Sitting of 11 February 1993

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

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate to be resumed on Thursday 18 February.
    BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
    EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
    GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    RIVER HUMBER (UPPER BURCOM COOLING WORKS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    ALLIED IRISH BANKS BILL
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 18 February 1993.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Prisons (Contracting Out)
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in extending contracting out in the prison service.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): From 1 April, the Prison Service agency will assume full responsibility for taking forward Government policy on the involvement of the private sector in the management of prisons. The agency will make recommendations to me later this year.
    Mr. Coombs: In warmly welcoming the private management of prisons initiative, may I ask my hon. Friend to extend the initiative to young offender institutions? Given that a third of crime is now committed by people under the age of 17, is not that a strong case for strengthening the network of young offender institutions? Such strengthening could be done by the private sector.
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right: young offender institutions are a most important part of the prison service and we need the best standards in them.
    It is clear that competition and tendering can bring better management to parts of the prison service, so, undoubtedly, the director general will want to look at that early. At present, we are conducting a tendering exercise for education. The initial signs promise extremely well for the young offender institutions which are so important.
    Mr. Soley: Will the new contracted-out private prisons be covered by Crown immunity? If not, will the Minister ensure that Her Majesty's prisons have Crown immunity withdrawn from them so that all prisons can operate on a level playing field?
    Mr. Lloyd: What we want is exactly the same playing field for all prisons. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly on Crown immunity because I am not sure of the details that it covers. I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman know. The equal playing field, to use the hon. Gentleman's term, which was the gist of his question, is what we are aiming at.
    Mr. Sweeney: Can my hon. Friend confirm that we are engaged in the biggest prison building programme this century? Can he give an assurance that those places will not be wasted and will be put to good use in dealing with miscreants?
    Mr. Lloyd: Prison places will be filled not by the prison service but by the courts. It is the largest prison building programme this century. We are almost at the end of it and 18 of the 21 new prisons are open. The last three prisons will open next year. They have improved facilities in the prison service which enables an improvement in the sort of programmes that are so necessary if prisoners are to return to society better able to lead law-abiding lives.

    Police (Restructuring)
    Mr. Tipping: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with which organisations he has had recent discussions about the local organisation and local accountability of the police force.
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations his Department has had with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities regarding proposals to restructure police forces and police authorities.
    Ms. Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those chief constables whom he has met since December 1992 to discuss his proposals for restructuring the police force.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have had many discussions with a wide range of interests and organisations on the subject of police reform. I intend to produce firm proposals for change and I shall consult widely on those proposals before final decisions are taken.
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Home Secretary say clearly whether he intends to move towards larger police forces? If he does, how does he propose that local communities should have an influence so that the police are sensitive and responsive to their needs? When he makes his statement, will he bear in mind the representations that he has had from people in different parties in his county of Nottinghamshire?
    Mr. ClarkeAs I said, I shall bring forward proposals in due course. Obviously, I need time to work on them and then I shall go out to consultation on them. The aim is to produce stronger police forces with strong local police authorities that can improve further the effectiveness of the protection that the police offer against crime.
    When I produce the proposals I shall consult widely on them, including the people in Nottinghamshire with whom I have already had general discussions. I have floated openly the fact that I am looking at all these matters and ideas are already pouring in. I shall formulate my own proposals and then go out and have discussions on them in due course.
    Mr. Gerrard: The Home Secretary must be aware of the public concern at the huge increases in crimes such as burglary. Does he accept that to deal with such increases we need effective partnerships at local level between local authorities, the police and the general public? Against that background, if restructuring is necessary, why does not he approach the matter as a joint exercise with the local authorities and the police, rather than ploughing on with his own agenda, which is undermining local partnerships and confidence?
    Mr. Clarke: I am very concerned at the high level of crime. That is why I am looking closely at how we can improve the effectiveness of the police force in making its contribution to protecting us against it. As Home Secretary, I am expected to produce proposals for strengthening the police force. Then I shall discuss with local authorities and others the implications of those proposals. But I cannot be expected to put my whole job into commission and not even to make proposals until I have cleared them with all the relevant interest groups.
    1096
    Interest in the police and crime goes beyond local authorities; the public as a whole are interested and I am sure that they are all waiting for my proposals.
    Ms. Lynne: If the Secretary of State met the chief constables, did he by any chance discuss with them one of the recommendations in the Sheehy report—that the post of chief superintendent be abolished? Is he aware that certain chief superintendents in the Greater Manchester area and other urban areas are responsible for a far greater caseload than those in police forces in other areas? Will he take that into consideration before he makes his final decision?
    Mr. Clarke: I meet chief constables all the time and I have discussions with them on all the matters that we are now discussing, including police structure, police financing and pay, how to reward good performance and how to organise commands more effectively. In due course, we shall produce proposals. So will Sir Patrick Sheehy. It is pointless debating proposals before we have them. In due course the Sheehy group will make proposals and we shall consult on them before we put them into effect. Meanwhile, the Superintendents Association, having given its evidence, is undoubtedly waiting, like the rest of us, to see what proposals Sir Patrick and his colleagues make.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we need a police structure across Britain that is fully accountable and response to local needs? Is not responsiveness best achieved by beefing up local liaison and community policing panels, which were successfully introduced under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984? Does he also agree that accountability works both ways? The police have to be accountable for what they do and the money that they spend and local authorities have to be accountable if they do not properly support the police. The worst local authorities have not done so.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree that the local liaison arrangements are extremely good in many places. I strongly approve of the move towards neighbourhood policing which is being made throughout the country. It will give more power and discretion to local commanders and keep them in one place for longer so that they get to know the patch for which they are responsible and the people within it. We also need to improve the effectiveness of the police authorities. When people talk about the local accountability of their police force, they do not always automatically think of the police authority. They are more likely to complain to their Member of Parliament or to the Home Secretary than to the police authority.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend understand that there is urgent need for reorganisation? The Government keep telling us that they are putting more money in. The police keep telling us that there is not enough money. Those of my constituents who are not exactly involved in crime say that they are not getting value for money.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend puts clearly the question that every sensible member of the public asks. We are spending much more on policemen and Britain has more policemen than ever before. They are higher paid and better equipped, yet there are constant voicings of dissatisfaction, despite the fact that the police face rising demands on them. That is why we need to look afresh at

    1097
    strengthening the way in which we lay down national and local standards and compare the effectiveness of different police forces. We need to have proper structures in place to ensure that the performance of all police forces is brought up to the standard of the best.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the experience of Thames Valley shows that it is perfectly possible for the police service to provide a good service to the public across more than one county area? Given that spending on the police has increased by about 74 per cent. since 1979, is not it common sense to seek the best possible value for every pound that is spent?
    Mr. Clarke: We have police forces that cover more than one local authority, police forces such as the Metropolitan police in which the local authorities are not involved, and police forces that are covered by one local authority. The pattern is determined by history rather than logic. I am looking at that history at the same time as looking at the important things—how strong and effective the police authority is; how clearly it lays down local standards and demonstrates that it is delivering them; and how well it helps the police to communicate with their local population. I shall produce proposals that address all those questions as soon as I can.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Home Secretary understand that, with crime apparently out of control in many parts of the country—a crime is now committed every six seconds every day—what people consider important is that institutional change should help the fight against crime and that there should be no break in the connection between policing and the local community? Whatever other changes the right hon. and learned Gentleman may make, will he undertake not to remove the right of local representatives—Conservative, Labour or whatever—who have been elected by local people, to have a say in local policing and an influence on it? Many consider that central to the fight against crime.
    Mr. Clarke: First, crime is not out of control, although it is an extremely serious matter. The level of crime is rising: that is the reason for our proposals for secure accommodation for juvenile offenders and for dealing with people who offend on bail and those who organise rave parties. The Government are known to be working on various proposals. At the same time, we are encouraging the process of making the police more effective and the local liaison mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
    Of course, the structure is also important, as I have just said. But, with the greatest respect, I do not think that the public would lay as much stress as do the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and his party on whether local councillors dominate the police authority.
    Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. and learned Friend, like me, feel a certain scepticism when he hears Opposition Members—especially those on the Front Bench—talk of support for the police? Over the past decade, they have voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the Criminal Justice Acts and the Public Order Act 1986, not to mention the prevention of terrorism Acts.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. The shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Sedgefield, is one of those who are changing the rhetoric of the Labour party.
    1098
    It is becoming closer to that of President Clinton, who advocated the restoration of the electric chair during his campaign in America. The fact is that the hon. Member for Sedgefield advocates no new proposals and his party has a history of voting against each and every proposal that we have presented to strengthen the fight against crime.
    The hon. Gentleman does not yet know what my proposals are, but, the moment that it is suggested that I might change the organisation of the police force, he is plainly prepared to oppose those proposals, just as he has opposed all our improvements in the past.

    Immigration
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to attend a further meeting of the Trevi group on immigration and related issues.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): Trevi is concerned with police co-operation and not with immigration policy. European Community ministerial meetings on these two separate areas of work usually take place on consecutive days. The next formal meetings are scheduled for 1 and 2 June in Copenhagen.
    Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful for the Minister's claim that the Trevi group is concerned only with policing functions. Perhaps he will take this opportunity to publish the proceedings of all Trevi meetings: then we could be assured that it is not a secret society designed to harmonise immigration and asylum policies throughout Europe and to prevent people from seeking political asylum and safety in western Europe. Does he agree that there is an agenda to try to deny refugees safety and human rights throughout Europe by means of common closing of frontiers?
    Mr. Wardle: Trevi has nothing to do with asylum seekers. Any decisions made by the Trevi Ministers will be published and made available to the House, as they regularly are.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, at the November meeting—the most recent meeting of Immigration Ministers—decisions were made on manifestly unfounded applications for asylum, host third countries and expulsion policy, and those decisions were made available to the House and placed in the Library. All the policies that I have mentioned are entirely in keeping with the Geneva convention.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although many hon. Members on both sides of the House would want any application for immigration to be dealt with compassionately, we should also bear in mind the best interests of people already living in this country?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The present Government and successive Governments in this country have operated a firm but fair immigration policy. We shall continue to do precisely that.
    Mr. Allen: The Minister must be aware that there is great concern that immigration, asylum and other policies are being decided by secret meetings—in the European dimension, by the Trevi group and the ad-hoc group on immigration, and by the K4 group of civil servants. One

    1099
    example of such policies is to go for the lowest common denominator on visitors' visas. The Government are abolishing the right to appeal against the refusal of a visitor's visa. Will the Minister today give an undertaking that, instead of listening to colleagues in Trevi and other groups, he will listen to those in the other place who are currently discussing the abolition of visitors' visa rights? The Government should listen to the House of Lords when it throws out their proposals, not to people in the Trevi group.
    Mr. Wardle: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's speculation about what will or will not happen to the Asylum and Immigration Bill in another place. The House will agree that it must make sense for member states of the European Community to harmonise immigration policies, not seek to uniform policy. They should discuss important issues of common interest within a framework of intergovernmental co-operation. Following the Maastricht treaty, that is precisely what will happen under the pillar of co-operation.

    Child Cruelty (Evidence)
    Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to alter the law on evidence in cases of cruelty to, or murder of, children.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): My right hon. and learned Friend recognises and shares the concern that has been expressed following a recent case. He has no plans to change the law on evidence, but he will wish to give early and careful consideration to what the Royal Commission on criminal justice has to say on the matter when its report is available in a few months' time.
    Dame Jill Knight: There is widespread public concern about the baby Griffin case in which two people who were known to have battered, burnt and killed that child walked scot-free from the courts. Is my hon. Friend aware that that is just the latest in a long list of such cases? What has he to say to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has been calling for a change in the law to end the injustice and provide more deterrents against such wicked acts?
    Mr. Jack: I share the concern of my hon. Friend, who has quite properly brought the issue to the attention of the House. I am aware of what the NSPCC has had to say and have studied its evidence to the royal commission. The Home Office has asked the NSPCC to send us the results of its research, which we shall study most carefully. In its evidence it said that it wanted to draw attention to the issue, but it does not have a prescriptive solution to the problems outlined by my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister take careful note not only of the evidence of the NSPCC but of other medical and social caucuses? I think that he will agree that it is frightening that children who are killed appear to have no rights. No one wishes to take away someone else's legitimate rights, but the child victim must be first and foremost in our minds at all times.
    Mr. Jack: The thesis of the hon. Lady's question is entirely right. However, when dealing with criminal justice
    1100
    issues, we must focus on matters of evidence, which is the central point of the case. She may have seen reports in the newspapers discusing the opinions of the Crown prosecution service on the subject. It carefully detailed its views and centred on the issue of evidence. The royal commission will be the place where all the arguments come together.
    Mr. Bowis: Has my hon. Friend seen the exposé in the Evening Standard of the cruelty to, and exploitation of, children and young people by a villainous character? While they are vulnerable through unemployment, he seeks to send them out to raise money that goes straight into his pockets. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the law is adequate to meet such problems and, if necessary, have it changed quickly? Will he also ensure that the police are undertaking a full and swift investigation into the perpetrator of that crime?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to that newspaper report, which I found most disturbing. He will be aware that child cruelty matters can be handled under the terms of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I shall certainly look carefully at his words and ensure that the law is adequately framed to deal with the matter.

    Prisoners (Education)
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for further and higher education for prisoners.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Competitive tendering, as I said earlier, has demonstrated that there is scope for making significant improvements in the quality of delivery and the value for taxpayers' money of education to prisoners. I am therefore placing in the Library a list of 68 prisons and young offender institutions where contracts are now to be offered for the future provision of education services.
    Ms. Ruddock: Is the Minister aware that the great success of Holloway's education department in getting women on access courses depended on their being eligible for concessionary fees? Does he realise that further education colleges are having to charge the full fee of £550 per woman? From where does he think those women prisoners will get that money? Will he ponder on the state of mind of the head of Holloway's education department, who in the space of two weeks has received an MBE for her services to prison education and a redundancy notice as a result of the Government's contracting out of education plans?
    Mr. Lloyd: The lady about whom the hon. Lady speaks has rendered exceptionally good service to the prison education service. I have no doubt that she will be extremely attractive to the new suppliers of education who are looking for people of experience and skill. I suggest to the hon. Lady that she should study carefully—I have put the information in the Library—what the new providers will do, what they have undertaken and that for which they have contracted. If she does that with an open mind, I am sure that she will join me in agreeing that the exercise has proved a fruitful one from which the education service in prisons will benefit.
    Mr. Faber: My hon. Friend will be aware of the appallingly high level of drug abuse in some prisons. Has he had an opportunity to meet members of the Addictive Diseases Trust, who are pioneering—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question would have been most appropriate as a supplementary to Question 6, which I could not call. I regret that it is not appropriate in its present form as a supplementary to Question 8, which relates to further and higher education. The hon. Gentleman should move his question into education.
    Mr. Faber: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is educative treatment for the taking of drugs in one of our prisons? Is he aware also that the Addictive Diseases Trust is trying to cure addiction through education in one of our prisons? I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would consider expanding that programme of education into other prisons.
    Mr. Lloyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting his supplementary question so neatly in order. He is right to stress that the treatment to which he referred is an important part of education in our prisons. I attended the launch of the Addictive Diseases Trust's new enterprise at Highdown prison and was most impressed with the programme that it is developing. Opposition Members may like to know that the trust is not part of the prison service. It comes in from outside, which shows how much skill and benefit we can gain from taking knowledge and capability from outside. I have told the ADT that I shall be examining carefully what it achieves in its present location to see whether that can be treated as a blueprint for a scheme that could be spread across the prison service. My hon. Friend is right to say that drugs are as much a menace in prison as they are outside.
    Miss Lestor: Notwithstanding the Minister's comforting words about the future of the education scheme, especially in Holloway prison, if he has confidence in the future of such a scheme will he give a guarantee that the women who are participating in it, who were featured on a Radio 4 programme this morning, will have their fees paid so that they are not cut off in mid-stream from education courses that will be of lifetime benefit to them?
    Mr. Lloyd: I did not hear the programme to which the hon. Lady refers. I can say, however, that no prisoner will lose out because of the change in the way in which education is managed in prisons. At Holloway, there will be no change—certainly not until the end of August. There is therefore plenty of time to ensure continuity. Whoever pays the fees, the opportunities that are there now will be continued. The great change that is coming about means that opportunities will be increased by the tendering exercise that we have introduced. That is because more imagination is being injected into the provision of the service.

