forecasts"—
  on public finances—
  "which are based on their view of what the worst case is".
  Although the Government are being relatively cautious overall, the forecasts for a number of areas, in particular value added tax, are very cautious. The Government's cash flow gain from the proposed changes to advance corporation tax is not in the forecast, because it is a proposal. Andrew Dilnot continued:
  "At every possible point, I think the Government has…taken a cautious stance".
  A projection of incomes for this Parliament shows a massive surplus which will enable the Government to reduce national debt, and to do a great deal more besides. One can therefore assume that there will be a spending objective, and probably a tax-cutting objective, in the second half of the Parliament. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that, except that it is inconsistent with the rhetoric used when the election was fought, which is the opposite of what the Chief Secretary claims. The Government's squeezing of public services now, and any throwing of money at them later in the Parliament, will create a bust-boom cycle in those services just when they are trying to squeeze such cycles out of macro-economic management. That is crazy and destructive.

  349
  It is impossible for the Government to fulfil their early pledges against that background: they have abandoned any pretence that they will cut hospital waiting lists, and class sizes are still rising.
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: Why does the hon. Gentleman persist in peddling the myth that maintaining the spending limits of the previous Government is the same as pursuing their spending priorities? Before the general election, people in my locality faced £5 million of cuts in our school budgets and 70 teacher redundancies. As a result of the extra money that has been provided by the Government for schools, there will be no cuts or teacher redundancies, and 95 per cent. of our five, six and seven-year-olds will be taught in classes of 30 pupils or fewer from September. In addition, bed blocking, where perhaps 70 or 80 elderly people blocked beds in our local hospitals, is no longer a problem as a direct result of extra money going into the national health service. Will the hon. Gentleman stop peddling the myth that we are not spending money on public services?
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman might be vindicated if his 409 colleagues were able to tell the same story for every constituency, but he knows that Government objectives—for example, cutting hospital waiting lists—have effectively been abandoned for the time being, which is the logical consequence of sticking to the previous Government's spending targets. I did not specifically say that sticking to Conservative spending plans necessarily meant that the Government were sticking to every detail of Conservative spending policy, but where did the cut in single parent benefits come from if it was not a Conservative proposal that the Government were forced to adopt to meet departmental spending totals? The shadow Chancellor could probably confirm that. Unless the Government are prepared to find the resources, it will be impossible for them to deliver their early pledges. Taxes have gone up, but public services continue to be squeezed, which is an irresponsible and unjustified way to manage the public sector that will seriously damage health and education.
  We must change the way in which financial information is presented. If a fiscal responsibility Act had been passed, a statement of fiscal and economic priorities would have had to be put before the people before the general election, and there would not have been an emergency Budget after it. We could have debated the issues during the general election campaign on the basis of objective facts, rather than having the previous Government suppress information and the new Government alter figures to justify tax rises for building up a war chest to deploy later in the Parliament.
  The cynical way in which voters have been treated will lead to a breakdown of trust. The Conservatives were thrown out of office after 18 years because they claimed that theirs was a tax-cutting party, but put overall tax levels up. Labour came into office with a pledge on taxes, but broke it within a year. The Government are manipulating the tax system to secure short-term political gain, but I must warn them that people will become cynical about that process. The Government are doing serious damage to the public services in the short term, which may take more than a Parliament to put right. The voters will make their own judgment on that
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: The Government's record on taxation is a curious topic for the Opposition to choose for a Supply day debate. Most people accept that general elections are determined by two predominant issues—economic competence and the record of the Government of the day on taxation—and the record general election landslide of only 10 months ago was largely a judgment of the previous Government's record on those issues. When I read the title of today's motion, I wondered whether Conservative Members would finally let the Government into the secret of how they introduced hidden taxes and got away with it for at least 13 years.
  Everyone accepts that, for years, the Tories cynically and unashamedly conned the British people on taxation. They claimed the mantle of being the party of low taxation and economic competence for election after election, but history shows that we had a boom and bust economy. When the Tories left office, the tax burden on the British people was greater than when Labour left office in 1979.
  As the Tories systematically set about reducing income tax, other taxes were increased and introduced. We need only consider commitments and promises that were made by senior Conservatives while they were in government. Before the 1992 general election, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said:
  "In the next Parliament we will go on tax cutting. We will make that our aim year after year".
  What happened during the last Parliament? We had 22 hidden Tory tax rises, costing a typical family more than £2,000 extra in tax.
  Before the 1992 general election, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon said:
  "We have no need and no plans to extend the scope of VAT."
  What actually happened? VAT was imposed on fuel at 8 per cent., which is regarded by most people as one of the most disgraceful taxes imposed by any Government. We should not forget that they would have increased that 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent., had it not been for the combined opposition of Labour Members and Tory Members representing marginal seats, such as my predecessor, who regarded it as the "nail in the coffin" tax. Little did he know that there were many more nails to come.
  The Tories' tax record might have been defendable if it had contributed to economic and social renewal, but the legacy of their 18 years in government is underfunded and underperforming schools and hospitals, record expenditure on welfare, not work, and a crumbling infrastructure. I find it strange when Conservative Members talk about the decline in manufacturing industry, which was one the greatest legacies of Thatcher years, but choose to blame us for that after only 10 months in office. They presided over a second-rate economy and deteriorating public services, despite the fact that they had the proceeds from North sea oil revenues and the income generated by the privatisation of public utilities. No better windfall has been available to any Government in history than the one the Tory Governments had at their disposal.
  The British people are entitled to ask, "Where did all our money go during those years?" The answer is relatively straightforward: the Conservative party chose disproportionate tax cuts for the few at the expense of the

  351
  many; they chose to pay the bill of economic failure, funding unemployment instead of investing in jobs; they chose to steal from the taxpayer, as demonstrated by the scandalous sell-off of some of our public assets—flogged off at knockdown prices to fat cats with share options and excessive salaries.
  Let us compare and contrast that record with the Labour Government's mere 10 months in office. In our election manifesto, the current Government made some clear promises. We promised to reduce VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. and we have delivered on that commitment. We promised a windfall tax on the excess profits of the privatised utilities in order to fund the most ambitious welfare-to-work scheme in our history. Despite being told before the election that the windfall tax would be illegal and unfeasible, we have done it and young people, the long-term unemployed, disabled people and single parents are all to be given opportunities denied to them during the years of Conservative government. We have kept our promise not to put up the basic or top rate of income tax. We have kept our promises not to extend VAT to food, children's clothes, books, newspapers or public transport fares. It is true that we hid the fact that we would reduce corporation tax to the lowest level ever seen in this country; we did not say that before the election, so if we are to be accused of a hidden tax, we shall accept that one.
  Conservative Members accuse the Government of 17 tax rises, but they fail to say that, of those 17, seven are the closure of tax loopholes. Does the Conservative party support the closure of tax loopholes? Would the Conservatives reinstate those loopholes if they were ever to regain power? They will not answer those questions. The truth is that the rationale behind the debate is straightforward: Conservative Members know that the British people will neither forgive nor forget their tax record. They know the true meaning and long-term political implications of the statement made by the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), before the last election. Conservative Members should remember what he said, because it will come back to haunt them time and again. He said:
  "The public will be deeply suspicious of any tax cuts because they remember we promised tax cuts last time and unfortunately weren't able to deliver them."
  In contrast, the Labour Government will continue to keep their promises on tax. A fair tax system will encourage and reward those who work hard and play by the rules. It will be designed to benefit the many, not the few. It will underpin the Government's belief that economic prosperity and social justice are inextricably linked. The Conservatives should understand that our record in government will once and for all undermine their smears about Labour and tax. Theirs is no longer the party of law and order, no longer the party of business and now no longer the party of low taxation or economic competence. I sincerely hope that they can find a new niche in British politics—after all, a healthy democracy requires a credible Opposition.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It has been 10 months since the general election, yet what an insidious record the Government have on tax.
  The Labour Government hit the home owner by reducing mortgage interest relief at source, but one of the worst aspects of the tax changes introduced by the Labour
  352
  Government is that most of them hit the poorest in society hardest. Let us take the cut in MIRAS. The maximum tax relief available under MIRAS is about £340 a year which, to someone on the top rate of tax, is not a huge sum, but to someone on the basic or lower rate of tax, who would not even get that amount, it is a considerable sum.
  The tax changes will hit all our constituents, including the elderly. One of the most insidious changes of all was the abolition of ACT. The Association of Consulting Actuaries has worked out that someone aged 30 saving £100 a month would have to increase his or her pension by 12 per cent. to maintain the same level of pension. The abolition of ACT has other consequences: companies will have to pay out higher dividends because they will be pressured by pension funds and other investing companies that want the same level of return, so the yield on gilts will fall. That has a knock-on impact on other savers.
  The tax changes hit the young, by reducing the grants paid to students. Poor parents are hit by the abolition of the assisted places scheme. Above all, the Government have shifted money away from rural areas to urban areas. [Interruption.] If Labour Members listen, they may learn something. To increase taxes on petrol is discriminatory against rural dwellers, whose cars are essential. Many of them cannot get to the doctor or to the post office to claim their benefits without use of a car. Labour Members will say that that is our fault for deregulating the buses, but it would never be economic to run a bus service in many places. In my constituency, the hamlets are too small for a bus service to run, so the residents have to rely on their cars for day-to-day living.
  We have already had a 6p increase in petrol in the November Budget and, no doubt, there will be a huge whack put on petrol next week. Rural dwellers will not forgive the Government for those increases in petrol duty, nor will they forgive the huge increases in council tax that they will have to pay. Under the local government support settlement, urban areas were given good settlements—for example, the increase in Sedgefield was a staggering 13 per cent., whereas we in rural Gloucestershire received an increase of only 5 per cent. I ask the Chief Secretary, who has just left the Chamber, whether that sort of gerrymandering of funds away from rural areas is fair.
  We are seeing the same in the national health service. The national increase in NHS funding was 2 per cent., but rural Gloucestershire got only 1.4 per cent. The result is that each day in the health service in Gloucestershire, 100 people who, clinically speaking, should not be there block beds and, as a result, operations are cancelled and waiting lists get longer. The Financial Secretary should listen to these points. It costs about £150 a day to keep someone in hospital, whereas it costs between £30 and £50 a day to give them a proper domiciliary care, residential care or nursing care package and so get them out of hospital. Nationally, such policies make no sense whatsoever.
  The Budget is coming up next week. I have already alluded to the road tax increase that it is likely to introduce, but I have no doubt that it will contain further tax increases. Savers have already been penalised by the abolition of personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts. It would be interesting to know from the Financial Secretary whether the report in today's Financial Times that she is thinking of scrapping the £50,000 limit is true.

  353
  The Financial Secretary has, I hope, listened to the savings industry, which reckons that it would be almost impossible to police that lifetime limit. In any case, it would set a dangerous precedent of a retrospective tax. I hope that she will be able to give at least my middle-England, middle-income and low-income constituents some cheer, if not this evening, then in the Budget, by saying that the £50,000 limit will be scrapped.
  The Conservative party left this Government the golden legacy of the best-performing economy in Europe. We had the golden scenario, which has been achieved only twice since the war, of growth outstripping inflation. This evening, we have heard much about Government expenditure and taxation, but, as any economist knows, the only way in which to go on satisfactorily putting more money into public services is by achieving growth that is higher than inflation. The sad fact is that, because of the economic changes that the Government have brought about, growth is beginning to slow and inflation is beginning to rise.
  The five interest rate rises since the election keep the pound far too high. Unfortunately, that is having a disastrous effect on our manufacturing industry. Today's business news page in The Daily Telegraph reports that the British Retail Consortium reckons that
  "annual sales growth fell from 6.1 per cent. in January to 3.4 per cent. in February".
  Much more important, the article says:
  "Separate figures yesterday reveal that output of British-made goods stagnated in January for the second month in a row and has fallen by 0.6 per cent. over the past three months. Simon Briscoe of Nikko Europe said: 'The message is clear—industry is on the brink of recession."'
  It would be sad if this Government, who inherited one of the best economic circumstances since the war, by economic mismanagement put this great economy and this great country, which had such superb prospects, into recession in two and a half years' time.
  The Government have not taken into account the damage that the strength of the pound is having on manufacturing industry, the deflationary effect throughout Europe that meeting the Maastricht criteria will have, the deflationary effect of the situation in the far east and, above all, the deflationary effect of the structural problems with the American economy. I will hold the Government to account, as will my constituents, if we run into a recession in two and a half to three years' time. Sadly, that is what may happen.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Bill Rammell: We have had an interesting debate, but unfortunately it has generated much heat and not much light. We heard the accusation from the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, during the general election campaign, the Labour party made a commitment that it would never raise any taxes. Yet, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has rightly pointed out, during that campaign, every time interviewers said, "You have said that you will not raise the top and standard rate of income tax. What about all those other indirect taxes?", the then Chancellor and then Prime Minister said that no
  354
  responsible Chancellor would give a commitment on the 200 or so indirect taxes and tax reliefs. Therefore, to claim that we have acted differently from that is extraordinarily misleading.
  We have heard accusations over tuition fees and the response to Dearing. During the general election campaign, we said clearly that we would accept the outcome of the Dearing report and that is broadly what we have done, with the exception that we have protected the poorest students, which should be the Government's absolute priority.
  Mr. Heald: Where does the Dearing report mention scrapping maintenance grants? While the hon. Gentleman is talking about taxes, by how much is his council tax going up in Harlow?
  Mr. Rammell: Our clear commitment during the general election campaign was that we would move from a system of maintenance grants to one of student loans. We said that we would accept the rest of the Dearing package, which is what we have done, with the exception that we have protected the poorest students.
  The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden had the audacity to lecture us about decent pension provision. When the Tories were in office, they encouraged people to opt out of decent company schemes—which was never going to be in their interests—and millions of pensions were mis-sold, from which many people are still suffering. On that issue, a period of silence from the Opposition would be appropriate.
  The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said that Labour was bad for business and that the Conservative party would defend business. What is bad for business is the refusal of a once-great party to judge the issue of economic and monetary union on its merits. Instead, it digs in with an extreme ideological position, which leaves business despairing about the Conservatives' attitude towards one of the most crucial issues that we face as we head towards the 21st century.
  I had to check my notes when I was listening to the shadow Chancellor. I heard him say that any tax reduction by the Government would be welcome. This Government have made it clear that they will not raise the top rate of income tax, but, presumably, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said today, he would welcome a cut in the top rate of income tax. Nothing could demonstrate more clearly the Conservative party's fundamentally misplaced sense of priorities, given the problems that we face in public services and the need for any tax reductions to be targeted at people on low incomes. I would welcome confirmation from the Opposition Treasury Front-Bench team that that is what the right hon. Gentleman was saying.
  The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) spoke about the reduction in MIRAS. Has he conveniently forgotten, just 10 months after the general election, that it was the Tory Government who cut MIRAS year on year? He went on completely to dismiss the impact of bus deregulation on the provision of public transport in rural communities. It is convenient to forget that impact. We will not let Conservative Members forget the fact that they introduced bus deregulation, since when bus services in

  355
  rural and urban areas alike have decreased by 25 per cent. They need to remind people in rural areas about that as well.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The point that I was making about MIRAS is that the cuts that have been imposed by this Government are regressive. We restricted MIRAS to the basic rate of tax because we felt that we were being too generous. Therefore, my point is entirely valid. The effect on low-paid people is much more severe if MIRAS is abolished altogether.
  Mr. Rammell: The hon. Gentleman is conveniently trying to correct history after what happened, year on year, under the Conservative Government.
  It speaks volumes that, as usual, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesperson, has walked into the Chamber, made a speech and then walked out. Nothing undermines the case for constructive tax-and-spend policies more than dishonest and irresponsible opposition that is based on plans that simply do not add up. The Labour party had 18 years to learn that fact. Unfortunately, it will take the Liberal Democrats much longer to learn it.
  Liberal Democrats support the new deal, yet do not support the windfall tax to fund it. They say that they want council tax capping to be lifted, but they oppose every council tax increase that is introduced. They have committed themselves to raising £6 billion in extra taxation and £23 billion in extra borrowing, all to be funded from the famous penny on the standard rate of income tax. That is irresponsible gesture politics.
  The heart of this debate serves as a smokescreen for the Conservative party on a range of issues. It is trying to claim that it may have been wrong and dishonest during its last period in office, but that all politicians are much the same. The reason why it makes that claim is that, at the general election, it was convicted by the British electorate of dishonesty in public life, with the cash-for-questions affair, and of abusing and misusing the power of patronage, with the appointment to public bodies only of people who carried Conservative party cards. Most importantly, the Conservatives were convicted of breaking key and specific pledges given before the 1992 election. Let us examine what happened under the Conservative Government.
  The charge against the Conservative party was not based on statements that we took out of context—words which, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) once infamously and disingenuously claimed, were said off the cuff on a wet night in Dudley. The charge was that the Conservatives broke specific commitments given in answer to specific questions. They knew exactly what they were saying and why those statements and claims were false. It has been a long history. It goes back as far as 1979, when Lord Howe said:
  "We have absolutely no intention of doubling VAT."
  Yet as soon as the general election was over, that was exactly what he did.
  356
  In 1992 the Conservatives said that they would not increase the scope or rate of VAT or increase national insurance contributions. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said at the time:
  "Unlike the Labour party, we have published our spending plans and there is no need for us to raise VAT to meet them. Neither, so there is no doubt, do we plan to raise the level of National Insurance contributions."
  Yet that was exactly what the Conservative Government did in their first Budget after the general election.
  The Conservatives claimed that they would cut taxes year on year yet, as Labour Members know, during 18 years of Tory government, the tax take as a proportion of GDP went up from 34.3 per cent. in 1979 to 35.8 per cent. in 1996. It was higher than in 1979 in every year bar one of the 18 Tory years.
  No party in a general election campaign can or will give a commitment on every tax measure. It would give up its ability to govern and react to circumstances if it did. If one does not want to give a commitment, one does not respond to specific questions on that commitment, but that is what the Tory party did. It was challenged repeatedly on specific commitments and gave answers that were subsequently found to be false. That is what this debate is all about.
  We have made it clear that the debate about tax is about trust. We gave a central commitment in the election campaign not on all the issues that have been discussed today, but on the standard and top rates of taxation. I do not deny that that has given us problems within the Government in that we cannot increase public expenditure as quickly as we would wish, but we made a commitment. We made a promise to the electorate. That is the fundamental difference between the Labour party in government and the party that is now in opposition.
  I spent every year of my adult life until 1 May last year under a Conservative Government, and I find astonishing the degree to which the Conservatives have lost touch on tax and do not make their arguments with clarity. This is about faith and trust in politics. Those are the issues on which we convinced the people on 1 May last year and nothing has changed since then.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: In rising to support the motion tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am reminded of a conversation that I had during the general election campaign. An elderly voter remarked on a performance by the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). That elderly voter, now my constituent, said that the right hon. Gentleman resembled nothing so much as an American-style, fake and phoney television evangelist pushing a dodgy creed. We all know what that dodgy creed was. It was the notion that a Labour Government would not increase taxes. It was a preposterous and incredible proposition. My elderly gentleman saw through that ridiculous claim. He saw it for what it was—a fake

  357
  and phoney promise—but others were not so lucky. They succumbed to the blandishments of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield.
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: Was the elderly gentleman one of the 11 per cent. of people in this country who say that the present Leader of the Opposition would make a suitable Prime Minister?
  Mr. Ruffley: Let us have sensible interventions on the point, which is the Government's record of breaking their tax promises.
  My constituents saw through the phoney and fake promises. Others were not so lucky. Let me remind the House what manner of litany it was that took in so many people before the election. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield was reported in the Financial Times as saying to Birmingham business men on 21 September 1996:
  "We have no plans to increase tax at all."
  On "Breakfast with Frost" on 12 January 1997, he said:
  "There are no hidden spending commitments and therefore, no hidden tax rises".
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ruffley: In a moment. The hon. Gentleman may not like the truth, but the House is going to hear it. Do Labour Members deny that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield said on 8 January:
  "Any spending commitment that we have is properly financed, that means there are no tax increases implied by the programme"?
  I give way to the hon. Gentleman. Did the right hon. Member for Sedgefield say it? Yes or no?
  Mr. Davies: Talking of hidden taxes, may I ask for your view of tax in relation to the privatisation of British industry, in which public assets were sold at a net cost of £5.7 billion, if you compare the sale price with the value of the shares the following day? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the give-away of £5.7 billion of public money was a hidden cost?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be careful about using the word "you". It applies to the Chair.
  Mr. Ruffley: We are talking about hidden taxes. The intervention was not even worth waiting for.
  Perhaps I could continue by talking about the assistance lent by the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was at it as well before the election. He is the self-styled iron Chancellor, but before the election, he said on 20 January 1997 on "Newsnight":
  "It's my aim to get the burden down for ordinary people".
  On Channel 4 on 27 April, he said:
  "I want to see tax cut for the ordinary family".
  At a Labour press conference on 16 April, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "we have always said that we want to reduce the tax burden for ordinary families."
  358
  Those were words spoken by Ministers in the Labour Government. We should draw attention to that fact because they have broken their promises.
  Those taken in by those words will not be fooled again because they know that following the so-called emergency Budget last July, the average household is paying some £650 more. In my region of East Anglia, the average family is losing slightly less—about £630. That is because the Government have introduced 17 new taxes. I do not have time to go through the new Labour, new tax litany. We all know what those taxes are. Four in particular have struck my constituents. We have the mortgage tax—the cut in MIRAS and several increases in mortgage rates which are hammering home owners in my constituency and throughout the country. We have the pensions tax arising a result of the abolition of advance corporation tax. We have high council taxes—something that the Labour party did not tell us about before 1 May. We have higher petrol duty. The increases are greater than any announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). They are 6 per cent. per annum, and they were brought forward by five months last year. That is a double whammy for rural drivers, for whom a car is not a luxury but a necessity.
  The shire counties, particularly my county of Suffolk, are discomfited by the prospect of a 27p a gallon tax increase in the coming Budget. We know of the increase because one of the Chancellor's special advisers leaked it to the Evening Standard. We can only hope that, by protesting on behalf of the shire counties, many of which Conservative Members are proud to represent, we shall shame the Chancellor into not going ahead with such exorbitant tax hikes. We hope that he will keep the petrol increase down to a sensible amount.
  Many of my constituents are amazed by the way in which Labour pretends to listen to the rural areas and the shire counties. Only this morning, we heard a report on the "Today" programme to the effect that the shire counties faced average council tax increases for the coming year of 11 per cent—far more than the increases in Labour-dominated urban areas.
  These are all tax hikes which Labour said it would never inflict on ordinary people. But they will not be hidden tax increases for much longer. The public are beginning to see them for what they are—and the Labour party for what it is: politicians, men and women, without principles, without scruple and without any sense of shame, who deceived the British public before the election about the true nature of their tax policies.
  6 pm
  Mr. James Plaskitt: This debate is about credibility, and it was audacious, not to say foolhardy, of the Conservative party to choose tax as the topic for debate. Perhaps it was a form of aversion therapy, given its record and the electorate's recent judgment on it. I should have thought that a period of silent contemplation might be more appropriate. Instead, we have an attempt to create a smokescreen, as one or two colleagues have called it, to blot out the Tories' abysmal record.
  Starting off the debate, the shadow Chancellor spoke for 23 minutes, in which he failed to mention value added

  359
  tax once. I wonder why. Labour Members recall the Tory party's 1992 election pledge that it had
  "no need and no plans to extend VAT".
  What a worthless pledge that was. No wonder the shadow Chancellor omitted to remind us of it during his 23 minutes.
  The fact is that the Tories are the VAT party. They introduced it in 1973; it was the subsequent Labour Government who reduced it. When the Tories returned to office, they increased VAT twice, more than doubling the rate, and they extended its scope time and again. In so doing, they broke every pledge on VAT that the party had ever given.
  The history of VAT between 1992 and 1997 speaks for itself. VAT raised £35 billion in 1992 but £50 billion by 1997—a 43 per cent. increase in VAT revenue, which was much greater than the overall growth in revenue. The picture between 1979 and 1997 was even more dramatic. Over that period, real GDP grew by 49 per cent. but VAT revenue, in real terms, grew by 123 per cent.—this from the party that had
  "no need and no plans"
  to extend the tax.
  Moreover, the Tory party continually widened the scope of VAT, to include: hot takeaway food and drinks, building alterations, civil engineering works, newspaper advertisements, cereal bars, iced tea, non-residential construction and property development, news services, incontinence pads, fairground rides, airport car parking, protective boots and helmets, fuel and power to businesses, water and sewerage services to industry, domestic fuel and power, travel and car hire insurance. Hardly an aspect of life escaped the Tory mania for imposing VAT. That is why I say that this is a debate about credibility on tax.
  Mr. Woodward: Given the hon. Gentleman's clear instinct for avoiding any attempts at responsible taxation, if his party decides to increase VAT or widen its scope, will he give an undertaking to vote against his party?
  Mr. Plaskitt: I was just going on to contrast the record of the Tory party on VAT with my party's record. My party has never increased the general rate of VAT. In fact, once before, we cut it; and in the lifetime of this new Government, we have already cut the rate on fuel and power.
  The inescapable conclusion is that only Labour Governments can be trusted on VAT. We deliver on our VAT election pledges. We pledged to reduce it on domestic fuel and power, and we have already honoured that. We also made other pledges before the election—for instance, not to extend VAT to food, children's clothes, books, newspapers or public transport. We can confidently expect those pledges to be honoured, too.
  Conservative Members may reluctantly accept that VAT is their Achilles' heel—perhaps they would like our attention to be focused elsewhere in an attempt to find any evidence of what the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) described at the election as the Tories' "aversion" to tax. We can look in vain. Over their 18 years in power, there were reductions in income tax rates, but they were not the whole story.
  360
  The increase in national insurance rates clawed back 3.5p in the pound from the reductions in income tax rates. Taking VAT from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. more than clawed back the rest, certainly for families on lower incomes. On top of that came the Government-engineered council tax hikes during the last six years of the Tory Administration.
  While we are at it, we should recall all the other new taxes that the Tories implemented after promising at the 1992 election to cut taxes year on year. Tax allowances were trimmed: the cut in the married couple's allowance meant a tax increase for the average family of £500; and the cut in the personal tax allowance cost the average family an extra £145.
  We were told at the 1992 election that MIRAS would be maintained; it was subsequently restricted, at a cost of £600 a year to the average family. There were also new taxes on top of that: a tax on contents and buildings insurance, a tax on vehicle insurance and mortgage protection policies, and the airport tax. Taken together, the changes meant a tax increase of more than £2,000 for the average family.
  The tax record of the Conservative party is well known. The percentage of GDP taken in tax did not fall during its 18 years in power. The tax burden on people earning more than £64,000 fell, but it rose for everyone else.
  The most remarkable aspect of the Tories' tax record is the fact that, despite imposing all this extra taxation year on year, despite the extraordinary bonus of North sea oil and gas revenues totalling £80 billion, and despite the even greater boost to the Government's coffers from the endless privatisations, miraculously the Conservatives bequeathed the new Labour Government an appalling record of public debt. They managed that despite a 48 per cent. real-terms increase in tax revenues over their 18 years in office. In fact, they displayed an extraordinary fecklessness with the national finances; it has no modern parallel. Over 18 years, the national debt increased from £91 billion to £400 billion—by more than 300 per cent., in other words. When they left office last year, there was a £23 billion hole in the Government's finances.
  Over 18 years, the Conservatives chalked up public spending annual deficits of more than £300 billion—almost the equivalent of a full year's public spending. As a result, the average British taxpayer now contributes £1,000 a year just to meeting the cost of the Tories' legacy of debt.
  This record of debt and taxation cannot be hidden behind the smokescreen of today's motion. It is a record of broken pledges, tax increases and mountainous debts. Little wonder that, at the end of it all, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—I am sorry to see that he has left the Chamber—admitted in the run-up to the election that voters would be "suspicious" of further Tory tax promises. No wonder the electorate called an end last May to that orgy of tax and debt, now replaced by our Government's deficit reduction programme, prudent fiscal management, clear and consistent principles of fair taxation, and pledges on tax that are being honoured. The House will be suspicious of the Opposition motion.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: This is a Government who told the British people that they had no need to raise taxes, that their programme was

  361
  fully funded, and that they had abandoned their past and become a low-tax party. It is interesting that the Chief Secretary is now so keen to narrow the commitment given during the election so that it applies to rates only, thereby admitting that taxes generally have risen under his Government.
  The Labour manifesto said that the principles underlying its tax policy were, first, to encourage employment opportunities and work incentives; secondly, to promote savings and investment; and thirdly, to be fair and to be seen to be fair. Within 10 months—indeed, within two months of coming to office—the Government have breached all those pledges.
  The Government have introduced measures that discourage employment and reduce work incentives. They have damaged the savings industry, and last July's Budget damaged business investment in this country to the tune of a £5 billion windfall tax, as well as £5 billion a year from the pension funds. Labour's tax measures have not been fair, and are certainly not seen to be fair. They discriminate against middle England, penalise thrift, and do nothing to help the less well-off.
  Mr. Ivan Lewis rose—
  Mr. Gibb: There is a shortage of time, so I shall plough on, if I may.
  Labour's manifesto also states that it is
  "pledged not to raise the basic or top rates of income tax throughout the next Parliament."
  Posters throughout the country trumpeted that pledge, lulling the electorate into a false sense of security. Elected on that pledge in May, two months later, in July, the Government abolished the repayment of tax credits on dividends paid to non-taxpayers.
  Non-taxpayers include two thirds of all pensioners. Many retired people in my constituency have a small portfolio of shares, the income from which they use to supplement their pension income. Before 2 July, they could claim back from the Inland Revenue the tax credits, which amounted to a quarter of the dividend that they had received. Now they cannot. The non-taxpaying pensioners whom Labour said they wanted to help are the very people who have suffered most from that measure. Age Concern has called on the Government to continue to pay tax credits on dividends to individual non-taxpayers.
  Non-taxpayers include pension funds, which own £650 billion of assets on behalf of 19 million working people and 6 million retired people. The prospect of taxing such a pot of gold was too tempting for the Labour Government: £5 billion a year was too large a sum to avoid taking. Preventing pension funds from reclaiming tax credit on their dividend income will cost the funds £5 billion a year. According to the Association of Consulting Actuaries, the average 30-year-old working person will have to pay an extra £12 a month to keep his pension at the same rate. Chantrey Vellacott has said that, on average, the 19 million members of company or personal pension schemes will require an increase in contributions of £190 a year.
  Dr. George Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the figures regularly quoted from the
  362
  Conservative Benches are based on all other things being equal, and that the point of a Chancellor's Budget is to make sure that all other things are not equal? Will he therefore explain to the House how much the average pension fund has increased since the Government took office?
  Mr. Gibb: If the hon. Gentleman had waited a few more seconds, I would have come to that.
  The extra £190 a year is equivalent to a 1 per cent. rise in income tax. Is that not a clear breach of Labour's pledge not to raise the basic rate of income tax? It is worse than that, however. It is a hidden tax, levied in a deceitful way—a back-door method of raising the rate of income tax in a way that the Government hoped few would notice.
  How will the measure help investment? How will it encourage savings? Both questions were manifesto pledges. When the measure was debated in Committee on the Floor of the House, the Economic Secretary said:
  "Many pension funds are in surplus by as much as £50 billion. In combination with the current high level of the stock market, that means that there is a much greater opportunity for funds to absorb the change without any great difficulty."—[Official Report, 16 July 1997: Vol. 298, c. 487.]
  That has been the Government's line all along, and I assume that it is also the line of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner): the £5 billion tax will be easily paid by the pension funds because of a soaring stock market, all other things being equal, as the hon. Gentleman says—no need for higher contributions or for increased rebates for opting out of SERPS.
  That was the Government's claim. The reality is that the Government Actuary has had to recommend higher rebates. He stated:
  "As a result of the tax changes announced in the July 1997 Budget…the amount of dividend income from UK equities reduces by just under 20 per cent."
  That will reduce dividend yields from about 3.5 per cent. to about 2.8 per cent.
  There is no mention by the Government Actuary of dividend yields rising to absorb the pensions tax. He says that the yield has fallen. So, too, do the consulting actuaries Bacon and Woodrow in the Financial Times today. They say that one in four UK companies could be forced to put more into their pension schemes, following the abolition of tax credits on dividends. The shortfall, they say, could be as much as £5 billion—a familiar figure, and an answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Not only is the tax hidden; it will cost UK business money to put right the shortfall—money that could have gone into investment. The measure will reduce savings and damage pensions, both of which the Government said they wanted to boost.
  The tax rise has caused many other problems. Abolishing the tax credit also meant that the Government had to abolish foreign income dividends at the same time, to avoid a flood of FID payments to absorb the £7 billion of unrelieved surplus advance corporation tax. That would have meant £7 billion of lost corporation tax receipts for the Treasury. However, the announced abolition of FIDs sent shock waves through British industry, particularly through companies with large overseas interests.
  Little thought had been given to the consequences of the announcement, so in the Financial Times every other day from July to November were proposed solutions to

  363
  the great FID problem that the Government had created. During the Report stage of the Bill, the Paymaster General even mooted four possible solutions of his own, all of which turned out to be non-starters. Finally, in November, having given up hope of finding a solution, the Government simply proposed the wholesale abolition of ACT. However, that would cause a huge cash-flow dip for the Government.
  The solution was to restructure the entire corporation tax system and introduce quarterly corporation tax payments on account. That gave the Government the opportunity to raise further hidden taxes, to the tune of £2 billion a year for the next four years, as companies have to pay their corporation tax bills significantly earlier.
  Is that a fair tax, in line with the principles set out in Labour's manifesto? Is it transparent? How will taking £2 billion a year from the corporate sector increase investment? In its green Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies states:
  "The cashflow impact is unlikely to encourage investment, particularly in the short term."
  The most extraordinary decision of all in the tax context is the Government's proposal to abolish PEPs and TESSAs, the most successful savings vehicles yet devised, and to replace them with ISAs. The measure was purportedly introduced to help to encourage savings by those on lower incomes, but the truth is that there is absolutely no advantage for any lower rate or even basic rate taxpayers to hold equity investments through an ISA. Few are likely to generate capital gains in excess of their own annual capital gains tax allowance, and the tax credit now reduced to 10 per cent. by the Government is unlikely to cover any management expenses.
  Indeed, the Association of Unit Trusts and Investment Funds said:
  "We believe that the administrative and regulatory issues raised by the proposals would render the ISA complex, costly and, possibly, unworkable."
  The association went on to say:
  "We believe the ISA will discourage people from raising their level of long-term savings."
  The most iniquitous aspect of ISAs is the retrospection, penalising those who have saved, particularly the self-employed, who may not have an occupational pension but would have used PEPs to save capital, out of which their retirement income can be paid. The £50,000 limit is unfair to those people, as it generates an income of just £1,500 a year after tax, according to the Government's own figures. Age Concern has attacked the limit, saying:
  "Before deciding on an overall limit, the Government should look further into the circumstances of those with over £50,000 invested in PEPs".
  On every other day, the FT index is treated to an informal leak mooting various proposed solutions to this fiasco. Here is another tax that is widely regarded as unfair, which discourages savings and penalises those in or approaching retirement.
  Will the Financial Secretary confirm that next week's Budget will include fewer ill-thought-through proposals and fewer decisions such as the one to abolish FIDs without any thought about the consequences? We want to see fewer decisions such as the one to abolish PEPs and TESSAs without any thought about the consequences for the self-employed and the decision to introduce quarterly
  364
  corporation tax payments without any thought for its cash-flow problems and practicalities, including on what profit figure to base the payments.
  The Government have sneaked through tax rises that are anti-thrift, damaging to investment and anti-middle England. They talk about increasing investment and then raise taxes on companies and investment funds so that those bodies must reduce investment. The Government talk softly about lone parents, and then remove their benefits. They promise to protect pensioners, and then take £5 billion a year out of pension funds. The Government claim to care for disabled people, but then propose to tax the disability living allowance. In opposition, the Labour party opposed tuition fees, but, in government, it has introduced them. The Government claim that they want to protect the monarchy, yet they do all they can to undermine it. The Government attack the countryside, and then send the Minister for the Environment to join a march against his Government.
  This Government seek to be all things to all people. Their message to the people is: "We will be whatever you want us to be." In reality, the Government are what everybody does not want them to be. The Government have increased taxes, attacked middle England and told people what they can and cannot eat, and what they can and cannot do. The Government think that they can get away with a wholesale agenda of hidden tax rises. In short, this is an arrogant Government, who have let power go to their head.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Geraint Davies: The basic question that we must ask this evening is: what would be the tax situation in the nightmare scenario of another Tory Government? In such a scenario, the plans that Labour has made to reduce debt, increase productivity and skill, and translate welfare into work—all of which reduce future tax liability for this country—would not go ahead. That is the real question for the British public.
  The Government inherited a legacy of millions on the dole who were unable to pay tax while others paid higher tax to support them. Britain had slipped down the skills league and we had witnessed the emergence of social exclusion and rising crime—all the symptoms of economic failure and a cost to future taxpayers. The challenge for Labour was to tackle that vicious downward spiral and the high tax-low success economy of the Conservatives. We have met that challenge.
  Immediately upon taking office, we granted independence to the Bank of England. We do not know what Conservative Members think about that, but the impact was to reduce overnight long-term borrowing costs by 0.29 per cent.—a saving of £1 billion a year. That reduction has grown to represent a saving for the taxpayer of about £6 billion a year, which is equivalent to 3p on tax. What would Opposition Members have done? They do not know. I guess that, in an even-steven situation, they would raise tax by 3p—which is another hidden tax.
  I said earlier that national debt forecasts have decreased by £16 billion in the past year, which will save the taxpayer £1 billion a year. That would not happen under the Tories, so there would be another hidden tax. What about the new deal? The essence of the new deal is to translate claimants into taxpayers. The Conservatives had no plans to introduce that programme, so there would be another hidden tax.

  365
  We have heard that advance corporation tax and pensions will make the Government £5 billion. Where would the Conservatives get that £5 billion—perhaps from value-added tax? That is another hidden tax. I shall not go into great detail about the pensions issue, which has been discussed already—we know that there is an actuarial difference of view. Pension funds are rising in value as share values increase along with market confidence. Setting interest rates outside the political control of the Chancellor means that there is no risk premium on investment in British jobs, and therefore industry can move forward. That is the reality.
  What about Europe? The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) has said that we should be at the heart of Europe, but the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) says in his book—I know that no one has read it, but never mind—that we should block the euro and derail the legislation, although 60 per cent. of our trade is with Europe. Would that be in the interests of the British economy? Would it translate into high hidden taxes? Of course it would.
  Recent Tory history is a sad catalogue of waste and cost. The previous Government's failure to act decisively on bovine spongiform encephalopathy cost £3.7 billion—the equivalent of 2p on income tax in a given year. What about privatisation? As I said, the previous Government sold off British assets at £5.7 billion less than their valuation by the market the next day. That amounts to 3p on income tax in one year, so it is another hidden tax.
  Mr. Richard Page: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
  What is the real cost of the 300,000 repossessions—there were 3,000 in 1979—that took place under the Tories? That is another hidden tax resulting from the bungling failure of discredited Tory Members.
  The reality of the increases in council tax—the need for an extra £4 billion in local tax in the following three years—was disclosed in the Red Book by the previous Chancellor in November 1996. I could continue: we are talking about billions and billions, which is the equivalent of 10p on the standard rate of tax.
  We do not want to hear any more lectures from Conservative Members about hidden taxes because we are dealing with enough of them now. Thank goodness we are getting Britain back to work, recovering our debt and putting the country on a good long-term footing.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: Labour Members are living in a completely unrealistic world. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund and the World bank will confirm—as we well know—that the Labour party inherited the soundest economy in Europe, with the lowest unemployment of 5 per cent., the best fiscal record of improvement and the lowest debt. This debate is about the Labour Government's taxation policy: it is silly to seek to claim that the new Labour Government had to resolve major economic problems. That is a most unconvincing argument.
  366
  I suggest that the Chief Secretary and other Labour Members take a walk in Britain's leafy suburbs. The Labour party convinced many members of the middle class that they would be safe with Labour, as it was no longer a socially redistributive party pledged to increase taxes for the middle classes. As has been admitted in debate, Labour has not increased taxes but has followed a clear agenda, led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of finding other ways to tax the middle classes more.
  Most of those measures have been described in the debate. I remind hon. Members that advance corporation tax has reduced the pensions that people will receive in future, and that those with personal pensions will have to pay about £20 week more to maintain their pensions.
  Reference has been made to the charging of tuition fees to students attending university. Do Labour Members realise that the payment of £1,000 per annum by an ordinary middle-class family in middle England is equivalent to a 10 per cent. rise in income tax? Student loans were perfectly fair—students repaid them when they could afford it. I am sure that my colleagues will agree that it was a necessary reform in line with Dearing. However, tuition fees are quite different: they are a hidden tax on the middle class.
  Mr. Rammell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flight: No. There are only five minutes left.
  When I asked about the community tax, it was pointed out to me that, because my constituency has, allegedly, a higher income per capita than other parts of Britain, it is fair and just that the gerrymandering with central Government money should result in the community tax in West Sussex going up by some 11 per cent. There is a clear agenda to increase the taxes of shire middle England by devious means.
  The Government have boasted that the abolition of the assisted places scheme is a measure of redistribution. I spoke recently to the headmistress of an excellent school in the state sector, and was interested to note that the number of applications to her school had doubled, led in part by the Prime Minister's wife, as it is a school of academic excellence. The headmistress complained that so many parents could not afford to pay for academic excellence, and that they are going into debt so to do. As the Government well know, the abolition of assisted places hit the members of the middle class who aspired to give their children a better education.
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flight: No. There is not much time.
  Many Government Members made the point that the Conservatives let down the middle classes similarly when we were in government between 1992 and 1997. I personally take quite a degree of blame for that. Middle-class families paid more tax when they should not have, but I remind the Government why, because they are about to fall into the same trap. It was because—for which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has apologized—we locked into the exchange rate mechanism and were stuck with rising interest rates when they needed to fall, and we had an uncompetitive currency. Those who wish to do the same when our own and Europe's economic cycles are so out of kilter will have the same future.

  367
  Where will the middle class be taxed more in the forthcoming Budget? Will it be in an increase of petrol tax; the abolition of mortgage interest relief at source; means-testing state pensions; limiting personal allowance to the standard rate of tax; taxing child benefit; and higher national insurance contributions? The Government know as well as I do that it will be some of those, and that all of them amount to the higher taxation of middle England.
  Middle England is not deceived. It is well aware of what is happening. The crucial point is that it is not necessary. The reason for it is, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out, to build up a war chest to try to bribe the electorate when the next election comes, but they will not be deceived. It is time the Prime Minister kept his pledge to middle England and started to reduce taxation on middle-class families, and not to increase it yet further.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: It was striking how hon. Members on the Government Benches kept almost entirely off the subject of the debate. They talked about everything except the Government's tax record. Perhaps they are embarrassed about it. Perhaps they implicitly accept the points that we have made: that the Labour party has consistently broken its tax promises, and is, perhaps, afraid of what the future may hold.
  Although this has been a short debate, it has confirmed beyond doubt that the Labour party explicitly promised before the election not to increase taxes and then immediately did so in a Budget some two months later. We are not really surprised by that, as it is one of the laws of nature that Labour Governments increase taxation, but we were all somewhat taken aback by the speed with which they broke their tax promises.
  The Prime Minister could hardly have been more explicit in a speech that he made to business men in Birmingham when Leader of the Opposition—a speech to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who is shadow Chancellor, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) referred—when he said:
  "We have no plans to increase tax at all."
  That is one of the few really clear statements about tax made by the previous Leader of the Opposition. At the end of that speech, he did not say, "Well, that's not really what I meant. When I just told you I have no plans to increase taxation, I meant that I do have plans to increase taxation." Nor, when he was reported the next day in the Financial Times, did he or anyone else write to the paper to say, "That was a pack of lies and does not accurately reflect my intentions if we win the general election." So it remained on the record as a clear statement of the Labour party's intentions.
  However, within two months of winning the election, the Labour Government produced a Budget that reversed all that. Pages 40 and 41 of the Budget statement, published on Budget day in July, contains lists and columns of taxes that were increased. Even if one leaves out the windfall tax, which we agree that we were warned about, it adds up to a tax increase in the current financial year of £3.5 billion, rising by the end of the third year to more than £005 billion a year. There we have it. The Prime Minister promised before the election that he would not
  368
  raise taxes at all, and in the first Budget he did exactly that. If that is what no increases at all means, I hate to think what the Government will do when they get really serious.
  There is an explanation, advanced by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. He pointed out that, when referring to the £5 billion-a-year raid on pension funds, the Financial Secretary—I am glad that she is to reply to the debate—said:
  "The measure is good for pensions and pensioners, not bad for them."—[Official Report, 3 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 507.]
  Again, she did not qualify that statement. I suppose that, if one really believes that taxing people is good for them, one feels rather less inhibited about doing so in successive Budgets, but it hardly explains the 17 tax rises in the first Budget. We have calculated them in exactly the same way that Labour did when it alleged that we put up taxes 22 times when we were in government. If the present Government continue at this rate, they will introduce four times as many tax increases during a full term in office. The 17 tax rises in the first Budget do not include many of the taxes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) quite rightly referred, because that figure excludes the student tax and the double-figure council tax rises in place in most of our rural constituencies, which are a direct result of the Government piling on to local authorities obligations without matching them with the necessary funding.
  To be fair, we were warned about one or two taxes. We were told about the windfall tax. We were also warned about the withdrawal of tax relief on medical insurance, but its withdrawal was not clever. Causing people to cancel their medical insurance policies and switching to the NHS has contributed directly to the breach of another Labour election promise: that it would get NHS waiting lists down. Instead, they have gone up by 100,000 since the election.
  The central feature of the debate has been not only the number and scale of the tax increases but the fact that the full impact of the increases was hidden from the electorate. They are indeed stealth taxes. Old Labour, let us be fair, used to be fairly open about its tax plans. New Labour does it by the back door.
  Take the pension tax. Labour thought that it would not be noticed because the damage was long term. The Chancellor said that the Budget would be for the long term, and in that sense he was right because the damage done to pension funds and people's savings will evolve over a long period. Labour went further than that. It tried to disguise the fact that it was raising taxes on pension funds at all. In the pocket Budget, produced at taxpayers' expense and circulated to the public, the only reference to that £5 billion-a-year tax raid on people's pension funds was the sentence:
  "The Budget makes other tax changes to encourage companies to invest profits in the future."
  That is the only reference to the biggest raid on people's savings that Britain has ever seen in a Budget.
  The point is that that was not just wrong and deceitful; it was stupid. If the economy was in danger of overheating last year, as the Chancellor said that it was, the last thing that he should have done was to tax savings because, by doing so, by taxing institutional savings rather than people, he transferred the burden of controlling inflation on to interest rates. That is why we have seen five interest

  369
  rate rises since the general election. That has hit investment, the strong pound has hit manufacturing—output from manufacturing industry fell again last month—and we are on the brink of a technical recession.
  We know that the Chancellor has shuffled off responsibility—at least for the decision about interest rates—on to the Bank of England, but he cannot escape responsibility for a tax policy which went for disguise of his measures rather than economic effectiveness.
  Taxing savings was stupid for another reason. The Government say that they are trying to reform welfare and cut welfare expenditure, but the only realistic alternative to the welfare state is for people to be reliant on private savings and private pension provision. That is precisely what the Chancellor hit in his last Budget, so taxing savings does not even make sense from that point of view.
  The damage has already started. The National Association of Pension Funds is already reporting that many pension funds are reducing their prospective benefits, increasing the contributions demanded from their members, or switching from final salary schemes to money purchase schemes, which are less generous.
  That was well set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). It is all right for Labour Members to do this because they, like us, enjoy a generous parliamentary final salary scheme. The Conservative Government's policy was to extend those benefits to as many people as possible. Labour's policy has been to retain those benefits for itself, but everyone else's benefits will be cut. Labour has done exactly the same with PEPs and TESSAs. Labour Members may have generous pension funds. In a debate last week, it was pointed out that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who, sadly, is not in his place today, has pension entitlements worth a capital sum of £356,000; the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been in the House for only 11 years, but she will be pleased to know that, already, her pension entitlement has a capital value of £140,000. It is all right for them, but the small business man, self-employed, trying to build up a modest pension entitlement to see him through hard times or his old age, is thought to be rich if he has £50,000 in a PEP or TESSA. That is new Labour—we are all right, Jack, but everyone else must pay the high taxes.
  There is a rumour in the air of a U-turn on PEPs and TESSAs and the individual savings account, but we know where Labour's instincts lie. It tries to cut everyone down to £50,000. If there is a U-turn, as I believe there may be next week, it will be because of the taxpayers' revolt and our debate last week in which we explained to the Government what they were walking into.
  What about the other stealth taxes? We have heard quite a bit in the debate about the reduction in VAT on fuel from 8 to 5 per cent. Leaving aside the obvious point that by far and away the biggest benefit enjoyed by users of fuel was the price reductions consequential on privatisations, all of which were opposed by the Labour party, and leaving aside the fact that the benefit increases that we brought in when we put VAT on fuel ensured that all pensioner households were at least as well off as they would have been without it, the real story on VAT and indirect taxation is that the Government have not only increased the rates on fuel, tobacco and alcohol, but—this
  370
  is a stealth point—brought forward the increases and made them more frequent in that we have had three Budgets in 16 months. Therefore, not only are the increases higher; they are more frequent.
  For example, this year, 1997–98, the extra fuel duty amounts to £730 million as a result of the increase brought forward in the July Budget. We were not told that during the election either. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was right to draw attention to the fact that that hits rural areas disproportionately.
  Then we have the stealth tax on companies—the corporation tax changes. When the Chancellor announced the changes, he claimed that they had been welcomed by business; that business had accepted that it was necessary to move to the abolition of advance corporation tax and had welcomed the cut in corporation tax.
  The Paymaster General, who, sadly, is not here—he is famously well informed about business matters—said that the statement had been welcomed by the Confederation of British Industry. That was not true. In a press release, the CBI said:
  "The proposals in the November pre-Budget report, together with the measures in the July 1997 Budget, could increase taxation on business by almost £22 billion during this Parliament."
  If that is so, it is a pretty funny way of expressing support for the Chancellor.
  Industry faces further falls in manufacturing output—that has just been confirmed by statistics released yesterday—higher interest rates, a higher pound and £22 billion of extra taxation in this Parliament. The Chancellor said that he wanted to rebalance the economy. Is that really the way that he intended to do it?
  Some people who have not seen taxes go up are still waiting for the Budget next week. We wonder whether that includes the Paymaster General. To quote the Chancellor, those with
  "millions in offshore tax havens"
  have not so far been touched. We had a panic slamming of the tax avoidance door last Friday, but that does not seem to have affected the Paymaster General. The Labour Government have failed to tax those whom they promised before the election they would tax, and have taxed those whom they promised before the election they would not tax. Those are the priorities of new Labour and that is the reality of a new Labour Government.
  6.49 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): In the few minutes left in the debate, I want to reply to a number of questions. I must tell the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that I would not buy a second-hand pension from him and I certainly would not rely on any pension advice from him or any of his hon. Friends. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) reminded the House, 500,000 cases of pension mis-selling have already been recorded in phase 1 and more information is to be announced on Thursday. That is a direct result of the policies of the previous Government.
  It was a predictable speech from the shadow Chancellor but, in fairness to him, he said that he did not expect us to give him the Budget announcements today. Unfortunately, I am not sure that the shadow Chief

  371
  Secretary understood that. I am sure that all hon. Members will understand that for many of the answers they will have to wait for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to announce the Budget next week.
  The debate revolved around false promises and comparing records. It was a debate about therapy for the Opposition. They need the help of Labour Members if they are to come to terms with what happened when they were in government and why they lost the trust of the electorate.
  Before dealing specifically with the previous Government's record, I shall respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). For 45 minutes, there were no Liberal Democrats in the Chamber to take part in the debate. However, the hon. Member for Gordon did take part in the debate and accused the Government of being cautious. As ever, he wants to spend money everywhere, but cannot say where it is to come from. Apparently, the 1 p on tax is now not only for education but is to be used to write off everything that the Government inherited from the Tories. Presumably, he is urging the Government to be incautious. We shall not respond to that proposition.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) reminded the House that the Conservative Government gave away the zero rate on VAT on domestic fuel and then tried to raise it to 17.5 per cent. He pointed out that they squandered billions of pounds of North sea oil revenues and that the list of accusations that they make against this Government includes the closure of tax loopholes. My hon. Friend challenged Conservative Members to say whether they were in favour of allowing those loopholes to continue. Of course, they did not want to respond. They do not want to have a policy for themselves, but simply want to create amnesia in the Chamber and among the electorate about what their Government did over 18 years.
  We then had the incredible contribution from the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) who professed concern for the low-paid. I do not know where he was when his Government were in office. He complained about the attack on MIRAS. What did he say to his Government when they cut MIRAS from 25 to 20 per cent. and then to 15 per cent.? Perhaps he can tell us what he thought about VAT on fuel. What did he say when his Government destroyed bus services with deregulation? What did he say to the then Prime Minister about the poll tax when the then Prime Minister said that he believed that, once the poll tax was fully understood, it would be seen to be very much fairer and more acceptable? A total of £14 billion later, plus all the attacks on the low-paid, and the Conservatives now say that they care about what happens to people on low incomes. What a load of rubbish.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Financial Secretary recall saying in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill, on which we both served, that the withdrawal of ACT credits was good for pensioners? How can the withdrawal of £22 billion-worth of tax credits be good for pensioners? Will she tell my constituents that?
  Dawn Primarolo: I told the House and the Committee that we believed that it was for companies, not the
  372
  tax man, to take the decisions, and that we were withdrawing a distortion in the system, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
  What is all this about keeping promises? When the Conservative Government were in office, they could not spell the word "promise". In March 1992, the then Prime Minister said that the Conservatives have an allergy to tax. In fact, they have an allergy to telling the truth about tax, except for the hapless then Chief Secretary, William Waldegrave—he is no longer in the House—who said on the Dimbleby programme in 1996 that it was no secret that the Conservative Government, right back to 1979, had always said that they preferred to take tax off direct taxation and put it on to indirect tax and "all those other taxes". By that, he meant VAT.
  What did the Conservative party say about that? How did it mislead the electorate? In January 1992, the then Conservative Prime Minister said that there would be no VAT increase. In March 1992, he said that his Government had no need to increase VAT and no plans to extend its scope.
  In the normal candid fashion that we have come to expect from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), he said, when defending the imposition of VAT on fuel that it was "a perfectly fair tax". He also said that he had always thought that VAT had a narrow base and that it was worthy of reform. At one time he said—women were very pleased to hear this—that there were exemptions for children's clothes so that every woman with small feet would not have to pay tax on her shoes. Thank goodness for small mercies. I suppose that women felt secure with that statement.
  However, by November 1993, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying that one of his options must be to extend the VAT base, and that the main candidates for that were food, children's clothing, transport, sewerage and newspapers, for all of which a powerful case could be made, but no amount of lobbying should put the Government off. The Conservative Government told the electorate one thing and did another.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Lady still reads my speeches. If she reads on, she will see why I rejected that case in my Budget speech. While she is going back in history, will she explain to the House why, when we said at the last election that a Labour Government would raise taxation, it was so vehemently denied and why the Chief Secretary expressly denied that there was any intention of changing the tax relief for PEPs or TESSAs or for the pensions industry?
  Dawn Primarolo: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in the Chamber, because I have another point to put to him. Perhaps when it comes to honesty and answering questions, he can explain why the 1992 Conservative manifesto said that the party would maintain mortgage tax relief, when, in December 1993, he said that, luckily, it had not said at what rate. What is that if it is not misleading the country? [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like the truth. They want to make accusations, but they will not listen to their own record.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe had it well sussed when he said in September 1996 that the public would be deeply suspicious of any tax cuts because

  373
  they would remember that the Conservative party had promised tax cuts and had not been able to deliver them. Instead, it delivered tax rises—£2,000 per family over the period of that Government.
  Mr. Clarke: Will the Minister give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: The debate has to finish at 7 o'clock—I am sorry. The right hon. and learned Gentleman—[Interruption.] The Government have cut taxes. We reduced VAT on fuel.
  Hon. Members: Answer the question.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The House must hear the Minister.
  Dawn Primarolo: The Conservatives are hoping that the country will not be able to hear about their record. The Government have made tax promises and kept them: a winter fuel package for pensioners, a cut in corporation tax, help for small companies and a promise on energy-saving materials. We are helping the young and the long-term unemployed. We are about keeping promises and not breaking them. Next week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be presenting to the House how the Government will continue to defend jobs, to invest in our economy and to ensure that our promises are kept—however much Opposition Members choose to heckle.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 298.

  Division No. 196]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Amess, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cotter, Brian

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Baker, Norman

  Dafis, Cynog

  Baldry, Tony

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Beggs, Roy

  Duncan, Alan

  Bercow, John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Nigel

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fallon, Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Flight, Howard

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Burnett, John

  Gale, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  Garnier, Edward

  Burstow, Paul

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gibb, Nick

  Cash, William

  Gill, Christopher

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)]

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Chidgey, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chope, Christopher

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clappison, James

  Gray, James

  374

  Greenway, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Page, Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Paice, James

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Pickles, Eric

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Prior, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Randall, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Rendel, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Horam, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Shepherd, Richard

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

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

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Keetch, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Key, Robert

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Spring, Richard

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Steen, Anthony

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Streeter, Gary

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lansley, Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Livsey, Richard

  Townend, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Trend, Michael

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tyler, Paul

  Luff, Peter

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Wallace, James

  MacKay, Andrew

  Wardle, Charles

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Webb, Steve

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wells, Bowen

  Madel, Sir David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Maginnis, Ken

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Maples, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Willetts, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Moss, Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Norman, Archie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Oaten, Mark

  Mr. John Whittingdale and

  Öpik, Lembit

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Benton, Joe

  Allen, Graham

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Berry, Roger

  Ashton, Joe

  Best, Harold

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Betts, Clive

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blackman, Liz

  Austin, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Banks, Tony

  Blizzard, Bob

  Barnes, Harry

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Battle, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Bayley, Hugh

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Beard, Nigel

  Bradshaw, Ben

  375

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Browne, Desmond

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burden, Richard

  Goggins, Paul

  Burgon, Colin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Byers, Stephen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gunnell, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Hanson, David

  Cawsey, Ian

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Healey, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clapham, Michael

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Coaker, Vernon

  Home Robertson, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hope, Phil

  Cohen, Harry

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Colman, Tony

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hutton, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cox, Tom

  Ingram, Adam

  Cranston, Ross

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Crausby, David

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Denham, John

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Dowd, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Drew, David

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Laxton, Bob

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Leslie, Christopher

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Levitt, Tom

  Efford, Clive

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Etherington, Bill

  Linton, Martin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Livingstone, Ken

  Fisher, Mark

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lock, David

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Love, Andrew

  Flint, Caroline

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Flynn, Paul

  McCabe, Steve

  Follett, Barbara

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foulkes, George

  McDonnell, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Galbraith, Sam

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gapes, Mike

  McLeish, Henry

  Gardiner, Barry

  376

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooney, Terry

  McNulty, Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  MacShane, Denis

  Ruane, Chris

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McWafter, Tony

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mandelson, Peter

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marek, Dr John

  Sawford, Phil

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meale, Alan

  Singh, Marsha

  Merron, Gillian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Soley, Clive

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Spellar, John

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mountford, Kali

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mullin, Chris

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Norris, Dan

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Timms, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Todd, Mark

  O'Neill, Martin

  Touhig, Don

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Truswell, Paul

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pendry, Tom

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pike, Peter L

  Wareing, Robert N

  Plaskitt, James

  White, Brian

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pond, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Pope, Greg

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Pound, Stephen

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wills, Michael

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wilson, Brian

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Winnick, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Purchase, Ken

  Wise, Audrey

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wood, Mike

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Woolas, Phil

  Radice, Giles

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Rammell, Bill

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Rapson, Syd

  Raynsford, Nick

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mr. John McFall.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House commends the Government for honouring its election promises not to increase the top or basic rate of income tax, to reduce VAT on domestic fuel to five per cent. and to introduce the levy on the windfall profits of the privatised utilities; approves the Government's determination to put in place a fair tax system, to encourage investment and long-term sustainable growth; believes that Britain's interests lie in the pursuit of sound economic policies that will benefit the many and not just the few, and which are in the long-term interests of the whole country; and urges the Government to reject any return to the boom and bust policies of the past which resulted in the 22 tax rises imposed by the previous administration.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I have to tell the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. fain Duncan Smith: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with concern the Government's refusal to rule out means testing the basic state pension; believes the Government Actuary's advice to change the National Insurance rebates for those contracting out of SERPS is a direct result of the Chancellor's decision to abolish the ACT dividend tax credit in his July Budget, placing a huge burden on future pensioners, creating turmoil in the pensions market and confusion over pension reform; and calls upon the Government to apologise for devaluing long-term savings and creating fear amongst the most vulnerable members of society.
  In the next few days, we shall have a chance to look at the Budget, so I do not intend today to trail our ideas about what it should contain. This debate is timely because it is important to consider what has happened in the past 10 months. The Secretary of State for Social Security and her hon. Friends have constantly told us that we cannot discuss matters in the Budget, but the national newspapers contain a series of leaks and discussions that will doubtless be denied as scurrilous rumours, but which seem to have a Government source.
  Today, we must focus on pensions and the Government's record of the past 10 months—the impact that their policies have had and the changes that have been made—and ask whether pensions are safe in the Government's hands. The Government came to power giving mixed messages on pensions. On one hand, they said that they would protect pensions, while attacking the serious proposals that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) made at the last election for pension reform; on the other, they vaguely talked about a system of reform while allowing it to be suggested that they would means-test the basic state pension without denial.
  It is therefore ironic that the first step that the Chancellor took on arrival at No. 11 Downing street was to put together an unnecessary Budget that aimed a blow directly at pensions and future pensioners.
  Kali Mountford: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this important debate to the Floor of the House. Does he agree that a decent society is to be judged by how it treats its very poorest pensioners?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: A decent society is to be judged by the way in which the Government in power treat all members of society, including those who are considered most in need. If the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) wants to know how that will be achieved, she should ask the Secretary of State how that chimes with leaks and suggestions that the basic state pension will be means-tested.
  The attitude of mind behind the Budget is the same as that which has prevailed in the Labour party since time immemorial. Labour Governments have always believed that company profits are evil and unnecessary. As a result, they equate pension funds with profits and seek to

  379
  redistribute them as they see fit because they are of no use whatever. It is a case of new Labour, new redistribution; and new Labour, new tax.
  Mr. Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman said that this is an important debate. Will he explain why the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is not going to wind up this evening's debate? Is it because he is not good enough, or because is he too good and the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has dumped him because he is frightened that he will take his place on the Front Bench?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I know from that intervention that there is one person in the Chamber who is clearly not good enough. That was such a ludicrous, idiotic intervention that I shall not even bother to deal with it.
  We have discussed endlessly the Government's position on pension funds and ACT dividend tax credits. Although the Government hoped and believed that they could somehow slip through the attack on pension funds unnoticed, it is significant that an increasing number of people are beginning to notice how damaging their actions were. A measure that raises £2.3 billion in 1997–98, £3.9 billion in 1998–99 and £5.4 billion in 1999–2000 from pension funds will have a huge negative effect on what pensioners will receive in future.
  It is ironic that contrasts with what is in the Labour manifesto, which states:
  "We will support and strengthen the framework for occupational pensions."
  The Labour Government have actually done a complete turn around and have attacked personal pensions and occupational pensions. A measure that is equivalent to putting 2p, 3p and 4p on income tax over the same period is hardly likely to protect those most in need, to whom the hon. Member for Colne Valley referred.
  The effect has been to force schemes to increase the contribution rates payable—
  Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. His absurd and idiotic intervention was not worth dealing with then; it is not worth dealing with him now.
  Some schemes have already had to pass on those increases to their members. Many in the industry say that that practice will increase dramatically as they continue to pass on the effects. A number of schemes have also already cancelled benefit improvements; as we have heard, some schemes have even switched from final salary to money purchase. That point has not gone unnoticed and the Government have tried to deal with it by dealing with the SERPS rebate.
  Let us consider one important example of the effects of the Government's changes to ACT dividend tax credits and their attack on the funds. A 30-year-old whose fund would have been worth £260,000 at age 65 would have to pay £1,000 a year to make up the shortfall that is a direct result of what the Government did in the last Budget.
  Today, a report commissioned by the BBC showed that council tax will rise by twice the level of inflation—when in opposition the Labour party promised that would not
  380
  happen. I ask the House to reflect on what will happen in the next two to three years, as the effects of what has happened to pensions run by councils will begin to be felt. The effect will be to force council taxes to rise again and again. All that will occur as a result of the policies of a Government who, when in opposition, said that they would keep those taxes down.
  Mr. John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who are having to pay the extra £1,000 to put their own pension into proper funds will be the same people who are having to pay for other people—those who work for local authorities—to put their pensions into funds? Many employees will find that their employers are not prepared to make the extra money available for their pensions, but they will still be charged for the pensions of local government employees.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend makes the point very powerfully. Either all those consequences went completely unnoticed by the Government at the time of the Budget or the Government hoped that they would go unnoticed by everyone who will have to make the extra contributions that my right hon. Friend has mentioned.
  The cost will be passed on to local taxpayers. There is no such thing as a tax or a charge made on a company that does not go through to the consumer or taxpayer. The extra costs to businesses will flow as payroll taxes. On top of that, as we have heard today, the Government have got themselves into a bind over individual savings accounts. The Government's proposals for ISAs will compete directly with the same funds that people will want to put into pensions for long-term savings. There will be direct competition between short-term saving and long-term saving—that goes against the very reason the Government gave for introducing the new measure.
  Mr. Desmond Browne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Bill Robinson, a director of the consultancy, London Economics, who was an adviser to Norman Lamont when he employed the same tactic of reducing ACT credit in his Budget, wrote an article entitled,"Taxing pension funds could be good for our health", which appeared in The Independent on 21 April 1997? That article stated:
  "There is room for argument as to the proper scale of the fiscal privileges accorded to the pension funds, but what is potentially damaging is that the privilege is limited to distributed profits."
  Mr. Duncan Smith: We resisted the temptation to do that. While we are on this point, I must quote Hansard from 1993, in which the then Chancellor, Norman Lamont, said:
  "I propose to reduce the rate of tax on dividends from the current basic rate of 25 to the lower rate of 20 per cent. The effect of this, combined with the change to the tax credits, is to leave basic rate taxpayers neither better off nor worse off than they are now." — [Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 186.]
  I think and I hope that that quotation will end the whole ridiculous argument so that Labour Members will leave the subject.
  Mr. Chris Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I wish to move on.

  381
  The key and the cornerstone to the issue—the biggest problem—involves SERPS. As the Government will remember, back in July Conservative Back Benchers warned the Government that their hasty consideration of such matters in the Budget would have a serious knock-on effect on those who had opted out or who were thinking of opting out of SERPS. I said that it was necessary to have an immediate out-of-sequence review to adjust the rebate, otherwise it would be devalued and people, particularly those in personal pensions, would eventually pull back into SERPS, increasing the Government's expenditure and exposure.
  Mr. Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I am making progress on this point.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who is to wind up tonight's debate, will recall those comments because they were part of my winding-up speech in that earlier debate. I should be grateful if he would deal with the way in which he dismissed the points that I made and then, in November, was forced to call in the Government Actuary and ask for a review.
  The Government Actuary's report is an absolutely damning indictment of Labour's first Budget for nearly 20 years. He said:
  "As a result of the proposed tax changes announced in the July 1997 Budget occupational and personal pension schemes (including appropriate personal pension schemes) are no longer able to reclaim tax credits on dividends payable by UK companies on equities which are held as scheme assets. This reduces the amount of dividend income from UK equities by just under 20 per cent. relative to the previous tax position".
  The Government Actuary went on to make a number of points affecting personal pensions and occupational pensions, both salary related and money purchase. It is clear that, in his report, he assumes, quite rightly, a reduction of a quarter of 1 per cent. in the income from investments. That was obvious when the Chancellor sat down after giving his Budget speech.
  I note that in today's Financial Times the leading actuarial consultant, Bacon and Woodrow, has said that the shortfall to those funds could be as much as £5 billion. That shortfall will be passed on directly to the companies and their pensioners. Bacon and Woodrow said:
  "It said the problem stemmed from lower than expected dividends, pushing many schemes below the minimum funding requirements (MFR) set out in last year's Pensions Act. Returns have been cut by the abolition of tax credits in last July's Budget and by soaring equity markets".
  The point about the Financial Times article is clear: at the last Budget the Chancellor assumed that the funds were all in surplus and so were easy to raid. The Financial Times is now demonstrating that the Government's assumption that there was a never-ending gravy train of improving dividends was wrong. The returns are now lower; they are becoming closer to the minimum funding requirement, so decisions will have to be made on whether to stay inside salary-related schemes or to get out and move into either personal pensions or contracted-out money purchase schemes. The Government have forced pension funds, on which they said they were keen, to make changes that are likely to be for the worse.
  382
  When they were given the options by the Government Actuary, the Government chose to increase the personal pensions rebate and freeze the rebates on contracted-out occupational salary-related schemes. It is clear that the one area that got badly hit was occupational money purchase schemes. We know that the Government Actuary assumed—I hope that the Secretary of State will focus on this—that there was a reduction in the return on investment of a quarter of 1 per cent., which had a huge effect on the way in which those funds would be managed. When the Secretary of State accepted the Government Actuary's report and said that she would raise the rebate on personal pensions, she accepted that position. She accepted that, as a result of the Budget, there was a fall-off in the amount of money that the funds would receive from their investments.
  The Secretary of State then took a decision to freeze the salary-related rebate. At the same time, she has accepted that there was a shortfall to income from investments. However, in her rationale for reducing the rebate amount for money purchase schemes, the Secretary of State has executed a complete about-turn. Her rationale for lowering the rebate on those schemes has simply been that there has been no change in the amount of investment income that they were receiving, and that they would have lower expenses. In the table that she has accepted, she has therefore done a complete about-turn.
  I should like the Secretary of State to tell the House why she has hit so hard contracted-out money purchase schemes and those who have pensions in such arrangements. Why has she dealt them such a blow—for what specific purpose? Clearly, it has been done to save money for the Exchequer and from the national insurance fund. Her rationale in the report is extremely unclear.
  Mr. Pond: A few minutes ago, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Government Actuary, and he now mentions the cost to the Exchequer. Is he aware that, according to experts in the industry, the basic pension-plus scheme—which I believe he supported—would have cost the Exchequer very large amounts without providing any form of sustainable income for pensioners? Will he tell the House whether, as the Opposition spokesman, that is still his position? I see that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is shaking his head. I therefore assume that you are not in favour of that scheme. So this intervention—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not using correct parliamentary language.
  Mr. Pond: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) really should wake himself up in the morning and remind himself that his party is now in government, not in opposition. I know that those points—that Labour is in government, and that those decisions have to be made—are very hard to bear, but the Government have been elected on the basis not only of protecting pension incomes but of developing reform proposals, with which we shall deal in a moment, but which are almost non-existent. The point that I was making—on which I thought he wished to intervene—was that my policy is to get into government at the next general election to sort out the mess that the Government have created.