    Burglary, Theft and Mugging
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further powers he intends to give the courts to deal with the incidence of burglary, theft and mugging.
    Mr. Jack: We are developing proposals to increase the powers of courts to deal with persistent juvenile offenders, some of whom may have been convicted of the offences to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and I am well aware that his office has been in touch with the Macclesfield division of the Cheshire constabulary, but is he aware that, within that division, burglary from the home is up by 30 per cent., theft of or from cars is up by 30 per cent. and theft of other sorts is up by 24 per cent? The detection rate in my division is some 35 per cent.—one of the highest rates of detection in the country, on which my police should be warmly congratulated—but is my hon. Friend not prepared to do something about the fact that much of the trouble is caused by young recidivist offenders who are arrested by the police and taken before the courts but released into the community to re-offend?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend, with his usual robustness, puts his case with great clarity. I congratulate the Cheshire police on their efforts to deal with the crimes that my hon. Friend listed and on their support for the home watch scheme, which my hon. Friend also supports. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are four-square behind my hon. Friend in his wish to deal with persistent juvenile offenders who carry out many of those crimes. I wish that we had similar robust support from the Opposition.
    Mr. Trimble: Before the courts can deal with offenders, they must be brought before the courts. What is the Minister's reaction to the apparent decline in the number of cases coming before the courts at the moment?
    Mr. Jack: My reaction is to refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that the Home Secretary gave earlier on his efforts to improve the police service and its effectiveness, because in that way criminals can be caught and ultimately brought before the courts for justice.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that the frustration of police, magistrates and judges is not restricted to Cheshire at having to go on cautioning, cautioning, cautioning, and then releasing into the community young offenders who are persisting in their offending? Has the time not come to remove the hard core of persistent offenders from circulation?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. and learned Friend will know the efforts that we in the Home Office are making to expand the amount of local authority secure accommodation, which would deal with some of the problems that he mentions. Equally, we must not forget that there are other ways of dealing with juvenile offenders. However, I agree that dealing with the persistent juvenile offender is an important priority; it is certainly at the top of my list of priorities and that of the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Minister face the fact that there has been a 163 per cent. increase in burglary in the past 13 years and that there is immense pressure on the police, with the result that there is a low clear-up rate? Will he respond to the Labour party's plea for urgent action? Is it not time that the Government faced up to their responsibilities and gave leadership and support to those who need to fight crime at local level?
    Mr. Jack: I will respond to what the Labour party has said. I am flattered, to a degree, by the fact that it has endorsed the very policies that we are following. We have formed the new National Board for Criminal Prevention, reactivated a ministerial group on crime prevention, pioneered the safer cities concept and expanded it by a further 20. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stand up and endorse the policies that have already resulted in a 90 per cent. reduction in burglary in the Sparkbrook area of Birmingham, and reductions in burglaries in Bradford, Salford, Bristol and Deptford. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to endorse and support those policies.

    Fire Regulations
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the draft fire regulations resulting from EC directive 89/391/EEC.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Following the issue in May 1992 of a consultative document on the proposals, there was some concern about the extent to which the draft regulations exceeded the requirements of the EC directives. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced in December that the draft regulations would be given further consideration.
    Sir John Hannam: Does my hon. Friend accept that the last thing we want as we pull out of recession is for our businesses, especially our smaller businesses, to be clobbered by a new wave of fire regulations costing several billion pounds? In the light of the Prime Minister's drive to reduce these crippling burdens, will my hon. Friend ensure that his Department does not add to the requirements of any EC directive? Indeed, will he seek to reduce them?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend confirms precisely the concerns about unnecessary costs and over-regulation that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary highlighted when he announced a fresh look at the proposals in December. We want to be sure that people at work are as safe as possible from the risks of fire, but we are determined not to push costs on to businesses, nor burdensome regulations which go beyond the needs of safety and common-sense precautions.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recognise that one group of small businesses with a particularly poor record on fire are hoteliers offering bed and breakfast accommodation? Will he make sure that any new directives about fire ensure the highest possible safety standards to try to save people from death as a result of fires in those entirely inadequate places?
    Mr. Wardle: The regulations will apply to large hotels and boarding houses, and the hon. Gentleman will know that those establishments have to have a certificate under section 1 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The smaller premises will be excluded, but will, of course, still be liable to the general provisions of the 1971 Act.

    Car Crime
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to reduce car crime.
    Mr. Jack: The themes of Car Crime Prevention Year continue to play a significant part, in all police force areas, in encouraging action to combat car crime. In addition, we are actively promoting the secured car parks initiative and I have formed an advisory group further to inform policy development in combating car crime.
    Mr. Evans: I welcome the Government's initiatives, but is the Minister aware of the growing frustration—he will also have heard it today—about the low deterrence and low punishment that some of these young offenders are receiving? Age is no barrier to the misery that they bring to society, and age should be no barrier to the sort of sentence meted out to deter these people. May we have an assurance from the Minister that he is looking at this problem and that those young offenders will be left in no doubt that society has had enough?
    Mr. Jack: First, I commiserate with my hon. Friend. I know that he has been a victim of car crime and speaks with great feeling on the matter [Interruption.] If that is the Opposition's attitude to the victims of crime, let it be marked in this place. My hon. Friend will have acknowledged the line that I have taken this afternoon on the subject of persistent juvenile offenders, many of whom are involved in car crime. I also draw his attention to the terms of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which put special responsibility on parents of young people who may be involved in crime. It bears down heavily on that as well and I hope that it will contribute to providing a solution to the central issue of my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. Mandelson: Are the Minister and the Home Secretary aware of the shameful incident which took place in my constituency yesterday, and which was shown to the nation on ITN's "News at Ten" last night, in which an 11-year-old boy stole, rode, and crashed a car and then swaggered with his mates in front of the television cameras because all that the police could do was to release him, reported but uncharged? That incident is not typical of Hartlepool, but it is illustrative of what is happening in all constituencies right across the nation. Will the Minister tell the House what he intends to do to crack down on persistent young offenders and explain to my constituents why the Government have failed to provide the secure accommodation in Cleveland that is needed to detain these young offenders?
    Mr. Jack: The Home Office and the Department of Health, who are in the lead in providing the necessary resourcing for secure accommodation, are working hard to secure our objectives. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that he supported the action that we shall be taking on persistent juvenile offenders. We have at least put that to the top of the agenda and are working hard on that policy. I am grateful for his support.
    Mr. Ottaway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the car crime wave which swept through Croydon and south London last year? Does he agree that one of the best ways of combating this is to encourage the admittedly growing use of car security devices by encouraging insurers to charge lower premiums if such devices are used?
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. I have already seen the Association of British Insurers on that point. It has recently introduced what it calls the Thatcham report, which is a way of assessing the

    1105
    effectiveness of car security devices. At the launch of that in London recently, I again called for a tangible demonstration of premium reduction in respect of properly installed car security devices.
    Mr. Maclennan: Bearing in mind that it is only two years since the Government sought to introduce new principles of sentencing which were supposed to be definitive, why have the Government felt it necessary to embark on this review? What evidence is there that they got it so wrong two years ago?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Member might look at some of the evidence on juvenile crime that has gone to the Home Affairs Select Committee. He would then see that the overall incidence of juvenile crime has fallen, but this small group, which the whole House has identified, of persistent juvenile offenders has fallen through the net—juvenile offenders who have not responded to any of the regimes in place. It is quite clear that the public and the House want us to take action.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the borough council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk, in conjunction with the Norfolk constabularly, have brought out a closed circuit television scheme for all their public places and car parks and that since its introduction car crime has gone right down? Is he aware that this is the first scheme of its kind in the country, and will he encourage other authorities to bring in similar schemes?
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; where Norfolk goes today, others will follow—as, indeed, they have in Bradford. I can cite an example there where the safer cities programme has helped to fund an inner-city CCTV scheme which has reduced car crime by 60 per cent. Interesting Home Office research on this subject will be published very shortly.

    Wolds Prison (Disturbances)
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an inquiry into disturbances at the Wolds prison.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Regular reports are made by the Home Office controller based at the Wolds and details of all incidents are reported to prison service headquarters. None of these has merited a separate inquiry.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Minister at least hold an inquiry into the alarming number of assaults occurring at the Wolds private prison? Is he aware that figures released by his Department show that in the state sector the average number of assaults is six per prison per year? In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), he said that eight assaults had occurred at the Wolds in a single month. Does that not show the folly of prison privatisation and the stupidity of extending it? Is it not made even more damning by the fact that, while the state sector prisons are very often overcrowded and underfunded, the Wolds is a state-of-the art prison with facilities which are only dreamt about in the public sector?
    Mr. Lloyd: Of course I look at the figures very thoroughly, and I find that the Wolds is punctilious in reporting every incident. All such incidents are recorded and put in the figures. The Wolds figures are before adjudication, whereas the figures from the rest of the
    1106
    prison service are after adjudication, so I do not think that they provide a fair comparison. I am very happy with the way in which the Wolds is conducted, but I look very carefully at the figures that come to me.

    Bingo
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding Section 48 of the Gaming Act 1968 and the Bingo Act 1992 relating to the promotion and advertising of bingo.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Since the passing of the Bingo Act 1992, we have received representations from the Bingo Association of Great Britain and the National Bingo Game Association about the advertising of bingo.
    Mr. Brandreth: Does my hon. Friend recognise that bingo is essentially a recreational activity in this country, where the punter spends small sums of money comparable with those spent in an evening at the pub or the cinema? Does he therefore recognise the anomaly whereby a socialist crook like Robert Maxwell can advertise newspaper bingo on television while a modest bingo club such as the one in Chester—which is superb, despite having small prizes—cannot even advertise on local radio?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is half right: bingo is a social activity, but it is also gambling. Because it is both, and because the gambling is light, the restrictions on it are far fewer than for other forms of gambling. My hon. Friend's local bingo club may not be able to advertise on the radio, but we have made it possible under the 1992 Act for it to advertise its club facilities and its address in his local paper.

    Violent Crime
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met his counterparts in the European Community to discuss penalties for violent crime.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. and learned Friend has regular meetings with his counterparts in the European Community to discuss co-operation across a range of criminal justice matters, but penalties are a matter for the criminal law of each member state and are not normally discussed with our European partners.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in Belgium people who rape young women can receive sentences of 10 to 15 years' mandatory prison service together with hard labour, and that for other kinds of rape they will be given solitary confinement and a confinement period of a minimum of eight years? Is he also aware that the women in this country are getting sick and tired of judges handing out soft sentences to rapists, and that there are those who think, as I do, that perhaps we should do something a bit more drastic to those people, including cutting off their goolies?
    Mr. Wardle rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister should be given the opportunity to answer.
    Mr. Wardle: And to do so intact, I trust. What happens in Belgium is a matter for the Belgians. My hon. Friend

    1107
    will be aware that stiffer sentences have been made available to the courts. [Interruption.] I hope that my hon. Friend will remind those who complain about sentences in this country that the Opposition have opposed every piece of law and order legislation since 1979.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Heppell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the impartiality of Independent Television News is threatened by the appointment as its next chairman of Mr. Michael Green, a known Conservative supporter and Conservative donor? Or does the Prime Minister share the views of his predecessor and ask himself, as she did, "Is he one of us?"
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not think that the impartiality of ITN is at all threatened by the appointment of Mr. Green, any more than I would question the impartiality of many programmes whose presenters may have one or other political opinion.
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the actions of one single militant teacher trade union which proposes to ballot its membership to boycott all tests [Interruption.]—Yes, all tests associated with the national curriculum? Will he also join me in saying just how damaging that would be to the education of the nation's children?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that point, and I thoroughly condemn the union concerned. I believe that it will be seen by parents as a concerted attack on the rights of pupils and their parents to know what progress the pupils are making in their education at their individual schools. I very much hope that the teachers of that union will reject the proposition put before them.
    Mr. John Smith: Is it not a deplorable indictment of Conservative government that during the Conservative years crime has more than doubled? What action does the Prime Minister propose to take to protect our citizens from the crime wave that is sweeping the nation?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to want to put the blame for everything on the shoulders of the Government—quite apart from the view expressed by his shadow home affairs spokesman this morning. Let me illustrate for the right hon. and learned Gentleman some of the things that we have done. There has been the passage of the Public Order Act, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, both Criminal Justice Acts,
    1108
    the Prison Security Act and the Act to ban joy riding, every one of which was opposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party.
    Mr. Smith: Has the Prime Minister noticed that, whatever he claims to do or to have done, the crime rate rises consistently year after year? Does he think it remotely tolerable that, according to the Government's crime survey, there are about 25,000 break-ins in this country every week? When will he do something about protecting our citizens from that?
    The Prime Minister: I note that there was no pledge from the right hon. and learned Gentleman to support legislation that we brought forward in previous years or to support us in the future in dealing with crime. Crime has increased ever since the second world war, under all Governments. Our record in combating crime is comparable with that of other countries in western Europe. This trend has been seen year after year, but it is not a matter which can be dealt with just by legislation. I doubt whether any other Government would have provided for the police the resources that the present Government have provided. Certainly, no other Government would have sided with the victim against the villain in the way that the present Government have.
    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last night Gloucestershire county council set a budget £10 million over its standard spending assessment? Does he know that Gloucestershire county council has debts of £25 million but has no plans substantially to reduce that figure? Does my right hon. Friend agree that plans should be made immediately to see that Gloucestershire county council seeks to reduce its debts so that money can be spent on education rather than on debt servicing?
    The Prime Minister: I think that it is regrettable that any authority should set an excessive budget. We have made it clear that we shall not hesitate in any way to cap such budgets. It is open to local authorities to set new, lower budgets, and I very much hope that Gloucestershire county council will do so.
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barnes: I was interested in the Prime Minister's initial reply about his engagements for today, but what about his engagements for tomorrow? My Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill seeks to put the missing millions back on the electoral register and to secure access to polling stations for disabled people. Will the Prime Minister be around tomorrow to vote in support of that measure, and will he bring his friends with him? I know that he needs all the friends that he can get nowadays?
    The Prime Minister: I shall, in fact, be in my constituency meeting those friends.
    Mr. Elletson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the conviction of the IRA terrorist Jimmy Canning represents a real success for the security services? Will he join me in congratulating those services in putting that murderous thug behind bars?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that that will be the wish of the overwhelming majority of people in this country. I am happy to congratulate both the Crown prosecution service and the Metropolitan police.
    Mr. Ashdown: While the Vance-Owen plan extracts the very best out of the terrible opportunities left open to us in Bosnia, does the Prime Minister realise that this is not a peace of which either he or other western leaders can be proud? It is their failure which has resulted in a price being paid in the dismemberment of the Muslim community, the disintegration of a state which was recognised by the United Nations, and reward for the aggressors. Does the Prime Minister understand that while we must all hope for peace in Bosnia, our hopes for peace in Europe will depend on our learning the lessons of this miserable affair?
    The Prime Minister: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman continues to take a wholly negative view of the enormous amount that has been done to seek a satisfactory peace in Yugoslavia. What is significant is the remarkable co-operation between the United States, the European Community and the United Nations in seeking to bring that conflict to an end. The best way forward, and the only credible way forward that has yet been found, is the Vance-Owen plan, which we strongly support. I very much welcome the policy statement from the United States Government earlier this week.
    Mr. Moss: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the three councils in Cambridgeshire—East Cambridgeshire, South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire—which recently announced a zero component for the district council portion of the new council tax? How is it that some councils can deliver a highly effective service to their taxpayers while others, such as Harlow, are gross overspenders? Could it be because the Cambridgeshire councils are not controlled by Labour?
    The Prime Minister: I think that there are two answers. First, the councils are efficient; secondly, they are not run by the Socialist party.
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: Does the Prime Minister not think it scandalous that at a time when the Health Department budget has been put into the public sector spending review and when prescription charges are about to be increased by 10 per cent., the West Midlands and Wessex health authorities have been allowed to squander £67 million on renting luxury homes in London, on air travel, on entertainment and on corrupt computer deals involving former Cabinet Ministers?
    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of commenting on the detailed points made by the hon. Gentleman. There are adequate ways of making sure that they are examined. As to the health budget and all other budgets, one reason for undertaking a fundamental review is to make sure that taxpayers' money is well spent and that it is spent first on those areas that most require the expenditure.
    Mr. Allason: When my right hon. Friend undertakes his review of European regulations that are handicapping British industry, will he turn his attention to the tourist
    1110
    industry and consult the Torbay environmental health officer who requires every hotelier in Torbay to check, monitor and register the temperature of every deep freeze in every premises three times a day on penalty of prosecution? Is that not exactly the kind of daft regulation that we should get rid of?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that regulation to my attention. I will ensure that it is examined. There are many regulations that we could usefully manage without. The intention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is to identify them so that we can remove them.
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hutton: Is the Prime Minister aware that many health authorities and national health service trusts are currently being forced to cancel operations and close wards because of the inadequacies, and in some cases the mismanagement, of NHS resources? Is he aware, in particular, that in my constituency Roose hospital, which provides excellent geriatric care for elderly people, is being forced to close? Will he tell the House what measures will be taken to ensure that such hospitals stay open? How does he believe it helps health care for hospitals such as Roose to close?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the increased resources for health authorities—spending of £36 billion this year and planned spending of more than £37 billion next year; an increase in national health service expenditure by up to 57 per cent.; and an increase in the number of people treated. The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating the health authorities and the health service on that remarkable record.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agreed that it is the job of Government to attack cartels, cliques and vested interests—cartels in trade unions, cliques in Labour-controlled local authorities and vested interests that support the vast majority of Labour Members?
    The Prime Minister: I strongly suspect that my hon. Friend has struck a sore spot. Every member of the shadow Cabinet is sponsored by a trade union, two thirds of the votes at the Labour conference are still wielded by trade unions; they will not support our tests in the schools because that is what the National Union of Teachers wants, they oppose our reforms on health because that is what the Council of Health Services Employees wants, and they fight competitive tendering because that is what the National Union of Public Employees wants. There is no doubt whose pockets they are in.
    Mr. Faulds: Has no one—[Interruption.] Cheeky little pup.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I recollect that "Erskine May" does not allow that sort of language.
    Mr. Faulds: "Cheeky little pup" is a term of endearment, Madam Speaker. Has no one in government the simple intelligence to understand that the Cyprus—[Interruption.]—rather, the Vance-Owen plan—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.
    Mr. Faulds: Bosnia is not a laughing matter—[Interruption.] Those idiots on the Government Benches. Has no one in government the simple intelligence to understand that the Vance-Owen plan as now drawn up is unacceptable because it rewards Serbian ethnic cleansing and is in danger of creating a Palestinian-type situation within a quarter of a century? Will the Prime Minister for once listen to reasonable advice from America, and will he understand that that plan can become acceptable only if
    1112
    the Serbian aggression is held, if the danger to the Bosnian Muslims and their territory is removed, and if war criminals in Yugoslavia are brought to proper trial?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has set out many of the matters which have been our policy for some time and were reiterated earlier this week by the American Administration—in particular, the point about war crimes. We have also supported—and others are now joining us in doing so—increased and hardened sanctions, particularly along the Danube, to put further pressure on the Serbs. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the map is not yet a settled matter. Nevertheless, there have been very dramatic improvements towards peace as a result of the Owen-Vance proposals. We need to continue to pursue those, and to continue to put pressure on each of the combatants until they reach a conclusion which will be satisfactory, which can be policed properly and which can bring the dreadful conflict to an end.

Royal Taxation
3.32 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about my further discussions with Her Majesty the Queen about taxation and Civil List payments.
On 26 November, I told the House that the Queen had asked me to consider the basis on which she might voluntarily pay tax on her personal income and also take responsibility for certain payments under the current Civil List arrangements. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales had made a similar request in respect of his income from the Duchy of Cornwall.
I am now able to tell the House that the further discussions between the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and the royal household have been completed, and that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness have accepted the arrangements proposed.
The royal trustees are today publishing a report setting out the future tax arrangements for both the Queen and the Prince of Wales. The report includes a memorandum of understanding recording the detailed rules which will apply for income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. The agreement takes effect from 6 April 1993.
It provides for the Queen to pay income tax on all her personal income, whether from investments or from other sources. In addition, tax will be paid on that part of the privy purse income which is used for private purposes. There will be no tax payable on income from the Civil List, since that is used to meet official expenses and is not a source of personal income for the Queen; the same will apply in respect of other payments and facilities provided by the state for official purposes.
Her Majesty will also pay tax on any realised capital gains on her private investments and on the private proportion of assets in the privy purse.
In the unique circumstances of an hereditary monarchy, special arrangements are needed for inheritance tax. There could, for example, be no question of taxing assets such as the royal palaces which the Queen owns as sovereign and not in a private capacity. The agreement reached with Her Majesty therefore provides that inheritance tax should apply to all bequests or gifts by the sovereign other than to transfers of assets from one sovereign to his or her successor.
As the House will know, the Prince of Wales is already fully liable to tax, except on the income that he receives from the Duchy of Cornwall. From 6 April 1993 he will pay income tax on his Duchy of Cornwall income to the extent that it is used for private purposes; this arrangment will replace the voluntary payment of 25 per cent. of Duchy income that he currently makes to the Consolidated Fund.
The Inland Revenue will administer these arrangements, and the tax received from the Queen and the Prince of Wales will be included in the Inland Revenue's accounts. The Queen and the Prince of Wales will both have the same confidentiality on tax matters as any other taxpayer. Although these arrangements are voluntary, both the Queen and the Prince of Wales intend that they should continue indefinitely. Any changes in taxes or tax rates will automatically be applied.
The report of the royal trustees also sets out the new arrangements that are being made for the management of
1114
the royal collection of paintings and other works of art. The royal collection is held by the Queen as sovereign and passes from one sovereign to the next. The collection cannot be sold to generate private income or capital for the use of the Queen, and the Queen does not benefit personally from the income generated by the collection.
So as to make the status of the royal collection clear, Her Majesty intends that the maintenance, conservation and presentation to the public of the royal collection should in future become the responsibility of a new charitable trust. The trust will fund itself from the income generated from admission charges and other sources. The new arrangements should improve access to the royal collection for the whole country.
The report also confirms that the Government have accepted the Queen's generous offer to refund the cost of a further five of the parliamentary annuities payable to members of the royal family under the Civil List legislation, in addition to the three annuities that she already refunds. That will apply from 1 April 1993. The result will be that only the annuities paid to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh will continue as a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund.
I am confident that the House will welcome these initiatives by the Queen and the Prince of Wales. The new arrangements will ensure that, so far as possible, the Queen will pay tax on her personal income according to the normal tax rules and will herself take responsibility for the Civil List payments to almost all other members of the royal family.
Mr. John Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for returning to the House within a reasonably short period to make that announcement. There will be widespread acceptance of the principle that Her Majesty the Queen should not be exempt from tax on her personal income, and that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales should not be exempt from tax on his income from the Duchy of Cornwall. It will also be appreciated that the initiative came from the royal family itself.
I welcome the proposal to establish a royal collection trust, which will maintain the benefit of the royal collection for the nation. However, although it is accepted that assets held by the Queen as sovereign should not be liable to inheritance tax, will the Prime Minister explain why all private assets passing from one sovereign to the next should also be exempt? Although private assets such as Sandringham and Balmoral could well be regarded as having at least partial official use, which could be recognised, is it necessary to exempt all other private wealth from inheritance tax?
Although it is accepted that the sovereign is entitled to the same privacy in tax matters in respect of her personal affairs as are other taxpayers, can the Prime Minister tell the House in general terms how much is received each year by the privy purse?
With regard to the expenses which may be set against that income, can the Prime Minister say what they might be in general terms? Is my understanding correct that the Queen may set against liability to tax arising from the privy purse the payments which she makes to the Consolidated Fund to reimburse payments made to other members of the royal family?
Finally, can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that as much factual information has been given to the

1115
House this afternoon as will be provided at the press briefing to be given by the Lord Chamberlain and a senior Treasury official at 4.15 pm?
The Prime Minister: On the latter point, so far as I am aware, there is no information available or which is relevant that I am unable to give the House but that will be given later today. I believe that I am able to give as much information as will be available later.
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support for the proposals and Her Majesty's initiative and for the new arrangements for the royal collection.
As for inheritance tax, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that there is a unique circumstance in a hereditary monarchy, and it is right therefore that there should be specific exemptions for assets passing from one sovereign to his or her successor. I believe that is necessary to protect the independence of the monarchy, and I would not wish to detract from that independence in any way. The concerns that I would have were the arrangements to be any other would be the danger of the assets of the monarchy being salami-sliced away by capital taxation through generations, thus changing the nature of the institution in a way that few people in this country would welcome.
The sum total of the Civil List is about £8 million. I cannot immediately give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the total of the privy purse, not least because many aspects of the privy purse relate to income from the Duchy of Lancaster and not to matters of which I might immediately be aware. I will find the answer and write to him.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's point on payments to the Consolidated Fund being set against tax is entirely accurate, and I believe that that is a proper provision against expenditure made by Her Majesty the Queen.
Sir Peter Hordern: Are there any implications in my right hon. Friend's statement for the royal yacht or for any other forms of transport for the royal family?
The Prime Minister: The royal yacht and the other facilities such as the royal flight are provided by Government Departments in support of the Queen's role as Head of State. The expenditure is carried on votes approved by the House. These long-standing arrangements are completely unaffected by the announcements I have made this afternoon.
Mr. Simon Hughes: As I was the hon. Member who introduced a Bill two years ago to achieve these objectives, my right hon. and hon. Friends have asked me to respond.
The Prime Minister's statement will not only be welcome on our Benches, but will be seen in the country as principled and popular and one that enhances rather than reduces the status of the royal family. If the royal family is as responsive to the public mood on this issue in the future as it has been in the recent past, it will ensure its continuance for a long time to come.
Only one factual question was left unanswered, and I ask the Prime Minister to be explicit. Can he confirm that
1116
the implication of what he said is that the tax rate at which the monarch and the Prince of Wales will pay will be the same as that for everyone else in their tax bracket? Will the right hon. Gentleman and his Government be as speedy to respond to propositions from these Benches as the Queen has been in this respect?
The Prime Minister: It may of course depend on the merit of the proposal, but I will always be anxious to respond speedily whenever I can.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for these proposals. I can confirm that Her Majesty will pay income tax at the marginal rate of 25 per cent. and 40 per cent. in precisely the same way as every other taxpayer.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement this afternoon will be widely welcomed not only by the House but by the vast majority of people in Britain? It brings to a conclusion the discussions that have been taking place over several months, and I trust that he is aware that the outcome will be regarded as most satisfactory.
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that his announcement on capital gains tax and, in particular, inheritance tax is also satisfactory? Is he also aware that many people in the United Kingdom will regard the transfer of assets from one monarch to another as an essential part of the monarchy together with its maintenance at a standard which the country desires for many years to come?
The Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his warm support for these proposals. I strongly agree with his remarks about inheritance tax. I suspect that it would be the overwhelming wish of people in this country that the natural and important assets of the monarchy should be sustained and that it is necessary to make appropriate inheritance tax arrangements to ensure that that remains the case.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is it not clear that this is the first time that there will be a comprehensive list of the royal collection which will enable us to see what is owned personally by the Queen and what is owned as a result of her position as sovereign? Will there be publication of what is owned by her position as sovereign? More importantly, why will the royal collection not be owned by the royal collection trust, a body to be set up to administer it?
The Prime Minister: It was thought more appropriate to establish trustees to deal specifically with the new arrangements for ensuring that the collection was generally available, more widely seen and operated on a basis which required no subsidy either by the Exchequer or by Her Majesty the Queen. There were detailed discussions as to the best method to achieve that, and the one chosen was the one that I announced this afternoon.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the new arrangements for the royal collection. Certainly there is no doubt that the royal collection will be codified. Whether those elements of it that will be owned by the Queen will be set out in a separate pamphlet, I cannot immediately confirm, but I see no objection to that.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members believe that, if greater steps had been taken to publicise the fact