  383
  The real issue is the extent to which the Government, after 10 months in office, already fear the likelihood of us getting back into government. I do not know whether my right hon. and hon. Friends have noticed it, but both in our earlier debate and in this one, Labour Members have spent their time asking what we will do when we are back in government. I certainly did not expect such fear after only 10 months in government—but never mind. We will now hear the reasons for their fear.
  Ministers fear that they have been rumbled, and that the basis of the Government Actuary's report is an absolute indictment of the Government's Budget. The report demonstrates that the changes to the ACT dividend tax credit forced the Government to make an emergency call to the Government Actuary, who has had to examine and adjust the rebates. Ministers now say, "We cannot accept part of those recommendations, because what we really need to do is to save ourselves some money."
  The Government have therefore done an about-turn, and basically accepted the logic of those who shouted the loudest—all the financial advisers on personal pensions, who said, "If you don't make this change, we'll drive them all back into SERPS." The Secretary of State has therefore bowed before that group. However, because others in the industry did not make such a noise, she has clawed back the money from those sources. That is the type of Government we have. The main blow to contracted-out money purchase and other schemes will fall directly on employers, and will subsequently be shuffled down to employees.
  I see that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) is yawning. I know that he finds it difficult to stay awake for the Government. It is remarkable that, although he does not understand what is going on, he votes for it.
  The Secretary of State made a reply to the actuarial report. When she said that she would have to raise rebates for personal pensions, she was asked whether she took a measure of the blame for her actions and those of the Chancellor. She said:
  "For individuals who have pensions with providers who take a rather less optimistic view of future investment returns there was a short term risk that they would be advised to contract back into SERPS."
  Now she is blaming the advisers for being pessimistic, although they are bound by law to tell those investing in personal pensions, when the changes are made, that they should go back into SERPS. However, the Secretary of State wants to blame them for making those comments.
  The Secretary of State went on to say:
  "This would not necessarily have been in the long-term interests of the individuals involved."
  What she is really saying is that the Government panicked. She was saying, "It wasn't in our long-term interests. They were going to bust our Budget; so we had to do something about it." That is the reality.
  Several hon. Membersrose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: We can now move on.
  Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I will move on. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  384
  Despite the much-vaunted statement that the Government will support and strengthen the occupational pension framework, Ministers have simply dealt a body blow to pensions generally. The significant part of the Actuary's report makes it quite clear that the Chancellor has proceeded, with stealth and in secret, to redistribute money from one part of the economy to another. However, without realising it, he has dealt a blow to the overall pension reform process. By creating the problem at the heart of the debate on SERPS, he has made it almost impossible for the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security to make progress in his reform programme. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but we are now 10 months into the welfare reform programme, and there is still no report on it.
  Before the July Budget, I think that most hon. Members would have expected to hear more from the Minister for Welfare Reform, who had already examined the matter—I know, as I took great pleasure in reading many of his publications, as I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security did; or perhaps did not—and, regardless of whether we liked them, we would have expected him to come up with a set of schemes that might have focused the Government on pension reform, getting them off to a flying start. If he had, perhaps we would have had something to debate by now. Instead, he was taken off the review, and his colleague was put on it.
  At the heart of that ministerial change was the Budget's effects on SERPS. The Minister for Welfare Reform—who is on record as saying endlessly that SERPS has to go—suddenly discovered that the Chancellor had said in the Budget that SERPS must stay. He was subsequently taken off the review, and we will have to find some other way round the problem.
  The Under-Secretary initiated a review that received 2,000 responses from industry. Although he closed that review, he almost immediately started another type of review—which received 171 responses by the time he closed it—because the responses to the initial review did not say want he wanted to hear.
  There is therefore massive review fatigue in the industry. Every time industry answers a question from Ministers, it is asked another question. Ministers hope that, if they ask the industry ever more questions, they will eventually receive the answer that they wanted to hear initially. However, that should not really be surprising. The Government spent their time in opposition scurrilously attacking all aspects of pensions reform, and consequently did no thinking on the subject.
  Across the country, Ministers have been scaring men and women not only about the basic state pension but about the state of their pension when it is time for them to retire.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this debate is rather academic for millions of pensioners across the country? I am talking about pensioners—thousands of whom live in my constituency—who are drawing the basic state pension. Does he accept that the basic pensioner is £22 a week worse off today than when the Conservatives were elected to government in 1979—after which they decoupled pensions from earnings and coupled them with prices?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman tells all those—not wealthy—people in his constituency

  385
  who made the effort to save money for their future and pensions that they are academic and irrelevant. They thought that their pensions—which the Government said that they would protect—were safe. I thought I heard him say—I wonder whether he is speaking on behalf of the Government—that the Government might be thinking about linking the basic state pension to earnings instead of to prices. Is he saying that the Government will do that?
  The point is that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) should be discussing everyone's savings and everyone's future—not trying to divide and attack one group. That is what the Government's actions amount to and what has happened since Labour has been in power. The Government have scared working men and women across the country.
  Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I tell the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) and other Labour Members that they have been asked the question that was at the heart of what the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East asked: what will happen to the basic state pension? There has been leak after leak about whether the Government will means-test it, or claw it back. We have even seen a report in a newspaper—I think it was The Sunday Times—that said that the Government would claw back a basic minimum income of £100 via a means test.
  Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I want to make progress.
  When the Secretary of State was challenged on the matter—I think that it was at Question Time—she said:
  "The hon. Gentleman should read our manifesto, which says that the basic state pension will continue to be paid universally, as it is now".— [official Report, 15 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 5.]
  I checked the manifesto, which, funnily enough, did not say that at all. It said:
  "The basic state pension will be retained as the foundation of pension provision. It will be increased at least in line with prices."
  I do not know what my right hon. and hon. Friends think about that, but it does not sound to me like an absolute guarantee in regard to the basic state pension. It sounds a little like "Read my lips."
  Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. He has had his moment in the sun.
  We simply offer the Secretary of State an opportunity to support her hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East in her very first words. Perhaps she will be able to answer his question, and even answer the question supported by the Liberal Democrat amendment. What will happen to the basic state pension? I think that that is a fair question: the Government can give a guarantee about that. If the Secretary of State does not want to rule out means testing, perhaps she would prefer to say that the Government are thinking about it. I am sure that every hon. Member will understand that she is caught against
  386
  the Budget, and cannot make commitments in one sense; but she can certainly rule out actions that the Government are not going to take.
  So far, the Government have made a real mess of pensions. There has been chaos from the word go. Much of it started in the ridiculous position adopted by the Government during the last election, when they attacked any proposal for the reform of pensions. That continued into the Budget statement, when the Chancellor, in a moment of frenzy, attacked pension funds and drove a wedge into pension reform. He made it almost impossible for the Government to tackle the issue. That has created a problem right across the state earnings-related pension scheme. It has meant that the Government have had to arrange a special out-of-sequence review; it has meant that they have had to change policy in the space of 10 months. It has left people out there scared about their basic state pensions, scared about their pension funds and scared about what will happen to the pledges that were made at the time of the election.
  The Prime Minister endlessly said that the Government would not raise taxes, but, since the Government took office, we have seen one tax raid after another. The most significant tax raid is the one that the Government have made on pension funds. That is the key. In 10 months, all that we have had is a record of broken promises and taxes increased by stealth. I can only say this to Labour Members: it is one sort of record to come to power and, in 10 months, to be tacking and weaving as though they were on their way out of power.
  Perhaps that is what should happen. Perhaps that is why Labour Members are so scared. Perhaps that is why, throughout the last debate and, I dare say, during this debate, they have been more interested in knowing what we will do than in finding out what they have done themselves—which is to break promise after promise.
  7.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Government's commitment to maintain the basic state pension as the foundation of pension provision and to uprate it at least in line with prices; welcomes the tough action which is being taken to ensure that victims of pension mis-selling are compensated; welcomes the action the Government has already taken in giving a Winter Fuel Payment to all pensioners with fuel bills to pay and fulfilling its promise to Britain's pensioners by cutting VAT on fuel to five per cent.; welcomes the Government's progress in developing pensions policy which will benefit today's and tomorrow's pensioners; welcomes the widespread consultation the Government is undertaking and notes that the Government's Pension Review has received over 2,000 submissions from pension providers, employers, trade unions, pension experts and pensioners' organisations; notes the widespread support for the Government's proposals for Stakeholder Pensions; and deplores the previous administration's policies on pensions, their imposition of VAT on fuel and their attempt to increase VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent."
  Labour Members always welcome the opportunity to debate pensions, and I commend the Opposition on their choice of debate, but I cannot extend that commendation to the speech of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). He had no positive proposals to make on pensions policy. Let me say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton,

  387
  South-East (Dr. Iddon) that the Opposition's current pensions policy is that they will be in government next time: that seems to be the extent of their policy.
  The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said nothing about his Government's record, because they let pensioners down. Although that Government were comprehensively rejected by the British people—partly because of their record on pensions—all that the hon. Gentleman did was criticise the present Government for implementing the manifesto on which we were elected. Let me make the last Government's record clear, because it is the challenge that we now face. They failed pensioners: too many people in retirement are poor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East made clear in his intervention. It is a scandal that, after a lifetime of work or caring for their families, pensioners are among the poorest people in Britain today. One in four pensioners must live on or below income support levels; 1.7 million must depend on income support; and a further 1 million who do not even claim the income support to which they are entitled live only on the basic state pension.
  Inequality between pensioners has grown. The income of the bottom 20 per cent. of pensioner couples has risen by just £25 per week over the past 20 years, while the incomes of those at the top have risen by more than £160 a week.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: Is that wrong?
  Ms Harman: The hon. Lady asks, from a sedentary position, whether that is wrong. We want to narrow the gap between the pensioners at the bottom and all the others by ensuring a better standard of living for pensioners at the bottom. Without action, that inequality is set to grow.
  All pensioners were hit by the notorious Tory VAT on fuel. Pensioners' fuel bills soared when it was introduced at 8 per cent.; only the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and pensioners themselves stood together to stop the Tories from raising it to 17.5 per cent. That is the last Government's record on pensioners. Nor did they establish a proper framework for pensions for the future; indeed, they made matters worse.
  Mr. Browne: In a Budget debate, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said:
  "The most important part of the Budget speech was the part that dealt with VAT on fuel. All hon. Members should welcome that announcement." —[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 975.]
  Ms Harman: The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has gone a bit quiet now. He has lowered his head, and is looking at his papers. Perhaps he can hardly believe that he said that.
  It is clear that the key to security in retirement is a good second pension on top of the basic state pension. Now, however, millions of people have no such provision of their own, as they have had no chance to build up a good second pension. Many who did have good occupational pensions lost out when they were wrongly encouraged to opt out of those pensions into poor-value private personal pensions under the last Government.
  Mr. Nick Gibb: Why has the Secretary of State decided to reduce
  388
  rebates for contracted-out money purchase schemes on the basis of an assumed 2.25 percent. rate of return on assets, when the Government Actuary recommends an assumed 2 per cent. rate of return?
  Ms Harman: We have made our position clear, but I will deal with it further in my speech. We sought the advice of the Government Actuary. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green makes much of the review being out of sequence, but we are entitled to ask for the Government Actuary's advice when we consider it right. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should not have done that? I am sure he agrees that it was right for us to seek the advice. We did so, we acted on it and we published our draft statutory instruments.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the Secretary of State now tell us why the Government asked for the Government Actuary's advice?
  Ms Harman: We asked for the Government Actuary's advice because we thought it proper to do so; that is what he is there for. We sought his advice and took appropriate action.[Interruption.] Conservative Members are engaged in diversionary tactics because they know that I am about to deal with the issue of pensions mis-selling. We were right to seek the Government Actuary's advice. We took appropriate action and published draft regulations.
  Many people in good occupational pensions opted out, which proved disastrous. Hundreds of thousands of people who had previously had an index-linked pension to which they and their employer contributed were landed instead with a poor-value private pension that ate up £1 in every £4 of their hard-earned savings.
  That had a terrible effect on those people's prospects for retirement. People on half average earnings who previously contributed to their company pensions, along with their employer, would have seen their pensions in retirement slashed from more than £130 a week to only £58 a week.
  Having caused the scandal of pensions mis-selling, the Tories failed to take action to compensate those who lost out. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green asked us to account for what we have been doing on pensions in government. My Department and the Treasury have been sorting out the scandal of those who were mis-sold personal pensions and whom the Tories failed to compensate. By the time of the general election, fewer than 2 per cent. of those who had been mis-sold personal pensions had been compensated, and 18,000 people died before getting any form of redress. It has been left to this Government to ensure that people are properly compensated.
  My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has pressurised the companies that mis-sold personal pensions; that pressure continues and is paying off. Figures published today by the Personal Investment Authority show a respectable increase in the effort to get compensation to the victims of pensions mis-selling, with a thirteenfold increase in the number of people compensated compared with this time last year. I want to thank my hon. Friend for that progress.

  389
  We will press on, bringing justice to those whose pensions were ripped off by the Conservative Government.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: The Secretary of State has made comments about whether people were wise to come out of the state earnings-related pension scheme. The Minister for Welfare Reform said, at column 197 on 11 December 1997, that SERPS was "a pay-as-you-go scheme" and that he proposed to give people a better stake in their pensions by using the private sector.
  Ms Harman: Indeed, we made it clear in the manifesto that we want people to have a stake in their pensions. That is why we are introducing and consulting on the stakeholder pension in addition to the basic state pension.
  Despite the Conservative Government's record, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green criticised this Government's record on pensions, and in particular the effect of last year's Budget. He spoke at length about the Budget, but said absolutely nothing new. He has made his sole point—it is not a good one—many times before, in written and oral questions, and he will continue to get the same answer. Let me try once again to explain the position to him.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that he believes that we must take action to strengthen the economy for the longer term. The only way in which to build an economy that can pay decent pensions in the future is by providing stability and growth, today and in the future. That requires high levels of long-term, high-quality investment, such as we have not seen before.
  The Budget was designed to create the right conditions. It committed us to prudent spending, sound fiscal policies and cuts in corporation tax. We removed a bias in the tax system that discouraged long-term investment. Because the Budget was good for investment, good for companies and good for the economy it will be good for the ability of the economy to sustain pensions in the long term.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Ms Harman: I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was allowed to speak in this debate. If I give way to him, he can explain why he is not winding up tonight's debate.
  Mr. Burns: As always, I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State. I want to ask her one simple question. Will she do me the courtesy of giving me a straightforward yes or no answer? As she develops her theme, will she please tell the House, and the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), whether the Government will restore the link of the basic state pension to earnings or keep it linked to prices?
  Ms Harman: I will deal with the value of the basic state pension later. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give a yes or no answer to the question why he is not winding up this debate—yes or no?
  Mr. Burns: Before the situation gets out of hand, let me explain that, as the Secretary of State knows from
  390
  Question Time and from numerous debates, I have concentrated on welfare reform, while my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has done a great deal of work on pensions, so it is only right that he should wind up this important debate tonight.
  Ms Harman: If the hon. Gentleman listens to the debate, he may learn more.
  We are increasing the rebates for appropriate personal pensions to ensure that contracting out remains attractive. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green asked about the advice of the Government Actuary. As I have already said, we sought and considered that advice, and last Wednesday we laid orders to increase the rebates.
  The Government are taking, and are determined to continue taking, the long-term view of the economy and of pensions. That is the right approach to developing a pensions policy that can provide a secure retirement for all tomorrow's pensioners as well as today's.
  The future of pensions policy is at the heart of the reform of the welfare state. When we set out the case for reform at the beginning of the year, we said that a welfare state fit for the 21st century had to extend opportunity and security to all. We said that individuals have a responsibility to provide for themselves when they can do so and that society has a responsibility to help those who cannot.
  Those are the principles that underpin our pensions reform. We are determined to build a pensions system that provides a secure retirement for all pensioners: for today's pensioners as well as tomorrow's; for people on low or modest incomes as well as those on good salaries; and for women and carers as well as male breadwinners.
  The system must balance fairly the responsibilities of the state and the individual, and the public and private sectors. In the past 10 months, we have made substantial progress in both providing for today's pensioners and developing a framework for pensions provision.
  Pensions policy has to provide long-term security; people may contribute to their pensions for 40 years and be in retirement for more than 20 years. Pensions reform has to begin with debate, unlike the previous Government's pension plus scheme, which began on the back of an envelope. Our reform will begin with a wide-ranging debate, as it must be the product of consultation and build on broad support, because pensions reform has to last.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Ms Harman: I want to make some progress, so I may give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  Only two months after coming into government, I announced a wide-ranging review, led by my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Denham), fulfilling another manifesto promise, to build a sustainable consensus on the future of pensions policy. We set out 10 challenges that the review needed to address. We have not heard one word from the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green about whether he thinks that they are the right challenges or how we should meet them. He has nothing to say on the subject.

  391
  We have a pensions system that serves some people extremely well, but fails too many, so we have to find ways of enabling those who lose out to get a better income in retirement. We must tackle the growth in pensioner inequality, including the growing inequality between men's and women's incomes in retirement. We have encouraged debate, and have consulted widely. We have received more than 2,000 responses to the pensions review from pension providers, the Confederation of British Industry and employers, trade unions, pensions experts and pensioners, and we have given the National Pensioners Convention, led by Jack Jones, a specific and central role in our review.
  Officials, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have met the National Pensioners Convention a number of times to ensure that the views of pensioners are heard at the heart of government. But the debate about the future of pensions must be better informed than it can be with the current available information. That is why, as part of the pensions review, we have set up for the first time an independent pension provision group, which is chaired by Tom Ross, to whom we are grateful, to provide an authoritative analysis of the current state of pension provision and likely trends. The group will report shortly, and will make an important contribution to the debate on pension reform.
  Some of the fundamentals are already clear. Our pensions system has not kept up with the social and economic changes that have transformed the working and family lives of men and women over the past 50 years. The world of work has changed; it is no longer characterised by large numbers of men working for large employers, secure in the knowledge that their jobs are for life and bring with them a family wage and a pension for them and their wives when they retire.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: The Secretary of State is describing the problem.
  Ms Harman: It is a problem that we inherited from the previous Government. The world has changed, but pensions policy failed to respond, and those changes clearly passed the hon. Gentleman by.
  Mrs. Gorman: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Ms Harman: I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
  Occupational schemes provide, and will continue to provide, the best form of second pension, particularly because in most cases the employer, as well as the employee, contributes towards the pension.
  We want further to strengthen the framework of occupational pension provision, and encourage more people to join an occupational scheme when one is available. However, more and more working men and women do not have access to an occupational pension, because the best employer schemes are generally in the parts of the economy where employment has been shrinking—large private sector companies and the public sector. More people work for small and medium firms which are less likely to offer an occupational pension.
  In the modern world of work, more men and women change jobs regularly, and are employed on temporary or short-term contracts. That is the background against
  392
  which we have to work. More people are on the borders between employment and self-employment, and have no guarantee of regular work. Nowadays, two out of three women work, and it is expected that women will account for three quarters of the increase in the work force by 2006.
  Mothers form a growing proportion of the work force, and many of them want more flexible working patterns, which is one reason why one in five employed people work part time. Over the past 50 years, there have been profound changes in work and family patterns, but while the world of work has changed dramatically, the pensions system has not.
  Mrs. Gorman: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Ms Harman: I have already given way to the hon. Lady; I shall not give way to her again.
  Millions of people work in ways that are not catered for by the existing pensions system: their employer does not provide an occupational pension; their income is not high or stable enough to make personal pensions a good deal; and some of them, mainly women, may not even contribute to their basic state pension because, although they work, their earnings fall below the national insurance lower earnings limit.
  Without action being taken on pensions, those millions of people will face the prospect of dependence on means-tested benefits in retirement, and the gap between those who have access to a good occupational or personal second pension and the millions who do not will widen. That is unacceptable.
  Our welfare-to-work reforms will help people into work, and our pensions reforms will help people in work to save for their retirement. We are working on plans for stakeholder pensions, and consulting on the technical detail to which the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green referred, to help people who do not have access to an occupational pension for whom there was no provision under the previous Government.
  We want secure, flexible, value-for-money pensions for people on low or intermittent incomes, many of whom are women. Not only is consensus growing about the nature of the problem, but there is increasingly broad agreement about the solution. I have been encouraged by the consensus about the need for and shape of new, value-for-money second pensions which has emerged from our recent consultations on stakeholder pensions.
  Stakeholder pensions must offer excellent value for money, and can do so by making economies of scale through pooling savings in multi-member schemes and adopting low-charging regimes. They must be simple to regulate and easy to understand, and they must be available to the self-employed. Our pensions policy is starting to fill some of the gaps left behind by the previous Government who left people heading for their retirement without a good second pension.
  We must provide security in retirement for people who are contributing to society, not through paid work but through their caring responsibilities. Carers, most of whom are women, are unable to save for their pension, and if pensions that are designed to meet their needs are not available—under the previous Government, there was

  393
  none—they face poverty and dependence on means-tested benefits in retirement. For example, a woman from West Yorkshire contacted the Carers National Association.
  Mr. Gibb: Will the Secretary of State say, once and for all, whether the Government will means-test the basic state pension—yes or no?
  Ms Harman: I am dealing with the citizenship pension for carers, and will address the hon. Gentleman's point when I come to the basic state pension.
  A woman from West Yorkshire contacted the Carers National Association. She had worked in a supermarket since she was 20, and had an occupational pension into which she and her employer had paid. When the woman was 50, her mother, who was in her 70s, had a stroke, so the woman gave up her job to care for her. She has lost 10 years of her and her employer's pension contributions, and fears that in retirement she will end up like her mother—on income support.
  That woman, and people like her, deserve a secure and dignified retirement, and a pension in their own right on top of the basic state pension, so we are exploring plans for a citizenship pension to enable all carers to enjoy a decent and dignified retirement.
  Mr. Steve Webb: I have been studying the Government's pension reforms, and stakeholder pensions have received huge attention. There has been a massive consultation exercise on them, but citizenship pensions, rather like the people they are provided for, are the poor relation. The Secretary of State was questioned by the Social Security Select Committee on citizenship pensions, and her answer was hesitant and unclear. Does she accept that no progress has been made on the issue?
  Ms Harman: There has been extensive consultation. The hon. Gentleman and his party have been consistent advocates of such pensions. I assure him that we are making progress, and that citizenship pensions have by no means dropped off our pension reform agenda.
  The Government are already tackling key issues in developing a fair and lasting pensions policy for the future, but we are also taking immediate action to fulfil our commitment to help today's pensioners. Our manifesto made it clear that we would maintain the basic state pension as the foundation for pension provision, and that we would uprate it at least in line with prices. We have fulfilled our commitment and have increased the basic state pension for all pensioners, so that from next month the basic state pension for a couple will exceed £100 for the first time.
  Pensioners spend a greater proportion of their income on fuel than other households, so we have taken a wide range of action to help them to afford to keep warm during the winter. We have cut pensioners' fuel bills by cutting VAT on fuel to 5 per cent., and have reduced the gas levy to zero. For the first time—
  Mrs. Gorman: None of them has been paid.
  Ms Harman: The hon. Lady says that none of them has been paid. What we are talking about is the cut in VAT on gas and electricity, which certainly has happened and which would not have happened had we not been in government.
  394
  For the first time, all pensioners are getting help with their fuel bills through winter fuel payments.
  Mr. Burns: Some are still waiting.
  Ms Harman: We made it clear that we would pay out first to the poorest pensioners—those on income support. All the poorest pensioners have been paid.
  Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady clarify the phrase "all the poorest pensioners", which she keeps using? Nobody who becomes a pensioner from 6 January this year will receive a penny this year.
  Ms Harman: For 18 years, nobody, whenever he or she retired, got a winter fuel payment. The hon. Gentleman knows that, when a payment is provided, there has to be a cut-off point somewhere. The difference is that this Government are paying money to help pensioners with their fuel bills, whereas under the previous Government pensioners had to pay money to the Government to help them with their financial problems.
  Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House the cut-off date for the Christmas bonus?
  Ms Harman: That is a routine payment, which is paid every year.
  The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): Christmas is 25 December.
  Ms Harman: My right hon. Friend says that Christmas is 25 December. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) wants to make a huge point about the administration, but the fact is that we are paying every single pensioner extra money to help with his or her fuel bills. For the first time, all pensioners are getting help with their fuel bills through winter fuel payments. Some of Britain's poorest pensioners—the 1.5 million pensioners who are on income support—received their winter fuel payment of £50 in January. They have all been paid.
  Mr. Terry Rooney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, during the 18 years of the Conservative Government, 9.5 million people retired and every single one was worse off as a result of the policies of that Government?
  Ms Harman: My hon. Friend makes a good point.
  Last week, the first of more than 8 million pensioners received their winter fuel payment, as we started to pay £20 to all other pensioner households. All pensioners should receive a payment by the end of the month. Conservative Members may deride that policy, but people think that it is fair and just that one of our priorities, as promised in our manifesto, is to get help to all of today's pensioners, especially the poorest. We said that, as a priority, we would get help to today's poorest pensioners and we are delivering on our promise.
  We are concerned about the very poorest—the people who are not claiming income support even though they are entitled to it. We are carrying out research to establish why up to 1 million pensioners do not claim the income support to which they are entitled. We have made it clear that the

  395
  Government believe that people who are not entitled to benefit should not get it, but we also believe that those who are entitled to benefit should get it.
  When we were in opposition and when the House debated what became the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, I repeatedly pressed the Tory Government to use the new computers and data-matching powers not only to catch fraudsters—important though that is—but to identify pensioners who were falling through the net.
  Mr. Field: They would not do so.
  Ms Harman: My right hon. Friend is right. The previous Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), refused to do that. He said that the poorest pensioners chose not to claim the money, because they did not want it. He said that, if the Government attempted to identify them, they would be found guilty by the European Court of Human Rights, so they could not possibly do it. We are not that frail. The right hon. Gentleman refused to recognise that, although those pensioners might need the money, they might not know that they were entitled to it, or that they might know that they were entitled to it, but be too proud to claim it.
  That was wrong and now that we are in government we are taking action to carry out our manifesto promise of getting help to the poorest pensioners. Today, I can announce that we are investing £15 million in nine new pilot exercises to find the best ways of getting help to pensioners who do not claim their income support. Those pilots will start next month in Glasgow, Preston, York, Lambeth, Torbay, Stroud, South Staffordshire, Torfaen and East Renfrewshire.
  We already hold numerous records and data on the people whom we are trying to help. Most are on record at the Contributions Agency as being entitled to the basic state pension and many are on record at the Benefits Agency because they receive other social security benefits such as attendance allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. At the moment, that information is just lying there, on different computer systems, but we will use that information and our data-matching powers to identify those pensioners who are missing out. Under those pilots the Benefits Agency, the Contributions Agency and local authorities in the nine areas will work together to find the best ways of getting the money to those poorest pensioners.
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that announcement. May I ask her to do as much as she can to accelerate the pilot projects and get them finished quickly, so that what is learned from them can be extended to the rest of the country as soon as possible?
  Ms Harman: We shall report back to the House on how the projects work, but we can all agree that those who have gone without are the poorest people in society. The information on how to help them has never been used before, so this pioneering and innovative measure is long overdue.
  We are modernising the social security system to tackle social and economic inequality and to tackle poverty. That is a promise on which we were elected. Not only do
  396
  the new Labour Government take a different approach to the objectives of pensions policy from their predecessors; they take a different approach to developing that policy so that we get it right.
  That is why we shall publish our proposals on pensions and the conclusions of our pensions review, so as to enable a full and well-informed debate and to get it right. That is why our proposals on pension sharing on divorce will be set out in draft Bill clauses, which will be published in advance of introducing them into the House, so that they can be examined by, among others, the Select Committee on Social Security. In that way, we can consult with and draw on the advice of others and so get it right.
  Our principles are clearly established and now we have established the practice of open consultation in order to improve the quality of the draft legislation that comes before the House for consideration. Reforming pensions provision is at the centre of reforming welfare and we have already made substantial progress along the path of pensions reform.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I was delighted when the Secretary of State said that we had to proceed by consent. In my brief contribution, I shall echo that point of view. Pensions are far too serious a subject to be the plaything of party politics.
  The parties on both sides of the House have apologies to make. I shall start by making an apology on behalf of the Conservative party: there undoubtedly was a serious problem of pension mis-selling in the 1980s. I doubt whether that was the fault of Conservative Ministers or Back Benchers, but the problem occurred and the Labour Government are right to address it. In turn, the Government should make an apology for their abolition of ACT which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) made clear, will cost pensioners up to £5 billion. That sends entirely the wrong message. As I have said, if we are going to make any headway at all, we have to proceed by way of consent and cross-party support.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security is right to say that the pension system is failing many people. It has become almost a cliche, but work patterns are changing and, for the first time, there has been a worrying dip in the number of people who take out occupational pensions. Our pension industry faces a serious crisis.
  Since the second world war, we have had a record second to none in persuading people to take out occupational pensions. A total of £600 billion is invested, but work patterns are changing. The Secretary of State is right to say that there is a particularly worrying trend with women workers, whose contributions are often not sufficient.
  All that leads me to suggest that there must be cross-party consensus that, with the end of the link with earnings, the basic state pension, which for 50 years has been the pride of the welfare state, is no longer adequate. It is no longer adequate in our age; it will certainly not be adequate by the middle of the next century. That is a worrying development because people have been taught to rely on the basic state pension. They can no longer do so.
  There is no point in hurling insults across the Chamber. The fact is that neither party, whichever is in government, is going to restore the link with earnings because we

  397
  simply cannot afford to do so. Therefore, the basic state pension is going to decline, is declining in terms of real value, is not sufficient and will be even less sufficient for our elderly population.
  Two nations are emerging. Many of us enjoy an excellent occupational pension in the House, if we are fortunate to survive for enough years. One nation enjoys first-rate occupational pensions; another does not and is condemned to an old age of poverty and reliance on income support. That is not acceptable in a civilised society.
  Surely that point is, or should be, accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but what do we do then? Obviously the Secretary of State is right. We have to create a stakeholder society, to use her jargon. There is nothing wrong with the phrase. She coined it, but there is no reason why we should not adopt it. That was precisely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the former Secretary of State for Social Security, now the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, was trying to do before the general election. He was trying to encourage people to make provision for their old age.
  Mr. Hope: The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that there is cross-party consensus. Does he agree that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, said nothing about pensioner poverty, about extra payments to pensioners or about the Conservative Government's failure to do anything to assist pensioners who live on or below the poverty line? Does the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) agree that we have inherited a legacy of pensioner poverty, which has caused millions of people throughout this country enormous distress?
  Mr. Leigh: It is precisely that sort of pointless party political intervention that does not help pensioners one bit. The hon. Gentleman made an utterly ludicrous intervention at the beginning of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. What is the point in saying that? How will that help pensioners?
  Let us return to the real debate. The fact is that the basic state pension is not adequate. What are we going to do about it? Before the general election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden proposed an idea, a concept. The trouble is that it was launched almost exactly a year ago, on 6 March 1997, when we were in the midst of pre-electoral tension. Frankly, there was no proper debate about his sensible proposals. All he was saying was that people—all people—should be encouraged and required under the basic pension plus system to put a proportion of their income into a private insurance company to provide for their old age.
  That idea clearly was not acceptable to the Labour party in that pre-election period. Perhaps it is not acceptable now. However, there is a compromise that hon. Members on both sides of the House may be able to accept. I know that Chile is a dirty word to many Labour Members, so I do not want to go on and on about it, but I could mention Singapore if that makes life easier for them. Consensus is
  398
  surely emerging throughout the world that, if we are to provide sensibly for all old people, we must proceed not down the pay-as-you-go route, but down the stakeholder pension route.
  Whether we support the Chilean model, by which people are required to put 10 per cent. of their income into a highly regulated, albeit private, insurance system, or the Singaporean model, where people do the same, but pension funds are effectively controlled and run by the Government, all we can do is give pensioners the choice. We have to require them to put a proportion of their income into a pension plan.
  Mr. Howard Flight: There is a crucial difference between the two models. The returns achieved by Singapore have totalled only some 2.5 per cent. because the investment has been state controlled, whereas the returns achieved by the Chile funds have been substantially larger. If it is a compulsory state-run system, there is a huge issue as to how the money is used.
  Mr. Leigh: I fully accept my hon. Friend's point. The initial enthusiasm of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—when he was the social security shadow spokesman—for the Singaporean system was tempered by the relatively low rate of return that the Singaporean Government managed to achieve, even though it is a successful and highly regulated society, so my hon. Friend makes a fair point.
  All I say is that I fear, because we are not at present in government, that there is no enthusiasm on the Treasury Front Bench to proceed down the Chilean route. When the Select Committee on Social Security visited Chile before the last election, led by its then Chairman, now the Minister for Welfare Reform, it took some interesting evidence. Generally, we were impressed by the Chilean experience. We were particularly impressed by the rate of return and by the fact that, because the system is so highly regulated, there has been little abuse, although there has been a certain amount of abuse with people chopping and changing between different pension schemes. However, as it is highly regulated, they do not personally lose out.
  The Government are not going to move down that road immediately because that would go against all their instincts. I understand that, but surely we can give people at least the choice, either to invest in private pension plans or, if that is unacceptable to them, to invest in pension schemes that are run by mutual or friendly societies.
  I understand that pension schemes that are run by mutual or friendly societies may be more acceptable to the Government than private insurance schemes, but, whatever system we adopt, we cannot dictate to people how they should plan for their retirement. We have to give them the choice. What we surely have to do as a nation is find some way—this will take not one or two Parliaments, but perhaps five, 10, 15 or 20 Parliaments to achieve—that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber can support, to encourage and require everyone, whatever the nature of their work pattern, however many times they change jobs, and whether they are men or women, to provide adequately for their old age. If we do not, we are storing up for this country the most profound and agonising social turmoil that it has encountered for many years.
  8.28 pm
  Kali Mountford: This has been an intriguing debate so far. At the beginning of the debate, I thought, "This is typical. It exemplifies the difference between Labour and Opposition Members." Following the speech by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I am even more intrigued. We continue to talk about the second pension route, but I was intrigued especially by the hon. Gentleman's remarks about pensioner poverty. I want to concentrate today on pensioner poverty, and stability and security in old age. I agree that we need a second pension, but that is for the future—the young people of today and how they supply the resources to provide security for themselves in their old age. One thing that will not give them security is a scheme that pulls the rug from under them by taking away the security of a basic state pension. Most of the suggestions from the Conservative party when it was in government gave the impression that it would pull the rug away from pensioners.
  Mr. Flight: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Kali Mountford: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is going to illustrate that point.
  Mr. Flight: The policy proposed before the general election involved a state guarantee equivalent to the state pension. The crucial issue was that the returns on private sector investment could be considerably greater than the returns within the state system. It was not proposed to remove the guarantee of the amount of the state pension.
  Kali Mountford: We are going down an old path here. We have discussed this before in the debates on the Finance Bill and subsequent debates about social security. The perception of voters and my perception of basic pension plus was that once one was out of the system, there was no way back in. That created real fear for voters. We have to take that fear away.
  Security in retirement is an absolute need. Another absolute need is freedom from poverty. I am delighted with what I have heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this evening. The use of the technology of today to provide security for a new age has to be the right approach. Many people have an income below the level of income support. That is real and abject poverty. There is a generation gap which is important both to the provision of second pensions and to the provision of pensions today. The poorest people are those aged over 75, of whom 40 per cent. have an income below the level of income support. That generation of people is least likely to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. They live in the most real poverty of all. Whichever group of poor people we discuss, those are the people about whom I am most concerned. They are physically vulnerable and they are proud of their traditions. We have to find the right way in which to ensure that they claim that to which they are entitled. One way in which to do that, which is a correct way, is to ensure that they do not pay over the odds for basic needs. So let us have a look at VAT on fuel.
  Pensioners will have been disappointed in Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who welcomed the
  400
  previous Chancellor's proposal to increase VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. Let us remember that it was the Labour Opposition who beat down that proposal. The Chancellor at that time decided to fill the gap in his Budget, which was created when the House voted against his proposal, by reducing the increase in the state pension by 30p. How did that meet the expectation of proper state support through the basic state pension? That illustrates the difference in the priorities of the Labour Government and the Conservative party when it was in government.
  Mr. Hope: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said in the House of the increase in the state pension age:
  "The equalisation of the state pension age at 65—again a change that we proposed in August—is welcome, but the Government should look again at increasing it, in due course, to 67 because the average age is rising."? — [Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 978.]
  If that had happened, some 2.4 million pensioners would have lost out.
  Kali Mountford: Sadly, I am not surprised to hear that, although I am disappointed. The demographic changes in society present a problem and imagination has to be used to solve it. We have an aging population with growing needs, but a simplistic approach is not the answer. One simple answer that needs to be understood is that people who need benefits sometimes need to know the route to those benefits. That is why VAT on fuel is so important and why I welcome the reduction in VAT on fuel. I expect that Conservative Members were disappointed in it, given that they welcomed the opposite when their party was in government.
  Let us consider the effect of reducing VAT on fuel, blunt instrument though it may be. It allows pensioners to keep their heating on in the winter. Help the Aged reported that pensioners were having to make decisions between food and fuel. That is why it welcomed the introduction of the £20 and the £50 for fuel this winter—another blunt instrument, but a blunt instrument that gets to the point. If pensioners have to wait for weeks on end to see how cold it gets to find out whether they will be entitled to extra support, it makes life very difficult for them, especially as the rules in relation to income support and cold weather payments were complicated. At least this winter—it has been a mild winter—pensioners have had the cash to pay their heating bills without all that rigmarole. That is important.
  Our aging population faces some difficult issues and problems. A group of pensioners came to see me on Saturday. They brought me a letter from their pensioner action group about what they thought was most important. They wanted to see an increase in the basic state pension; there is no surprise in that. So they would have been disappointed by the previous Chancellor's reduction in the increase.
  Mr. Gibb: Did those pensioners request that the hon. Lady's Government means-test the basic state pension? If not, why is the hon. Lady not asking the Secretary of State to confirm whether she intends to means-test it?
  Kali Mountford: The issue of means-testing was not raised by that group of pensioners. They concentrated on

  401
  some rather more interesting issues, such as why they had so much difficulty with care in the community, why they could not get into the private residential homes that used to be in local authority control and why they found it so difficult to get access to the national health service, which they felt that they had paid for and the previous Government had eroded.
  Miss Kirkbride: I wonder whether the hon. Lady explained to her pensioners why her Labour Government, who pleaded so much on behalf of poor pensioners, were not prepared to restore the link with earnings.
  Kali Mountford: The hon. Lady obviously has not been listening to the debate. After 18 years of Tory government and the erosion of the basic state pension, we have a long way to go from a low base. A great deal of imagination is needed. The most important people are those on incomes below income support level. The point of income support is that it marks the point of poverty. If people are below that point, they are making difficult choices in managing their families' budgets. To keep harping on this issue, which misses the point about pensioners, does them no favours at all.
  We need to make decisions about our priorities. Conservative Members keep talking about actuaries and private pension funds—
  Mr. Gibb: No, about SERPS.
  Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman should allow me to finish. Conservative Members have missed the point about basic priorities. We must start with those in greatest need. The Secretary of State is absolutely right to look into providing second pensions and increased pensions. That process needs to be inclusive and consultative. The Conservative party bludgeoned people into decisions without properly consulting. At least at the end of our process of consultation, a consensus will emerge on how future pensions are to be provided. It is the pensioners of today who are not on income support who must be the main focus of our attention.
  Under the Conservative Government, one quarter of all pensioners did not get an adequate second pension, and 12 million of them got no company pension. Then there was the diabolical tragedy of the mis-selling of pensions. There was also a growing gap between the poorest and richest pensioners. In 1979, the bottom 20 per cent. received £55.90 and the top 20 per cent. £169.60. Sixteen years on, the bottom 20 per cent. have had an increase of £15 but the top 20 per cent. have enjoyed an increase of £103. If that drift were allowed to continue, the poorest would become even poorer and the richest would continue to get richer. That is no way to proceed. The challenge for this Government is to provide for the poorest pensioners, which is why I commend my right hon. Friend's proposals to the House.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I brought with me to the Chamber tonight a secret—a secret concerning how the Conservatives are planning to win the next general election— [-10N. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] I note a greater than
  402
  usual attentiveness on the Conservative Benches. After close textual analysis of tonight's motion, it is clear to me that the Conservatives plan to sweep back to power on a tide of amnesia. They hope that we will all forget the past 18 years and concentrate only on the past eight months. They must think we have very short memories.
  The Tories spent 18 years ripping the heart out of rural Britain, and they now pretend to be the friends of the countryside. They spent 18 years squeezing higher education, but now pretend to be the friends of the students. After spending 18 years slashing future spending on state pensions and creating a shambles over private pensions, they now claim to be the friends of pensioners. It just does not add up.
  The motion claims to deal with the failings of the present Government. We shall assess those claims in a moment; meanwhile, it is important to remember that the real problems with pensioner incomes have arisen not just since 1 May but since 1979.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Before we all join the hon. Gentleman in suffering from amnesia, will he recognise that no Government will change the rules linking pensions to prices rather than earnings; and that, if Labour ever did that, the Government would be unable to provide the expenditure for health and education that they want to?
  The Conservatives' proposals on pensions just before the election would have increased expenditure on them by £7 billion a year, at the peak, in order to bring our pension system under better long-term control. Why did not the hon. Gentleman welcome those measures—or perhaps he has not yet worked out what Liberal Democrat party policy is on the issue?
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the Government will not link the basic state pension to earnings again. I would be most surprised if they did, but I am sure they will not. Nor would the official Opposition; and I would be greatly surprised if our party policy, as it is reviewed, came up with that idea, either. It is true that all the parties seem agreed on that.
  The motion suggests that everything that is wrong with pensioners' incomes started to go wrong on 1 May. That is simply not true. Pensioners who retire in the new millennium will have far less to live on, not as a result of this Government's policies but as a result of Conservative policies. The basic state pension will have been eroded, by the breaking of the earnings link, to a level which Michael Portillo once famously described as nugatory. SERPS pensions will be worth less than half what they would have been under the pre-Conservative system.
  How many billions did those Conservative measures take off pensioners? The answer is: not the £5 billion that the Government have taken from pension funds, but tens of billions of pounds. Yet now the Conservatives have the gall to criticise the Labour Government for taking £5 billion out of the system. That is small beer by Conservative standards.
  It is not as if the private sector fared any better. Was it not a Conservative Chancellor, Mr. Lamont, who first spotted that tax credits were a wheeze for raising £1 billion? It seems that a few years ago that was right when the Conservatives did it; now, when the Labour party does its famous trick of following Conservative

  403
  policies, the Opposition criticise it for doing so. How implausible it is when the Conservatives pretend to be outraged when the Labour Government follow their lead.
  What about the debacle over personal pensions, which is still only slowly being unravelled? The Labour Government may not have done much for pensioners so far, but they have at least tackled this one scam with a great deal more energy and urgency than it ever received from the Conservatives. Indeed, I pay tribute to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for all she has done and for the energy that she has devoted to that campaign. We wish her well with it.
  What of the Government's record on pensions? For today's pensioners, they have cut VAT on fuel from 8 to 5 per cent—no doubt a move welcomed by pensioners. But Labour Members should not get carried away into thinking that that will make a big difference to elderly people. The Government announced the cutting of VAT on fuel in July. That had the advantage of feeding into the September retail prices index, which meant that pensions next April will go up by less than they would have without the cut in VAT. Taking account of that, a recent written answer stated that a typical married pensioner will get about 25p a week from the cut in VAT on fuel—not unwelcome, but scarcely a king's ransom.
  What about the other measure—winter fuel payments? That, too, is a welcome move, although there is no long-term strategy to deal with fuel poverty: it is to apply just this year and next. The payment is worth less than 40p to a typical pensioner. Added together, therefore, the two measures are worth less than £1 a week to the typical pensioner. That hardly constitutes a serious attack on pensioner poverty.
  As regards changes to tax credits, it is disingenuous of the Government to pretend that they can take £5 billion from pension funds without affecting pensions—
  Mr. Coaker: The hon. Gentleman is falling into the same trap as the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) fell into—equating a change in the tax regime with an effect on pension fund income. Pension funds operate in the total economy and depend on a range of factors, not just the tax regime. We cannot ignore the general health of the economy, investment returns and so on—they all affect pension funds as well.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right, to the extent that tax treatment is but one of a range of factors. I am not relying on my own opinion here, however. The Government Actuary must be preening himself—everyone seems to have been reading his report. Indeed. I can recommend it as a stonking good read. The Government Actuary has said that returns to pension funds, allowing for possible increases in dividends, will be lower because of the Government's tax changes. Presumably the Government Actuary has no political axe to grind; otherwise, he would not recommend changed rebates for personal pensions. Independent comment states that the changes will damage pensioners' incomes. That is why we have opposed them.
  I accept that the Government will not reverse that policy now, but I want to raise with the Pensions Minister one group that will suffer through the change, and for which many of the arguments advanced by Labour
  404
  Members do not stand up as a defence. I refer to members of closed pension schemes—people whose employers have gone out of business and for whom there is a pot of money in the pension fund. Where there is no sponsoring employer, if the tax credit is cut, the income from the fund goes down and there is no employer to make up the difference.
  There is a danger that people such as my constituents in the DRG pension scheme will lose income. They will say, "A Labour Government cut my pension." I am sure that the Pensions Minister would not want them to say that. I ask him to look again at the position of people in closed pension schemes.
  One fundamental point underlies the debate about pensioner incomes. The Government have taken a number of small but welcome measures to help pensioners with their fuel bills. They are also rumoured to be examining the cost of television licences and of public transport for pensioners. Those proposals would no doubt be well received by many pensioners.
  Most of all, however, pensioners need, and I believe deserve, security and a decent income that they decide how to spend. Ultimately, what matters is not gimmicks or short-term sticking plaster. If pensioners cannot afford their fuel bills, television licence or bus fares, it is because their basic income is too low. Until that issue is addressed, neither of the two larger parties can claim to have taken seriously the concerns of pensioners.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Phil Hope: I join my hon. Friends in welcoming the debate. Having listened to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), may I say how strange it is to welcome to the Chamber yet another representative from the planet Zarg. That is where I assume he is from: given the remarks that he made, he cannot be living on this planet.
  Pension reform is one of the greatest challenges facing the Labour Government. Ensuring decent incomes in retirement is a key aim in the Government's wider strategy for tackling social exclusion and reducing poverty. Regrettably, we start with a Conservative inheritance that has failed today's pensioners, and would have devastated tomorrow's pensioners too.
  A quarter of today's pensioners do not have an adequate second pension. Almost 2 million depend on income support. The Tories did not lift a finger to ensure that the poorest pensioners received the benefits to which they are entitled. They abandoned a million pensioners, mainly women, to live on incomes well below the poverty line.
  We know that 12 million people do not have access to a company pension. For people on low or modest incomes, private personal pensions can be poor value for money. In some cases, £1 in every £4 of savings is eaten up by fees and charges. We know, too, that the Tories wrongly encouraged people to opt out of their company pension into private personal pensions, and then failed to take tough action on the disgraceful pension mis-selling that they encouraged. I wonder when those people will get an apology from the Conservative party.
  Kali Mountford: Would my hon. Friend be surprised to hear that a pensioner in my constituency of Colne

  405
  Valley, who lost £21,000 because of wrong advice, was compensated by only a few hundred pounds when his case was eventually settled?
  Mr. Hope: I am not at all surprised to hear that example. There are thousands of other similar examples—a devastating legacy of the appalling treatment that the Opposition, when in power, meted out to pensioners.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin rose—
  Mr. Hope: The Conservatives in government not only targeted their attacks on vulnerable pensioners: they used a shotgun approach. They tried to attack every pensioner by raising VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent., which the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green supported and voted for, even though his own Conservative constituency association urged him not to do so.
  Mrs. Gorman rose—
  Mr. Hope: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Letwin: I tried to intervene before the hon. Gentleman left the subject of the mis-selling of pensions, as I have a genuine interest in the matter. Does he think that it will be one year or two, three, four or five years before the Labour party stops hiding behind that accusation to excuse every failing of the Government?
  Mr. Hope: What an intriguing intervention. We are invited to suggest how many years it will be before the Conservatives come up with an apology for the way that they treated pensioners. The Labour Government understand that there is a crying need for reform of the pension system.
  Over the past 20 years, the incomes of retired people as a whole have risen faster than those of the working population, but that statistic hides the reality of the Tory legacy-inequality among pensioners has risen dramatically over the same period.
  Pensioners are among the poorest people in Britain today. Inequality has widened between rich and poor pensioners, and between older and younger pensioners. Unless things change, that inequality is set to widen. On the basis of reasonable assumptions, it is estimated that, over the next 30 years, the incomes of the poorest one fifth of pensioners will rise by about 20 per cent., but the incomes of the richest one fifth will rise by 80 per cent.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) reminded the House, the poorest pensioners tend to be older, and they tend to be single and women. A quarter of pensioners are entitled to income support, yet nearly 40 per cent. of them—1 million pensioners—do not receive the income support they should get. It is vital that we give immediate help to the poorest pensioners. Like my colleagues, I am delighted at the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that £15 million is to be spent on pilot schemes throughout the country to ensure that the poorest pensioners, the people who have suffered the most, will get the benefits to which they are genuinely entitled.
  406
  On the wider priorities, there are many ways that pensioners can share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation, not just through state pensions but through state income-related benefits, non-state pensions, savings and earnings, concessionary schemes and the tax system. For many pensioners, the national health service—long-term health and community care—can be as important to their quality of life as their income. We must make sure in government that we make the most efficient and equitable use of all those resources to ensure that all pensioners share in the nation's rising prosperity, but we must give priority to the needs of the poorest.
  The Labour Government have done much in that regard already. The cut in VAT on fuel benefited all pensioners, as did the winter fuel payment of £20 to every pensioner household. We made sure that the poorest pensioners, those on income support, received more— £50 per household—because they are most in need.
  Sir Robert Smith: On the issue of cold weather payments, does the hon. Gentleman not think it perverse that the Government are willing to give a blanket payment to pensioners across the country, regardless of weather conditions, but refuse point blank to do what they called for in opposition and pay pensioners when they experience the cold, by allowing the wind-chill factor to be taken into account in calculating payments?
  Mr. Hope: My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley has already pointed out that the complicated and difficult assessment procedures for cold weather payments meant that many pensioners switched off their heating because they were not sure whether they would qualify for the payments. Labour has demonstrated its commitment to pensioners by allocating £200 million this year and next year to winter fuel payments—that is more in one decisive action than the Tories managed over 18 shameful years of inactivity.
  It is not just about reversing the Tory legacy and tackling inequality: the Labour Government must build a sustainable framework for pensions for the future. A huge amount is spent on pensions throughout the country. More than £74 billion was paid in 1996 to pensioners from all types of pension schemes, of which £33 billion was paid out by the state on the basic state retirement pension and SERPS. From those basic figures, it is clear that a sustainable framework will always comprise a partnership between public and private provision, and be a balance between income sourced from tax and that from invested savings.
  Unlike the Conservatives, who would have abolished the basic state pension and struck fear into the hearts of pensioners and working people across the country before the election, the Labour Government must keep their manifesto commitment to retaining the basic state pension as the foundation of pension provision, increasing it at least in line with inflation. We must also retain SERPS as an option for those who wish to remain within that scheme.
  We have much more to do. Many people in this country are not able to save for a second pension. The Tory pension mis-selling scandal, which we are making decisive moves to settle, has made many people nervous about relying on invested second pension

  407
  schemes. Tory dogma and the Tories' failure to regulate the industry and the market properly caused that personal pension scandal. It need not have happened.
  We must develop a new framework of flexible, value-for-money, second stakeholder pensions in order to help to meet the needs of those on low and modest incomes with changing patterns of employment who cannot join a good-value second pension scheme. We must ensure that those schemes are large enough to enjoy economies of scale, are approved to meet high minimum standards, are run in the interests of the members and not the companies, and are run in a way that allows members to understand readily what they are paying and what they might expect to receive when they retire.
  We must also remember that a significant number of people cannot be expected to save for their own retirement. Many carers are unable to work, or suffer greatly reduced earnings because of their caring responsibilities. I believe that the Government should credit carers, and perhaps others, into a citizenship pension that will provide a second pension for those years when they are unable to work. That will help to avoid poverty and dependence on means-tested benefits as a consequence.
  Most of the poorest pensioners are women. Low pay during their working lives means that women are often less able than men to build a second pension. They may also experience disadvantage in their pension incomes if they are divorced. Many women are also badly served by SERPS at present. Stakeholder pensions, citizenship pensions and pension sharing on divorce are a combination of measures that will cut the routes to pensioner poverty and significantly narrow pension inequality between men and women in future.
  The Government must develop a pensions strategy that can cope with a slowly aging society without heaping unsustainable costs on to our children. A sustainable policy for pensions in the next millennium must tackle inequality among pensioners today and create a robust framework to ensure effective and equitable support for the pensioners of tomorrow.
  9.2 pm
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this very important debate.
  I have listened to the speeches of Government Members and I believe that a travesty of justice has been done to the previous Government's policies and our pension achievements. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) would listen, he might understand my points.
  The hon. Gentleman admitted that, during 18 years of Conservative government, incomes rose more quickly for pensioners than for the general population. We welcome that fact: it is testimony to our successful pensions record. We recognise—as do the Government, for which we are grateful—that more must be done to ensure that everyone receives a pension. However, we wish to take some credit for what has occurred to create a secure future for many of our pensioner constituents who have fared extremely well.
  During the 1980s, the Conservative Government recognised—
  Mr. Coaker: Although it may be true that some pensioners have shared in the country's increasing
  408
  prosperity, the reality is that the vast majority of pensioners are poor, and that a significant number are absolutely destitute. Is that not a damning indictment of the policies pursued by the previous Government?
  Miss Kirkbride: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to say what his Government will do—to answer the mock indignation coming from hon. Members on the Government Benches—before we on the Opposition Benches will take any lessons about what we should have done while we were in power.
  The Government have failed to say that they will do anything significant to raise the basic state pension or add significantly to the benefits that are available to people on income support, or to increase income for the poorest pensioners. I have yet to hear anything from hon. Members on the Government Benches that would suggest that that is being contemplated, and until they do, there is no point in their continuing their mock indignation.
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is making an important point. Does she agree that, importantly, we heard an admission this evening from the Secretary of State that the guaranteed income of £100, which was widely trailed in the newspapers, has disappeared without trace and been replaced by a £15 million pilot project to add to the pile of 150 reviews?
  Miss Kirkbride: I could not agree more. It was the death knell for the minimum pension scheme. The Chancellor clearly won in the departmental spending wrangles, which we all know take place behind closed doors.
  I want to return to the 1980s and my former Government's record on pensions.
  Mr. Gibb: Wouldn't we all?
  Miss Kirkbride: Quite. They recognised that the state could not continue to pay pensions in the way it had, as that was unsustainable, and it was necessary to encourage people to save more to sustain them in their old age. The House will be shocked to hear it, but even we on the Conservative Benches want pensioners to have a secure old age, one that they can enjoy in comfort, without fear for their financial future.
  Recognising that we had to do more, we introduced private pensions and encouraged people to opt out of SERPS, so that they would no longer be an unsustainable liability on the state in future years. What did the present Government tell the population when they were in opposition? They said, "Don't trust this. You mustn't do this. These wicked private pension schemes will not pay out when you retire." They pretended that what the Conservative Government were trying to do was wicked and unsustainable.
  Thank goodness the British population had the good sense not to believe the Labour party at the time, and pursued their private and occupational pension schemes with the SERPS opt-out, and they have been much better off as a result.
  Kali Mountford: Would the hon. Lady like to join the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and apologise for the pensions mis-selling fiasco and the real damage it did to confidence in pensions?
  Miss Kirkbride: Again, it is a travesty of justice for the Government to pretend that we were responsible

  409
  for pensions mis-selling. We regret it enormously, and welcome what the Government are doing to put the matter right.
  The situation came to light in the mid-1990s, and we welcome what is being done to restore the contributions that people accrued. There is no question but that we deplore and condemn pensions mis-selling. We expect the pensions companies to put it right. For the Government continually to suggest that we encouraged it and wanted it to happen, and that we welcome it and do not regret it, is quite preposterous.
  The Government also ignore the fact that what happened to the private pensions industry—if I may call it that—during the 1980s and 1990s has been a signal success for the British economy and the British people. Both those factors are important, as in future years there will be a crisis. At present, 3.4 people in the working population sustain one pensioner. In 40 years' time, 2.6 people will sustain a pensioner in his or her old age. We had to address those points. What we did on private pensions has been a massive bonus for the British economy and British pensioners. Those who have an occupational and private pension scheme can look forward to a secure old age.
  Figures provided by the Library show what a magnificent success the private pensions industry has been. In 1995—one expects that the figure has gone up considerably since then—£750 billion, roughly equivalent to the nation's gross domestic product, was invested in private pensions. In 1991, when the United Kingdom's pension fund assets were around 73 per cent. of GDP, they were 66 per cent. in the United States and 10 per cent. in Japan, Germany and France.
  When I am 90 years old, in 2050, when I shall still be taking a keen interest in the performance of the economy and the Government's tax rate, I am pleased to discover that the British economy's balance sheet will be even healthier. It will so exceed any other balance sheet in the western world that Conservative Members can truly take magnificent pride in what has happened.
  In 2050, unfunded state pension liabilities in Britain will amount to just 15 per cent. of GDP—that amount of money which taxpayers will have to contribute in order to pay pensioners who have a legitimate expectation that the money they have salted away when they were working will be there when they retire. The sad fact is that many EU countries, instead of that money being invested privately and securely tucked up in some private bank account from which it can be released when needed, will be looking to their taxpayers, or will have to borrow the money to pay those liabilities.
  The Japanese will find that their unfunded liabilities amount to 399 per cent. of their GDP; the Germans, 431 per cent.; the French, 370 per cent. — [Interruption]—the Italians, 338 per cent.; the Canadians 189 per cent.; and, as hon. Members making sedentary interventions may have forgotten, the British, only 15 per cent. That is a massive success story, which will transform the future British economy, and Conservative Members perceive it as a considerable obstacle to joining a single currency as and when that decision comes along.
  410
  Having put straight the Conservative Government's record—
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady says how wonderful it is that all those future liabilities will have been reduced, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) has said, anyone can do that if they scrap the basic state pension, which is essentially what, in Michael Portillo's words, the Conservatives are planning to do. Is there anything particularly impressive about reducing future state liabilities by abolishing the benefit?
  Miss Kirkbride: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a professor, and I cannot believe that he has made such a facile intervention when he knows that I am talking about private pension fund contributions which have transformed the balance sheet. That is reflected in the unfunded liabilities and the percentage share we then have.
  During their 18 years in power, the Conservative Government did not abolish the state pension, and there is no question that Conservatives will do so in five years' time, when they are back in government. That is a preposterous suggestion. It is one which Liberal Democrat and Labour Members like to perpetrate, and it is nonsense. We have not done it, and will not do it. I shall not continue having a conversation with the hon. Gentleman when I am meant to be addressing the House.
  I return to the Government's pension policy because they are in power, albeit that they often forget that when they ask Conservative Members for our views on the subject. The Government have severely let down many pensioners on the upper end of the pension earnings, who are nevertheless vulnerable in their incomes and feel insecure about how they will meet their liabilities in their old age. They are equally deserving of consideration.
  Mr. Coaker: Does the hon. Lady agree that, in terms of insecurity and income in old age, the Government's decision to set up a royal commission to look into the cost of nursing home care for the elderly is of great significance to people in their old age, now and in the future? One of the most damaging feelings of insecurity experienced by people is how they will be able to afford to look after themselves and their relatives. That is a fundamental problem that the royal commission will address.
  Miss Kirkbride: I recognise the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. It is equally important to my constituents. Although I welcome the quick recommendations of the commission, my constituents and those of the hon. Gentleman can take no comfort from the fact that, after 18 years in opposition, the Labour party could not come into office with proposals ready to do something about the problem, but has postponed any decisions until it hears the recommendations of the royal commission.
  I do not wish to repeat what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) about how iniquitous the changes to ACT have been in reducing income available to future pensioners as well as existing pensioners. They may find that, as a result of the changes, they will receive a smaller increase in their pensions every year because their pension fund will no longer be as well off as it would have been had the ACT changes not taken place.

  411
  The figures are clear. The amount of tax raised is £5 billion, which is equivalent to about 2.5p on income tax. Had the Government been more honest and put that increase in revenue on to income tax bills, I would have had more respect for them. Instead, they have tried to introduce a sneaky, sleight-of-hand tax which they hope people will not notice.
  In the interest of open government, of which Labour Members are so fond, I call upon the pensions industry to clarify what the loss in income has been as a result of the changes made to ACT. I am sure that it would come as a shock to many of my constituents to learn that the money they think they have been saving for their old age has now been reduced considerably as a result of that sleight of hand.
  We have still had no clarification from the Government about whether they propose to means-test the state pension. That is now the real issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green pointed out, the manifesto commitment in 1997 does not rule out the fact that affluent pensioners might be facing the demise of their old-age pension, to which they are entitled as a result of their national insurance contributions. I would welcome the Government making clear their policies on that.
  The Government's proposals for the stakeholder pension raise the biggest question that the Government will have to face as and when they introduce their proposals on the Floor of the House. As we have pointed out, many people do not have a second-tier pension because they are on low incomes. They might find it difficult to save for a pension, because they do not earn a great deal and because the day they reach 65 seems a long way off.
  If the Government are to succeed in increasing the number of people who have a second-tier, funded pension, they will have to decide whether to make contributions to that stakeholder pension compulsory.
  Mr. Richard Allan: The hon. Lady is making a good case for some sort of minimum wage. That would raise incomes sufficiently for people to be able to pay into a pension scheme.
  Miss Kirkbride: We will have to see the level at which the minimum wage is introduced when the Government announce their plans. If it is introduced at £3.60—as has been widely speculated—it will not be enough in terms of weekly earnings to take the average man with two children, who is trying to keep a roof over his family's heads, above the level of family credit. Therefore, the state will still contribute to his earnings.
  The preposterous nonsense that the Government are trying to perpetrate—that somehow the minimum wage will take people off state subsidy—is not true, unless the wage is set at such a level that it destroys jobs wholesale. I would be grateful if the Minister would speculate on the introduction of the stakeholder pension, and whether the lower-paid will have to make compulsory contributions to that pension.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Desmond Browne: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) eulogised the private pensions industry. I do not want to
  412
  be mean-spirited about the impressive statistics, but she did not give us the comparison of the public state pension as a percentage of GDP. While we may be at the top of any league table in terms of private pensions, we were near the bottom—in fact, we were second from bottom—of the EU league table in 1995 in terms of the state pension as a percentage of GDP.
  Mr. Letwin: I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at such an early stage, but he has made an important point. Is that not exactly the position that his Government's policies will institutionalise for the future?
  Mr. Browne: In my view, it is not.
  As a result of those figures, we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, others of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) examples of the growing problems of pensioner need—especially for the poorest pensioners—which were created by the previous Government's changes to the British state pension system. It is nothing short of breathtaking hypocrisy for the Conservative party, which had a deplorable record on pensions, to criticise this Government, who inherited that record of Tory failure.
  It was interesting that, writing in The Times on 5 August, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said:
  "Countries across Europe have failed to encourage independence, private provision and reform of the state pension system. The Conservative Government achieved all three of these aims and bequeathed Labour a sound basis on which to build."
  One can imagine my surprise, having read that, that a defence of that record was conspicuous by its absence from the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  The view of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green is not shared by the vast majority of pensioners in my constituency, where approximately 20 per cent. of the population are pensioners. Some are the poorest pensioners in the United Kingdom, and all need reassurance that they will have adequate income levels in their retirement. They certainly never received any such assurances from Conservative Members. Instead, the previous Government left a legacy of a Britain where 1.7 million pensioners are so poor that they have to depend on income support and, as we have heard, a further 1 million do not claim the income support to which they are entitled.
  I am repeating the statistics, but they bear repetition. In addition, pensioner inequality is growing. The top 10 per cent. have seen their incomes growing steadily due to their share in the private pension industry boom, but the bottom 10 per cent. have become progressively poorer. In my constituency, prospects are no better for the pensioners of the future. Of those who are lucky enough to have work, the majority do not have access to a company pension scheme.
  Social justice, the inadequate level of state pension and the predicted demographic changes—whether they turn out to be a demographic time bomb or not—which will see the ratio of people of working age to pensioners falling in the first half of the next century, demand that finding a way to deliver a decent income is a priority for the Government. It shall be found.

  413
  The Tories took steps to ensure that the aging of the population posed no great threat to public finances, but they failed to address the fundamental challenges of pension reform until their Government's dying days, and they did so for electoral purposes. Until then, they had turned their back on Britain's pensioners.
  Mr. Hope: Not only did the Tories not take into account the needs of the poorest pensioners before the general election; they have continued to fail to do so since then. The motion before us is entitled "Effects of the Government' Policies on Pensioners' Incomes". Is my hon. Friend surprised to see that it does not mention pensioners living on income support or anyone who was mis-sold a pension by the previous Administration?
  Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Any mention of poor pensioners has been conspicuous by its absence from Conservative Members' speeches.
  I was discussing electoral pension reform. True to their Thatcherite roots, in March 1997, the Conservatives responded to a call by Professor Patrick Minford and unveiled their plans to privatise the state pension. Had they had their way, the end of the previous Parliament would have seen the scrapping of the basic state pension and SERPS and their replacement by a private pension scheme, which, even in the most optimistic view, would have guaranteed a pension worth only £175 a week in 2040.
  Mr. Letwin: At today's prices.
  Mr. Browne: Assuming a real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent. a year, the new pension would have represented 23 per cent. of pay compared with 36 per cent., which men on average earnings were receiving in 1997. In calculating that optimistic sum, the Conservatives paid no regard to inflation or the cost of looking after the funds and, most culpably, they ignored completely the financial services industry's failure over the preceding decade.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Browne: No, I do not have time.
  During that time, instead of making rigorous efforts to investigate the mishandling of 1.5 million pensions by the private sector, the Conservatives planned to hand over the management of any replacement of the state pension and SERPS to those same companies. So enamoured were they with the dogma of privatisation that they were prepared to hand over £320 billion of taxpayers' money to an industry whose credibility had reached rock bottom, as it had consistently failed to right the wrongs of the pensions mis-selling scandal. In many ways, it was hardly surprising that they should wish to do that, as they had ignored financial experts' warnings when they passed the Social Security Act in 1986 and happily endorsed the mass marketing of private pensions.
  The Act was calculated to entice millions of people to switch from perfectly good pension arrangements for the promise of greater future security in the private sector. Between 1988 and 1994, insurance companies,
  414
  independent financial advisers, banks and building societies sold more than 5 million private pensions. For the financial companies, it was a bonanza. For some of their customers it worked, but for a significant minority it did not. For them, pension advice was negligent and sometimes downright dishonest. As a result of the absence of effective regulation, hundreds of thousands of people were cheated by both cowboy companies and well-known firms. Each case was a personal tragedy and, instead of facing security in their retirement, hundreds of thousands faced uncertainty and poverty.
  Bad as that was, it was made worse by the length of time those people had to wait for compensation. Had Labour not won the election in May 1997, many of them would still be waiting. The previous Government's history of cleaning up the mess that they created is a disgrace, to say the least. In 1994, the Securities and Investments Board went to the length of requiring firms to review the most urgent cases, but deadlines for those reviews just came and went and the Tory Government did nothing.
  From 1994 to 1997, the Tory Government failed to tackle that problem effectively, but within 14 days in government my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury had met 24 firms responsible for three quarters of the cases and she left them in no uncertainty that she was determined to take firm action. The Tories did not get that far in three years.
  To be fair to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, he has written that the Government were
  "right to demand that the mis-selling of pensions is fully resolved and reparations made."
  However, he did not do that until August 1997, and he now wishes to portray himself as the champion of the pensioner. Where were those demands for remedial action between 1992 and 1997? Unlike the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), he does not even now, in 1998, have the courage to make a simple apology for that omission.
  Results have been achieved because this Government have refused to let the issue rest on the back burner. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has focused public concern and media attention on the firms responsible. The Tories' previous level of inaction did nothing to help pensioners and the victims of the scandal; it served only to highlight their own lack of concern for some of the most vulnerable groups in our society.
  The Labour Government have quickly ended the misery of many hundreds of thousands of people who were in fear of their financial security in retirement. The Labour Government will also improve the lot of many millions of pensioners by making a winter fuel payment to them, as well as cutting VAT on gas and electricity. Those steps, along with the others that we have taken to help ensure that all pensioners who are entitled to income support receive it, make the Labour Government's record of achievement one of which I am already very proud.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: This has been a good debate; in particular, it has been an important debate. I do not think that I can recall in my time in the House of Commons—it must be true for much further back—a Government going in for such systematic evasion of basic questions and such shameless financial

  415
  chicanery. Never before in my time have an Opposition had such an important task to perform in exposing the reality behind what the Government have been doing.
  This has been a good debate. It was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who asked all the pertinent questions and did not receive a single response. He was followed by attempts by my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, in interventions and excellent speeches, to prise out of the Government a few answers. They also failed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made a speech with feeling, which was also extremely well informed. Having studied pension systems in many parts of the world, he made a particularly original contribution to the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) gave the House an extremely lucid defence of the previous Government's record and pointed out, not least, that the average earnings of pensioners increased faster than national income over the period of the Conservative Government. That is ultimately what counts. She also addressed the issue of the Government's behaviour since the Budget last July, which was fatal for pensioners, and asked a raft of questions. She did not receive a single answer. I hope that she may receive an answer from the Under-Secretary when he winds up.
  There is nothing wrong with the Government's rhetoric. Indeed, there is unlikely to be anything wrong with their rhetoric as they stole most of it from the Conservative party. What is wrong and damaging—in this case damaging to the interests of pensioners—is the reality. The Government should be profoundly ashamed that, after only nine or 10 months in office, there should be such a wide gulf between rhetoric and reality.
  Whole sections of our country were systematically deceived by the Labour party at the election. Single parents were entitled to believe the assurances that their special benefit regimes would be protected by a Labour Government. Students were entitled to believe the explicit promises that they received, even from the Prime Minister in April, in the middle of the election campaign—on the record—that a Labour Government would not introduce tuition fees. Savers were entitled to believe the promises that PEPs and TESSAs would be safe, but they have retrospectively found that they are not.
  Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman now apologise on behalf of the Conservative party for the scandalous and appalling mis-selling of pensions, and for the fact that the Conservative party has failed to do anything about the million pensioners who continue to live on income support and below the United Kingdom poverty level?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. Everything that has been said in this debate not only by Ministers but by Labour Back Benchers relates to the past. They want to keep the electorate's attention away from the present and the future—away from the fatal impact of the Government's actions, in nine or 10 brief months, on pensions.
  Pensioners comprise the largest group in our society who were systematically deceived at the general election. What were they told by the Labour party before the general election? Before voting in a general election, on whose words is one supposed to rely about the future
  416
  pensions regime if not on those of a party's proposed Chancellor of the Exchequer? On 19 April 1997—on almost the eve of the election—the Chancellor said:
  "All Labour's proposals will protect and improve the quality of life of pensioners".
  That quotation bears repetition. He said:
  "All Labour's proposals will protect and improve the quality of life of pensioners".
  Pensioners therefore went to the voting booth believing that they would be protected. Only two months later, an unprecedented tax was introduced that, from 1999, will take £5 billion a year from the income of pension funds.
  How can one possibly expect the British public to believe that pensioners will not be worse off if someone, each and every year, malversates £5 billion from their pension funds? It is an extraordinary state of affairs for a Government to have so little respect for the public's intelligence. Although the public fell for it during the general election, they will not fall for it if the Labour party does it again.
  Every one of the Government's actions on pensions has undermined pensioners' standard of living and prospects for a secure retirement.
  Mr. Cooker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I cannot give way because of lack of time, but I may give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  Criminologists sometimes do studies and write learned articles on a strange phenomenon that they encounter in their work. It is the phenomenon of someone who has conducted such an appalling crime that he or she cannot quite face the fact that it has been committed. I believe that—in the trade—it is called a criminal who is "in denial". If the Labour party is not blatantly telling lies, it must be in denial.
  After last year's Budget, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said:
  "The measure is good for pensions and pensioners, not bad for them… People should understand that our reforms will benefit pension funds. — [Official Report, 3 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 507.]
  If taking £5 billion out of pension funds benefits pension funds, what does one have to do to damage pension funds? No one other than Ministers, and perhaps a few of their more sycophantic Back-Bench supporters, could even begin to believe such nonsense.
  The Government Actuary does not believe such nonsense, because he has just produced a large report mathematically proving that pension funds will have to receive higher funding levels to compensate for the abolition of the dividend tax credit. Independent financial advisers also do not believe that nonsense. On the contrary, they formed up to the Secretary of State and to the Treasury and threatened that unless something was done to protect the value of personal pensions, they would advise their clients to move back into SERPS.
  Pension fund trustees—managers of British companies that have occupational schemes—do not believe that nonsense. The National Association of Pension Funds has carried out a survey of them, according to which almost 90 per cent. of employers claim that the abolition of dividend tax credit
  "will absorb increased costs, but many of them are planning to share the burden with their employees…One in seven employers also report that they are planning to reduce pension benefits"

  417
  So much for the Financial Secretary's words:
  "The measure is good for pensions and pensioners, not bad for them…People should understand that our reforms will benefit pension funds." —[Official Report, 3 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 507.]
  Having been rumbled, the Labour party is seeking to retreat surreptitiously—piecemeal—hoping that no one will notice quite what is going on.
  Let me ask the Under-Secretary—who has the difficult task of defending the Government this evening—six questions. I see that he is getting out his pen. The whole country will looking forward to the answers to my questions, and the whole country will know that, if there are no answers, the Government are continuing to avoid the facts. [Interruption.]
  First, what is the cost of the additional rebates that the Government have decided to provide? Secondly, what would have been the cost if all the contracted-out pension schemes had been compensated at the rate accorded to appropriate personal pensions? Thirdly, what survey has been undertaken of the cost to local government pension funds over the remaining term of this Parliament— [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. May I say to the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) that I think he has used up his ration of sedentary comments?
  Mr. Davies: Thirdly—as I was saying—what study has been done of the cost to local government pension funds of the abolition of dividend tax credit over the remaining four years of the current Parliament? Would the Minister care to quantify that? If no such study has been done, the Minister and his Government are in dereliction of their duty.
  Fourthly, what is the logic or fairness of not compensating the occupational schemes—the contracted-out salary-related schemes—on the same basis as the appropriate personal pensions? The loss to both sets of funds is exactly the same. Will the Minister give the same answer as the Financial Secretary gave in the earlier debate—that employers can pay, and make up the difference? Is he going to say that the Government are acknowledging the existence of a surreptitious additional tax on employers?
  Fifthly, what is the logic of not compensating the contracted-out money purchase schemes? What would be the cost of compensating them according to appendix D rather than appendix E of the Government Actuary's paper? Finally and most important of all, there is the question that the Government have systematically avoided at every Social Security Question Time this year. Will they state clearly whether or not they intend to means-test the basic old-age pension?
  Those questions are not at all esoteric or technical, however much the Government try to hide behind complicated mathematics. They are questions of genuine, immediate and often searing importance to older people or those approaching retirement age who do not know whether, in their retirement, they will be able to continue to afford their houses, gardens, cars and way of life.
  We have not had a worse example of cynicism in the last nine or 10 months, from a profoundly cynical Government, than what has happened to pensions. If the
  418
  Minister thinks that a single one of my strictures is unfair, he has the opportunity to put the record straight and provide us for the first time with some answers.
  9.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): I welcome the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) to the Front Bench tonight. He gave the speech because, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) explained, the latter did not know much about the subject.
  Let me start with the six completely unanswerable questions. The first has already been dealt with in a parliamentary answer. The second could, I am sure, be answered in response to an appropriately worded parliamentary question. The valuation of local authority pension funds will take place in March this year. The remaining three unanswerable questions I shall answer in the course of my speech. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford for posing such challenging questions.
  It has become clear beyond doubt in the debate, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, why pensions reform is necessary and right. It is also clear why it is this Government who have the determination and vision to bring about the changes.
  The Opposition have been generous to the House with their time tonight. We have heard time and again how the previous Government failed Britain's pensioners. Throughout the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and others have reminded the House of the previous Government's actions, describing how pension rights were reduced throughout their period of office and nothing was done to ensure that pensioners would share fairly in rising national prosperity.
  Despite the views of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), it has been made clear how personal pensions were launched in an atmosphere of hype, fuelled by the then Government and exploited by poorly managed companies, so that more than 1 million people fell victim to mis-selling. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) failed on several occasions to extract an apology for that mis-selling from that Government's representatives.
  I do not intend to argue that no changes were needed to the pensions system in the past 20 years, and I would certainly argue that radical improvements are needed to modernise the system and ensure that it can develop and evolve to meet society's needs in the new world of work in the next century. Change is needed, but the party that called this debate stands condemned by its own record: it made changes, but they made things worse.
  The symptoms of failure are clear. There is widening inequality among pensioners. One in four are reliant on income support or are entitled to it and not getting it. The previous Government were totally uninterested in those pensioners' plight. They turned a deaf ear to the problems that pensioners faced with their winter heating bills. Millions of people in work today are unable to build up pension rights sufficient to bring them security in retirement.
  Perhaps 1 million people were encouraged by the previous Government not to join their employer's occupational scheme, which would have given them the

  419
  best chance of a secure retirement. Provisional figures show that membership by men of occupational pension schemes fell by more than 2 million while the previous Government were in office: that is 2 million more men no longer benefiting from what is usually the best pension scheme around.
  Millions of people today cannot join an employer's scheme, and while personal pensions have been, and are, fine for some, many people who are in and out of work, the majority of them women, cannot maintain payments and find that the fees and charges can eat up a quarter or more—sometimes far more—of their savings by the time that they retire.
  Mr. Gibb: Will the Minister confirm that, in view of the Secretary of State's announcement this evening of yet another pilot scheme, the mooted pensioners' guaranteed income scheme has been dropped?
  Mr. Denham: We are committed to honouring our manifesto promise to try to find ways of getting more automatic help to the poorest pensioners, and the pilot schemes that we have launched today and the other research that we are conducting will give us the information that we need to design the best system to achieve that aim. The previous Government did not take such action in 18 years.
  I have set out the legacy that the Government's pensions review will have to address, but return to the Opposition's claim that measures taken in last July's Budget, and measures which have followed in part the Budget changes, will damage pension provision. But all hon. Members know that any pension system depends on creating the wealth that will be needed to pay retirement pensions. Boom and bust economics, short-term fixes that throw people out of work and prevent them from saving, and uncertainty, which stops companies investing, all existed under the previous Government, and undermine the economy, investment, British companies and the ability to create the wealth on which our pension incomes depend.
  Last July's Budget, which took place after the Chancellor gave the Bank of England greater power and independence, was intended to create conditions for steady, sustainable economic growth. We set out to put the economy on a solid foundation by scrapping measures that distorted investment decisions, by cutting corporation tax and, above all, by putting the country's finances on a sound footing. A Budget that is good for the economy is good for pensions.
  There have been significant changes in the pattern of pension provision in recent years, which we needed to address. [Interruption.] I am happy to repeat that I believe that a Budget that is good for the economy is good for pensions. If Conservative Members do not believe that, I wonder what they believe is a good Budget.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I am listening carefully to the Minister, but does he accept that the Government Actuary's report makes it clear that the Government Actuary believes that income from investment fell by 0.25 per cent. directly as a result of the Budget?
  Mr. Denham: I shall deal with the Government Actuary's report and our response to it. There have been
  420
  significant changes in the pattern of pension provision in recent years. Some pension schemes have changed from salary-related schemes to money-purchase schemes. Other pension schemes have changed from employer's occupational schemes to group personal pensions. Those important trends were not caused by the Government, but were well established; indeed, the actions of the previous Government encouraged them.
  We asked the Government Actuary to examine those trends, and issues arising from the Budget. The Budget was for the long term, pensions are a long-term business, and rebates are normally set for five years: in our judgment, no early action was needed at this stage in the quinquennium on salary-related schemes which are investing for the long term. However, some personal pensions providers might have advised members of personal pensions schemes to opt back into SERPS, which might not have been in their long-term interest. So, we have increased national insurance rebates to personal pensions to maintain the attractiveness of opting out.
  We have acted to prevent the extra subsidy intended for small contracted-out money purchase schemes being enjoyed by larger schemes which have no need for it.
  Mr. Gibb: Why have the Government decided to reduce rebates only for COMP schemes on the basis of an assumed rate of return of 2.25 per cent. when the Actuary has said that the rate of return for pension schemes is 2 per cent.?
  Mr. Denham: The action taken on COMP schemes was foreshadowed by Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, Pensions Minister in the previous Administration, who said of the trend of moving from salary-related schemes to COMP schemes:
  "It appears that there are some schemes seeking to take advantage of these new flexibilities in order to maximise the national insurance rebate. There is obviously a great deal of money involved here, and the Government would be very concerned if this were to happen."
  Lord MacKay made it clear that the previous Government would keep the effects of the contracting out changes under review, and the Government Actuary makes it clear in his report that if the trend for large schemes to change into COMP schemes continued, that would take funds from the national insurance fund. This Government have rightly acted to prevent that.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The Minister has just come up with a statement in answer to a straightforward question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). My hon. Friend asked why the Government took a different settlement. The Government have missed the point. They did not allow for the fall-off in investment in COMPS. It has nothing to do with the fact that there may be some changes relating to those companies coming into COMPS and everything to do with the fact that the Government were trying to save money on the national insurance fund. That is the fact—savings to the Exchequer.
  Mr. Denham: I made it perfectly clear: for occupational schemes there was no need to take action,

  421
  whereas for personal pensions there was that need and we took the appropriate action. We recognise that, over the past 20 years—the past 10 in particular—
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: No, I have given way generously. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the fact that we took the action to protect the national insurance fund that his predecessors said they would take when in government, that is his difficulty.
  We recognise that the rebate structure that has evolved over the past 20 years has created inequalities. It does not necessarily match the needs of the different types of contracted-out pension provision now available. Although we have made the necessary short-term changes, we shall review the whole rebate structure in the light of the pensions review and the introduction of stakeholder pensions to ensure that it underpins the Government's new pensions policy.
  The Government keep their promises and we have kept our promises to pensioners-both today's pensioners and those who will retire in future. We promised to maintain the basic state pension as the foundation for retirement and to uprate it at least in line with prices. We have kept that promise and we shall honour the manifesto on which we were elected. We have done more: we shall spend —200 million this year and next giving all pensioners help with their heating bills. We are doing more: we have cut VAT on fuel—
  Mr. Burns: Prices or earnings?
  Mr. Denham: If the hon. Gentleman, who is the Opposition spokesman on the subject, cannot be bothered to reply to the debate, he can at least do without making interventions from a sedentary position.
  We are doing more: we have cut VAT on fuel after the Conservative party tried to raise it to 17.5 per cent. We are cutting other VAT, so that more pensioners' homes can be insulated. We are allowing local authorities to invest capital receipts to improve the homes of pensioners, among others.
  We are doing more. For 18 years the Conservative party did nothing for those pensioners—mainly women, usually over 75, often living alone—who do not receive the income support to which they are entitled. Instead, the Conservatives blamed pensioners for their poverty. The Government have set out to find out why those pensioners do not claim and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced nine pilot schemes to find the best ways of identifying those pensioners and encouraging them to claim. We promised in our manifesto to find ways of giving more automatic help to the poorest pensioners and these early actions will help us to find the best way to do so.
  The Government have taken action for today's pensioners already. In our pensions review, we are talking to and meeting today's pensioners and giving them a voice at the heart of government. While we tackle the problems faced by today's pensioners, we want to help the pensioners of the future too.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I thank the Minister for giving way. As we have only
  422
  three minutes left, I did not want him to forget one very important question, which he promised to answer. Has his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ruled out means-testing the state pension?
  Mr. Denham: I have made it perfectly clear that we shall honour the manifesto on which we were elected. We shall increase and we have increased the basic state pension at least in line with prices. I am not surprised that Conservative Members scream and shout, because they did not do what my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has done and set about tackling the problem of pension mis-selling. They did nothing about that problem for five years.
  Undoing the damage done by the Conservatives is not enough. We do not want only some people to enjoy a good second pension; we want as many people as possible to do so. That is why we are looking at ways to support and strengthen the framework for occupational pensions. However, not everyone can join an occupational pension scheme, which is why we are consulting on our plans for low-cost, value-for-money, flexible stakeholder pensions. That is also why we want to make sure that those who cannot save for a second pension, such as carers, many of whom are women, can also enjoy security in retirement. We know the scale of the pensions challenge. We know that we must build consensus on a new pension framework that will last. That is why we are consulting so widely with pensioners, employers, trade unions and pension providers. It is a challenge that we must meet.
  Tonight, it is the Conservative party that is condemned. For 18 years, it took away pension rights and gave people nothing in their place. It mis-sold personal pensions and did nothing to clear up the mess. For years, it fought against even pension fairness in divorce. It ignored pensioners living in poverty and blamed them for their lack of money. It put VAT on fuel and wanted to raise it to 17.5 per cent.
  Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 294.