1117
that the monarch hands over some 80 per cent. of her income from the Crown lands already, the public pressure for her to be taxed in this way would never have arisen? Does he also agree that, if that money which she receives in the privy purse, which itself is payable out of the Crown lands, is to be taxed so far as it is there for personal purposes, in all equity the whole of her income from the Crown lands should be taxed at the applicable rate and not at the effective rate of 83 per cent. at which it is taxed today?
The Prime Minister: I can see that my hon. Friend may well have a future ahead of him in the Inland Revenue department examining Her Majesty's tax returns. The underlying point he makes is entirely right as it is certainly true that the hereditary revenues from the Crown estates by far exceed official expenditure in support of the Head of State. I think that that is a point which is understood by my hon. Friend and by many others, but not perhaps by everyone.
Mr. James Molyneaux: In addition to what the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said, may I question the omission from what has been read by the Prime Minister and in the accompanying documents and the lack of any mention of income from the Crown property which the Queen voluntarily hands to the Treasury each year? The figure set out on page 16 of the Consolidated Fund accounts amounts to £71 million. On page 17, there are other figures which probably amount to the sum total which has just been mentioned by the hon. Member for Teignbridge. Does the Prime Minister agree that that has been an excellent bargain for the taxpayer for the whole of the Queen's reign?
May I ask the Prime Minister to do his best to ensure that those members of the royal family who are now dropped from the Civil List will be accorded the degree of privacy which would be enjoyed by the nephew of any newspaper editor?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
The Prime Minister: I think that there will be a genuine hum of agreement, as the right hon. Gentleman has just heard, for his latter point. He makes a good point in the figures he quotes, particularly about the £71 million. I did not specifically mention them in my statement to the House, as there were many figures and for me to do so would have detained the House for a long time. As the right hon. Gentleman has seen, they are in the attendant documents which will now be available to the House.
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge, it is a fact that the surrender of the hereditary revenues which has been in place for over 200 years has ensured a very remarkable sum accruing to the central Exchequer over that period. I believe and hope that the new tax arrangements which are clearly quite different from anything we have seen before will also enable people to realise that very substantial contribution.
Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be widespread agreement that this demonstrates yet again the Queen's excellent judgment which she has shown consistently throughout her reign? Does he agree that that is why our monarch is admired throughout the world for the service that she has given our country?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. That was evident from the point that I made to the House when last I reported on the matter. The impetus for the payment of tax came not from the Government but from Her Majesty the Queen.
Mr. Alan Williams: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and welcome its content. I am sure that many hon. Members will want to explore in more detail the inheritance tax provisions. Does the Prime Minister intend to end the anachronistic system under which the Civil List alone is outside the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General? Will he put it on the same basis as the £50 million-odd that is spent in support of the monarchy by the Department? That scrutiny causes no embarrassment.
The Lord Chamberlain will be holding a press conference at 4.15 at which I understand that an information pack will be available to journalists. Has the Prime Minister made arrangements for an identical information pack to be put in the Vote Office?
The Prime Minister: I will check. If the information pack was not going to be in the Vote Office, I shall ensure that it is there as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's request. On his earlier point, the Treasury has been the statutory auditor for the Civil List since, I think from memory, 1816. The audit arrangements are part of the Civil List arrangements. They have been approved by Parliament several times in recent years—in the 1950s, twice in the 1970s and again in 1990. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's blandishments, I have no plans to change that.
Mr. Richard Page: May I at once welcome the generous offer by Her Majesty, especially bearing in mind the fact that the revenue from the Crown estates exceeds that from official sources? I note that there is a memorandum of understanding, but I ask that a realistic policy be adopted towards any expenses that are incurred. We look to the monarch to represent the traditions and pride of Britain. We are not looking for a cut-price, basement option.
The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's view. Of course, it is for that reason that we have made the appropriate inheritance tax arrangements and that, to follow up the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, many of the payments which are made to other members of the royal family are to be offset against tax. That precisely meets my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has today implemented clause 40 of the Commonwealth of Britain Bill which I introduced 18 months ago and which is before the House again? Is he further aware that the changes that he has announced today are as nothing to the changes under the Maastricht treaty under which the Queen will become a citizen of Europe with duties and responsibilities like everyone else? To speak of the continuity of an hereditary monarchy in those circumstances is unreal.
Is the Prime Minister also aware that across the political spectrum there is a growing interest in much wider constitutional reform—matters such as the relationship between Church and state, the degree of devolution to Scotland, Wales and the English regions, and the desire for greater democracy? There are people in Britain who would

1119
like to be allowed to elect their Head of State, as America does. Does he agree that the time has come to fight off what is otherwise cynicism and disillusionment with many of our institutions by holding a proper inquiry into the British constitution to which people could give evidence? The House could address its attention to such an inquiry instead of all the creepy-crawly bowing and scraping that has come from so many Members of the House today.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman raises various points. I certainly was not aware that I had implemented clause 40 of his Bill. I can make him no promises as to the first 39 clauses or any which may follow clause 40. On citizenship, if the right hon. Gentleman cares to read the Maastricht treaty more carefully, he will find that Her Majesty the Queen and every other British citizen remain British citizens first and foremost, and at no stage will that be changed.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a much wider remit in his other points. I do not believe that he would carry many people in the country with him in the beliefs that he expressed in his final remarks.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I echo something that has already been said? The sovereign, as a focus for military, civil and voluntary service in this country, has responded to the popular will. Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that no test will be made of whether any income from copyright damages should be subject to tax? May I suggest that the newspapers involved drop their opposition to the case, settle and reflect the popular mood in the same way as Her Majesty?
The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I am not sure that I would be prudent to respond to it this afternoon.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: As one or two people are claiming credit for this proposal, let me remind the Prime Minister that, on the opening day of this Parliament, Black Rod came into the Chamber, stood beside me and asked us to go and see the Queen. I told her to pay her taxes, and I think that my voluntary unpaid research assistant, Black Rod, has done a reasonable job for a start.
Will the Prime Minister now deal with the hard part of the arrangement? Will the Queen be taxed on the £6,500 million that The Sunday Times declared to be her total assets in May 1992? Will she be taxed on the £500 million that supposedly constituted her personal wealth on the same date? Will she be taxed on the £341 million of investment income mentioned in Philip Hall's book about tax and the monarchy? Or will she be taxed on the £50 million or less that some of the newspapers have recently fed out, suggesting that the Queen does not really have much money at all, and that she will probably pay only two million quid in taxes?
The Queen has been forced into paying tax by pressure from people outside. The last thing that she wants to do is to give those people the impression that there is one tax regime for her and another for the ordinary punter.
The Prime Minister: I am unwilling to give credit where it is not due. Although the hon. Gentleman sought to make a passable case for taking the credit himself, I repeat that the initiative came from the Queen.
Mr. Skinner: Joke!
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman admits to being a joke, and I will not argue with him.
Madam Speaker: It is his birthday today.
The Prime Minister: In that case, I happily withdraw my last remark. On behalf of the House, I wish the hon. Gentleman a very happy birthday, and I will not respond in the beastly way in which I would otherwise have responded to the ludicrous question that he asked me.
Mr. Alan Duncan: May I invite my right hon. Friend to consider a hypothetical situation? At some time in the future, the balance of party representation in the Chamber may be rather different. If Her Majesty were called on to exercise her royal prerogative and choose between two leaders, one with a high-tax policy and the other with a low-tax policy, would there not be a severe risk of her being inexorably drawn into the forum of party-political conflict? Although her own conduct would be impeccable, is there not a risk that comment on it would not?
May I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the decision that Her Majesty should pay tax at the prevailing rate, and think of introducing a special rate that would cross the political boundary?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can accommodate that last suggestion. It is the express wish of Her Majesty that she should pay income tax on her assessed income, in precisely the same way as other income taxpayers, and I believe that that is the right way for her to proceed. As for my hon. Friend's earlier point, Her Majesty is of course unable to vote.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is the Prime Minister aware that the average inheritance in my constituency is £13,000, and that many people in Pendle will look askance at the special arrangements for inheritance that he has suggested today? Will the right hon. Gentleman compile an inventory showing which goods belong to the state and which belong to the monarch? No such inventory exists at present.
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is how his constituents would react, I do not believe that he knows his constituents remotely as well as he should. I have set out the arrangements under which Her Majesty will pay tax, and I think that they are perfectly clear to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if institutions in this country depended on the popular perception at any one time of individual holders of them, there would be precious few institutions left? Will he state explicitly what he has repeatedly said implicitly—that it is Conservative party policy to support the monarchy?
The Prime Minister: I can confirm that the Conservative party, and every member of the Conservative party—and many beyond it—are strong monarchists and would not wish to see changes in the institutional hereditary monarchy in this country.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May we try to clarify the position of the rouyal collection trust, which is to be set up at the beginning of April? Why should it not become the

1121
owner? It is all very well to say that the Queen will continue in ownership, but the Prime Minister knows that she is advised by the keeper of the Queen's pictures and others. What would happen if the royal collection trust and the keeper of the Queen's pictures came into conflict over accessibility, as well they might? What provision will be made for what we understand to be a considerable part of the royal collection which has never been shown and is in storage? Are practical arrangements to be made for a division of responsibility to allow the accessibility for which the Public Accounts Committee and others have called?
The Prime Minister: Of course, there will be practical arrangements, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. One advantage of the ownership remaining with Her Majesty the Queen is that, as she is unable to dispose of the royal collection, it will remain in this country and remain available for people in this country to see, both in the short and the long term.
Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country and the Commonwealth are exceptionally fortunate to have a monarch, in the person of Queen Elizabeth II, whose sense of duty is unquestioned? Will he assure the House that the impact on her personal expenditure will not restrict her in carrying out her duties to the highest standards to which she has always adhered and which we wish her to maintain?
The Prime Minister: I can unequivocally give my hon. Friend that assurance, and tell him that I know that that would be the wish of Her Majesty the Queen.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that the royal family's decision to accept taxation is a product of the growing criticism of the royal family and the hereditary Head of State principle? Will he introduce legislation so that the taxation of the Queen and the royal family is not a voluntary matter and so that they are taxed in the normal way like the rest of the community? Will he also ensure that, as a large number of the buildings inhabited by the royal family are owned by the state, they will be more readily open to the public so that they can see what is in them, including what they, the public, own?
The Prime Minister: I do not accept the premise at the start of the hon. Gentleman's question, and I think that very few other people will. Her Majesty has offered to pay tax on a voluntary basis and has made it clear that she expects it to be a continuing responsibility. His Royal Highness Prince Charles has done precisely the same, and that will remain the position. Taxation will continue, but on a voluntary basis. I see no reason and no need to introduce legislation.

Business of the House
4.3 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton:)With permission, I should like to make a business statement. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Progress on remaining stages of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill.
Motion relating to the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Until about seven o'clock, completion of remaining stages of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill.
Motions on the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order and the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order.
Motion on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
THURSDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]
Motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 22 FEBRUARY—European Communities (Amendment) Bill—progress in Committee, 12th day.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet on Wednesday 17 February at 10.30 am to consider European Community Document No. 8412/92 relating to a Council regulation on feeding stuffs for particular nutritional purposes.
[Wednesday 17 February:
European Standing Committee A: Relevant European Community document—8412/92, feeding stuffs intended for particular nutritional purposes; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee—HC 79-vi (1992–93).]
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
Given the many stories about deteriorating national health service waiting lists, there is considerable anxiety in the House, especially on the Opposition Benches, that there should be an early statement on the Tomlinson report. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will convey that message and perhaps even indicate to us whether he expects a statement in the near future.
I press the right hon. Gentleman again to seek a statement from the Home Secretary on what he may have in mind for the reorganisation of the police. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is considerable concern both about levels of crime and about the impact of what the Home Secretary has in mind on police morale.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider again a debate on public spending, for which we have pressed and to which we believe the House is entitled.
Finally, when does the right hon. Gentleman think that we are likely to have another Opposition Supply day?
Mr. Newton: I expect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be making a statement on the Tomlinson report on London hospitals in the fairly near future. I cannot be precise about the date this afternoon.
The hon. Lady will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who was answering questions only an hour or so ago, is considering the structure of police forces to see whether existing arrangements can be improved. There are no firm proposals at this stage and clearly, therefore, no basis on which my right hon. and learned Friend can make a statement. I am sure that he would wish to inform the House in an appropriate way when he has reached conclusions.
I note the hon. Lady's further requests for a debate on public spending and for Opposition time. I cannot add now to what I have said over previous weeks, especially in respect of Opposition time. I am sure that there can be further discussions through the usual channels.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate on taxation next week so that the House can examine once more taxation and representation? Such a debate would enable the House to consider whether the Queen should have the vote because she is now to pay taxes. It is an important and democratic principle.
Mr. Newton: I hesitate to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was saying a few moments ago. I suspect, however, that those who are Members of another place, who pay taxes but do not have votes, might wish to express an interest in the matter. It is one that raises some wider questions. My hon. Friend will know that the Budget is not far away, which means that he will have plenty of opportunities to talk about taxes.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Has the Leader of the House seen the report this morning that only 17 per cent. of the population believe that better services will result from the privatisation of the Post Office, as against 37 per cent. who believe that the service would deteriorate? That is an even bigger gap than that which exists for rail privatisation. Given the widespread concern in the House, as evidenced in early-day motion 848, that the privatisation of the Post Office would affect especially rural areas, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be a statement or a debate to clarify the Government's intentions?
[That this House recognises the importance of rural and community post offices to those in receipt of DSS giro cheques for payment of pension and other benefits; further recognises the difficulties of many benefit recipients whose financial circumstances make it difficult to secure bank accounts; calls on Her Majesty's Government to provide guarantees that the proposed DSS plans to pay benefits direct to bank accounts will not be at the expense of the financial viability of rural and community post offices; and further notes that the loss of valuable income through bank charges is an additional burden they cannot afford.]
Mr. Newton: I can say, in slightly different terms from those that I used in reply to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about the position of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, that recent press stories about the Government's plans for the Post Office can be described only as pretty wild speculation. Ministers
1124
have yet to consider options. No decisions have been taken, and therefore there is no basis for a statement. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to probe further, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be answering questions on Wednesday next.
Mr. Roger Sims: Some months have elapsed since the new Governor of Hong Kong took office and subsequently made proposals for constitutional development in Hong Kong which have led to a good deal of discussion in many circles, including a useful debate in another place before Christmas, but this House has not had an opportunity to discuss Hong Kong for some time. Will my right hon. Friend remedy that omission fairly soon?
Mr. Newton: Without making any commitment at all, I can only say that I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's request.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I, as the original Westminster ratepayer who brought before the Westminster auditor the complaints about the sale of cemetries and the rigged sale of council houses under Shirley Porter's stewardship, ask for a debate in the House of Commons on the whole question of the pork-barrel political activities of Westminster city council?
Mr. Newton: It is so long since the hon. Gentleman asked me about anything except Members' interests that for a moment I had some difficulty considering what I might say. But I think that what I have to say is that I cannot promise him the debate for which he asks.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Defence this week, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence last week, in what might be described as a pre-emptive strike, agreed that the proposals in "Options for Change" should be reviewed. As the House lost the opportunity last year to debate the defence estimates because of the general election and in the light of concerns across the House, will my right hon. Friend give the House the opportunity to debate defence matters before the Easter recess?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly do so if I possibly can. Had the hon. Member for Derby, South asked me about this, as I half thought she might since she did so last week, I had intended to reply in what I think will be considered reasonably forthcoming terms. What I have in front of me is, "There is no time next week, but I shall certainly look at the possibility of finding time in the not-too-distant future." Therefore, I hope that I can create some pleasure on both sides of the House.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the Leader of the House consider allowing time for a debate on early-day motion 1215 on standing charges?
[That this House views with great concern standing charges being imposed on pensioners by British Gas, Electricity and Telecom, meaning an extra burden of £190 per year; recognises that many pensioners are already living below the poverty line; finds these scandalous charges a drain on their already overstretched resources; therefore calls for the immediate abolition of all standing charges; and calls for the President of the Board of Trade to call a meeting with all companies concerned with a view to alleviating this unnecessary hardship.]