  Division No. 197]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brazier, Julian

  Allan, Richard

  Breed, Colin

  Amess, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Burnett, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burns, Simon

  Baker, Norman

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Baldry, Tony

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Beggs, Roy

  Cash, William

  Bercow, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Beresford, Sir Paul (Chipping Barnet)

  Chidgey, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Clappison, James

  Brady, Graham

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  423

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Madel, Sir David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Malins, Humfrey

  Collins, Tim

  Maples, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cran, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Norman, Archie

  Evans, Nigel

  Öpik, Lembit

  Faber, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Paice, James

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Pickles, Eric

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Prior, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Randall, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Rendel, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Robathan, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gibb, Nick

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gill, Christopher

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Ruffley, David

  Gorrie, Donald

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gray, James

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Greenway, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hammond, Philip

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

  Hancock, Mike

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Harvey, Nick

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Steen, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Streeter, Gary

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Swayne, Desmond

  Horam, John

  Syms, Robert

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Townend, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Trend, Michael

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tyler, Paul

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Viggers, Peter

  Key, Robert

  Wallace, James

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Walter, Robert

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Wardle, Charles

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Webb, Steve

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wells, Bowen

  Leigh, Edward

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Letwin, Oliver

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Wilkinson, John

  Lidington, David

  Willetts, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Livsey, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Luff, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  MacKay, Andrew

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Mr. John Whittingdale.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Alexander, Douglas

  Austin, John

  Allen, Graham

  Banks, Tony

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Barnes, Harry

  Ashton, Joe

  Battle, John

  424

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Beard, Nigel

  Ennis, Jeff

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Etherington, Bill

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fisher, Mark

  Benton, Joe

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Berry, Roger

  Flint, Caroline

  Best, Harold

  Flynn, Paul

  Blackman, Liz

  Follett, Barbara

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foulkes, George

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Boateng, Paul

  Galbraith, Sam

  Borrow, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Browne, Desmond

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burden, Richard

  Goggins, Paul

  Burgon, Colin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Byers, Stephen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C?bridge)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gunnell, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Hanson, David

  Cawsey, Ian

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Healey, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Church, Ms Judith

  Heppell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clelland, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hope, Phil

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hutton, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cox, Tom

  Ingram, Adam

  Cranston, Ross

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Crausby, David

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cummings, John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Khabra, Piara S

  Denham, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dismore, Andrew

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Dowd, Jim

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Drew, David

  Laxton, Bob

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Levitt, Tom

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Efford, Clive

  425

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rapson, Syd

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Linton, Martin

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lock, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Love, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruane, Chris

  McCabe, Steve

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonnell, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McFall, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McIsaac, Shona

  Singh, Marsha

  McLeish, Henry

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Marek, Dr John

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Spellar, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  MarshalkAndrews, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Meale, Alan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Michael, Alun

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Michie, Bill (Shef7d Heeley)

  Stringer, Graham

  Milburn, Alan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Miller, Andrew

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Timms, Stephen

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Todd, Mark

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Touhig, Don

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Truswell, Paul

  Mountford, Kali

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mudie, George

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Norris, Dan

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Wareing, Robert N

  O'Hara, Eddie

  White, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Wicks, Malcolm

  O'Neill, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Pearson, Ian

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Winnick, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Plaskitt, James

  Wise, Audrey

  Pond, Chris

  Wood, Mike

  Pope, Greg

  Woolas, Phil

  Pound, Stephen

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Purchase, Ken

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Rammell, Bill

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to maintain the basic state pension as the foundation of pension provision and to uprate it at least in line with prices; welcomes the tough action which is being taken to ensure that victims of pension mis-selling are compensated; welcomes the action the Government has already taken in giving a Winter Fuel Payment to all pensioners with fuel bills to pay and fulfilling its promise to Britain's pensioners by cutting VAT on fuel to five per cent.; welcomes the Government's progress in developing pensions policy which will benefit today's and tomorrow's pensioners; welcomes the widespread consultation the Government is undertaking and notes that the Government's Pension Review has received over 2.000 submissions from pension providers, employers, trade unions, pension experts and pensioners' organisations; notes the widespread support for the Government's proposals for Stakeholder Pensions; and deplores the previous administration's policies on pensions, their imposition of VAT on fuel and their attempt to increase VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent.
  It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55(1) (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.).

  ESTIMATES, 1997–98 (NAVY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1998 an additional number not exceeding 975 all ranks be maintained for Service in the Reserve Naval Forces.

  ESTIMATES, 1997–98 (ARMY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1998 an additional number not exceeding 460 all ranks be maintained for Army Service.

  ESTIMATES, 1998–99 (NAVY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1999 a number not exceeding 49,965 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service, and a number not exceeding 17,755 for Service in the Reserve Naval and Marine Forces.

  ESTIMATES, 1998–99 (ARMY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1999 a number not exceeding 132,060 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 97,800 for Service in the Reserve Land Forces, and a number not exceeding 6,000 for Service as Special Members of the Reserve Land Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

  ESTIMATES, 1998–99 (AIR) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1999 a number not exceeding 58,280 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 26,050 for Service in the Reserve Air Forces, and a number not exceeding 270 for Service as Special Members of the Reserve Air Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

  ESTIMATES, EXCESSES 1996–97
  Resolved,
  That a sum not exceeding £195,333,507.98 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Defence Services for the year ended on 31st March 1997, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 554.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1997–98
  Resolved,
  That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £2,442,361,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1998, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 511.
  Ordered,
  That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions; And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Alistair Darling, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Mrs. Helen Liddell and Dawn Primarolo do prepare and bring it in.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Dawn Primarolo accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain funds out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1997 and 1998: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 139].

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  Question agreed to.

  Fossil Fuel Levy Bill [Lords]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  New clause 1

    REGULATIONS AND ORDERS UNDER SECTION 33M
    '(1).—Section 106 of the Electricity Act 1989 (Regulations and orders) is amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (2)(a) after "regulations" there is inserted "other than regulations under section 33 (10)".
    (3) In subsection (2)(b) after "than" there is inserted "an order under section 33 (5B)".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.15 pm
    Mr. John Redwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
    '(1A) After subsection (5) there is inserted—
    "(5A) The aggregate of any amounts paid by way of levy under this section in any period of six months shall not exceed the average amount so paid in the previous two six month periods unless the Secretary of State by order so provides.
    (5B) An order under subsection (5A) shall be by statutory instrument and shall be subject to approval by the Commons House of Parliament".'.
    No. 3, in page 1, line 18, leave out from 'to' to end of line 21 and insert
    'add further classes of electricity generation to the definition of "leviable electricity" contained in subsection (8) above.'
    No. 2, in page 1, line 21, at end insert—
    '(c) substitute for paragraph (a) of the definition of "leviable electricity" in subsection (8)—'is generated by a fossil fuel generating station other than a coal-fired generating station which the Secretary of State has certified is a coal-fired generating station using "clean-coal" technology'.
    No. 4, in page 1, line 21, at end insert—
    '(10) The levy imposed on a supplier of electricity generated in pursuance of qualifying arrangements under paragraph (c) of the definition of leviable electricity in subsection (8) above may not be greater than the aggregate payments received in respect of that electricity under this section.'.
    No. 5, in page 1, line 21, at end insert—
    '(10) Any extension of the levy by regulations made under subsection (9) above which results in the levy becoming chargeable in respect of electricity on which it was not previously chargeable shall not have effect until such regulations are approved by resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.'.
    No. 8, in title, line 1, after '33', insert
    'and in consequence section 106'.
    Mr. Redwood: It is a pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box after a brief interruption to Department of Trade and Industry business, which seems to dominate the House this week. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait a moment, and perhaps the interruption will be as brief as possible. Will right hon. and hon. Members please withdraw quickly and quietly?
    Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for getting the House to settle down. I pay tribute

    429
    to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who has been particularly assiduous in studying this short but complex Bill and in helping with preparing the necessary amendments. I hope that he will catch your eye a little later, as I am sure that the House would benefit from his expertise in these matters.
    I wonder whether Labour Members have access to a briefing document, rather like the one with which they were equipped for DTI questions. If only that had been issued to all Members of the House before DTI questions, we would not have needed the questions, because everything that Labour Members said during those questions had been written for them from Walworth road. I assume that they will operate tonight on a similar basis.
    Whether Labour Members are briefed or not, it is our job to bring to the notice of the House this complex, muddled and difficult little Bill and to illuminate its fundamental aspects with a series of new clauses and amendments designed to probe, test and pin the Government down as they go about their nefarious ways.
    The main purpose of our amendments will be to impose some control for the House of Commons—Labour Back Benchers as well as Opposition Members—over the tax-raising powers that the Bill represents; to put in a plea for the coal industry and for the renewable energy industry, which we do not think is properly protected by the provisions of the Bill; to give Labour Members an opportunity to voice their views on the necessary balance of energy policy between gas, coal and oil; and to use the Bill to help to fashion a policy that might produce a better energy mix than the one towards which Ministers are muddling by their actions, inactions and lack of concern for many of the important energy industries in this country.
    This is a complex measure because of the way in which it is drafted, and the way in which the original legislation was drafted. I shall try to simplify it for the House. Once upon a time there was a fossil fuel levy. That was an extra charge on electricity generated from coal, oil and gas. The money from the levy was given to power generation from cleaner and greener means. It was given to renewables and to nuclear. It was a boost to a green strategy. On that basis, it was introduced and approved by the House—a limited but helpful measure for the greener and cleaner energies that Ministers then had in mind.
    Then there was a Labour Government. After all the muddles which we have seen, it seems a long time ago that they were elected. They were elected both to generate more power from cleaner methods and to save the coal industry. So far, they have found that impossible to achieve, and we see them slipping and sliding into ever bigger difficulties with the Bill, as our amendments will expose tonight.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Is my right hon. Friend a little surprised to know that in Committee we had the greatest difficulty in getting any information from the Minister about what the Labour Government would do to the coal industry? The Electricity Act 1989, with the non-fossil fuel obligation, allows the Government to
    430
    help the coal industry in any way they want, using the levy mechanism that was originally put in place to help the nuclear industry.
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a crucial point. I hope that it will be a matter for serious debate by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I know that there are good Labour Members who represent mining constituencies and who are deeply worried by the Government's approach to the coal industry. We have tabled an amendment that offers one partial solution to the problems of coal by offering opportunities to stimulate clean coal technology. We trust that debate on that subject will illuminate some important issues.
    The Labour Government have not been able to make up their mind, so they have decided in the Bill to equalise the misery of the levy by proposing it for all, or most, electricity generation. The Bill is unclear because it gives an enabling power to impose the fossil fuel levy on—of all things—renewables. That is quite extraordinary. If the original measure had a single prime purpose, it was to impose a levy on fossil fuels to stimulate renewable energy. For that reason, it was very welcome to many elements of the green movement. Ministers are now taking the enabling power, which will mean that they could impose the levy on the very renewables that it was originally designed to help, as well as preserving the levy in part on the fossil fuels from which it originated.
    The Labour Government clearly do not wish to call this new tax—which is what it would become—a fuel tax. However, that is what it is in effect. Under the legislation, the Government have decided to continue to call it the "fossil fuel levy", even though they intend it to apply to non-fossil fuels and perhaps to all fuels used in various types of power generation in this country.
    At the same time as we have witnessed confusion, rows and disagreements in the DTI about whether to be more pro-coal, pro-gas, pro-renewable or pro-coal again, we have seen a rapacious Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his public capacity, acting entirely legally but undesirably in taking more money from business. We are worried that the open-ended powers of the Bill will give the Chancellor and his Government colleagues the opportunity to extend on that wider base an ever bigger fuel tax by the back door of the so-called fossil fuel levy.
    Part of the purpose of our proposed new clause and amendments is to try to pin down the Government on the seriousness of their taxing ambitions and on whether some limits might be imposed—at least, the necessity to return to the House of Commons for affirmative resolution following debate before additional taxation can be imposed on the energy sector.
    The Chancellor has found it relatively easy, in his own terms, to tax pensions, personal savings and businesses massively. He obviously views this as a rather modest measure to tax fuels more generally, and perhaps then will propose diverting some of the moneys from their original purposes to others that he already has in mind.
    Our amendments Nos. 6, 4 and 5 are designed primarily to place some limit and parliamentary control on the tax-raising measures. I shall go into some detail on our new clause. New clause 1 is consequential on the drafting of amendment No. 4—it does not make sense unless one refers to that amendment, which inserts new subsection

    431
    (10) in the Bill. It tidies up the order-making powers in the original Electricity Act 1989, consequent on the suggested changes in amendment No. 4. I shall not detain the House further with technical explanations of new clause 1 unless Labour Members request that by way of intervention. I think that this will become clearer when they see the way in which amendment No. 4 is intended to operate.
    New clause 6 is of considerable substance. It is one of our suggested mechanisms to impose a ceiling on the levy or tax-raising powers—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but for clarification's sake and for the benefit of the House, I think that he is referring to an amendment rather than a new clause.
    Mr. Redwood: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had misread the significance of the firm line under new clause 1; I mean amendment No. 6.
    Amendment No. 6 is an attempt to impose a ceiling on the levy, and we propose to do that by ensuring that the aggregate of amounts paid by way of levy under section 33 of the 1989 Act in any period of six months does not exceed the average so paid in the previous two six-month periods. That should be relatively easy for the Government to accept, if we are to trust them when they say that they have no wish to increase the tax burden on the industry.
    If the Government are not willing to accept this or a similar formula, our worries will indeed be confirmed that the intention of the Chancellor and his colleagues is to find an easy means of taxation by the back door, without the normal scrutiny of a Finance Bill, at the expense of the fuel industry and, ultimately, the fuel consumer, the person whom the Government often say that they are keen to help, but to whom their measures on company taxation do the opposite.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the Standing Committee debates. Did he notice that the Government's intention to have 10 per cent. renewable energy would put up the price of electricity by at least 15 per cent., which is roughly the percentage on which they won the election by telling pensioners that they would not allow the Conservative Government to increase VAT on electricity bills to 17.5 per cent.?
    Mr. Redwood: Indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is ahead of me in the argument that I shall set out to the House. He is right to warn that the current energy policy could undo some of the good that had been established by competitive Conservative energy policies in lowering the price of energy delivered to customers. No small Budget measures by way of subsidy or compensation could offset measures of this magnitude if the Government did their worst through the blunders that they seem inclined to make on energy policy.
    I notice that the Minister is not rising on any of this, so I assume that we are hitting home when we say that there are considerable dangers to customers as well as businesses in the policy that is unfolding in the Bill and elsewhere, and in the Executive actions and inactions of the ministerial team.
    432
    Amendment No. 3 offers the Minister greater flexibility in the proposed legislation. It shows how thoughtful we on the Opposition Benches are about the Minister's conduct. At times, we try to make his life easier, rather than more difficult, as well as to elucidate the mountainous problems that sit on his desk. This is a genuine attempt to assist him. The powers drafted by him or his advisers in the current text are rather clumsy. The amendment would allow the Minister to disaggregate. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that I often understate my case. He is quite right.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: I was being ironic.
    Mr. Redwood: I did not for one moment think that the hon. Gentleman was being anything other than ironic. I know that irony is the lowest form of wit and that he loves indulging in irony from his sedentary position below the Gangway, but as it was such a weak piece of irony, I thought that Hansard should have the advantage of it.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be grateful for the way in which I read it into the record for him. If only he would refer to his Order Paper and his amendment paper, he might learn something about a subject that should be dear to his heart. I am shortly coming to the coal industry, where I shall look to him for some support. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is saying rather a lot from a sedentary position. I am grateful for that correction. I hope that he will give the House the advantage of his expertise shortly, because coal is of considerable importance to the people he represents, as well as to the constituents of other hon. Members.
    Amendment No. 3 allows the Minister greater flexibility. It allows him to disaggregate the definitions of leviable electricity. It would, for example, allow him to make distinctions between different types of renewables, because we would urge him not to extend the tax to renewables. If he finds it irresistible to extend the tax to some renewables, amendment No. 3 will give him an opportunity to select from within the range and be kinder to those that are more speculative, that represent a bigger technical leap or that, by reasons of scale, are more difficult to see through to a successful conclusion.
    10.30 pm
    I hope that the Minister will speak about the way in which the Government will look after the renewable energy industry and how he intends to promote it in the light of the change against it in the projected levy under the Bill; if he is going ahead with the powers and intends to take disadvantage of them from the point of view of the renewable energy industry, I hope that he will tell us what other measures he is planning to take to offset that and foster that important series of industrial activities.
    I come now to perhaps the most important and contentious of the amendments, amendment No. 2, concerning coal. We are offering the House the opportunity to exclude clean coal technology power generation from the definition of leviable electricity.
    The Minister has from time to time said, as did his colleagues in the run-up to the election, that one of the ways in which it was hoped to square the circle of wanting greener policies, but also wanting a reasonably sized coal industry, was by promoting and helping clean coal

    433
    technology. We have so far seen very little of substance from this ministerial team to put any weight behind their promise to the hard-pressed and deteriorating British coal industry. This gives the Minister an opportunity to do something more.
    The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that he wants an exemption for clean coal power stations? Will he confirm that, unfortunately, at the moment there is none because the previous Conservative Government shut down the possibility when they let the technology go from Grimethorpe?
    Mr. Redwood: The Government have done nothing of substance so far to promote that technology. I am offering the
    Minister a way—
    Mr. Clive Betts: Answer the question.
    Mr. Redwood: I am about to answer the Minister. If the Whip will contain himself and return to his usual quiet charm, he may learn something.
    I am offering the Minister a way of giving some incentive and promotion to the clean coal technology which he has said in the past is needed to provide a bigger coal industry than we are heading for under current ministerial policies.
    I do not know whether the Minister is fully aware of the disaster currently hitting the coal industry as a result of the muddle and confusion created by the Government. Has he seen what has happened to coal output in recent months under the Government—a big reduction in coal output as a result of their policies? Has he seen what has been happening—
    Mr. Michael Clapham: I marvel at the hypocritical and disingenuous way in which the amendment is being moved. A clear illustration of that is the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was part of the Cabinet in 1993 which threw out the recommendation of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that £380 million a year for five years be taken from the fossil fuel levy to finance clean coal technology.
    Mr. Redwood: There is no hypocrisy on my part. If the hon. Gentleman had done his homework, he would know that I was a keen advocate of the saving of the Tower colliery in Wales, for which I had some modest responsibility as Secretary of State for Wales. That was bought out by the miners and became a successful enterprise. I am pleased that they did that, and it is a great tribute to their achievements. I was keen that that remaining part of the deep-mine industry in Wales should survive. Partly because of my intervention, but more because of the efforts of the miners, it did survive, and I pay tribute to their work.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable difference between a direct subsidy to
    434
    a technology and giving it relief from a tax to encourage private sector investment by giving it a relative advantage against other technologies?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a modest tax incentive, but it is a step in the right direction. The Government have an opportunity to accept the amendment and to tell us what more they will do. The only conceivable fig leaf on their lack of policy is that they make something of clean coal technology and look forward to a future where coal can be sold in reasonable quantities without damaging the stringent environmental targets which they have set or are thinking of setting.
    I shall return to my argument about the current grave position of the coal industry.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Redwood:: I shall develop my argument a little and then I shall be grateful for my hon. Friend's wise advice.
    The Minister was taken off the case and the Paymaster General was brought in by the Prime Minister to rescue the coal industry. The Prime Minister seemed to announce a deal that had saved the coal industry, at least in the short term. We then learned that nothing had been arranged and the Paymaster General was brought in to arrange something. We now believe that all that was arranged was a decision by leading generators to bring forward third-quarter purchases of coal into the second quarter of the current year. Let us assume that that happens. We have had a mild winter so far, and coal burn must have been reduced as a result. That means that, by the time we enter the third quarter, the burn will be down, the stock position will be up—all things being equal—and the crisis in the coal industry will be that much bigger.
    The Minister should recognise that the issue is not just how much coal generators buy in any limited number of weeks, but how much coal they buy and burn and how much coal they wish to buy and burn on a continuing basis over the years ahead. I believe that the Paymaster General's intervention will turn out to have been unwelcome for the Government. It will have built up modest expectations that will be disappointed and it will have exacerbated the problem of adjustment when we get to the end of the second quarter. Also, it leaves the basic conundrum completely unsolved: do the Government wish to make people burn more coal, is it possible to burn more coal and keep to the environmental targets which they have set or are inclined to set and are they in a position to deliver on their promises to the greens and the coal industry?
    Mr. Bruce: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is missing one of the points made ably by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), which is that clean coal technology was at an advanced stage and nobody wanted to buy it. The previous Government decided not to put money into that. The opportunity for it to be used is available to the Government now and we

    435
    have not been able to get any commitment from the Minister during the Bill's passage that he will put his money where his mouth is.
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. Ministers have been reluctant to produce a package of measures which would promote one of their chosen solutions to the problem of their making—clean coal technology.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware of the fact that I had the former Coal Research Establishment in my constituency, just outside Cheltenham.
    Mr. Battle: Who shut it down?
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if coal is to have any sustainable long-term future, we have to use the latest technology—fluid-bed technology and combined cycle technology with heat recovery? That is the only long-term sustainable way to burn coal.
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. If they wish to make—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We cannot have the Minister making a contribution right now.
    Mr. Redwood: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be happy to answer any point that the Minister might like to make by way of a proper intervention.
    My hon. Friend hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is right. There has been an absence of positive action to back up some of the fine words—interspersed with some less fine words—from the ministerial team. The Minister owes the House an explanation tonight of the Government's stance on clean coal technology. They came to power saying, among other things, that they would be better for the coal industry than the Conservative Government had been, and that they would be better for clean coal technology than they claimed the Conservative Government had been. There is always room for improvement in this world, but nobody can say that, since May 1997, there has been any improvement at all. Indeed, there has been movement in the other direction. The mining communities feel let down by the Administration—they expected better and they are getting worse.
    Mr. Hammond: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the focus over the past six or eight months has been on the pricing of coal contracts to generators, the long-term issue is not about price but about the Government's dilemma—the choice between their environmental targets and their commitment to the coal industry?
    Mr. Redwood: Indeed, and we are finding it difficult to clarify how stringent the Government's environmental targets are. The Prime Minister—in a sweeping gesture—set a target for carbon dioxide emissions to be cut by a fifth; a massive movement, bigger than our partners were promising at the time of the conference where the
    436
    Prime Minister made that promise. That would mean a further big reduction in the coal industry. Is the Minister prepared to quantify how much?
    Mr. Battle: The right hon. Gentleman must be suffering from amnesia. Perhaps the late nights he keeps mean that he cannot cope. Does he remember being a member of a Government who passed the sulphur emission targets which would have shut down every coal power station in Britain. except Drax and Ratcliffe? Who left us that legacy? Can he remind us?
    Mr. Redwood: We read in the newspapers that the sulphur targets we set are thought to be too lenient by the Government, who are discussing a considerable intensification of those targets. Will the Minister confirm or deny that? It is rash for him to criticise the sulphur targets that we established in government if his Government are about to create stiffer targets which the coal industry will find it difficult, if not impossible, to meet.
    The Minister seems quite unaware of the difficulties that the tensions are causing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, there is a dilemma. The Prime Minister once said that he thought that government was about making hard choices. There is a good, hard choice for the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade or the Paymaster General—or even, conceivably, the Minister, if he is allowed back on the brief. The hard choice is: are the Government greener than the Conservatives, in which case less coal will be mined, or are they less green than the Conservatives, in which case more coal could be mined?
    How will the Government resolve the issue? Are they primarily a green Government—in which case they should be honest with the miners and tell them that much of the game is up for the mining industry—or are they a Government who are true to their roots in the mining communities, who will set less difficult targets and who will actively promote the market for coal? I trust that the Minister has read the suggestions from the Coalfield Communities Campaign. It would be good to hear whether he thinks that his Administration would like to accept those suggestions. How would that relate to the Bill? Does the Minister agree that amendment No. 2 is a small step in the direction of helping the coal industry? He has the choice, and he should give the House the benefit of his feelings before the night is much older.
    Amendment No. 4 concerns renewables, and states:
    "The levy imposed on a supplier of electricity generated in pursuance of qualifying arrangements under paragraph (c) of the definition of leviable electricity in subsection (8) above may not be greater than the aggregate payments received in respect of that electricity under this section."
    The intention is to make sure that the renewable industry is not cheated under the proposal by having to pay more in levy than it receives from the fund created by the levy payments.
    The original intention of the levy was to be generous to the renewables industry at the expense of less clean methods of generating power. The Minister must be more precise than the Bill, given that he wishes to upset the thrust behind the legislation that he inherits. He owes it to the House to say whether he would be happy with the amendment, which is offered in a helpful spirit, or

    437
    whether he seriously intends to take money away from the renewable energy sector by imposing a higher levy on it than the payments that it receives. Will the Minister answer that point immediately to save the House some time?
    Mr. Battle indicated dissent.
    10.45 pm
    Mr. Redwood: I am happy to wait until the whole debate is answered, if that is the Minister's wish. He would have saved the House time by saying that he accepted the intention of the amendment, or a lesser or greater intention. We would be happy with an amendment that would allow the renewables industry to receive back more than it pays, for example. We would not be happy with a looser amendment, which would leave the renewables industry potentially subject to the depredations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the whims of the President of the Board of Trade, which is the position in the Bill as it stands.
    Amendment No. 5 would deal with the democratic difficulties in this proposal. It is a strong principle of our fine and ever-modern unwritten constitution that the House keeps control over the vote of moneys-over the levying of taxation and financial levies on industries or persons. What my right hon. and hon. Friends most regret about the measure is that it gives wide-ranging powers to levy money from businesses without going through separate and normal democratic processes to ensure that the levy rates are properly debated and approved through financial legislation. It would be more honest for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce this kind of proposal as part of a Finance Bill, because its power to levy the whole energy industry is so wide that it has the nature of a tax rather than a special levy for a special purpose, which is how it was originally designed and named by the previous Administration.
    The amendment therefore suggests that there should be a separate resolution by the House of Commons in this or a future Parliament to extend the levy. That modest request would be in keeping with the long-established principles on which our democracy is based, and with the principles established by long debate, row and battle centuries ago, when hon. Members rightly thought that it was necessary to have control over the Executive and their ability to raise taxes from industries and people in our community. If the Minister is not prepared to accept this modest proposal concerning the affirmative resolution, I hope that he will give us the benefit of his ideas on how the House of Commons can remain involved in the levying of taxation on the energy industries, given the wide-ranging and open-ended powers that have been drafted in the current version of this obscure but quite important Bill.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend is dealing with one of the most fundamental issues that the House has to deal with at this point. Does he agree that the use of Henry VIII clauses, thereby giving Ministers unduly wide powers, is a serious deficit in the democratic process, and that even Ministers, who would naturally want to gain those powers, should resist those?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. DTI Ministers were detained for some hours last night because they were
    438
    seeking Henry VIII powers over a minimum wage, with huge and unspecified cost consequences to the public as well as the private sector, and they were not prepared to put in the Bill the issue that concerns Labour Members as well as us—how much the wage would be.
    Tonight, we have before us similar legislation, in which the Government wish to impose a levy on new industries and on sectors of an industry that have not previously paid it, without being prepared to specify in the Bill how much that levy would be and exactly how it would be spent on the other side of the ledger.
    The Minister is looking around trying to think of something to say in response.
    Mr. Battle: Sometimes strange things happen in this place: we change sides. Unfortunately, exactly his present argument was put to the right hon. Gentleman when he was in government in February 1989. He did not think that it was a great matter of principle then, because he voted against our attempt to introduce the affirmative resolution procedure under the 1989 Act.
    Mr. Redwood: The Minister walked right into that; he now says that he thinks that it is a good idea to require an affirmative resolution. We seem to have reached happy agreement.
    Mr. Battle: But I agree with you now.
    Mr. Redwood: I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Minister means that he agrees with me—with the right hon. Member for Wokingham. But he does not agree with me, because my view is clearly that we need the affirmative resolution procedure, whereas he is saying that he does not want it. [Interruption.] I do not remember having expressed a view at the time.
    Mr. Battle: No, but you voted.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend is having an interesting exchange with the Minister, but if he reads the debates from 1989, he will realise that he is now supporting the view that the present Prime Minister held at that time. It is surprising that the Minister, who I suspect is quite ambitious, does not accept the logic of the argument that the present Prime Minister, then simply the hon. Member for Sedgefield, expressed on the issue at the time. I hope that now he will immediately agree to accept the amendments.
    Mr. Redwood: We live in hope, but I fear that my hon. Friend's hope may have outrun the reality of the Administration whom we are, unfortunately, experiencing day by day.
    The new clause and amendments are designed to deal specifically with three important issues. The first is whether the Minister will accept the amendments or give us another way in which the House can retain ultimate control over how high the levy could go. We offer him the route of putting a cap, or ceiling, on the levy, and also the route of giving the House its entitlement—a requirement for an affirmative resolution should any change in the levy, especially an increase, be recommended by the Administration.

    439
    The second big issue that we seek to highlight is the future of the coal industry. We see an industry that, measured by its output, is in sharp decline. We see an industry subject to quick fixes by the Paymaster General and other Ministers. It may be worthy of a soundbite or a trip down a coal mine by the Minister without Portfolio, but is not considered worthy of a serious energy policy that might provide some relief, although the industry will hit grave difficulties in the summer unless the Minister overcomes his slumbers and gets his job back from the Paymaster General.
    We have offered a positive, though modest, suggestion—one of many that could be developed by Executive as well as legislative action, and one that is suitable in the context of the debate—to offer a small fiscal incentive for those developing clean coal technology, which could help the next generation of coal-fired generating plant.
    The third important issue which we have highlighted is the treatment of renewable energy, which many Opposition Members believe could play an important role. It represents a very modest proportion of our current power generation, but there are many imaginative and innovative businesses in this country, and it is the kind of technology that may produce a pay-off in exports all over the world as well as at home.
    That is common ground between the Minister and us. However, the Minister has an advantage that the Opposition do not have: he can take action this day, or tomorrow in his office, to do something about the idea, whereas we can merely urge action on him. We are offering him the opportunity to respond positively to the proposal and, within the confines of the debate, to tell us what else he can do to support the renewable energy industry.
    I think that in one of his more fair-minded moments, the Minister would agree that our fossil fuel levy and its allocation did something to promote energy in this country and that, from a slow start and modest beginnings, we succeeded in promoting some interesting technologies and helping some companies. We would like to know how the Minister wishes to continue that work, and trust that he will respond positively to our new clause and amendments.
    Will the Minister accept our new clause and amendments—which are good in intention, modest in scope and helpful—or will he make other proposals that will achieve similar jobs for the United Kingdom and for our energy industry? Will he now take seriously the need for democratic accountability, the need for policy that says something to the mining industry that it wishes to hear and the need to do more to promote the renewable energy industry?
    Mr. Skinner: I have spent quite a while as an hon. Member, but listening to that ex-Minister, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), talking about saving the 17 or 20 pits that are left has been like being in fantasy land. I could laugh, but I really want to cry. When the Tories got into power in 1979, there were 300 pits in Britain and about 13 pits in Derbyshire, where I come from. Now the ex-Minister has come to the House to tell us the fairy story that, after only 10 months in opposition, he has totally converted and wants to save those jobs.
    440
    Many of the areas that we are talking about have been subjected, with the help of the Tory Government, to opencast mining. Whether we like it or not—it is a sad thing to have to say—the fact is that, once we opencast that land, no one will ever again drive another shaft down it. The geology becomes unstable, preventing anyone from getting at any of the remaining coal. Opencast mining does not get all the coal; it gets only some of it.
    I have listened to the ex-Minister for the past 40 minutes, and it has been enough to make a cat laugh. He was there in the Government—a Minister—for the greater part of the time that the pits were closed. If he was not a Minister, he was in the policy unit, telling the other Tory Ministers what to do.
    Even after 1984, 174 pits were still left. Then we had the savage experience of Tory Ministers—all of them—going back on what they had told the Trade and Industry Select Committee, which produced its report. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) was a member of that Committee, so he knows what he is talking about when he describes the £285 million that should have been used to develop clean coal.
    When Ministers set up that Committee, they said that they would abide by its recommendations. But what happened? We had a vote in the House. On the night in question, almost every Tory Member, and every Tory Minister, went into the Lobby to shut those 31 pits, leaving about 20 pits. The Tories privatised the remaining pits, after which we lost another batch of pits, which has left us in this almighty mess.
    Whatever phraseology that man—that shadow Minister—uses, the truth is that he could talk a donkey's hind leg off and until his belly warms. But out there in the country, he will not convince the people of anything other than the fact that the Tory Government were hellbent on revenge against the miners after their victories of 1972 and 1974, and that they would go to any lengths to make those miners and their families eat grass.
    One of the reasons why we were able to collect money in places such as Bournemouth, Bath, Worthing and all those Tory constituencies—including Wimbledon and Harrow, where I often went—is that people there said, "We want to feed the families that Mrs. Thatcher is starving." When I say "Mrs. Thatcher", I include that shadow Minister. He was involved in it.
    So I tell the ex-Minister not to come here with his fancy fairy stories about wanting to help miners. I have never heard such piffle in all my life. I think about the villages that I represent in Derbyshire, and realise that the social fabric has broken down because the Tory Government finally got rid of all their pits.
    Let us be clear about it: there is a qualitative difference between how pits were closed when I was working in them and how the Tories closed them. When Parkhouse colliery closed, I had a chance to go to about 15 other collieries within a five or six-mile radius. When they closed down the last 15 pits, make no mistake! There was no chance of being transferred. Ninety per cent. of miners in my constituency were told, "Sorry, there are no more pits left for you to go to." That was the criminal action.
    I had a choice; I went to another colliery, but all the young lads were chucked on the scrap heap. There used to be stable communities, where doors were left open at night. When I was first a Member of Parliament, I saw

    441
    row after row of miners' cottages with their doors open. Now the social fabric has been destroyed to such an extent that people are kicking one another's doors in, and there are three padlocks on the doors.
    11 pm
    Let no one tell me that everything has happened in the last 10 months. I can be critical of this Government—I have already started—but I cannot blame them for what has happened in the coal industry. I may have to at some point, but I cannot now. There is not a single pit left in my constituency. There is not one in the whole of north Derbyshire; there is not one in Lancashire; there is only that co-operative left in south Wales—and this man here, the right hon. Member for Wokingham, is claiming credit for saving it. Come on!
    I believe that there is one pit left in Durham, and there may be one left in Scotland. Let us think about it. In 1979, there were 300 pits; now we are down to about 20. Let me tell the House something else. The Government can have as many fossil fuel levies as they like, and they can shuffle the pack as much as they like, but they cannot repair the damage that was done over those 18 years of Tory government.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is displaying some of the best rhetoric that I have heard since I have been in the House, but will he tell us, factually, how many pits the Labour Government closed in the 1960s and 1970s, compared with the number closed by the Conservative Government in the 1980s?
    Mr. Skinner: I can give the hon. Gentleman a rough estimate—and the figures bear comparison; there is no mistake about that.
    When I first came down to lobby Parliament in 1967, there was a Labour Government. A fellow who is now in the House of Lords—Lord Marsh—was allegedly the Labour Minister of Power. I had suspected him a long way back, when he wore a CND badge at his selection conference, because I had not seen him on the Aldermaston march. The badge got him the selection and, having been selected, he had a wonderful plan. It was almost like the Heseltine plan—not the Heseltine plan; the plan from Henley-on-Thames. Lord Marsh was going to close down the industry then, although he was not going to use the fossil fuel levy and all the rest of it. He had to be bundled out of office. That is what we did when we marched down here in 1967 and broke into the Labour party conference to save the industry.
    I will tell the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) the difference in the situation. We were able to force a Labour Government to change course. We tried it in 1991 and 1992 with the Conservative Government, and we could not shift them. Between 70 and 80 pits were closed in the period that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
    I know the industry like the back of my hand; I know about all the closures. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that one pit has been closed in the last 10 months. I could not lay the closure at the door of my hon. Friend the Minister even if I wanted to, because the pit has been closed by private enterprise. The hon. Gentleman must understand
    442
    this: once the coal industry is handed over to private enterprise, a Government cannot intervene, or can hardly intervene. Why? Because it is all about money—it is about shekels and it is about profit. The moment that Silverdale looked as if it could not deliver the goods, someone came along and said, "Close it."
    My hon. Friend the Minister had better be aware of this point, as should every other hon. Member. Budge has about 17 pits. He is also mining about 16 million tonnes of coal a year from opencast. It sticks in my gullet to hear Budge asking the Labour Government for £300 million of subsidy from taxpayers' money, when he effectively stole the coal industry in the first place. With that subsidy, he could solve the problem himself, because all he has to do to save every single pit is turn off the tap of opencast coal production.
    My hon. Friend the Minister should remember that point. When he has to make calculations, with or without a levy, he will have to bear it in mind that there are other components. He can say to Mr. Budge that we want to save the 20-odd pits that are left, but that he had better cut back on opencast. Changing the mineral planning guidance rules would make one hell of a difference. We could then save the deep mines and the miners who work in them.
    My hon. Friend the Minister could do something about the French power that is coming over here. I do not go a bundle on this Common Market, and never will. I have never been caught up in it, unlike the right hon. Member for Wokingham, who is a Johnny-come-lately. He is anti-Market now, but at one time he was greatly in favour, like most of the Tories.
    If 7,000 or 8,000 miners' jobs can be saved in Britain, we had better do that and not save the French nuclear power that is coming over here. If we can shuffle the fossil fuel levy in that direction, by all means let us do it. My hon. Friend the Minister should pay some attention to the question of imported coal, which comes from some of the most unlikely places. We cannot afford to chuck our few miners out of work while subsidising up to the hilt imported coal from Spain, Germany, Colombia and slave-labour economies.
    The fossil fuel levy pales into insignificance compared with what can be done, but if Budge decides that a pit is not profitable, perhaps because it has run into some bad geology and is losing money, we can do nothing. Under nationalisation, we could save a pit by getting through the bad work, because there were enough profitable pits for the strong to help the weak.
    Under privatisation, that will not happen: Mr. Budge will say, "That pit's unprofitable; it's going." Mark my words, if the coal industry remains in private hands, the owners of the few remaining pits will close them, just as they closed Silverdale, because it was not delivering. That is why the whole question is so important, over and above this tin-pot fossil fuel levy.
    Ministers must pass the message on to Downing street or anywhere else that the only way of saving the few remaining pits, and taking them out of the grip of Mr. Budge and all the rest, is to bring the industry back into public ownership. That does not go down very well with new Labour, but it has to be said. It is much more important than some of the rubbish coming out of the mouth of the right hon. Member for Wokingham.

    443
    It has been a sad story, mainly because we had 18 years of a Tory Government who were determined to do the dirty on the miners and their families. By God, did they rub it in. Now we have to set up task forces in every single pit village to try to get work back into the communities. It is a sad story, all right.
    I will give my hon. Friend the Minister the benefit of the doubt tonight, for what that is worth, but the decisions that we make on this little Bill are unimportant compared with what we have to do if we want to save the industry. If a Labour Government make the decision to save the 20-odd pits in Britain, it is possible to do it.
    If we want to use the levy to shift a bit here and there and move the balance this way or the other, so be it: I go along with that. I believe in intervention and Governments moving in. I do not know whether it is old Labour or new Labour, or old-fashioned socialism. I do not believe in the principle of market forces.
    I am like the farmers who ran the march the other week. They say they cannot produce food like the Mediterranean countries because they cannot compete with them. I am not against the principle of that dreaded word "subsidy". I believe that it is important to get people into work. I believe in welfare into work—in keeping miners in their jobs rather than chucking them on the scrap heap as window cleaners. We have got more window cleaners and taxi drivers in Bolsover and Barnsley than we have ever had before. That is a sad commentary on the proud pit villages that were destroyed by that lot opposite. I just had to stay to tell them.
    The right hon. Member for Wokingham can spout as much as he likes. Some Tory audience might take it all in when he tells them, with his jerky movements, what he wants to do to save the industry. It is all but destroyed. The Labour Government must do something to save what remains of it. I will help my hon. Friend the Minister to do that. I had to do a little deal with him the other week to save concessionary coal; I hope that that show is on the road permanently. I will give him a hand with a shovel to save what remains of the industry, but I will not expect any help from that lot opposite, who destroyed the miners' jobs and left them to rot in nearly every pit village in Britain.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not want to stop the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in full flight. I have allowed a wide debate so far. Perhaps we can return to new clause 1. It would assist the Chair if mention were made of it.
    Mr. David Maclean: Mr. Deputy Speaker, we were privileged that you did not stop the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) when he was in full flight. I have been here 15 years. I would never patronise the hon. Gentleman, but I must say that it was a privilege to listen to him and to the passion that he put into his speech. I hope that you will not stop the Minister if he decides to respond to the hon. Gentleman's points. I would love to hear his detailed response to them rather than to what the hon. Gentleman called this shabby little measure or little piffle of a Bill.
    It is to this little piffle of a Bill that I must turn. I oppose the measure, but I am a pragmatist. I accept that the Government have a huge majority; they can do what they like. They could do what the hon. Member for
    444
    Bolsover wants if they had the mind and the guts. As the Government will get the measure through, I say only that, if they are minded to try to square the circle by taking the illogical step of imposing a levy on fuel generated by alternative, green means while going into the fifth round of the non-fossil fuel obligation, I assume that it is because they wish to show their green credentials.
    The Government do not want to abandon NOFFO. They will continue to fund alternative means such as extra hydro power in Scotland, which is awash with it, and extra wind power in parts of England that are fed up with that. To continue with that and impose a levy on electricity generated by green means is illogical. If that is what they want, I urge the Minister to pay attention and to accept amendment No. 3. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, it would give him the flexibility and scope to impose levies on different sorts of electricity generated by alternative or green means.
    If the Minister is minded to do that, I should be particularly interested to hear his views on the sort of levy that he might impose on wind power generated in parts of the country where wind power might no longer be so desirable as it was in the past. If the non-fossil fuel obligation is intended to encourage alternative energy sources and technology that are on the frontiers of science, one of the areas of wind power that should be looked at is wind power generated by offshore means. I believe the technology to do that has been developed, and, with the subsidy which NOFFO grants, the technology is capable of coming on stream which would enable us to build much bigger, more substantial and more stable wind farms, slightly offshore—perhaps even quite a bit offshore—where they would not be an eyesore and a nuisance to constituents of mine living in the Lake district or close to it. I hope that the Minister will seriously address that point.
    11.15 pm
    I have written to the hon. Gentleman in the past suggesting that, as we have now had four rounds and are entering the fifth round of NOFFO, and as the previous Government's policy—slavishly followed by the present Government—has succeeded in encouraging alternative forms of energy and alternative renewables, the time may have come to look at the direction in which we are going. I know that the Labour party is reviewing most areas of policy—indeed, everything seems to be under review—but I wish that the Minister would put the policy on renewables, particularly as it affects wind farms on sensitive sites in this country, under urgent review.
    The Minister has decided not to use the planning mechanism as a means of further tightening things up. Although that is a possible avenue which I should happily encourage a socialist Government who believed in extra planning controls to follow, he has decided not to go down that route. As he is taking in the Bill the additional instrument of imposing a levy on renewables, he should take up the suggestion in amendment No. 3 to give himself more flexibility. Rather than adopt a broad-brush approach and impose a levy on all forms of renewables, he would be able to target the levy on certain types of renewable that we might consider, after a review, are less appropriate now.
    I have skirted the subject, but let me say bluntly that I am concerned that some operators have now decided that wind farms are a good cash cow. Because of the subsidy

    445
    that is available, parts of my constituency are now plagued by speculative planning applications, not for half a dozen windmills, but for up to 200 windmills in areas on the edge of the Lake district national park and other areas of outstanding natural beauty.
    Although, at the end of the day, many of those wind farm developments have been turned down by the planning authority and, thankfully, by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions inspectors, and although some will no doubt be turned down in future, they cause enormous concern and blight for a period of 12 to 18 months while the application goes through.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, which his borders, there are six existing applications for wind farms, two of which are in the north Pennines area of outstanding natural beauty?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In all corners of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, which cover some of the most beautiful parts of Northumberland, there is a rash of planning applications in areas of outstanding natural beauty. No doubt many of those applications will be turned down, but the concern caused is considerable.
    That offers another chance for the Minister to show his green credentials. I assume that he has not abolished NOFFO, for the simple reason that he does not want to tell environmentalists, "We are getting rid of the renewables policy." I accept that there are parts of the renewables policy which are perfectly sensible.
    It is correct and appropriate to introduce a policy such as NFFO, which we did in 1995, to encourage alternative technology. Wind farm technology is now well proven. It works. The time has come for it to stand on its own feet without taxpayer subsidy. Let us take the subsidy that is available to land-based wind farms and push some of it towards new technology that would enable wind farms to be built offshore, for example.
    That option is available to the Minister. I do not suggest that his whole Bill should be scrapped, much as I dislike its concept, but if he is going to go ahead with it, for goodness' sake let him take the appropriate power in amendment No. 3. Let him take the suitable power, so that he is able to target the levy towards those renewable sectors that we want to encourage and towards some of the renewable sectors where we already have sufficiency and of which we do not want any more, particularly in sensitive areas.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, particularly as the Government, by press release, have told the world that we are going towards a 10 per cent. requirement of electricity generated. However, they will not tell the House or the world how they are going to achieve that. Clearly, one of the problems that has brought so many Labour Members into the Chamber is that that requirement will almost certainly mean a reduction in coal generation.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a good point. No doubt the hon. Member for Bolsover will fight that
    446
    corner as robustly as he did tonight. In many ways, my suggestion is a tiny help to him. I suggest that some parts of the renewables policy go too far. If the Minister wishes to divert some of the energy and some of the subsidy through NOFFO into alternative forms of renewables, rather than into large wind farms in inappropriate areas, he will have my full support.
    While he is at it, will the Minister talk to Scottish Office Ministers? I have no political connection with Scotland at all now; I am merely an occasional visitor when I am allowed across the border. However, it still seems extraordinary to visit some favoured haunts in the highlands, an area that is awash with hydro—electricityScotland, I believe, is an exporter of hydro—electricityto see NOFFO being used in Scotland, encouraging the damming up of yet more small lochs, and to see small, unnecessary hydro-electric projects there, adding to the plethora of hydro-electricity it already has.
    The Minister has a chance to use the amendment to be much more selective and incisive in the tools he uses to direct electricity generation and renewables policy. I disapprove generally of his approach, but, if he is minded to take it, let him adopt the scalpel rather than the sledgehammer, which he has in the Bill.
    I hope that the Minister will respond to my points, but, if he is not minded to do so, I would dearly love him to respond to what the hon. Member for Bolsover said—if not tonight, then at some other point. This debate will run and run.
    Mr. Hammond: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)referred to this measure as a tin-pot fossil fuel levy. The whole point about the levy is that it is unlimited in its potential extent. At its height, when the levy was 11 per cent., I believe that it raised about £1 billion a year, which by anyone's standards—and whatever the purpose for which it is applied—would hardly be considered a tin-pot amount of money. That sum could be used seriously to tackle many of the problems in different sectors of the energy industry.
    I am happy that there is only one group of amendments on the amendment paper, which suggests that we might get home for breakfast, but, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to discuss the amendments and the new clause separately, because they have a certain logical consistency.
    Amendment No. 5 would add to the wording of clause 1(3), to make any extension under section 33(9) of the Electricity Act 1989 subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons. The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure adequate opportunity for scrutiny on a matter that gives considerable cause for concern not only to Conservative Members but, as we discovered on Second Reading and in Committee, to Liberal Democrat Members, for a variety of reasons.
    Our principal concern is that clause 1(3), which inserts a new subsection (9) into section 33 of the Electricity Act 1989, is something of a blunt instrument, which would allow the Secretary of State to remove the definition of leviable electricity altogether, so that all electricity became leviable, or to leave the definition exactly as it is. Clause 1(3) does not allow the Secretary of State any discretion to extend the levy to certain areas that are not currently leviable, without at the same time hitting the full range of unsubsidised renewable technologies and any other technologies that currently escape the levy.

    447
    It has been suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who is no longer in his place, that large-scale hydro-electric projects in Scotland might properly have the levy extended to them. We have tabled amendment No. 3 specifically with the purpose of giving the Secretary of State the ability to add power-generating resources selectively to the scope of the levy without forcing him or her to extend it across the range of all electricity.
    It is common ground between Labour and Opposition Members that the NOFFO regime has been a success, not perhaps principally in the large amount of electricity that is generated under it—although some 200 or so projects are approved under the NOFFO arrangements, the amount of electricity generated is still quite small—but in terms of the convergence that has already been achieved. It is now a realistic probability that some of the technologies will reach market pricing and that we will shortly see such electricity sold directly into the retail market as green electricity purchased as such by consumers.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: It would have been extremely helpful to the Standing Committee to hear from the Minister what he intended to do with the non-fossil fuel obligation. If we could have had a clear picture of what he intended in the next round for NOFFO, we could have been very much more helpful and worked on a bipartisan approach. Is it not ridiculous that the Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends are urging him to take action on things such as clean coal, yet he still will not answer Lord Ezra or anyone about exactly what he intends to do, or what other non-fossil fuel obligation he intends to require?
    Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend anticipates the point that I was about to make. A future amendment of section 32 of the Electricity Act 1989 may enable the levy to be used in support of clean coal technology or any other new or existing technologies. It would be interesting in that context if the Minister could tell us the current status of the private Member's Bill introduced by Lord Ezra in another place. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bolsover did not mention that Bill. The Minister was probed on it in Standing Committee.
    The noble Lord was given to understand that the Government would treat his Bill benevolently when it reached this place. By the time of the Standing Committee's proceedings, the Minister had not answered a letter from Lord Ezra; we would be interested to know whether the Government intend to make time for that measure when it gets to this House. That would have a significant impact on the matters we are debating this evening.
    11.30 pm
    Perhaps the Minister will also tell us what steps have been taken—I know that he has taken some already—to clear with the European Commission any moves that the Government might be minded to make to allow the subsidising, through the NOFFO mechanism, of clean coal technology; or to allow other measures to help the coal industry. Such measures would not, I believe, become possible until they had been cleared by the Commission.
    The levy is relatively low at the moment—less than 2 per cent.—but at its peak it was set at 11 per cent. At that level, it could provide a technology not subjected to
    448
    the levy with a powerful competitive edge over one that was subjected to it. In pursuit of environmental and other objectives, it might be useful for the Government to have the power to include certain new technologies in the levy, without necessarily extending it to all technologies.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the amount of money raised under the previous Administration, when there were difficulties with the nuclear industry. That money is no longer included in the price of electricity. The mechanism involved is a very powerful one; yet we still cannot find out from the Minister by how much he intends the levy to rise.
    Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. Any measures that the Minister was minded to introduce to extend the use of the NOFFO arrangements to support clean coal technology would require an amendment to section 32 of the Electricity Act 1989. Lord Ezra, when the Bill was introduced in another place, sought to include such a provision, but was ruled out of order.
    Dr. Ian Gibson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the blistering attack by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), may I take it that the shadow Front-Bench team has been chased from the Chamber? The hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), have all disappeared from the scene. What credibility can we ascribe to the remaining members of a party whose Front-Bench team disappears in this manner?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Hammond: We will do our best. Perhaps our right hon. and hon. Friends have gone to the Tea Room for a short break, in anticipation of lengthy proceedings.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will know that we operate a lean and mean team. With so many DTI Bills coming through, and with so many DTI Ministers—with all their flats—dealing with them, Conservative Members still appear able to debate these matters cogently while encountering a great deal of difficulty even getting Labour Members to get to their feet.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we can now return to the amendments.
    Mr. Hammond: I will not be tempted down the route that my hon. Friend offers me.
    Amendment No. 2 offers the only means, within the limited scope of the Bill, of allowing the Minister to show his practical support for clean coal technology. It is a small start. How much excluding that technology from the scope of the levy would be worth would depend entirely on the level of the levy at the time. Clearly, if the levy was 11 per cent., it could be a considerable advantage which might make a significant difference to a private investor considering investing in clean coal technology for retrofit. If the levy was only 2 per cent.—[Interruption.] I am sorry: I have been tempted off my track by the Minister.

    449
    The current problems in the coal industry have focused attention on support for coal mining and coal burning processes. The issue is not just the price agreed with the generators, as much of the press speculation and comment over the past few months has suggested. It is also the contradiction, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, between the Government's commitment to reduced emissions of greenhouse gases, which we all welcome, and the Government's undoubted desire to help the coal industry if they can. Even before the election they were balancing on a tightrope, trying to satisfy the green lobby while masquerading as the friend of the coal mining community. Now they must decide on which side of the tightrope they will fall off.
    The only route out of the problem for the Minister is to use the mechanism of the NOFFO—section 32 of the 1989 Act—in the future to support clean coal technology, while not negating the Government's commitments on greenhouse gases.
    We are trying to draw out the Government's policy. We know that a number of reviews are taking place. Perhaps it would have been better if the Bill had been limited to subsections (1) and (2) of clause 1, which would have made it truly just a technical measure, as the Minister has suggested at various times that it is.
    By including subsection (3), however, the Minister has given himself powers considerably to extend the scope of the levy. In those circumstances, we must probe him about his wider intentions. Had he completed his review of the future of renewables, funding and the NOFFO mechanism and then introduced a new Bill that amended section 32 of the Electricity Act 1989 and widened the scope of the levy as subsection (3) does, that might have been more logical.
    We need to know whether the Government intend to use section 32 to try to support the coal industry. Are they interested in using the levy as a tool to support the industry, as our amendment No. 2 suggests? What levels do the Government envisage for the levy in the future? We would not necessarily be hostile to a higher levy if it made sense, but we are not minded to write blank cheques for the Government.
    We want to ensure through the amendments that there is a proper system of reporting back to the House, and that any measures that the Government introduce to extend the scope of the levy will be properly reviewed in Parliament. We need to know how they will reach their ambitious emissions targets, how much that will cost, and how they will finance those costs. We seek openness and debate. What I have suggested the Government might be considering would not necessarily be wrong, but it would be wrong to sneak it in through the back door of subsection (3) and other provisions of the Bill.
    If support for clean coal and other technologies through the levy is a coherent part of the Government's energy policy in the long term, and not just a short-term fix, it might be sensible to use the mechanism of the non-fossil fuel obligation. We will keep a check on what the Government do in that respect. For that purpose, we have tabled amendment No. 6. We do not suggest that the Government should not contemplate increasing the level
    450
    of the levy, but, if they do increase it, that should be subject to approval by Parliament, so that a proper check can be maintained.
    In discussions such as this, it is important not to forget that, alongside the environmental argument for supporting alternative technologies and managing the fuel equation in our electricity generation industry, there is a second pillar of argument for supporting new energy technologies: security of supply. That tends to be an on-off issue. At certain times—for example, in 1973 and during the Gulf war—security of supply becomes extremely fashionable and the driving force in particular areas of energy policy. At other times, when our energy supply does not seem to be seriously threatened and our energy security is not obviously under threat, the issue slips out of sight, and the environmental focus tends to take over.
    Anyone who has attended any of the excellent seminars organised by the various strategic and international study institutes with which London is blessed will realise that, although our energy supplies do not appear to be under any imminent threat, many quite plausible scenarios suggest that we would be wise to consider energy security as an important part of the equation. That is a second, and quite legitimate, reason for encouraging indigenous energy sources—although I do not suggest for a moment encouraging them at any cost.
    Mr. Clapham: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the previous Government and the one before that set us on a course of over-dependence on gas? In light of that, it is extremely difficult for this Government—who are trying to do something positive for the mining industry—to be effective.
    Mr. Hammond: Doing something positive for the mining industry includes immediately approving new gas-fired power stations, which the Government said they would not do. Gas is an indigenous energy source in the United Kingdom—at least at the moment—unlike some of our other energy sources.
    I do not suggest that we should pursue energy security at any cost. However, if security can be achieved in a way that is compatible with a sensible environmental policy at a sensible cost, that is a legitimate objective to pursue. Sections 32 and 33 of the Electricity Act 1989 may be a legitimate route for achieving that objective as well as environmental objectives.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Looking back at the debates on the original electricity legislation that introduced the non-fossil fuel obligation, one notices that the cost differences between gas, coal and nuclear and wind power then are incredibly different from those levels today. The non-fossil fuel obligation and the fossil fuel levy give the Government flexibility and should be retained. We are rather surprised that the Government do not agree.
    Mr. Hammond: The flexibility that I believe the amendments would give the Government could prove useful to the Minister. For the second night in a row, I find myself in the somewhat unusual position of urging the Government to give themselves more discretionary power. We can envisage the advantages that that would have.
    I turn now to amendment No. 4, which I think stands a little apart from the other amendments, in that it seeks to protect electricity generated from renewable technologies

    451
    under qualifying arrangements. The amendment seeks to prevent a situation whereby any given source of electricity supply would be subject to a levy that might be more than the subsidy being received in respect of that electricity.
    We might contemplate that situation when the price of renewable energy generated from certain technologies converged with market prices. We might see that the subsidy payable is quite low—or very low indeed—at a point in the not too distant future, perhaps under some of the bids that the Minister is receiving under the current NOFFO round.
    If at some point the levy were to be raised from its current low level to 5 or 10 per cent.—somewhere within the range that has been experienced since the mechanism was introduced—a technology-based renewable energy generating station could pay more levy than it receives in subsidy. I think that the Minister had some sympathy in Standing Committee for the argument that it would send the wrong signals to the renewable energy generation industry were we to suggest that, as it approached convergence and lost its subsidy, it might become a net payer of levy. We would not like to send it that message.
    All these amendments have a certain coherence. Their overriding theme is the need for transparency and accountability as the Minister seeks to use the mechanisms that are available to him to deal with the issues. There is no suggestion that we would not be sympathetic to what he might have to do, but there is a desire to ensure that the House is properly informed, and that proper debate takes place.
    11.45 pm
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I notice that the Chamber is starting to fill up with Whips. The Deputy Chief Whip is present. Obviously, he is a little worried that the Whip on duty is the same one who was on duty last night when we were debating the National Minimum Wage Bill. Perhaps the Deputy Chief Whip is concerned that we may talk through the night. I can reassure him that it is not our intention to delay the House unduly, but the Bill before us is important. The Minister, who takes this matter extremely seriously, will want to respond in full to matters that have been raised in this full and sensible debate.
    Whips are, supposedly, the silent people. In Committee, they were keen to ensure that the Committee was filled with the Stepford tendency of new Labour MPs who would not—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to know what the Whips did in Committee. It has nothing to do with me. We have amendments before us and the hon. Gentleman will speak to them.
    Mr. Bruce: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding me not to be tempted by such important people as the Deputy Chief Whip.
    It is important that the House has the opportunity to have a full debate. It has allowed the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to speak on a subject about which he is knowledgeable and passionate, and his speech was a treat to us all. Indeed, he spoke directly to the substance of the amendments before us. We also had a treatise from my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), which went into great detail about the amendments that we tabled.
    452
    I shall respond to any interventions that hon. Members may wish to make. If they wish me to go wider, I should be happy to do so. I shall talk about the background to the amendments and why it is so important that the Minister is given the opportunity at this early hour to tell the House what is in his mind about where we are going. However, before I start my full remarks, I should speak briefly about the non-fossil fuel obligation, which is part of section 32 of the Electricity Act 1989 and concerns the protection of public interest, and section 33, which the Bill will amend. Those terms can confuse people about exactly what is intended.
    You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, in deciding which amendments to select for debate, Madam Speaker and her Committee are always extremely wise and beyond criticism. Madam Speaker was correct not to select the three amendments that I tabled—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No comment should be made on amendments which have not been selected. There was good cause not to select them, and the House knows that. Nor should the hon. Gentleman deal with the origins of the amendments. The amendments are here for debate, and that is what the hon. Gentleman must do.
    Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for keeping me on the straight and narrow.
    The Minister may argue, probably correctly, that section 32 of the Electricity Act 1989 already contains powers to promote clean coal technology, and that may well be a reason for rejecting the new clause. We are simply seeking, as we did in Committee, to tease out whether the Government need various powers. It is important to examine the Government's intentions.
    The hon. Member for Bolsover, like other hon. Members, will want the Government's fuel policy to be sufficiently flexible. The levy should not go on specific non-fossil fuels when one of the original purposes of NOFFO and the levy to pay for it was to provide for the cost of closing nuclear power stations when they came to the end of their life. That levy has been extremely effective. Electricity prices have fallen since its introduction, rather than risen, as was the suggestion then. The Government may want that fall to continue or they may want to ensure that they can increase electricity prices in the future to pay for Kyoto. No one has yet told us how our obligations under Kyoto will be paid for.
    We already know that the Government plan to put taxes on aggregates and landfill, and to encourage the burning of waste to generate electricity—a controversial subject. This evening, I attended a dinner of the Institute of Wastes Management, where the problems of people not wanting what is considered to be invasive technology in their back yards was discussed.
    Mr. Hammond: Does my hon. Friend agree that amendment No. 4 would allow the Minister to distinguish between technologies in the way that he is suggesting is necessary?
    Mr. Bruce: Indeed. Section 32 helps the Minister to deal with the protection of public interest—that is what the section is called in the Electricity Act 1989. The additional flexibility is designed to enable the Minister to deal with difficult situations.

    453
    The mechanism is still being used effectively by the Government and they say that they want to continue to use it. The fact that that mechanism has stood the test of time is a tribute to our Conservative predecessors, who obviously got it right. It is rare for a mechanism which was heavily criticised to have stood the test of time. We should not want Ministers and Whips to have to find more parliamentary time to introduce yet another measure when it was decided how the obligation would be imposed. Our amendment offers the Minister a new mechanism to enable him to do a better job for the future and to tell us about funding.
    Mr. Hammond: Does my hon. Friend agree that amendment No. 3 gives the Minister every power that he would have within the Bill as drafted, plus some additional powers to use subsection (3) in a more subtle way than is currently offered?
    Mr. Bruce: I am loth to say that the Minister would not want to be subtle. However, his response in Committee demonstrated that he wanted to bamboozle us. In a rather aggressive manner—I know that that is just his way and that he does not mean anything by it—he seemed to be telling Conservative Members that anything that we do to help him so that he can help the public and his friends in the coal industry should be rejected at every opportunity.
    The cap on the levy is dealt with in the amendments. That could lead one to believe that we are suggesting that the non-fossil fuel obligation should be used for all sorts of additional purposes and also that it should be held back. It is somewhat contradictory. We are saying not that the non-fossil fuel obligation and the levy should never go up beyond the level that we are suggesting, but that, if it were to be increased, the House should have an opportunity to discuss it. Those are crucial issues for the future.
    The environmental lobby is keen to ensure that we have as much information as possible about where it believes that the country should be going. The Government are looking at all sorts of things, including their transport policy. They are all asking what we should be doing for Kyoto. They are asking what we should be doing for the future.
    We are not talking about no-cost options. It is important to know that the Minister has a power that could put up electricity prices substantially—I do not believe that there is any limit. The Minister could wake up one morning and be told by the Chancellor that he is trying to do something for Kyoto but that he does not want to do it by general taxation because he would be found out and people would be critical. In those circumstances, the price of electricity could be increased by an order, which hardly needs to be debated in the House.
    Mr. Hammond: Does my hon. Friend agree that the levy has something of the nature of a hypothecated tax, which has the extraordinary characteristic of being self-collecting? The spending Department spends and it automatically collects the right amount through the mechanism of the levy.
    Mr. Bruce: Indeed. It is a subtle and clever mechanism that a hypothecated tax has been operating in the United Kingdom for over a decade without anybody noticing. People have noticed electricity prices going down, despite Labour propaganda suggesting that prices have been going up.
    If we are to be honest, it is important that people should know the costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge knows that the levy, which was introduced by a Conservative Government, transferred existing costs of nuclear power on to the coal industry, as there was inequality between those two forms of energy. Because nuclear power stations were nationalized—nobody seemed to care that they were uneconomical—the extra costs had to be found. A subtle and clever mechanism was brought in, and any Chancellor who recognises how clever that mechanism is will be tempted to use it. Despite the fact that the Treasury is not speaking before the Budget, perhaps it is listening to the debate. It may think that this is an ideal way to raise additional taxation.
    The House would like to discuss this matter further, and I am disappointed—as are my hon. Friends—that no Labour Member, other than the hon. Members for Bolsover and for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), who intervened passionately, has taken part in the debate. I shall now allow the Minister to respond—assuming that I cannot tempt any Labour Member to express is views. I would not want to hog the limited time we have available, and I should not want to delay the start of the Third Reading debate.
    12 midnight
    Mr. Battle: This is a Bill of two clauses, which deals with the type of electricity on which the fossil fuel levy can be charged. The levy is the main means of raising the funds to support renewable technologies for the generation of electricity, and the Bill will ensure a level playing field in the generation of electricity. It will maintain the existing levy on nuclear energy generated in England and Wales and will bring under the levy for the first time the imports of nuclear electricity—a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred. The imports from France of nuclear energy will be brought under the levy. I accept that it is a small measure, but the Bill will shift the balance in favour of renewables and will ensure that the nuclear industry pays its share.
    It has been an interesting debate. We had a wide-ranging speech from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) who, sadly, had to leave us. We have had contributions from the hon. Members for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). I heard critical mutterings, but let us be fair—those hon. Members have been present throughout our proceedings on the Bill—on Second Reading, for the whole of the Committee stage and tonight. At least two Opposition Members are seriously interested in the Bill, and I have listened to what they have had to say.

    455
    Amendment No. 2 proposes that electricity supplied from clean coal generating plants could be exempted from the levy, but sadly there are no such generating plants operating in Britain. Simply exempting electricity supplied from such stations from the scope of the levy would not give sufficient incentive for such plants to be built. We are looking carefully at how to encourage clean coal technology. We already provide support for the development of clean coal technology under the foresight programme; some £4 million has been provided this year alone.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The Minister has clearly done some homework on clean coal. Is the technology ready to go, assuming that a NOFFO bid was allowed and we had some response?
    Mr. Battle: There are one or two rumours of interest, but no more than that. We are looking for clear proposals. I hope that proposals for clean coal technology at an affordable price can be introduced quickly.
    Mr. Norman Baker: Will the Minister clarify the Government's position on the coal industry? Do they believe that the coal industry is at its optimum size? Should it be expanded, altered to include clean coal technology, or further reduced for environmental reasons?
    Mr. Battle: We see a future for deep-mined coal in Britain, and we want clean coal technology as a means of ensuring that. We shall work to that end, but we inherited incredible difficulties from the previous Government.
    Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 provide for the scope of the levy to be extended to new categories of electricity, but that approach differs from the approach envisaged in the Bill. I emphasise that the Bill simply amends section 33 of the Electricity Act 1989. For example, had we not acted to extend the levy to the nuclear industry from 1 April this year, as the primary nuclear contract set by that Act runs out, nuclear generators could have benefited from the resulting market distortion to the tune of £60 million to £70 million a year at the expense of customers. That is why we have placed the levy on nuclear energy, including that generated in France. The approach proposed in amendments Nos. 3 and 5 is based on the continuation of that distortion. We introduced the Bill in the first place to get rid of that.
    Mr. Hammond: I accept what the Minister says, but he misrepresents amendment No. 3, which simply seeks to give the Secretary of State the power, should she wish, to extend the levy sector by sector to other types of technology, rather than extend it to all forms of electricity. How could the Secretary of State object to being given more power to act more subtly if she wants to?
    Mr. Battle: I was coming to precisely that point. Perhaps I should accept no more interventions but try to answer the debate. The approach proposed in the amendments is based on the continuation of distortions. The problem with that is that support is not closely targeted on the companies that need it, nor is the amount of extra revenue that they can generate in the market tied to the amount of support that they need. In other words, such an approach would be wasteful and inefficient, and would not achieve the objectives that the hon. Gentleman suggests it would.
    456
    Our approach is better, because we are signalling, through the Bill, that one day all electricity may be leviable. We hope that green, renewable sources of electricity generation will be able to compete on equal terms with other forms of generation in the future, and I see no reason why such electricity should not then be subjected to the levy. The effect would then be that resources could be targeted closely on those renewable generators that need and deserve support, which is precisely the point made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I agree with him. The amount of support that those generators receive can be measured according to their needs. We believe that that would be a more effective way to proceed.
    At present, most renewable generators cannot produce electricity at prices that are competitive on an open market. Amendment No. 4 fundamentally misunderstands how NOFFO operates. As Opposition Members who have been present throughout the Bill's proceedings know, we have spelt out the fact that the levy is paid to people who produce the electricity: it gives them the difference. Opposition Members are nodding, so we know where we stand. There is therefore no reason to give further support, as the amendment seeks to do.
    Amendment No. 6 seeks to ensure that the amount of levy paid by licensed electricity suppliers stays the same or falls. That is short-sighted because we cannot predict what will come in the bids for NOFFO for renewables. The procedure is demand led. If new schemes come forward, even those set up by the previous Government, we shall not shut them down and come back to the House every time. We want renewables to be supported, which is why we have the Bill.
    Mr. Hammond: The amendment does not say what the Minister says it does. It says that, if the levy is to rise, the Secretary of State must come back to the House and get that rise approved by means of a statutory instrument, subject to the approval of the House of Commons. What is wrong with that?
    Mr. Battle: It is late and the hon. Gentleman was up late last night, too. He seems unable to listen. If bids 3 and 4 for the NOFFO projects come through, as they will this year, is the hon. Gentleman saying that we must come back to the House for every renewable scheme? There were hundreds of such schemes. The idea is nonsense and would hold the whole process up. I do not think that that is the intention behind the Opposition amendments. NOFFO 3 and 4 projects have yet to come on stream and, as a result, the overall amount of support could rise.
    Opposition Members aired the same thoughts under different guises in Committee. Furthermore, the Bill has already passed through the other place and had a good airing there. We gave the Opposition plenty of time in the Standing Committee. Indeed, in the other place the Opposition spokesman, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, said:
    "Indeed, but for that rare aberration of political judgment by the British people on 1st May, I have no doubt that I would have been introducing this self-same Bill from the other side of the Chamber. In those circumstances, it is unnecessary for me in any way to

    457
    rehearse the elaborate and detailed argument which the noble Lord usefully gave to the House in support of this measure".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 1997; Vol. 581, c. 1144–45.]
    I could not agree more, and I ask the Opposition to withdraw their new clause. They have made their points, and we have taken them on board.
    Question put and negatived.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Sudan
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  12.11 am
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to raise the subject of Sudan. For many years, I have been concerned by the fact that that country has largely been ignored by the media and the world at large. More than 1.5 million Sudanese have died, and more than 4 million, in a population estimated at about 27.5 million, have been displaced. As the conflict appears to be black versus black, Arab versus black, or Muslim versus Christian, it has not caught the imagination or interest of the world.
  As a guest of the National Assembly, with two others from the United Kingdom, I visited Sudan for a week in January. Our hosts treated us with great kindness and courtesy, and I met a variety of people, formally and informally.
  A German who had formerly lived in Sudan and was visiting from another African country, told me that the international sanctions had forced the National Islamic Front regime to develop its own economy, with some success. In his opinion, that was in contrast to the earlier Mandi Administration, which received lavish international aid but did little to improve the lot of the ordinary people in the Sudan.
  I know that the Government support, as I do, the Intergovernmental Authority for Development process—but has the Minister found, as I did, that, as ever in a situation of conflict, the first casualty is truth? Propaganda takes over, with a bias one way or another.
  Many issues could be raised. I recognise some other problems that could be examined in depth—problems that any Administration, in the Sudan or anywhere else, would have to face. The devastation of the south and the resulting shift of population means that the percentage of southerners in the Khartoum area has risen from 1 per cent. to 30 per cent.
  Those displaced persons live in what is virtually a dust bowl, in shanty accommodation. Charges have been levelled that the authorities—mainly, I suspect, minor functionaries—have followed plans under which unregistered churches are demolished to make way for roads.
  People have been removed to other areas and left to build their own houses. No real sanitation is provided on those estates. Schools also have been affected. The human rights committee of the National Assembly has a virtually impossible task in attempting to adjudicate on any charges.
  Islamic activists have been moved into areas that are occupied by Christians who have already been displaced. Islamic activists are advised of community meetings, so that they might vote on local issues. The consequence is that the authorities can claim that they are acting at the behest of local people.
  I ask the Minister whether the United Nations rapporteur for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has updated his October 1997 report, and whether he has been free to move unrestricted in Sudan.

  459
  On a brief visit to Juba, we heard from Muslim and Christian leaders that their people had co-existed in friendly relationships, and mixed at different levels. Nevertheless, there was evidence of appalling need in that area. The National Islamic Front said that it would rebuild when the war was over. However, the decay and lack of proper infrastructure was reflected in the people's low morale and poor condition.
  Is the Minister confident that all possible action is being taken to ensure that humanitarian aid is available in all areas? Is he aware, for example, that the Sudanese Administration have regularly siphoned off aid, and diverted it to soldiers or to Muslim groups that they claim are as much in need as others?
  While we were in Khartoum, a Catholic Fund for Overseas Development delegation that was accompanied by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool advised us that tools and seed that had been destined for the south had been so delayed that they could not be used when they arrived, as the time for planting and the rainy season had passed. Consequently, there was no development of the harvest. Moreover, food that was sent where it was needed had not been distributed, but was held in Government stores.
  What representations have been made on the imprisonment and torture of citizens in Sudan? I discovered that the Presbyterian minister in Juba had been arrested by security police, and beaten without trial or sentence. Although allegations of illegal conduct by him were given as the reason for his arrest with others, no one was able to provide a witness. He was therefore released. I did not meet him during my visit, because he had moved out of the country, to Nairobi, to recuperate from his beatings. Such incidents are typical in Sudan.
  Has there been any response to the Government's representations on the abduction of young people, who are forced into service in the defence forces? When I raised that matter with the authorities, they attempted to compare the practice with national conscription in the United Kingdom. I was happy to remind them not only that conscription in the United Kingdom no longer exists, but that, even in wartime, there is an opportunity for conscientious objectors to perform first aid or other civilian activities rather than in military operations.
  I certainly do not believe that such conscription should be sustained as a way of treating fellow citizens, carrying them off into slavery. Does the Minister accept that there is evidence that such a practice continues in Sudan? Does he give any credence to the National Islamic Front Government's line that that practice is not really slavery, but a tradition among the people—that it is how they live? Such a line seemed rather far-fetched.
  Conversely, I could not accept the criticism of those within and outwith Sudan who condemned groups—from Switzerland and other countries—that were concerned about the problem, and provided money to ransom slaves. How long will such practices be supported by those who do nothing either to stop them or to redeem slaves?
  I found evidence of duplicity when it was claimed that the south could vote in four years for independence or for a federal Sudan. While some Christian leaders were hopeful, I formed the opinion that most Muslim leaders were determined to keep Sudan as a whole, no matter what happened, and to advance the concept of Arabisation and Islamisation.
  460
  There was certainly a pattern historically, according to some Christian leaders I met who were arguing for an independent south. A few had served in the Mandi regime. It was the old policy of "divide and conquer", which has ever been a powerful and persuasive policy of Governments of one sort or another.
  The Muslim view of an Arabisation/Islamisation of the Sudan was patent. As a result, disillusion has crept in. Hence the split between the former southern commander Kerubino Bol—a signatory to the 21 April 1997 peace agreement—and the Government. He appears now to have allied himself to the leader of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, John Garang.
  This surfaced while we were there. News broke of rebel troops surrendering in Wau, the third main city. For my benefit, Muslim leaders assured me that—unlike those in Northern Ireland, where we were arguing for the handing over of weapons and decommissioning—they were kind-hearted, and were allowing people who were coming over to their side to maintain their weapons as a sign of good faith.
  A few weeks ago, I discovered here in Westminster, from other sources, that some old weapons had apparently been handed over for new. Sudanese representatives, however, advise me now that this was a Trojan horse group. At least, several hundred of them—armed with modern, in the Sudanese view, largely Soviet-block assault weapons—co-operated with an SPLA attack. They alleged that they had been led by Commander Kerubino, who is currently missing. He was a Dinka, who had had a disagreement with Riek Machar, a Nuer. Machar, as the Minister will know, is the appointed chairman of the southern executive, not elected by the people but appointed by the regime.
  After initial success in the centre of the city of Wau—having taken over some strategic places—the rebels were ultimately repulsed, but still hold the outskirts of the town. Because of the link with the Dinka leader, the Dinka civilian population were attacked savagely by Government forces. Has the Minister any recent news of developments in that regard?
  Significantly, Wau was the centre where, according to a United States report, Iraq helped Sudan to develop chamical warfare capabilities in the mid-1990s. I know that, in a Question Time relating to Iraq, the Foreign Secretary had no evidence of that. Will the Minister now say whether there is any fresh evidence? On that occasion, the Foreign Secretary said that he would inquire into it.
  What representation has been made concerning attacks on civilian targets? Will the United Nations, which seems divided on many matters, now seek to implement UN resolutions? Sometimes, as in the House, resolutions are made without much resolution. In particular, will the UN implement a no-fly zone, as in southern Iraq, to diminish NIF capacity to wage war against its own people by bombing them?
  In the regrettable plane crash in which Lieutenant-General El Zubei Mohammed Salih lost his life with six others, one of those killed was Arok Thon Arok, a southern leader who had signed the agreement with Riek Machar. At the public mourning, Dr. Hassan al Turabi, the ideological leader of the Islamic regime, announced, according to The Guardian of 19 February, that Arok Thon Arok was a last-minute convert to Islam. The news was greeted with triumphant shouts from several thousand mourners: Islamisation even in death.

  461
  The reality was different. Six bodies were laid out in white winding sheets, each covered by the national flag. Arok Thon Arok's corpse, in a coffin, was finally released to his family, after some debate, for a Christian burial. In our modern world, with its emphasis on pluralism, people must be given true liberty within the law—we understand that Sharia law was not to be extended to the Christian and Animist communities—to follow their religious and political convictions. I believe that that is Her Majesty's Government's position. Should not Sudan share that policy with the free world?
  I express my appreciation and gratitude to our ambassador and the embassy staff in Khartoum, who were very helpful in arranging meetings.
  12.26 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr.Tony Lloyd): I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on securing this debate. I know that he has been a Sudan watcher over many years, and I place on the record my appreciation of the measured way in which he introduced the debate. I will try to answer his specific questions, but there are one or two matters on which I will not comment tonight, simply because I cannot give an answer. I will reflect on the debate in the cool light of day—which will be sooner than we had expected—and write to him.
  Sudan is a troubled country, racked by civil war, divided against itself. Much of the south has taken up arms against the Government in Khartoum and the north. In the 14 years of bitter fighting, the conflict has become more than simply north against south, if indeed that was ever a realistic description.
  The conflict has been complicated by tribal and other divisions among the southerners, some of whom, as the hon. Gentleman said, are Christian, while some are Muslim and others Animist. The Sudanese People's Liberation Army has been active for many years in the south, but it has now joined the parties of the democratically elected Government who were overthrown in the 1989 coup to form the National Democratic Alliance, under which umbrella the conflict has spread to the east of the country.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, Britain is one of a number of countries seeking to help to bring this sad state of affairs to an end. While those efforts continue, our policy towards Sudan reflects our concerns about human rights abuses in both the north and the south of the country, with the Sudanese Government's refusal to countenance multi-party democracy.
  We are also concerned about the aggressive way in which the Sudanese Government have pursued the civil war, and about their involvement with terrorist groups and regional insurgencies that threaten Sudan's neighbours—in particular, their support for the Lord's Resistance Army, a brutal organisation that is responsible for killings, abductions, lootings and even, almost certainly, the sexual exploitation of children in northern and western Uganda.
  The Government and civil society in this country have in no sense abandoned Sudan. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we maintain the embassy in Khartoum, and I was delighted to hear his congratulatory remarks about the role
  462
  of the ambassador. A senior official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office visited Sudan in July 1997 for discussions with representatives both of and against the Sudanese Government.
  We keep open links with the Sudanese opposition. During the last seven months of 1997, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), met the former Prime Minister, Sadiq al Mandi and the NDA leader, Muhammed Osman al Mirghani, as well as the Sudanese ambassador.
  A series of meetings in 1994 and 1995 appeared to be making progress. In May 1994, IGAD adopted a declaration of principles, which includes the right of self-determination for all Sudanese people, and the separation, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of religion and state for the settlement of the conflict. We supported that process, but it ground to a halt in May 1995 in the face of the Sudanese Government's rejection of the declaration. The Friends of IGAD and, more recently, the IGAD partners forum that replaced it, continued to encourage the IGAD process.
  Military pressure from rebel groups and diplomatic pressure from outside persuaded the Sudanese Government to resume the IGAD process on the basis of the declaration of principles. The first round was held in Kenya in October and November last year. The next round will be in April, with further contacts after that.
  We believe that the regional approach offers the best chance of the comprehensive settlement to the conflict that the people of Sudan need and deserve so much. I say "comprehensive settlement" because the conflict in Sudan is more than a question of north versus south. A number of Sudan's ethnic groups have joined the struggle against Khartoum. The plight of the Nuba people was recently highlighted by Africa Rights, a non-governmental organisation. Many of the Beja in the east have joined the opposition through the Beja Congress. A settlement that did not take account of their interests would not be acceptable. We therefore continue actively to support the IGAD process.
  We support the process both in public and in private. My hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear our welcome for the renewed talks on 30 September. We were a party to the EU statement of welcome and encouragement at the start of the talks. We have been in touch with all parties, urging them to approach the talks constructively and in good faith.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the recent fighting in the south of Sudan, and asked whether I had any recent news of it. As he said, it has reportedly been taking place in several areas. We know of reports of it in the Wau area. It is unclear who is winning, but it is clear that the cost of fighting has been further human suffering. As always, the innocent bear as much of the brunt as those directly involved.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sudanese chemical warfare capabilities, and drew attention to his exchange with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and to the recent United States report claiming that Iraq had helped Sudan to develop such capabilities. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot validate those reports, and is not aware of any fresh or substantiated evidence on the matter.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the important question of human rights. I, too, have been a Sudan watcher over many years, and the human rights situation in Sudan

  463
  continues to give serious concern. Increased respect for human rights in Sudan is a centrepiece of our policy. We want a peaceful, democratic Sudan, where the human rights of all citizens are equally respected. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's demand for pluralism in Sudan. We recognise pluralism in our country, and support it in all countries.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that people purporting to be Christian rebels have also been guilty of some violations of human rights?
  Mr. Lloyd: With the hon. Gentleman, we deplore the abuse of human rights from whatever quarter. Human rights are indivisible: they cannot be partial or arbitrarily based.
  In that context, the UK was active in securing the passage of resolutions highly critical of Sudan at the UN General Assembly in each year between 1992 and 1997, and in getting agreement at the UN Commission on Human Rights to the appointment of the special rapporteur. The rapporteur's most recent report—October 1997—expresses deep concern about the serious, widespread and continuing human rights violations in Sudan. The update of that report has yet to be issued, but we believe that it is due any day now. As far as we are aware, there has been no change in respect of the special rapporteur's freedom of movement.
  One of the hon. Gentleman's specific human rights concerns involved the practice of the Government of Sudan of conscripting secondary school children. Her Majesty's Government have expressed their deep concern about that practice to the Government of Sudan, who defended themselves, claiming that every country in the world has conscription, and that defence of one's country is a national duty. We shall continue to monitor the situation, and will raise the matter again if evidence of its continuation emerges.
  Human rights work constitutes a major part of the work of the embassy in Khartoum. Staff there raise specific cases with the Sudanese authorities, and make use of their
  464
  contacts to urge greater respect for human rights. For example, our ambassador has raised recent church destructions with the National Islamic Front leader, Dr. Hassan al Turabi.
  With regard to the hon. Gentleman's points about abductions, we unconditionally condemn all forms of slavery. Even if that is not Government policy, as the Government of Sudan claim, they are at least morally responsible, and we hold them accountable to suppress the practice.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the ability of aid to reach all quarters. There are difficulties in getting aid throughout the length and breadth of Sudan—that is a matter of practical fact. However, we continue to put pressure on the Sudanese Government to ensure that it gets through as widely as possible. Since January 1991, we have committed more than £137 million to Sudan, including our share of EU assistance for humanitarian aid. Last year, we gave more than £3 million in food aid to various parts of Sudan, and we recently announced a pledge of £4 million for emergency food and non-food aid in support of the UN consolidated appeal.
  The issue of sanctions and embargoes against Sudan allowed the hon. Gentleman to propose an interesting alternative to existing measures. We will look at any proposal for further UN sanctions on its own merits and in the light of non-compliance by the Government of Sudan.
  I have been unable to respond to several of the hon. Gentlemen's points, but I should like to conclude by saying that we are with him in our concern that the people of Sudan are the ones who have suffered during the long years of the civil war. We and all the friends of Sudan are doing all we can to bring the suffering of those proud and decent people to an end. That must be the resolve of the House, the Government and the world community. However, the responsibility now lies with the Government of Sudan, and we all hold them accountable to ensure that they play a part in that task.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Stretch Limousines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the safety of stretch limousines without seat belts for the middle seats; and how many accidents have been recorded involving such vehicles in the last three years. [32872]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department has not made any specific safety assessment regarding any model of limousine. The accident information requested, which covers all limousines, is shown in the table.

  The number of casualty accidents involving at least one limousine: GB 1994–96

  Casualty accidents

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Fatal

  1

  1

  1

  Serious

  6

  4

  10

  Slight

  55

  47

  44

  All

  62

  52

  55

  Source:

  DETR Road Accident Database.

  Winchester to Southampton Bypass
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the planning application relating to the former Winchester to Southampton bypass; and if he will personally review the planning application. [33120]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Inspector who conducted the public local inquiry into the called in planning applications for an extension to the park and ride scheme at Bar End, Winchester, has now submitted his report to the Secretary of State. Representations were made at the inquiry by Hampshire County Council and others. The Secretary of State received some 145 letters about the proposals and these were submitted to the Inquiry. The Secretary of State is considering the Inspector's report and will announce his decision as soon as possible.

  Housing Standards
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has given to(a) local authorities and (b) other housing organisations concerning minimum standards for the (i) construction and (ii) renovation and (iii) size of rooms of dwellings.[33133]
  96
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Building Regulations apply to the construction of new buildings, including dwellings, and require that they provide reasonable standards of health and safety for the occupants, and also include reasonable provision for the conservation of fuel and power. Guidance on ways of meeting the requirements of the Regulations is given in the Approved Documents which support the Regulations.

  Guidance on the current Housing Fitness Standard and home renovation grants is given in Circular 17/96, although major renovation work could also be subject to the Building Regulations. We are currently reviewing the Housing Fitness Standard and, on 10 February 1998, a consultation document was issued which invited comments on proposals and options for change. Copies of this consultation are in the Libraries of each House.

  The Government do not issue guidance on room sizes. However in Housing Associations' dwellings, the Housing Corporation requires that rooms are large enough to accommodate appropriate furniture and normal activities.

  Pavement Obstructions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure a consistent approach by local authorities towards the removal of obstructions from pavements with particular reference to goods for sale. [33102]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Anything placed on the highway is capable of being deemed an obstruction that the highway authority is under a duty to have removed. The highway includes the pavement. Whether an offence is actually committed in a given case is, however, a matter to be proved. Case law has established that there must be proof that placing the thing in question on the highway is unreasonable. This depends on the circumstances of the particular case. The Government have concluded that these can vary to such a degree that it is not possible to offer meaningful detailed advice to local highway authorities on the exercise of their powers, but encourage them to follow policies that place emphasis on the need to maintain unobstructed passage along the pavement for passers-by, but also take account of the interests of shoppers and retailers.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Basel Convention on transfrontier movement of hazardous waste, held in Malaysia in February. [33111]

  Angela Eagle
  The Conference was held in Kuching, Malaysia from 23–27 February. I attended the High Level segment from 26–27 February representing the Presidency of the European Union. This was a successful conference both for the UK and for the European Union.

  The Conference adopted an amendment to the Convention based on a joint proposal by Chile and the European Community which added new annexes listing hazardous and non-hazardous waste. The UK has been closely associated with the development of this proposal from its inception and was particularly active, as

  97
  a member of the Troika, in support of the Luxembourg Presidency's negotiations with Chile to merge their proposal with the Community's. The new amendment will give legal clarity to the scope of the earlier tan' amendment (Decision III/1 ) adopted by the Third Conference of Parties. The latter will ban exports of hazardous waste from Annexe VII Parties (OECD countries, the EC and Liechtenstein) to non-Annexe VII countries. The Chile/EC amendment should therefore add considerably to the prospects for securing enough ratifications to bring the ban amendment into force. It will not require ratification, but will enter into force within six months except for any Party notifying the United Nations that it does not accept the amendment.

  Proposals from Israel, Monaco and Slovenia to be added to Annexe VII were unsuccessful. Instead, the Parties decided that Annexe VII should not be amended until the ban amendment has entered into force. To date, nine Parties have ratified of the 65 required. The UK ratified on 13 October 1997. The conference also decided that an analysis should be prepared highlighting the issues related to Annexe VII.

  The Conference extended the mandate of the legal group which is charged with developing a Protocol on liability and compensation for damage arising from transboundary movements of hazardous waste. The group was, however, instructed to consider the implications of the ban amendment and other relevant international conventions for the proposed Protocol.

  The Conference adopted a number of other decisions including one aimed at enhancing the capability of Parties to detect and enforce against illegal traffic and others concerned with capacity building in developing countries. The UK has recently agreed to fund two such projects forming part of an Action programme for the Caribbean.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those establishments which have received a licence to carry out investigations into genetically modified organisms. [33217]

  Angela Eagle
  The Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992, as amended in 1996, control all activities involving the contained use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The Regulations require that all premises where such activities are to be undertaken must be notified to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). For higher risk activities work cannot proceed until HSE has issued a consent. Low risk activities may proceed unless HSE objects.

  I have arranged for a list of the establishments where contained use of GMOs is undertaken to be placed in the Library.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the sources of(a) borrowed funds and (b) capital funds for the extension of the Jubilee Line; what sums relate to agreements with private developers entered into as part of the initial construction agreements; and what parts of such borrowing (i) count and (ii) do not count against the
  98
  borrowing ceilings for public fund investment required in respect of the convergence criteria for entering the third stage of Economic and Monetary Union. [33236]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Some £2 billion of the total cost of the Jubilee Line Extension is being directly funded by ring-fenced Government grant, of which over £400 million is being provided by private sector contributions. In excess of £100 million of the private sector contributions has already been received; the balance will be paid in stages over a 25 year period. Remaining costs will be met from London Transport's core resources (which include substantial Government grant).

  The general government financial deficit (GGFD) used under the Maastricht Treaty's excessive deficits procedure includes central Government grants to public corporations. It does not include borrowing undertaken by public corporations, which are outside of general government. However, as noted above, the JLE is not being financed by any such borrowing.

  Rail Freight
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with Rail Property Ltd in respect of land within its ownership which could be used for future rail freight terminals. [33696]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed property in British Rail (BR) ownership with the Chairman of the BR Board soon after taking office. Officials discuss with Rail Property Ltd. (RPL) any such sites which are brought to their attention as having possible future rail freight use. RPL informs Railtrack and industry members of such sites available for sale.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for a national concessionary public transport fare scheme for the elderly and disabled; and if he will make a statement. [33866]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Concessionary fares are being considered as part of the review of integrated transport policy.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what sums have been collected in vehicle excise duty in respect of heavy goods vehicles in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years for which figures are readily available. [33140]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information is as follows:

  £000

  1994–95

  21,263

  1995–96

  20,506

  1996–97

  19,261

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on vehicle
  99
  registrations in the United Kingdom of the different rates of vehicle excise duty applying in respect of commercial vehicles between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. [33139]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on light dues. [34005]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am pleased to announce that there will be no changes to the light dues rates for 1998–99. Current rates were set in 1997, when charges were reduced by an average of 4.6%, following four years of stability. Rates are now below 1992 levels in cash terms. The ability to maintain light dues at current levels is an indication of the General Lighthouse Authorities' continuing efforts to achieve greater efficiency.

  I am also announcing a minor amendment to the Light Dues Regulations which provides an exemption for vessels engaged solely in harbour maintenance or dredging, on behalf of a statutory or harbour authority.

  EC Eco-Management and Audit Scheme
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his plans are regarding the future administration of the EC Eco-Management and Audit Scheme. [34126]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have decided that from 1 May this year, the Institute of Environmental Assessment will take over this function from my Department, which has administered EMAS in the United Kingdom since it came into operation in April 1995. The Institute will be the official Competent Body responsible for registering sites under the scheme on a fee charging basis in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. A separate announcement will be made later about Scotland.

  When my Department was designated as the Competent Body in 1994, the declared intention was to keep the arrangements simple by limiting the number of key players involved, particularly in the initial stages of setting up EMAS. EMAS has now moved beyond this developmental stage, with nearly 50 registered sites in the United Kingdom. Its effectiveness in helping industry to manage its impacts on the environment and publicise its results is becoming increasingly recognised, alongside ISO 14001, the international environmental management systems standard, which has been achieved by over 430 companies in the United Kingdom—more than anywhere else in Europe—and which can be used by any organisation, either as the environmental management system for EMAS or on its own.

  My decision therefore reflects the importance which the Government attach to motivating businesses to adopt externally verified environmental management systems. The Environment Agency is firmly committed to encouraging the use of such systems because of their value in improving the environment, and I welcome its work in this respect. I will be looking to all leading companies to respond by committing themselves to EMAS and ISO 14001.

TREASURY

  Political Advisers (Support Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many secretarial and support staff work full-time in support of his political advisers. [25189]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: Two.

  Arts Donations
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the arrangements for personal taxation to encourage donations to the arts. [30514]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Many donations to arts bodies already qualify for tax relief because the recipient is a charity. The question of any changes is a matter for the Chancellor as part of his Budget.

  Mr. C. Whelan
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Mr. C. Whelan is fulfilling duties formerly fulfilled by a career civil servant. [28925]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 10 February 1998]: The terms under which Special Advisers work are set out in the schedule to their contract, a model copy of which is available in the Library. These build upon rules in force under previous Administrations.

  No. 11 Downing Street
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of the refurbishment of the wooden floor in the state room at No. 11 Downing Street. [30970]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 23 February 1998]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 26 January 1998, Official Report, column 66.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employers would be required to pay more in working family tax credit than in income tax withheld through PAYE if the proposed working families tax credit was paid at the same level as family credit. [31328]

  Dawn Primarolo
  If the Chancellor announces, in his Budget Statement, the introduction of a WFTC then the number of employers who will be required to pay more in working families tax credit than in income tax withheld through PAYE will depend on the precise design of the credit and its administrative rules.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials or individuals working within his Department on millennium compliance have(a) given notice of their intention to leave and (b) left his Department in the last six months. [32620]
  101
  Mrs. Liddell
  One official working on millennium compliance as given notice and left the Treasury in the last six months.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from which budgetary sub-head the costs of millennium compliance will be met for his Department. [32623]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The costs of the required compliance will largely be related to time spent by staff testing their systems with some expenditure on equipment and software and will be met from within the Treasury's administration costs.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when all testing on Year 2000 compliance will be completed within his Department. [32621]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The target for completing all Year 2000 compliance testing within the Treasury is March 1999.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when National Savings will complete its conversion work to ensure its computer systems are fully millennium compliant; [32619]

  (2) when he estimates the Office for National Statistics will complete its inventory of the work required to ensure its computer systems are fully millennium compliant; [32569]

  (3) what contingency plans have been made in case of a failure by National Savings to ensure that its computers are fully protected against the Year 2000 problem; [32617]

  (4) what contingency plans have been made in case of a failure by (a) the Inland Revenue and (b) the Office for National Statistics to ensure that their computers are fully protected against the Year 2000 problem; [32616]

  (5) what is his latest estimate of the cost to (a) the Office for National Statistics, (b) National Savings and (c) the Inland Revenue of ensuring their computer systems are fully millennium compliant. [32615]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) on 3 March 1998,Official Report, column 622.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to discuss his Department's progress towards millennium compliance. [32622]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds regular meetings with his Cabinet colleagues to discuss a range of issues.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to his Department of(a) consultants and (b) contractors engaged to address millennium computer compliance problems; and if he will list the consultants. [32625]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Neither consultants nor contractors have been engaged to address the millennium compliance problem in the Treasury.

  Council of Economic Advisers
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to date of the Council of Economic Advisers; and when he expects to appoint further members to it. [32594]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: The main cost of the Council, which advises the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the design and implementation of policies for the achievement of the Government's Economic objectives, relates to the salaries of the two members, whose appointments took effect from last September, and the cost of the secretarial support they receive. It is not the practice to give details of what individuals earn.

  Employee Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of employee travel on office business, broken down into(a) fuel allowances, (b) unproductive time during travel, (c) other costs related to car transport and (d) costs related to public transport, for (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96, (iii) 1996–97 and (iv) 1997–98. [32445]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: The estimated travel costs of Treasury staff for the years requested are:

  £000

  (a) Fuel Allowences

  (c) Car releted costs

  (d) Public Transport

  Total

  1994–95

  —

  15

  729

  744

  1995–96

  —

  12

  644

  656

  1996–97

  —

  8

  717

  725

  1997–98

  1

  10

  518

  529

  Notes:

  Figures for (b)—unproductive time during travel—are not recorded and compilation of these figures would incur disproportionate cost.

  Figures for (a), (c), and (d) in 1994–95 have been estimated from the total figures available.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many meetings have taken place since 1996 involving the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe; and if he will make a statement on its activities in the United Kingdom. [32882]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Questions about the activities of the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe should be addressed to that organisation.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the role of his Department in preparing European Community websites on the single currency. [32945]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The preparation of websites on the single currency by European Community institutions is a matter for these institutions. In some cases, documents and websites may contain information provided by HM Treasury.
  103
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the intended target audience of material printed by the European Commission on the single currency in English; [33010]

  (2) how many speakers were provided by the European Commission for conferences in 1997 on the single currency; how many were provided for conferences in the United Kingdom; what steps are taken to ensure impartiality; from which budget line costs came; and if he will list the speakers and venues in the United Kingdom; [33012]

  (3) what information kits are in preparation at European Community level to inform professional and business associations about the single currency. [33011]

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of the video, "A Single Currency for Europe", have been distributed by Directorate General X in the United Kingdom. [32958]

  Mrs. Liddell
  These are matters for the European Commission.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had on the timing of a referendum on UK entry to the single currency. [31795]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We have made it clear that we do not believe that the United Kingdom will be in a position to join a single currency, or to have a referendum on joining a single currency, during this Parliament. That is because there is no realistic prospect of Britain having demonstrated, during this Parliament, convergence which is sustainable and settled.

  Valuation Office
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 February 1998,Official Report, column 60, what competitive process was used during the appointment of Mr. Michael Johns as Chief Executive of the Valuation Office Agency; what was the job specification; and in what ways equal opportunities criteria were met. [32849]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Mr. Michael Johns was made Chief Executive of the Valuation Office Agency by internal Civil Service appointment.

  The Chief Executive is responsible for the efficient and effective management of the Agency, and is accountable for its performance to the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue—and through the Chairman to Treasury Ministers. He is the Accounting Officer for the Agency's two Votes (for Administration, and for Contributions in Lieu of Rates).

  Equal opportunities policy applying to all Civil Service appointments is set out in the Civil Service Management Code.

  Developing Countries (Debt Reduction)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of 80 per cent. official debt write-off for(a) all the countries likely to benefit from the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Debt Agreement and (b) all eligible countries. [33204]
  104
  Mrs. Liddell
  (a) The debt relief granted to poor countries will depend on Debt Sustainability Analyses that the IMF, World Bank and representatives of the debtor country carry out as the country concerned nears a decision point. These analyses will depend on future economic developments in the individual countries.

  (b) It is not known which other countries will be eligible for a reduction in the stock of their debt or what level of debt reduction these countries will receive. No useful estimation of the total cost of debt relief to the UK can therefore be made.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which heavily indebted developing countries to which he referred in the Mauritius Mandate he estimates will have begun the process of debt reduction by the year 2000. [33206]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In his speech to Commonwealth Finance Ministers last year—the Mauritius Mandate—the Chancellor proposed that the international community make a commitment that every poor country identified under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative should have begun the process of securing debt relief by the year 2000.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to United Kingdom banks of their involvement in the HIPC debt reduction agreement. [33203]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This is a matter for the individual banks concerned.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will support the future development of credit unions. [33108]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government support fully the credit unions' ethos of self-help and thrift, and the encouragement they give people to save. We are actively examining ways to promote further growth while continuing the movement's current focus on poorer communities.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will encourage those major pension providers who have units dedicated to dealing with problems arising from mis-selling of personal pensions to make their expertise available to the independent financial adviser market. [33109]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The longer the scandal of pensions mis-selling continues, the greater the damage to the reputation of the UK financial services industry. Accordingly, it would be welcome if large firms were able to do what they could to assist independent financial advisers to process their reviews of personal pensions.

  Public Borrowing
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 February 1998,Official Report, column 132, on public borrowing targets, if the targets are binding on those states not entering Stage Three of Economic and Monetary Union. [33211]
  105
  Mrs. Liddell
  The excessive deficit procedure in Article 104(c) and Protocol No.5 of the Maastricht Treaty applies to all Member States, but a Member State that does not participate in Stage 3 of EMU cannot be fined even if its deficit or debt exceeds the reference values set out in Protocol No.5.

  Cohesion Funding
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that countries which fulfil Maastricht criteria should lose cohesion funding. [33289]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government believe that continuing Cohesion Fund receipts for Member States joining the single currency is difficult to reconcile with the original objectives of the Fund, particularly in view of the requirement on beneficiaries to submit a convergence programme, showing how they are to meet the Maastricht criteria.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria have been adopted by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) the Commission of the European Community for determining that borrowing by national, regional and local governments and other publicly-funded bodies for investment which is to be included in those percentages of gross national product to be used as target figures for qualification for entry to Stage Three of Economic and Monetary Union. [33209]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Capital spending by central Government and local authorities increases the general government financial deficit and the stock of general government gross debt, the deficit and debt measures that are used in the excessive deficits procedure of the Maastricht treaty. There are no special criteria in the treaty that apply to publicly funded capital spending by national, regional and local governments and other publicly funded bodies.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that no extra funding should be made available to EMU members to offset any impact of EMU on employment, wages and growth. [33287]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There are no such proposals.

  Prawn Importers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps during the United Kingdom Presidency to end the attempts retrospectively to fine importers of prawns from Iceland and the Faroes subsequently claimed by the European Commission to have originated in Russia. [33288]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We remain committed to finding an equitable solution to the issue of retrospective duty demands where goods imported under preferential tariff arrangements have subsequently proved not to qualify, and are giving high priority during our Presidency of the EU to making progress on this issue.

  Abortions
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many district health authorities paid for less than 75 per cent. of abortions requested by their residents in the last year for which figures are available. [33368]
  106
  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Mike Wood, dated 10 March 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the number of district health authorities paying for less than 75 per cent. of abortions.
  In 1996, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 49 health authorities in England and Wales that paid for less than 75 per cent. of the abortions for their residents.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by Scottish unitary authority or other convenient area, the numbers of landowners who receive conditional exemption from inheritance tax by virtue of allowing public access. [33472]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 23 February 1998,Official Report, columns 56–57.

  VAT
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 1998,Official Report, column 234, relating to VAT relief on energy saving measures, if the measures proposed include relief on materials. [33050]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 6 March 1998]: Yes. The reduced rate we announced in the Pre-Budget Report will apply to the installation of energy saving materials, including the value of the materials themselves, to the extent that the installation is funded by grant schemes designed to assist the less well-off.

  As the Customs and Excise report "Helping the Less Well-Off Save Energy" made clear, a reduced rate for materials alone, for DIY installation, would require agreement with other member states for changes to European law.

  Retail Prices Index (EU)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the elements used to calculate the RPI in each of the member countries of the EU together with their respective weightings; and if he will indicate what changes have been made in each of these lists since 1 January 1996. [33509]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Tim Loughton, dated 10 March 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the RPI.
  The contents of the UK RPI "basket" of goods and services are revised annually, as are the weightings attached to each category of spending. Each year's list of items, together with the

  107
  category weightings, are given in the RPI Business Monitor (March 1996 and April 1997 issues respectively), a copy of which is available in the House of Commons library.
  Other Member States of the EU update the list of items in their national consumer price indices, and the weights associated with the items, at varying frequencies. The majority update every five years but there are a few which revise their weights annually, namely: France, Sweden and, from the start of 1998, the Netherlands. Information about the items used by other Member States of the EU is not available.

  Public Bodies (Reports)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the bodies within the responsibility of his Department currently required by legislation to lay a report before Parliament. [33548]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: Reports by the following bodies are laid before Parliament:

  The Bank of England

  The Building Societies Commission

  The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies

  The Financial Services Authority

  The Friendly Societies Commission

  The Office for National Statistics

  The Public Works Loan Board.

  The report by the Bank of England includes a report by the Board of Banking Supervision.

  Charities
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to relax the legal controls under the Trustee Investments Act 1961 in respect of investments by charities. [32879]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Worthing, East and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on 21 January 1998, Official Report, column 530.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number and percentage of civil servants in his Department, at each grade including and above higher executive officer who(a) attended university and (b) attended either Oxford or Cambridge University. [33077]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: Information about the universities attended by staff in the Treasury could be retrieved only at disproportionate cost. The table shows, by Treasury pay range, the numbers and percentages of staff (excluding special advisers and casuals, but including those Treasury staff working outside the department) with degree level qualifications:

  Pay range

  Number of staff

  Proportion of total (%)

  A

  4

  6

  B

  15

  7

  C

  29

  19

  D

  118

  42

  E

  164

  74

  Senior Civil Service

  104

  97

  108
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of civil servants in his Department, at each grade, who received their schooling in the independent school sector. [33078]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for each of the last five years, the number and percentage of new civil servants in his Department who attended Oxford or Cambridge University, broken down into the number of entrants joining the Department from(a) the regular Civil Service entrance procedure, (b) the fast stream and (c) the private sector. [33079]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: The table shows the number of Civil Service recruits joining the Treasury in the period 1993–97. It excludes special advisers and casual appointments. The numbers recruited through the fast stream competition and through other fair and open competitions include people who previously worked in the private sector. There was no recruitment competition restricted to applicants from the private sector. Information about universities attended by Treasury staff cannot be retrieved without disproportionate cost.

  Fast stream

  Other competitions

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  1993

  13

  16

  66

  84

  1994

  25

  30

  57

  70

  1995

  26

  36

  46

  64

  1996

  21

  38

  35

  62

  1997

  24

  34

  47

  66

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people employed by(a) her Department and (b) the agencies for which her Department is responsible earn (i) less than £3.20 per hour, (ii) between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour, (iii) between £3.60 and £4 per hour and (iv) between £4 and £4.62 per hour. [30753]

  Clare Short
  The details requested in respect of staff employed by my Department are as follows:

  Earnings

  Number

  Less than £3.20 an hour

  0

  Between £3.20 and £3.60 an hour

  31

  Between £3.60 and £4.00 an hour

  2

  Between £4.00 and £4.62 an hour

  27

  My Department is not responsible for any agencies.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the United Kingdom's non-Governmental organisations currently aiding the Kurdish people in northern Iraq. [31819]

  Clare Short
  The following UK NGOs are currently working in Northern Iraq:

  ACORN

  Christian Aid

  Global Partners

  Help Age International

  International Medical Relief

  Kurdistan Children's Fund

  Kurdish Life Aid

  Middle East Development Services

  Mines Advisory Group

  Response, Relief, Resettlement and Rehabilitation (4RS)

  Save the Children Fund

  World in Need.

  Publications
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those European Commission(a) newsletters, (b) magazines and (c) occasional publications to which her Department subscribes. [33655]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development subscribes to the following European Commission publications. The ones marked with an asterisk are supplied free of charge.
  (a) newsletters
  Sigma—the Bulletin of European Statistics*(b) magazines (and other serials including Eurostat publications)

  The ACP—EU Courier*

  Development (European Commission DG for Development) *

  Official Journal of the European Communities—Series C—Information and notes

  Official Journal of the European Communities—Series L—legislation Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities

  ACP basic statistics

  Basic statistics of the European Union

  Community budget: the facts in figures

  Environment statistics

  Europe in figures

  European Economy: reports and studies

  Eurostatistics: data for short-term economic analysis

  Eurostat: external trade: series B

  Eurostat yearbook

  (c) Occasional publications
  Country profile series (published by Eurostat and covering various developing countries)
  EU-ACP co-operation* (published annually).

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the World Bank on assistance to third world 110
  countries on the need for computer systems to be millennium compliant; and if she will make a statement. [33862]

  Clare Short
  My Department is part of an informal donor network organised by the World Bank on matters concerning information technology and international communications. Last week, the Government committed £10 million of grant aid to the World Bank Trust Fund for Information Development. These funds are earmarked for assisting poor countries to identify problems of millennium compliance, to design strategies to overcome the problem in priority areas and to provide technical co-operation in support of the solutions. I am ready also to consider providing support directly to poor developing countries.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance is being given to UK-aided countries on the threat to health and immunisation records and on other problems arising from the need for computer systems to be millennium compliant; and if she will make a statement. [33863]

  Clare Short
  Last week, the Government committed £10 million to the World Bank's Trust Fund for Information Development to assist poor countries to identify problems of millennium compliance, to design strategies to overcome the problems in priority areas and to provide technical cooperation in support of the solutions. This could include help with health and immunisation records, but it is not possible to generalise about the extent to which health records are at risk in poor countries or what the solutions may be. I am also ready to consider providing support directly to poor developing countries.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the time and place of the discussions that have taken place with developing countries on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [33819]

  Clare Short
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has held consultations with developing countries on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in:

  Wellington, New Zealand (April 1995)

  Santiago, Chile (November 1995)

  Hong Kong (March 1996)

  Paris, France (April 1996)

  Bled, Romania (June 1996)

  Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (July 1996)

  Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (February 1997)

  Seoul, South Korea (April 1997)

  Riga, Latvia (April 1997)

  Paris (September 1997)

  Cairo, Egypt (October 1997)

  Mexico (December 1997).

  The OECD Secretariat has also held regular meetings with non-OECD Members in Paris, on an individual and collective basis. In addition, OECD Members, including

  111
  the UK, have held bilateral meetings in capitals with non-OECD Members. My Department will share the results of our forthcoming study of the development implications of the MAI widely with developing countries, on a bilateral and multilateral basis.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many of the appointments to public bodies which she has made since 1 May 1997 have been from the Public Appointments Unit list. [33249]

  Clare Short
  One such appointment has been made out of a total of five appointments.

  Import Tariffs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she has taken to encourage elimination of tariffs on imports from the least developed countries. [32881]

  Clare Short
  Under the UK Presidency the EU has concluded discussions on how to implement its commitment to offer Lome equivalent terms to the nine non-Africa, Caribbean, Pacific (ACP) Least Developed Countries (LDC's). The new terms will apply retrospectively from 1 January 1998. The EU has agreed to look at ways to further improve and extend preferential access to all the LDCs. The UK sees this as a priority and will continue to press within the EU and multilaterally for bound duty free access for all LDC products.

  Trade Barriers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress in dismantling trade barriers affecting developing countries. [32880]

  Clare Short
  The World Trade Organisation (WTO) held a High Level Meeting in October which resulted in a series of modest increased market access offers for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) by a number of developed and some more advanced developing countries. At this meeting the EU reaffirmed its commitment to offer Lome equivalent terms to the nine non-Africa, Caribbean, Pacific LDCs, and terms were agreed in February under the UK Presidency. Progress on implementation of market access commitments will be reviewed at the WTO Ministerial which will take place in Geneva from 18–19 May.

HEALTH

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people employed by(a) his Department and (b) the National Health Service earn (i) less than £3.20 per hour, (ii) between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour, (iii) between £3.60 and £4 per hour and (iv) between £4 and £4.62 per hour. [30746]
  112
  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 23 February 1998]: At present there are no staff employed by the Department of Health who earn less than £3.60 per hour. 135 members of staff are paid between £3.60 and £4 an hour, and 140 staff are paid between £4 and £4.62 an hour.

  For the National Health Service generally, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 12 January 1998, Official Report, column 153.

  Doctors and Dentists
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policies to ensure the existence of sufficient numbers of qualified doctors in the future. [29065]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government's strategy to ensure that there are sufficient qualified doctors in the future is to increase training levels and address concerns about recruitment and retention. Our initiatives in this area include: new student funding arrangements, which reflect the special features of undergraduate medical education; further investment in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, which should ensure future increases in doctor numbers; flexible and family-friendly training arrangements; continued attention to equal employment opportunities; the salaried doctors and improved retainer schemes within general practice; and opportunities within the Primary Care Act pilots.

  Also, we are taking steps to ensure that doctors feel valued and involved. For example, the recent White Paper The New NHS promotes greater involvement of hospital doctors in the management of National Health Service trusts, and increases all doctors' influence over management decisions.

  Finally, we have improved our workforce planning arrangements, to ensure that the supply of doctors reflects demand.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure that doctors and dentists whose first language is not English have to demonstrate proficiency in English before being allowed to practise. [33291]

  Mr. Milburn
  Anyone who wishes to practise as a doctor or dentist in the United Kingdom must be first registered with either the General Medical Council (GMC) or General Dental Council (GDC).

  In the case of most non European Economic Area (EEA) nationals the GMC and GDC must be satisfied that the practitioner meets the required level of professional and language competence before they are registered.

  The GMC and GDC are obliged under European legislation to register EEA nationals with recognised EEA qualifications. It is therefore for employers and health authorities to satisfy themselves that potential employees or independent contractors possess the necessary skills including communication skills.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent at community hospitals on providing intermediate care for rural areas in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [32432]
  113
  Mr. Milburn
  Financial information is collected on the basis of National Health Service trusts and cannot be disaggregated between hospitals or types of hospital. However, information about expenditure on community health services by rural health authorities in England is set out in the table.

  Expenditure on community health services by rural health authorities in England–1996/97

  £000

  Health authority

  Expenditure

  North Cumbria

  19,517

  North Yorkshire

  23,983

  Leicestershire

  27,868

  Lincolnshire

  29,160

  North Derbyshire

  20,487

  North Nottinghamshire

  8,430

  South Derbyshire

  21,231

  East Norfolk

  12,942

  North West Anglia

  15,916

  Northamptonshire

  16,085

  Suffolk

  28,205

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  15,098

  North and East Devon

  11,796

  Somerset

  17,673

  Dudley

  12,476

  Herefordshire

  8,178

  Shropshire

  18,233

  South Staffordshire

  19,538

  Warwickshire

  24,603

  Worcestershire

  14,724

  South Cheshire

  25,891

  South Lancashire

  14,331

  Total

  406,365

  Source:

  Audited Health Authority final accounts—1996–97 (Table HAA04A).

  Kingston and West Middlesex Hospitals
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are in accident and emergency departments for doctors and nurses in(a) Kingston Hospital NHS Trust and (b) West Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust [32892]

  Mr. Milburn
  Figures on vacancies for doctors and nurses in National Health Service trusts are collected by the Office of Manpower and Economics and published in the annual reports of the Review Body for Nursing staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicines. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The hon. Member may also wish to contact Sir William Rous, Chairman of Kingston Hospital NHS Trust, and Jane Kelly, Chairman of West Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust, for details.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many finished consultant episodes there were in respect of the(a) Kingston Hospital NHS Trust and (b) West Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust in each of the last five years. [32891]
  114
  Mr. Milburn
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of finished consultant episodes1 for Kingston Hospital National Health Service Trust and West Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust since 1992–93

  Year

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  West Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust2

  1992–93

  38,836

  3—

  1993–94

  34,706

  29,935

  1994–95

  37,783

  32,590

  1995–96

  39,459

  31,779

  1996–97

  40,434

  32,254

  1 Finished consultant episodes include ordinary admissions and day case admissions.

  2West Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust was a newly formed NHS trust for 1993–94.

  3Not applicable.

  Source:

  Department of Health Publication, Ordinary and day case admissions for England, 1996–97.

  Accident Victims (Insurance)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in implementing his plans to make the insurers of those causing road accidents responsible for the NHS treatment costs of the accident victims. [33115]

  Mr. Milburn
  National Health Service trusts were asked in December 1997 to ensure that steps were taken to maximise income from the existing scheme to recoup the cost of treatment for certain road traffic accident victims. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health also announced that, when time permits, legislation will be introduced to revise the current arrangements.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a fast-track compensation scheme for patients claiming compensation for medical negligence against the NHS. [33116]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have no plans to introduce such a scheme. However we are concerned at the cost of litigation to the National Health Service, which diverts resources away from patient care, and we are exploring ways of reducing this burden.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance is currently available from his Department for people with haemophilia infected with hepatitis C through their NHS treatment; and what are his plans for future assistance. [33281]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department provides financial support to the Haemophilia Society, whose work includes assisting those with haemophilia who are infected with hepatitis C. The grants to the Society (which this year total £200,000) include support for a specific project to look into the best ways for the Haemophilia Society to support those of its members who are infected with hepatitis C and their families.
  115
  We are currently considering the level of future support for the Haemophilia Society, including their bid for additional funds to enable them to offer further practical help to those infected with hepatitis C.

  The Department has also made a total of £1.5 million available over a two year period to aid research into hepatitis C, its natural history and optimal treatment. While primarily geared to improve the understanding of hepatitis C generally, any developments from this will be important to haemophiliacs infected with the hepatitis C virus.

  Eye Examinations
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is the policy of the Government that all children in special schools for children with learning difficulties should have free domiciliary eye examinations; and if he will make a statement. [33041]

  Mr. Milburn
  The General Ophthalmic Services Regulations permit domiciliary visits to be made only to the place at which the patient normally resides. Children with learning difficulties in non-residential schools are entitled to free National Health Service sight tests at community optical practices.

  Ambulances (Avon)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the ambulances and similar vehicles operated by Avon Ambulance Service NHS Trust are(a) under one year old, (b) under three years old, (c) under five years old, (d) under seven years old and (e) over seven years old. [33286]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information received from Avon Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust shows that the age profile of their vehicle fleet is as follows:

  Accident and emergency vehicles

  Patient transport vehicles

  Support vehicles

  Total

  Under 1 year old

  11

  0

  1

  12

  Under 3 years old, but more than 1 year old

  4

  16

  0

  20

  Under 5 years old, but more than 3 years old

  4

  0

  3

  7

  Under 7 years old, but more than 5 years old

  9

  10

  4

  23

  Over 7 years old

  15

  15

  7

  37

  Total

  43

  41

  15

  99

  Asthma (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number of diagnosed asthma cases in Warrington, North constituency(a) in the past 12 months and (b) over the past five years; [33639]

  (2) if he will list the number of diagnosed asthma cases among children in Warrington, North constituency for each year since 1993. [33638]
  116
  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, it is possible to provide the numbers of residents in the electoral constituency of Warrington, North treated as an inpatient or day case in any hospital with the diagnosis of asthma—see table. This means that the reason for admission may not be asthma, but the patients were diagnosed as having asthma when treated on admission. The vast majority of asthma sufferers are treated by health services in the community and few require hospital treatment. My hon. Friend may, therefore, wish to contact Mr. Colin Hamer, Chairman at North Cheshire Health Authority, for further information.

  For residents of the Warrington, North constituency Finished consultant episodes (any diagnosis)

  Financial Year

  Age group (10 year bands)

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  0–4

  54

  51

  65

  78

  63

  5–14

  48

  48

  54

  79

  91

  15–24

  35

  33

  53

  71

  81

  25–34

  32

  31

  44

  69

  76

  35–44

  18

  20

  29

  49

  63

  45–54

  18

  21

  24

  38

  63

  55–64

  20

  26

  34

  56

  78

  65–74

  21

  31

  39

  63

  77

  75–84

  6

  14

  24

  24

  53

  85+

  5

  6

  8

  6

  13

  Total

  257

  281

  374

  533

  658

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of discrepancies in health authorities practices in respect of the investigation of human TB on farms which experience bovine TB. [33729]

  Ms Jowell
  None. There are established procedures for the investigation and treatment of tuberculosis including the screening of contacts. Guidance on these matters is contained in the reports of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Tuberculosis, published in July 1996, copies of which are available in the Library, and in the publications of the British Thoracic Society and other specialist groups.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to allow those on means-tested benefit to continue to receive the(a) free prescriptions and (b) other supplementary benefits available to those on income support. [33647]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department is responsible for prescription charges and welfare foods. Prescription charges and entitlement to welfare foods are both elements of the Department's Comprehensive Spending Review, which will be completed by the summer. We remain committed to the historic principle of the National Health Service that health services will be available to all and access will be based on need, not on ability to pay.

  The Department has no information about other benefits which may be available to recipients of Income Support which are the responsibility of other government departments.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Surveys
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list each information, promotional, marketing and opinion survey contract, with

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  Information

  nil

  nil

  RPA: Media and Publications Officer

  nil

  nil

  Promotional

  HRPA:

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Design & Print Promotional Material

  Marketing

  HRPA:

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Tower of London Advertising

  Travel Trade PR Services

  Leaflet Distribution—London Hotels

  Leaflet Distribution—Tourist Information Centres

  Tower of London Bus Adverts

  Hampton Court Palace leaflet distribution at Heathrow

  USA PR Agent

  Opinion survey

  Department:

  nil

  RPA:

  nil

  nil

  Consumer research study into cinema going and films for the Film Policy Review

  Visitor surveys

  HRPA:

  Market Research—Summer visitors

  In order to preserve commercial confidentiality, individual contract costs have not been identified. As the Historic Royal palaces will cease to be a Government Agency with effect from the financial year 1998–99,information for the years after 1997–98, has not been included.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding his Department gives for the provision of tourist information about Britain on the Internet. [32942]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The British Tourist Authority's website costs approximately £200,000 a year to develop and maintain. Funding for it comes from the BTA's grant-in-aid (£35 million in 1997/98).

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his Department's assessment of the quality of tourist information about Britain currently made available on the Internet by(a) Government directly funded bodies, (b) other non-commercial organisations and (c) private companies. [32940]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The British Tourist Authority has an excellent website, which recently won a leading tourism technology award at the annual ENTER conference, beating off contenders from around the world. The site address is www.visitbritain.com. There are a great many other tourism-related sites on the Internet. As with all advertising media, the quality of these sites varies considerably.
  118
  its value, concluded by his Department and its agencies for the years (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–2001 and (e) 2001–2002. [32015]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The available information is given in the table:

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what actions his Department can take against any(a) United Kingdom based organisation and (b) European Union based organisation which provides misleading or false tourist information about Britain on the Internet; and if his Department has taken any such action to date. [32943]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Advertisements made in connection with a business and placed on the Internet are subject to essentially the same regime throughout the European Union as advertisements in other media. In the United Kingdom, the British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion, operated by the Advertising Standards Authority, require all advertisements to be legal, decent, honest and truthful. Where an advertiser persistently disregards the adjudications of the Authority, the Director General of Fair Trading may take action in the Courts. Additionally, the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, enforced by local authority trading standards departments, makes it an offence for a trader knowingly or recklessly to make false or misleading statements about services, accommodation or facilities. Neither the Advertising Standards Authority nor trading standards officers can take action abroad.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the money allocated for tourism by(a) tourist boards, and (b) local authorities, per head for (i) Staffordshire and (ii) the West Midlands for each of the last 10 years. [33043]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 6 March 1998]: The Government fund the national tourist boards for specific activities and programmes, not on the basis of population.
  119
  The Heart of England Tourist Board includes Staffordshire and the West Midlands in its region. Each of the ten regional tourist boards (RTBs) in England is an independent company which raises money from membership subscriptions and commercial activities. Each RTB also receives a grant from the English Tourist Board (ETB). ETB grants to the Heart of England Tourist Board (HETB) in the last 10 years have been:

  Year

  ETB grant to HETB (£)

  1987–88

  151,178

  1988–89

  166,120

  1989–90

  313,300

  1990–91

  592,540

  1991–92

  472,106

  1992–93

  461,445

  1993–94

  438,462

  1994–95

  473,939

  1995–96

  465,640

  1996–97

  509,238

  Source:

  Heart of England Tourist Board.

  Tourism in Staffordshire and the West Midlands also benefits from the work of the ETB, whose purpose is to assist the industry in increasing tourism expenditure in England, and the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which helps market the British tourism product abroad. My Department gives grant-in-aid to the ETB and BTA. This year the ETB received £;9.9 million from my Department (£5.1 million of which it gives as grants to the Regional Tourist Boards), in addition to £2.9 million from the industry, and the BTA received £35 million in grant-in-aid plus £16 million from the industry.

  As far as local authority spending is concerned, tourism promotion is not a mandatory local authority function but a discretionary one and funds are not allocated "per head" of population. Local authorities are free to make decisions on tourism funding as they see fit, on the basis of local needs and priorities. Estimates for local authority expenditure on tourism promotion, county by county, appear in the "English Heritage Monitor", published annually by English Heritage and the English Tourist Board.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the percentage of(a) domestic holiday makers and (b) overseas visitors to the United Kingdom who spend their holiday in England. [33815]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  In 1996, 77 per cent. of UK domestic holiday makers' had holidays in England. In the same year 94 percent. of overseas visitors to the UK visited England.
  Source:
  Digest of Tourism Statistics No. 21 and Travel Trends 1996 (IPS).
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what tourism initiatives he is undertaking in respect of(a) accommodation schemes and quality standards, (b) promoting England, (c) trade communication, (d) market and product intelligence and research, (e) training and (f) market access and information. [33811]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The English Tourist Board plans to take forward initiatives in each of these areas as part of its Agenda 2000 programme. I am working closely with 120
  the Tourism Forum and its Working Groups to develop an effective, comprehensive strategy for tourism which will benefit the whole of the industry into the next century.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the level of Government grant-in-aid to(a) the English Tourist Board, (b) the Welsh Tourist Board, (c) the Scottish Tourist Board and (d) the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, per head of population; and what proportion of the total number of (i) overseas and (ii) domestic tourists in the UK, holiday in each tourist board area. [33039]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Government grant-in-aid to each of the UK National Tourist Boards, expressed as per head of population, is as follows:

  £

  Tourist board area

  Grant-in-aid per head of population (1998–99)

  England

  0.20

  Wales

  4.92

  Scotland

  3.79

  Northern Ireland

  8.06

  Source:

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Welsh Office, Scottish Office, Department for Economic Development in Northern Ireland.

  The following proportions for nights spent in each tourist board area, cover all tourism visits. Holiday visits account for 56 per cent. of all tourism nights in the UK.

  Distribution by tourist board area of tourism nights spent in UK (1996)

  Percentage

  Tourist board area

  (i) overseas tourists1

  (ii) domestic tourists

  England

  87

  78

  Scotland

  9

  10

  Wales

  3

  10

  Northern Ireland

  1

  1

  Unknown

  —

  1

  Total

  2100

  3100

  1excludes visits by Irish residents, which are not available by tourist board area.

  2=205 million nights.

  3=455 million nights.

  Source:

  Overseas tourists: Travel Trends, Report of the 1996 International Passenger Survey, Office for National Statistics (1997).

  Domestic tourists: The UK Tourist, Statistics 1996, report of survey sponsored jointly by the statutory tourist boards (1997).

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support he is giving to enable the English Tourist Board to undertake its Action 2000 programme. [33506]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The ETB, following consultation with the industry, has in its Action 2000 programme established clear priorities and is adopting a more strategic role. I was therefore pleased, in a difficult spending round, to be able to maintain the allocation for the ETB at the planned level which this Government inherited.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the grant-in-aid to the English Tourist Board in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [33504]
  121
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The grant-in-aid to the English Tourist Board is as follows:

  1996–97: £10.050 million

  1997–98: £9.866 million

  1998–99: £9.732 million.

  The figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98 were set by the previous administration. I was pleased, in a difficult spending round, to be able to maintain the allocation for the ETB at the planned level which this Government inherited.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many organisations and local authorities were consulted as part of the English Tourist Board's Agenda 2000 consultative exercise. [33495]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The English Tourist Board arranged for Agenda 2000 publications to be distributed to 480 local authorities by the Local Government Association.

  11 roadshows were held and these were attended by 327 local authority representatives, 123 questionnaires were completed by local authority representatives.

  Number

  Total number of those attending roadshows

  862

  Total number of questionnaires responses

  587

  Detailed responses by letter

  147

  Tourist Information Centres

  82

  1From organisations representing in total over two million members.

  Publications
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those European Commission(a) newsletters, (b) magazines and (c) occasional publications to which his Department subscribes. [33663]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The European Commission newsletters, magazines and occasional publications to which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport subscribes are:

  1. Codis Focus (irregular).

  2. European information [loose leaf folder of factsheets, leaflets and guides on the European Union] (irregular).

  3. European Union database directory online and offline information services (irregular).

  4. European Parliament current and forthcoming work in committee (each plenary session).

  5. Europe info directory of important information sources on the European Union (irregular).

  6. I and T magazine (quarterly).

  7. I and T magazine news review (quarterly).

  8. List of members of the Bureau, Parliament, political groups, committees and interparliamentary delegations (approximately every 3 months).

  9. The members of the European Parliament (every 5 years).

  10. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: documents [list] (every 6 months).

  11. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities—documents [list] (monthly parts).

  12. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: publications [list] (irregular).

  13. XIII magazine news review (quarterly).

  Masthead Programming
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received in favour of allowing masthead programming on terrestrial television; and if he will make a statement. [33715]

  Mr. Fisher
  I have received representations on masthead programming from the Periodical Publishers Association. Restrictions on masthead programming are contained in the Independent Television Commission's Code of Programme Sponsorship and it is a matter for them as to whether those restrictions should be relaxed.

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people employed by(a) his Department and (b) the agencies for which his Department is responsible earn (i) less than £3.20 per hour, (ii) between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour, (iii) between £3.60 and £4 per hour and (iv) between £4 and £4.62 per hour. [30751]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 23 February 1998]: No member of staff in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and The Royal Parks Agency is paid less than £4.62 per hour. The number of staff employed by Historic Royal Palaces Agency earning less than £4 per hour is nil. The number of staff earning between £4 and £4.62 per hour is 18.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people employed by(a) his Department and (b) the agencies for which his Department is responsible earn (i) less than £3.20 per hour, (ii) between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour, (iii) between £3.60 and £4 per hour and (iv) between £4 and £4.62 per hour. [30759]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 23 February 1998]: Based on a net working week of 37 hours the information is:

  (a)(i) 0

  (b)(i) 0

  (a)(ii) 0

  (b)(ii) 1

  (a)(iii) 213

  (b)(iii) 47

  (a)(iv) 309

  (b)(iv) 270.

  Police
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received regarding administrative burdens on the police; and if he will make a statement. [33214]

  Mr. McLeish
  We have received no recent representations. The police have our full support and we are constantly looking at ways of reducing any burdens which deflect the police from their front line task of tackling crime—for instance by technological
  123
  developments such as the Integration of Scottish Criminal Justice Information Systems and the Scottish Police Information Strategy.

  Sequestration
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions banks and building societies have proceeded under summary diligence in cases of sequestration against individuals in Scotland in each of the last three years broken down by institution. [33540]

  Mr. McLeish
  These figures are not recorded centrally.

  Scottish Tourist Board
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the grant-in-aid to the Scottish Tourist Board in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [33505]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  £million

  1996–97

  18.309

  1997–98

  19.309

  1998–99

  19.309

  Grant-in-aid for 1997–98 included £300,000 one-off funding to assist STB's efforts to increase tourism from the USA following the Congress of the American Society of Travel Agents, held in Glasgow in September 1997.

  Grant-in-aid for 1998–99 represents an increase of £1 million over the planned provision which had been announced by the previous administration.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources are to be made available to local education authorities in 1998–99 to provide nursery education after the current voucher scheme ends. [31717]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: Total programme resources for pre-school education in 1998–99 are £75.6 million. Net of overheads and the cost of the final term of voucher grants for school year 1997–98, there will be approximately £50.6 million available to fund the first two terms of the 1998–99 school session and any other initiatives in pre-school education.

  Using sources of funding other than pre-school education grant, local authorities have budgeted to spend a further £50.4 million on pre-school education in 1997–98. Authorities will be free to spend similar amounts in 1998–99 (net of the £13.6 million removed from the 1998–99 local government finance settlement to fund the final phase of the pre-school vouchers scheme).

  Concordats
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many draft concordats his Department is currently preparing; who they are intended to be with; and what are the issues and matters covered by them. [33838]
  124
  Mr. Dewar
  Officials in my Department are currently considering the areas in which concordats may be required between the Scottish Executive and Departments of the UK Government. It is too early to say how many such agreements, which cannot be made until the Scottish Executive is established, might be required. The guidance which I placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament on 27 February 1998 made clear that the range and subject matter of each concordat would depend upon the needs of the business area. The aim will be to ensure that the business of government in Scotland and at the United Kingdom level is conducted smoothly, by setting the ground rules for administrative co-operation, consultation and exchange of information. The guidance also indicated that all concordats should be published unless publication would cause substantial harm on one of the clearly defined grounds set out in the White Paper "Your Right to Know: Freedom of Information" (Cm.3818).

  Legal Aid
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for(a) advice and assistance and (b) civil legal aid have been made by individuals for judicial review of decisions by the Scottish Legal Aid Board refusing civil legal aid in each year since its inception. [33867]

  Mr. McLeish
  The only information available relates to civil legal aid applications in 1997, of which there were 38.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the policy of the Legal Aid Board on the level of remuneration of its law agents, where they are defending the Scottish Legal Aid Board against applications for judicial review of their decisions; [33868]

  (2) if he will estimate the savings to public funds if the Scottish Legal Aid Board restricted to the legal aid rate remuneration to their law agents in each year since its inception. [33869]

  Mr. McLeish
  The policy of the Board is not to use the services of law agents in defending judicial reviews against the Board. The work is undertaken by the solicitors employed by the Board and therefore the question of the level of remuneration does not arise.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the religious affiliation of applicants for grants under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992. [32840]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This is matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, whose Chief Executive has advised me that, following a report from the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the Executive seeks to monitor the religious affiliations of applicants for
  125
  grant aid. In order to do so, the Preliminary Inquiry form used in the scheme includes a relevant question. It is not compulsory to answer the question, nor does the answer, when given, have any bearing on the decision to approve or reject an application.

  There are insufficient data, to date, to make a meaningful assessment of the impact of the grants scheme on applicants of particular religious persuasions.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the number of grants approved under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, by district council area. [32838]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This is matter for the Northern Ireland Executive. whose Chief Executive has advised me that figures have been recorded by district council area only since 1 April 1994, and these are set out in the table. The total number of applications approved since October 1992, including those listed, is 50,781.

  Council

  Number of grants approved

  Antrim

  461

  Ards

  1,059

  Armagh

  2,955

  Ballymena

  527

  Ballymoney

  215

  Banbridge

  1,402

  Belfast

  14,230

  Carrickfergus

  491

  Castlereagh

  1,019

  Coleraine

  523

  Cookstown

  1,368

  Craigavon

  3,900

  Derry

  1,173

  Down

  1,395

  Dungamon

  1,982

  Fermanagh

  2,137

  Larne

  431

  Limavady

  346

  Lisburn

  3,509

  Magherafelt

  454

  Moyle

  225

  Newry and Mourne

  3,397

  Newtownabbey

  1,092

  North Down

  1,216

  Omagh

  1,408

  Strabane

  589

  Total

  47,504

  The figures cover the period from 1 April 1994 to 31 December 1997 and include Renovation, Replacement, Disabled Facilities, Houses in Multiple Occupation, Minor Works Assistance, and Repairs Grants.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the number of applicants from each district council area for grants under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992. [32839]
  126
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, whose Chief Executive has advised me that formal applications are not normally made until there is a reasonable expectation that grant aid will be available. The number of applicants, therefore, can be regarded as almost synonymous with the number of grant approvals. The earliest stage in the process is the Preliminary Inquiry state, which gauges the number of potential applicants. There are a number of reasons why potential applicants do not become actual applicants including the failure of the property or the applicant to meet the criteria for particular grants, but no statistics are kept which would show the numbers of potential applications which do not progress. The numbers of Preliminary Inquiries received since October 1992 is 100,511. Figures have been recorded by district council area only since 1 April 1994 and these are as follows.

  Council

  Number of preliminary inquiries

  Antrim

  1,053

  Ards

  1,803

  Armagh

  3,977

  Ballymena

  1,148

  Ballymoney

  563

  Banbridge

  1,892

  Belfast

  19,450

  Carrickfergus

  984

  Castlereagh

  1,881

  Coleraine

  1,217

  Cookstown

  1,861

  Craigavon

  5,048

  Derry

  2,540

  Down

  1,914

  Dungannon

  3,001

  Fermanagh

  2,832

  Larne

  882

  Limavady

  742

  Lisburn

  3,776

  Magherafelt

  1,073

  Moyle

  515

  Newry and Mourne

  5,435

  Newtonabbey

  2,289

  North Down

  2,000

  Omagh

  2,178

  Strabane

  1,194

  Total

  71,338

  Note:

  The figures cover the period from April 1994 to 31 December 1997. Preliminary Inquiry Forms do not specify a particular grant. This is determined by the Executive and can include Renovation, Replacement, Disabled Facilities, Common Parts, Houses in Multiple Occupation, Minor Works Assistance and Repairs Grants.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will estimate for each of the last five years, the number and percentage of new civil servants in her Department who attended Oxford or Cambridge University, broken down into the number of entrants joining the Department from(a) the regular Civil Service entrance procedure, (b) the fast stream and (c) the private sector; [33070]
  127
  (2) if she will estimate the number of civil servants in her Department, at each grade, who received their schooling in the independent school sector. [33069]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Marriage
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to review the civil law on the preliminaries to and the celebration of marriage. [34008]
  128
  Marjorie Mowlam
  Existing Northern Ireland civil law on the preliminaries to and the celebration of marriage is based on nineteenth century legislation and is complex to administer. This, together with recent changes in the law in England and Wales and consultation on possible change in Scotland indicates a need to consider reform here. Accordingly, I have asked the Law Reform Advisory Committee, whose role is to keep the civil law of Northern Ireland under review, to examine the subject and to bring forward proposals as appropriate.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental and Police Pay
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies for which his Department is responsible and (c) the police earn (i) less than £.20 per hour, (ii) between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour, (iii) between £3.60 and £4 per hour and (iv) between £4 and £4.62 per hour. [30747]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 23 February 1998]: For the Home Office and the agencies, the information requested is as follows:

  Range of hourly rates

  Department/Agency

  (i) less than £3.20

  (ii) £3.20 to £3.60

  (iii) £3.60 to £4.00

  (iv) £4.00 to £4.62

  Home Office

  0

  0

  75

  328

  Prison Service

  0

  0

  258

  506

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  0

  0

  506

  242

  Forensic Science Service

  0

  0

  18

  30

  Fire Service College

  0

  0

  4

  4

  No police officers earn less than £4.52 per hour.

  Seventy-nine police cadets earn less than £3.20 per hour.

  Figures are not available centrally for total numbers of police civilian staff and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Charity Funds
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department takes to ensure that funds raised by charity collections go to the intended charities. [32549]

  Mr. Michael
  Public charitable collections are regulated by the Police. Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916, the House to House Collections Act 1939 and associated regulations, which provide that the local authority is responsible for granting licenses to organisations proposing to carry out collections. In London, the licensing authority is the Metropolitan Police or City of London Police. The Home Secretary has the discretion to issue Orders of Exemption to charities conducting house to house collections widely throughout England and Wales.

  Part II of the Charities Act 1992, which came into effect on 1 March 1995, contains important controls in relation to professional and commercial involvement in charitable fund-raising.

  The Charity Commission is responsible for the oversight of individual charities in England and Wales. It has powers under the Charities Act 1993 to investigate abuse where it appears that funds raised for charitable causes may be at risk and to remedy the misconduct and enforce the proper use of a charity's funds. The
  130
  Commission itself does not have power to carry out prosecutions; this is a matter for the police.