1125
The people of Britain and Scotland are disgusted at the way in which privatised industries are plundering the poor. Standing charges cost senior citizens, many of whom are already living below the poverty line, a further £190 per year. When will the Leader of the House allow a debate on that matter in the House?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that, in the many arguments that have taken place on the matter over the years, it has been thought proper to refer to the fact that the policy that he has urged would cause increases in unit electricity prices which would not necessarily benefit small users. However, standing charges are clearly a matter for the utility companies. On telephone charges, I understand that Oftel has recently announced plans to extend the support line scheme which is designed to protect the position of the elderly and those on low incomes.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Depending on progress and with some approximation, will my right hon. Friend say when he expects the vote on the official Opposition's amendment on the social chapter to take place and what his response is to Lord Tebbit's advice yesterday?
Mr. Newton: With regard to the factual question, I am not in a position to provide a clear-cut forecast at the moment because that depends on the progress on the Bill. With regard to the observations of my noble Friend, I shall simply observe that they are the observations of my noble Friend.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, on the day of the Royal Air Force debate, contributions on the Royal Air Force were largely restricted to the period when there was a 10-minute limit on speeches and, consequently, there was little opportunity to debate fully and adequately the changes that have occured, particularly under "Options for Change". As there will, quite properly, be one-day debates on the Army and Navy, will my right hon. Friend consider another day's debate on the Royal Air Force?
Mr. Newton: I always bear in mind, or will undertake to bear in mind, anything that is put in as quiet and reasonable a way as my hon. Friend put his question. I do not wish to excite too much hope. I have in mind at present, and had in mind, in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and referring to the hon. Lady the Member for Derby, South, a wider-ranging debate that would enable hon. Members to make points on all the services and on foreign affairs generally.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will have heard that the Prime Minister, after his statement, was not able to answer some questions. Will it be possible, not next week, but in the near future, to have a further statement in the light of the press conference that starts in one minute? Amnesia affects many of us. We forget what has happened in the past and do not pay tribute to the contribution of the royal family to the Consolidated Fund. The tax arrangements will be indefinite. Some of us have bad memories and we would not like the creeping socialism that seems to be arriving in the classless society. We fear the prospect of President Heath or President Benn contending for leadership.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Member echoes the remarks of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) during questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I do not wish to add to what my right hon. Friend said in reply.
Mr. Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend is well aware of the great interest in the House and outside in the Government's promised White Paper on energy policy and the future of the pits. I know that it is his intention to allow the House an opportunity to debate it as soon as possible after it is published. However, may I ask him to give favourable consideration to the possibility of allowing for a two-day debate, the first day being open-ended, on the successful model of the arrangements that he made for the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill last June?
I hope that he will agree with me that, given the complexity and importance of the subject, it is impossible in a normal one-day debate, ending at 10 o'clock, in which, generally speaking, after Front-Bench spokesmen, Privy Councillors and other dignitaries have spoken, there is just an hour or two left, for Back-Bench opinion to be expressed and for a reasonable spectrum of opinion to be brought before the House.
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request and I acknowledge that there is a good deal of interest in this matter, but I think that arrangements for debating a White Paper which has yet to be published are best considered after it has been published.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion No. 1341 in my name?
[That this House recognises that the West Yorkshire Fire Authority is legally bound to provide services that meet efficiently all normal requirements; notes that in order to comply with the Conservative Government's capping criteria for 1993–94 the authority must close Bingley Fire Station and lose a turntable ladder at Brighouse, an emergency tender in Halifax and a prime mover in Moortown as well as shut Sowerby Bridge Fire Station; further notes that Mr. Manuel, the Chief Fire Officer, says these cuts will breach the minimum standards of cover and reduce the West Yorkshire Fire Service to that of a third world fire service; places on record the encouragement given by the Earl Ferrers to the authority to breach the cap to maintain minimum levels of service when he spoke to a delegation on 14th January; believes the underfunding of the Fire Service is not only a national disgrace but a recipe for disaster; and publicly states its support for the authority if it decides to set an 'illegal' budget as the Home Office Minister suggested.]
It recognises that West Yorkshire fire authority is legally bound, under Home Office rules, to provide minimum standards of service, but, in order to beat the cap issued by his Government, it will be unable to provide those minimum standards. The chief fire officer has given that warning. Can we have an urgent debate so that lives are not lost and property not destroyed needlessly?
Mr. Newton: I am not aware of any reason why West Yorkshire fire authority should not meet the nationally recommended minimums of fire cover and keep to its statutory duties, but if the hon. Lady believes that there is evidence to that effect, I am sure that she will bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and that he will consider it.
Mr. Philip Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the recent imposition by the United States of grossly unfair anti-dumping duties on European steel producers, that the European Community itself uses equally flawed anti-dumping rules to impose duties on east European steel producers, and the fact that the GATT round seems to be bogged down and is three years overdue for completion, is not it about time that the House had a debate on the GATT round and on trade in general? That would, not least, give our Ministers a chance to tell us what they are doing to use their influence to reduce intensive protectionist measures in the European Community to ensure that the world trading system does not descend into 1930s-style tit-for-tat protectionism.
Mr. Newton: There have been several references in the past few minutes to debating foreign affairs and defence. I should have thought that some of my hon. Friend's points might be relevant were I able to find time for such a debate. I cannot find time for a specific debate on GATT at present.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, Sir Leon Brittan, the European Community Commissioner responsible, is meeting the new United States trade representative in the United States today, I believe. I am sure that he will be anxious to overcome the difficulties to which my hon. Friend referred, as I know equally well will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he visits the United States to see President Clinton and others later this month.
Mr. Derek Enright: Further to an earlier question, will the Leader of the House entice the President of the Board of Trade to the Dispatch Box to give openly to the House the news that he is deliberately leaking to newspapers about the 31 pits? Does not the Leader of the House consider it an absolute disgrace that in those leaks the President of the Board of Trade is taking his own side for granted in suggesting that they will troop through the Lobbies like sheep behind him? Is not the President of the Board of Trade holding the whole House in contempt by communicating with newspapers rather than with the House, and will he please stop playing ducks and drakes with miners' families?
Mr. Newton: I do not believe that my right hon. Friend is responsible for the stories to which the hon. Gentleman refers or that he is taking anyone for granted. He is working very carefully and thoroughly to produce a properly thought-out White Paper. As for enticing him here, he is already committed to being here next Wednesday to answer questions.
Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend dig deep into the archives to see when we last had a debate on the arts? I suspect that it must be a year, if not two years, since we had a full and proper debate and I think it is time that we debated the strategy of the new Department of National Heritage and the Arts Council since the publication of its strategy—or would it be better for me to table an amendment to the European Communities Bill?
Mr. Newton: The veiled threat in my hon. Friend's last remark—perhaps it was not even veiled—might give me some encouragement. As it is, however, despite that veiled or unveiled threat, I will simply take note of my hon. Friend's request.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I recognise that the Leader of the House has set aside some considerable time next week for Scottish business, but does he accept that one of the critical current issues facing us is the future of the legal aid system in Scotland? Given that the Government propose to alter this legislation on 1 April, with huge reductions in access to legal aid, thereby restricting the ability of the most vulnerable sections of our community to obtain legal assistance, can he tell us what procedures the Government will follow? Will we have statutory instruments, will we have a motion, will we have a debate, and will there be an opportunity for us to consider this very important matter?
Mr. Newton: As I think the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will shortly be laying regulations and it seems highly likely that there will be occasion for a debate in the light of the point that the hon. Lady and others have made. I will just remind her, as I reminded another questioner a week or two ago, that in total some 48 per cent. of households—very nearly half of all households—will remain financially eligible for legal aid.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: In view of the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for municipal gutters, could we have a debate on ethics in local government and discuss the recent reports from boroughs such as Lambeth, Hackney, Peterborough and Monklands, which have been in the news and are all Labour-controlled authorities?
Mr. Newton: There appears to be some support on my own Benches, including from some in very high places, for such a debate. Despite that, however, I will once again take note of my hon. Friend's very reasonable request.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: What is the likelihood of an early statement being made by, say, the President of the Board of Trade, or even the Prime Minister, about the building of a replacement vessel for the elderly royal yacht Britannia? Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a belief gaining ground throughout the United Kingdom that the Prime Minister has made a promise to the Queen and the royal family that they shall have such a vessel built for them? I wish to point out, as a Member representing a traditional shipbuilding constituency, that this would be taken very badly amiss—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. We are dealing with next week's business.
Dr. Godman: I asked for an early statement.
Madam Speaker: Good. That is where it should have ended.
Mr. Newton: In view of your steer, Madam Speaker, I shall say only that I cannot promise an early statement.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Although my right hon. Friend has said that he might not be able to find time next week for a debate on the conduct of some of our privatised industries, will he reconsider his answer? It would enable many of my colleagues to talk about the turnround of our former nationalised industries and the fact that, whereas they were a burden on the taxpayer, costing about £3 billion a year, they now contribute to the Exchequer, have improved productivity, are much more

1129
efficient and provide a better service to the customer. Would not such a debate enable us to prove what a great benefit they are to this country?
Mr. Newton: That is a very helpful question. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade might find it more helpful were it asked next Wednesday instead of some of the questions that it seems likely he might be asked.
Mr. David Winnick: Instead of the proposed business for Monday week, would it be possible to have a general debate on Maastricht so that the Government could give us their assessment of the inclusion of the social chapter and its implications? Does not the Cabinet appreciate the advice that Lord Tebbit has given Tory Members of Parliament on how to proceed?
Mr. Newton: Whenever I have been in the Chamber during the first 11 days of debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, people have usually found it possible to make general observations whatever the specific subject under discussion.
Mr. David Alton: What point is there in general observations about the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? What chance is there of making progress if the Government intend to drop the entire treaty if the social charter were to be included by a majority of the House? Will the Leader of the House make it clear whether that is the Government's intention?
Mr. Newton: I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on radio. He said:
"We can't ratify a treaty other than the one we negotiated; we don't intend to join Britain into a treaty which includes proposals and ideas which we think are destructive to British jobs".
Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 1370?
[That this House acknowledges the invaluable work carried out by REUNITE on behalf of those who suffer child abduction; and urges the Government not to terminate its grant to REUNITE on 31st March 1993.]
It is an all-party motion dealing with Reunite, the National Council for Abducted Children. The Government intend to withdraw the organisation's grant, thereby causing the collapse of the only advice service to Government and non-governmental agencies in Britain on the 1,200 children a year who are abducted illegally from Great Britain and held hostage in many countries throughout the world. More than 100 hon. Members have been assisted by Reunite to trace and identify children who have been stolen from their constituencies. Would it not be outrageous if the Government's decision were carried out because it would mean the demise of an organisation committed to the return of the children of British citizens who have been abducted illegally?
Mr. Newton: As I am not familiar with the exact state of play in any negotiations that might be taking place, I shall confine myself to saying that it is not uncommon for the Government—I have been involved in this work in various ministerial capacities—to provide funds on a start-up or pump-priming basis. I understand that, in 1989, the Home Office voluntary service unit agreed to fund Reunite temporarily to help it establish itself and find other sources of support.

Points of Order
4.27 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been a tradition of the House that on Thursday afternoons, after Prime Minister's Question Time, we automatically have the business statement for the following week and then any other statements, the only exception being if there is a private notice question. Has there been a change in the procedure to enable the Prime Minister to make a statement on royal finances before the business statement, because normally he should have made it after? Does the Prime Minister have precedence over the rest of the House?
Madam Speaker: Any statement by the Prime Minister always takes precedence over other statements.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A fortnight ago, I was called to ask a question on the business statement. Last week, because I had a message from the Leader of the House saying that he was still considering my question about the Nimmo Smith/Friel report, I did not ask the question. Since then the Leader of the House has been given a transcript of a newspaper office record that throws the very gravest doubt on the findings in this highly sensitive report. Will the right hon. Gentleman have an opportunity to report to the House of Commons? If this is said outside the House of Commons, we shall be subject to litigation.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the question he has just asked is one that, had he caught my eye, he might have put to the Leader of the House. I give the hon. Gentleman a number of opportunities to put questions. Regrettably, I could not do so today.
Mr David Trimble: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the importance to Back Benchers on both sides of the House of the business statement and of the questions that follow it. I appreciate that the practice is to give the Prime Minister precedence when he has to make a statement after Prime Minister's questions—a practice that was quite understandable today in view of the significance of the subject. Is it possible, however, to ensure that that practice will not prejudice the interests of Back Benchers who wish to raise matters following the business statement and that in the rather exceptional circumstances in which the Prime Minister has to make such a statement we shall get extra time for business questions?
Madam Speaker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is seeking. It is is my custom to attempt to call the Whips of minority parties. I did so today in the case of his own party. Regrettably, I cannot call all Members following the business statement.

BILLS PRESENTED

  WEDDINGS
  Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, presented a Bill to make new provision regarding marriages; to provide for marriages to be solemnised in any place and at any time by a duly authorised person; to provide for the registration of authorised persons; and for

  1131
  connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 March, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

  PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Bill Walker presented a Bill to increase the penalties for certain offences under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

Community Care
4.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): I beg to move,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 6) (House of Commons Paper No. 404), which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
The report sets out the proposed allocation of special grants to local authorities for the financial year beginning 1 April for expenditure on community care services, as defined in section 46 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. It also describes the main features of the grant and the conditions that we intend to attach to it.
It may be helpful if I sketch the background to the report and say a word about our community care policy generally. The changes that are being introduced in April represent the achievement of a goal that was set out in the White Paper "Caring for People" in 1989. They follow two earlier stages of the implementation of our community care policy—the first in 1991, when we introduced arm's-length inspection units and greatly improved local authority complaints procedures; the second in April 1992, when, for the first time, we required the publication of community care plans by every local authority with responsibility for social services. The community care plans will be published annually from now on.
The significance of the changes that we shall make in April this year, however, lies in the fact that, perhaps for the first time, services will be tailored to meet need rather than, as, I am afraid, has tended to happen sometimes in the past, modifying needs to fit the services that happen to be available. The policy represents a coherent and properly funded approach to community care. It will guarantee for individuals who need services a choice between improved domiciliary and day care services at home and care in a homely setting for as long as possible, but where people are unable to stay at home they will be placed in appropriate residential accommodation. That will be achieved primarily through the process of individual assessment, which must by law not only examine the needs of every individual but take account of the person's wishes. Secondly and very importantly, it will take account of the needs and wishes of any carers who may be helping the individual to live at home.
We have four principal objectives in pursuing this policy. The first is that better consideration should be given to the alternatives to residential care. It has been common ground that one weakness of the present system, which allows people to obtain higher rates of income support to finance their entry into residential or nursing homes, is that sometimes people have been placed in those homes without full consideration of their individual needs and, in particular, without proper examination of whether, through the provision of additional domiciliary or day care services, they could be enabled to remain in their homes longer.
The second objective of the policy is the promotion of improved domiciliary, day and respite care services. I attach particular importance to the improvement of respite care. Anyone who has had personal knowledge of the burden which literally million of voluntary carers shoulder willingly will recognise that one way—perhaps the best way—of enabling them to continue shouldering

1133
that burden is through the greater availability of respite care. It may be for a week a month or only a week a year for someone who is not carrying such a big burden, but one of the best changes this April will be the removal of the perverse incentive which discourages local authorities from paying for respite care.
The third objective is the encouragement of the purchaser-provider split. That split, which has already shown its value in the health service reforms that were implemented two years ago, will bring forth even greater and faster benefits to community care. The marketplace—the mixed economy—is already better developed in social services. There is already healthy competition between providers of social services in the independent sector.
The fourth objective is to ensure that we create a flourishing independent sector. We want a variety of organisations—voluntary organisations and private for-profit organisations—to compete in the marketplace. One consequence is that standards will continue to rise, as they have done in the past 10 years, in the residential sector and elsewhere. It will also widen the choice available to individuals. Of course, through the statutory direction on choice we have built in a binding requirement on local authorities to honour, within certain practical limitations about cost levels, the preferences expressed by individuals. Not only will standards rise and choice widen, but we will see better value for money as a result of a flourishing independent sector.
The key to success in all this will be the greatest level of co-operation within the statutory sector between local authorities and health authorities. We will not accept any attempts by one agency or the other to pass the buck for responsibility for individual clients. It will also, however, require co-operation between the statutory agencies and the independent sector. I am glad that in many parts of the country there is evidence that such co-operation is building up, although I will have a little more to say in due course about the need for improved consultation with the independent sector by individual local authorities.
The whole policy is being introduced against the background of a two thirds real increase in social services spending since 1979. There has been a massive injection of resources all over the country, and the special grant report reflects that progress. The precondition of the payment of the grants to local authorities was that, by 31 December last year, every local authority should sign, jointly with the relevant health authorities covering the districts where they were both responsible, an agreement setting out the way in which, first, they will handle arrangements for the discharge of patients from hospital and, secondly, the way in which the purchase of long-term nursing home beds will be handled. I am glad to say that every local authority reached that deadline and satisfied the precondition.
The settlement with which the policy is being funded has demonstrated the Government's commitment, and the way in which we have honoured our pledge, to finance the policy in an adequate—I would say generous—fashion. The settlement comprises three elements. The first is the transfer of £399 million from the Department of Social Security. That figure, which was arrived at after detailed analysis and consultation, represents the money that the Department of Social Security would have spent in 1993–94 on higher rates of income support for people needing residential or nursing home care had there been no change to the policy.
1134
In addition, we have allocated a further £140 million which is totally new money. It is additional to the resources that would have been spent if the policy had not changed. That £140 million will enable local authorities to improve the assessment procedures because, as I said, they are at the heart of the way in which we shall ensure that individual needs are assessed and met.
It will also enable local authorities to improve the day, domiciliary and respite care services which they make available to those who do not need any residential placement. It will also enable local authorities to meet any additional costs of fees for placements that they may make where those fee levels are higher than the higher rates of income support settled by the Department of Social Security.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the funding issue. Has he received representations recently from the Conservative-controlled Association of County Councils on its view, shared with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, that there is an overall funding shortfall of £135 million?
Mr. Yeo: I shall deal with the shortfall after I have sketched in the third element in the transfer, which is the £26 million being made available to local authorities to pay for clients who previously would have been handled under the independent living fund.
There have been suggestions from local authority associations about the adequacy of funding for the policy as a whole, in particular in relation to the costs which may arise where placements are made to homes whose charges are in excess of the higher rates of income support. The Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities have commented on the matter. I regard the claims that they have made—that the policy is underfunded to the extent of £250 million—as totally bogus. Indeed, the AMA greeted my right hon. Friend's announcement in October last year with what can only be described as a wave of scaremongering.
It said that the cash shortfall would put 12,000 elderly and disabled people at risk of not receiving services. Unfounded claims such as that succeed only in frightening and worrying some of society's most vulnerable people. The AMA's figures do not add up. They assume that the numbers of elderly and disabled will grow exponentially. The curve of the AMA's graph goes through the roof, creating by September 1995 another 56,000 people—they do not actually exist—apparently needing residential care.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I was pressing the Minister to comment on the claim of his political colleagues in local government that there was a gap of £135 million.
Mr. Yeo: I am explaining why the claims are exaggerated. As I say, the numbers are unfounded. The figures are in sharp contrast to ours, which were based on a cautious assumption—perhaps I should put it the other way round and say they were based on the generous assumption—that by September 1995—[Interruption.] I am making a serious point.
We analysed carefully the numbers of people who would be likely to need services. We had regard to the rate of hospital discharge and demographic considerations. We then added to the figures produced by those two trends another 37,000 people, and we assumed that that number would be seeking services from local authorities. But even

1135
those figures are substantially lower than those used by the local authority associations, and it is there that a substantial part of the difference between our figures and theirs arises.
Next year, directors of social services will have at their disposal £565 million for reform, money that has been ring-fenced to ensure that it reaches its target. If councils want to spend even more on community care, they can draw on their own resources. The personal social services standard spending assessment now runs at more than £5 billion a year.
Miss Joan Lestor: The Minister will recall the commitment that was given about ring-fencing community care funds for mental health illness and for drug and alcohol abuse centres. That ring-fenced funding was later removed. What guarantee have we that the ring-fenced funding to which he has referred will be implemented?
Mr. Yeo: The specific grant for mental illness, now up to more than £31 million—raised by about 10 per cent. for 1993–94—has been an important element in the funding of local authority provision for people with mental illness. That is a specific grant for those services. There is a specific grant, of about £2.2 million, for alcohol and drug treatment. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is referring to the decision not to ring-fence the funding of residential treatment centres for alcohol and drug abusers. That decision is at present the subject of judicial review. The outcome of those proceedings will be known probably early next week, so it is difficult for me to say more on the subject now.
For that reason, I had intended later to point out—it may be convenient if I deal with the matter now—that the total figure in the special grant report is £20 million less than the £565 million that we are allocating in total to local authorities for the funding of community care. We shall make that £20 million available to local authorities and say how it will be distributed as soon as the present legal process has been completed.
The method of distributing the grant was discussed at length and attracted much interest from local authorities. I believe that we have arrived at the fairest possible method. We are not expecting too radical, too destabilising or too swift a change from the status quo but instead are making a smooth transition towards the achievement of our goal of reflecting in the distribution formula need, preserving individual choice and enabling care to be carried out at home.
As I say, we have attached conditions to the payment of the grant, the first being the ring-fenced condition, and that has been widely welcomed. It will not apply in perpetuity. We believe that after three years the policy will be sufficiently integrated within the totality of social services provision, and by that stage it will be an erosion of local authority discretion to continue to apply ring fencing.
The second condition which we shall apply is the requirement that 85 per cent. of the money being transferred from social security should be spent by local authorities purchasing services from the independent sector. We attach the greatest possible importance to that condition. We believe that there is already a valuable history of independent sector residential care provision on
1136
which we can build. But the condition does not apply only to the purchase of residential services. Local authorities will also be able to satisfy it by purchasing from the independent sector domiciliary, day and respite care services.
I hope that the whole independent sector will seize the opportunity offered to expand its activities in that area. The statutory sector cannot and should not work alone. I expect to see the independent sector taking on more of the work traditionally associated with local government.
Mr. Hinchliffe: My I press the Minister on the consistency of two of the factors that he has mentioned—the Government's apparent desire to ensure that people are not forced unnecessarily into care and to stimulate domiciliary alternatives to care, and the requirement to spend 85 per cent. of the DSS money in any one area on the independent sector? How do those factors square with the fact that, to my knowledge, many parts of the country have no independent domiciliary sector whatever? They do not seem to square.
Mr. Yeo: The reason why, I fear, some parts of the country have no independent domiciliary provision is the deep and enduring hostility of the local authorities to independent sector providers of all kinds, especially the private sector. In areas where there has been a more open-minded and rational approach to the provision of social services, there is no great difficulty in finding independent sector providers of all kinds of community care. The new condition was announced last October, although we have modified and slightly relaxed it after consultation. I hope that it will mean that, even in the past four and a half months, local authorities have been discussing with the independent sector how they can stimulate such provision.
All that will help to make community care plans needs-led rather than service-led. We shall not tolerate the use of the money for some empire-building exercise by local authorities for their own service provision. I hope that we shall thereby reduce the scope for the incompetence, mismanagement and fraud which, sadly, has occurred in a few local authorities, and which besmirches the reputation of local government as a whole.
If the independent sector provision is to be fully realised, local authorities must collaborate. The study by KPMG which we commissioned last year, in support of the conclusions of our own monitoring exercise, showed significant shortcomings in local authority consultation with the independent sector. That is not an option; it is essential. We have therefore issued two statutory directions to strengthen the requirement to consult.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I am still puzzled by the fact that 85 per cent. of the money is to go to the independent sector. Essentially, although not always, that means the private sector, so let us use proper vocabulary. Instead of 85 per cent. of the money going predominantly to the private sector, would a wise policy not be to ensure that 100 per cent. of it went to good services, whatever their source?
Mr. Yeo: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who has some knowledge of such matters, claims that the independent sector is really the same as the private sector. It most certainly is not. Before entering the House I spent the latter years of my working life in what one might call

1137
the real world as a full-time employee of a large voluntary organisation supplying services extensively to local authorities. Many other voluntary organisations do the same.
It is absurd to suggest that we can use the term "private sector" to cover the work of Age Concern, Mencap, the Spastics Society and many other distinguished voluntary organisations, which are now increasingly substantial suppliers of services under contract to local authorities. Of course, it is because we want all the money to be spent on good services that we are determined to ensure that most of it is spent in the independent sector. As I said at the beginning of my speech, that is the best safeguard, that is what will deliver higher standards, value for money and wider choice.
Mr. Wicks: Why?
Mr. Yeo: Local authorities have been given the challenge of making the reforms work. They have been given the cash that they need. They have had the help of the community care support force. It is now up to them. The success of community care rests on the directors of social services. They are used to managing change, and the community care support force is issuing practical guidance to assist local authorities if unexpected eventualities arise.
The report brings those long-awaited reforms to the brink of implementation. That progress has been achieved in co-operation with most local authorities and health authorities. I pay tribute to their efforts. The benefits of the policy will be felt throughout the country by vulnerable and needy people and their families and friends. I commend the report to the House.
4.55 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Tonight the House has what will probably be the only opportunity—certainly the only opportunity in Government time—to debate before April the implementation of the changes due to take place in the arrangements for community care. The formula before us in Special Grant Report (No. 6) sets out the reality of community care in the next financial year—a reality in stark and marked contrast to the media hype about the likely impact of the changes which emanated from Richmond house until shortly after the general election.
Before 9 April 1992, the then Secretary of State and the junior Ministers were telling us in glowing terms how the delayed new arrangements would improve the lot of all and sundry. They talked about the avoidance of unnecessary institutional care—the Minister mentioned that again tonight—about recognition of the needs of users and carers, and about choice. Those statements gave renewed hope to users and carers, pressure groups and voluntary organisations, and providers in the public, private and independent sectors. April 1993 would be a new dawn, an end to what had been for many people years of private personal struggle and uncertainty.
When the election was over, a new message began to emerge from Richmond house. I am sorry that the Minister for reduced expectations—otherwise known as the Minister for Health—is not here tonight. He was wheeled into action to tell us all to modify our vision of the future after April 1993, and his message was reinforced in writing to local authorities: "Play it down, folks, and don't be unrealistic."
1138
One or two Opposition Members have been criticised for not being realistic about what would happen after April, and for having said for some time that not only may April fail to herald much-needed long-overdue support for a vast number of people in desperate need, but that the circumstances of some users and carers could get worse. It take no pleasure in saying that the report before the House, detailing the manner in which the changes are to be implemented, substantiates and reinforces those concerns.
It is important to remind ourselves of the reason for the changes due in April, of the real motivation behind the community care elements in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. The central purpose of the whole exercise was to unravel the incredible mess that the Government had got themselves into over the ever-increasing cost of income support payments to residents in private care. They wanted to unravel the social and—more importantly, from the Government's point of view—financial consequences of an ill thought out free market experiment in welfare which began in 1981.
That experiment took the DSS budget for supplementary benefit and income support from £11 million when the Government came to power to a staggering £2.4 billion in the current financial year, and reinstated institutional provision as the central plank of Government thinking on the care of old people. The number of places in care homes has shot way beyond any demographic increase in the number of elderly and very elderly people. That experiment shunted people into permanent care when, sometimes at half the cost to the public purse, many of them could have had what they really wanted—services geared to their remaining in their own homes.
The free market experiment encouraged dependence by rewarding moves towards more intensive nursing provision rather than rehabilitation. I have received representations from people whose relatives have moved from their care to the nursing sections of jointly registered homes for one reason only—that those honourable people in the private sector whom the Minister so crudely compared with corrupt local authorities had moved them to obtain more money for caring for them, although they did not need that nursing care.
Neither the DSS nor the Department of Health has addressed those issues. That free market experiment left thousands of old people without a penny to their names, using their own pocket money and begging subsidies from relatives and charities to meet the cost of their care. All right hon. and hon. Members have heard of similar cases, and every case is an individual tragedy. It was a free market experiment which led to the Government being defeated by their own Back Benchers because of the enormous public outcry about its human consequences.
We are here tonight to unravel the consequences of free market ideology being applied to the circumstances of some of our most vulnerable citizens—an unholy mess which has resulted in the gross misuse of millions of pounds of scarce public resources and, more importantly, has caused genuine distress and suffering to people who through no fault of their own are forced to look to the Government for their care and security.
It would be nice to say that the Government have learnt their lesson and that the community care changes will extract us once and for all from the results of the shambles, and that demented old people will no longer be shunted from the middle of London to questionable private placements in the Yorkshire dales. To use the parlance of