  The Commission is currently reviewing its own strategy for dealing with fund-raising concerns and is actively examining ways in which fund-raising abuse can be more effectively prevented.

  Farm and Rural Watch Schemes
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total financial support from his Department to farm watch and rural watch schemes, in each of the last three years for which figures are available; [32580]

  (2) what was the total number of farm watch and rural watch schemes (a) in each area and (b) in total, in England and Wales, in each of the last three years for which figures are available; what is the estimated average number of people involved in each scheme; and if he will make a statement. [32581]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Office has chosen to direct funding towards national initiatives designed to support and encourage the sort of activity which Watch schemes represent rather than funding local schemes. It would not be possible to fund every local scheme and, in any event, the essence of partnership is people getting together with the police to solve local problems at a local level. The Government do provide £0.75 million a year in core funding to Crime Concern, one of whose main activities is advising and developing crime prevention activities.

  As both farm and rural watch schemes are run in conjunction with local police forces, the Home Office does not keep records of either the total number of schemes which are currently running throughout the country, or the estimated average number of people involved in each scheme.

  The Crime and Disorder Bill will help to extend partnership activities by providing for new statutory duties for local authorities and the police to create an effective results-oriented framework for local action to tackle local problems. The nature of these problems will vary significantly from one area to another, and it is the Government's intention to allow maximum flexibility to reflect this. Rural areas, in common with urban and inner city areas, will benefit from this approach.

  British Board of Film Classification
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the appointment of the Vice-President of the British Board of Film Classification. [33146]

  Mr. Michael
  The principal officers of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) are appointed by the BBFC' s Council of Management in consultation with my right hon. Friend, who is responsible under the Video Recordings Act 1984 for designating the authority for classifying video works. The Council of Management has recently advertised two vice presidential posts and will announce any appointments in due course.

  Police Authorities (Out-of-court Settlements)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the expenditure on out-of-court settlements by police authorities in England and Wales in the last year for which figures are available. [33104]

  Mr. Michael
  This information is not collected centrally. Claims are a matter for the police authority and the individuals concerned. The Home Office has no role to play in their resolution.

  Vote Recounts
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which constituencies with majorities of(a) 0–0.6 per cent., (b) 0.6–1 per cent. and (c) 1–1.5 per cent. had recounts; and how many recounts there were in each constituency at the last general election. [33487]

  Mr. George Howarth
  This information will not be available centrally until claims for election expenses incurred in the conduct of the general election have been received from all acting returning officers. It is not possible to say when that will be.

  Signal Flares
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue advice to members of search and rescue teams in (i) the Exmoor area and (ii) elsewhere regarding the(a) purchase and (b) use of flares to take account of the provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997. [33480]

  Mr. Michael
  The recent changes to the law on handguns have not changed the law on signal flares. Firearms designed as signalling apparatus are specifically exempted from the ban on handguns.

  Our firearms controls have always divided signalling equipment into two categories. Ordinary flares can be possessed by anyone, and are commonly used by sailors and hill walkers. Some flare launchers, such as the Verey flare pistol, have always been treated as firearms and need a certificate from the police. This has been the established legal position since the 1920s.

  The Home Office agrees that search and rescue teams should be properly equipped to carry out their vital work. We are happy to discuss any concerns with the teams concerned and with the local police with a view to resolving any difficulties.

  In the case of Exmoor search and rescue team, we understand that there was a misunderstanding among suppliers which has now been resolved, and the team can now continue to obtain the non-certificated flares needed.

  Immigration Service
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of immigration service resources is devoted to(a) arriving passengers, (b) departing passengers and (c) asylum applicants. [33874]
  132
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In the calendar year up to 31 December 1997:

  (i) 66 per cent. of the Immigration Service Ports Directorate operational duties were deployed on the arrivals control:

  (ii) 7 per cent. on the embarkation control: and

  (iii) 11 per cent. on asylum related work.

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if all passengers leaving the UK are(a) liable to departure checks by the immigration service and (b) checked. [33871]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  (a) All passengers are potentially liable to a form of departure check. Under the Immigration Act 1971, an immigration officer may seek to establish whether or not a person leaving the country is a British citizen and, if he is not, his identity.

  (b) In practice, about 40% of embarking passengers do not see an immigration officer. In 1994, embarkation checks were withdrawn from passengers departing from ferry ports and small airports for destinations within the European Union. Since then, the arrangements have been extended to all European Economic Area countries, that is: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost and value of a comprehensive system of immigration service departure checks. [33873]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No system would be totally comprehensive because there is no embarkation control between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The cost of information technology for the most comprehensive system possible is likely to be about £73 million over a ten year period. The additional staffing cost, for ports, is estimated at about £7.2 million a year.

  Such a system would provide better statistical information on overstaying but would not assist to any significant degree in the apprehension of immigration offenders, because they rarely remain at the address given on arrival. It would not help at all in respect of those who enter clandestinely.

  It would, therefore, be expensive and not the most cost effective way of tackling abuse of the immigration control.

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers immigration officers have in performing departure checks. [33872]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The immigration officer undertakes departure checks to identify persons subject to control under the Immigration Act 1971 and, where necessary, records that departure. Under the Immigration Act, an immigration officer has the power to require the presentation of a passport or equivalent document, but has no express power to prevent departure.

  MI5 Phoneline
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to set up a public
  133
  telephone number on which members of the public will be able to offer information to the Security Service (MI5). [34081]

  Mr. Straw
  A new telephone number—the "MI5 Phoneline"—is today being established by the Security Service. The purpose of the Phoneline is to make it easier for people to pass on information which could help the Service do its work. The Phone will not serve as a general inquiry point about the Security Service. Inquiries should continue to be addressed, in writing, to the Security Service at The Enquiries Desk, PO Box 3255, London, SWIP 1AE.

  For those who wish to provide information to the Security Service, the number is 0171 930 9000.

  Roisin McAliskey
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the German Government's request for Roisin McAliskey's extradition. [34108]

  Mr. Straw
  The German Government had requested Roisin McAliskey's return to stand trial for offences relating to the bombing of Osnabruck barracks in June 1996.

  I have decided that I will not order Roisin McAliskey's return to Germany because I consider that the medical evidence in her case would make extradition unjust or oppressive. The Home Secretary has a general discretion to refuse extradition in any individual case, and is obliged to do so if it would, having regard to all the circumstances of the individual, be unjust or oppressive to do so. This discretion is preserved in section 12 of the Extradition Act 1989.

  I have explained my decision to the German Government. It does not reflect in any way on the fairness of the German legal system or on the quality of the German extradition request. The United Kingdom enjoys excellent working relationships with Germany in the field of extradition and international co-operation against terrorism.

  Premier Prisons
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the contract between his Department and Premier Prisons requires Premier Prisons to abide by his Department's rules; [33719]

  (2) if he will place in the Library the contract between Premier Prisons and his Department. [33721]

  Ms Quin
  There are four contracts between the Prison Service and Premier Prison Services. These cover the prisons at Doncaster and Lowdham Grange, and the provision of the court escort service in South and South East England, and the West Midlands and Mid Wales. All contracts require Premier Prison Services to operate in accordance with the relevant statutory regulations, including the Prison Rules 1964 and subsequent amending rules.
  134
  Copies of the contracts for Doncaster and for Lowdham Grange are in the Library. These copies exclude a limited amount of commercially sensitive financial information. I am arranging for copies of the court escort contracts with Premier Prison Services to be placed in the Library, excluding commercially sensitive financial information.

  World Cup
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place with football supporters' organisations regarding safety of British fans at this year's World Cup in France. [31804]

  Mr. Michael
  My right hon. Friend recently hosted a European conference to focus international efforts to combat soccer violence and consider the safety and security arrangements for the World Cup Finals in France. Supporters' groups were represented at the conference by the Football Supporters Association, the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs and the Scottish Federation of Football Supporters' clubs.

  In addition, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) recently met a representative of the Scottish Federation of Football Supporters' Clubs. A meeting will shortly be arranged with the supporters' groups and the Chairman of the United Kingdom World Cup Co-ordinating Group to enable a further exchange of views.

  Some British citizens will be travelling to France to support other teams participating in the tournament, particularly the national teams of Jamaica and Nigeria. Officials are arranging to meet relevant representative groups to discuss any concerns which they may have about protecting the interests of those supporters.

  Prison Health Service
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each(a) internal and (b) external review which is currently being undertaken into the Prison Health Service (i) in the regions and (ii) nationally. [33635]

  Ms Quin
  Prison health care is either the main focus or forms a significant dimension of the following current reviews:National

  Organisation and delivery of prisoners' health care (Joint Prison Service/National Health Service Working Group).

  Nursing policy: role and qualifications of nurses and health care officers in prisons (internal).

  Drug strategy: balance between control and treatment measures (internal).

  Health care screening of prisoners on reception (internal).

  An evaluation of the effectiveness of drug treatment programmes (external consultants).

  Regional

  Strategic health care review in North West region (internal).

  Review of health care provision—Isle of Sheppey prisons (internal).

  135

  Studies into health care provision at 13 prisons in Durham, East Anglia, Surrey and Yorkshire (external consultants).

  Study into the needs of elderly and disabled prisoners at four prisons in Lancashire (external consultants).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Montenegro
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the former Republic of Yugoslavia about forthcoming elections in Montenegro. [31797]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I discussed prospects for the May parliamentary elections and other issues with President Djukanovic of Montenegro on 2 February. I also told Foreign Minister Jovanovic on 2 February that HMG were watching with interest the democratic transition in Montenegro.

  South Korea
  Mrs. McGuire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK's relations with South Korea. [31799]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have an important political and economic partnership with the Republic of Korea. We congratulate Korea on the democratic milestone represented by the election of President Kim Dae-jung, a long-time campaigner for democracy and human rights. We are giving significant support to help Korea overcome its economic difficulties, both bilaterally and through the IMF. We fully support efforts to bring about a lasting peace on the Korean peninsula. We look forward to welcoming President Kim to London for ASEM II in April.

  British Council
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future role of the British Council in assisting UK exports. [31814]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Much of the Council's work demonstrates British excellence in the field of education and culture and hence supports and underpins exports in these areas. The Council has long been actively involved with the FCO, DfEE and DTI in promoting the use of British educational goods and service overseas, and study in Britain. In addition, the Council has commissioned research into the opportunities for increasing exports of the creative industries and is embarking on a number of pilot projects in this area. The Council will also pay an active role in the new Creative Industries Export Promotion Advisory Group which will involve both government and representatives of the cultural industries.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other G7 countries relating to the political and financial problems in Indonesia. [31817]
  136
  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer chaired the G7 Finance Ministers meeting last month at which the financial situation in South East Asia, notably Indonesia, was addressed. We have contact at official level with G7 partners on its political ramifications, and will discuss the issue fully in Birmingham.

  I also recently visited Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore in order to discuss the current financial difficulties.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Kuwait. [31818]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our relations with Kuwait are very good. I am visiting Kuwait on 11 and 12 March to take forward discussions on a wide range of issues, including our trade interests and close defence co-operation. We are particularly grateful to the Kuwaiti government and people for the generous welcome and political support shown to our forces stationed there.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's role in the middle east peace process. [31820]

  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives the European Union is taking with regard to the middle east peace process. [31829]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friends to the oral answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton).

  Albania
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Albanian political parties about the maintenance of constitutional government in Albania. [31821]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Prime Minister Nano during his visit to the UK last December. As Presidency, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also chaired an EU Political Dialogue meeting with Albania on 27 January. 1 visited Albania on 4–5 February and held talks with Prime Minister Nano and members of his Government, and the opposition leader, Dr. Berisha. In all these discussions, we have stressed the need for the maintenance of constitutional government in Albania.

  EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding a common European foreign policy. [31822]
  137
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Creating a more effective common European foreign and security policy is a key plank in the Government's European policy.

  29. Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he will pursue to promote common EU foreign policies. [31827]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are committed to making the EU's common foreign and security policy more effective.

  As EU Presidency, we have successfully promoted a common EU line on key foreign policy issues of the day.

  We are taking forward EU preparations for implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty provisions to improve the quality of CFSP advice to the Council, to streamline CFSP decision-making, and to improve the external representation of the Union.

  Departmental Commercial Sections
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on commercial sections' priorities for 1998–99. [31823]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral reply I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Ms Jones).

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the US State Department regarding US policy towards Northern Ireland. [31824]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  We discuss Northern Ireland with the US Administration at many different levels. For instance my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed Northern Ireland with President Clinton during his recent visit to the US. There is also regular contact on Northern Ireland issues at Ministerial and official level.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress being made on EU enlargement. [31825]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty).

  Gulf States
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between the UK and the Gulf states. [31826]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Gulf is an area of key importance for both the EU and the UK, strategically, economically and commercially. The EU's 1988 Cooperation Agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council embodies the wide range of our shared interests. Britain has enjoyed 138
  friendly relations with the Gulf states for many years. We are therefore well-placed as EU Presidency to encourage greater cooperation and enhance relations.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the member states of the European Union expressed support for the United Kingdom in its policy regarding preparations for military action against Iraq. [31828]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The vast majority of European Union member states were supportive of our policy of backing up diplomacy with the threat of military force.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his American counterpart on the question of the Basra enclave. [31793]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are discussing with our US colleagues the most appropriate ways of carrying forward our policies on Iraq following the recent crisis with Saddam Hussein. In this context, all ideas will be fully discussed.

  BBC World Service
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from British embassies and high commissions regarding the quality, value and effectiveness of BBC World Service broadcasts. [31830]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Annual Public Diplomacy Reports received from British Embassies and High Commissions confirm that BBC World Service broadcasts are highly regarded by their listeners. These and other reports from our posts overseas underline the important contribution which the World Service makes to the promotion of Britain abroad and to the use of the English Language.

  Libya
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Libya. [31831]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our relations with Libya are intimately linked with the issue of Lockerbie, the associated UNSCRs and the murder of WPC Fletcher. It is difficult to envisage a normal relationship with Libya until these issues are resolved.

  Israel
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Israel. [31832]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Britain enjoys friendly relations with Israel.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to promote compliance by Israel with United Nations resolutions. [31810]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to support UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 425. We believe that the negotiating framework laid down at Madrid and Oslo
  139
  based on these resolutions and the principle of "land for peace" offers the best prospect of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

  "InfEuro" Newsletter
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many copies of the European Commission newsletter "InfEuro" are distributed in the United Kingdom. [32944]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The InfEuro newsletter is available on request from the European Commission in Luxembourg. There are currently about 13,500 subscribers in the UK, who receive copies six times a year.

  "Britain in Europe" Pamphlet
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial assistance was available from the European Community for the publication of the booklet, "Britain in Europe"; and from which budget the money originated. [32883]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  None. The publication was funded entirely by commercial advertising and sponsorship.

  Information (Distribution)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what volume of(a) magazines, (b) fact sheets, (c) booklets and (d) video cassettes, receiving funding from the European Commission, were distributed in the United Kingdom in 1997. [33483]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This information is not readily available and could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  ASSIST Programme
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will be promoting(a) the ASSIST programme and (b) the Human Rights Project Fund during his forthcoming visits to (i) Thailand, (ii) Malaysia, (iii) Indonesia and (iv) Singapore. [33150]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 6 March 1998]: The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), visited the countries concerned on 3–5 March as a special representative of the EU Presidency to discuss South East Asia's recent financial difficulties. This was not an appropriate occasion on which to address bilateral programmes.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on proposed action by Her Majesty's Government relating to the destruction of Pan Am 103, following his meeting with the representatives of the relations of British victims of the Lockerbie crime. [31934]
  140
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be happy to write to my hon. Friend following his meeting with the Lockerbie families. He expects to meet them early next month.

  Mexico
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made regarding human rights in Mexico. [31807]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the human rights situation in Mexico with the new Foreign Minister, Mrs. Green, on 12 February in Panama City. He made clear our concerns that those arrested in connection with the massacre in Chiapas should be brought to trial; and that there should be no impunity for those with connections with municipal or state government. I discussed human rights issues with Mrs. Green's predecessor last November.

  Burma
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken since August 1997 to put pressure on the SLORC in Burma to improve its record on human rights. [33740]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are working closely with EU and other partners to press the Burmese regime (now called the State Peace and Development Council) to improve its record on human rights. In December, we co-sponsored a UN Resolution on human rights in Burma. This month, we shall introduce a resolution on Burma at the UN Commission on Human Rights. We are also using our EU Presidency to renew a tough package of EU-wide measures against the Burmese Government. We continue to urge EU partners to extend these measures. We have also secured EU consensus for a programme of positive measures aimed at strengthening civil society and delivering humanitarian aid in Burma.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the state of repair of the Chernobyl sarcophagus. [33737]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The safety of the Chernobyl sarcophagus is the responsibility of the Government of Ukraine. There is, however, broad international consensus that urgent action is needed to deal with the deterioration of the current structure. A shelter Implementation Plan (SIP) has now been agreed between Ukraine and G7 countries. Its aim is to stabilise the current shelter over the remains of the destroyed Unit 4 at Chernobyl; to remove the danger of a further explosion and finally to construct a temporary confinement to facilitate the removal of the most unstable parts. Implementation of the SIP has already started and efforts to ensure sufficient funding are underway.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 March 1998,Official Report, column 513, what plans he has during the United Kingdom presidency for an initiative to overcome legal obstacles to enfranchisement for Gibraltarians by changing European Union law. [33683]
  141
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Our approach to the Presidency on Gibraltar-related issues was set out in my answer to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) of 6 February 1998,Official Report, column 843. On my hon. Friend's particular point, we have no present plans to pursue the sort of initiative he describes, when the chances of agreement are so uncertain, and we have other priorities to pursue on Gibraltar's behalf.

  China
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent European Union decisions regarding human rights in China. [32203]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on 5 March 1998,Official Report, column 711.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Empty Property
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) his Department, (ii) his agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which he has responsibility, in (A) 1995–96, (B) 1996–97, (C) 1997–98 to date and (D) 1997–98 full year. [26670]

  Mr. Hoon
  (i) The Department owned no empty property in these years but rent and service charges on vacant parts of buildings amounted to (A) £375,000 in 1995–96, (B) £620,000 in 1996–97, (C) £441,000 in 1997–98 to date and (D) £503,000 for the 1997–98 full year. (ii) The Court Service agency's empty properties cost (A) –450,000 in 1995–96, (B) £327,000 in 1996–97, (C) £601,000 in 1997–98 to date and (D) £715,000 for the 1997–98 whole year, with values of £26.472 million in 1995–96, £0.491 million in 1996–97 and £2.458 million in 1997–8 to date and for the whole year. (iii) Other public bodies incurred annual costs of (A) £946,000 in 1995–96, (B) £698,000 in 1996–97, (C) £407,000 in 1997–98 to date and (D) £499,000 for the 1997–98 full year with a value of only £80,000 for each year as most are leasehold with a nil valuation.

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people employed by(a) his Department and (b) the agencies for which his Department is responsible earn (i) less than £3.20 per hour, (ii) between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour, (iii) between £3.60 and £4 per hour and (iv) between £4 and £4.62 per hour. [30752]

  Mr. Hoon
  This answer covers the Headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department (with Associated Offices), the Court Service, Public Trust Office, Land Registry,142
  Public Record Office and Northern Ireland Court Service. The information requested is set out in the table.

  Less than £3.20 p.h.

  £3.20 to £3.60 p.h.

  £3.60 to £4.00p.h.

  £4.00 to £4.62 p.h.

  LCD Headquarters

  none

  none

  none

  16 (of whom 14 are casuals)

  Court Service1

  none

  195 (of whom 176 are casuals)

  none

  492 (of whom 102 are casuals)

  Public Trust Office

  none

  none

  none

  none

  Land Registry

  none

  none

  1

  25

  Public Record Office

  none

  none

  none

  1

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  none

  none

  1

  70

  1 Staff numbers as at 30 November 1997, excluding fee-paid ushers (for whom central records are not kept). Salary levels (expressed as hourly rates) for the Court Service exclude elements of the 1997–98 pay award are not yet in payment.

  Buildings Refurbishment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will make a statement. [26672]

  Mr. Hoon
  The costs of refurbishment schemes are not monitored separately from other maintenance and improvement works and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. However, total figures for the Department, including the Court Service, are:(a) £26.3 million for 1995–96, (b) £19.4 million for 1996–97, (c) £6.5 million for 1997–98 to end December and (d) an estimated £19.4 million for 1997–98 full year. The majority of this has been spent by the Court Service to improve the facilities available in courts; £7 million was spent in 1995–96 accommodating most departmental headquarters staff in a single building and housing the newly created Court Service agency headquarters.

  Magistrates Courts
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria determine the composition of Magistrates Courts Committees; and how they are appointed. [33718]

  Mr. Hoon
  Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCC) are composed of local magistrates who are appointed by their colleagues, on the basis of the skills and experience they bring to the committee.

  The framework for the appointment of MCC members is set out in the Magistrates' Courts Committees (Constitution) Regulations 1994. Broadly, each bench in an MCC area elects a prescribed number of its members to operate as a Selection Panel. The selection panel is informed by the incumbent MCC how many new members are required for the following year. A written notice of application is required, containing details of qualifications and experience. Candidates for appointment to the committee must be nominated by a justice and seconded by three other justices. Each selection panel

  143
  determines its own method of selecting members to the MCC (whether through selection or election). Where a committee believes that additional skills are required which can only be provided by an individual who is not a magistrate, it is open to them to seek the Lord Chancellor's approval for a co-option to take place.

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the powers of Magistrates Courts Committees in respect of the closure of local courts. [33716]

  Mr. Hoon
  Under section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, decisions concerning the future of a magistrates court are for the relevant magistrates courts committee to determine, after consultation with the paying authority or authorities. The local authorities that contribute financially to the running of the service may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to what extent Magistrates Courts Committees are required to take into account(a) local opinion, (b) the opinion of the Magistrates' bench and (c) the opinion of the local district council before deciding to close a local court. [33717]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Justices of the Peace Act 1997 requires a magistrates courts committee to consult its local paying authority before making a determination to close a courthouse.

  My Department does, however, encourage magistrates courts committees to extend their consultation processes wider than that required by the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 and to consider all representations received before making a final determination.

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average size of population covered by a local Magistrates Court. [33720]

  Mr. Hoon
  At April 1997, there were 492 full-time and part-time magistrates courthouses in use. The average population covered by a courthouse is around 106,000.

  Conditional Fee System
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment the Lord Chancellor has made of the possibility that, under the conditional fee system, solicitors will not be found for the cases with less prospect of success. [33641]

  Mr. Hoon
  I think that there are likely to be cases where the prospects of success are not strong enough for solicitors to undertake a conditional fee agreement. However, we do not believe that weak cases ought to be brought whether through legal aid or conditional fees.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the possibility of people being deterred from taking legal action as a result of change from legal aid to conditional fees. [33640]

  Mr. Hoon
  We believe that clients with good cases will be able to find lawyers to take personal injury claims once these are removed from legal aid. Some 35,000 people have already used conditional fee agreements in this area,144
  lawyers are experienced in taking cases on a conditional fee basis and there is a developed insurance market to provide protective insurance for clients. We welcome responses to the proposals in the consultation paper and if the hon. Member has views on how conditional fees could be made more attractive, I would be glad to receive them.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Lord Chancellor has to ensure that solicitors can be found for personal injury cases with only an even chance of success. [33642]

  Mr. Hoon
  If a case has a reasonable prospect of success, a solicitor would be prepared to undertake it on a conditional fee. We do not believe that cases ought to be brought unless they have a strong prospect of success. I do not see that the legal aid budget, paid for by the taxpayer, should pay for a case if a solicitor does not think it has strong enough prospects to take it on under a conditional fee.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 4 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1059–63, if industrial diseases claims will remain within the scope of legal aid. [33627]

  Mr. Hoon
  Subject to consultation, I would not expect these cases to remain within the scope of legal aid. I would welcome any views which the hon. Member would like to contribute during the consultation period which ends on 30 April this year.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 4 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1059–63, what is the total sum that will be paid into the Transitional Fund; and when it will be established. [33628]

  Mr. Hoon
  The resources allocated to the transitional fund will be determined each year depending upon the total legal aid budget and the priorities for spending elsewhere. I anticipate that the fund will be established by the end of the year.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 4 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1059–63, when he will introduce legislation to establish the Public Interest Fund. [33629]

  Mr. Hoon
  We plan to publish a White Paper in the Summer. This will set out our plans for longer-term reform, including seeking a new Bill, and will also set out our plans for assisting cases with a significant public interest.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 4 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1059–63, what is the total sum to be paid into the Public Interest Fund; and what will be the source of that money. [33630]
  145
  Mr. Hoon
  Until we have new legislation, we cannot establish a Public Interest Fund. However, we do intend to provide, under transitional arrangements, for personal injury cases excluded from legal aid which have a wider public interest, to continue to receive public subsidy until we can set up new arrangements with new legislation.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research he has commissioned into the reasons for the scale of increase of the cost of civil and family legal aid over the last seven years; and if he will publish it. [33634]

  Mr. Hoon
  Neither I, nor the previous administration, have commissioned research into this area.

DEFENCE

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on external consultants in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 to date and (iv) 1997–98 full year; and if he will also estimate the cost savings resulting from the employment of such consultants for each of the above years. [26633]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The total expenditure on external consultancy by the Ministry of Defence including agencies, for which a separate breakdown is not available, was £150.8 million in financial year 1995–96, and £1136.7 million in financial year 1996–97. Details of this expenditure are placed in the Library of the House around June of each year.

  The comparable figures for non-departmental public bodies not included in the Departmental totals have been recalculated and the figures are now assessed to be £77,503 during 1995–96 and £183,109 in 1996–97.

  This year's exercise to calculate expenditure on external consultancy within MOD during financial year 1997–98 will be complete by early summer, when I will write to the hon. Member. I will also place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Individual budget holders in the MOD have delegated powers to employ external consultants as they judge necessary, consistent with requirements for propriety and value for money. External consultants are engaged for assistance on a wide range of problems, but very seldom with the sole aim of securing financial savings. We do not, therefore, specifically assess cost savings as a result of the employment of external consultants.

  Prisoners of War
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in compiling his report on the pay of prisoners of war during World War II, what account the Government took of whether or not the terms of the 1929 Geneva Convention were fulfilled in respect of reimbursing enemy Governments for payments by them to the British prisoners of war during the Second World War. [32264]
  146
  Mr. Spellar
  The Review was fully aware of, and the Report covers, the 1929 Geneva Convention on the treatment of Prisoners of War of an enemy power and the question of the settlement of national debts between belligerents at the end of hostilities.

  The Convention provided for the provision by the Detaining Power of some pay for officer Prisoners of War in the camps and that after the war this money would be refunded to each Detaining Power by the officers' own country. These matters were however subject to any special arrangements or agreements which the belligerent powers might make during and after the war.

  At the time of the Peace Treaty with Italy, a mutual waiver of all claims in respect of Prisoners of War was agreed. Since for Germany no national authority existed with whom a settlement of this kind could be made, there was de facto a mutual waiver of claims, including those relating on both sides to Prisoners of War.

  As the Report makes clear, the administration of servicemen's pay matters was a subject for their own Government. Deductions from home pay accounts in respect of payments made under the Geneva Conventions were not governed by these Conventions, but were a matter of British service pay policy.

  Trident
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the recent report of the United States Department of Energy's Albuquerque operations office on the work of the Mason and Hanger Corporation on Trident weapons assembly for the United Kingdom. [33110]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Neither the Mason and Hanger Corporation nor any other United States organisation carries out Trident weapons assembly for the United Kingdom. Without a more specific reference it is not possible to identify the report to which my hon. Friend refers.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the responsibility for the millennium compliance of computer-reliant military equipment supplied by the United States of America lies with the vendors; and if she will make a statement. [33314]

  Mr. Spellar
  When MOD purchases direct from a US company, it prefers to place contracts under English Law, which places the vendor under the same obligations as a UK company. In all such contracts with US companies it is a requirement that they be contractually bound to meet the MOD's Year 2000 compliance requirements and to provide an express warranty to this effect. When MOD contracts directly with US companies under US laws for the procurement of computer systems and software, a similar compliance requirement is included.

  In cases where MOD procures on a Government to Government basis through the Foreign Military Sales, FMS, route with the US, the vendors are required to comply with the relevant US Government criteria. The US Government are committed to achieving Year 2000 compliance of Defence equipment.

  UK Visiting Forces (USA)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of United Kingdom visiting forces based in the United States; and where they are based. [33571]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: The total number of UK forces currently based in the United States is 374. Their location, broken down by Service, is as follows:

  Location

  Number of personnel

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines/Royal Fleet Auxiliary

  Annapolis, MD

  3

  Groton, CT

  2

  Monterey, CA

  2

  Norfolk, VA

  58

  Newport, RI

  4

  Philadelphia, PA

  3

  San Diego, CA

  10

  Washington, DC

  23

  Patuxent River, MD

  4

  Bay St. Louis, MS

  1

  Jacksonville, FL

  1

  Dahlgren, VA

  1

  Pensacola, FL

  4

  Indian Head, MD

  1

  Corpus Christi, TX

  1

  Mayport, FL

  2

  Harrisburg, PA

  1

  Fallon, NV

  1

  Miami, FL

  1

  Cherry Point, NC

  1

  Quantico, VA

  5

  Jacksonville, NC

  4

  Oceanside, CA

  1

  Brunswick, ME

  1

  Bridgeport, CA

  1

  Key West, FL

  1

  Omaha, NE

  2

  United Nations, NY

  1

  Tampa, FL

  1

  Fort Gordon, GA

  1

  Total

  142

  Army

  Washington, DC

  27

  Fort Monroe, VA

  2

  Fort Lee, VA

  2

  Fort Eustis, VA

  3

  Chalottesville, VA

  2

  Suffolk, VA

  1

  Fort Bragg, GA

  2

  Fort Gordon, GA

  1

  Fort Stewart, GA

  1

  Fort Benning, GA

  3

  Orlando, FL

  1

  Fort Rucker, AL

  4

  Fort McClellan, AL

  2

  Vicksburg, MS

  1

  Fort Polk, LA

  1

  Fort Sam Houston, TX

  1

  Medina, San Antonio, TX

  4

  Fort Hood, TX

  2

  Fort Bliss, TX

  4

  Fort Worth, TX

  1

  Fort Sill, OK

  3

  Fort Huachuca, AZ

  1

  Fort Irwin, CA

  1

  Fort Leavenworth, KS

  5

  Fort Leonard Wood, MO

  2

  Fort Knox, KY

  3

  148

  Location

  Number of personnel

  Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN

  1

  Fort Drum, NY

  1

  West Point, NY

  1

  United Nations, NY

  6

  Fort Monmouth, NJ

  1

  Natick, MA

  1

  New Cumberland, PA

  1

  Carlisle College, PA

  1

  Baltimore, MD

  1

  St. Louis, IL

  1

  Student VMI

  1

  Total

  96

  Royal Air Force

  Washington, DC

  26

  Norfolk, VA

  10

  Philadelphia, PA

  12

  Marietta, GA

  7

  Chicago, IL

  1

  Wright Patterson AFB, OH

  9

  Lemoore, CA

  2

  Cherry Point, NC

  3

  Maxwell AFB, AL

  4

  Elmendorf AFB, AK

  1

  Whidbey Island, WA

  1

  Astoria, OR

  1

  Patuxent River, MD

  3

  Kelly AFB, TX

  4

  Scott AFB, IL

  2

  Hill AFB, UT

  1

  Charleston AFB, SC

  1

  Langley AFB, VA

  4

  Shepperd AFB, TX

  2

  Little Rock AFB, AR

  1

  Travis AFB, CA

  3

  Norfolk, VA

  2

  Hurlburt Field, FL

  1

  Seymore Johnson AFB, NC

  2

  Oceana, VA

  2

  Jacksonville, FL

  1

  United Nations, NY

  1

  Moody AFB, GA

  1

  Eglin AFB, FL

  1

  Kirkland AFB, NM

  1

  Luke AFB, AZ

  3

  Goodfellow AFB, MO

  1

  Miramar, CA

  1

  El Toro, CA

  1

  Lackland AFB, TX

  2

  Brooks AFB, TX

  1

  Barksdale AFB, LA

  1

  Yuma, AZ

  2

  Tinker AFB, OK

  3

  Edwards AFB, CA

  1

  USAF Academy (Co Springs), CO

  1

  Holloman AFB, NM

  1

  Peterson AFB, CO

  1

  USA Fort Rucker, AL

  1

  Robins AF, GA

  1

  Redstone Arsenal, AL

  2

  Las Vegas, NV

  2

  Los Angeles, CA

  1

  Total

  136

  Grand total

  374

  Note:

  AFB—Air Force Base.

  RAF Leeming
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tours for non-defence persons have taken place at RAF Leeming since 1 May; what was the purpose of such tours; what funds were raised through these tours; how such funds were defrayed; and if he will make a statement. [33644]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since 1 May 1997 to date RAF Leeming has hosted 104 non-defence visits which serve to generate a constructive relationship with the local community, including raising funds for local charities. Such visits have a minimal impact on the Station and its personnel and are conducted at no cost to the public purse.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 February 1998,Official Report, column 261, if he will provide the geographical location of (a) Regional Command South and (b) the new NATO headquarters for GIBMED. [33632]

  Dr. Reid
  The headquarters for Regional Command South in NATO's future command structure will be based at Naples, Italy. On the NATO command arrangements for Gibraltar which will apply under NATO's future command structure, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 25 February 1998,Official Report, column 261.

  Cwrt y Gollen Camp, Crickhowell
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Cwrt y Gollen camp, Crickhowell. [33399]

  Dr. Reid
  As the hon. Member is aware from my recent discussions with him, the future of Cwrt y Gollen is currently under consideration. I will, of course, keep him fully apprised of developments.

WALES

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people employed by(a) his Department and (b) the agencies for which his Department is responsible earn (i) less than £3.20 per hour, (ii) between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour, (iii) between £3.60 and £4 per hour and (iv) between £4 and £4.62 per hour. [30754]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  [holding answer 23 February 1998]: The number of staff, including casuals, in the Welsh Office earning:

  i. Less than £3.20 per hour: Nil

  ii. Between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour: Nil

  iii. Between £3.60 and £4 per hour: 367

  iv. Between £4 and £4.62 per hour: 69.

  The number of staff in Cadw, an Executive Agency of the Welsh Office earning:

  i. Less than £3.20 per hour: Nil

  ii. Between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour: Nil

  iii. Between £3.60 and £4 per hour: 2

  iv. Between £4 and £4.62 per hour: 25.

  Surveys
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each information, promotional, marketing and opinion survey contract, with its value, concluded by his Department and its agencies for the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–2001 and (e) 2001–2002. [32022]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The information requested is as follows:Public Opinion Survey of the Revision of the "Patient's Charter for Wales" Document—Value: £30,000 to be paid in 1998–99
  Consultation Paper on Better Ways of Involving the Public in the Planning and Oversight of NHS Services—Value: N/K— be paid in 1998–99
  Annual Surveys of Patient and User Experiences (possibly in conjunction with the Department of Health)—Timescales and costs are not yet known
  Decennial Adult Dental Health Survey—Value: £19,000 provided to the Office for National Statistics for 1997–98—Funding for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 is still under consideration.
  Business and Environment Campaign—Phase 1: Telemarketing Exercise to gauge awareness of the Department's Campaign—Value: £1,204 to be paid in 1997–98
  Business and Environment Campaign—Phase 2: Telemarketing Exercise—Value: £21,233 to be paid in 1997–98
  Welsh Design Advisory Service set up to provide Welsh companies with free advice and guidance on product design and materials choices—Value: £250,000 to be paid in 1997–98, £300,000 to be paid in 1998–199, £200,000 to be paid in 1999–2000
  Welsh House Condition Survey: Household Interview Survey—Value: £710,052.5 to be paid in 1997–98
  Welsh House Condition Survey: Physical Condition Survey—Value: £335,462 to be paid in 1997–98, £801,115 to be paid in 1998–99
  Completion of the Radon Map of Wales—Value: £64,000 to be paid over the period 1996–98
  Target Testing of Households in Radon Affected Areas—Value: £67,000 to be paid in the period 1997–99
  Research Undertaken by the University of Wales Aberystwyth Farmers Intention Study-Value: £12,375 to be paid in the period 1997–98.
  Research Undertaken by Central Office of Information on Behalf of the Welsh Office:
  Understanding Devolution Project to inform development of the "Voice of Wales" White Paper—Value: £12,986 to be paid in 1997–98
  Devolution Campaign Evaluation to evaluate the effectiveness of the Welsh Office's campaign to promote the referendum—Value: £23,148 to be paid in 1997–98
  Research to inform communications on Welsh Assembly—Value: £58,586 to be paid in 1998–99.

  Oil Spillages
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures his Department is taking to protect the breeding populations along the Welsh coastline from oil spillages. [32579]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  A number of Welsh marine sites are being considered for designation as Special Areas of Conservation under the European Council Habitats
  151
  Directive. Management plans are being drawn up for these sites in consultation with all relevant authorities, including those with shipping interests. In October, my right hon. Friend submitted the Pembrokeshire Islands, which incorporates the busy Milford Haven waterway, as a candidate SAC.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is also taking measures to prevent accidental spills. These include the rigorous enforcement of international rules and standards and the funding of three emergency towing vessels, including one in the South Western Approaches. In addition, international agreement has been obtained to a ban on virtually all operational discharges in UK waters, penalties for offenders have been increased, and port waste management planning is now mandatory for all ports, harbours and marinas.

  LG Factory (Suppliers)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many companies in Wales the industry section of the Welsh Office has assisted to act as suppliers to the new LG factory in Gwent; and if he will make a statement. [32977]

  Mr. Hain
  Current information available from the Welsh Development Agency's Source Wales, which itself has matched Wales-based suppliers to LG, shows that there are twenty two Wales-based suppliers to the company. However, we know that there are many other suppliers dealing direct with the company and with AMEC, Tarmac and their sub-contractors, which do not yet feature on the Source Wales database. The Agency is endeavouring to gather this information to provide a more complete picture.

  Of the twenty two suppliers identified, a number have been supported under the Regional Selective Assistance Scheme or the Regional Innovation Grant Scheme, most of which pre-date the LG announcement. None of these have been supported for projects specifically to supply LG although the impact of that earlier support could well have helped the companies provide a service to LG.

  I would not expect there to be many requests for support specifically to supply LG. Experience shows that businesses, whether they be indigenous or inward investors, want a diverse customer and supply base. While LG is already in production, that production is limited at this stage. I am confident that other Wales-based companies will do business with LG as the project progresses and develops and I am doing all I can to encourage this.

  Health Service (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been waiting for longer than 18 months for treatment in(a) Bro Taf and (b) the Gwent Health Authority area. [33238]
  152
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Area

  Number

  Percentage of the total list

  Bro Taf

  509

  3

  Gwent

  573

  4

  Notes:

  1. In Bro Taf, 97% of those waiting for inpatient/daycase treatment had waited less than 18 months.

  2. In Gwent, 96% of those waiting for inpatient/daycase treatment had waited less than 18 months.

  Health Service (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been waiting for longer than 12 months for treatment in the(a) Bro Taf, (b) Gwent, (c) Dyfed Powys and (d) Iechyd Morgannwg Health Authority areas. [33237]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Area

  Number

  Percentage of the total list

  Bro Taf

  2,420

  14

  Gwent

  2,047

  14

  Dyfed Powys

  1,538

  11

  Iechyd Morgannwg

  721

  7

  Across Wales, 89 per cent. of those waiting for inpatient or day case treatment had waited less than 12 months.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been waiting for in-patient treatment for longer than (i) 12 and (ii) 18 months in the North Wales Health Authority area. [33307]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  At the end of December 1997, 94 per cent. of Welsh residents in the North Wales Health Authority area waited less than 12 months for in-patient or day-case treatment and over 99 per cent. waited less than 18 months. 856 people (6 per cent. of those on the waiting list) had waited more than 12 months, and 65 people (0.6 per cent.) had waited more than 18 months.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been waiting for in-patient treatment for longer than 18 months in the(a) Dyfed Powys and (b) Iechyd Morgannwg Health Authority area. [33308]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The following is the information:Dyfed Powys: 401 (3 per cent. of the total list)
  Iechyd Morgannwg: 234 (2 per cent. of the total list)
  In Dyfed Powys 97 per cent. of those waiting for in-patient/daycase treatment had waited less than 18 months for treatment;
  In Iechyd Morgannwg 98 per cent. of those waiting for in-patient/daycase treatment had waited less than 18 months for treatment.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on(a) current hospital waiting lists and (b) hospital waiting lists in April 1997 in respect

  153
  of hospital trusts in (a) Gwent, (b) Dyfed Powys, (c) Bro Taf, (d) North Wales and (e) Iechyd Morgannwg health authority areas. [33338]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information is as set out in the table.

  HA/Trust

  March 1997

  December 1997

  inp/dcase

  o/p

  inp/dcase

  o/p

  Gwent

  Glan Hafren

  9,862

  13,779

  10,284

  14,855

  Nevin Hall

  2,431

  6,165

  2,083

  5,548

  Dyfed Powys

  Carmarthen and District

  3,865

  3,514

  4,243

  3,655

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  905

  2,126

  1,107

  2,703

  Pembrokeshire and Derwen

  4,008

  3,679

  3,824

  3,562

  Llanelli/Dinefwr

  2,421

  3,629

  1,960

  3,250

  Powys Healthcare

  221

  1,736

  339

  1,778

  Bro Taf

  East Glamorgan

  4,273

  3,722

  4,138

  3,980

  Llandough

  1,247

  2,456

  1,339

  2,725

  North Glamorgan

  1,803

  5,153

  1,901

  5,595

  Rhondda

  —

  2,234

  3

  2,305

  UHW

  11,266

  13,166

  11,804

  14,917

  North Wales

  Glan Clwyd

  3,527

  6,576

  4,297

  7,052

  Gwynedd Hospital

  2,817

  4,875

  3,883

  5,948

  Wrexham Maelor

  4,379

  6,100

  4,724

  7,321

  Morgannwg

  Bridgend and District

  2,881

  5,420

  2,993

  5,371

  Glan-y-Mor

  1,492

  4,553

  1,515

  4,979

  Morriston

  5,081

  3,883

  5,085

  4,622

  Swansea

  2,056

  5,824

  1,626

  5,337

  Note:

  Across Wales 90 per cent. of those waiting for an out-patient appointment had waited less than 6 months and 89 per cent. of those waiting for in-patient or day-case treatment had waited less than 12 months.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to allow local authorities to set the level of the non-domestic rate for their areas. [33318]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend will consult shortly on his proposals for the operation of non-domestic rates in Wales. No changes to the present arrangements will be made until there has been full consultation with representatives of the business community and with local government.

  Employment Measures
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs have been created or safeguarded in Wales through assistance from public funding in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; what is the estimated number for 1998–99; and how many of these jobs were created or safeguarded as a result of negotiations commenced after 1 May 1997. [33283]

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs were secured through assistance provided from public funds in 1996–97; how many he estimates will have 154
  been so secured in (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; and of those how many will be as a result of negotiations begun after 1 May 1997. [33278]

  Mr. Hain
  A range of services, including grant support, is provided by the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Wales Tourist Board, the Training and Enterprise Councils, local authorities and other business development organisations. Information on all these is not held centrally in the form requested.

  The following information relates to Regional Selective Assistance (RSA), the main form of regional aid in Wales. Grant is paid in instalments triggered by the achievement of agreed capital expenditure or job targets; details of jobs achieved are provided at each payment stage.

  In 1996–97, £88 million RSA was offered toward 182 projects. This amount was in total associated with the creation or safeguarding of 13,953 jobs over the estimated 3 to 5 year life of each project. Latest figures confirm the achievement of 3,308 jobs on projects where some payment has been made.

  Applications for assistance received after 1 May 1997 have so far resulted in £34.4 million RSA offered toward 97 projects with the creation or safeguarding of 7,158 jobs. To date 286 jobs have been achieved.

  As RSA is a demand-led scheme it is not possible to make estimates of jobs expected from offers which may be made in 1998–99.

  Welsh Language Road Signs
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost of providing Welsh language road signs in(a) Monmouthshire, (b) Denbighshire, (c) Flintshire and (d) Newport in the last available year. [33277]

  Mr. Hain
  None; the information requested is not collected centrally.

  Inward Investment and Trade Missions
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the inward investment and trade missions sponsored by his Department in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 and those planned for 1998–99 and the orders and jobs secured and expected to be secured by each. [33276]

  Mr. Hain
  Details of inward investment and trade missions undertaken and planned to date for the years in question are set as follows:Trade missions
  Trade missions undertaken in 1996–97 generated actual orders of just over £7 million and prospective orders of over £34.6 million. Trade missions undertaken in 1997–98 generated actual orders of just over £1.8 million and prospective orders of over £33.6 million. Details of numbers of jobs created are not collected but, of the companies involved in 1996–97, 60 have created new jobs and a further 27 expect to create employment opportunities. Of the companies involved in missions in 1997–98, 65 have reported job creation and a further 8 expect to create additional jobs.
  Inward investment missions
  The Welsh Office does not sponsor inward investment missions. Ministers do, however, participate in some inward investment missions undertaken by the Welsh Development Agency. Those

  155
  involving Ministers in 1996–97 and 1997–98 have resulted in the announcement of seven projects which promise the creation of 2,168 new jobs; 438 of those jobs have been created to date.
  In addition, there was a visit to LG in Korea in July 1996 to announce the company's project for Wales and its associated 6,106 new jobs.

  Trade missions

  Inward investment missions

  1996–97

  Republic of Ireland

  United States of America

  Germany

  Visit to LG in Korea

  Australia/New Zealand

  Japan and Korea

  South Africa

  South Korea and Taiwan

  Belgium/Netherlands

  Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/Oman

  Japan

  1997–98

  The Philippines/Vietnam

  Japan and Korea

  Hungary/Czech Republic

  Denmark

  Republic of Ireland

  Bahrain/Dubai/Jordan

  Thailand/Malaysia

  Argentina/Chile

  Israel

  Italy

  1998–99 (Planned)

  Spain

  Japan

  Poland

  South Africa

  Australia/New Zealand

  Saudi Arabia

  Singapore

  Republic of Ireland

  Green Belt
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the next figures for the amount of Green Belt land in Wales will be published. [33478]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  There are currently no Green Belts in Wales.

  New Deal (Pilot Schemes)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the New Deal pilot schemes. [33530]

  Mr. Hain
  I am delighted to say that we have made good and rapid progress in implementing the New Deal for young people in the South-West Wales Pathfinder.

  To date, well over 2,000 interviews with unemployed young people have been completed and almost 1,200 jobs pledged by more than 250 employers. A further 400 employers are expected to sign-up in the next three months.

  This represents an excellent start to our crusade to bring hope to young jobless people and one which we will build-on when the New Deal is launched throughout Wales in April.

  Concordats
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many draft concordats his Department is currently preparing; who they are intended to be with; and what are the issues and matters covered by them. [33839]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) on 27 February 1998,Official Report, column 393. I anticipate that the National Assembly for Wales will need concordats with a number of Ministerial and non-ministerial departments, although it is too early to say how many.

  Drafting of the concordats will take some months but, subject to the restrictions in the Government's White Paper on Freedom of Information, the drafts will be published as soon as they are finalised.

  Official Secrets Act
  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what reasons elected members of the Welsh Assembly are to be subject to the Official Secrets Act. [33722]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Official Secrets Act 1989 makes it an offence for a Crown servant to make a damaging disclosure without authorisation of information relating to security and intelligence, defence, international relations, crime and special investigation powers of information entrusted in confidence to other states.

  Clause 79 of the Government of Wales Bill seeks to apply the provisions of the 1989 Act, which apply to Ministers of the Crown (including Welsh Office Ministers) to those who will exercise corresponding functions within the National Assembly. Functions of the Assembly could be delegated to the Executive Committee, and also to subject committees. Clause 79 is drafted to enable those who exercise relevant functions to be in receipt of information subject to the Official Secrets Act on the same terms as Ministers are now.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the value of export orders for goods and services lost by companies in Wales because of changes in exchange and interest rates since 1 May 1997(a) in the current financial year and (b) in each of the next two financial years. [33619]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The economic effects of exchange rate and interest rate changes are difficult to isolate, especially at the regional level. Recent business surveys suggest that export orders in Wales have been hit by the strength of sterling, as in all other UK regions, but that output in the Welsh economy continues to expand.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Experience (Commercial Sponsors)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what commercial sponsors of the Millennium Dome will receive in return for their money. [30513]
  157
  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 9 March 1998,Official Report, column 59.

  Millennium Experience (New Deal)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many jobs will be made available to young people under the New Deal at the Millennium Experience. [31349]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Millennium Experience at Greenwich is expected to create 2,000 new jobs during construction, and a further 5,000 during the life of the Experience. The New Millennium Experience Company will be co-operating fully with Greenwich council, other local authorities in the area, and all other appropriate agencies to optimise opportunities under the New Deal and other programmes aimed at increasing job opportunities for young people.

  Millennium Experience (Churches)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if the Church of England will be required to pay for its exhibits in the Millennium Experience; and if other religions will be required to participate on the same basis. [31650]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is working closely with Christian churches and other faith communities through the Lambeth Group to ensure that the Dome's contents reflect the contribution of Christianity and other religions to society. The NMEC is considering a number of sponsorship approaches relating to the zone whose working title is "Spirit Level".

  Smaller Millennium Dome
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on the contents of the smaller Millennium Dome; how it will be funded; and when the decision was taken to build it, and by whom. [31966]

  Mr. Mandelson
  A small theatre style building was part of the original proposal for which the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) received planning permission in January 1997. The facility proposed by the NMEC has a seating capacity for between 5,000 and 6,000 people. It will be funded from within NMEC's existing budget. The NMEC are currently developing proposals for the events and activities to be held in the smaller Dome.

  Millennium Experience (Camelot)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio when he began discussions with Camelot concerning possible sponsorship of the New Millennium Experience. [32232]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have had no discussions with Camelot. The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is responsible for delivering the project, including achieving sponsorship. Camelot has been in discussion with the NMEC since the summer of 1997.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on the role of Camelot as the distributor of tickets for the Millennium Experience. [32896]
  158
  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) announced, on 24 February, their agreement in principle with Camelot to be official distributor of Millennium Experience tickets. This would put a ticket outlet within three miles of 95 per cent. of the UK population. Precise details of Camelot's role and involvement is subject to further discussion and negotiation between them and the NMEC.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service (Disabled Employees)
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to improve the opportunities for employment and career development of disabled people in the Civil Service. [33215]

  Dr. David Clark
  My Department has established a number of initiatives to improve opportunities for disabled staff in the Civil Service.

  The Programme for Action to Achieve Equality of Opportunity for Disabled People in the Civil Service provides a framework to help departments and agencies to recruit, develop and promote people on merit regardless of whether they have a disability. It is complemented by a good practice guide, "Focus on Ability", which gives practical advice.

  Progress made under the Programme for Action is monitored by my department and reported to Parliament in the biennial Progress Report on Equal Opportunities in the Civil Service.

  Overall numbers of disabled staff in the Civil Service have risen. Action to increase the number of disabled staff at senior levels is being taken primarily through the implementation of the recommendations made by an independent Advisory Panel on Equal Opportunities in the Senior Civil Service.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which EU member states have been given credit against their MAGP targets, affecting beam trawlers, for a reduction in the overall beam length. [32184]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  Footnote 4 to the table in Commission Decision 98/121/EC, approving the new MAGP IV objectives for the fishing fleet of the Netherlands, refers to compensation for a decrease in efficiency resulting from a reduction in beam length. I understand that this reflects the outcome of discussions between the Commission and the Netherlands about the Dutch MAGP III figures. Similar discussions took place about certain aspects of the UK MAGP III figures, which also resulted in adjustments in MAGP IV though these did not cover the question of beam length in our case. I am not aware of any other adjustments relating to beam length for any other Member State.
  159
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the position of a fisherman who exhausts his effort allocation before he has caught his quota; and if he will make a statement. [32182]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  As the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), has already made clear, the Government's preference is for controls on fishing effort to be managed by the industry itself, along the lines of existing quota management arrangements. Following discussions with industry representatives the available fishing effort in the pelagic and beam trawl segments has accordingly been allocated between the various producers' organisations (POs) and groups concerned. They have been invited to manage their uptake of effort to stay within these allocations on whatever basis they and their members consider appropriate. The Government are not seeking to impose any particular formula for this and are not making any allocations of effort to individual vessels. POs and groups will therefore have the flexibility to respond to local circumstances and, within their allocations, to take account of any special factors affecting particular members.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what legislative power he will impose effort targets on producer organisations. [32185]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The legal obligation to reduce fishing effort by the UK fleet is contained in Commission Decision 98/124/EC which in turn is based on Council Decision 97/413/EC. As with management of catch quotas, the rules under which effort allocations have been made to producers' organizations are administrative and have been drawn up after full consultation with industry representatives. Any action to prevent further fishing by members of a producers' organisation which has exceeded its effort allocation will be taken by a licence variation under Section 4 of the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the means by which(a) Spain, (b) the Netherlands, (c) France, (d) Denmark and (e) Germany plan to achieve their MAGP IV objectives; if applications have been made to the European Union Commission for each of their schemes; what timespan the Commission has set for the implementation of each of the schemes; and if he will make a statement. [33038]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the terms of Council Decision 97/413/EC, all maritime Member States had until 30 June 1997 to submit to the European Commission national fishing effort limitation programmes for achieving the objectives fixed in MAGP IV, identifying and quantifying the means by which this is to be done. The Commission then had until 30 November 1997 to discuss these plans in detail with the Member States concerned and subsequently to approve them, with whatever modifications were found to be necessary.

  In the event this process was not completed until 16 December 1997 and the resulting series of Commission Decisions was not published in the Official Journal of the European Communities until 12 February 1998. All 13 programmes are contained in volume L39 and all cover the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001.

  Beef (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the outstanding issues requiring resolution in order to satisfy(a) the Standing Veterinary Committee, (b) the Commission, (c) the Council of Ministers and (d) other bodies directly involved in the process of the lifting of the ban on Northern Ireland beef exports, to the extent that they will support a recommendation to approve the Northern Ireland Certified Herd-Scheme; and when he expects the matter to go before the Council of Ministers. [31910]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 27 February 1998]: At the Standing Veterinary Committee on 4 March, ten member states supported the Commission's proposal for the Export Certified Herds Scheme. One member state abstained, pending further clarification of technical concerns, while supporting the principle of resuming exports under the arrangements laid down in the Florence Agreement. Four member states remain concerned about the controls governing eligibility for the scheme despite the fact that it had the Commission's full support. Because the proposal was not adopted by qualified majority, it has been referred to the Agriculture Council for a decision on 16–17 March.

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people employed by(a) his Department and (b) the agencies for which his Department is responsible earn (i) less than £3.20 per hour, (ii) between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour, (iii) between £3.60 and £4 per hour and (iv) between £4 and £4.62 per hour. [30757]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 February 1998]: Staff in the Department are salaried and are not paid by the hour. However, I am able to provide a breakdown based on salary levels divided by normal full-time working hours of 36 hours per week in London or 37 hours elsewhere. This is set out in the table. The figures are based on 1997 salaries which took effect from 1 April.

  Core MAFF

  (i) less than £3.20 per hour

  0

  (ii) between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour

  430

  (iii) between £3.60 and £4.00 Per hour

  332

  (iv) between £4.00 and £4.62 per hour

  400

  I have asked the Chief Executives of the Department's Agencies to respond to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Alan Duncan, dated 10 March 1998:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food enquiring about the number of people employed at various hourly rates has been passed to me for reply with regard to this Executive Agency.
  MHS staff are salaried and not paid by the hour. However I am able to provide date based on salary levels divided by normal full time working hours of 37 per week.
  The MHS does not employ any persons at salary levels at less than £3.20 per hour; between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour or between £3.60 and £4.00 per hour.
  7 people are employed at an hourly rate of between £4.00 and £4.62 an hour.
  161
  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Alan Duncan, dated 10 March 1998:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on hourly rates of pay within the Veterinary Laboratories Agency.
  Staff at the VLA are salaried and are not paid by the hour. However, I am able to provide a breakdown based on the salary levels divided by normal working hours of 36 or 37 hours per week, depending on the location and grade of the staff. This is set out below. The figures are based on 1997 salaries which took effect from 1 April 1997.

  Number

  (i) Less than £3.20 per hour

  0

  (ii) Between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour

  0

  (iii) Between £3.60 and £4.00 per hour

  0

  (iv) Between £4.00 and £4.62 per hour

  107

  Letter from P. W. Greig-Smith to Mr. Alan Duncan, dated 10 March 1998:
  As Agency Chief Executive, I am responding to Mr Duncan's question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding hourly rates of pay for staff within the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science.
  Staff within this Agency are salaried and are not paid by the hour. However, I am able to provide a breakdown based on salary levels divided by normal full-time working hours of 37 hours per week for all shore-based staff. This is set out below. The figures are based on 1997 salaries which took effect from 1 April.
  The Marine staff on the Agency's research vessels are also included in the table but the breakdown is based on a full-time working week of 56 hours, which reflects the shift system in operation covering a seven day working week.

  Number

  (i) less than £3.20 per hour

  0

  (ii) between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour

  1

  (iii) between £3.60 and £4.00 per hour

  5

  (iv) between £4.00 and £4.62 per hour

  21

  Letter from John Fitzgerald to Mr. Alan Duncan, dated 10 March 1998:
  In my Chief Executive's absence, the Minister has asked me to reply to your question about hourly rates of pay for staff in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) as this is an operational matter for which the Chief Executive is responsible.
  Staff in the VMD are salaried and not paid by the hour. However, based on salary levels divided by normal full time working hours of 36 hours per week, I can confirm that none of VMD's staff is paid less than £4.00 per hour and 6 staff are paid between £4.00 and £4.62 per hour. These figures are based on 1997 salaries which took effect from 1 April 1997.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. Alan Duncan, dated 10 March 1998:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question concerning the rates of pay for staff employed within the Agency.
  The information you requested is as follows:

  Number of staff

  (i) Less than £3.20 per hour

  0

  (ii) Between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour

  6

  (iii) Between £3.60 and £4.00 per hour

  2

  (iv) Between £4.00 and £4.62 per hour

  6

  162
  Letter from P. 1. Stanley to Mr. Alan Duncan, dated 10 March 1998:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), to your question concerning hourly rates of pay for employees.
  staff in CSL are salaried and are not paid by the hour. However, I am able to provide information based on salary levels divided by the normal full-time working hours of 37 per week and this is set out in the table below.

  Rate of pay

  Number of employees

  Less than £3.20 per hour

  0

  Between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour

  0

  Between £3.60 and £4.00 per hour

  1

  Between £4.00 and £4.62 per hour

  6

  These figures are based on salaries which took effect from 1 August 1997.
  Letter from Michael Finnigan to Mr. Alan Duncan, dated 10 March 1998:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the hourly rate of earnings within the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA).
  Staff in FRCA are salaried and not paid by the hour. Set out below is a breakdown based on salary levels divided by normal full-time working hours of 36 hours per week in London, or 37 hours elsewhere. The figures are based on 1997 salaries which took effect from 1 April.

  FRCA

  (i) less than £3.20 per hour

  0

  (ii) between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour

  0

  (iii) between £3.60 and £4.00 per hour

  1

  (iv) between £4.00 and £4.62 per hour

  8

  Animal Health Products (Germany)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the use in Germany of animal health products banned in the United Kingdom. [33007]

  Mr. Rooker
  Such assessment is a matter for the Member State concerned.

  Farmers
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the number of(a) dairy farmers and (b) general livestock farmers who will be in business in 2003; and what are the current figures. [33000]

  Mr. Rooker
  No. It would not be possible to derive such estimates without making a large number of assumptions. Restructuring of the agriculture industry is a continuous process. Currently, there are about 30,000 agricultural holdings in the United Kingdom classified as dairying and about 90,000 classified as cattle and sheep holdings. These do not include holdings where dairy herds or cattle and sheep are not the main enterprise.

  Veterinary Medicines (Adverse Reactions)
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on
  163
  moving the responsibility for the monitoring and subsequent investigation of human suspected adverse reactions to veterinary medicines from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate to an independent research institute or university department. [32850]

  Mr. Rooker
  This recommendation of the Agriculture Committee was carefully reviewed by a Group convened by Professor D. H. Lawson, Chairman of the Medicines Commission. The Group concluded in November 1996 that it could not identify any independent body capable of taking over the Suspected Adverse Reactions Surveillance Scheme (SARSS). However the Group made a number of recommendations designed to improve public confidence in the objectivity of the Scheme's administration, including the reconstruction of the SARSS Appraisal Panel with an exclusively independent membership, all of which were accepted by the Government.

  Imported Oxheads
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the safety of importing oxheads for use in(a) patés and (b) other foods. [33003]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Specified Risk Material Order 1997, which came into force on 1 January, prohibits the importation of ox-heads from animals more than 12 months of age (except those born, reared and slaughtered in Australia or New Zealand) for use in any food or animal feed because they contain Specified Risk Material as defined in Commission Decision 97/534/EC.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what charges are made to importers of meat products to cover the expenses of health and hygiene inspections; and what assessment he has made of the impact of these charges on competition in the United Kingdom market between domestic and imported products. [33002]

  Mr. Rooker
  Council Directive 85/73/EEC, as amended, lays down minimum fees for veterinary checks at Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) on fresh meat and meat products imported into the Community from third countries. At present, for imports from all countries other than New Zealand, the minimum fee is 5 ECU a tonne and 30 ECU per consignment. The real costs of inspections are charged to importers, by the local authorities responsible for the BIPs, where these exceed the minimum fee. For New Zealand, in accordance with the Veterinary Equivalence Agreement between the EC and New Zealand, standard fees of 1.5 ECU a tonne and 30 ECU per consignment apply.

  Directive 85/73/EEC also requires Member States to recover the costs of those hygiene inspections conducted at licensed fresh meat premises in accordance with harmonised EC meat hygiene rules. The Directive lays down standard charges (in ECUs) for hygiene inspections of red meat, poultry meat and game meat. Where the actual costs of inspection exceeds the standard charge, the Directive provides for actual costs to be charged. Thus both imported and domestically produced fresh meat is subject to hygiene inspection to ensure compliance with
  164
  EC rules before being placed on the market, for which a harmonised fee is charged, in accordance with Directive 85/73/EEC.

  Animal Food Products (South America)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the risk of infection with E.coli in imported animal food products from South America. [33001]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are not aware of any evidence that implicates animal food products from South America in incidents of E.coli poisoning in the UK.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many and what proportion of representations from(a) hon. Members and (b) others on his proposed vitamin B6 regulations were in favour of the proposals since July 1997. [33517]

  Mr. Rooker
  The regulations required to introduce the proposed controls on dietary supplements containing vitamin B6 have yet to be issued for consultation. However, the Government have received a large number of unsolicited representations since they announced in July their intention to make legislation to implement the recommendations of its advisory committees. No record has been kept of the number of representations which have either favoured or opposed the proposed controls.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he will issue guidelines on badger management in relation to areas where the Krebs experiment takes the form of such management; and if he will consult before implementing the guidelines; [33726]

  (2) if it will be his policy to apply the Krebs experiment in all appropriate areas which suffer a high level of bovine TB incidence over a long period; [33734]

  (3) what policy he will adopt in areas where the experiment takes the form of extermination (a) to ensure that the areas selected for the Krebs experiments are sufficiently isolated from their surroundings and (b) to ensure that the defined areas are sufficiently homogeneous, in the absence of a power to force landowners to exterminate badgers. [33736]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is important that the culling experiment recommended in the Krebs report on TB in Cattle and Badgers is capable of providing scientifically robust conclusions. Decisions on the timing and conduct of the experiment will not be reached until we have advice from the Expert Group set up in February under the chairmanship of Professor Bourne to advise on these issues.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to consult farmers' representatives in relation to management practices at the point of a TB breakdown. [33732]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Krebs report makes some important recommendations on management practices. I shall certainly be discussing implementation of these and other
  165
  aspects of the report with farmers' representatives once we have made a preliminary assessment of all the responses to the consultation exercise on the report.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what forecast he has made of the PSBR costs of bovine TB at the present rate of increase in bovine TB incidence over the next 10 years. [33735]

  Mr. Rooker
  Departmental provision, including for bovine TB, for 1999–2000 and beyond is under review as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The costs of the TB control programme are potentially affected by a number of factors, including the EU legislative provisions governing TB testing which are currently under discussion in Brussels, and the incidence of the disease.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what powers he will implement the Krebs recommendations. [33725]

  Mr. Rooker
  We shall announce how we propose to take forward implementation of the recommendations in the Krebs report once we have fully considered the responses to the public consultation on the report and in the light of advice from the Expert Group.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will offer the 125 per cent. compensation rate applied in the Woodchester Park experiments to all farmers with cases of bovine TB in areas where the Krebs experiment takes the form of total protection of badgers. [33733]

  Mr. Rooker
  We see no grounds for asking taxpayers to meet a larger share of farmers' losses. We are assessing the implications of implementation of the Krebs report for the enhanced compensation arrangements which currently apply at Woodchester Park (100 per cent. of either the animal's market value or 125 per cent. of the average monthly market price two months before valuation, whichever is less, plus consequential losses).

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will implement Professor Kreb's recommendation that independent research should be conducted into(a) a definitive live animal test for bovine TB, (b) vaccines and (c) DNA-typing of badger latrines to identify whether badger setts are infected; what his timetable for such implementation will be; and what plans he has to institute a profit levy on manufacturers in the event that exchequer-funded experiments in these areas are successful. [33731]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are currently considering our TB research requirements in the light of the Krebs recommendations. We intend to publish a research requirements document in early April. This approach to commissioning research represents a significant move in the direction of open competition to ensure research is conducted by groups with the best expertise. However, elements of the programme that require particular facilities and expertise may be placed directly with commissioned contractors.

  We would usually arrange to share with researchers any royalty revenue stream in the event of any commercially exploitable Intellectual Property (IP) arising from a project.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies for which his Department is responsible, (c) schools, (d) colleges and (e) universities earn (i) less than £3.20 per hour, (ii) between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour, (iii) between £3.60 and £4 per hour and (iv) between £4 and £4.62 per hour. [30745]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 23 February 1998]The number of permanent staff in the Department for Education and Employment currently earning:

  less than £3.20 per hour is 0

  between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour is 83

  between £3.60 and £4 per hour is 20

  between £4 and £4.62 per hour is 25.

  The number of permanent staff in the Employment Service and DfEE staff in the Government Offices currently earning:

  less than £3.20 per hour is 0

  between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour is 0

  between 3.60 and £4 per hour is 874

  between £4 and 4.62 per hour is 264.

  The other information requested for schools, colleges and universities can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has(a) to reduce the number of car parking spaces available for use by staff and (b) to introduce charges for staff using workplace car parking spaces. [32453]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 3 March 19981: In line with the Guide to Green Transport Plans circulated last September by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), DfEE will actively consider this issue in preparing Green Transport Plans for its key buildings.

  Mathematics Teachers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many mathematics teachers in secondary schools were teaching the subject in each of the last three secondary staffing surveys. [33832]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Estimates of full-time teachers in secondary schools who held a qualification in mathematics and were teaching mathematics are given in the table:

  Year of survey

  Number of teachers1

  1988

  22,000

  1992

  21,000

  19962

  20,000

  1In addition there were some 4,000 teachers in secondary schools in 1988 and 2,000 in 1992 who held a qualification with mathematics as a subsidiary subject and were teaching mathematics.
  167
  2In 1996 no distinction was made between main and subsidiary subjects of qualifications, and only up to three subjects per qualification were collected compared with up to four subjects in 1988 and 1992.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many mathematics teachers there were in each of the last three staffing surveys whose highest qualification in mathematics was(a) a specialist degree or higher qualification in mathematics, (b) a degree in a related subject, (c) a PGCE or other certificate and (d) an Education degree. [33837]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Estimates of full-time teachers in secondary schools with a qualification in mathematics are given in the table:

  Highest qualification1

  Year of Survey

  Degree

  Bed

  PGCE/Cert Ed

  1988

  11,000

  3,000

  10,000

  1992

  11,000

  3,000

  11,000

  19962

  13,000

  5,000

  9,000

  1In addition there were some 2,000 teachers in 1988 and 1992 who held other qualifications with mathematics as a main subject, and 16,000 in 1988 and 11,000 in 1992 who held a qualification with mathematics as a subsidiary subject.

  2In 1996 no distinction was made between main and subsidiary subjects of qualifications, and only up to three subjects per qualification were collected compared with up to four subjects in 1988 and 1992. In 1996 there were 1,000 teachers who held other qualifications in mathematics.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the LEAs who bid for money to reduce the size of classes at KS1 and had their bids(a) turned down and (b) reduced, indicating in each case the number of KS1 pupils in the authority's schools and the original amount of the bid. [33834]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 4 March 1998,Official Report, column 677.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the size of the original bid by the Funding Agency for Schools to reduce KS 1 classes; and to what extent it was scaled down. [33833]

  Mr. Byers
  Of the £22 million available to reduce infant class sizes in 1998–99, £680,000 was allocated to the Funding Agency for Schools pro rata on the basis of pupil numbers in GM primary schools. No specific bidding or applications process was involved.

  School Sizes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) infant, (b) junior and (c) primary schools there were with (i) less than 50 pupils and (ii) less than 100 pupils in September 1997. [33723]

  Mr. Byers
  Information on pupils in primary schools in September is not collected centrally.

  Teachers (Qualifications)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers working in primary schools do not have GCSE grade 'C' or equivalent in English and mathematics. [33724]
  168
  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not held centrally.

  Rural Primary School Teachers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the grade of Advanced Skills Teacher is available to teachers working in rural primary schools. [33840]

  Mr. Byers
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is still consulting on his proposals to introduce a new grade of Advanced Skills Teacher. We do not intend that there should be any legal impediment to Advanced Skills Teacher posts being established in any school, or to prevent teachers working in rural primary schools from applying for such posts.

  New Deal (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of jobs for sick and disabled people which will be created by the New Deal scheme in Coventry. [33648]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The aim of the New Deal for Disabled People is not specifically to create jobs but to explore a range of approaches to identify the most effective ways of helping disabled people and those with long-term health problems to move into work, and to avoid becoming dependent on long-term incapacity benefits in the first place. Until the results of the first year pilots are available it would not be sensible to predict the likely numbers of those who will secure work through this approach either nationally or in a particular locality such as Coventry.

  European Union
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his Department approved the contents of "What Exactly is Europe? A Classroom Guide to the European Union"; and how many copies have been distributed in the United Kingdom. [32976]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. The booklet was produced by the Commission Representation in London. They asked British teachers to write it and then sent samples to headteachers. Around 134,000 copies have since been distributed to schools.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Power Generators
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she has seen a copy of the signed agreement reached by the Paymaster General with the power generators. [26412]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: No agreement was reached between the power generators and the Government. Arrangements for coal deliveries were agreed by the relevant parties.

  Coal Purchases
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the effect of the recent mild weather on(a) future purchases of coal by the generators and (b) the timing of deliveries of coal to the generators. [32691]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: The volumes of coal purchased by the generators and the timing of deliveries are governed by the contracts between the generators and their various coal suppliers. The volume of coal actually burnt is, in part, influenced by the weather and variations against planned levels of burn may be reflected in the level of coal stocks held by the generators. The relationship between the weather and stock levels is not straightforward. Stock levels have fallen in recent months despite the mild weather.

  PA Consulting Group
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many contracts her Department has placed with PA Consulting Group since 1979; and what has been the aggregate value of these contracts. [33488]

  Mrs. Beckett
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Pharmaceuticals
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the comparative price of over-the-counter medicines in(a) the UK and (b) the rest of the EU. [33464]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) on 11 February 1998,Official Report, column 217.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of inward investment into Britain in the last quarter of(a) 1997 and (b) 1996. [33297]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 6 March 1998]: I refer the right hon. Member to my answer to him on 16 February 1998, Official Report, columns 510-11. Information for the fourth quarter of 1997 will be published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on 20 March 1998.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice the Government have received concerning the legality of a moratorium on new gas-fired power stations. [33298]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 5 March 1998]: I am satisfied that the arrangements for the handling of applications in relation to new power stations set out in
  170
  my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) of 22 December 1997, Official Report, columns 519–20, are legally sound.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances the Government would consider an application for a new gas-fired power station before the conclusion of her review of energy sources for power generation. [33299]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 6 March 1998]: Our general approach is to defer decisions on power station applications until the work of the Review has been completed. I have said I would be prepared to consider, on their merits, reasoned requests for exceptions to be made in particular cases. In this context, I have also said I would be mindful of the environmental and other benefits of combined heat and power. I have indicated that such requests should be made in writing.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements she will make for the appointment of new lay members to the industrial tribunals. [34109]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government wish to review the recruitment and appointments procedures for industrial tribunal lay members to encourage the appointment of lay members from a wide variety of backgrounds, and to ensure that they are in line with the guidance of the Commissioner of Public Appointments. It is important that all users of tribunals have confidence in the lay members appointed to the tribunals and we therefore intend to consult the social partners and other interested parties on the review. We propose to make the next appointments of new lay members to the industrial tribunals in October 1999.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Officials (Entry Warrants)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of her officials are authorised to enter premises without a warrant. [29045]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There are no circumstances in which officials of this Department, in the course of their duties, are authorised to enter any premises without a warrant unless invited to do so by the owner or occupier.

  Benefit Entitlement
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings would be made by withdrawing entitlement to(a) the state pension, (b) maternity pay and (c) disability living allowance from (i) households and (ii) individuals with gross income in excess of (1) £1,000,000 per annum, (2) £500,000 per annum, (3) £100,000 per annum, (4) £50,000 per annum, (5) £40,000 per annum and (6) £30,000 per annum. [23353]
  171
  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

  Estimated savings from withdrawing entitlement to basic retirement pension from those (i) benefit units (ii) individuals with gross income in excess of given thresholds: 1997–98

  £ million

  Total gross income in excess of:

  Basic state retirement pension

  £30,000 p.a.

  £40,000 p.a.