1139
the Select Committee on Health, old ladies in Dulwich will have the chance to stay in Dulwich rather than going to Clacton. The concept of choice should not be simply, "Which private home do you want to enter?" but, "Would you and your carer like to choose for you not to enter a home?" That is real and proper choice, and it is the choice that people want.
The report, however, tells us something different. It tells us quite clearly that, apart from shunting the funding problems on to local authorities, the Government are opting for the status quo. Having launched the free market experiment, in facing the consequences the Government are clearly more concerned with the interests of private providers of care than with the interests of users and carers.
The Special Grant Report (No. 6) says loud and clear that Government policy in the implementation of community care changes is completely provider-led—private provider-led.
Nowhere is that more graphically illustrated than in the calculation of the distribution of the special grant. Half the social security transfer element is being distributed to authorities in proportion to income support expenditure in respect of the numbers of individuals in private residential care and nursing homes in their areas.
Mr. Yeo: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we offer local authority associations the opportunity for that part of the distribution calculation to be adjusted for migration from the area from which an individual came to the area where they were being cared for?
Mr. Hinchliffe: I was aware that discussions had taken place, but the Government have to answer the central accusation that the entire reform is geared to the status quo—to retaining the problems that we have had for the past decade as a result of the Government's commitment to floating the free market in care, and that those problems will continue after April.
When I expand on the point I was making, the Minister will understand my concerns about the formula. It takes no account whatever of the fact that, under the guise of what the Government have termed community care, older people and the disabled are frequently being placed in permanent settings many miles away from their own home areas. The Minister must recognise that.
Private care homes have developed where entrepreneurs have seen suitable properties, and not necessarily where the local population has presented a demand. Numerous private hotels and boarding houses in coastal resorts in the south-east, for example, have been converted for the care of older people and residents of psychiatric hospitals. In many instances, they have been filled with people from London who have been forced to move from their own homes and home areas due to lack of domiciliary support or suitable accommodation in their own communities.
The fact that the Government have chosen to concentrate future funding in the areas where those people have gone rather than where they have come from compounds the obvious mistakes arising from provision being determined almost entirely by the market. The new funding system clearly assumes that older people or the disabled will continue to be placed often 60 or 70 miles or
1140
more away from their home areas and their families. Rather than funding the changed system on the basis of known populations and needs, enabling the development of genuine care in the community, the Government have proved themselves to be concerned more with the continued commercial interests of the market.
The practical consequences will be obvious to those right hon. and hon. Members who have considered what the figures in the distribution of April's funding mean for their constituencies. For some inner-London boroughs, currently with minimal care beds, the opportunity to develop alternatives to sending people many miles from home are frankly non-existent. It is no real consolation for an older or disabled person in inner London to be told that they now have a choice of which home they wish to enter when, as a result of Government policy, the choice is Clacton, Brighton or 200 miles away in the Yorkshire dales.
It is not just in inner London that the nonsense of funding distribution arrangements occur. In my own area in west Yorkshire, we can compare the positions of two similar adjacent local authorities, Bradford and Leeds. I am not making a party political point because, fortunately, both councils are Labour-controlled.
Bradford has 80,000 people of pensionable age, 30,000 of whom are over 75; Leeds has 130,000 people of pensionable age, of whom 50,000 are over 75; yet the Government's funding system gives Bradford £60 for each pensioner and £158 for each one over 75, while Leeds gets £38 and £101 respectively. Any objective assessment would conclude that Leeds is likely to need greater community care resources, but the Government's formula rewards Bradford simply because that area has more properties suitable for conversion into care homes. It is as simple as that.
Conservative Members may be heavily into Victorian values, but is it right that the location of mill owners' mansions in the 1800s should provide the basis for community care funding more than a century later? Is it right that many of my constituents and those of many other hon. Members should continue to be placed away from their home areas because the Government's funding system is, frankly, plain daft?
Having dealt with the sublime, I will move on to the ridiculous. As the Special Grant Report (No. 6) indicates, in addition to basing their calculations of 50 per cent. of the special grant on the random location of existing private care beds, the Government are determined that 85 per cent. of the social security transfer element mentioned by the Minister must be spent on purchasing care within what they call the independent sector. The fact that the Government backed off their original intention for 75 per cent. of the overall funding to be committed in that way is evidence of the fact that there might just be someone left at the Department of Health with a grip, albeit limited, on reality.
No Opposition Member objects in any way to attempts to develop independent community care provision which has relevance to advancing the rights of users and carers and genuinely improves their choice, but does not the vast bulk of independent sector care, even after the Government have spent sizeable amounts trying to stimulate domiciliary provision, consist of private residential and nursing homes? Would it not have made more sense to be sure there were independent sector

1141
alternatives to institutional care in every area before requiring the expenditure of that proportion of the funding?
I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to examine the practicalities of the requirements for such expenditure in their constituencies. They will probably find, as I do, that it positively obstructs the ability of local people to address after April local priorities in terms of community care needs.
To be parochial for a moment, the principal agenda item in terms of community care needs in my constituency is a radical improvement in day care facilities for young adults with learning difficulties. I have had numerous meetings with desperate parents who, once full-time education ends, frequently find themselves left alone to cope. The local authority recognises that the excellent adult training centre at Lawefield lane in my constituency has insufficient resources to meet the demands. The local authority simply does not have the funding to expand the centre and employ more staff. April should have been about meeting the needs of such young people and their parents, but the funding formula prevents the local authority from tackling such urgent priorities in the most obvious way—by paying for the expansion of the existing centre and additional staff. Instead, it will have to buy from a frankly non-existent private sector because the Government put ideology before common sense.
The independent sector may eventually devise a scheme to help, but it could take years. In the meantime, parents and their sons and daughters are left to struggle. Frankly, I do not think that that is good enough, and how it all fits in with the concept of choice is beyond me. The choice of my constituents is improved public provision. What about the right to choose local authority care and good quality local authority public services? Where is the choice when people no longer have a local authority home in the area in which they live because it has been closed?
The other side of the Government's agenda is all too clear. While they positively discriminate towards so-called independent providers—to the obvious detriment, in some respects, of users and carers—they discriminate against public provision. It is right to apply the same standards to local authority residential care as we do to the private sector, hut the same Government who require those consistent standards then prevent local authorities from making the investment needed to upgrade their establishments.
What we have is a back-door method of closing council homes and reducing the choice about which the Government talk so much. The narrow application of the concept of choice means that people entering local authority care homes are excluded from receiving the new residential allowance. That is blatant dogmatic discrimination by a Government who are attempting to prop up and stimulate the private care market through the systematic destruction of public sector provision.
What choice will there be after April for those with drug and alcohol problems, in the light of the Government's decision to renege on the ring fencing of funding for drug and alcohol projects? As projects close, the choice for sufferers will be a police cell, prison or the streets; and for some, unfortunately, it will be the mortuary.
Mr. Yeo: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how any of the policies that we are debating will prevent local
1142
authorities from buying any services that they consider appropriate to the needs of the drug and alcohol abusers? Where is the obstacle?
Mr. Hinchliffe: If the hon. Gentleman lives in the real world, he will recognise that, when authorities are taking decisions on the expenditure of restricted sums of money and the choice is between, say, the placement of an elderly lady in a care home and the placing of an alcoholic or drug addict, it is a good bet that they will go for the elderly lady: in some people's eyes it is an issue of who is deserving and who is not. Is the Minister aware that a survey of 67 drug and alcohol agencies in the voluntary sector providing 1,300 bed spaces shows that 70 per cent. will start losing income in April and 46 per cent. will no longer be viable by the end of July 1993?
I am conscious of the fact that we are talking today without knowing what the outcome of the application for the judicial review will be at 10.30 on Monday morning. It is an absolute disgrace that the Government have been dragged into the courts on an issue which any human being can see is of great concern. I was in the Chamber when a former Secretary of State gave a clear commitment to ring fencing. I remember the hon. Gentleman's words well. He gave a commitment—I stress this point—on the back of huge pressure from his Back Benchers, including hon. Members who are here today. The Government's logic on this issue is frankly beyond me, and beyond belief.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I understand it. Basically, he is saying that any human being would take the view which he takes. Surely, "any human being" includes local councillors, and therefore local councillors could well take that decision if they chose to do so. In Kent, the local authority has chosen to ring-fence for a year, and we shall see what happens at the end of that 12 months. To push the decision up from the local authority to central Government merely on the basis that somehow central Government are human beings and local authorities are not seems to fly in the face of much of what I have often heard the hon. Gentleman say.
Mr. Hinchliffe: In a sense, the hon. Member for Mid-Kent has missed the real problem with these projects. He will know that many of the projects in London and in areas such as Leeds, which I know well—the detoxification centre—and other similar excellent organisations in Bradford and elsewhere, take in people who are not residents of the local authority in the area involved. The key issue is getting those other local authorities, which may have no real knowledge of the work of organisations such as the alcohol recovery project in London, to take seriously the work that they do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and I spent some time visiting the projects and looking at some of the issues which people involved with them are worried about at present. I have seen one or two of the people who are benefiting from the present policy.
Ms. Tessa Jowell: Does my hon. Friend accept that the dispute about the funding of services for drug addicts and alcoholics underlines the Government's inconsistency in the policy? The agencies which provide the care want precisely the same stability that the Government have undertaken with regard to private residential care for elderly people—that is, for the money

1143
to go where the people currently live. Does not that reveal that the Government are applying different standards to private residential care provided for elderly people and to voluntary organisations providing care and rehabilitation for drug and alcohol misusers?
Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the inconsistency between the Government's policy on this and their policy on the so-called independent sector providers to whom she referred. When I visited one of the projects recently, I met a woman who was receiving treatment for a drink problem. That woman has two children who are currently in care, and I know that the work that that project is doing will enable her to return home and be with her children.
If the Government's current illogical position is based on attempting to save money, it is completely the wrong way round. By failing to ring-fence those projects, resulting in the closure of a number of projects along the lines predicted in the survey, the Government are forcing up public expenditure on the prison service, the hospital service and young children in care, regardless of the human consequences.
Even at this late stage, I sincerely hope that the Minister will have a rethink during the debate. I am well aware that there is equal concern on the Conservative Back Benches about the way in which the Government have gone back on their previous commitments. I urge the Minister to consider why, over the past few years, the term "community care" has become in a sense a byword for neglect. In many people's eyes, it is an excuse for the Government to make savings and to release resources for the use of the Exchequer.
The Government should realise that, for many people, the Ben Silcock case raises questions other than those which were subsequently addressed by the Secretary of State. Such questions included the right to asylum facilities within the community, not locked away from the community; proper after-care for mentally ill people who leave hospital; joint funding for community care plans which does not taper down to nothing, as so much joint funding does; strategic planning involving everyone, including the user and his or her family.
The Minister used to work for the Spastics Society. I am sure that he will have seen the report which came out yesterday, produced jointly by the Royal College of Nursing and the Spastics Society. The report made it clear that the process of strategic planning had been made far more difficult by the deliberate erection of barriers and the creation of competition between arms of health and care services—for example, with the advent of trusts and the new health market.
When the 1990 Act was going through the House, some of us pointed out that its health and community care elements were contradictory. Millions of people are now looking to April, desperately hoping for answers to some of the problems that I have outlined and hoping for urgent change, but what hope is there for the new system when local authorities under both Labour and Conservative control point to a huge shortfall in the funding contained in the report before us today? I have talked to senior Conservative councillors who are deeply worried about what the changes will mean for people in their areas.
1144
What are the prospects for the implementation of the new system when, as the Association of Directors of Social Services demonstrated recently, the vast majority of local authorities expect real cuts in their social services budgets in the new financial year? It became clear in the Health Select Committee recently that the Government had no plans to monitor the implementation of the reforms, so is it any wonder that users and carers—I meet people in various groups on a regular basis—are asking whether the Government really care? The impression is being given that, frankly, they do not.
What could have been achieved if, instead of the privatised welfare experiment in the 1980s and early 1990s the Government had been prepared to think out the use of the nearly £10 billion being spent on what Griffiths called perverse incentives to enter private institutional care? What could have been achieved if, instead of undermining the ability of local authorities and voluntary organisations to offer alternatives to institutional care, the Government had been prepared to invest in what people really want, which is help to remain independent rather than incentives to give up the ghost? What could have been achieved if concepts such as that underpinning the independent living fund had been developed and extended instead of being allowed to degenerate into the present shambles?
A few weeks away from April, severely disabled people, voluntary organisations, local authorities and, it seems, the Government have not the least idea how the new system will operate. The dogmatic obsession with the market means that the community care funding contained in the report will largely miss its real target. The Government have allowed the private institutional tail to wag the community care dog, and the real losers will be the users and carers who so urgently need a radically different agenda.
5.23 pm
Mr. Roger Sims: As we have been reminded, the report is another—and perhaps, before April, the last—step towards the implementation of an Act that was passed by the House more than two years ago. I recall sitting with several other hon. Members who are in the Chamber this evening on the Committee that considered the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. My recollection is that, while there was a good deal of controversy about the national health service part of the Bill, there was general support for the philosophy behind community care, as set out in the Bill. There might have been discussions about the detail, but there was general support in the Committee and the House for the idea of community care.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) spent so much time demonstrating the antipathy to the private sector for which he is well known. It was perhaps hardly surprising.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect in terms of his commitment to social services issues, for giving way. My antipathy is not to the private sector: it is to a Government who distort the allocation of funding in social services in the direction of the private sector, at the expense of the public sector and care in the voluntary sector, which is often dependent on council support. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that point.
Mr. Sims: I will simply modify my remarks and say that the hon. Gentleman's prejudice clouds his assessment of Government policy.
When the Bill received its Third Reading, I was disappointed that we were told, and had not been told until then, that although the NHS part of the Bill would be implemented a few months later, implementation of the community care part of the Act would be deferred for a couple of years. Having said that, I am bound to say that the preparations for community care have proved extremely complex. A great deal of work needed to be done and has been done. Indeed, credit for the successful preparation for the Act is due in no small measure to the diligence of several officials in the Department of Health who have been extremely busy issuing guidance, holding seminars and so on about how the Act is to be carried into effect.
Perhaps I could also compliment the community care task force, which has done an effective job and was a useful idea. It sent people with knowledge of the detail of community care out to local authorities to assist them in making their preparations. Perhaps in his reply my hon. Friend the Minister will say a word about the future of the task force. There seems to be a question mark over whether it will continue after 1 April. I should have thought that, having shown its value in the preparatory stage, something akin to the task force, if not the same body, might continue, at least in a fire-fighting capacity. It would serve a useful purpose.
Special credit must go to all the people in local authorities and other organisations who have been responsible for putting the community care policy into practice. Any hon. Member who has had the opportunity to discuss the matter with local authority officers, officials in local voluntary organisations and so on will realise the enormous amount of work that has been done in preparation for 1 April, over and above people's normal duties, which, in the case of social services departments, are extensive. The success or otherwise of the community care provisions will depend on what happens locally. It will depend on organisations, local authorities, health authorities, the private sector, the voluntary sector and the individuals involved working together. We must wish them well as they progress towards what I suppose we might describe as C Day.
The report that we are discussing arrives not before time. It has been difficult for local authorities to make their detailed plans without knowing what central Government funding they will receive. They were told the global sum in October. They had some information about the funding, but only in this report do they know the final figures.
Indeed, I was with my own director of social services only this morning. He had not yet seen the report, so I was able to hand him a copy. He found that my borough was to receive £103,000 less than the earlier figures suggested. I suppose that, in budgets of millions, that is not significant, but it demonstrates the difficulties under which local authorities have had to work. I shall not go too far in comparing the relationship between local authorities and central Government with the way in which commerce and industry would work in similar circumstances.
Part of the grant recognises the extra costs that local authorities will incur in implementing community care: that is distinct from the transfer of the income support element. If the policy works out as we all hope that it will, the amount of social care in the community will increase
1146
and funds to cover that will be needed. The amount of health care in the community will also increase. If we are giving local authorities extra funds to meet their extra costs, may we know what extra funds the health authorities will receive to meet their share? Should we not expect, in due course, a report giving details of a special grant for them?
My hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised if I draw attention to the basis on which the grant was calculated and to which the hon. Member for Wakefield has already referred. According to paragraph 3(a) of the report,
"50 per cent. of the social security transfer element has been distributed between authorities in proportion to Income Support expenditure in respect of individuals in residential care and nursing homes in their area."
I think that the hon. Member for Wakefield used the word "private", which does not appear in the report. Perhaps that is another illustration of his prejudice. Not all residential and nursing homes are private; some are run by voluntary organisations and others by local authorities—not necessarily in their own local authority area.
The point is, however, that the money is to be distributed according to where the recipients live, rather than where they come from. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that must disadvantage certain areas—for example, parts of both inner and outer London—from which a number of recipients of income support have moved to Kent, Sussex and Surrey, not necessarily as a result of compulsion. The authorities involved will receive a larger share of the income support tranche than they would have otherwise, while authorities in inner and outer London will lose.
My authority estimates that some 400,000 elderly people have moved out of the borough into homes in areas such as those that I have cited. A large amount of money has probably been lost because of the use of the formula that we are discussing.
Mr. Rowe: That important point should not be confined to community care. In the Medway health authority area, for instance, we had to struggle with an unsatisfactory funding arrangement which was weighted excessively towards older people moving into areas such as Brighton.
Mr. Sims: I was not suggesting that the problem was confined to inner and suburban London; the hon. Member for Wakefield mentioned other areas that are affected, and I appreciate that the same thing happens elsewhere.
In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Minister made an interesting reference to migration figures being considered. That was news to me and I hope that he will be able to expand on it, either during the debate or later. He knows of my interest. I wish to place on record my appreciation of the way in which he received a deputation from the London boroughs, which I led, and of the sympathetic hearing that he gave that deputation. I hope that he will be able to go some way towards improving the formula to remove the current sense of injustice—if not now, before this time next year.
Mr. Hinchliffe: It would be wrong to give the impression that every inner-London borough has suffered as a result of the funding system. Would the hon. Gentleman care to speculate, for instance, on why his