  £50,000 p.a.1

  (i) Benefit unit income

  1,200

  600

  350

  (ii) Individual income

  450

  250

  150

  1Due to the small sample size, figures are not available separately for income in excess of £100,000 p.a.; £500,000 p.a. and £1 million p.a.

  Notes:

  1. Results rounded to nearest £50 million.

  2. Retirement Pension is a taxable benefit; as such removal of entitlement will lead to a fall in tax revenues. This effect is not allowed for in the above table.

  3. No adjustment is made for any effects of the loss of RP on entitlement to other benefits.

  4. Total gross income includes the Retirement Pension.

  5. The Family Resources Survey is based on a sample of private households—the above estimates assume that recipients in residential care share the income characteristics of those in private households.

  6. A "benefit unit" is a single adult or a couple, together with any dependent children. (Adults living in the same household as their parent(s) are each classified as separate benefit units, and are assessed separately for Income Support or Family Credit)

  7. Figures are for Great Britain.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1995/96, Government's Expenditure Plans 1997–98 to 1999–2000.

  Estimated savings from withdrawing entitlement to SMP to women with annual taxable pay (net of pension contributions) in excess of given thresholds: 1995–96

  £ million

  Annual taxable pay (net of pension contributions) in excess of:

  Statutory maternity pay

  £30,000 p.a.

  £40,000 p.a.1

  Total SMP payments made in 1995–962

  12.7

  6.7

  1Due to the small sample size, figures are not available separately for income in excess of £50,000 p.a.; £100,000 p.a.; and £1 million p.a.

  21995–96 is the latest tax year for which information is available.

  Notes:

  1. Includes sums paid where the SMP period straddles two tax years (1994–95 and 1996–97).

  2. Information is only available for individuals.

  3. Figures are for Great Britain.

  4. Figures rounded to the nearest £100,000.

  Source:

  The Lifetime Labour Market Database (LLMDB), a 1 per cent. sample of the National Insurance Recording System taken at February 1997.
  172

  Estimated savings from withdrawing entitlement to disability living allowance from those benefit units with gross income in excess of given thresholds: 1997–98

  £ million

  Total gross income in excess of:

  Disability living allowance

  £30,000 p.a.

  £40,000 p.a.1

  Benefit unit income1

  200

  100

  1Due to the small sample size, figures are not available for individual income, or for benefit unit income in bands in excess of £50,000 p.a.; £100,000 p.a.; and £500,000 p.a.; and £1 million p.a.

  Notes:

  1. Results rounded to nearest £50 million.

  2. Loss of Disability Living Allowance entitlement affects entitlement to other benefits e.g. Income Support premia and Invalid Care Allowance. This effect is not allowed for in the above table.

  3. Total gross income includes the Disability Living Allowance received.

  4. The Family Resources Survey is based on a sample of private households-the above estimates assume that recipients in residential care share the income characteristics of those in private households.

  5. A "benefit unit" is a single adult or a couple, together with any dependent children. (Adults living in the same household as their parent(s) are each classified as separate benefit units, and are assessed separately for Income Support or Family Credit).

  6. Figures are for Great Britain.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1995–96, Government's Expenditure Plans 1997–98 to 1999–2000.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households are in receipt of housing benefit for(a) local authority homes, (b) private rented homes and (c) housing association homes. [28803]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is set out in the table.

  Housing benefit recipients—Great Britain—August 1997

  Number

  Local Authority tenants

  2,762,400

  Private tenants (excluding Housing Association tenants)

  1,039,760

  Housing Association tenants

  789,500

  Note:

  Recipients may be a single person or a couple.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Summary Statistics 1997—Update Number 2—available in the Library.

  Child Support
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time between the Child Support Agency receiving an application and a maintenance award being made(a) in all cases and (b) in cases where the absent parent is an absent parent to more than one parent with care. [28596]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  We are looking for substantial and sustained operational improvements from the Child Support Agency, in particular on getting more maintenance paid, reducing the backlog and improving customer service.
  173
  The Child Support Agency aims to clear 60 per cent. of new maintenance applications within 26 weeks of receipt. In the current year, performance has been affected by the clearance of a substantial number of older cases. Nevertheless, in the months from April to the end of December 1997, 72 per cent. of maintenance applications were cleared within 26 weeks. A special exercise carried out by Departmental statisticians indicated that, including cases from the backlog, the median clearance time for those that resulted in a maintenance assessment for the three months ending 30 November 1997 was 37 weeks. Currently, around a third of all applications cleared by the Agency result in a maintenance assessment.

  Average clearance times are not available for cases where a non-resident parent has more than one parent with care.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if, in a case where two parents with care make application to the Child Support Agency, with respect to the same absent parent, the first parent with care is given priority over the second; [28598]

  (2) what measures she proposes to take in cases where the absent parent is an absent parent to more than one parent with care, and when the second parent with care makes application to the CSA before the first parent with care's application is processed. [28597]

  Quarter

  Appeals heard

  Percentage of Child Support Officer's decisions upheld 1

  Cases awaiting hearing

  Average clearance time (weeks)

  October to December 1993

  22

  50

  586

  n/a

  January to March 1994

  58

  55.1

  1,694

  n/a

  April to June 1994

  161

  51.5

  2,538

  n/a

  July to September 1994

  248

  40.3

  3,480

  n/a

  October to December 1994

  437

  33.4

  4,337

  n/a

  January to March 1995

  593

  29

  4,994

  n/a

  April to June 1995

  941

  24.3

  4,637

  n/a

  July to September 1995

  879

  16.7

  4,400

  n/a

  October to December 1995

  1,010

  14.3

  4,474

  42.58

  January to March 1996

  1,563

  16.2

  4,347

  40.29

  April to June 1996

  1,845

  15.3

  3,734

  36.32

  July to September 1996

  1,511

  14.8

  3,815

  32.4

  October to December 1996

  1,559

  16.5

  3,957

  30.46

  January to March 1997

  1,741

  17.9

  3,904

  27.48

  April to June 1997

  1,865

  18.8

  3,875

  27.79

  July to September 1997

  2,345

  22.8

  4,037

  25.36

  1The percentage figures are calculated by including all cases cleared at hearing, adjourned and postponed.

  Notes:

  1.There was a total of 16,778 appeals heard between 1 October 1993 and 30 September 1997. During the same four year period the Child Support Agency cleared 1,786,271 maintenance applications.

  2. Appeals where Child Support Officer's decisions were not upheld include all of those cases where the tribunal overturned any part of the Child Support Officer's decision, whether or not this was the subject of the appeal.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) current and (b) future pensioners own personal pension plans. [28476]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available using data drawn from the 1995 General Household Survey and Office of National Statistics population estimates is that in 1995 around 8.8 million individuals of working age had owned a personal pension plan.
  174
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Where there are two or more parents with care in respect of the same absent parent, applications for maintenance are normally dealt with in the order they are received. The non-resident parent's liability to pay maintenance for his children is then shared out between the parents with care based on their respective maintenance requirements.

  Child support regulations that came into effect on 5 August 1996 cater for maintenance applications being processed other than in the normal order. However applications from more than one parent with care for maintenance from the same non-resident parent which were received before 5 August 1996 are not covered by these regulations. Procedures have now been developed for handling such applications.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many child support appeal tribunal hearings have been held in each quarter to date; in what percentage of cases the CSO's decision was upheld; how many cases are awaiting a hearing; and what is the average time from the letter of appeal being received to a tribunal decision being made. [30056]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The operation of the appeals system is a matter for the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS). The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  The Lifetime Labour Market Database (based on 1 per cent. Sample of National Insurance records) estimates that, at the end of the financial year 1995–96, 5,499,0001 individuals of working age owned appropriate personal pension plans.
  Note:
  1This figure has been rounded to the nearest 1,000.
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect in(a) gross pensions expenditure, (b) income-related benefits expenditure and (c) income tax revenues, of relaxing contribution rules so

  175
  that all adults over state pension age were to be immediately entitled to a full basic state pension in their own right. [31033]

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

  £ billion

  GB 1998–99

  Costs(+) / Savings(-)

  Additional RP cost

  6.2

  Offsets for other benefits paid to those over state pension age

  -0.8

  Income-related benefit offset

  -1.2

  Income tax offset

  -0.3

  Total net cost

  3.9

  Notes:

  1. The costs/savings are in 1998–99 prices and are rounded to the nearest £0.1 billion.

  2. Estimates of the gross cost are provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  3. The estimate of the change in income tax revenue, provided by the Inland Revenue, uses a projection of the 1995–96 Family Expenditure Survey.

  4. Means-tested benefit offsets were calculated using the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey and the May 1996 Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, both uprated to 1997–98 prices, benefits and earnings levels, and calibrated to the forecasts underlying the 1997 Departmental Report.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make it her policy to phase out SERPs by closing it off to new entrants. [32974]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are committed to retaining SERPS as an option for those who wish to remain in it. All representations on the future of SERPS are being considered as part of the Pensions Review.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has received regarding the advantages of pension contributions being made on a voluntary basis. [32876]

  Mr. Denham
  Contributions to the State pension scheme including the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme or a contracted out second pension are compulsory for most people in employment. As part of the public consultation exercise of the Pensions Review, we received a number of representations proposing that contributions to private second pensions, that is, over and above the contracted out element, should remain voluntary and not compulsory. We are currently considering all of the representations we have received.

  The Government's starting point is the need to secure better value from the contributions which people make to pensions and to make the best use of the money already in the system, whether this comes directly from individuals and employers, or indirectly from them through the NI system.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the health of incapacity benefit claimants; [29780]

  (2) what records her Department maintains in respect of incapacity benefit claimants by reference to (a) the type of illness or disability of the claimant and (b) the type of
  176
  functional incapacity on which their claim is based, other than those set out in the 1997 Social Security Statistics. [29779]

  Mr. Denham
  We routinely collect information on the medical conditions suffered by Incapacity Benefit claimants and these are summarised in the "Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance Quarterly Summary of Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library. In addition, information on the health and functional capacity of former Incapacity Benefit recipients will be available in the survey of those no longer receiving Incapacity Benefit due to be published in the Summer in the Department's Research Report Series.

  Lone Parents
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many lone parents in Wales who claim(a) income support and (b) housing benefit will have a lower level of income compared to present claimants after April as a result of the abolition of lone parent premium; [29990]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the number of lone parents in Wales whose income will be reduced because of proposed changes to lone parent benefit; [29959]

  (3) how many lone parents in Wales who claim council tax benefit after April will lose income as a result of the abolition of the lone parent premium. [29991]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Existing recipients of the lone parent rate of child benefit and family premium will be protected. There will be no cash losers. At the end of 1998/99, it is estimated that the number of lone parents making new claims in Wales who will receive the same rate as couples with children as a result of the measure to remove entitlement to the lone parent rate of family premium (from April 1998) and child benefit (from June 1998), will be around 14,000 in Income Support; 3,000 in Housing Benefit; 2,000 in Council Tax Benefit and 4,000 in Child Benefit.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list for each OECD member state the age of the youngest child at which under social security regulations the lone parent concerned with the child's upbringing is required to seek work. [33631]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  The requirement-to-seek-work rules for lone parents in relation to the age of their youngest child as a condition for the receipt of social assistance benefits for those OECD countries

  Country

  OECD Country

  Requirement for lone parents to seek work as a condition for receipt of income-tested benefits

  Austria

  Requirement to seek work when youngest child is aged 3

  Belgium

  Discretionary

  Denmark

  Lone parents subject to same rules as apply to all other claimants (subject to availability of child care)

  Finland

  Requirement to seek work when youngest child is aged 3

  177

  The requirement-to-seek-work rules for lone parents in relation to the age of their youngest child as a condition for the receipt of social assistance benefits for those OECD countries

  Country

  France

  Lone parents may receive an income-related benefit Allocations de parents isolé (API) for one year, but are expected to take paid work once the youngest child is 3 years old—if they do not, they can claim income-related Revenu Minimum d'Insertion (RMI) which is payable at a lower rate

  Germany

  Lone parents must be available for part-time work when the youngest child reaches nursery school age and for full time work when the child reaches 14 years

  Greece

  None

  Iceland

  None

  Ireland

  Requirement to seek work when youngest child is aged 16

  Italy

  Discretionary

  Luxembourg

  Requirement to seek work when youngest child aged 6. Law on RMG (income support) to be tightened so that parents with children over 2 will only receive benefit if there is no suitable job available

  Netherlands

  Requirement to seek work when youngest child aged 5 (age 12 before 1994)

  Norway

  Requirement to seek work when youngest child aged 10

  Portugal

  No social assistance benefits for lone parents

  Spain

  Discretionary

  Sweden

  Requirement to seek work for all. Municipalities obliged to provide daycare for children aged between 1 and 12

  Switzerland

  Discretionary within individual cantons

  UK

  Requirement to seek work when youngest child is aged 16

  Australia

  Requirement to seek work when youngest child is aged 16

  Canada

  Requirement differs in each Province/Territory. In some, requirement to seek work when youngest child is aged 12. In others, it is when youngest child is 6 months old

  Japan

  No special requirements

  New Zealand

  Requirement to seek work when youngest child aged 16

  United States

  Federal guidelines are: Aid to Families with Dependent Children—requirement to seek work when youngest aged 4 Food stamps—requirement to seek work when youngest child aged 6 Different states vary the requirement to seek work1

  1In August 1996, President Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Bill giving States considerable power to create their own welfare programmes. The transfer of responsibility from the Federal Government to individual States for the design of welfare systems has created variations in the implementation of these Federal guidelines among States. For example, in the state of Wisconsin long parents are expected to satisfy the work requirement once their youngest child reaches 12 weeks old.

  Notes:

  1. Information about the social assistance schemes or requirement-to-work rules for lone parents in the other OECD countries, namely the Czech Republic, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland and Turkey, is not available.

  2. Information about whether the requirements contained in the table are laid down in the social security legislation of the countries concerned or whether they are applied administratively is not available.

  Source:

  1. DSS Research Report No. 47–Social Assistance in OECD countries (1996).

  2. The employment of lone parents (Family Policy Studies Centre) 1996.
  178
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of possible disincentives to work resulting from abandonment of the lone parent rate of child benefit. [32871]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Steps have been taken to protect work incentives for existing lone parents. Existing recipients will continue to receive the higher rate of Child Benefit and lone parents will be able to claim the higher rate of Child Benefit when they leave Income Support for work. Independent research suggests that the average additional income for lone parents already in work and on Family Credit is over £50 a week above the estimate of their out-of-work income.

  The Government are addressing the real barriers to work with the New Deal for Lone Parents, improvements to the child care disregard in the in-work benefits, the National Child Care Strategy and the Working Families Tax Credit.

  Benefits Take-up
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 24 February 1998,Official Report, column 209, on the take-up of benefits, if she will list take-up rates of each benefit by benefit area office. [32238]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested is not available.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans she has to review the criteria for assessing entitlement to war pensioners' mobility supplement and constant attendance allowance for war disablement pensioners suffering from post-viral fatigue syndrome; [30242]

  (2) what percentage of Gulf War veterans awarded war disablement pensions due to post-viral fatigue syndrome have (a) applied for war pensions' mobility supplement and constant attendance allowance and (b) been awarded these benefits since 1992; [30241]

  (3) what medical guidance her Department has given to the War Pensions Agency in respect of the condition post-viral fatigue syndrome for assessing entitlement to (i) war disablement pensions, (ii) war pensioners' mobility supplement and (iii) constant attendance allowance. [30243]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government fully recognise the considerable debt of gratitude owed to all those who have been disabled as a result of service in the Armed Forces.

  Under the Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, a war pension may be awarded for any disablement due to, or aggravated by, any service in the armed forces of the Crown. Awards are not made for a prescribed list of diagnoses or conditions but rather cases are considered on their individual merits within the relevant law. The Scheme includes a range of supplementary allowances aimed at those most seriously disabled. Where any disablement assessed at not less than 40 per cent. is such as to render the war pensioner unable to walk or restricts

  179
  severely his ability to do so, an award of Mobility Supplement may be made. Similarly, where the war pensioner's disablement is assessed at not less than 80 per cent. and is such that personal attendance on him is necessary, an award of Constant Attendance Allowance may be awarded.

  By 31 January 1998, 1,938 claims for a War Disablement Pension had been received from Gulf War veterans. So far 1,301 awards have been made in respect of a wide variety of conditions but only one has been made in respect of post viral fatigue syndrome. A claim for War Pensions' Mobility Supplement and Constant Attendance Allowance was rejected as not meeting the criteria for an award.

  No medical guidance on entitlement or eligibility for War Disablement Pension, War Pensioners' Mobility Supplement or Constant Attendance Allowance specific to the diagnosis post viral fatigue syndrome has been issued to War Pensions Agency medical advisers. Guidance is, however, available on chronic fatigue syndrome of which post viral fatigue syndrome is a recognised variant. The diagnosis chronic fatigue syndrome is used where certain defined diagnostic criteria known as the Fukuda criteria are met. Medical advisers are trained to consider any disablement, physical or mental and to make decisions on the facts of the individual case and within the relevant law on entitlement and all other war pensions issues.

  There are no plans to review the criteria for assessing War Pensions' Mobility Supplement or Constant Attendance Allowance for war pensioners suffering from post viral fatigue syndrome.

  Tribunals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans the Government have to ensure that people appealing against decisions to reduce or withdraw benefit entitlement have access to free advice and representation at independent tribunal hearings. [31083]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  People who appeal against decisions to reduce or withdraw benefit entitlement already have access to free advice and representation at tribunal hearings, through various welfare organisations and Citizens Advice Bureaux. Most advice agencies which offer free tribunal representation are funded by local authorities, by Department of Health section 64 grants or by a combination of the two.

  The appeals leaflet, NI 246, which is attached to the appeal form, provides information about the options open to appellants for obtaining advice. Some people may receive advice from a solicitor through the Legal Advice and Assistance scheme.

  There are no plans at present to extend the scope of legal aid to allow representation before tribunals.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many meetings have been requested with her Department's Ministers by(a) Labour and (b) Conservative hon. Members; and how many meetings have been granted in each category. [31300]
  180
  Ms Harman
  My Ministerial colleagues and I meet a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House during the course of our business.

  All Work Test
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been subject to the all work test(a) in Birmingham, (b) in the West Midlands and (c) nationally; what percentage failed the test; how many of those failing the test appealed; how many of the appeals were oral hearings; and what was the success rate for (i) hearings held orally and (ii) other appeals. [31272]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  April 1995 to 30 September 1997 inclusive

  Birmingham

  West Midlands

  National

  Number who have been subject to the All Work Test (AWT)

  57,028

  182,552

  2,899,127

  Number who have failed the AWT

  9,922

  26,333

  415,957

  Percentage AWT failure rate

  17

  14

  14

  Since its introduction in April 1995, the number of people who have appealed against the All Work Test is 11,294 in West Midlands region and 101,559 nationally.

  Of the 8,238 appeals heard and decided in the West Midlands region, 3,791 were in the appellant's favour. Nationally, the figure was 78,402 of which 35,873 were in appellant's favour.

  The percentage of appeals decided in the appellant's favour was 46 per cent. for West Midlands and 45.8 per cent. nationally.

  Vaccine Damage Payments
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provisions the Government intend to make to provide compensation to those who have suffered severe brain damage as a result of vaccination administered on behalf of the Department of Health. [30827]

  Mr. Denham
  The existing Vaccine Damage Payment scheme, which has been in place since 1979, provides a one-off payment, not compensation, to people severely disabled by vaccination against certain diseases. The Vaccine Damage Payments Act and Regulations set out the full conditions of entitlement. The scheme is currently under consideration.

  .Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications were made under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 in each year since 1993; and of these applications, how many were successful and which vaccines were involved. [30805]

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many payments have been made to applicants following assessment by the Vaccine Damage Payments Unit since its inception, by type of vaccine. [30939]
  181
  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Claims and awards made by the vaccine damage payment unit

  Year

  Claims

  Awards

  1977–78

  3

  —

  1978–79

  1,772

  21

  1979–80

  820

  336

  1980–81

  125

  251

  1981–82

  76

  67

  1982–83

  101

  38

  1983–84

  117

  39

  1984–85

  98

  35

  1985–86

  69

  25

  1986–87

  76

  17

  1987–88

  63

  10

  1988–89

  39

  3

  1989–90

  54

  3

  1990–91

  34

  1

  1991–92

  37

  7

  1992–93

  51

  13

  1993–94

  55

  4

  1994–95

  77

  6

  1995–96

  69

  6

  1996–97

  70

  5

  Notes:

  1. Applicants are asked to list all the vaccines they or their child have received. The award is not made in respect of a specific vaccine, as children receive several vaccines in the first few months of life.

  2. The payments made in any one year do not necessarily relate to the specific claims made in that year. Also, if an award is made, a trust fund may need to be set up to administer the money on behalf of the disabled person.

  Contributions Records
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list, in relation to those seeking amendments to their pre-1988 contributions records so as to reduce or cancel those records by determination under section 17 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, how many applications for determination have been(a) made, (b) withdrawn and (c) determined; of (c), how many were (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful; and of (a), (b) and (c) what was the average, lowest and highest cost of administering the determination process in the last five years. [31463]

  Mr. Denham
  A total of 35 applications for determination under section 17 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 have been made by people seeking to have their record of pre-1988 contributions reduced or cancelled. One of these applications was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant and none of the determinations made in the other 34 cases resulted in any changes to the applicants' contribution records.

  Information about the costs of administering the determination process in individual cases is not available, but the average cost of all determinations made by the Office for the Determination of Contributions Questions is estimated to be in the region of £750.

  New Deal
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many jobs she intends to make available in her Department under the New Deal. [31348]
  182
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  This Department intends to play a full part in offering jobs under the New Deal and is currently considering arrangements for recruitment and training and the numbers of jobs we could offer.

  Family Credit
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the new procedural instructions dealing with review procedures within the family credit unit were implemented; who issued the instructions; and what arrangements are in place to ensure that the Family Credit Customer Services are informed of them. [31952]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  On 7 April 1997, changes were introduced in the Social Security system which simplified and aligned rules on the backdating of claims to benefits and reviews of benefit.

  Information about the changes and new procedural instructions for Family Credit staff were issued by the Family Credit Adjudication Liaison Section. Instructions were issued to all staff (adjudication officers and above) at the Family Credit Unit, including staff in the Customer Services section.

  Computerisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what progress her Department is making with the introduction of the computerised social security benefits system in post offices; [32003]

  (2) what is the target date for all post offices to be connected to the computerised social security system; [32005]

  (3) how many post offices she plans to be connected to the computerised social security system in the next 12 months; and how many are currently connected; [32004]

  (4) what assessment she has made of the service provided by ICL to introduce the computerised social security system into post offices. [32006]

  Mr. Denham
  There are currently 205 post offices in the South West and North East of England paying child benefit by payment card as part of a controlled trial of the new benefit Payment Card system.

  Current planning assumptions are that all post offices will be automated by the end of 2000.

  On current plans the trial will be extended to 305 post offices early in 1999.

  The Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. routinely monitor the project. The trial underway at the moment forms an important part of the monitoring process and is designed as one of a series of tests to assess the performance of the new systems before they are introduced nationally.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been made for medical examinations relating to Vibration White Finger; and how many applications for industrial injuries disablement benefit have been(a) approved and (b) refused following medical examinations. [31728]
  183
  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  The number of claims made to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) due to Vibration White Finger from 1 April 1995 to 31 December 1997 is 35,9001.

  The number of Vibration White Finger assessments following medical examination where the disease has been diagnosed, but at less than the level of disability which would attract a payment of benefit (below 14 per cent. disabled), in the same period, is 7,7142. The number assessed at 14 per cent. or over is 1,24622. There will be a relatively small, but unknown number of assessments made at less than 14 per cent. disabled, that will have resulted in a payment of IIDB, when aggregated with another disease.
  1Figure based on a 10 per cent. sample of all claims to IIDB in Great Britain.2Figures based on a 100 per cent. count of initial IIDB assessments in Great Britain.Source:
  Analytical Services Division.

  Income Support
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 23 January 1998,Official Report, column 738, what is her estimate of the (a) mean average and (b) median average amount of income support unclaimed by pensioners in 1995–96. [33626]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The mean amount of Income Support unclaimed by pensioners in 1995–396 was £16.10 per week, and the median amount unclaimed by pensioners in the same year was £9.10 per week.

  Children (Poor Households)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children are living in households that fall in each of the lowest three deciles of the distribution of equivalised incomes before housing costs; how many are living in lone parent households; and how many are living in households headed by a couple. [32410]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is set out in the table.

  Number of children in households

  millions

  Number of in lone parent families

  Number of children in two parent families

  All children

  Decile 1 (lowest)

  0.3

  1.2

  1.6

  Decile 2

  0.8

  0.9

  1.7

  Decile 3

  0.7

  0.9

  1.6

  All (Deciles 1–10)

  2.8

  9.8

  12.7

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for 1995–96.

  2. The data comes from the Department's Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series, based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS) and covering Great Britain. The FRS data were used to achieve a large enough sample size to provide more robust information. All results are subject to sampling error, and numbers may not sum due to rounding.

  3. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised income. The definition of income used follows that in the published HBAI series for FRS based results.

  4. Figures include 0.6 million children in the bottom three deciles in families classified as self-employed; the reported income of these families may not be an accurate guide to their living standards. Comparisons with household expenditure also suggests that households in the bottom income decile may not have the lowest living standards.

  Source:

  Households Below Average Income (HBAI).

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

Sierra Leone
Lord Aveburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to help restore lasting peace in Sierra Leone.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we warmly welcome the restoration of President Kabbah in Freetown today as the elected president of the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone. We believe that the peaceful future of Sierra Leone can only be assured by a process of reconciliation as envisaged under the Abidjan Peace Accord and the Conakry Agreement. We have urged all parties to work to that end and will play a full part in the UN, EU and Commonwealth to support those efforts. Meanwhile, we are in the lead in helping the democratically elected government to re-establish basic services and to plan for restoring peace and security and rebuilding the shattered economy.
Our High Commissioner returned to Freetown on 5th March to contribute to that process. The UN office in Freetown similarly reopened over the weekend.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will the United Kingdom be concerned with drafting a further resolution to place before the Security Council? If so, will that include the replacement of the Nigerian force in Sierra Leone by a multinational force which will include non-ECOWAS states? If that is the case, will one of the tasks of that force be to disarm and demobilise the ethnic Kamajor militia? That would be fully in accordance with the Conakry Agreement, which called for the disarmament and demobilisation of all armed factions in that country.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the Kamajors. The Conakry Agreement referred to the disarmament of combatants, but it did not make clear whether or not the Kamajors were combatants. That was one of the causes of the failure to implement the agreement. Her Majesty's Government have made clear that in our view all groups should be disarmed. For the future of peacekeeping in Sierra Leone, Her Majesty's Government believe that this should be brought under the auspices of a new Security Council resolution authorising the deployment of UN military liaison officers to assist ECOMOG in the disarmament and demobilisation of all armed groups, including local militias.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the Minister say on whose orders Nigerian armed forces were allowed to play a
100
part in the conflict in Sierra Leone? Was it a unilateral decision by the Nigerians, or a decision of ECOMOG? Do Her Majesty's Government believe that a continued Nigerian presence is contributing to or hindering achievement of the lasting peace referred to in the Question?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it was an ECOMOG decision. Her Majesty's Government welcome the fact that the rule of the military junta in Freetown has been brought to an end, but we do not endorse the ECOMOG action. It was important that in all these circumstances regional organisations act within their mandate from the Security Council. Her Majesty's Government believe that what is essential now is the re-establishment of a democratic autonomous government in Sierra Leone.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, we warmly welcome the Minister's endorsement of the importance to be attached to the restoration of the democratically elected government in Sierra Leone. Does the Minister agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others that Britain has now a special responsibility to help ensure that all are able to participate in the process of democratic reconstruction, national reconciliation and amnesty without discrimination and irrespective of their ethnic origin?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. I warmly endorse the noble Lord's remarks. Her Majesty's Government are encouraged that, this morning, when he returned to Freetown, President Kabbah urged that there should be national reconciliation. Specifically, the noble Lord asked what Her Majesty's Government are doing. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group is planning to send a ministerial delegation to Sierra Leone. My honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Lloyd, will be representing the UK on that delegation.
Lord McNair: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in addition to disarming the combatants and ensuring that all citizens of Sierra Leone take part in the body politic, it is important to ensure that the combatants have something else to do, and that development is very important?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, one of the difficulties presently faced by Sierra Leone, as I hope the noble Lord will agree, is a shattered economy. When the noble Lord talks about disarming people and finding something else for the combatants to do, he is quite right. Her Majesty's Government have donated £2 million to the UN trust fund in relation to Sierra Leone. We are also giving humanitarian relief and technical assistance. Moreover, the Department for International Development is providing humanitarian aid, including a further £1 million for the International Red Cross.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important that the diamond resources, which are the main source of foreign exchange for the country, are exploited for the benefit of all the people there? Will

101
she investigate reports which appeared in the Observer, US News and World Report and other places that the future diamond resources of the country have been mortgaged in an illegal arms transaction in which a British company, Sandline International, was involved?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of the newspaper article to which the noble Lord refers. That article was in several respects not entirely accurate, or at least not on all fours with the reports that Her Majesty's Government are receiving. As to the noble Lord's main point regarding the natural resources of Sierra Leone being exploited for the benefit of the whole country, I hope that the whole House will agree with him; and that when President Kabbah talks about national reconciliation, he will also be talking about nation building and about restoring the economy of Sierra Leone for the benefit of all in that country.

Human Rights Convention Complaints and Military Courts
2.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is intended on the Lord Chancellor's willingness to consider designating military courts as the appropriate forum for the consideration of complaints on convention grounds by Armed Forces personnel as expressed during the Third Reading of the Human Rights Bill [H.L.] (HL Deb, col. 768) on 5th February.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we are considering whether there are any cases which might be brought solely on convention grounds under Clause 7(1)(a) of the Bill which should be dealt with under the military court system. We are also considering what the jurisdiction and powers of any specially designated service court might be. At present, we have reached no conclusions on whether it would be appropriate to designate service courts for this purpose.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which is encouraging. I am delighted that the Government are looking into this matter carefully. Perhaps I might draw to the attention of the House the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor just before he made the statement referred to in my Question. He reminded us that when there was a threat of war or other exigency the country would be enabled to take derogations on Article 15 of the convention. It would seem to me that these days when war happens and does not happen and when an emergency is an emergency is much vaguer than it was in earlier times. It might be helpful to have the Ministry of Defence in the sort of role that the noble and learned Lord suggested it might be given, so that people could be sure as to when they could invoke Article 15. Does the noble Lord agree that that matter should be taken into consideration in the studies to which he referred?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is certainly an aspect that is worthy of consideration. Perhaps I can assist. The Government recognise fully that without the services of the Armed Forces from 1939 to 1945 and thereafter there would have been no opportunity for a European Convention on Human Rights and therefore no opportunity for any government in this country to ratify it. We take this matter seriously.
There are three occasions—I hope I respond in the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, put these serious questions—when convention rights might be relevant. The first is when there is a charge in a court martial and the defendant wishes to assert a full or partial defence on a convention right. That can be dealt with by the court martial system and thereafter on appeal. Secondly, an individual service man or woman might want to seek a declaration of incompatibility, as any other individual might. That can be dealt with quite easily in the High Court. The intermediate stage was referred to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at col. 768 of Hansard on 5th February—namely, a direct assertion of a convention right against a public authority; namely, the armed services. It is that category that we are presently examining, and the possibility of it being dealt with within the conventional system. That is one solution; but we have not excluded any solution. Careful consideration is being given to these matters with our colleagues at the Ministry of the Defence.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that certain articles in the Convention on Human Rights could be interpreted as contrary to standard and proper military practice, and that a fast track for the redress of an immediate grievance in this respect might he disruptive to good order and military discipline? Does the noble Lord therefore agree that consideration of an appropriate safeguard in this area is now a matter of some urgency?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord mistakes the fast-track procedure. As was carefully explained on a number of occasions by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when the High Court makes a declaration of incompatibility in respect of primary legislation, the fast-track procedure is simply designed then to offer the Minister the discretion to seek remedial action with the support of both Houses of Parliament. It has nothing to do with a complaint by an individual that he or she has been badly treated by the service authorities.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under the existing clauses of the Human Rights Bill service personnel would be entitled to elect to go for trial by a civil court, bypassing the military system, when being tried by a commanding officer for a military offence? That would undermine the commanding officer's authority.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not accept that construction of the Bill in its present or contemplated form.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, drawing on my experience with Army Legal Services more than 40 years ago. I wish to ask the Minister whether he can reassure me that I am completely out of date in imagining that a court martial—constituted as it is of Army officers whose main allegiance is to military discipline—is not a suitable agency for the establishment of human rights.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I would not necessarily have used that precise formulation. As I believe underlies the noble Lord's question, the fact is that courts martial are ad hoc tribunals consisting, as he rightly said, of serving officers assisted by a judge advocate. That is not a procedure which is designed or intended for declarations of incompatibility of the kind to which I referred earlier.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the helpful correspondence that I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert? Has he seen it? I believe that he has, and in view of that, would the Minister in his position encourage the discussions taking place now, as a result of the Division on the matter, between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the MoD to seek to designate the military courts as the appropriate forum? Would the noble Lord encourage that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, plainly the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Ministry of Defence are in close liaison. I am familiar with the correspondence. The last letter was dated today so I hope that the noble Lord has received it. We made every effort to ensure that he did. What is said there—I paraphrase but I think fairly—is that these decisions have not been concluded and they will be the subject of rules which will be made following the Royal Assent but before the Bill becomes effective.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, under the Human Rights Bill as it left your Lordships' House, a conflict could arise between a decision already taken by one of Her Majesty's judges in the High Court in applying the European Convention on Human Rights and a decision by one of the commanding officers in Her Majesty's forces, without there being a court martial? Will the Minister ensure that in due course the Government put forward an amendment to the Bill which will resolve that conflict, preferably in favour of military discipline?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not accept that there is any necessary conflict between military discipline and the scheme of the Bill. If there are specifics, we are more than happy to look at any anxieties, as was indicated in the correspondence to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, helpfully referred.

Police Dogs
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action will be taken to ensure that police forces are not deterred from using police dogs in response to criminal activities, including refusal to accept arrest.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the deployment and use of police dogs are operational matters for individual forces. The Association of Chief Police Officers Sub-Committee on Police Dogs, which includes representatives from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, considers issues relating to the deployment and training of police dogs. I understand that the committee does not at present envisage any significant change of practice in the police use of dogs.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will he consider a recent case in which a known criminal, seeking to escape from the scene of a crime, resisted arrest, was then bitten by a police dog and secured damages? Would that not be likely to inhibit the proper use of police dogs, as well as failing to serve the cause of common sense?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the plaintiff in that case had a criminal record. He was bitten in Sheffield and consequently required 19 stitches. The learned county court judge found in favour of the plaintiff but said that he was 60 per cent. to blame. I must not say too much more because I understand that the South Yorkshire police are applying for leave to appeal. I cast my eye over the Police Review and saw the remark attributed to the Vice-Chairman of the Police Federation:
"The Legal Aid Board must be barking mad".
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the existing guidelines issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers are adequate? The guidelines say that police dogs ought only to be used in extremely controlled situations. But in many cases the dogs find it difficult to distinguish in an uncontrolled situation between those who are innocent and those who are alleged criminals. On that matter, will the Minister publish the figures that are available to police forces of the number of dog bites and the amounts of compensation the police had to pay for wrongful use of dogs?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, my Lords. Between April 1995 and March 1996, the Police Complaints Authority noted 102 complaints about police dogs biting complainants. No information is centrally held about compensation which has been paid, but police dogs are extremely useful. They sniff out concealed drugs, they find explosives, they track down fugitives, they are used

105
in serious firearms incidents and they are a deterrent to public disorder, for example, at football matches. And a Welsh terrier won at Crufts on Sunday!
A noble Lord: Now follow that!
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I do not wish to. However, does the Minister agree with me that this is surely not just a matter of dogs but also of closed circuit television? We have high technology because the criminals of today use high technology and also because in much of our legislation the evidential requirements are so high. Should that not be the policy as long as it is entirely consistent with not abusing human rights?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is not quite as simple as that. CCTV is very useful. Many police forces welcome it and so do many members of the public. However, I have never encountered a CCTV camera that can sniff out explosives or drugs. Therefore, I repeat that police dogs are an extremely useful tool in the fight against serious crime.

Grammar School Admissions Policy
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it will be possible, under the provisions of the School Standards and Framework Bill, for local education authorities to alter the admissions policies of grammar schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, local education authorities will not be able under the Bill to alter grammar school admissions so as to end the selection of pupils by reference to high ability. Unless a grammar school itself wishes to change, those selective arrangements would only be removed if parents triggered a ballot and subsequently voted in favour of change.
LEAs will have no more powers than at present to end the selective admission arrangements of grammar schools and, in the case of current county schools, they will have less power than at present.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. I understand that LEAs will not be able to change the admission arrangements in grammar schools. However, will the Minister confirm or clarify that LEAs could not initiate the petition which precedes a ballot and that no single councillor could initiate a petition which would precede a ballot? Will she confirm that plans which have been published by Birmingham Education Authority would not be allowed under the proposals made by the Government?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot comment on plans from Birmingham because I do not believe that any particular plans have yet been published. The department is not aware of details. I know that
106
discussions are going on in Birmingham about the position of selective schools there. However, under the new arrangements there are seven selective schools in Birmingham; six would be foundation schools or voluntary-aided schools and the local authority would have no role in relation to triggering ballots or initiating ballots. In general, ballots will be triggered by parents or groups of parents and by governing bodies.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that people in Birmingham would welcome the opportunity of expressing their views on the selective education that exists there at the moment? However, should we not turn our attention to the comprehensive schools in the city, which do such a good job in difficult circumstances?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes. The comprehensive schools in the city of Birmingham are working hard to meet the needs of their pupils. Indeed, the chief education officer in Birmingham has been attempting to improve achievement and there has been a great deal of success in recent years. It is also the case that, since comprehensive schools were introduced 20 to 25 years ago, the proportion of pupils gaining five or more grades A to C in GCSE examinations has almost doubled.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may come back to my supplementary question, which the noble Baroness did not answer, as to whether a council or individual councillor can initiate a petition?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not know whether an individual councillor can initiate a petition. We are still consulting on the arrangements for both petitions and ballots and the answer to that is not yet clear. When the information is available, I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that a parent will not be precluded from taking such action simply because that parent also happens to be a councillor. However, does the Minister agree that schools, including grammar schools, are an important part of the local community? If so, can she say why the Government feel that the elected and accountable representatives of the local community—namely, the local education authority—should not be taking those decisions subject to wide and relevant consultation?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government believe that it is right for the governing bodies of schools and for parents to take those decisions. Of course, local education authorities may have a view and will be able to object to decisions taken by another admissions authority, such as a foundation school or a voluntary-aided school, just as any other school is able to object to a specific proposal for changing the admissions arrangements in either a grammar or comprehensive school.
Baroness Young: My Lords, can the noble Baroness clarify an important point that she made in relation to

107
parents triggering a vote? Are those parents from a specific grammar school or can it be any parent in the local education authority?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as I said earlier, the Government are still consulting on the specific arrangements for ballots. However, the intention is that the parents of children in primary schools that are feeder schools for the specific school where there may be a change in the admission arrangements will be the ones who will be able to take part in the ballots, rather than those who are already part of a selective school.

Business
3.3. p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. today my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which has been made in another place on Kosovo. I take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on the Statement should be confined to,
"brief comments and questions for clarification".

National Minimum Wage Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [The General Teaching Council]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("corporate") to ("(in") in line 11 and insert ("which, subject to subsection (8), shall be known as the General Teaching Council for England").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I believe it is right that the title of the GTC should reflect its territorial responsibilities, so as to avoid any confusion between councils covering different parts of the United Kingdom.
During the debate at Report stage, I accepted in principle the amendment brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, which sought to set this out. I indicated, however, that the wording of her amendment did not make provision for the council to be known as the "GTC for England" once a separate "GTC for Wales" has been established under Clause 6, and undertook to bring forward government amendments to make the position clear. The raft of amendments in this group means that this body will be called the "GTC for England", but under the new subsection (8) it shall be known as the "GTC for England and Wales" until such a time as a separate GTC for Wales is established. We
108
have tidied up and clarified those references which would ultimately apply to both the English and Welsh councils by referring simply to the "council".
I hope that the amendments will be welcomed by Members of your Lordships' House as making the territorial scope of each council clear from the outset. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for tabling these amendments. The House will understand now why, when I tabled one simple amendment, I recognised that it was not enough. It has taken 16 amendments to meet the case and I am grateful to the Minister for that.
The General Teaching Council for Scotland was relieved to see the amendment because, once the new general teaching council for England and Wales is set up, there will not be any confusion between the two. They will have different powers and it is important that the powers of the two councils are not muddled up.
Perhaps I can make one suggestion to the noble Baroness. From now on, with the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly coming over the horizon, the noble Baroness and her officials should take care, when speaking about policy or new bodies, to make it plain whether that policy or new body relates to the United Kingdom, England, Wales or Scotland. The Minister may even be able to persuade other Ministers in the Government to do the same. The House will find it much easier to understand. Having said that, I thank the noble Baroness for her assistance.
Lord Tope: My Lords, perhaps briefly I can welcome the amendments. We are about to make the speediest progress we have made thus far on the Bill, if we can clear these amendments in one go with just a few remarks. I welcome the amendment and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, on her success in achieving those points. Will the Minister be able to say how long it will be before the GTC for Wales is brought into being?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for the welcome that she has given to the amendment and for raising the issue in the first place. I am also fully aware of her concerns and those of other Members of your Lordships' House about the importance of making clear, in the context of devolution, to which parts of the United Kingdom any new legislation applies. I shall certainly take this suggestion back to my department. I cannot guarantee that other departments will be responsive in that respect, but I shall do my best to ensure that happens.
On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the consultation paper issued by the Welsh Office expressed a preference for a separate GTC for Wales. That was borne out by the responses to the consultation exercise. However, Wales is currently embarking on a major constitutional change with the creation of the national assembly which, subject to the appropriate legislation receiving parliamentary assent, will come into being in May 1999. At that time we envisage that

109
all powers conferred on the Secretary of State in relation to the GTC for Wales will be transferred to the national assembly.
In deciding whether and when to establish a separate GTC for Wales, the Secretary of State or the national assembly will want to take account of current institutional arrangements and the need to ensure that there are no artificial impediments to cross-border flows of teachers developing and any current or emerging differences in Welsh educational and child protection issues. So I cannot give a precise date when this will be. In many ways it will be very much up to the national assembly at the time.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("Chapter") and insert ("Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 32 and 34. I said at Report stage that we saw a major role for the GTC, working with the Government and the Teacher Training Agency, in ensuring high standards of entry to the teaching profession, and I undertook to consider whether we could make our intentions clearer on this front. Amendments Nos. 26 and 34 both seek to make explicit the key role for the GTC in advising on standards of entry to the profession—both the standards required to be met at the end of initial training and the new standards to be met at the end of the statutory induction period. Amendment No. 26 requires the Secretary of State to consult the council before making any changes to the regulations and standards which govern qualified teacher status—the QTS standards.
The Teacher Training Agency played a central role in developing our new more demanding QTS standards which will bite for the first time on trainees completing courses from this May. We believe these represent a new quality bench-mark for entry to the teaching profession. But we believe it is right for the GTC, when established, to have a key role alongside the Teacher Training Agency in advising on any revision of these standards. That is the effect of Amendment No. 26.
Amendment No. 34 requires the Secretary of State to consult the GTC and/or the GTC for Wales, once established, before determining the standards against which teachers will be assessed at the end of the induction period. Your Lordships will be aware that the induction year standards will need to be determined before the GTC has been established since we intend that the new induction arrangements will come into force from September 1999—while the GTC will not be established until 2000. So this requirement will necessarily only take effect after the GTC has been established, and will relate only to changes to the standards. We intend to consult shortly on the detail of the new induction arrangements and our consultation document will include draft professional standards for the induction year, drawn up by the Teacher Training Agency, on which we shall be inviting comments. But
110
we believe it is right for the GTC, when established, to be a key player in any further consideration of these standards.
I should emphasise that these amendments are not intended in any sense to take away from the present role of the Teacher Training Agency in advising the Secretary of State on standards for the profession. Looking ahead to Amendment No. 5, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I should say that I am concerned to see again the suggestion that this role—which I believe the agency under its new chairman, Professor Clive Booth, has fulfilled so well—should be transferred immediately to the GTC. We believe it is right that the TTA should continue to advise on professional standards. We will continue to look to it to take on this role, and to forge and work in strong partnership with the GTC, when established.
Amendment No. 2 is a technical amendment which extends the definition of the GTC as "the Council" to all of the teaching clauses in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will welcome this further clarification.
When we debated Amendment No. 32 at Report stage my noble friend Lord Whitty made it clear that we intended the GTC to have a major role in the new induction arrangements. The amendments to which I have just spoken confirm that this is the case and make clear our intention that the GTC should have a key role in the arrangements governing entry to the teaching profession. However, Members of this House will recognise that there must be a limit to what we can or indeed should properly put into primary legislation. We have considered this amendment again very carefully and I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that we do not see the case to incorporate in statute an advisory role for the GTC in respect of quality assurance. There is already provision in the Bill to allow the GTC to advise on the quality assurance arrangements for the new induction programme. Clause 2(2) of the Bill, in providing for the council to advise on standards of teaching and the training, career development and performance management of teachers, includes an advisory role for the GTC in relation to induction. We would of course be delighted if the GTC were to offer advice on quality assurance, and I can assure the House that we would take such advice very seriously indeed. However, I am not persuaded of the case to write this point into primary legislation.
We intend that Ofsted will exercise the lead quality assurance role in respect of the new induction arrangements as part of its regular inspection programme. I do not therefore see a case for providing for the quality assurance arrangements for induction to be determined after consultation with the GTC. I am clear that the chief inspector will want to take proper account of any views the council may have on the operation of the quality assurance arrangements in respect of induction. But I do not see a need to provide for that on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will be persuaded not to press the amendment. But if he does, I would urge the House to resist it. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments with regard to Amendment No. 32 and I am grateful for the assurances we have had this afternoon. However, we believe that this should be on the face of the Bill and I shall spend a moment or two explaining why.
The purpose of Amendment No. 32 is to ensure that quality assurance arrangements for assessment of a newly-qualified teacher are included in the regulations under Clause 13(2). This is, as the Minister said, a reintroduction of an amendment that we put forward from these Benches at the Report stage. It seeks to ensure that the general teaching council will have a significant role in advising how quality assurance arrangements for the induction period are to be established. I emphasise that this is a separate point from the one covered by the very welcome amendment, Amendment No. 34, which the Government are also introducing today.
We believe that quality assurance regulations are needed to ensure that any established standards for teachers completing their induction period are delivered in the same way across the whole country. At Report stage the Minister indicated that normally head teachers will make a report on the teacher's induction period and that will be ratified by the appropriate body, probably the LEA. We are concerned that, while the general teaching council, the Teacher Training Agency and the Minister will have established standards, the arrangements for the assessments to be moderated need to be put in place now. Our amendment seeks to ensure that once such a system is set up the general teaching council shall be consulted over what these moderation arrangements should be.
At Report stage the Minister mentioned the difficulties surrounding this matter; namely, that there will be a gap between the making of the regulations and the establishment of a general teaching council. The Minister has today explained some of the Government's thinking on this matter, but we have something of a problem here. It is important that all those involved should understand exactly what might be forthcoming from the Government in this area.
In the interests of fairness to and equitable treatment of newly-qualified teachers, because they are particularly at risk of losing their right to practise by virtue of these arrangements, I hope that the Minister will reassure the House—to some extent she already has—and perhaps give us a clearer picture of how the quality assurance arrangements will be organised.
In the past many people felt that under the old arrangements for the probationary year head teachers did not always assess the suitability of new teachers rigorously enough. Some noble Lords will remember that I raised concerns about the assessment of my own probationary period some 30 years ago. I was never quite sure exactly how much the head mistress looked at what I had been doing over that year.
Concerns have been expressed not only by the Association of Teachers & Lecturers but also by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon that some newly qualified teachers have been treated unreasonably in their schools. Sometimes they are given unreasonably
112
large classes; sometimes they have classes which have a disproportionate number of children with behavioural difficulties. Sometimes that leads to an unsatisfactory situation. There is a double assessment. It can result in the teacher losing the licence to practise.
We need to be very clear about this because we are concerned with the recruitment of teachers. If it is not clear to them that the procedure is satisfactory, it may be a disincentive to people coming forward into the profession. That is backed up by a briefing I received this week—I am sure other noble Lords have also received it—from the Association of Teachers & Lecturers. It outlines quite clearly the vulnerability of some of the newly qualified teachers.
The association had a meeting in London at the end of last month with about 20 newly qualified teachers. Although it said that they were very enthusiastic and committed, many of the newly qualified teachers were working part-time or on short-term contracts. That is not an easy situation in the probationary year. There was one particular young teacher who had followed a teaching scheme devised by the department. He questioned its adequacy. He was told that any problem was due to his inexperience and misunderstanding. The teacher then discovered during an Ofsted inspection that he had failed due to the very same inadequacies that he had queried.
In my days in teaching I can remember being in a very similar situation, but fortunately it was not during my probationary year. I did not stay in the school very long after that situation arose. I believe that I have highlighted why we on these Benches are so concerned about the situation surrounding new teachers entering the profession and how we deal with the induction year, in particular.
Amendment No. 32 and the government Amendment No. 34 are an important means of ensuring that the induction period is rigorous and fair from the very beginning. However, we welcome the amendment that the Government have put forward today, particularly as regards consultation with the GTC about professional qualifications before teachers reach the induction period. In view of the many reassurances given by the Minister this afternoon we do not intend to press the amendment today. I hope that there will be a little more clarity when the Bill moves to another place and that other questions will be raised in this area.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I would like to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lady Maddock. The Minister's reply on Amendment No. 32 was a little perfunctory. In effect she argued that the Government were satisfied with their own judgment. I am not particularly surprised to hear it: most of us are. But I am becoming increasingly worried by the Government's increasing belief that they can extend their own judgment

113
into areas of specialist competence where they really have not the ability to do so. If this goes on they will be selecting our test team next.
A noble Lord: It might help!
A noble Lord: I would have thought that it would be a considerable improvement!
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure that I should comment on that last remark. I am sorry if the noble Earl thought my introduction of our amendments, which are designed to take a step towards what the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches want, was perfunctory. The Government certainly do not want to sit smugly and rely on their own judgment. On the contrary, we very much recognise the need for nationally established arrangements for moderating standards at the end of induction. These are just the kind of issues that we intend to cover in our consultation document. We intend to consult and to listen before finalising the arrangements.
The standards which new teachers will have to meet in the induction year will eventually be laid down by the Secretary of State. We intend to consult on a draft of those standards. It is very important that we ensure that the process is seen to be fair, robust and equitable for all concerned. One of the reasons why we are bringing forward new arrangements for induction is exactly the kind of reason the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, raised.
It is true that there have been some rather scandalous cases in the past of newly qualified teachers being thrown in at the deepest of deep ends. They have been asked to do more work than some of their more experienced colleagues. Sometimes they have been asked to teach the most difficult class of 15 year-olds in the school. That is exactly the kind of thing that we ought to avoid if we are to ensure that new teachers are given proper support, are able to make reasonable progress, complete the induction year and then become fully qualified and registered teachers.
However, I am encouraged by the reception the House has given to our proposals on induction generally. I am very grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has decided that she will not press her amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert—
("(6A) Regulations under subsection (5) must be framed so as to secure that a majority of the members of the Council are registered teachers who—

(a) either are for the time being employed or otherwise engaged to provide their services as teachers or have had such recent employment or engagement as teachers as may be prescribed; and

(b) satisfy such other criteria as to eligibility for appointment or election to the Council as may be prescribed.

114
(6B) In relation to appointments made or elections held before a register is established under section 3, the reference in subsection (6A) to registered teachers is a reference to qualified teachers within the meaning of section 218(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as I have indicated in previous debates, it is very important that we get the composition of the GTC right. That is why we will be consulting on this issue so that we can be sure that we are proceeding on an agreed basis. I have also agreed that both Houses should have an opportunity to debate the regulations governing the composition of the council. We will therefore be able to have a full debate taking into account the results of the consultation exercise before the final arrangements are put in place.
During Report stage, I brought forward an amendment which would require that at least half the membership of the council should be serving and qualified teachers. This reflected the wording of an amendment brought forward by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Maddock. I then withdrew that amendment in the light of an amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and his colleagues which proposed that teachers should form a majority on the council. Although I do not believe that there is a great deal of difference between "at least half" and "a majority", I recognised that this was an important difference of emphasis and I agreed to look at my amendment again. I have done so and I am now returning with this new amendment.
I believe it is important that teachers who serve on the council should be teachers with recent experience of teaching so that it will benefit from their up-to-date classroom experience. I have carefully considered the points raised during the debate at Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, about the valuable contribution that recently retired teachers might be able to make to the work of the council, particularly since they might be able to devote more time to the council's work. This amendment therefore enables regulations to provide for those who have had recent employment as teachers to be eligible for membership. We shall want to ask for views during our consultation exercise on precisely how recent that experience should be. I should not want to run the risk of the council members' knowledge being out of date and out of touch with the rapidly changing work of schools.
I also indicated during previous debate that the Government are committed to ensuring that the interests of denominational schools and teacher training institutions are properly represented on the council. We will be consulting on how this can best be achieved. I also agreed to consider whether we could bring forward an amendment which would make the Government's intentions clearer on the face of the Bill. Members of your Lordships' House will recall the previous debate about whether such an amendment should refer to religious interests or to denominational schools and teacher training institutions. We are still considering how any such amendment should be worded. If it is possible to draft an amendment which will make the Government's intentions clear, while allowing scope for our consultation exercise to ask

115
questions about how those interests could be represented, my colleagues in another place will bring forward an amendment during the next stages.
It is also important that the consumers of education are represented on the council. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, brought forward an amendment at earlier stages of the Bill proposing that pupils in schools and parents of pupils in schools should be interests to which the Secretary of State should have regard when making regulations on the composition of the council. I agreed in principle with the amendment, although I indicated that I saw difficulties in how we could go about ensuring that the interests of pupils in schools were represented on the council other than through parent groups. We shall be consulting on how the interests of consumers can be represented on the council. I can, however, also say that my colleagues in another place will bring forward an amendment which will ensure that parents of pupils in schools will be represented on the council.
I hope that Members of your Lordships' House will welcome the amendment and the commitment I have given to look further at how the interests of denominational schools and teacher training institutions, as well as the parents of pupils in schools, can be represented on the council. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, from this side of the House, I welcome the amendment. I am pleased that teachers will form the majority on the council. I am delighted that the Minister has taken note of the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, about the pressure of work on the council which will mean that it has to depend to some degree on recently retired teachers. However, I understand the Minister's worry that they must not be too long retired. I am also grateful that the Minister has given consideration to religious denominations and to the whole range of interests that should be represented on the council.
Having said all those nice things, I must now express a certain regret that the consultation is taking so long. From the correspondence I have received, it seems that the department could have done better. I do not blame the noble Baroness for that, but I believe that with greater acceleration more detail could have been put before us. We have more time in this House and given greater consideration could have been given to these issues. That might have been helpful to the consultation process. As I said at earlier stages, I have a mountain of material on the issue which the noble Baroness is welcome to see.
I welcome the amendment, but perhaps in her long period in office the noble Baroness can persuade the department to move a little more quickly. It is not a department that is noted for its haste.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I too give a warm welcome both to this amendment and to the Minister's promise of more to come. At previous stages we discussed the difficulties that this House has had in dealing with a Bill
116
which was so skeletal during the consultation process. One result is that we are gradually filling in more and more of the detail as the Government see the outcome of the consultation process. Perhaps it is as well, however, that we are leaving Members of another place something to do in terms of putting more flesh on the bones of the GTC.
I particularly welcome the amendment because at every stage my colleagues and I have been pressing for the membership of the GTC to comprise a majority of teachers. That proposition has received wide support throughout the House. I am pleased that the Government have now accepted it. I am also pleased that the Minister has recognised that there is a difference between "at least half" and "a majority". The noble Baroness said on Report that that was an important difference of emphasis. That is correct. I commented then that in some circumstances, such as if a casting vote was required, the difference could be even more important than one of mere emphasis. That point has now been recognised and I am delighted with the outcome.
I am also pleased that the Government have taken on board the point, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and again supported throughout the House, that recently retired teachers will often have more time, and sometimes more experience, to offer the GTC. I repeat the qualification that I made on Report that one becomes out of date very quickly in this day and age. I am pleased therefore that the amendment recognises that members of the GTC should be recently retired teachers. I know that the Government are consulting further on exactly what is meant by "recently", so I shall not press the Minister further. I hope that proper and careful consideration can be given to getting the best from retired teachers while recognising that, sadly but inevitably, over a period of time, as changes occur, what they are able to offer will become gradually less valuable. Some time limit will be needed. Five years might be appropriate; I leave that thought with the Minister. We welcome what the Minister said and particularly the amendment.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will not mind my intervening briefly to say how delighted will be those who have done so much work over the past five years to get the general teaching council set up and running to see it established under the Bill and to know, by this amendment, that the membership of the GTC will comprise a majority of teachers. I do not want the immense amount of work that has been put into the establishment of the GTC over the past four or five years to go unrecorded. I spoke up for a GTC in the middle of the night in, I think, 1962. We lost then, but it is now sailing. I wish the GTC well as it moves out of the harbour and into the open sea.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will clarify one point. It is clear from the amendment that a majority of members of the council will either be in employment as teachers or will have been in recent employment. Once one is a registered teacher, can one continue to be on the register for as long as one likes after retirement or is there a point at which one

117
comes off the register? That seems to me an interesting point in relation to the register, although perhaps not directly relevant to the amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on that last point. In medicine, so long as one is a registered medical practitioner one can retain that registration until the end of one's days. On the other hand, many qualifications relate to the extent to which one can continue to practise medicine in the National Health Service where there is an age limit. I believe that teachers can and should continue to be so registered.
When this issue was discussed on Report, I had some little doubt about whether it was proper to include in such an amendment the term "registered teacher" because until the general teaching council comes into operation there will be no register upon which individuals' names can be included. Nevertheless, I believe that the term "registered" is correct and I express my personal gratitude to the Minister for taking on board so many of the points made. I, too, greatly welcome the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for what they have said. Indeed, I am delighted that Members of your Lordships' House have unanimously welcomed the amendment which will ensure that we have a council which truly commands respect for members of the teaching profession, but which also allows scope for others with an interest in high teaching standards to be represented on the council.
I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, feels that we are taking too long with the consultation. The consultation process on the GTC has two stages. That might explain why we do not yet have the answers to all of the noble Lord's questions, but I am sure that he would be critical if we did not give people long enough to reflect on the issues and to come back to us with their views.
To deal with the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, qualified teachers will be eligible to register until the end of their days as long as they have not been barred. I believe that that is also highly desirable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 26, at end insert—
("(8) At any time before the date mentioned in subsection (3)(a), the Council shall be known as the General Teaching Council for England and Wales; and—

(a) in relation to any time before that date, references to the Council in any enactment shall accordingly be construed as references to the General Teaching Council for England and Wales, and

(b) any reference to the Council by that name in an instrument or document made before that date shall be construed on or after that date as a reference to the General Teaching Council for England.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 5:
Before Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL
(" .—(1) The Council shall be responsible for determining the following matters—

(a) standards of teaching;

(b) standards of conduct for teachers; and

(c) medical fitness to teach.

(2) The Council may be required to seek advice from—

(a) the Secretary of State; or

(b) such other persons or bodies that he may from time to time designate,

on matters falling within subsection (1).
(3) This section has effect in relation to regulations made under subsections (2), (3) and (6) of section 218 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (regulations relating to schools, etc.) as they apply to teachers at schools.
(4) The Secretary of State shall make provision in such regulations for a determination or direction under those regulations to be made by the Council.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before dealing with this amendment I too should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for the amendments that she has tabled and those that are to come. I did not intervene earlier, but I am grateful that she has accepted so many of the suggestions that have been made about the composition of the council. I am sure that that will be very beneficial.
I return to the amendment. When I moved it on Report and in Committee I was most grateful for the strong support that I received from all parts of the House. I did not then press the amendment because I wanted to consider fully what the noble Lord, Lord Whiny, had said. He made a number of suggestions, one of which is the subject of a later amendment, although I may have misunderstood. However, when I looked at the matter I did not think that it went far enough. I shall not repeat all of the arguments because they have already been dealt with, but the issue quite simply is what kind of general teaching council we want. The body proposed is an advisory council, or we could have one that is the equivalent of other professional bodies. I have no doubt that if we are to have a general teaching council it should be equivalent to other professional bodies. It is very important that it should attract the right kind of people. I believe that it would then do its work well. We know that those who belong to it will have to pay a compulsory subscription. If they are to do that they must subscribe to a body that has real purpose and the power to take decisions. That is the issue at point. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I wholeheartedly support this amendment. The Minister said that now that the general teaching council would be composed of a majority of teachers she believed it would command the respect of the profession. That will help. However, whether a general teaching council with so few powers and such a limited role will command the respect of teachers and they will feel it is worth paying for it is a very big question. The evidence in Scotland is that it is likely to be a very big disappointment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I support the amendment. I believe that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and colleagues have moved a long way towards meeting many of the concerns that have been expressed in your Lordships' House about the constitution and powers of the general teaching council. But the single issue that remains is what authority this council will have over the education and training of members of the teaching profession and issues such as professional conduct and discipline and the register. The issue relating to the register will arise under a later amendment to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and others.
At the end of the day, what authority is this council to have? The answer is that it will have very little indeed. As the Bill now stands it is to be purely an advisory body. The answer to all of the important questions that may be raised relating to standards of practice and conduct and the retention of names on the register is ultimately vested in the Secretary of State, but not the council itself. Although on Report the noble Baroness said it was intended that in all probability the council would ultimately be given those powers under amending legislation, we all know how difficult it is to achieve amending legislation and primary legislation in the constantly crowded parliamentary timetable.
The question is whether the Government will bite the bullet from the beginning and give this council the powers that all other regulatory authorities for various other professions possess over standards of practice and education and conduct. It is true that the Teacher Training Agency under the chairmanship of Professor Clive Booth is an admirable body that is doing excellent work. However, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I give yet another analogy relating to the work of the General Medical Council. The ultimate authority over medical education is vested in the General Medical Council's Education Committee. That committee has responsibility for achieving and maintaining high standards of medical education and co-ordinating all stages of it. That council, through its professional conduct committee, has authority to deal with all matters to do with conduct and discipline within the profession. The Secretary of State has no authority in that particular regard.
Is the general teaching council simply to maintain an advisory role? In medicine there are many other bodies such as the Royal colleges and a great number of professional associations that give advice on training, conduct and discipline, but the ultimate authority rests with the General Medical Council. That is also true of the General Dental Council and the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. Why do we not take this opportunity to give such authority to the general teaching council since without that authority it will be emasculated? I believe it is right that this task should be undertaken now and not left to amending legislation at a much later date.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. With this amendment, or something like it, this body will become a true general teaching
120
council. Without the amendment it is not a general teaching council but simply an advisory body. The country is coming apart with advisory bodies and we do not need any more. The situation is particularly acute when a question is raised as to an individual's fitness to continue to teach. The Government refuse to give the council power to make such a decision. The Secretary of State will retain that power.
The Secretary of State is a splendid gentleman, and he is also a friend of mine. Nine months ago he was a layman who knew nothing at all about education, but he is to be given the power to decide whether or not an individual is to be allowed to teach. A general teaching council drawn from the whole of the teaching profession and lots of other people will not be allowed to make this decision. It is crazy. What are the Government thinking of? It is not a general teaching council unless it is given this power. I have already said that without power over the ingress to the profession and egress from it this body will not be a general teaching council. I hope that noble Lords from all parties will support this amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Glenamara, for spelling out the issues with such great clarity. I said at an earlier stage of the Bill that governments must allow their legislative offspring to grow up. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, does not merely pass that test, it allows the legislative offspring to come of age. I congratulate her on it.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I wish to return briefly to a point that I made at an earlier stage: throughout the discussions on the Bill we have referred continually to the profession of teaching as though teaching were a profession. Part of the definition of a profession is that it should be self-regulating. The amendment moves in that direction. Without self-regulation, and this amendment, teaching is not a profession. To call it a profession is merely a sop, and a sop is not adequate.
If we wish teaching to be a profession, we must give it the powers of self-regulation which are part of the definition of a profession. I sincerely hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will accept the amendment or, at any rate, that they accept the intention and will return to something similar at a later stage.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I must confess that I am perplexed by the Government's position on this issue. As the Minister knows, I supported her at the beginning on an evolutionary approach. Since the Government have taken large delegated powers in the Bill, they could easily have introduced a ratchet effect with, during the process of the Bill, the Secretary of State handing over powers to the GTC.
However, the Government chose to go for primary legislation which, as has been admitted on all sides of the House—the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, was right—it is highly unlikely would come before the next Parliament. The Minister said that herself. Even then, it would be problematical. Therefore, as the noble

121
Lord, Lord Howie, said, the GTC cannot be described as a professional body. It is therefore flawed from the beginning. In other words, it has within it the makings of a large mess.
This is a Bill that has been rushed into. Consultation could have taken place before the Bill came before the House. The consultation would have said what has been said from all sides of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, is right: teachers will feel that their professional competence has been denied since the GTC remains an advisory council until the end of this Parliament. It will only be granted powers at the will of whoever the next government are. It is deplorable that the Government cannot give ground on this matter. It would be easy to do so. They should at least give the GTC control of the register. That is a small matter, but it would meet the wishes of us all. I have enormous sympathy with my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I add the warm support of the Liberal Democrat Benches for the amendment. At an earlier stage, my noble friends and I moved an amendment which went into greater detail about the powers and functions of the GTC. If I remember rightly, the amendment began with the same words as the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. We debated the amendment on that occasion and I was content to withdraw it. Today, I am pleased to be able to support this amendment.
The points have been made well and clearly today. I am sure that the Government have noted that the strong and articulate support for the amendment has come from all Benches, including their own. I hope that the Minister is about to say that the Government have recognised that and will accept the amendment. We on these Benches will be supporting it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, on the theory of this amendment, there is no question about it, the speeches in favour of it have carried the day. What makes me hesitate is that ever since the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, opened the debate on education as a whole some years ago, we have known that there has been a division of opinion within the profession about how teachers should be trained and how they should teach.
It is a deep division which Mr. Woodward has been doing his best to resolve, but against a good deal of opposition. I wonder whether it is wise, just at this moment, to hand the training of teachers, and all that that implies—the theory of how one teaches someone to teach—entirely to another body, which would leave the Secretary of State with no way in which he or she could intervene.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, before I comment upon the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, I should like to speak to the amendments which stand in the name of my noble friend the Minister, which are grouped with these amendments. I do not believe that they will be too contentious.
122
Amendment No. 10 fulfils a commitment that I made at Report stage in responding to an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. We undertook to consider whether Clause 2 gives the GTC sufficient latitude in how it fulfils its advisory role.
The clause as drafted already allows for the council to initiate advice as it sees fit—there is no question of the council having to wait for a request from the Secretary of State or anyone else. However, on further reflection, we acknowledge that Clause 2 might have been seen as too restrictive in terms of to whom the council may offer advice. It is entirely right for the GTC to decide which persons or bodies it wishes to offer its advice to. The council may, for example, wish to offer advice to local education authorities, the Teacher Training Agency, and other national bodies. But that will be for the council to decide. The amendment reflects that.
Amendment No. 11 makes a consequential technical amendment to extend the council's power to publish its advice.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 then serve to clarify and tidy up Clause 2. Amendment No. 9 makes it clear that the GTC's advice on the topics listed in subsection (2) should be of a general nature applying to the profession as a whole or elements within it, but not to individual teachers. Amendment No. 10 makes clearer the distinction between general advice under subsection (2) and advice on cases concerning individual teachers under subsection (4).
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 12, 24, 35 and 36 which are all technical amendments. Amendment No. 24 removes the definition of "employed" from Clause 10 because the word does not appear in that clause. Amendments Nos. 12, 35 and 36 are all necessary to reflect the wider definition of employment which now appears in Section 218 of the Education Reform Act. The 1997 Education Act amended Section 218 so that the Secretary of State's powers governing the requirement to be a qualified teacher and governing the barring regime could apply to agency and supply teachers or in the legal wording:
"persons engaged to provide their services".
Amendment No. 12 ensures that the reference to barring in Clause 3 reflects those powers. I hope that there will be no dispute about those relatively technical amendments.
I turn therefore to the substance of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. As noble Lords have said, these amendments are virtually identical to those which were pursued in Committee. The Government will oppose those amendments. It may be some slight consolation to noble Lords that we will have something more positive to say to an amendment that arises later in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley.
I shall have to repeat some of what I said at an earlier stage. The essential points are that we believe that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness have serious drawbacks. There is no difference between us in principle. Our difficulties, as noble Lords have hinted, relate to timing. We believe that the amendments would

123
undermine our new qualified teacher standards. They would undermine the valuable work of the Teacher Training Agency, to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred, but which has not been mentioned in the debate. As I made clear in Committee, they would fragment what is currently a coherent child protection system.
We agree with noble Lords that the intention behind the amendments is admirable. However, at this stage, we do not believe that we should move in that direction. As regards entry to the profession, we agree that the GTC must and will have a major role. We have already debated government amendments which give the council a statutory right to be consulted on standards for qualified teacher training and teacher status. We shall also deal with the new induction year. We believe that to go further would undermine the new standards that we have set for qualified teacher status. They come into full effect for the first time on 1st May this year.
To go further would also undermine the Teacher Training Agency. The noble Baroness paid tribute to its work. We believe that the balance of responsibilities between the general teaching council, the Teacher Training Agency and the Secretary of State are broadly right for the time being.
I must repeat the position which we took on exclusion because of its cross-relationship with child protection. The teaching profession differs from other professions in being almost wholly composed of people whose jobs involve them in regular contact with children. In the past few years, the scope of barring has gone beyond teachers to include other people who have contact with children. It also extends to independent schools, FE colleges and maintained schools. In that context, the Government firmly believe that it would be wrong and possibly dangerous to fragment the child protection system in the way envisaged in the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Under her proposals, the GTC would be responsible for barring teachers at schools. The council would not, and indeed could not, have the scope to bar people from being classroom assistants, volunteers in schools or taxi drivers. We believe that there would have to be two separate processes; one before the GTC and one before the Secretary of State. There would otherwise be room for inconsistency of judgment and for claims of double jeopardy by the people accused.
We consider that the present system, by and large, works well and that in issues of child protection it is right for the Secretary of State to continue to make the final decision. We have always envisaged that once the council has established a track record in the field by advising the Secretary of State on individual cases we should consider further primary legislation in order to extend the powers of the GTC in this direction.
People accept, on the one hand, that we are taking an evolutionary approach, but, on the other hand, they expect us to legislate now, although the GTC will not come into full operation before the year 2000. It will
124
be into the next Parliament before we can reasonably make a judgment on whether the GTC is able to take on such additional responsibilities—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, perhaps I may make my position clear because I accept what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I suggest that the Government concede that they can take delegated powers during the time of this Parliament to respond to the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and see how the situation develops, rather than wait for primary legislation in the next Parliament. In other words, the Government should allow the Secretary of State to hand over power to the body. That would resolve the dilemma in which the Minister finds himself.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for giving way. If the body is set up in the future—and I have grave doubts—would it not remove parliamentary accountability in areas of professionalism; for example, misconduct? I believe that as regards the standards of teaching and professional conduct, the Secretary of State must be answerable to Parliament and I am anxious to discover the Government's view on that.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, issues of parliamentary accountability are involved, not as regards entry to the profession in the longer term but in relation to exclusion, in particular on grounds of misconduct of the kind to which I referred and which regrettably arises in relation to schools. We must think long and hard about whether we remove the Secretary of State's ultimate responsibility for that.
We are at one in considering that at a later stage the GTC will have some control over entry to the profession, but that must be assessed in the light of its performance and the views of those in the profession and others dealing with education. I understand the technique spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington; namely, that we would effectively provide a trigger mechanism for the Secretary of State at some later stage. However, we believe that the matter is so important that it requires primary legislation. Our timetable is such that a trigger mechanism would not be adopted until well into the next Parliament. It would be misleading for us to include that power in the Bill at this stage.
We have always said in this Chamber and elsewhere that we regard this to be an important measure of self-government for the teaching profession, but we need to move on a step-by-step basis. We need to establish the legitimacy of the GTC within the profession and to move to greater scope for the GTC over time. Despite what was said by my noble friend Lord Glenamara and others, that view has found support within the profession. Indeed, the largest teacher union, the NUT, takes a similar view on the step-by-step approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, speaks in one breath of not rushing things but in another of putting the provision on the face of the Bill. We should not

125
rush such an important issue; Parliament must make a further assessment. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment on the understanding that we are moving in the same direction, albeit at a slower pace than some of your Lordships would wish.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him about Amendment No. 10 which he skated over rather quickly. Subsection (4B) provides that advice,
"shall be advice of a general nature".
That seems very unspecific. Does it mean, for example, that the GTC could not raise comment on a single aspect of the standards of qualified teacher status, or on a single subject area of the national curriculum for initial teacher training?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no. The distinction I am making is between giving general advice which could apply to a specific area, qualification or subject, and the achievement or otherwise of qualifications by an individual teacher, or misconduct by an individual teacher.
Baroness Young: My Lords, once again, I thank all noble Lords from all parts of the House who have expressed support for the amendment. I spoke briefly in introducing it because I advanced the arguments in great detail in Committee and on Report and I did not wish to go over the ground again. However, I thank sincerely colleagues in the House who have supported me. I refer to my noble friend Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton. There has been strong support from the noble Lords, Lord Glenamara and Lord Howie of Troon; and, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is striking that the support has remained steady throughout all stages.
I fully appreciate that we are all looking to the same end; we want a good general teaching council. I am reminded that such a teaching council exists in Scotland. I have never been clear why it can work satisfactorily in Scotland but not be allowed to work in England and Wales. We have not had an answer to that.
I recognise the important issue of debarring teachers and the great responsibility we have when talking about the concerns of children who are in the care of teachers while at school. However, I believe that when it comes to debarring, teachers would probably be tougher on teachers than would an outsider. That is not a concern of mine; I am much more concerned about the timetabling aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, carefully explained that if all goes well the Government intend to introduce further legislation.
However, I remind myself of what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said on an earlier occasion; that is, that a number of the professional medical bodies have been looking for legislative opportunities to correct things that had gone wrong and failed to find them for many years. Experience of parliament has taught me that to rely on finding a legislative slot in which to fit this in the future is
126
simply asking for trouble. Such a slot will not be available. It will not be achieved through Private Member's legislation and to expect government time to be found is the triumph of hope over experience.
If we have a general teaching council, it is extremely important that it should command not only the respect of the teaching profession but, as I said before, also the respect of parents and people in other professions. I am afraid that if we have only an advisory body, it will be seen to be second-class. Whether or not it is, that is how it will be seen. It will start off on the wrong footing. We owe it to teachers, in relation to the responsibilities which they carry, to have something with authority. Under those circumstances, I feel that I must test the opinion of the House on this matter.
4.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 137; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Flowers, L.

Ailsa, M.

Freyberg, L.

Aldington, L.

Gainford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Alport, L.

Geraint, L.

Ampthill, L.

Glenamara, L.

Astor, V.

Goodhart,L.

Avebury, L.

Gray, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Halsbury, E.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Hampton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Beloff, L.

Holderness, L.

Berners, B.

Hood, V.

Bethell, L.

Hylton, L.

Blatch, B.

Ilchester, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Brentford, V.

James of Holland Park, B.

Bridges, L.

Kintore, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Butterfield, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cadman, L.

Lawrence, L.

Calverley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Carlisle, E.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Chalfont, L.

McConnell, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McNair, L.

Cross, V.

McNally, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Maddock, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Davidson, V.

Marlesford, L.

De Freyne, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Denham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dholakia, L.

Meston, L.

Dundee, E.

Methuen, L.

Elles, B.

Middleton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Ezra, L.

Mottistone, L.

Falkland, V.

Moyne, L.

127

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Nelson, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Newby, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Sandys, L.

Norfolk, D.

Southwell, Bp.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Stafford, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Strafford, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Pender, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Suffield, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Swansea, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Platt of Writtle, B

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Thurso, V.

Pym, L.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rees, L.

Waddington, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wharton, B.

Rochester, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Wynford, L.

Russell, E.

Young, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Annan, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Blease, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Borrie, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Levy, L.

Burlison, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Molloy, L.

Desai, L.

Monkswell, L.

Diamond, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Donoughue, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Eatwell, L.

Northbourne, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Onslow, E.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Paul, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Quirk, L.

Grantchester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grenfell, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hardie, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Haskel, L.

Serota, B.

Hayman, B.

Sewel, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon, V.

Howell, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hoyle, L.

Stallard, L.

128

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Whitty, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Varley, L.

Winston, L.

Vinson, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Kosovo
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on Kosovo which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"I will, with permission Madam Speaker, make a Statement on the crisis in Kosovo.
"On Monday I chaired a meeting of the six-nation Contact Group, which consists of Britain, the United States, the Russian Federation, France, Germany and Italy. The group met in London at my invitation. We issued a comprehensive statement. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.
"The whole House will wish to share the grave concern expressed by all nations at the Contact Group meeting about the events in Kosovo of the past two weeks. The security operations around Dreniza in the past week appear to have left at least 80 people dead. It is simply not credible that all those killed were terrorists, as claimed by Belgrade. Of the 51 corpses released yesterday by the Serb police, less than half are believed to have been men of military age. The local press report that 12 were children, 13 were women and 4 were elderly men.
"Belgrade cannot claim that such extra-judicial killings are a purely internal matter. The international community has a legitimate right and a duty to condemn such gross violations of human rights. Europe has a particular responsibility to reduce violence in the Kosovar region before it produces instability in neighbouring countries.
"I visited Belgrade last Thursday. I made it clear that I did so not just on behalf of Britain but as the Presidency of the European Union. I regret to tell the House that President Milosevic sought to present the events in Kosovo as a legitimate police response to terrorism.
"Britain's record against terrorism is firm and resolute. We strongly condemn the use of violence for political objectives, including the terrorism of the self-styled Kosovo Liberation Army. But terrorism cannot be used as the pretext for indiscriminate use of force against the civilian population.
"While I was in Belgrade I spoke with leaders of the Kosovar people, including Dr. Rugova. That leadership advocates a peaceful pursuit of legitimate political views.
"The international community does not support separatism in Kosovo. We do demand that Belgrade provides enhanced and real autonomy for Kosovo, without which the demands for independence are only too likely to grow. It is the tragic irony of Kosovo that its people enjoyed more autonomy under the communists than they have done under President Milosevic.
"The Contact Group on Monday approved a lengthy statement, which expressed our dismay at the current repression and condemned the excessive use of force. We approved a 10-point action plan to stabilise the security position in Kosovo. Perhaps I may highlight three key objectives.
"First, justice. We urged the prosecutor of the War Crimes Tribunal to investigate the recent violence in Kosovo, and we invited independent forensic experts to investigate the allegations of extra-judicial killings. Those responsible for repression in Kosovo are now on notice that they cannot act with impunity.
"Secondly, international monitoring within Kosovo. We called for access to Kosovo for the Red Cross, and for all embassies of the Contact Group in Belgrade. We also supported a new mission by Felipe Gonzalez as the personal representative of the OSCE Chairman. If Belgrade has nothing to hide, then it has nothing to fear from an increased international presence.
"Thirdly, regional security. The Contact Group agreed to arrange an early meeting with representatives of neighbouring countries, in particular to determine how to enhance the monitoring of their borders. After yesterday's meeting, I phoned the Prime Minister of Albania and the President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Both expressed strong support for the Contact Group statement and President Gligorov gave a warm welcome to our commitment that an international military presence must continue on the border with Serbia after the current UN mandate expires in August. My Minister of State, the honourable Member for Manchester Central, will tomorrow visit Tirana and Skopje as a representative of the Presidency of the European Union in order to discuss what more can be done to strengthen their security.
"The Contact Group also resolved to take specific sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to underline our condemnation of its acts of repression and to encourage it to co-operate with the action plan. We endorsed the following four measures for immediate action: a resolution in the UN Security Council for a comprehensive arms embargo against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including the supply of weapons to terrorists; a refusal to supply equipment which might be used for repression or terrorism; denial of visas for senior Ministers and
130
officials responsible for repressive action; and a moratorium on official credit for trade and investment, including privatisations which are currently of vital importance in maintaining the Yugoslav budget.
"Five members of the Contact Group agreed to all these measures with immediate effect. I spoke by phone at the end of the meeting to Mr. Primakov, the Russian Foreign Minister. He agreed that Russia could support with immediate effect the arms and equipment embargo, and would be willing to consider the denial of visas and the moratorium on official credit if there was no progress in Kosovo within two weeks.
"We have given President Milosevic 10 days to withdraw the paramilitary forces from Kosovo and to commit himself to a process of dialogue with the leadership of the Kosovar community. If President Milosevic takes these steps we will immediately reconsider the sanctions we have adopted. If he fails to do so, the Contact Group will take further measures, including a freeze on the funds held abroad by his government. The Contact Group meets again on 25th March to assess the Belgrade Government's response.
"While I was in Belgrade I met also with representatives of the Serbian opposition, and gave an interview to the independent B92 broadcasting station, which has had material support from Britain. It is important that we recognise that many people in Serbia also reject the police action over the past two weeks, and want their country to accept the standards on human rights of a modern European country.
"We also want the day to come when we can welcome the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia into the family of democratic nations of Europe. We cannot do so, though, unless Belgrade starts to behave by the standards of modern Europe. It is for President Milosevic now to decide whether the future of his state and its people will be deepening isolation from Europe or enhanced co-operation. I ask the backing of the whole House for a firm message to President Milosevic and his Government that the essential first step must be to stop the violence now".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. From this side of the House I echo her condemnation of the violence of the past few days. Furthermore, I wish to make it clear to the Minister that she has the full backing of the Opposition for sending a firm message to President Milosevic and his Government that the essential first step must be, as she put it, to stop the violence now.
The comments made by the Minister on the position taken by the Russians are crucial to the Statement and the current position. Russian influence is considerable and we urge the Government to use their influence—particularly during their presidency of the European Commission—during the next two weeks to persuade the Russians of the merit and importance of the position

131
the Government have taken. We join the Minister in her condemnation of the actions of Serbia and the continuing repression and the gross violations of human rights which she has reported that have caused such suffering to the majority Albanian community in Kosovo. Indeed we condemn all violence, including that of the Kosovo Liberation Army, and welcome the continued commitment to peaceful negotiation.
We remain seriously concerned about the situation in Kosovo. The Serbs' continuing repression there has alienated the majority Albanian community. But Kosovo's unique position bordering Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania makes it an important factor in maintaining stability in the region. One of the fears since 1992 has been that the Bosnian war might reach into Kosovo and create an international conflict. What is vitally important is the need to recognise the potential for violence spreading further in the region.
I wish to ask the Minister one or two short questions. If Serbia does not abide by the terms proposed by the Contact Group, can the Government clarify their position regarding economic sanctions? Is there not a role for UN monitors for Kosovo along the lines of the Macedonian model? We oppose the unilateral ending of Kosovo's autonomous status and believe that autonomy and an open democratic political process must be put in place if Kosovo is to have a secure and stable future. What prospects does the Minister see for a return to the autonomy enjoyed by Kosovo before 1989? Does she agree that Kosovo's unique position makes it crucial in terms of the stability of the whole region?
In conclusion, we strongly support the steps being taken through the EU, the Contact Group and the United Nations to keep the situation under urgent review so that the damage to the stability of the region is kept to a minimum. We welcome the early intervention by the American Secretary of State in particular.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement on Kosovo. I echo her words that not only are we looking at the repression of peaceful dissent in Kosovo, but we are also looking at what one can only describe as the organised destruction of civilians by government forces. Looking at Kosovo one fears that we may be seeing the spectre of Bosnia walking again. On this occasion it is of the most vital importance that the European Union should not fail, nor should the Contact Group, because as the noble Lord speaking for the Opposition has said, the repercussions could be of the most significant kind.
I also commend the Government on what I think is a most impressive Statement of action in one area after another to bring home to President Milosevic the dangers of the path upon which his police forces and his military forces appear to have embarked. The Government have come up with a most commendable list of actions which they are taking, together with the significant step—in my view—of announcing in advance a possible second stage in the event that the
132
President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia does not respond in the next 10 days to requests being put to him.
I ask the Minister three questions. The first concerns UNPREDEP, the United Nations force which is currently on the borders of Macedonia. That force has now become of the greatest significance to contain what is happening in Kosovo and to prevent it spreading to other parts of this profoundly unstable region. Can the Minister tell us whether in the view of Her Majesty's Government 1,050 troops are sufficient; whether steps are in hand to reinforce that body should it be necessary; and whether Her Majesty's Government will be willing to call together the combined joint task force to reinforce that crucial line of command should it be necessary?
What assurances, if any, has the Minister had from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with regard to the invitation for forensic experts to examine those who have died within the past few days so that the process of justice may commence and pursue its path to the end? I refer to the request made as long ago as last October for discussions to take place between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the, in this case, peaceful leaders of the Albanian Kosovo community with a view to determining the autonomy of Kosovo within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Has the Minister any reason to believe that such a dialogue might now take place, and is there any possibility of outsiders being brought in to ensure that it happens? Some 10 per cent. of the population of Kosovo are not Albanians but people of a Roma community. Will the Minister bear in mind their rights too in any discussions that take place on autonomy?
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to the position of the Russians. As I said in repeating my right honourable friend's Statement, the Russians have agreed the arms and equipment embargo. They have said that they will consider the denial of visas and the moratorium on official credit within two weeks if there is no change in Belgrade's position.
The noble Lord asked what would happen if Serbia did not abide by the 10 point plan agreed by the Contact Group yesterday. In those circumstances such issues as the asset freeze referred to in my right honourable friend's Statement will be considered. Further consideration will be given to that—among other things, no doubt—at a meeting of the Contact Group on 25th March if Belgrade does not make any changes in its approach. The noble Lord spoke—quite rightly in the view of Her Majesty's Government—about the threat that the current position in Kosovo poses to the stability of the region in general. It is because Her Majesty's Government are so alert to the grave dangers about regional stability and the real tensions in the region at the moment that Her Majesty's Government were convinced that there should be a meeting of the Contact Group. Her Majesty's Government have been forward

133
in considering the rapid and, I believe, firm actions required in the 10 point plan referred to in my right honourable friend's Statement. We want to ensure that the situation does not get out of control and that it does not become critical. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, referred to the dreadful spectre of Bosnia in this connection.
The noble Baroness mentioned in her address to your Lordships on this point the importance of ensuring that we communicate with our colleagues and our partners in Europe on these issues. There are two opportunities for doing so this week. On Thursday, there will be a European conference in London of current members of the European Union and a number of the applicant countries. It is expected that they will discuss the serious situation in Kosovo. There will also be an informal meeting of foreign ministers in Edinburgh at the weekend. Again, I believe that my right honourable friend intends to discuss the situation with colleagues at the meeting in Edinburgh.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of the UNPREDEP force currently in Macedonia. This afternoon the United Nations is, I understand, being briefed on what happened yesterday in London, and the outcome of the Contact Group. In particular, discussions will take place on the possibility of a comprehensive arms embargo under UN auspices, and of the situation that should pertain after the planned withdrawal of the UNPREDEP troops from Macedonia, which, as the noble Baroness knows, is due to take place in August this year.
The noble Baroness also asked what assurances we had had from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia about implementing the 10 point plan and what discussions were taking place over ensuring real dialogue between the Federal Republic and the Kosovar community about the future. It is because we are waiting for the Federal Republic to respond on the points put forward in the Contact Group that we have arranged the further meeting on 25th March. Of course we very much hope that there will be a sensible and positive response from Belgrade on these issues. We and all the Contact Group members hope to receive the specific assurances for which we have asked. Among them, we hope, will be the assurance of proper discussions about the future of Kosovo, including the presence of those such as Felipe Gonzalez who have wisdom to bring to the discussions.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the Statement repeated by the Minister is most welcome. From my knowledge of the situation it would appear that her right honourable friend has acted with commendable speed and efficiency. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness two questions. The first is in relation to the influence which other important countries may bring to bear. Are not the two countries on whose support we shall depend, Russia and France, the traditional defenders of Serbia in the recent past? Has the noble Baroness read reports that the Russian Republic has within the past few weeks concluded major new arms contracts for the supply of weapons to Serbia? Does she have any reason to
134
suppose that a resolution introduced in the Security Council to ban the export of arms would be supported by Russia and France? That would be an important step for the future.
Secondly, following the question by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, can we now learn something from the past and try to promote policies on this extremely grave and difficult matter within the framework of the European Union? We failed to do so at an earlier stage in the Yugoslav crisis. Here there is an opportunity for the British presidency to help all the member states to profit from our past mistakes of sins and omissions.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his compliments to my right honourable friend which I believe are more than justified. The noble Lord raises the attitude of the governments of Russia and France. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that in his Statement in another place my right honourable friend indicated that he had had a telephone conversation yesterday evening with the Foreign Minister of Russia, Mr. Primakov, who had agreed an arms embargo and an embargo on equipment that might be used for internal repression in Kosovo. I believe that the noble Lord's worries on those points should therefore be put in the context of the conversation that my right honourable friend had last night with his Russian counterpart. I hope that that will give the noble Lord some satisfaction.
The noble Lord rightly raises the importance of involving our colleagues in the European Union. Again, I remind the noble Lord of what I said a few moments ago in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. My right honourable friend plans to discuss these issues with the large group expected at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Thursday this week, and with the smaller group of EU Foreign Ministers who will meet in Edinburgh. I believe that we have a favourable opportunity to discuss these important matters in very good time in the way that the noble Lord suggests would be entirely proper.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will the proposed arms embargo also extend to Albania? Having been in and out of that country since the Italian occupation 60 years ago I have some views on the matter. The noble Baroness may be interested to know that the current Albanian ascendancy in Kosovo dates from the period of Tito communism which encouraged Albanians to settle there and drive out the Serbs. Albania has been the source of small arms flooding into Kosovo over the years.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I understand that the arms embargo agreed yesterday by the Contact Group is an arms embargo on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it a principle of foreign and security policy that where a state uses armed forces in internal security duties in a manner that causes the death of many civilians and the destruction of much

135
property the international community should take action to persuade the authorities concerned to desist from that action? Does that principle apply to all similar cases?
Can the Minister say what steps the European Union and others will take to bring to the attention of the Serbian military and police personnel the fact that they are running a grave risk of being prosecuted before the international criminal tribunal if they continue along the path they have undertaken?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that I am in a position to start extrapolating from the very unhappy and appalling incidents in Kosovo over the past few days to go as far as the noble Lord urges me to do. What I can say is that the scale of the extrajudicial killings in Kosovo is a matter of international concern. As my right honourable friend said, the international community has a legitimate right, indeed a duty, to condemn such gross violations of human rights. I believe that a number of authorities are calling at present for some independent forensic experts to go into Kosovo to look at the corpses which, sadly, still remain unburied. As my right honourable friend said in his Statement, 12 corpses were those of children. There is no way that anyone can pretend that children have been involved in terrorist action which would justify extrajudicial killing.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome the general drift of the Statement. However, the one word that it does not contain is "ceasefire". Is it not essential that someone should be charged with the task of negotiating a ceasefire which would be binding on both the Kosovo liberation army and the Serbian state forces? Is that not an essential preliminary to any attempt to resolve the whole conflict in a peaceful manner?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is content only with the general drift. I thought that the Statement had the merit of being specific on a number of important points. The noble Lord complains that the word "ceasefire" does not appear in my right honourable friend's Statement. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of the last sentence of my right honourable friend's Statement. He asked the other place for its backing for a firm message,
"that the essential first step must be to stop the violence now".
I think that that comprehends a ceasefire.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government that Kosovo should be returned to autonomous status within Yugoslavia? I have been disquieted to hear Kosovo referred to on the BBC in recent days as a Serbian province. I do not think that that is in conformity with such a policy. Secondly, does the noble Baroness recall the questions I asked on the subject of Kosovo, and on this topic, on 10th December 1992 and 25th May 1993? Replying for the Government, my noble friend Lord Henley referred to the "international monitoring presence" in Kosovo. I am not at all clear that there is
136
in fact an international monitoring presence there. If there is, can we hear a little more about it? If there is not, surely there should be.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord raises the status of Kosovo. Her Majesty's Government and the European Union, indeed the international community, do not support separatism in Kosovo. What we demand is that Belgrade should provide enhanced and real autonomy for Kosovo within the federal republic. It is that matter that we are urging the federal republic to discuss with the political leaders in Kosovo.
So far as concerns international monitoring, we are urging the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to increase access for proper monitoring into the areas of Kosovo where so far there has been a denial of access. As noble Lords are aware, it has been very difficult for international monitors and also members of the press to get access to the places where violence has occurred. We hope that that position will be reconsidered so that international monitors can now do the job which will be necessary to satisfy the world that the terrible extra-judicial killings have stopped.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Her Majesty's Government deserve congratulations on their prompt action under the leadership of her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in relation to the crisis in Kosovo? What action has been taken in respect of other European institutions becoming involved in this issue in an attempt to bring about a settlement? I refer specifically to the Council of Europe on the one hand and the Western European Union on the other. Is my noble friend further aware that, when I was a member of both organisations, we visited Yugoslavia repeatedly and tried to persuade the Yugoslays that the problem that has now emerged in Kosovo was always there and was likely to erupt? Have any representations been made with a view to using the good offices of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his congratulations to my right honourable friend. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government and our colleagues in Europe will want to consider all sensible means of pursuing a peaceful settlement in Kosovo. My noble friend mentioned in particular the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. I am sure that those will be considered. I would remind my noble friend that the Western European Union is presently more attuned to examining more specific peacekeeping issues. However, I am sure consideration will be given to any sensible alternatives.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the measures that are proposed if the present measures fail will be backed by force, which is now accepted as an essential back-up for diplomacy? Are the ships still in place to effect a proper blockade of Serbia—for example, to cut off oil supplies?

137
I do not think that at the present time Milosevic will be much affected by the measures proposed and would be more affected by measures that might be proposed.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, a number of groups, indeed some of the Albanians presently living in this country, are urging Her Majesty's Government to consider the use of force. I urge your Lordships not to consider such an option. I hope that the Statement that I have repeated has indicated a number of specific measures which the Contact Group not only hopes, but believes, will be successful. The Contact Group will meet again, as I indicated, on 25th March. If the measures that it has indicated have not moved the Belgrade government, then it will be able to consider other measures, including the assets freeze that I mentioned. I am sure that other measures will also be considered at that stage.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the noble Baroness go further in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie? There is the old Latin tag: si vis pacem, para bellum. We should therefore not follow the line taken by the late Harold Wilson, who said: "I will never use force in Rhodesia". We should never say that we shall never use force. I hope that we never have to use it. However, the behaviour of the Serbian Government is so intolerable that there must be an ultimate threat of force. Surely, force worked ultimately in Bosnia. Possibly, had we been more prepared to use it earlier, it may not have been necessary. So I say to the Minister: please do not rule out the use of force. I do not under any circumstances advocate it: however, I beg the noble Baroness not to rule it out.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that when the noble Earl has an opportunity to read Hansard tomorrow he will be able to see that I did not say that we shall never use force. I urged the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches to consider the measures that Her Majesty's Government and the Contact Group have already proposed, and to remember that there is an opportunity on 25th March to reconsider the position.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for answering my supplementary question at Question Time yesterday on the involvement of the Security Council in the Kosovo question. She has done so through the words of her right honourable friend the Foreign Minister. Does she agree that the Albanian people of Kosovo, under President Rugova, whom I met four years ago in Priština, have shown remarkable patience in their passive resistance to the oppression that they have suffered to date under the Serbs—a patience which, I suggest, is now running out. What further steps can be taken to encourage
138
the opposition, and eventually a change of regime in Belgrade, which I suggest is the only peaceful way in which the autonomy in Kosovo can be achieved?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my right honourable friend, when he was in Belgrade last week, was able to give some encouragement to Dr. Rugova by having a meeting with him. As I indicated, Dr. Rugova rightly continues to advocate the peaceful pursuit of the legitimate political views of those Albanian people whom he represents. Her Majesty's Government have encouraged him to pursue that course of action. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government, the Contact Group and, I hope, our European partners will do the same in the coming weeks.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish to ask a very short question. In the context of the war crimes trials, which are a form of deterrent, as perhaps the noble Baroness will agree, how are the investigations to be made? How is identity to be established? I realise that there are difficulties. Is it the job of the monitors? What arrangements have been made? If contemporaneous or virtually contemporaneous arrangements are made, it is no effective deterrent.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Contact Group yesterday urged the office of the prosecutor of the international court in Yugoslavia to begin gathering information relating to the violence in Kosovo that may fall within its jurisdiction. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia authorities have an obligation to co-operate with the international court. Contact Group countries will make available to the international court substantial information which is already in their possession. But it is part of the 10-point plan being urged upon the Belgrade Government at the moment that we see proper co-operation from them as well.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the preventive force in Macedonia will be maintained over the summer? I understand that nearly half the force is now made up of American troops, and there is some pressure for their withdrawal at the end of the current mandate. Can the Minister give us any indication whether the European allies will be prepared to replace and, if necessary, reinforce that important force, should the Americans withdraw?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that we must await the discussions of the next few days about the nature of any international force to be kept in the area beyond August this year. As my right honourable friend said in his Statement in another place, we wish to see some kind of force being kept there. The actual auspices under which such a force would operate are, I believe, a matter for discussion in the next few days, within the UN, NATO and elsewhere. We must await the outcome of those discussions.
Noble Lords: Beloff!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret that we have now reached the 20 minute limit.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
5.3 p.m.
Clause 2 [Advisory functions of the Council]:
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, I believe that Amendment No. 6 is not moved.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that it is traditional that when a vote has been taken and an amendment agreed to, further consequential amendments in that group are accepted. Is that not so?
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I understand that certain amendments have been spoken to but not moved, so they must be formally moved.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, leave out lines 33 and 34.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, leave out line 39.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I have to say that if Amendment No. 8 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 9.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert—
("(4A) The Council may give advice on such matters falling within subsection (2) as they think fit to such persons or bodies as they may from time to time determine.
(4B) Any advice given by the Council on matters falling within subsection (2) shall he advice of a general nature.").
Page 3, leave out line 7 and insert (", (3) or (4A).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments which are of a technical nature. If there is no objection, I beg to move them both.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 [Registration of teachers]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 16, after ("employed") insert (", or otherwise engaged to provide his services,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("by the Secretary of State").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert—
("(5) Where the Council considers that a person on the register or who has applied for registration has fallen short of the professional standards appropriate to a place on the register, it may, having heard representations—

(a) admonish or issue a warning to that person;

(b) attach conditions to his registration;

(c) suspend him from the register for a specified period; or

(d) remove him from the register, either—

(i) immediately, or

(ii) at the end of a period of suspension, if it considers that conditions specified in the notice of suspension have not been met.

(6) Where the Council takes action under subsection (5) above, it shall issue a notice to the person concerned, setting out the action being taken and the grounds for its decision that he has fallen short of the professional standards appropriate to a place on the register.
(7) The powers conferred on the Council by this section are without prejudice to the powers of the Secretary of State under section 218(6) of the Education Reform Act 1988.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. The amendments provide for the general teaching council to have power to deregister as well as to register teachers. This issue was debated on Report, as noble Lords may recall, when I withdrew my amendment at that time (Amendment No. 15) for further consideration. The principle was widely supported, but a number of noble Lords made helpful suggestions which have been incorporated in the amplified provisions which we now have before us.
I think I need not spend much time in revisiting the merits of the case. In a sense, the amendments dot the "i"s of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, which we have just discussed. Without such a power as we have here the new council will lack any real teeth, will lack esteem, and may even find it hard to attract the right people to serve. Other professions have this power, even the newly-arrived osteopaths and chiropractors. It chimes in closely with the Government's new aim in Clause 1 for the council,
"to maintain and improve standards of professional conduct".
The National Commission on Education advocated it. Logic and symmetry suggest that the council's powers should not be restricted to just one aspect of the register for which it is to be responsible. There is no intention of subsuming any of the Secretary of State's existing powers to bar teachers under the Education Reform Act 1988. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at Report. We have made this clear in subsection (7) of the new amendment. It is the professional—if you like, my Lords, the classroom—aspects, for example, issues of gross incompetence, with which the GTC will be concerned here.
There will doubtless come a time, and we have discussed it already, when the council, like its Scottish counterpart—and its Welsh counterpart under this very Bill—will take over all aspects of debarment. But it will be better able to do that when mechanisms are in place and experience has been gained in the matter of professional standards. For all those reasons, I believe it

141
will be far from "premature"—let alone "dangerous", as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said at an earlier stage—to make this limited but important provision.
The amendment at Report stage spoke only of removing people from the register. The present amendment brings it more into line with other professional bodies by providing in subsections (5)(a) to (c) of Amendment No. 14 suspension, warning and conditional registration. These are important additions to outright removal which the GTC will need in its armoury. The matter of appeal was also raised at Report. It is catered for in Amendment No. 16 which comes under Clause 4(2) relating to future regulations. Subsection (6) of Amendment No. 14, requiring the council to put its decision in writing, is also drafted with the possibility of a subsequent appeal in mind.
Amendment No. 15 covers the making of regulations governing how the council conducts its hearings and determines its professional standards, among all the other aspects of the exercise of its powers. These are all matters which will properly be the subject of careful discussion between the profession and the Secretary of State, which it would be unwise to set in stone under Clause 3 at this stage.
I could elaborate further, but I think the provisions are clear and I hope I have said enough to explain what these amendments set out to do, drawing on the comments made at Report from various quarters, including the Government. I commend them to the House as a worthwhile measure—a limited but significant start to the council assuming real ownership of standards within the teaching profession, as well as responsibility for them. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I warmly support Amendments Nos. 14 to 16. Following on from what was said earlier by the noble Lords, Lord Glenamara and Lord Howie of Troon, I remind the House that some years ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that professional self-regulation is one of the glories of a civilised society. In a subsequent lecture Sir Ralf Dahrendorf (later the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf) said that, in his view, regulation of the professions by the state was a fearful thing. He spoke with authority, being a German citizen and having noted the regulation by the state of many of the professions in his native country.
This group of amendments follows on from that which was passed by your Lordships earlier today and gives authority to the general teaching council. I remind the House, as the noble Earl, said, that the authority for similar actions is vested in the Acts which govern the professional regulation of professions such as medicine, dentistry, chiropractic, osteopathy, and others. At Report stage I mentioned that those bodies were answerable not to the Secretary of State, but to the Privy Council. If any decision is made by those regulatory authorities relating to the registration of a professional, there is an automatic right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
142
At that time I suggested that the same authority was vested in the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. In fact, that used to be the case with the old General Nursing Council. Now the UKCC is not answerable to the Privy Council but to the Secretary of State for Health. In that instance the right of appeal against a direction of the council is not to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but to the High Court. I venture to suggest that, as the general teaching council will be ultimately answerable to the Secretary of State, the right of appeal against such a direction, referred to in Amendment No. 16, is one which also ought to lie with the High Court.
I believe that to add these powers on the face of the Bill is of crucial importance. It is right that the authority should not only allow removal from the register but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said in the earlier debate, experience of the other regulatory authorities indicates that the professionals are often much more fierce in their condemnation of their colleagues. For instance, in the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council, on which I served for many years, I found that doctors were much tougher than the lay members who were involved in the decision-making relating to issues of registration.
I believe that it is right that the general teaching council, in establishing its disciplinary conduct and professional procedures, should have a sufficient number of lay members on committees concerned with decisions in that regard to enable them to assist in reaching determinations. I firmly believe also that the right of appeal is appropriate and must be enshrined either in the Bill or in regulations. I warmly support Amendment No. 14.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like briefly to reiterate what I said at the previous stage; that is, that this power of the General Teaching Council for Scotland is one which teachers appear to value most.
I am told that the appeal system which that council operates is extremely tough. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, its members are extremely robust and detached. Of course, the Privy Council is not involved; it is an internal matter. However, it has a good appeal system and there is no reason why that power should not be included in the powers of the new general teaching council.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. First, I am in favour of a general teaching council and I recall raising the matter in the other place around 25 years ago.
I have an anxiety that the noble Earl may be able to assuage. The council has the power to suspend or terminate a teacher's membership. However, the teacher is not employed by the teaching council; he is employed by an education authority or a board of governors. What would the board of governors do where a teacher's membership had been suspended or it was felt by the council that the teacher should not continue in the profession? How would the employing authority act?

143
My point is that the matter must be thought through and explanation offered. We are dealing with the work of the teaching council at the sharp end and one needs to know what arrangements are envisaged in order to make sure that the decisions of the council carry weight. If no arrangements are made, then the whole thing could fall into disrepute, which would not be desirable.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I apologise to the House that I was not in my place when the noble Earl moved Amendment No. 14. My name is attached to the amendment because I believe that this amendment fits neatly with my earlier amendment, to which your Lordships agreed.
I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, on the question of providing some kind of appeal system. The amendment gives effect to the detail of working out how the whole question of dismissing a teacher should work. It is important and, for all the arguments set out, I am glad to support it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, when this matter was dealt with at Report stage, understandably the question of appeal had not been considered. I ventured to suggest then that it was an omission that should be looked at and, with his usual diligence, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has done so.
I turn to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that an appeal under anything in this section should go to a High Court judge. If we look at the amendment we will see that the council is given the power to admonish or issue a warning. It cannot possibly be suggested that an appeal against that should go before a High Court judge.
The only time that one envisages an appeal to a High Court judge would be under paragraph (d), which is removal from the register. That is not the position under Amendment No. 14. Appeal should lie with another body or even with the Secretary of State in respect of matters covered by paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Paragraph (d) is the only one which ought to go anywhere near a High Court judge.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, perhaps I can answer that point by saying that in other regulatory authorities there is no appeal against a decision to admonish or to attach conditions to registration; there is appeal only against decisions which affect an individual's registration, such as suspension or erasure. I felt that I should clarify that point in case it is necessary for this issue to be dealt with in another place by a further amendment.
In answer to a question raised earlier in relation to registration—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry, this is Third Reading. The noble Lord is a little out of order and perhaps he can be brief and keep to factual points of information.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, the factual point of information in relation to other regulatory
144
bodies is that an individual who is not registered is not able to be employed in that profession within a public service.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I hope to have an opportunity for a moment to express again my unease at the removal of parliamentary accountability which is inherent, first, in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and, secondly, in Amendment No. 14, though I acknowledge that its drafting is far superior to the earlier one.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned other professional bodies. He will know that there is some unease among other professional bodies about accountability to the public. I have a little experience in this area as for five years, as Under-Secretary of State for Education, I was solely responsible, subject to the Secretary of State, for dealing with these unfortunate disciplinary matters. I was dealing with 350 cases a year, an enormous number. If children are abused in school, parents are understandably irate about it. The first thing they do is go to see their Member of Parliament. After that Members of Parliament came to see me or raised the matter in the House. One notorious case, with which I shall not bore the House, was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailshani, whose name was mentioned earlier. He demanded greater accountability regarding the actions I had taken which were supported by the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. It merited being raised on the Floor of the House by the Member concerned and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, although they were totally misdirected in what they were saying at the time and they lost the argument. For heaven's sake, let us not put that out of our minds. If parents cannot get severe grievances raised on the Floor of the House and receive proper answers, considerable difficulties will be caused. I have read that as far as concerns the General Medical Council there has been no public accountability about the private investigations carried on there.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will confirm my view that the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, is more reasonable than an earlier amendment. He has gone to great trouble to meet the wishes of the House, as expressed earlier, and so I would not want to vote against it, even though I have my reservations about it. I hope that the Government can see their way clear to meeting the various differences of opinion.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, saw some difficulty in the fact that the employer is not the same person as is judging competence. With respect, that is not an entirely uncommon situation. A barrister is not employed by the Bar Council, but the Bar Council is competent to decide his fitness to act as a barrister. A bus driver is employed by a bus company. But it is not the bus company that takes away his driving licence if he drives extremely badly. What happens when he loses his driving licence is that he loses his qualification to be employed by his employer. That is a perfectly recognised procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, invoked the spectre of accountability. This has been done by power in all

145
centuries. But the limits of accountability must have something to do with the limits of competence. It is our contention that the general teaching council is more likely to be able to recognise a competent or incompetent teacher than the department is.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Order!
Lord Tope: My Lords, my name is also attached to this amendment and I rise therefore to offer support for it from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Reference has been made to the amendment at Report stage in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. I know that since withdrawing that amendment, the noble Earl has worked extremely hard to take on board the points made on Report. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, has offered some extremely valuable advice, which has been included in the drafting of the amendment. Noble Lords have said that the amendment now before us is significantly better than the amendment at Report stage. Although I was disappointed that the amendment at Report stage was not pressed to a Division, I can now see that that was a wise decision. We now come to an amendment which meets all of the concerns mentioned at Report stage.
This is one of the key amendments in this part of the Bill. On the government amendment earlier today, we recognised that the general teaching council should have a majority of teachers. That was an important step towards having it seen by teachers themselves as an appropriate professional body. We then passed an amendment giving it proper functions and a proper role as a general teaching council. I see this amendment as a third plank in establishing the general teaching council as a proper professional body and being recognised as such by the profession. So on these Benches we are pleased to support this important amendment.
We noted with great interest the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that it is this provision which is valued most in Scotland. I can well recognise that that must be so. Another speaker said earlier—and I know it to be the case—that very often the people who feel most strongly about bad teachers are other teachers. I speak as the husband of a teacher, so I know that to be true.
Perhaps I may follow on from the point made by my noble friend Lord Russell in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, as to how a governing body or an LEA—the employer of a teacher who is deregistered—would feel. I can speak as a school governor who has had to face this issue. First, it is highly probable that before a teacher is deregistered the governing body would have taken action anyway. These are notoriously difficult areas for school governing bodies to deal with. In the probably unlikely event that the governing body had not dealt with it, or had not been able to deal with it, I suspect that most governing bodies, if not all governing bodies, would be very pleased indeed to have a professional body which was able to judge, and judge independently, that a teacher was not suitable to teach.
146
I would expect all governing bodies and all LEAs to welcome this provision. My noble friend Lord Russell made exactly the right points as to why that should be so.
This is an extremely important amendment for the establishment of the general teaching council. We were warned, if that is the right word, earlier that the Minister may have something positive to say on the amendment. We look forward to hearing it. However, unless it is accepted in its entirety, I think it is something which the noble Earl may wish to pursue further.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on this matter, obviously reinforced by the Division which has recently taken place. I pay tribute, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has done, to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for his work in drawing up the amendment, for the way he responded to contributions by Members of your Lordships' House at an earlier stage and for the force and eloquence with which he moved the amendment today. Most important of all, he has come up with an amendment which we believe proposes a more workable and responsible way forward than the amendments that have just been passed.
As my noble friend Lord Whitty said earlier when the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, were being debated, they would undermine our new qualified teacher standards. They would undeimine the valuable work of the Teacher Training Agency. They would fragment what is currently a coherent child protection system and would give highly sensitive powers over child protection to an untried and untested body. For those reasons, we shall seek to overturn the amendments in another place.
As we have said at earlier stages, we understand why many Members of your Lordships' House wish to give the council full power over the register of teachers and particularly more power over professional discipline. That is an admirable aim. There is clearly a case for the council assuming such powers in due course. But where we part company is on how and when that might be done.
We have concerns, which I outlined earlier, about fragmenting the child protection arrangements. This amendment attempts to address that concern and I am pleased to welcome the principle that underpins it. As I understand it, the amendment is designed to cover those cases which might be characterised as being about a teacher's professional standing or involving conduct unbecoming to a teacher. Therefore, I am prepared to undertake on behalf of the Government to consider how we can translate that principle into this Bill. It is not possible to give the council the role envisaged without affecting the existing disciplinary system administered by the Secretary of State. So we need to take this matter away and do some detailed work on it before bringing forward an amendment in another place, which I undertake to do.
At present we have a single, coherent system for dealing with all forms of misconduct. It is a wide-ranging system which has been successively

147
extended by governments of all political persuasions. It covers both teachers and a wide range of other people working with children in an educational setting. It covers state schools, independent schools and colleges of further education. It covers both misconduct which gives rise to concerns about child protection and that which gives rise to concerns about a teacher's professional standing. So we cannot really look at this matter in isolation. We have to look at how it will dovetail with the existing barring regime. We will need to consider how we can ensure a clear dividing line between child protection cases and professional standing cases, which the amendment agreed to earlier singularly fails to do.
More than half of the cases dealt with by the department's teacher misconduct team are clearly about child protection. They account for some three-quarters of the barring or restriction orders on teachers. Around one quarter of the cases have little or no child protection dimension to them. These cases involve things like teachers making false claims about their qualifications; misappropriating school funds, helping pupils to cheat in exams, and similar forms of misconduct. There are around 100 such cases a year, which typically lead to between 10 or 20 barring or restriction orders.
However, the remaining one quarter of the cases may not be quite so easily classified. These are cases of serious offences which may not involve children directly, but in which the offending behaviour may indicate a possible risk to the safety or welfare of children. We shall need to consider how such cases are handled and who decides whether they should be taken up by the GTC or the Secretary of State.
As we said at earlier stages, there could also be some difficulties of scope. The amendment covers only registered teachers since the council's power would be to strike a teacher off the register, suspend him or her from the register or attach conditions to his or her registration. We shall need to consider how we deal with unregistered teachers in the independent and FE sectors and with the non-teaching staff who are covered by the current barring regime.
Similarly, removal from the GTC's register would effectively bar a person only from teaching in maintained schools. We shall need to consider whether a teacher who has been removed from the council's register should be barred from teaching in independent schools and FE colleges and from other non-teaching work with children. However, I would have reservations if appropriate professional standards were to include at this stage matters of competence as to how individual teachers do their job. We have worked in partnership with the education service and drawn up new arrangements agreed by representatives of local education authorities and teachers' unions. I would want to consider carefully whether a role for the council would help or hinder those new arrangements. We must give the arrangements time to work.
I now turn to appeals. We see a proper place for them in any new system. We will give this careful thought in preparing a government amendment to be introduced in another place.
148
There is a range of issues which we need to work through in more detail in order to make absolutely sure that the amendment will have the desired effect. But I can say again that we shall bring forward an appropriate amendment at a later stage at the same time as overturning the amendments that have just been passed in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, for the considerable energy and clarity he has brought to this issue. In the wording of the amendment the noble Earl's intention is made crystal clear; namely, to distinguish very clearly child protection cases, which we believe should remain with the Secretary of State, and those misconduct cases where we now believe that the GTC can bring its unique professional insight to bear. I hope that he will understand our wish to make sure that the wording is also legally watertight. As I have said, we shall bring forward an appropriate amendment in another place. In the light of that commitment, and in view of the conflict between this amendment and the amendments which have just been passed, I very much hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Let me cut straight through to what the noble Baroness has generously said in the past few minutes. She went a very long way towards what we are after. However, I am still not as clear as I would like to be. I tend to go with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who said that unless we are 100 per cent. clear we should press the amendment. I am still inclined to think that.
The reducing point that I have in mind is that the general teaching council should, obviously, have the powers which are now on the face of the Bill and that it would have a real, constructive and positive role in matters, for example, like gross incompetence. I refer to the teaching-related issues that I mentioned, such as the teacher who loses all the scripts that her children have done for the GCSE; who fails to mark work; or whose pupils, going in for an exam, find 10 minutes beforehand, that they do not have the papers that they are allowed to take in with them: and this is all part of a pattern from previous schools and so on. That is the kind of issue that we had in mind that the general teaching council should take on; issues which would not have got to the Secretary of State.
The noble Baroness also said that teaching competence would not come into it. Can she give a little more clarification before I decide, if not exactly where the dividing line is between the two, but that a substantial amount of what we have been talking about will be assigned to the general teaching council? Can she do that?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this is exactly the kind of issue which needs more consideration. As I said earlier, we are anxious to work in partnership

149
with the education service. We have recently drawn up new arrangements, which have been agreed by local education authorities, their representatives and the teaching unions, for dealing with matters of competence as to how an individual teacher does his or her job. We need to give those new arrangements time to work. Therefore, I do not believe that, for the time being, it would be sensible for the GTC to be barring a teacher on those kinds of grounds.
However, it is perfectly reasonable for the GTC to bar teachers for some of the other reasons that I gave earlier; namely, where a teacher has been dishonest or pretended to have qualifications which he or she does not have; or where a teacher has been involved in misconduct in the school, but not misconduct that involves child protection cases. I hope that that is helpful. All I can do is reiterate that we accept in principle what the noble Earl wants to do here, but we would like more time to come up with legally watertight amendments that do not get us into difficulty when implementing the proposals in the Bill.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that reply. It is certainly a difficult one and the noble Baroness has gone a long way. I think what I have to say is that she has not probably gone quite far enough. It is a close thing, but I would say possibly four-fifths and no more. I am swayed by the thought that if it is as she says and if I have misrepresented her, with another stage to come in another place it is perfectly open to her and her party to tidy it up at that stage. With some regret, but on balance and conscious of the support I have had from many noble Lords around the House, to whom I am extremely grateful, I think I will test the opinion of the House.
5.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,69; Not-Contents, 104.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Flowers, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Geraint, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hampton, L.

Blatch, B.

Hamwee, B.

Bowness, L.

Harlech, L.

Butterfield, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Byford, B.

Hooson, L.

Calverley, L.

Hylton, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Inchyra, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Jacobs, L.

Courtown, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cox, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Leigh, L.

Dholakia, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Ezra, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Falkland, V.

Lyell, L.

150

Lytton,E.

Russell, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

McNair, L.

Southwell, Bp.

McNally, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Maddock, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Meston, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Methuen, L.

Thurlow, L.

Thurso, V.

Monson, L.

Tope, L.

Mountevans, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Warnock, B.

Redesdale, L.

Weatherill, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wharton, B.

Rochester, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jeger, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Amos, B.

Judd, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Barnett, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Berkeley, L.

Kintore, E.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blease, L.

Levy, L.

Borrie, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Burlison, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe,L.

Mishcon, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Monkswell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Northbourne, L.

Donoughue, L.

Paul, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gallacher, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Grantchester, L.

Sewel, L.

Gregson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grenfell, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hardie, L.

Simon, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayman, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howell, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hoyle, L.

Varley, L.

Hughes, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Whitty, L.

Islwyn, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.50 p.m.
Clause 4 [Regulations relating to registration]:
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("by the Secretary of State").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Young I beg to move formally Amendment No. 17.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Additional and ancillary functions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 30, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [The General Teaching Council for Wales]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 19 to 21:
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("General Teaching").
Page 5, line 7, leave out ("General Teaching").
Page 5, line 12, leave out ("General Teaching").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move en bloc Amendments Nos. 19 to 21.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 7 [Functions of General Teaching Council for Wales: general]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 23, leave out ("General Teaching").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Registration requirement for teachers at schools]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 12, after ("Council") insert ("for England").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Deduction of fees from salaries, etc.]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment Nos. 24 to 26:
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("and "employed"").
Page 6, line 41, leave out ("General Teaching").
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
CONSULTATION ABOUT QUALIFIED TEACHER STATUS
(". In section 218 of the Education Reform Act 1988, after subsection (2A) there shall be inserted—
"(2AA) Before making any regulations under subsection (2) or (2A) or making any provision by virtue of regulations made under those subsections as to the standards required of a person who wishes to become a qualified teacher, the Secretary of State shall consult either or both of the following (as appropriate)—

(a) the General Teaching Council for England, and

(b) after their establishment, the General Teaching Council for Wales."").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 11 [Supply of information relating to teachers]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("General Teaching")
152
Page 7, line 19, after ("Council") insert ("for England").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel) moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
("Duty of the General Teaching Council for Scotland
DUTY TO HAVE REGARD TO NEEDS OF DISABLED PERSONS
At the end of section 1 of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965 (establishment of General Teaching Council for Scotland) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3) In exercising their functions, the Council shall have regard to the requirements of persons who are disabled persons for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.—"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that I am making a brief guest appearance at this stage of the Bill. In moving Amendment No. 29 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 56. Amendment No. 29 introduces a new provision which will require the General Teaching Council for Scotland to take into account the needs of disabled people in the course of its work. This introduces for Scotland a provision similar to that relating to the GTCs for England and Wales which was debated on Report. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, for raising the matter at that time. I hope she accepts that the Government have responded positively. Amendment No. 56 is a purely technical amendment to insert this new provision in the list of those provisions in the Bill which extend to Scotland. I commend the amendments to the House.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, speaks, I thank the Minister for tabling the amendment. I was asked by the National Deaf Children's Society to help amend the Bill to match the amendments already made for England and Wales. In my researches I discovered that the noble Baroness, in her usual assiduous way, had been hard at work on the matter and had got the Government going on it. With great relief I was able to cease my activities. I have contacted the General Teaching Council for Scotland. The council tells me that in any case it deals with this matter assiduously and is very glad to have this proposal inserted into the Bill. Obviously, the Government will also have consulted that body.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I warmly welcome this very useful amendment. I thank the Minister for his positive and speedy action. I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for her remarks.
Briefly, I refer to another relevant point. In my letter of 3rd March thanking the Minister for his decision to table this amendment I asked whether he would consider tabling an amendment similar to the amendment to Clause 1(4) moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, at Report stage. That is now Clause 1(6)(d) which requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of the council's membership reflecting the interests of persons concerned with the teaching of persons with special educational needs.

153
I realise that the members of the GTC for Scotland are elected, nominated and appointed in different ways, but I very much hope that an acceptable mode can be found to achieve the same effect. I also realise that it is rash to interfere in Scottish affairs, particularly in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, to whom, as I say, I am grateful for her remarks. However, the National Deaf Children's Society covers Scotland and that body feels that such an amendment is useful. It arrives late in the passage of the Bill through the House but it has yet to go to the other place. I raise the question now to give the Minister an opportunity to explain the Government's thinking on the matter. Whatever may be the response of the Minister, I thank him very much for tabling Amendments Nos. 29 and 56.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this gives me an opportunity to speak for my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding who is not able to be here. He is in the Netherlands but thanks the Government for all they have done for the disabled in this part of the Bill and in that part which pertains to England and Wales. I promised my noble friend that I would place that on record.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I too welcome the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, rightly referred to her noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. My noble friend Lord Addington will also be pleased to see the amendment as it addresses issues of particular concern to him. My noble friend would also be interested to hear the response to a question that I shall put to the Minister although a reply may not be possible today. Does the definition of disabled persons in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 extend to people with dyslexia and learning difficulties? I do not know the answer: my suspicion is that it does not. That might have relevance in the context of a general teaching council.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, when I look back to the referendums Bills and the earlier stages of this Bill I find myself in a somewhat unusual position. I thank noble Lords for what they have said. From time to time I am also somewhat reluctant to intervene in Scottish business in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. To deal with the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the straight answer is that I do not know either but I shall endeavour to find out and write to him. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, raised a question about the membership of the GTC. I have asked officials in the education and industry department of the Scottish Office to discuss this matter with the General Teaching Council for Scotland. We shall consider whether it would be appropriate to table an amendment in another place. Therefore, the door is slightly more than ajar. I commend the amendments to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 13 [Requirement to serve induction period]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 8, line 34, after ("period") insert ("of not less than one school year").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I undertook on Report to bring forward a government amendment making it clear that the induction period should not be less than one academic year. That has always been our intention but I am happy to make that intention clear on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 30 fulfils that commitment and will ensure that the induction period is not less than one school year; that is, three school terms.
Our intention is that the induction period should normally be one school year. However, Amendment No. 31 will enable the Secretary of State to make provision as to the length of the induction period in any prescribed circumstances. It is intended to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations that the induction period will be longer for part-time teachers who will be required to serve an equivalent number of days in order to complete their induction period. It will also enable the Secretary of State to prescribe those requirements that will apply if there are interruptions in the induction period as a result of teachers being on extended sick or maternity leave. We intend to consult in our consultation document on such exceptions to ensure that the regulations can cover every eventuality. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 8, line 36, at end insert ("in any prescribed circumstances").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 9. line 8, leave out first ("General Teaching").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 9, line 9, at end insert—
("(2A) Once the Council or the General Teaching Council for Wales have been established, the Secretary of State shall consult one or both of those Councils (as appropriate) before making any determination as to standards by virtue of regulations made under subsection (2)(c).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 9, line 16, after ("section") insert—

("(a) any reference to persons employed as teachers shall be construed in accordance with section 218(13) of the Education Reform Act 1988, and

(b)")

Page 9, leave out line 17 and insert ("subsection (12) of that section.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 14 [Inspection of institutions training teachers for schools]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 9, line 37, after ("Council") insert ("for England").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Inspection of institutions training teachers for schools: Scotland]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 38
Page 11, line 31, leave out ("of") and insert ("wholly or mainly for").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 38 brings forward in relation to inspection of teacher education in Scotland a similar clarification to that which was provided in relation to Clause 14 by the provision already debated on Report. My noble friend and I undertook to bring forward this similar amendment relating to Scotland and we are today fulfilling that undertaking.
As I explained at the time, it was always the intention that HM Inspectorate would look only at courses in Scotland provided wholly or mainly for teacher education purposes. But we recognise concerns raised that the clause as drafted might have permitted inspection of other courses, because some students attending lectures might have been trainee teachers. We are therefore happy to make the position clear through this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [New arrangements for giving financial support to students]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 12, line 25, after ("fees") insert ("payable in connection with attendance on courses").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendments in this grouping are minor technical amendments. They do not alter the substance of Clause 16(2)(h) or 16(8) or of Clause 18(4) or 18(5). They simply bring the references to fees in those four subsections into line with the definition of fees in Clause 20(1) as amended on Report. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 13, line 39, at end insert—
("() Notwithstanding the provisions in other subsections of this section, the Secretary of State shall not introduce a scheme to require students to pay tuition fees until a date on or after 1st June 2002.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a good and useful debate on tuition fees on Report. We now return to the subject. I have said at every stage of the Bill thus far that the Liberal Democrats remain opposed to the student payment of tuition fees. That remains our view. It is unchanged. But I have to recognise that in your Lordships' House that issue was decided on Report. On that occasion, we had voting for the amendment against tuition fees the largest ever number of Liberal Democrat Peers. We had over 30 Conservative Back-Bench Peers, to whom I am grateful for their support, as well as a
156
number of Cross-Benchers, Labour Peers and Members of the Bishops' Bench. I am grateful for that considerable show of concern that I am aware exists in your Lordships' House on the issue of tuition fees.
I recognise that, sadly from our point of view, the Conservative Front Bench did not feel able to support that amendment. I know that that was because it did not accord with its policy on tuition fees. Later in the evening, the Conservatives succeeded with their own amendment.
This amendment is a little different. I hope that the Conservative Front Bench, as well as its Back Benches will feel able to support it. We are saying now, as indeed the Conservative Front Bench has said on other occasions—and the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, made the point forcefully on Report—that the Government have no mandate to introduce tuition fees. It did not feature in their election manifesto. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, told us that it did not feature at the Labour Party conference. Indeed, it is contrary to the impression given during the general election, and, some will argue, in the statements made during the general election.
Therefore we feel that any action to be taken with regard to the introduction of tuition fees should stand the test of a general election, and that whichever government or prospective government may wish to take such action, they should have the mandate to do so. For that reason, the amendment requires delay in the implementation of tuition fees until after the latest date for the next general election.
I know, as I said, that the Conservative Party has a different view on the issue of tuition fees, but I believe that it shares the view on the issue of the mandate. I hope that on this occasion therefore it will be able to support us. We have debated at some length in your Lordships' House the principle of tuition fees. I therefore do not intend to repeat that today.
This is an important issue. If the amendment is passed, it will be the only reference in the Bill to tuition fees. We have all of us made much of the general opaqueness of this part of the Bill, the difficulty in getting to grips with it, recognising exactly what it is about, and where the power lies. The amendment, which may not be technically perfect, is at least clear in its intention, and is one which I believe will command much support outside the House. I hope that it will command much support within the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we have already had several full debates on students' contributions towards fees and on conditions to control top-up fees. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, and his noble friends even pressed Divisions on both these matters on Report. They lost those Divisions, and yet even now—on Third Reading—they are seeking other means of achieving the same effects. I do not believe that that is an appropriate way to proceed on Third Reading. Nevertheless, I shall address the substance of the amendment.
Through Amendment No. 40, the noble Lord would seek a funding scheme which would not require students to pay any contribution towards tuition fees until after

157
1st June 2002. It is, of course, the universities, rather than the Secretary of State, which charge students tuition fees. Students are already required to pay tuition fees, though some students receive grants which meet those fees on their behalf from public funds. So the only way that the Secretary of State could meet the terms of this amendment would be to provide grants that would meet tuition fees on behalf of students.
The implication is that the Secretary of State should provide grants to meet all tuition fees on behalf of all students in further and higher education—that is, including many who already meet their own fees. The Government would be expected to meet fees not only for home full-time undergraduate students, but also for FE students over 19, part-time higher education students, and even postgraduates. Nor would the noble Lord stop there; he would have the British taxpayer meet the tuition fees for overseas students as well. Indeed, the noble Lord is seeking, through this amendment, comprehensive financial assistance from the Government that will ensure that no student at all in any institution of further or higher education shall have to pay tuition fees. And students would receive free tuition, no matter what their own or their family's private means and no matter what financial advantages higher education would bestow on students themselves.
Once again, let me remind the House of the guiding principle underlying the Dearing Report, a principle which this Government have endorsed; namely, that the costs of higher education should be shared between those who benefit. Graduates earn on average 20 per cent. more than those without degrees. It is only fair that individuals who stand to benefit so much from higher education should also share some of the costs, even though we accept that the state should continue to bear most of the costs.
This amendment, however, would require the state and the taxpayers to bear the full costs of higher education at all levels, including the higher education of those who will stand to earn the highest salaries. It would also amount to a licence for those who were so inclined to become perpetual students, taking one course of higher education after another, never having to pay any fees and borrowing money for living expenses which they might never have to pay back. The noble Lord has yet to answer convincingly the question of how this can be fair, when many of the taxpayers who will have to foot the bill may not have benefited from higher education themselves and may earn far lower salaries than those who do benefit.
The noble Lord accuses us of not having an electoral mandate to require students to contribute to their own tuition fees. We made it clear in our pre-election document on lifelong learning that we opposed top-up fees, but we did not rule out requiring students or their families to contribute towards the costs of their tuition—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. With the leave of the House, will she confirm that on 14th April, two weeks before the general election, no less a person than the Prime Minister stated, "We have no plans to introduce tuition
158
fees"? That statement was confirmed by his right honourable friend Robin Cook on 24th April, who said, "There are no plans to introduce tuition fees". That does not lie well with what the Minister is now saying.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is entirely consistent with what I have said. We did not rule out requiring students or their families to contribute towards the costs of their tuition on a carefully designated and designed basis which would enable all to afford higher education according to their own families' means. The Prime Minister said that we would wait for the Dearing Report. Saying that at that time we had no plans was entirely consistent with waiting until the publication of the Dearing Report. Indeed, by giving support to the Dearing Inquiry, which was set up by the previous government, we made clear that we were concerned about the funding crisis facing higher education.
Earl Russell: My Lords, next time the Minister says that she has no plans to do something, does she expect us to be reassured?
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I would expect the noble Earl to want to ask probing questions from time to time as to whether or not we had plans. Perhaps I may continue. We also made it clear that we were waiting for the Dearing Committee to report before taking decisions. I believe that we have sufficient mandate for this legislation and that there is no justification whatever for waiting until after the next election in 2002 before implementing these proposals.
For our part, we believe that it is only right and fair that the investment of the nation should be balanced by the commitment of the individual. The alternative approach underlying this amendment of subsidising all those who enter higher education or re-enter it, regardless of their families' income, would mean a heavier burden on all taxpayers. Let me remind the House of the Dearing Committee's figures for the longer-term funding requirements of universities. The committee put the figure at up to £2 billion, depending on the scale and pace of the growth in student numbers. The effect of these amendments would be that all this cost would fall on the taxpayer. Indeed, the true figure could be far in excess of that, as Dearing never envisaged that British taxpayers should subsidise overseas students as well.
However, given that the Secretary of State would have to set a maximum level of financial support for fees at the highest level of those fees in order to comply with this amendment, it would then mean that the Secretary of State could exercise no control over a university that decided to set fees at, say, double or treble or 10 times the current rate. Indeed, this amendment would allow universities and colleges to charge as much as they liked in fees. It would in essence amount to giving higher education institutions an open purse from the taxpayer or a blank cheque from the Government.

159
Only a party whose living members have never experienced government could come forward with such amendments. No government can write universities a blank cheque or give them an open purse on the taxpayer's behalf. That would be abrogating our responsibilities towards taxpayers, as well as many students and parents. Indeed, the only people who would gain would he some students whose higher education would be subsidised on demand by an élite group of universities.
As I explained on Report, the only way that the Government could keep the higher education budget under control would be to impose strict limits on the numbers of students that universities and colleges could recruit. That would mean returning to a system where only a privileged handful could benefit from higher education. The economic and social benefits of widening participation would be lost for the sole purpose of indulging a few self-interested universities and colleges and allowing them to make limitless demands of the taxpayer.
The amendment would take away the power of the Secretary of State to set a ceiling on the level of financial support that can be paid from public funds for fees and thereby remove an important safeguard for taxpayers. The noble Lord and his noble friends have already lost Divisions on Report on the principles underlying Clauses 16 and 18 and it would not be appropriate at Third Reading for them to press this amendment tonight. But should they do so, my Lords, make no mistake. This amendment is against the best interests of students, of parents and of taxpayers. It would destroy a careful balance of safeguards to prevent the taxpayer from being presented with an open-ended financial commitment to meet unlimited tuition fees for every student in the land, whether from home or overseas, and it would ultimately lead to a narrowing—rather than a widening—of access. I urge your Lordships' House to reject this amendment.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the Minister has spelt out the dire consequences which would follow if the amendment were carried. However, the amendment provides that:
"the Secretary of State shall not introduce a scheme to require students to pay tuition fees until a date on or after 1st June 2002".
If English words mean anything, they mean that the status quo will continue until then. Therefore, how can all those consequences flow if the status quo continues until 2002?
In my view, what the Minister has been saying is a lot of codswallop! I do not speak personally against her—she is one of my very good friends and I have tremendous regard for her. However, she has spelt out ridiculous consequences when the amendment merely provides that the status quo shall continue until after the next general election.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure that "codswallop" is an entirely parliamentary term. Nevertheless, I shall accept it from my noble friend. I reject, however, what he says.
160
On the occasions when my noble friend has intervened in these debates, he has done so from a position of surprising ignorance on the part of someone who has so much experience in these matters. The fact is that we do not have free higher education at the moment as my noble friend has claimed on a number of occasions. Part-time students pay fees, as do postgraduates and overseas students. Nor is it the case that further education students over the age of 19, most of whom are far less privileged than those who go to university as full-time undergraduates, have free education. Therefore, this amendment would have all the dire consequences that I have described because it provides that there should be no scheme to require students to pay tuition fees until a date after 1st June 2002.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say specifically what it is in the amendment which repeals automatically all the present schemes that are in place because they would have to be repealed in order to fit with what the noble Baroness said?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my advice is that the amendment provides that the Secretary of State should not introduce a scheme to require students to pay tuition fees until a date on or after 1st June 2002 when in fact students pay tuition fees at present.
Under this legislation we are changing the nature of the grants that are paid so that students will have to make a contribution which is greater than that which they have to make at present if they can afford to do so. Therefore, under the Bill we are seeing a completely new arrangement for the grant for those who pay tuition fees. However, as I understand it, and as I am advised, the amendment will create a situation in which students generally will no longer have to pay tuition fees.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again, with the leave of the House, I must return to the noble Baroness. She may be relieved to know that I shall not be supporting the amendment. However, I should point out that if this Bill were not before this House today, nothing would change in terms of the schemes which are in place at present. As far as I can tell from the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, he is simply saying that a scheme—namely, that being proposed in the Bill—should not be introduced before there is an electoral mandate to support it.
The noble Baroness really must say to the House what it is in this amendment which repeals all the arrangements that are in place at present in other statutes and the way in which this amendment does anything other than refer to a scheme, another scheme; namely, the scheme that is proposed in the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, arrangements for paying fees are changed all the time. They are being changed because universities can charge fees as can further education colleges. Different arrangements are

161
made by universities as private institutions. As far as I understand the matter, this amendment will have an effect on those arrangements in the way that it is drafted.
Lord Tope: My Lords, sadly I did not hear the Minister on "Any Questions?" last Friday but I did hear the response on "Any Answers.?" A lady rang in saying that when a government say they have no plans, it was her belief that they mean that they might do it. That is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves with this Bill and with the introduction of student payment of tuition fees.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, the Government went further than saying they had no plans. They said specifically that they would not do it. I listened with interest and concern to what the Minister said in reply. I was already concluding that this is a case of "the lady protests too much"—and not for the first time during the passage of this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, who put the point much better than I can. The noble Lord expressed the matter extremely effectively. The effect of the amendment is to maintain the status quo. The effect of that is that the Government would have to think much more carefully than they have thus far about the funding of higher education and the specific issue of tuition fees.
I explained at an earlier stage my party's alternative proposals. It is not appropriate for me to return to those now. But we do have them and, in the event of the status quo being maintained by the passing of this amendment, we shall be in a position again to project them.
I am sad and sorry that the Conservative Front Bench feels unable to support the amendment. We tried very hard to frame it in a way that met their concerns. I am not entirely clear why the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is not supporting it. Almost all that she said appeared to support the amendment.
This is an extremely important issue. I am more convinced about the rightness of the amendment because the Minister, almost for the first time during the passage of the Bill, started getting quite close to abuse in terms of answering it. That is uncharacteristic and certainly uncharacteristic of our discussions on the Bill.
The Minister said that only a party which has no living experience of government would have proposed such an amendment. This amendment is proposed by a party that expects to be in government in the year 2002. For that reason, and because this is such an important issue, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should just say that I have it on clear legal advice that, de facto, this amendment would repeal existing legislation which requires students to pay fees.
Lord Tope: My Lords, the issue is clear. This amendment is drafted in words which are much clearer than anything that can be found in the Bill. I am sure that your Lordships are in no doubt as to the purpose and effect of the amendment. I repeat that it is an important issue of principle on which I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 106.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNally, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Maddock, B.

Butterfield, L.

Meston, L.

Carlisle, E.

Methuen, L.

Dholakia, L.

Newby, L.

Ezra, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Rochester, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Holderness, L

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hooson, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jacobs, L.

Thurso, V.

Jeger, B.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Tordoff, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lyell, L.

Weatherill, L.

McNair, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howell, L.

Amos, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hughes, L.

Barnett, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Berkeley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Blackstone, B.

Borrie, L.

Islwyn, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Burlison, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Judd, L.

Carter, L.[Teller.]

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kennet, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Kilbracken, L.

David, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Longford, E.

Desai, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Diamond, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Donoughue, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mishcon, L.

Flowers, L.

Molloy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gilbert, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Nelson, E.

Grantchester, L.

Nicol, B.

Gregson, L.

Paul, L.

Grenfell, L.

Peston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hardie, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Haskel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hayman, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

163

Sewel, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Shepherd, L.

Thurlow, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Simon, V.

Varley, L.

Simon of Highbury, I..

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill,B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Whitty, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.35 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 14, line 3, leave out ("charged in respect of") and insert ("payable in connection with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 14, line 7, after ("terms,") insert—
("() the Secretary of State has first commissioned an independent view and published the findings,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 43 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Renfrew, and Amendment No. 44 which is tabled in my name. The Government have declared their intention not to raise fees for tuition paid for by students above £1,000 in real terms. If that is the case, then my amendment is inoffensive; but it would go a very long way to regain the trust of students which is somewhat dented by the debate so far on the Bill.
Such a review committee would offer independent advice and would consider the interests of both institutions and students in the context of any proposals by a future government to increase fees. So long as the increases were in line with inflation, there would be very little for such a committee to do. However, if this or any future government broke with the declared intention not to raise the proportion of fees, such an independent review would be most important. The Dearing Committee recommended such an independent review body. The Education Select Committee not only supported that recommendation but also stated that any Secretary of State contemplating an increase in the fees would be expected to defend such proposals to the committee.
The Secretary of State for Education said that he had an open mind and that he was open to persuasion on this point. However, the Government have quietly dropped the independent review recommendation from their response to Dearing, so what have they to lose? If, as they claim, they will not increase the fees beyond the rate of inflation, why are they so worried about an independent review?
As the Bill stands, the Government have built in to the proposals in Clause 18 a mechanism to punish financially any university or college which charges additional fees. Should this Chancellor of the Exchequer or indeed any future Chancellor of the Exchequer freeze
164
or cut higher education expenditure to the point where staff cuts and course programmes suffer, the only outlet for increasing income would be by the Government increasing the proportion of fees paid by students. My amendment would at least offer some assurance that, should that eventuality come about, an independent review body could consider the case put by the Government to defend such proposals.
If the Government were to reject all three amendments, students would have every reason to remain very suspicious of the Government's intentions; indeed, they must be aware of what happened in Australia to Australian students. We are led to believe that higher education will he more generously funded in the future and that there is no intention whatever of increasing the level of tuition fees paid by students. Therefore, accepting Amendment No. 42 or my noble friend's Amendment No. 43, would hold no threat for the Government and, as I have already said, would go a very long way to reassure students who are much disquieted by the proposals in the Bill.
I shall couple with the students who are disquieted about the Bill's proposals the fact that many of the Minister's colleagues, both those sitting behind her in this place and many more in another place, are also disquieted by the Bill. As I have said, the promise of an independent review body would go a long way to reassure students that the Government will live by their intention not to raise fees. But, should the Government, or any government in the future, change their mind, at least an independent review body would take into account the interests of the students, of the institutions and indeed the case that the government put. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, 1 recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, argued at Report stage—in relation to the wording of Amendment No. 42 that is now before us—that the Government have added a safeguard that the increase should be,
"no greater than is required to maintain the value of such grants in real terms".
But, following the successful amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch at Report, which now forms subsection (6) of Clause 16 of the Bill, the matter goes beyond grants for tuition fees and now encompasses maintenance grants too. For that reason I have added reference to,
"maintenance grants and student loans",
in the wording of Amendment No. 43. For, make no mistake about it, there is little public confidence in the Government in these matters. As my noble friend has said, there is little confidence among students who saw the Government's attempted simultaneous imposition of tuition fees and abolition of maintenance grants—the so-called "double whammy"—as a step too far. Every safeguard is needed.
I add how disconcerted I was to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, not only say on "Any Questions?" last Friday—I did hear her—that the Government would overturn in the Commons the

165
amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch (which is as unsurprising as it is unwelcome) but also assert that on the amendment (and I believe I quote verbatim),
"unelected hereditary peers defeated the Government".
I am interested in the phrase "unelected hereditary peers". I am not sure whether the noble Baroness feels that she has some popular mandate to stand at the Dispatch Box in person. I am well aware that the present Government in their manifesto pledged to end the sitting and voting rights of hereditary peers. But for the Minister responsible for the Bill to speak in that way of the result of a Division in your Lordships' House seems to me to border upon contempt of the House. Let me also say that until the Government put an end to the voting rights of hereditary peers they will have to put up with them. Moreover, noble Lords on the Benches opposite were happy enough when in opposition to use such votes to defeat the then government—for instance, on higher education Bills—when it suited them.
Do the Government assume that when the House is reformed—if it is—by the termination of the rights of hereditary peers, they will automatically win every vote, irrespective of the merits of the case? That is indeed what a number of commentators suspect; namely, that the Prime Minister's appointed quango will become the Prime Minister's poodle. But until that time we shall all, hereditary and life peers, try to do our duty. One of those duties is to point out the defects, and where possible to rectify them, in this rather unsatisfactory piece of legislation that is before us now, and therefore to introduce firm safeguards such as the present amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I have not spoken in earlier stages on this Bill. I have just returned to the country from a trip abroad and I have missed most of the Report stage. However, I came back in time to vote in the Division to which my noble friend has referred, which was instigated—it must be said—by a life peer. I was one of the many life peers who voted on that amendment. Therefore I, too, resent the suggestion that somehow this was an act of the hereditary peerage. That is a misleading piece of information which emerges almost every time there is a Division in this House now, however many of us who are life peers have chosen to vote.
However, I rise to speak at this stage because I listened to the debate on 2nd March with interest. I heard the Minister say that she would separate the fact from the fiction. She then made many assertions about what the current state of play was and what the situation might be in the future. The reality is that we do not know what will happen. The reality is that when any government introduce major reforms of this kind we do not know exactly how they will work out.
Certainly there is no confidence among the students of this country that everything will be quite as satisfactory as the noble Baroness asserts. I can say that because as president of Cardiff University I have received two big bundles of letters from the students of
166
that university within the past 48 hours in which large numbers of them express their acute anxieties about the situation. That is not surprising as these changes have been introduced quite hurriedly. There has been a speedy response to Dearing. The other day my noble friend suggested that there had been an over-speedy response to Dearing. Students have had to react during the course of their studies. Many of them are already committed. They are not fully aware of what is going on.
It therefore seems to me that we are dealing with an amendment which has considerable merit, even from the Government's point of view, because in the future the Government must be anxious that the measures they have introduced will have the support of and will gain the confidence of the universities and the student bodies. I hope that the Minister will not dismiss this as just another Opposition amendment. I hope she will see that it has real potential and strength—if these proposals are as good as she believes them to be—to reinforce the confidence that is required if universities are to recruit students as we all hope that they will. I hope that she will listen sympathetically to what has been said.
Earl Russell: My Lords, further to the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has made, it is at present a Standing Order of this House that all peers count equal, and has been so since 1621. I recognise that what the House does, the House can undo. I recognise that what Parliament has done, Parliament can undo. But at present that is the position. Were I to listen to too many speeches from ministerial Benches implying that I am in some way a second-class Member of this House, I might be slightly less ready to inconvenience myself to vote in the Government Lobby when I agree with them than I have hitherto been.
Let that pass. There is also a further procedural unusualness—shall I say?—in a Minister in this House announcing while the Bill is still in this House that an amendment carried here will be reversed in another place. It has in the past been the custom here—although I admit it has been honoured in the breach as well as in the observance—that we recognise the basic parliamentary principle that each House is sovereign over its own proceedings and therefore any announcement about what another place will do with our amendments is not made until another place has possession of the Bill. That, I think, was a good custom and I am sorry to see it broken.
To come to the specific matter of the amendment, in a rather unexpected speech which the Minister made on the previous amendment she complained constantly of an open-ended commitment she believed it imposed on the state. I do not entirely understand this because it was not my understanding that the previous amendment did anything to repeal anything in Clause 18. She might think about this from the other end. If you look at this from the university point of view, when we have a Government who believe—as the noble Baroness clearly does—that government have sole and unfettered authority to decide what

167
things will cost, you are living in an open-floored room and dancing on the few remaining rafters comes to seem—shall I say?—a little uncertain. It is essential that government of any party should from time to time have to listen to other expert opinion, with an authority that they cannot ignore, on what things cost. If the Government cannot or will not absorb that principle, relations between universities and the state are likely to be very near their end. That, I believe, would be a desperate loss to us all.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have been surprised—as I know other noble Lords must have been—that this debate, which seemed to be about a relatively straightforward series of amendments (albeit, in my view, unnecessary amendments) has turned into a semi-constitutional debate. First, we have the spectacle of noble Lords opposite posing to be the students' friends. The very same noble Lords—
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to withdraw the charge of posing to be the students' friends?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not think it is appropriate to withdraw that charge. The noble Earl and others who have spoken in this debate claim that they are protecting the students' fear of some Australian menace which is not likely. I shall give way in a moment. They are the very same Members of this House who have voted on previous occasions to prevent the Government stopping universities charging top-up fees which would hit in particular parents of poorest families. It is a hypocritical attitude. I think, therefore, that it is appropriate for me to say that those arguments are not in reality on behalf of the students of this country.
Earl Russell: My Lords, once again I request the Minister to withdraw that. It is a charge I do not believe he would risk repeating outside this Chamber.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not prepared to withdraw the charge. It is on the voting record and on the speaking record that noble Lords have spoken in this House against the Government's proposals in Clause 18 which would hit individual students—I have given way twice.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I move that the Standing Order on asperity of speech be read.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have no doubt that the Clerk will find the appropriate place in a moment.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may advise the House on this matter. The Motion that the Clerk reads the Standing Order which relates
168
to asperity of speech is debatable; and the Clerk may only read the Standing Order if it has been agreed to by the House.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I move that the Standing Order be read.
6.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether Standing Order 30 shall be read?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 169; Not-Contents, 98.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Fookes, B.

Aldington, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gage, V.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Geraint, L.

Annaly, L.

Glentoran, L.

Astor, V.

Goodhart, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Hamwee, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Harding of Petherton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Harlech, L.

Bellwin, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Beloff, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Belstead, L.

Higgins, L.

Berners, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Biddulph, L.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Birdwood, L.

Howe, E.

Blaker, L.

Inglewood, L.

Blatch, B.

Jacobs, L.

Boardman, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Bowness, L.

Kenyon, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kingsland, L.

Burnham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Butterfield, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Byford, B.

Knutsford, V.

Cadman, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Caithness, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Calverley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Carlisle, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Carnock,L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Chesham,L.

Liverpool, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Coleraine, L.

Luke, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Courtown, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigavon, V.

Maddock, B.

Cranborne, V.

Mancroft, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cross, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Darcy de Knayth, B

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Middleton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Derwent, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dholakia, L.

Montrose, D.

Dilhorne, V.

Mottistone, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Naseby, L.

Dudley, E.

Newby, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Norfolk, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Northbrook, L.

Elles, B.

Norton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Onslow, E.

Elton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Falkland, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Feldman, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

169

Pender, L.

Strange, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Swinfen, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Pym, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Rawlings, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Reay, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Redesdale, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rees, L.

Thurso, V.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Tope, L.

Renton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Renwick, L.

Trefgame, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Rochester, L.

Vinson, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Vivian, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Waddington, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rowallan, L.

Warnock, B.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Weatherill, L.

Saatchi, L.

Westbury, L.

Seccombe, B.

Wharton, B.

Selborne, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Sempill, L.

Wise, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Woolton, E.

Skelmersdale, L

Wrottesley, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wynford, L.

Stewartby, L.

Yarborough, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Barnett, L.

Berkeley, L.

Islwyn, L.

Blackslone, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blease, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jeger, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Burlison, L.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Chandos, V.

Levy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Tellers.]

Davies of Coity, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Desai, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donoughue, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Paul, L.

Gilbert, L.

Peston, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L .

Pitkeathley, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grantchester, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gregson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hardie, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rea, L.

Haskel, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hayman, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sewel, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shepherd, L.

Howell, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Simon, V.

Hoyle, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hughes, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

170

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton. L

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Whaddon, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Whitty, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Varley, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
7.4 p.m.
The Clerk of the Parliaments: "To prevent misunderstanding, and for avoiding of offensive speeches, when matters are debated, either in the House or at Committees, it is for honour sake thought fit, and so ordered, That all personal, sharp, or taxing speeches be forborn, and whosoever answereth another man's speech shall apply his answer to the matter without wrong to the person: and as nothing offensive is to be spoken, so nothing is to be ill taken, if the party that speaks it shall presently make a fair exposition or clear denial of the words that might bear any ill construction; and if any offence be given in that kind, as the House itself will be very sensible thereof, so it will sharply censure the offender, and give the party offended a fit reparation and a full satisfaction."
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, as somebody who has never in his political career been guilty of personal, sharp or provoking speech, I am sure that the noble Viscount on the other side of the House has equally never been guilty of sharp or provoking speech; nor indeed, I am sure, has the noble Earl. Lord Russell, ever provoked anybody in any way, shape or form.
I was not present in the Chamber when this took place and therefore cannot pass judgment one way or the other on what occurred. It strikes me that perhaps it might be for the general convenience of the House if we were to adjourn during pleasure for 15 minutes so as to allow matters somewhat to cool down. I move that we adjourn during pleasure until twenty minutes past seven.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure for 15 minutes.—(Lord Richard.)
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords. I support the Motion put by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. It is wise counsel which the House would do well to heed. Perhaps it would be worth the usual channels having a quick exchange during the course of the 15 minutes. I am sure that the House will then be able to resume and proceed with due expedition to dispatch the remainder of the business this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.5 to 7.20 p.m.]
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed on Amendment No. 42.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in view of the recent excitement, I think I should make it clear to all noble

171
Lords that no personal attack was intended in anything that I said. Therefore. I hope that noble Lords will accept it in that spirit.
Perhaps I may continue from where I was 25 minutes ago. In view of the circumstances, I shall also refrain from responding to some of the wider constitutional points about hereditary Peers which were made by various noble Lords in the context of the debate and concentrate instead on the text of the amendments before us.
First, perhaps I may repeat that the Government accept the need for limits on the level of fees for home and EU full-time undergraduates. That is why we are already offering safeguards under Clause 16(8) to ensure that the Government cannot increase grants for fees and hence contributions towards fees by more than the level of inflation without seeking the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I was going to make my constitutional points there, but that is an adequate safeguard for any increase above the level of inflation.
All three amendments take us further than that. Amendment No. 42 seeks to introduce an independent review before the Secretary of State may increase grants for fees. I accept that Dearing recommended that the proportion of tuition fees to be met by students' contributions should not be increased without an independent review. But that commitment, that view by Dearing, as I explained at Committee stage, was made in the absence of any mechanism or any self-imposed restraint on government such as Clause 16(8)(a) now provides. That clause prevents the Government, without the approval of both Houses of Parliament, going above the rate of inflation. That was not proposed by Dearing and is in a sense a tighter restriction than referring to an independent review which the Dearing Committee foresaw.
The noble Baroness's amendment appears to seek an independent review, even when the increase proposed will be below the rate of inflation. The provision in Clause 16(8)(a) is adequate to ensure that, broadly speaking, the 25 per cent figure would be maintained. In any case, there would be no increase above the level of inflation without the approval of both Houses.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, would go somewhat wider, as he acknowledged. It would extend not just to the reasons for increasing the level of financial support for fees but also to the whole question of the total strategy towards the financing of students, covering maintenance grants, student loans and so on. Frankly, this is a pretty wide-ranging amendment and it would require the whole of the Government's strategy on student support in effect to be referred to the independent committee when a very small change, possibly even below the level of inflation, was being proposed. That is bureaucracy gone a little beyond what is required by the situation.
I repeat that the provision in Clause 16(8)(a) is a clear commitment to the students of this country and one which did not exist in the Australian equivalent. It has perhaps been obscured in the campaigning and guidance given by students on what the provisions mean.
172
While Amendment No. 44 does not refer specifically to an independent commission, it offers absolutely no flexibility on increasing fees. On the one hand, it requires parliamentary approval through the affirmative resolution procedure for any increase, even if it were significantly below the rate of inflation. On the other hand, it also prevents any increase even with parliamentary approval, if it were above the level of inflation. Whether or not that is the intention of the amendment, it is what the drafting means.
The restrictions which the Government have put upon themselves in Clause 16(8) are adequate guarantees to students that the proportion will not increase, that these amendments are superfluous to that requirement and that what students seek is already reflected on the face of the Bill.
In the light of those assurances and with perhaps a better understanding of the implication of the assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness and others will withdraw or not move their amendments.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I rise, not posing as the students' friend, but to argue that the whole House has become the friend of students in the context of the Bill. Before the election students were approached informally by the government in waiting who persuaded them—and they acquiesced in the face of the proposition that was put to them—that they would stand by the Government if the Government decided to phase out the maintenance grants for students. They did so for two reasons. They accepted that there was a problem in funding higher education. They had no idea that it was in the context of abolition in one fell swoop: nor did they know at the time that the context in which they were answering the question was that tuition fees were to be introduced. Students can be forgiven for believing it, having heard the Prime Minister say in April that there were no plans to introduce tuition fees. Again, when speaking directly to students, the right honourable Member in another place, Robin Cook, also said that there were no plans to introduce tuition fees for students.
So students believed that there might be some diminution of maintenance grants over time. They also believed that there would be no introduction of tuition fees. Both those understandings on the part of students have been shattered as a result of the Bill. The Bill professed to be a response to Dearing. It was leaked the weekend before Dearing was published, and it was out before the ink was dry on the Dearing Report on the very day it was published. Therefore, the confidence that students have in what is happening has been badly dented.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned the affirmative resolution requirement. Incidentally, it was only due to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and the amendments that I put down in the House that we now have a commitment that should there be an increase beyond the rate of inflation, the matter will go before both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure.
It is not a constraint. There is a convention in this House—it was honoured for 18 years by noble Lords opposite and continues to be honoured by those on these

173
Benches—that we do not vote against affirmative resolution procedures. When the orders come before this House, the Government know that they will be accepted. That is not therefore an argument which the noble Lord can deploy in the context of this amendment.
What can be healthier for open government and in support of the Government's declaration that they have no plans (we take with a pinch of salt what they mean by "no plans") to increase student fees beyond the level suggested in the Bill? What better support for the Government than to have an independent review? If they do not intend to break that declared intention, there is no problem. They can say that there will be an independent review should, in the mists of time, some government determine to break with the proposals in the Bill and increase the fees beyond the rate of inflation.
What do the Government have to lose? No costs will be incurred. They will not need to invoke the review. It will be neutral, but will give huge reassurance to students. On the other hand, if the Government, in the course of this Parliament or some other Parliament, wish to go against the declared intention, what better than to have an independent review? The review could listen to the case from the Government for increasing beyond the £1,000 or 25 per cent. level. What is wrong with their taking an independent view? They need not be bound by it. They could present their case, which would be considered taking into account also the case for the students and the institutions. The advice from the review would be made public and would be given to the Government. But, at the end of the day, it would be for the Government to make the proposal for Parliament to decide.
I can see no argument whatever for refusing the students' request. It would be consistent with the Dearing recommendation; consistent with the recommendation of the Select Committee; consistent with the wishes of students; and consistent with the wishes of those who spoke in support of the amendment that there should be a review providing independent advice to any government in the future that wish to break with the declared intention that there should be no increase above the level of inflation of tuition fees to be paid by students.
My final comment relates to references made to Clause 18 and the so-called "inconsistency". There is no inconsistency at all. This is a skeletal Bill which does not allow us to properly debate the policies which underpin it. We use mechanisms so that debates can be considered by way of amendment and there is nothing inconsistent in that. This is an inoffensive amendment. It is a modest request on the part of students to reinstate the recommendation of the Dearing Committee and the Select Committee report that there should be a review to consider any rises over and above the rate of inflation. I commend it to the House.
7.33 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Nicol): My Lords, the Question is, That Amendment No. 42 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.
Division called.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is, That Amendment No. 42 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". The "Not-Contents" have it.
Amendment negatived.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 14, line 7, after ("terms") insert—
("() the Secretary of State has first commissioned an independent review of the finances of students in higher education, including tuition fees, maintenance grants and student loans, and has published the findings,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
7.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 43) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 96.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Maddock, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Marlesford, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Montrose, D.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Newby, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Beloff, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Belstead, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L. [Teller.]

Berners, B.

Blatch, B.

Rawlings, B.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Razzall, L.

Butterfield, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cadman, L.

Rees, L.

Carlisle, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Rochester, L.

Carnock, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Russell, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Seccombe, B.

Dholakia, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Dudley, E.

Southwell, Bp.

Falkland V

Stewartby, L.

Falkland, V.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Geraint, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Goodhart, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hampton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hamwee, B.

Tope, L.

Hemphill, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jacobs, L.

Vivian, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Waddington, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Wakeham, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Warnock, B.

Linklaterof Butterstone, B.

Weatherill, L.

Lyell, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Amos, B.

Burlison, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Barnett, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Berkeley, L.

Chandos, V.

Blackstone, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Blease, L.

David, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

175

Davies of Oldham, L.

Longford, E.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Desai, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Molloy, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Gallacher, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gilbert, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Grantchester, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gregson, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hardie, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Haskel, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hattersley, L.

Rea,L.

Hayman, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sewel, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shepherd, L.

Howell, L.

Simon, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hoyle, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hughes, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Islwyn, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Varley, L.

Judd, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Kennet, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Weidenfeld, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Whaddon, L.

Levy, L.

Whitty, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.47 p.m.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Imposition of conditions as to fees at further or higher education institutions]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 15, line 19, leave out ("respect of") and insert ("connection with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 15, line 25, leave out ("respect of") and insert ("connection with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 16, line 7, at end insert ("to the extent that it is within the powers of the institution to control the level of such fees").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I tabled similar amendments to Amendment No. 48 both in Committee and on Report and therefore the arguments have been very well aired. At Report stage the noble Lord,
176
Lord Whitty, generously said that the Government understood the argument very well, but to my disappointment he said that it was their intention to bring forward an amendment in another place to deal with it.
For the benefit of the House, perhaps I may briefly recap what the amendment is intended to address. Clause 18 gives the Secretary of State power to require the funding council to sanction any university if either it or an institution connected with it charges fees which are more than the prescribed amount. This sanction can be the loss of some or all of the university's financial grant from the funding council.
In the case of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge that could mean that, if any one of their colleges in the future were to charge its students additional fees above the prescribed amount, the university and not the college would then be sanctioned. Oxford and Cambridge universities have no power over the financial affairs of any of their colleges, and the sanction would therefore be wholly unjust. This may seem like a technical detail, and it may well be that the Government and the department would like this issue simply to go away, but they cannot ignore the collegiate structure of Oxford and Cambridge.
The colleges of Oxford and Cambridge have served this nation well for many hundreds of years and I do not believe that it is the wish of this House to see damage done either to the collegiate structure of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge or to the universities themselves; nor do I believe that this House would wish to support legislation which would do injustice to the collegiate structure of the universities.
As I said, when I spoke to this point at Report stage I was very disappointed that the Government's response was that they would not bring an amendment to this House but would bring it to another place. I hoped very much that the Government would rethink. There has been considerable time since this point was first raised at Committee stage for the department to construct an amendment and bring it back to your Lordships' House. It would have been a courtesy to this House to have allowed the government's amendment to be seen and debated before the Bill went to another place. I am extremely disappointed that even after ample time we are not to be given the opportunity in this House to see what the Government intend.
I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support this amendment. It is a relatively simple one. It would be only a very few words and it would ensure that justice was done and that the collegiate structure of our two leading universities would be preserved. I beg to move.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I am speaking in order to protect the collegiate universities. In the past interest has been expressed in these matters. I have been Master of Downing College, Cambridge. I have been Vice-Chancellor of both the University of Nottingham and of Cambridge. So I hope that I am in a position to take a balanced view of collegiate universities.

177
The first point I want to make is that the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge go back to the 13th century. University College, Oxford, is reputed to date from the days of King Alfred. It was certainly well established by 1249, as was Merton in 1264, and Peterhouse, following Merton's regulations, was founded in 1284. In those days, of course, the colleges were in fact boarding houses protecting the students from the wickedness in the town. Many of the students were quite young. There were locked gates and all the things that were cast out in the student revolution of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The colleges saw it as part of their responsibility to educate their students. By that I mean to nourish them and bring them forward rather than to examine them, which was the university's function. The colleges were small. It is very important that we realise that they were small. We should not confuse being small with being necessarily elitist. How small they were was borne in on me most clearly when I found that the wall I climbed along to get back into Exeter College as an undergraduate was in fact the wall of the old city of Oxford. That was just a little way from the Turl, which can hardly be regarded as the centre of the city, which has grown so much since.
I believe that because the colleges are smaller institutions it is up to the university always to protect them. That is one reason why I am so much in favour of this amendment. The colleges were delighted when the book Small is Beautiful was published because they thought that it might apply to them. It indicated that the smaller institutions with fewer students were in a much better position to recognise the individuals in that institution, their aptitudes and abilities and to encourage them to follow their abilities. I was much helped myself by no fewer than four personal tutors, one of whom was a very brilliant neuro-physiologist.
One of the things that has always been said of colleges is that they try to ensure that the students are seen as being the same as the dons but younger, and the dons are seen as being the same as the students but older. I was astonished when, as a graduate student, I went back to Oxford and my former tutor, David Whitteridge, asked me a blunt question. He asked me whether he should apply for the chair of physiology in Edinburgh. That was rather like the head man of Rolls-Royce asking a young man off the floor what he should do about aeroplane engines. I urged him to go to Edinburgh on the grounds that if he went there they would notice that he was missing from Oxford and when the Oxford chair came up he would eventually get it, which I knew was his ambition. That is precisely what happened.
I want to make one or two strong points about the colleges and one-to-one teaching and supervision. I have knocked around a good deal in my life at different universities. I was at Hopkins as a medical student. I was astonished at how much weight that university in Maryland placed on the tutorial system at Oxford and Cambridge. I later went to Bristol. I was astonished to find there that people were very jealous of one's college associations. The same was true when I went to Guy's Hospital, where people coming from Oxford and
178
Cambridge were recognised by the consultants as being very mature. They knew how to deal with the consultants. Other Guy's students treated the consultants with too much deference. Again at Nottingham, the original hope had been that the halls of residence would be similar to the Oxford colleges, but there was not the money to do it.
The college system is very interesting and attractive to overseas students. Therefore, the collegiate universities like Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, but particularly Oxford and Cambridge because of their age, have a great attraction to students from all over the world. That is what I have found. I also want to make the point that in the college system one is very conscious that students come first in almost everything that is done in the colleges. When the college council meets it looks at the college from the students' point of view.
I beg the Minister to bear in mind that my plea not to regard the colleges as élitist, but smaller institutions rather than necessarily élite, seems to have been borne out by what is happening. For example, Cambridge now has many mature students who would fit into the remarkable White Paper The Learning Age which was published by the department. I believe that the same may be said about the people who come into the university under the other influences like the University of the Third Age, which is very strong in Cambridge. We have a good deal of interaction with the Anglian University of Technology. I go to my drawing lessons there. So I am hoping that it will not be thought that the spirit within the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, which have wonderful buildings which we all appreciate and which we fight to maintain, is necessarily elitist. Therefore, I am anxious that we have an amendment such as this with regard to ongoing collegiate university arrangements.
8 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, only gradually have the Government begun to see that in treating college fees exactly as if they were top-up fees, they have been behaving unreasonably in the course of this Bill. College fees already exist. They have existed for a very long time, and they exist by statute. None of the colleges wishes to charge fees in excess of reasonable levels. Those would be top-up fees, but top-up fees are not on the agenda.
At Report, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at last began to see the light. He said:
"I recognise the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said, we have looked at the wording, but we do not believe that any amendment should be made to this clause. Rather than amend subsection (4), we are prepared to look again at that part of subsection (8) which refers to fees payable to connected institutions with a view to bringing forward in another place an amendment clarifying that reference".—[Official Report, 2/3/98; col. 1045.]
From Second Reading when my noble friend Lady Perry spoke on this very issue, to Committee, to the Motion that the Report be now received (when I addressed the issue much to the dissatisfaction of at least one Member of your Lordships' House), to Report stage, we have been making this point. And what sort of answer is that in your Lordships' House that at Report

179
stage, not Third Reading, the Government tell us that they will bring forward an amendment in another place? By definition, there are no full-time educationalists in that other place, but there are quite a few here, as we noted earlier, who would be in a good position to scrutinise such an amendment.
The amendment has to be rather complicated because it has to be oblique—because the Bill is altogether oblique about the Oxford and Cambridge colleges. My noble friend Lord Butterfield spoke with great eloquence about the underlying issues, so I shall not do so further. I simply say that this is a necessary amendment to allow the good relations between the colleges and the university (at both Oxford and Cambridge) to be maintained; otherwise there are dangerous areas of uncertainty in the Bill, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has already indicated, although he has not gone any way to producing a remedy. I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the central point of the amendment is simply that politics is the art of the possible. It is, I think, possible for governments to govern successfully in practically any philosophy—good, bad or indifferent. What is not possible is to govern successfully while unable to recognise that the world is as it is. The central point of this amendment is the legal relationship between the university and its constituent colleges, because the Bill as it stands, as I understand it, requires the universities to do what they cannot do.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, it is clearly a fact that the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, perhaps unlike colleges in some other places, are autonomous institutions. In saying that, I speak as one whose wife is a specialist university historian. The point is uncontested among those who know anything about it. The colleges are protected by charters and in many cases by private Acts of Parliament. At a previous stage, the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, warned the House just how complicated a procedure it might be for the Government to untangle that. However, if the Government wish to take action against the colleges, it must be done by action directed against the colleges. It cannot be done by action directed against the university. In both our ancient universities, it was the colleges that had the money, the control of the teaching and the power. It was the meetings of the heads of houses that were important. The university was, in effect, a poor relation with very little power indeed.
The world has changed, but, as so often, the legal position has not changed with it. There are many reasons—good, bad or indifferent, although I believe many of them are good—why that is so. However, until the Government accept that the legal position is what it actually is, they cannot carry out any policy, whether soundly judged or not. I ask the Government to live in the real world.
Lord Desai: My Lords, whenever an Oxbridge question arises, it is fascinating to note how all the old arguments are trotted out. This has nothing to do with how old the institutions are or how good they are.
180
Indeed, they have not always been very good. If your Lordships read Adam Smith on Oxford, it is clear that it was a horrible place. I think that noble Lords are saying, "Top-up fees have been there for so long, please don't change them". Let us not be misled; that is what the college fees are.
Those who have opposed the Government's legislation on many other matters are once again speaking in defence of privilege. I am impressed by the whole Bill because the Government are trying to bring a little equality and redistribution into what is, unfortunately, a very bad world. I agree with what the noble Earl has just said and that the Government must accept the world as it is, but the Government were elected to try to make the world a little bit better. Obviously, it will be a very difficult task.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in supporting the amendment strongly, perhaps I may say that it is not surprising that we are discussing the problems of Oxford and Cambridge colleges, because they are the ones with the problem. We are very happy to recognise all the other major problems with education and to fight for education as best we may, but it would surely be unreasonable to expect us not to point out the consequences of this particular, from the Government's point of view, quite small part of the Bill, which is a very large part of the Bill from the colleges' point of view.
It has to be remembered that colleges are families. That is one of the reasons why undergraduates love colleges. They feel that they are part of a small family. They look after each other. We all look after each other. That is something worth retaining, quite apart from all the other academic arguments. I return to the point that it is not reasonable to treat us as elitist and as thinking only of our own interests when, practically, we point out what the effects would be on those colleges and those universities alone.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I shall abstain on this for a number of reasons. First, it seems to me that arguing that two universities should be allowed to opt out of what is otherwise to be imposed uniformly on all universities is rather odd. Secondly, it seems to me that we have been involved in an exercise in which the Government have been buying off Oxford and Cambridge. I speak as a former student of both universities, as a member of staff at Oxford for five years, and as the father of a student currently at Cambridge. I was one of those who—
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords. I thank the noble Lord for giving way, but I wonder whether he will accept that we are not asking to opt out of any system. We are making a simple technical point that the university—Oxford or Cambridge—would be sanctioned for something over which it has no control.

181
That is simply not justice. We are not asking not to be sanctioned; we are simply asking that the sanction should be directed in the proper place.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I shall complete my remarks briefly. I was one of those who argued for reform at Oxford.
In the current debate I have been disappointed by what seems to me to be the failure of the two leading British universities to talk about the interests of higher education as a whole. I have made my views on that known to a number of people in both of those universities. I regret that failure and, for that reason, much as I sympathise with part of the argument being made, I must point out that Britain has other leading universities and that much stricter rules are being imposed upon them. I find the imposition of such tight controls on British universities one of the most deeply offensive aspects of the Bill. We should not allow only Oxford and Cambridge to argue their own corner; others also matter.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sure that the House can, and no doubt will, have an interesting debate on the future of Oxford and Cambridge in relation to the higher education system as a whole. However, that is not what this clause is about. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not reply in detail to the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, or to some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who was kind enough to say that I had seen the light during Report stage. I must point out that shedding light does not always clarify an issue. This is a complicated matter. The noble Baroness in her intervention during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, clearly encapsulated the administrative problem. I understand that. I respect the view that the colleges which charge top-up fees should be penalised rather than the university, or at least that the relationship should be clarified in whatever legislation we end up with.
I do not entirely accept that in these circumstances the university has no power in the Oxbridge situation. I find it hard to understand that there are no other bargaining elements in its relationship with colleges. I do not see why universities should continue to claim grants from the higher education funding council for students who attend connected colleges if they are not prepared to use whatever powers they have to ensure that those students are not charged top-up fees.
Having said that, as was made clear at Report stage this is a complex administrative and legal matter. We accept that we may not have got the reference to connected institutions in Clause 18(9) quite right. On Report I said that the Government were prepared to look again at that part of subsection (9) which referred to fees payable to connected institutions. We are still considering an amendment to make clear that institutions can be penalised for top-up fees charged to students only if they are claiming funding council grants for those students. I made it clear—noble Lords have made complaints about this—that we would table an amendment in another place.
182
We saw perhaps only a little bit of light at Report stage. The period between Report Stage and Third Reading made it unlikely that we would be able to formulate an appropriate amendment in time to table it. That is the case. I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and others are concerned that we are not tabling an amendment before the Bill is considered in another place and that noble Lords will not therefore have a chance to comment upon it. For that reason, after consultation with my noble friend the Minister, I am happy to offer the noble Baroness a meeting with the appropriate officials in the Department for Education and Employment to discuss the format of that amendment in order that it can be tabled before Committee stage in another place. I hope that in the light of that commitment the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very full and careful reply. I understand that he fully appreciates the problem. I remain disappointed that we were not given sight of what the Government intended. I believe that this amendment would at least address the problem very simply. Nevertheless, I take note of the Minister's offer of further discussion with myself and perhaps others in this House who are connected with the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and who may want an opportunity to talk through the difficulty. I repeat that we do not seek to opt out of any system. Top-up fees are not on our agenda. We simply want to have the relationship and structure of the collegiate university preserved. We are anxious that any amendment tabled in another place is not of such a nature that it destroys the independent and autonomous relationship of the colleges vis à vis their universities. We would appreciate the opportunity to see any amendments before they were tabled. In the light of that promise, and with some reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 50:
Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
USE OF FEES BY INSTITUTIONS
(" . In exercising his powers under section 16 the Secretary of State shall—

(a) ensure that all income derived from fees is used by institutions for the provision of courses of higher education and for connected purposes;

(b) disregard such income for the purposes of calculating the grant to he made available to the funding councils under section 68 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992; and

(c) require, as a term and condition of grant under paragraph (b) above, that the funding councils do not diminish the grants made to the relevant institutions in respect of any income derived from fees.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords have discussed Amendment No. 50 and similar amendments on a number of previous occasions and I believe that the points have been well and fully aired. I do not intend to

183
take time tonight repeating them. Paragraph (a) recognises that the Government have said repeatedly that the income from fees will be retained by the colleges and universities. That is really not the issue at the moment. I believe that paragraph (b) is the real issue. It is meaningless if there is no financial benefit to the universities because later the Government simply take money from their HEFC grant. Were that to happen the students would pay the £1,000 instead of the taxpayer. Occasionally I have run into difficulty when I have referred to this as a tax but I cannot see what else it is unless the fee that is paid is directed to and wholly benefits higher education. That is the purpose of paragraph (b).
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has twice refused to commit the Government to the principle that this new tuition fee money represents in the long run a real increase in the funding of higher education. On 2nd March he said that public expenditure decisions were taken year by year; in other words, there is no guarantee that the Government will not find good reasons to take away the money in due course. The noble Lord's response to paragraph (c) of the amendment was that it removed the funding councils' flexibility in awarding grants to particular institutions. All we ask is that the funding councils do not diminish the grants. We propose the amendment because we fear that a back-door mechanism may be found by which the councils reduce the universities' grants rather than the Government.
This is an important amendment and I believe it is one that gives much needed reassurance to the universities. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was kind enough to say at Report stage that the amendment was more watertight than the one in her name. I was grateful then to hear her view on that. I hope that, having convinced the Conservative Opposition, we have now also convinced the Government and that at the closing stages of the Bill they will graciously accept the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The rationale adopted throughout the Bill, and even before the Bill was laid before the House, was to put more money into higher education. Every argument that we have put at each stage of the Bill to get the Government to agree that this is additional money and that it will be disregarded for the purposes of the funding of higher education has been rejected. Either this is additional money or it is not; either additionality works or it does not. Whatever be the wording—this wording is the best that I have seen to date—the intention is to ensure that the money that is taken from students in fee income is regarded as additional money to the system both to alleviate present tensions and to fund expanding numbers, because the Government intend to lift the lid off numbers.
We have received guarantees that the £1,000 per student, whether it is paid in part or in whole by the student and/or the local authority, will follow the student into each university and college throughout the land. We are grateful for that. However, that is only part of the equation. If that is disregarded for the purposes of funding higher education one can genuinely say that it
184
is additional money. However, if the higher education funding council simply tells a university that it has £500,000 from tuition fees and therefore the council will pay only whatever is the top-up amount to meet the average cost of course fees throughout the land then students will be asked to share the cost, and that will not be providing additional money for the universities from which universities and students will benefit.
Much has been made of the £165 million which is to go into higher education in 1998–99. That will be very welcome to the universities. However, it has been achieved by the re-jigging of payments which allows some expenditure to be moved into the next financial year. It is a fortuitous one-off saving which will go to universities this year. Unless that level of expenditure is maintained year on year the universities will start the following year down by £165 million. They will have two choices. If they spend the money on capital projects that is fine because that is one-off spending. However, if it is revenue spending the universities will find themselves in very real trouble the year after.
I am aware that £165 million is greater than the £120 million or £130 million—whatever the yield from tuition fees is—so the Government are saying that that is subsumed. But I have not heard the Government, at any stage of the Bill, say that they will receive £165 million, plus any income from fees, but when that £165 million has gone as expenditure for the coming year, we want to be certain that money raised from tuition fees from students is, first, spent exclusively in higher education, and not elsewhere, otherwise it becomes a tax; and, secondly, that it is genuinely seen as additional money going into higher education, which can be done only if it is disregarded for the purposes of the normal funding of higher education.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I, too, hope that the Government will find it possible to accept the amendment. We are all concerned about the immense financial crisis that universities face. We are all, I hope, including the Government, greatly concerned about maintaining and improving the quality of British higher and further education. The Government have made it clear since Dearing that they cannot and will not provide additional revenue to universities through taxation. The additional revenue must therefore come from fees. The amendment states that what comes from fees will, in effect, be used as additional revenue. On that basis, I hope that the Government will willingly and happily accept the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I admire the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. This is the third time that we have debated an amendment along these lines. But, for all the debates we have had, this amendment remains inappropriate. I am sorry that I shall have to disappoint him. I shall try to explain why.
The amendment seeks, first, to ensure that all fee income is spent by universities and colleges on providing courses of higher education. Just as universities charge fees, so they receive fee income. That has always been the case, and it will remain so.

185
Students who have to find all or part of the fee themselves in future will pay that fee directly to their university or college. Where students receive financial assistance with all or part of their fees from public funds, that assistance will be paid directly to the university or college. As the noble Lord and the noble Baroness understand, the university or college will keep all that fee income, whatever its source. Universities will not surrender any of their fee income, either to the Government or to the higher education funding council.
It will of course be for universities themselves to decide on how to use fee income from higher education fees. But there can be little doubt that it will essentially be spent on providing courses of higher education and for connected purposes. However, Clause 16 deals with not only higher education but also further education. And it would seem strange to require all fees charged by institutions to be used for higher education even though FE colleges exist primarily to provide further education courses. The first part of the amendment poses some problems, therefore.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is the Minister suggesting that, if the amendment were correct and referred to money taken from students and their families in higher education, the amendment would be acceptable, or is she using the argument that we are cross-fertilising further education as well?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, for reasons that I shall explain, even if the wording of the amendment were improved it still would not be acceptable.
The second part of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to disregard fee income for the purposes of calculating grant for the higher education funding councils. I shall deal in a moment with the wider issue of the extra funding that the Government will be making available to universities and colleges as a result of the savings achieved through means-testing support for students' fees. But, before that, I should make clear how public funds for higher education are channelled to universities and colleges.
Some £3 billion of public funds for teaching higher education students will go through the funding councils in 1998–99. But, in addition to that, about £1 billion of public funds will continue to flow through support for tuition fees next year. Even when the new funding arrangements reach steady state, we estimate that just over half of universities' fee income will continue to be paid out of support from public funds for tuition fees. We clearly cannot leave such a large sum of taxpayers' money out of account when calculating the public funds for higher education that flow through the other channel of public support; that is, through grant to the HEFC. Nor can the funding council leave out of its calculations the fee income that is received by institutions, as the third part of the amendment would require. That is primarily because the funding council needs to ensure fairness in funding.
The HEFCE is aiming to fund similar activities at similar rates and to offer a standard price for each full-time equivalent student place. At present, tuition
186
fees are paid on behalf of home full-time undergraduates up to maxima at three different levels to reflect the broad subject area studied. Next year, support will be available up to just one maximum level of fee, whatever subject the student is studying. As a result, it will be necessary for the funding council to make adjustments to the grant it provides to ensure that some institutions which concentrate on providing costly subjects do not lose out in consequence and that others which concentrate on cheaper subjects do not gain unfairly.
All that said, I should emphasise that the aim is that universities and colleges should receive similar support in grant and fees to fund similar activities. Institutions may receive more funding to educate a student in one subject than another because of the extra costs involved, but all institutions should receive broadly similar amounts to teach the same subjects.
In short, therefore, the amendment is unnecessarily restrictive in the requirements that it seeks to place on both the Secretary of State and the funding councils. But there should be no question that universities and colleges will benefit financially as a result of income raised from students' payment of tuition fees.
We have already announced a package of measures which will allow an extra £165 million to be spent on higher education in 1998–99. Universities and colleges will thus receive directly some £130 million in extra funding in 1998–99. As the noble Baroness said, by allowing an extra £130 million for universities and colleges, we are ensuring that they will benefit fully from the money derived from students' contributions to tuition fees.
I was asked whether I could give an assurance that universities would continue to benefit from the income received from tuition fees. Yes, I will give such an assurance. I repeat the assurance that the Government gave in their initial response to the Dearing Report, in an oral Statement made in both Houses of Parliament on 23rd July last year:
"These proposals will mean more money for universities. The Government will ensure that savings are used to improve quality, standards and opportunities for all in further and higher education".—[Official Report, 23/7/97; col. 1447.]
We recognise that, when they are making a direct contribution to the costs of their tuition, students are likely to be more demanding of institutions. They will rightly expect high quality and standards. That is in line without our own intentions. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said about the importance of that. It is evidenced by the funding package we have made available for 1998–99. Of course we are committed to maintaining and enhancing quality and standards in higher education and of course we shall do our utmost to ensure, as we have said, on a number of occasions, that the savings from the new funding arrangements are used for that purpose as well as for increasing and widening participation.
Of course we are not in a position to give cast-iron undertakings in relation to future years. We are in the middle of a comprehensive spending review, and it would be unrealistic for noble Lords to expect me to pre-empt decisions on public expenditure for future years or to put undertakings related to future public

187
expenditure decisions on the face of the Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said so eloquently on Report, no Parliament can bind its successors. We cannot now bind a future Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a certain sum of money into the budget for higher education. The amendment, however, would commit the Government to a spending decision years in advance.
Noble Lords on the Conservative Benches opposite, who have had more recent experience of government than the Liberal Democrats, would realise that no government can do this. While we can express intentions in general terms—and we have been happy to do that—it is simply unrealistic to expect more, as no one can foresee what circumstances may arise in future.
However, let me confirm that, on the present accounting basis, we estimate that the proposed means-testing of financial support for fees will bring in some £450 million to £500 million by the year 2015–16. And the words I have quoted from the Government's Statement of 23rd July last year make our intentions absolutely clear—as clear, I would maintain, as any Member of this House could reasonably expect, given the way in which government decisions on public expenditure have necessarily to be taken. The funding package which allows an extra £165 million to be spent on higher education next year demonstrates our determination to put our words into action and to live up to our commitments.
With that assurance, I return to the specific amendment before us. I repeat that it would be wrong, for the reasons I gave earlier, to leave out of the reckoning fee income for the purposes of calculating grant for the higher education funding councils. All public funds must be taken into account when assessing higher education's needs. Nor would it be right to place on the funding council restrictions which would in themselves lead to unfairness in the allocation of grant. Given the assurances that I have just made, and given that all fees paid by or on behalf of higher education students will remain with higher education institutions, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. If not, I ask your Lordships' House to reject it. While I accept that future spending commitments may be an entirely legitimate target for probing amendments, I wonder whether it is appropriate for your Lordships' House to divide on financial provisions of this kind.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. She began by expressing sorrow at once again having to disappoint me. To be disappointed means that one first had expectations. Therefore, she will understand if I say that I am not disappointed. However, I was looking forward to being pleased and I am not.
We have debated the issue on many occasions and I am grateful to the Minister for the assurances that she has sought to give. I am not sure that we have gained anything further. When I moved the amendment, I said that I believed the issue to be important. I am grateful to the Minister for phrasing the reply a little differently and suggesting what is undeniable—that we on these Benches have less recent experience of government than the
188
Conservative Opposition. However, this is an important amendment and therefore I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question in the light of her final comment. The amendment addresses the principle of additionality as opposed to voting money. If, as the Government have said, they intend that the money will go into universities and that they will benefit from it, there is no financial consequence in simply establishing the principle that this should be regarded as additionality, which is entirely in line with what the Government are claiming.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the amendments would tie the higher education funding council in many ways which would be undesirable. That would lead to unfairness in funding and would mean that some universities which have many expensive courses would suffer as against those with cheaper ones.
I have tried to say as clearly as I can that we are committed to trying to find additional funding for universities. We recognise the financial crisis in which they have been left; but the amendment would commit the Government in ways which would have an undesirable effect on universities. Furthermore, they are also de facto public expenditure commitments.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for clarifying that point. I accept that the Minister has gone as far as she is able. As I said a moment ago, that is not far enough, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
8.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 87.

Division No. 6

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Beloff, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Belstead, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Biddulph, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Maddock, B.

Butterfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Byford, B.

Newby, L.

Cadman, L.

Northbrook, L.

Carlisle, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Carnock, L.

Razzall, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cross, V.

Renton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Fookes, B.

Russell, E [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Hemphill, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Henley, L.

Stockton, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

189

Teviot, L.

Waddington, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Wakeham, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Williams of Crosby, B

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Wise, L.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Amos, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Judd, L.

Berkeley, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Blackstone, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Blease, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Levy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mallalieu, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chandos, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Monkswell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thornton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rea, L.

Fitt, L

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Prim Seal.]

Gilbert, L.

Sewel, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gregson, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Grenfell, L.

Simon, V.

Hardie, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Haskel, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Howell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hoyle, L.

Varley, L.

Hughes, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Whitty, L.

IsIwyn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.43 p.m.
Clause 25 [Orders and regulations]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 25, line 24, leave out ("General Teaching").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 25, line 27, leave out second ("made").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the controversy and excitement of the evening, I am glad to read the first two lines of my brief, which say:
"These 2 amendments have no practical effect whatsoever".
On Report, I moved amendments to ensure that the first set of regulations to be made on both the composition of the GTC and on the student support arrangements were subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Those amendments were widely welcomed. Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 merely tidy up the drafting of Clause 25 to reflect the wishes of the parliamentary draftsman to produce a Bill without otiose material in it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54:
Page 25, line 32, leave out second ("made").
Page 26, line 5, leave out ("General Teaching").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 26 [General interpretation]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 26, line 9, at end insert—
(""the Council" means the body corporate referred to in section 1(1);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 26, line 40, at end insert—
("section (Duty to have regard to needs of disabled persons),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 59:
Page 31, line 41, at end insert ("for England").
Page 32, line 5, at end insert ("for England").
Page 32, line 10, after ("Council") insert ("for England").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
8.47 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. It is customary at this stage for the Minister in charge of a Bill to say a few words of thanks. Although the Bill is relatively short in length, it has certainly not been short on controversy. That has been demonstrated by the lively and extensive debates which we have had on it.
This is the third Bill which I have taken through as a Minister and it has been an experience that I certainly shall not forget. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on the Bill. From the Front Bench, my noble friend Lord Whitty has made a particularly large contribution. He has had to master the briefs for this Bill alongside all his other work in the House and I thank him warmly for that. I look forward to his support when the School Standards and Framework Bill reaches us from another place. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Sewel. The knowledge and extensive experience that he gained before he became a Minister has informed our discussions on the Bill's impact north of the Border.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Carter and his colleagues in the Whips' Office, who have offered a great deal of support as the Bill has progressed.

191
I turn now to the Opposition Front Benches. I must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She has been a formidable opponent and has brought us much of her knowledge as a former education Minister. She has secured a victory against me but, as she knows, we shall seek to overturn that when the Bill reaches another place. However, I have very much enjoyed our encounters and I look forward to more of those when the schools Bill reaches us. The noble Lords, Lord Pilkington and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, have also made very valuable contributions.
I want to thank also the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. They have made many constructive interventions on all aspects of the Bill. I am pleased that we have been able to take on board at least some of their suggestions. I am grateful also to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Addington, for their contributions. We have all been struck by the noble Earl's use of metaphor and his references to classical mythology.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, as ever, courteously represented the interest of the Church. My noble friend Lord Sewel and I both want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. She has used her formidable knowledge of education in Scotland to excellent effect throughout the Bill's passage.
On the teaching aspects of the Bill, we have had the benefit of the wisdom of many Members of this House. I am most grateful for the contributions of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, the noble Lords, Lord Quirk, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Walton of Detchant, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
On the higher education issues, this House has, as so often, shown the unparalleled experience that it can bring to bear in scrutinising legislation. In particular, I believe that I can say that we are all grateful for the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, Lord Baker of Dorking, Lord Beloff and Lord Walton of Detchant, the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young, Lady Perry and Lady Park.
I want to thank also my noble friends on this side of the House who have provided both support and friendly and constructive criticism, sometimes at the same time. In particular, I wish to thank my noble friends Lord Desai, Lord Davies of Oldham, Lord Peston, Lady Lockwood, Lady David and Lady Dean.
I am sorry that despite all my arguments, my noble friend Lord Glenamara remains unable to support our proposals. I hope that perhaps eventually he will feel able to accept that the provisions in the Bill are working both in raising standards of the teaching profession and in providing continued expansion and quality in our universities.
I must thank also my private office, which, along with the Bill team and my other officials, has worked very hard to keep the show on the road both here and in the department. I want to thank parliamentary counsel for drafting the Bill and for providing an excellent service during its passage through the House.
192
Finally, I thank the doorkeepers and all the staff of the House. As ever, they have been extremely courteous, patient and helpful. I look forward with interest to watching the progress of the Bill through another place and considering it again when it returns later in the year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very generous way in which she introduced this debate on the Motion. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and other noble friends of the Minister who have worked with us on the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and their colleagues on the Liberal Benches, who have worked so hard. Of course, it would be wrong for me not to include my own colleagues. I have in mind in particular my noble friend Lord Pilkington for whom this was his first Bill. I am reminded of the tragic loss of his wife at the early stages of the Bill and the way in which he stalwartly saw through the work on the legislation.
I should also like to thank my noble friends Lady Seccombe, Lady Park of Monmouth, Lady Young, Lady Byford and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding whose thanks and gratitude to the Minister I mentioned earlier today. There is also my noble friend Lord Renfrew to thank and my noble friend Lady Carnegy. Indeed, I join with the Minister in thanking her for fighting the corner for Scotland. I should also like to thank the people who advised her with regard to amendments for Scotland. I express my thanks also to my noble friend Lady Perry, who came to our debates with great experience, as indeed is the case with my noble friend Lord Renfrew, and to my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking and my noble friend Lord Butterfield, who has worked so long and hard for his general teaching council which he now sees coming into fruition. Of course, I should not forget my noble friend Lord Beloff.
Having said that, I am afraid that Third Reading debates are also for putting on the record our views about the legislation overall. It has been a sorry saga and very unedifying. The Dearing report was commissioned with all-party agreement. Before the election, the Prime Minister and his right honourable friend Robin Cook both claimed that there were no plans to introduce tuition fees. However, within 100 days of saying so, tuition fees have been proposed and the Prime Minister said in Parliament quite specifically that, on student finance, the Government would accept the Dearing proposals. We know that the Government did not accept those proposals which relate specifically to student finance.
The Government claimed that these proposals were in response to the Dearing report, yet details of them were leaked the weekend before publication; and, on the day of publication, the proposals were announced within hours. The proposals have the hallmark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer all over them. Within a day or two those students who had accepted places following a year out—a gap year—queried the unfairness of being trapped by the

193
proposals. Their concerns were dismissed by the noble Baroness. However, the U-turn was made and the announcement that gap year students could be exempted on condition that they undertook worthy voluntary activity was then accepted. That was followed by another U-turn when it was realised that any system of verification would be unworkable. Therefore, all gap year students were finally exempted.
The Scottish Office Minister then announced a concession for Scottish students on the grounds that degree courses were usually four-year courses in Scotland and that its school system was different from that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It was then realised that EU citizens had to be treated equally with Scottish students, which gave rise to a preposterous situation; namely, that students from EU countries, including Southern Ireland, would enjoy the concession while students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland would not. The point was also made that there were many four-year courses in England and Wales. But that point was lost on the Government.
As for the Scottish school system being different from the school system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I should point out that it is also very different from that in France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece and all the other EU countries. Noble Lords took a different view and voted for equality of treatment for all EU students. There can be no defence whatever for disadvantaging English, Welsh and Northern Irish students within the European Union. Any attempt to overturn that amendment will be received with incredulity.
The Bill was introduced with indecent haste; it was skeletal and it lacked detail. It had poor information backing it and we were given confusing answers to the many questions posed on Second Reading and in Committee. Consultations on many of the measures contained within the Bill are either to be carried out yet again, are not yet completed or have yet to be undertaken. There are no drafts of regulations and none has been prepared. Therefore, we have had sight of none of that information while discussing the Bill. For example, I have in mind information on the GTC, induction arrangements, the professional qualification for head teachers and inspection for teacher training. We have not been able to discuss any of the background information which will appear in the regulations. Therefore, much of the Bill has been discussed in a vacuum.
Clauses 23 and 24 place an unfair burden on business. My comments in that respect were well recorded at earlier stages of the Bill. Clauses 16 to 22 have been nothing short of a fiasco, as regards gap year students; the Scottish students' concession; specific promises by the Prime Minister and Mr. Robin Cook; precipitate publication of proposals following the Dearing report; and the broken promise over the introduction of tuition fees.
The proposals regarding the rejection of the Dearing Committee's carefully thought-through recommendation that 50 per cent. of maintenance grants to students from lower income families should be retained have not been thoughtfully considered. For a Labour Government to
194
propose and defend to the barricades a system of financial support for students which will hit the students from low income families the hardest, is frankly incomprehensible. Despite what the Prime Minister and the Minister said, students from low income families, who may pay only part or even no tuition fees, will, however, lose maintenance grant and leave university with a greater burden of debt than their fellow students from more affluent families. As I said before, students do not make the distinction between tuition and maintenance grants; they must consider how much they will have to borrow in order to study at university.
The student from a low income family today pays no tuition fees, receives grant to cover up to 50 per cent. of maintenance costs and repays not one penny of that loan until he or she is earning just under £16,000 a year. The debt is written off at the age of 50 or after 25 years, whichever comes first. Under these proposals, the same students from low income families, who possibly pay no tuition fees depending on the means test, will have to borrow the whole of their maintenance. Following a three-year degree course, they will go from a debt of approximately £4,600 under the present system to more than double that level of debt under these proposals. They will begin to repay the loan at an income of £10,000 a year, albeit over a longer period; and, if the loan remains outstanding, it will continue until they reach the age of 65.
On the issue of repayments, I should point out that, at an income of £16,000, a student under the present system who borrows £4,600 (the maximum amount of loan for a student) will repay it at £76 per month over five years. However, at an income of £16,000, a comparable student under the proposed arrangements would have to borrow at least £10,000 and repay it at £45 per month for 18 years.
I turn now to Clause 18. Officials at the Department for Education really must be shaking with excitement over the inclusion of Clause 18, albeit with modifications. Clause 18 powers go much wider than top-up fees. Over time, I predict that the effects of this clause will run the risk of some universities going independent. For the Secretary of State to take a power, which will hang like the sword of Damocles over universities and colleges, does very little to sustain the autonomy of what are, after all, "free-standing chartered institutions".
When this or any future Chancellor of the Exchequer is much less generous to the funding of higher education, given the sword of Damocles represented by Clause 18, the only course for survival will be to cut staffing and/or courses of study. The only alternative source of funding will be for the Government to raise further tuition fee income from students.
We are in the process of passing legislation in this House with an unprecedented raft of consultation and regulations to follow, which will expose much of the detail that we have tried to elicit during the Bill's passage. Opposition amendments have been made to the Bill; for example, on the general teaching council, which has had the effect of turning what was an expensive talking shop into a body that will now concern itself with professional standards, on equality of treatment for all students throughout the European Union and on the retention of 50 per cent. maintenance grant to students from lower income families.

195
As the noble Baroness has said, it is of course for the Government in another place with their overwhelming majority to consider accepting amendments or to revert to the proposals which disadvantage English, Welsh and Northern Irish students within the European Union, and to remove maintenance grant from students from low income families against the recommendations of the Dearing Committee and against the wishes of Members from all sides of this House. If this amendment is reversed in another place, these students will leave university with the greatest burden of debt. How can that be justified? We have fought throughout for fairness and justice for students, and for students from low income families in particular.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not follow the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, either in length or content. We have spent many hours on this Bill and we have debated it fully. We on these Benches have set out our position clearly throughout and I do not think it is necessary or appropriate for me to repeat that now.
It has been an interesting experience. The Bill itself is a Bill of contrasts and the way in which this House and the Minister have dealt with it has been something of a contrast. I believe we have improved considerably Part I of the Bill, skeletal though it was, during its passage through your Lordships' House. I am grateful to the Government for the way they have responded to many of the concerns raised in all parts of the House. Part I of the Bill now leaves this House in a much better condition and is much clearer than when it began many weeks ago. Almost the opposite is true of Part II where there has been considerable disagreement. I think we expected that from the start. If there has been any occasional irritability, it has arisen on Part II. Perhaps that was inevitable.
My one regret is that Part III of the Bill has gone largely unnoticed. There was some reference to it in the early stages but there was almost nothing at Report stage and certainly nothing today. Perhaps that is because it is comparatively uncontentious. Nevertheless it is a shame that it has not received the attention which it merits. I do not wish to say any more about the Bill tonight. I echo the comments of the Minister and of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in thanking the staff of your Lordships' House and others who have helped us to produce the Bill. I, of course, thank the Minister and her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, particularly in reference to Part I of the Bill. I am less sure that I have much to thank them for as regards Part II of the Bill. However, I thank them for the mostly courteous way in which they have responded to us. My relationship—if I dare call it that—with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has had its ups and downs during the course of the Bill, but I hope it is now restored to an even keel. I put it no stronger than that.
I wish particularly to thank my colleagues. I thank my noble friend Lady Maddock. I believe that this is the first Bill she has dealt with in your Lordships' House. At first the noble Baroness told me that the proceedings were just like those "at the other end"; but then she told me that the proceedings were not at all like those "at the other end" and it was all very strange. I believe that we reached the ultimate in "bonding" last Monday at the Report stage
196
when both of us had spent many hours on the Front Bench vying with each other as to who had the worst cold. I believe that I have made the more rapid recovery so perhaps I must concede the worst cold to my noble friend.
I must also thank my noble friends on—dare I say it'?—my Back-Benches. I thank my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire with whom I share an office. We retreat there and he tells me where I went wrong and, very occasionally, where I nearly got it right. I of course thank my noble friend Lord Russell. It is occasionally unnerving to have the noble Earl sitting just behind me. I wonder what will happen next and never more so than today. I am sure I can say that today was for all of us—as perhaps befits an education Bill—certainly a learning experience. I pay warm tribute to and give warm thanks to the team who have supported us through this Bill. I know that I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Maddock in this respect. They have worked enormously hard when short staffed. They have briefed us well. I feel that I have not always done justice to that briefing. We are enormously grateful to them for their support and their help throughout this Bill.
I have just received a note from the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, who apologises that he has had to leave. He has asked me—if I have the opportunity—to add his thanks and congratulations to all and especially to the Government for their many constructive responses to amendments. I am pleased to take the opportunity to convey those thanks although I suspect that he, too, was referring more to Part I of the Bill than to Part II. As I said, I am happy to pass on his thanks to all concerned.
As the Minister said, we now pass this Bill to another place to see what they can do with it. I believe that it leaves your Lordships' House in a better condition than when it arrived although it still leaves much to be desired. We now look forward to the arrival in this House of the schools Bill. I feel more at home with schools than I do with universities. Therefore I look forward to that Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Partial Continuance) Order 1998
9.5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, last year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said that,
"so long as the terrorist threat remains and there is no lasting peace, we shall maintain and operate the powers in the PTA".
The Government are making efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement, by consent, in Northern Ireland. However, recent events not only in this country but worldwide underline the fact that there are those who want to use violent means for political purposes. That is why we seek today the renewal of the powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Only this morning an RUC station in Armagh came under mortar attack and last Tuesday two young men in Poyntzpass were murdered

197
simply because one was a Roman Catholic and one was a Protestant, as far as one can detect any reason behind such cruelty.
In Great Britain during the election campaign there were attempts to disrupt the democratic process. There were bombs at Wilmslow railway station in March. In April there were two devices on the conjunction of the M1, M5 and M6. In April there was a small device at a junction box near Leeds station. There were two more small devices on 25th April under a pylon near the M6.
Since the renewal of the IRA ceasefire on 20th July, no more terrorist devices have been found in Great Britain. And there has been some success. Six men were convicted in July of conspiracy to cause explosions, and each sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment. Their intention was to knock out the electricity grid in London and the surrounding area. In December last year three men were sentenced to between 17 and 25 years for terrorist offences related to explosive finds. In each case the police and the Security Service worked carefully, imaginatively and co-operatively together and I pay tribute to their work.
In Northern Ireland in the period from last year's debate to 19th July 13 people were murdered. These included two RUC officers, Constables Graham and Taylor, who were shot dead while on foot patrol in Lurgan on 16th June. In the same period there were attacks and other forms of terrorist activity including 85 punishment attacks.
After the restoration of the PIRA ceasefire on 20th July the scale of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland diminished somewhat, but it has not ended. Billy Wright was murdered on 27th December last year. Since then there have been bomb attacks in Enniskillen, Moira and Portadown and 44 punishment attacks, and 14 murders committed by paramilitaries on both sides of the sectarian divide. We cannot be deflected from our purpose, which is to seek a peaceful solution to the problems of Northern Ireland.
I have said on an earlier occasion—I believe that it is still true—that one does not need to be taken away from the general threat of international terrorism because of the particular problems of Northern Ireland. Thanks to the work of the police and security agencies, there has been no repetition here during the past year of the bombings carried out by international terrorism in the past. But there have been attacks elsewhere, notoriously in Luxor, Egypt, last year when 58 tourists were murdered senselessly. In Algeria thousands have died as a result of terrorists and their activities. During our presidency we are putting work forward in the European Union forum, and as part of our chairmanship of the G8 countries, countering terrorist fundraising and arms trafficking by terrorist organisations.
Under the Immigration Act 1971, the Home Secretary has power to exclude any foreign national if his or her presence is not conducive to the public good. Since becoming Home Secretary in May my right honourable friend has used that power 26 times. In 1997 12 people were detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in connection with international terrorism, compared with
198
two in 1996. Of those, criminal charges were laid in seven cases. The United Kingdom is therefore no safe haven for those who support or promote terrorism.
I turn briefly to the Act itself. I have indicated that we regard the Act as necessary and essential in the fight against terrorism. I am grateful for the report prepared by the reviewer, Mr. John Rowe, Queen's Counsel. It is a clear, independent scrutiny of the operation of the legislation. It was pleasing that he was able to conclude that the operation of the provisions was in accordance with the law.
His survey includes the power to stop and search individuals in specified areas for a limited period, to search vehicles for articles connected with terrorism, and to set up cordons and impose parking restrictions. Mr. Rowe states that those powers were exercised fairly and lawfully in 1997. He draws similar conclusions about the important operation of the sensitive powers to investigate terrorist finances.
Apart from air and sea ports, the arrest and detention powers were used in 1997 in Great Britain on about 30 occasions, and in Northern Ireland about 500 times. He says that they were used properly and fairly. The initial period of detention in Great Britain was extended on nine occasions, compared with 23 in 1996, and in Northern Ireland there were 72 extensions as against 48 in 1996.
Mr. Rowe recommends that the existing ports powers should be extended to take in all traffic to and from ports. We shall consider the recommendation in the context of the forthcoming consultation paper, to which I shall return in a moment.
We have long indicated that we believe that there is a strong case for introducing a judicial element to the current extension of detention process. Mr. Rowe supports such a move in principle although he points to the undesirable inconsistencies which would arise if a judicial element were introduced in Great Britain but not Northern Ireland. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, recommended as much in his inquiry into legislation against terrorism. This whole issue is important and we intend to cover it fully in the forthcoming consultation paper on permanent United Kingdom-wide counter-terrorism legislation, but until we have that legislation we cannot prudently leave the police without the existing power, which I recognise is an executive mechanism to extend detentions. The police need that present power for the period to which I referred.
I turn specifically to exclusion powers. Since 30th October last year when the Home Secretary announced the revocation of the 12 remaining exclusion orders, the Government have kept the issue of whether or not those powers should be renewed under close review. They have taken careful account, of course, of the security situation and other factors, including Mr. Rowe's views.
This Government have long opposed exclusion powers, both on policy grounds—in that they amount to a form of internal exile fundamentally undermining the integrity of the United Kingdom—and because of their limited utility. Nothing in the current security situation,

199
nor any argument of policy, shakes us from the view that it is right for the powers to be lapsed and the order before the House achieves that end.
The views of Mr. Rowe on the matter have not lightly been set aside. He has argued for each of his five years as reviewer that the powers are useful and should be retained. It is not without precedent for the Government to take issue with a recommendation made by the independent reviewer. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, Mr. Rowe's predecessor, argued in 1987 that exclusion powers were "draconian" and should be removed from the statute book. But the then Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, decided that they should be retained. So there were differences of view.
These powers were already withering on the vine. No orders have been in force in Northern Ireland since February 1995. As for the mainland, no new orders were made in 1996 or 1997, leaving 22 in force when the Home Secretary came into office. Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act exclusion powers are to be used only when they are judged to be expedient to prevent acts of terrorism. It is the Government's assessment that their use cannot currently be justified on that basis—and they do not therefore form part of the Act to be renewed this year.
The consultation paper is a document which offers a great opportunity. The Home Secretary announced in another place on 30th October last year that he and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intended shortly to present proposals for permanent United Kingdom-wide counter-terrorist legislation. We shall therefore put out a consultation paper which will draw upon the recent report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, on legislation against terrorism.
The noble and learned Lord was asked, of course, as part of his remit to consider the need for counter-terrorism legislation in the event of a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. That has not yet been brought about. However, we cannot shelve consideration of his recommendations. Terrorism is not a temporary phenomenon anywhere in the world. The forthcoming paper will therefore set out proposals for permanent legislation to deal with the continuing threat from terrorism and the terrorist.
In the meantime, the police and the security forces must continue to have the powers they need to fight terrorism. Those powers are contained in the order. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [25th Report front the Joint Committed].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
9.16 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may start by thanking the Minister for bringing the order before the House and for explaining it with such care and in such detail. From these Benches we welcome the order. We welcome it sadly—not because we wish in any way to oppose it; we fully support it. Our sadness results from the fact that it is so necessary. Casting my mind back I remember when I first came to this House, just a little
200
under 20 years ago, seeing the then Prime Minister, now the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, walking casually from No. 10 to another place, escorted by someone whom I then presumed to be a mere private secretary.
Not long after that, following events such as the murder of Airey Neave, the Brighton bombing and all the unimaginable horrors that we have seen in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, it came about that Prime Ministers moving from A to B did so with a convoy of two or three cars; and even other Ministers moving more or less just across Whitehall had to be so escorted. We ought to bear in mind that it is a relatively recent phenomenon that we are experiencing. It is very sad and one which we hope our children and grandchildren will not have to experience. That is another matter and not for debate on this occasion.
I join with the Minister in paying tribute to the security services in Northern Ireland and the rest of the kingdom for all that they have done over the past 20 years or more in trying to deal with the problem of terrorism. I also join with the Minister in saying how sad it is that hopes raised are so often dashed—and dashed so recently by the horrific events at Poyntzpass. The noble Lord referred to further events, and to this morning's attack on a police station in Northern Ireland.
The simple point I wish to make before going on to ask one or two questions is that we accept that such orders are necessary. We on these Benches will always give our full support to the Government in their fight against terrorism. We will offer them our full support in prolonging the order just so long as it is necessary and so long as the Government themselves give the assurance that they will renew the legislation as and when it is appropriate. Perhaps they will assure us that they will only cease to renew it when there is so major a change in circumstances that such a step is justified.
I have one or two questions, some of which have been partially addressed by the Minister. I turn first to the exclusion orders and the comments made by Mr. John Rowe QC in his valuable report. I remember the noble Lord on behalf of the Government making the announcement in this House that his right honourable friend the Home Secretary intended to cease using exclusion orders. He made that announcement back in October. We, again, on these Benches accept that the orders are, as he put it, quoting the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, draconian. We must accept that we are not always entirely happy with their use. They are a severe measure, a form of internal exile. However, we accept that there can be very good security reasons for the retention of their use. That is a point Mr. Rowe made in his report. He made two comments. The first and most important was that he had seen no abuse of the use of the orders over the years. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. Mr. Rowe also made the point that the orders can on occasions be an effective weapon in the fight against terrorism.
I accept that what the Home Secretary receives from Mr. Rowe is merely advice. In the end it is for the Home Secretary himself to decide. I ask the Minister whether there would be circumstances in which his right

201
honourable friend might consider making use of exclusion orders. Despite what the order achieves, he might consider whether it was possible to bring the measures back, should that be necessary in future years.
The second point I wish to make refers to the consultation document. We welcome the fact that consultation will come forward from the Government. We think it important that it should be brought forward in good time. I understand that the Home Secretary originally promised that the consultation should appear early in the new year. I believe that with some embarrassment the Home Secretary conceded in another place that March was possibly moving a little beyond early in the new year. I have some experience of these matters, having once announced, in my life in the Department for Social Security, that we would publish a document in the spring. I confess that when we published it in July we were edging a little beyond any possible definition of spring.
In response to queries about the consultation being published early in the new year, the Home Secretary said that he hoped it would be published within another two to three months. Can the Minister say a little more about that and whether he can urge his right honourable friend to ensure that it is published with as much expedition as possible? We on these Benches—and I imagine the same is true of noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches—would like to see the document as soon as possible.
My last point relates to the questions raised by my right honourable friend Sir Brian Mawhinney in another place relating to powers to deal with the financing of terrorism. It is accepted on all sides of the House and in all parts of the kingdom as being a matter of extreme importance. The Home Secretary said that he was not satisfied with the powers that he had at present to deal with such matters. I ask the Minister whether he can confirm that the problem will be addressed in the consultation paper when—and, I hope, it is soon—it comes before us and before the country.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, this order has to be renewed, first, to maintain the protection the Act affords to the people in the various services who put their lives at risk in the fight against terrorism and who, during the past year, have so successfully contained terrorism in Great Britain. Secondly, it is necessary to safeguard every citizen in Great Britain and Northern Ireland against terrorist attack.
It is the indiscriminate nature of terrorism which points up the evil. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred to the atrocity in Poyntzpass last Tuesday, when Philip Allen and Damien Trainor were lined up on the floor and shot through the back of the head. What sort of people are they who commit crimes of that nature? What sort of cause do they think they support? With such actions they besmirch the country that they profess to love.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in regretting that we need extraordinary powers which undermine the civil liberties of the citizens of this country. For
202
example, we have powers of arrest and detention without warrant when a police officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting merely that a person has some involvement in terrorism, without any specific offence having been committed; we have the extension of detention when at the moment there is no independent judicial intervention.
I welcome the statement of the Minister that the Government will look again at judicial participation. There is a distinction in the system of criminal justice between Northern Ireland and the rest of Great Britain and there is no reason why judicial participation in the decision-making process as to whether to extend detention orders in order to protect civil liberties should not be introduced, at least in part.
Another power is that which allows the stopping and searching of vehicles and pedestrians, whether or not there are grounds for suspecting the presence of any articles which could be used for terrorism. There are port and border controls which can be operated simply on the hunch of a police officer. He can simply say, "I wish to find out whether this person has been involved in terrorism", and stop and search accordingly. As Mr. John Rowe points out in his report, the powers may well be in breach of the European Convention and, as it is now incorporated, in the Human Rights Bill.
Terrorists do not undermine civil liberties; they destroy them—for example, the ability of people to be able to live their lives as they choose, indeed to live at all. There should be no hiding place from the criminal process. The refusal yesterday of the German extradition request of Miss Roisin McAliskey by the Home Secretary requires examination. I have no access to the medical reports and have no reason to doubt that she is suffering from a serious condition and that the decision of the Home Secretary is a humane decision. But many people suffer from serious depression when on remand awaiting extradition or trial.
The reason given by the Home Secretary, as reported in the press, was that, because of her health, it was unjust and oppressive to return Miss McAliskey. So far as I am aware, that is unprecedented, certainly since the Extradition Act 1989. The circumstances in which it is unjust and oppressive are limited in Section 12(2) of that Act and none of those limitations apply in this case. On the other hand, by Section 12(1) the Secretary of State has an unfettered discretion and may make a political decision that it would be wrong to send a person back for trial.
If that was the true reason for the Home Secretary's action, then he should not have shrunk from saying so. I note that the German authorities have not been given the reasons for the refusal of the extradition request, though the European Convention, under Article 18, paragraph (2) requires that those reasons be given. If the Home Secretary had said that it was a political decision that he was taking and that Miss McAliskey was not being returned as a positive contribution to the peace process, I am sure that that would have been something the people of this country—of whatever political colour—could easily have accepted.

203
I welcome the Government's intention to consult widely on the implementation of United Kingdom-wide anti-terrorism legislation as set out in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I hope that new legislation will be more limited in scope and will protect human rights better but will be precise and effective in its impact. I ask the Minister when he replies to what extent it is proposed that the consultation paper and the legislation to follow will take into account the Human Rights Bill and the impact that will have upon our law.
A review of this kind must target resources against funding and against organisation. One of the problems about terrorist organisations is that the bombing may stop but the structures for raising finance and for organising may remain. What one would like to see in any new legislation that is brought forward are positive measures aimed at preventing the funding and organisation of illegal organisations of this kind.
The Minister referred to the exclusion powers which we on these Benches are happy to agree should not be continued. They give entirely the wrong signal to outsiders that there is a division between the citizens of this country. We are all citizens of the United Kingdom. One of the privileges of citizenship is the ability to move freely between the various constituent parts of our country. People outside may well regard exclusion orders that have been made in the past as completely oppressive.
The Minister said that the Government will not be deflected from their fight against terrorism. I assure him that we on these Benches stand by this Government, as we stood by the previous government, in combating terrorism in whatever form it comes.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that we are very much in the dark regarding the case of Miss McAliskey? We have neither seen the German evidence nor have we heard the case for the defence. Therefore, his strictures on the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary may perhaps be a little undeserved.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for intervening but I do so in order to thank him for bringing forward this order. The House will be aware that after coming to this place in 1985 I attempted for a number of years to obtain a vote against the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I was unsuccessful in those endeavours because I could not even get a seconder.
There were two reasons for my seeking to vote against the Prevention of Terrorism Act. First, it was Labour Party policy at the time to oppose the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Secondly, it was my personal judgment that the draconian Act that was rushed through Parliament in 1974 as a result of the Birmingham pub bombings was a recruiting sergeant for terrorism rather than a mechanism to fight against terrorism. I am glad that the Government have seen fit not to renew the power for exclusion orders. That is one of the more objectionable features of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I am glad that that has happened. I hope that in
204
future years the Government will feel confident enough to do away with the other draconian powers that are embodied within the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
I am very tempted to respond to the contribution from the Official Opposition and from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I must resist that temptation. We have already had an altercation in the House earlier this evening about asperity of language, which is one of the phrases that might be used. On that basis I shall not clash with the remarks that have been made. I can assure noble Lords that I could do that very effectively if tempted. In conclusion, I thank my noble friend for the changes that this Government have made in policy compared with the previous government and wish them well in their progressive developments in the future.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed and in particular for the tone which underlay what the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Thomas of Gresford, said. I know that all parties, when there was a different government and different opposition, tried to work together to deal with these problems. When the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, was here for the government and I spoke for the Opposition, with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, I believe that we adopted the stance which has been put forward tonight, which is of great importance.
As regards the particular questions, I confirm that Mr. Rowe said that there had been no abuse of the powers and that they had been used fairly and lawfully. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked about powers. As I indicated during questions on the Statement by the Home Secretary, which I repeated, the Home Secretary has emergency powers which he can retake and which would lapse if they were not approved by Parliament within 40 days. I can confirm to the House that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is quite right.
He is also quite right in assuming that the financing of terrorism will be a part of the review. I cannot give the noble Lord anything more precise about it within two to three months. That is for a number of reasons, not the usual ignoble ones that he used to rely on as he confessed a moment or two ago. The fact is that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have taken these matters very seriously. The Home Secretary, Dr. Mowlam, and I attended to give evidence before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, when we were in Opposition.
We are in delicate, shifting times at the moment and one does not want to rush forward with a consultation paper, for reasons which are too obvious to spell out. We are certainly mindful of the fact that we need to get a comprehensive review and not a paper that is capable of being distorted by a threat from one particular part of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked for specific reassurance that Human Rights Bill matters would be taken into account when we bring forward new legislation. I can give him that assurance because, on the basis of the Bill which he and his colleagues

205
supported, the Minister who brings forward the new legislation will have to certify—I believe that this is a very important new step in our legislative procedures—whether or not the Bill is convention compliant.
He asked what sort of people committed these acts. The truth is that they are cruel, subtle, determined and sophisticated. Those are the people and the causes that we have to deal with. I stress that that situation is not limited to Northern Ireland.
There were one or two questions about Roisin McAliskey. I shall deal with them quite briefly. The Home Secretary did notify the German government to explain his decision, which does not reflect in any way on the fairness of the German legal system or on the quality of the extradition request. We have very good working relationships with our colleagues in Germany in the field of extradition and in international co-operation against terrorism. We are quite confident that this decision will not affect that relationship. The decision was not unprecedented. In fact, the Secretary of State has taken a similar decision, again on medical grounds, relating to an extradition request from the United States of America.
In respect of the medical evidence, there was medical evidence from doctors who had been responsible for Miss McAliskey's care since she was bailed to a London hospital and from a senior psychiatrist retained by the Home Office—I stress that—who spoke to her doctors and who interviewed her, and those reports were put before the Home Secretary. Miss McAliskey is entitled to client confidentiality and to medical confidentiality. Those documents are not, of course, publicly available.
206
I want to say plainly and unambiguously that the Home Secretary's decision was taken under extradition legislation. He is obliged to take an independent decision in each individual case. It would be quite wrong for political considerations to interfere with a decision on whether to order a particular person's return. I think it was the leader in the Evening Standard which said that the decision was one of courage. It was. It was an independent political decision which the Secretary of State took as part of his independent exercise of his powers under the relevant legislation. I have spent a moment or two on that case because noble Lords raised questions about it, bearing in mind its relevance and importance. On the basis of what I have said, I—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, partly in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, perhaps I may stress that I am not making any comment upon the validity of the request for extradition in the particular case to which I have referred; nor am I questioning the Home Secretary's decision. I said that if it was on political grounds—indeed, a moment ago the noble Lord said that he had taken "an independent political decision"—he would have been entitled to say so. I accept, of course, what the Minister says now.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful. I was not in any sense reproaching the noble Lord for anything that he had said. Bearing in mind that a number of noble Lords had raised these questions, it seemed to me that the House was entitled to such explanation as I could give. What I said was that the Home Secretary took his "independent decision". That was not based on political considerations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  Nuclear Waste Storage
  Nuclear Waste Storage
  Sex Offenders Act 1997: Failure to Register
  Sex Offenders Act 1997: Failure to Register
  Shooting Incidents, Manchester
  Shooting Incidents, Manchester
  Obscene Publications Act 1959: Prosecutions
  Obscene Publications Act 1959: Prosecutions
  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997: Administration
  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997: Administration
  Firearms Surrender Compensation Scheme
  Firearms Surrender Compensation Scheme
  Wales: Statutory Instruments
  Wales: Statutory Instruments
  Security Service: MI5 Phoneline
  Security Service: MI5 Phoneline
  Roisin McAliskey
  Roisin McAliskey
  Museums and Galleries: Grants
  Museums and Galleries: Grants
  Millennium Dome: Rural Exhibits
  Millennium Dome: Rural Exhibits
  Millennium Domes: Accessibility
  Millennium Domes: Accessibility
  Scottish Law Reform Discussions
  Scottish Law Reform Discussions
  Scottish Police Information Strategy (SPIS)
  Scottish Police Information Strategy (SPIS)
  Scottish Water Authorities
  Scottish Water Authorities
  Armed Forces: Lamb Supplies
  Armed Forces: Lamb Supplies
  Welfare Reform
  Welfare Reform
  Water Abstraction Licensing System
  Water Abstraction Licensing System
  Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS)
  Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS)
  Household Waste Statistics
  Household Waste Statistics
  A-Level: Analysis of Results 1994–97
  A-Level: Analysis of Results 1994–97