1147
authority, Bromley, receives £91 for each person over the age of 75, while for some reason Wandsworth receives £144.07 per person?
Mr. Sims: No, I would not. I shall merely say that that increases the sense of injustice and suggests that the formula is, to say the least, capable of improvement.
The question that inevitably arises, and will continue to arise, is whether the total grant, however it is distributed, will be enough to enable authorities to implement the policies set out in the community care legislation. The answer is, of course, that we simply do not know: we are entering unknown territory. As the implementation of the Act unfolds, cases will come to light, and will be assessed, with results on which we can only speculate. We do not really know the extent to which needs will be revealed, or what will be involved in trying to meet them.
That leads us to the problem encapsulated in the expression "unmet need". The dilemma, as I see it, is this: under the Act, a local authority will be required to assess each case, to specify the needs that the assessment reveals and then to meet those needs. It may not be able to do so, however. The chronically sick and disabled persons legislation, for instance, imposes an absolute obligation to meet the needs that are revealed.
Ideally, an assessment should be agreed with relatives—and, of course, with the user in particular. I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has arrived in the Chamber: she was good enough to commend my local authority's practice of securing the user's agreement to the assessment, along with his or her signature on the document. Nevertheless, the guidance now being given to local authorities is somewhat ambivalent, suggesting that it may not be wise to specify actual needs in an assessment because the authority concerned might then be open to legal challenge.
I hestitate to use of the word "deception", but it seems that assessments could be misleading. My anxiety is increased by the evidence given to the Select Committee by officials from the Department—this relates to what was said by the hon. Member for Wakefield. The officials seemed to suggest that, although the progress of community care would be monitored and some statistics would be collected, statistics relating to unmet need would not be collected. That rather negates the whole principle that community care should be driven by needs rather than resources.
During the passage of the legislation, many of us said, time and again, "This is all very fine, but will the resources be there to meet the needs?" We were assured that the resources would be there, and we have been assured again today that the report is part of that provision; but how can the Department know that the resources are adequate without having information about unmet need?
I understand the difficulty. It is desirable to specify the need, and it is also realistic to accept that it may not always be possible to meet that need. We all know that budgets—even if they are twice the figure that we are discussing—are finite. There could be circumstances in which it would be impossible to meet every need. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider ways to resolve that difficulty? Is it practicable to have a genuine and open assessment of need and the extent to which it can be met? We should be straightforward about the matter and say to
1148
the users, "This is our assessment of your need and this is what, ideally, you should have—A, B, C, D and E—but we can currently offer you only, A, B, C and D. We accept that, in time, we should be able to help you in other ways."
I think that the users and relatives will accept that funds are not unlimited, but we should all know where we stand. The local authority should have it on record and know the exact position. It should know not only the needs that it is meeting, but the needs that it has been unable to meet. Those statistics could then be collected at Richmond house and my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers will be able to see whether community care is working.
Perhaps in a few years' time we shall hear that everything is going smoothly and the resources have proved adequate—I hope so. The resources may be adequate in some sectors, but inadequate in others. There may be room for adjustment or increase, but at least that would be a fairer and more realistic system than the present apparent fudging and uncertainty.
Of course, there are still worries—there are bound to be—about exactly how community care will work, particularly the interface between health authorities and local authorities, notwithstanding any agreements that may have been made. There is a distinction between social care and health care, how each one is defined and where they overlap. Given good will and common sense, I am sure that those difficulties can be overcome.
There are uncertainties—with only a few weeks to go, some are inevitable—but some of them could be clarified. For example, what happens when someone is in a home where the fees are higher than his income support and he receives a top-up, which then ceases? What is the local authority's responsibility? I have a letter from my local assistant care director which refers to that dilemma:
"The verbal advice from the Department of Health is that a resident in receipt of Income Support and who therefore has preserved rights after the community care changes, whose top up from whatever source is withdrawn after that time, must seek a cheaper placement. If no such placement is available they may apply to the local authority to supplement their Income Support allowance. The Department of Health is however stating that the resident must move placement in order that local authorities are not just used as an automatic source of funding."
The problem is that people left, right and centre could withdraw their top-up knowing that the local authority will automatically take over. Clearly, we must guard against that, but it seems that there could be cases where the withdrawal of the top-up could be due to unavoidable circumstances such as a relative dying. It would be harsh if someone who had been in a residential or nursing home for many years were then required to move for the reasons that I have described. I do not necessarily expect my hon. Friend the Minister to give a straightforward answer today, but I hope that he will clarify the position, certainly before 1 April.
Ms. Jowell: The issue of the shortfall between income support limits and the actual cost of residential care is, rightly, a source of enormous worry. It is one sector of expenditure where the local authorities and local authority associations feel that the Government have failed to heed the evidence of the scale of the difficulty nationally. Local authorities calculate that the national shortfall is £73 million. That shortfall is currently made up by relatives, charities and a range of top-up sources, but could, after 1 April, become the responsibility of the local authority. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would

1149
be a source of tremendous instability in a new system if such a large amount were not underwritten by the Government from the outset.
Mr. Sims: It would be unreasonable to expect the Government to write a blank cheque for the sort of figure given by the hon. Lady, but it would be helpful to have some clarification about what the position would be given the circumstances that I have outlined. It would be reasonable for the local authority to have some discretion in the matter.
Mr. Ian McCartney: In a debate on a statutory instrument in Committee yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), said that he and his Department were seeking to draft amendments to section 43 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to ensure that some categories of residence received top-up support from local authorities. He said that he could not say yet what those categories would be and that that was a matter for the Department of Health. The Minister could help today's debate, because yesterday it was placed on record that active consideration is being given to the issue by the Department.
Mr. Sims: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me up to date on the latest state of play on that issue and I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister later.
Although I have voiced some reservations and some of the understandable concerns felt by those who will be implementing community care, I welcome the report—although I believe that it has come a little late. I hope that my hon. Friend's Department will watch carefully as the community care policy unfolds. I hope that the Minister will keep himself fully informed and, where action seems appropriate, will take it without delay.
5.48 pm
Mr. Nigel Jones: Liberal Democrats welcome many of the Government's ideas on community care, many of which are progressive. In the main, the philosophy that underlies their ideas is correct. Unfortunately, the report will not lead to enough money being provided properly to implement the Government's philosophy. I say that because social services departments of local authorities throughout the country are struggling to put together next year's budgets with inadequate finance. I declare an interest as an elected county councillor in Gloucestershire who serves on the social services committee of that authority.
More than 80 per cent. of directors of social services in England predict that their budgets will be reduced in April, which is the time when they are due to take on important new responsibilities for community care. According to a survey conducted by the Association of Directors of Social Services, 81.7 per cent. of local authorities which responded to the questionnaire seemed set to cut spending on social services when their budgets are finalised in April. A further 8.5 per cent. expect a standstill budget.
The consequences for the users of social services will be immense. For example, they may be subject to additional charges for services such as home helps and meals on wheels. Crucial inspection staff who are required to monitor standards in residential homes will not be appointed. Residential homes and day centres for elderly
1150
and mentally handicapped people could be closed. Additional staff required to implement the community care reforms and to respond to rising levels of social need will not be brought on to the social services payroll.
According to the president of the ADSS, Peter Smallridge, the news for social services coming from the results of the survey carried out by the association is extremely gloomy. Members of the association warned last year of the danger that, despite ring-fenced money being made available for community care this April, the impact of Government policies towards local government expenditure as a whole would drive many councils—country as well as urban—to make cuts in other crucial areas of the social services budget. That seems to be what is taking place.
The great flaw in the report is that part of the calculation uses our old friend standard spending assessment. I shall not rehearse all the arguments about SSA because they were advanced in the debate last week. Even the Government seem to admit now, however, that SSA is not right. I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to review the system, which seems to imply that even he thinks that it is not perfect. The Government say that SSA is not a statement of need but merely a method of distributing a predetermined amount of money.
Gloucestershire county council, on which I serve, has carried out a detailed survey of existing residents in care who receive benefit. The director of social services, Deryk Mead, to whom I spoke yesterday and this morning, tells me that the survey shows that there is a shortfall of £1.4 million. I listened carefully to the Minister when he talked about rising standards. I would like to see rising standards, of course, but the financial arrangements seem to mean that local authorities will be obliged to try to force down fees. Many people believe that that will reduce standards and could lead to the financial collapse of some private care homes.
The proposed settlement does not reflect what has been happening in recent years. It seems that it allows for no increase in numbers. Nor does it allow for an increase in fees. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will tell the House how many people the Government estimate will enter care this year, bearing in mind the rapid increase in numbers over the past 10 years.
If local authorities have to find additional moneys for fees, there will be no funds to improve day care, respite care or home help. We have heard the views of the ADSS and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities about underfunding. I heard the Minister say that, if councils want to spend more on community care, they can draw on their own funds. Many local authorities, including Gloucestershire county council, wish to spend more on that form of care. That is why last night Gloucestershire's county councillors unanimously approved a budget—it was proposed by Conservative councillors—to exceed the capping limit by £10.3 million.
I ask the Minister to reflect on the figures that are set out in the report. I ask him and his right hon. Friends to ensure that when local authority representatives speak to the Ministers who are responsible for their expenditure after they have exceeded their capping limit, Ministers will respond to the needs of the local community and to the councillors who have listened to the people whom they represent. I ask them to allow local authorities to spend what is needed to provide proper and decent high-level services in those areas.
5.54 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: This is a rather exciting day. I strongly approve of the policy that has been presented to us. As it is set out—in theory—it is excellent. Everything will depend, of course, on how it works out in practice. We all know that. If those who are in need of help from social services are assessed on the basis of their needs and the needs of their carers, we are taking a huge step forward.
It took a long time to complete the sterile debates in which we engaged during the health service reforms. We spent much time arguing about whether resources were adequate. I declare now that resources will never be adequate. There is no possibility of meeting all the needs that it would be so easy to define.
I spent an extraordinarily uncomfortable but profitable morning today as a participant in the Kilroy programme. I feel like a new form of graffiti—"Kilroy, I was there." He had brought together a remarkable collection of people who were carers and some of those for whom they were caring. As I was the only representative of the governing party, it was predictable that any pretensions that I may have had in the past to be a supporter of carers in a wide variety of different ways vanished like snow off a dyke. I was instantly and continuously pilloried throughout the programme.
Nevertheless, the extraordinary courage, devotion and strength of purpose that carers of all ages and stages of life display in looking after others is remarkably clear. I feel that it is not within the scope of any Government to create at public expense the sort of total support system that is delivered for about 85 per cent. of people in receipt of care by individual carers. I feel, however, that they are entitled, and will increasingly expect and demand, the relatively minor support that makes it possible for them to continue. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say how much he valued the provision of respite care, to take but one example.
A recent report—it was the basis of the Kilroy programme this morning—makes it clear that the preference of many carers is that support should be based on their own homes. They feel that the people for whom they are caring should not be sent away. I am sure that there are occasions, however, when the client, as it were, wants to be sent away. I have examples in my extended family where people have been going for several years on what they regard as a holiday. That works well, but we need to take tremendous note of the fact that carers look for respite within their own homes. I hope that the imaginative provision of the new community care legislation which states that the needs of the carer must be taken into account will prove to be a spur to imaginative and creative provision.
I have a huge regard for the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). For a brief time only, before he was translated to higher things, he was chairman of the parliamentary panel for the personal social services, and his concern and devotion to the provision of social services is well known. However, I did not altogether recognise the scene that he painted, and in one respect in particular.
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the Government intend to provide financial stability for those who are already in care and that gradually, as local authorities make new care plans, the automatic, or
1152
virtually automatic, sending of large numbers of people into residential care will stop, as it has already begun to cease in Kent.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, although I expected something to follow on from them. Let me clarify my concern and that of the Labour party on the issue that he is addressing. The 85 per cent. requirement in respect of the independent sector will, because of the lack of independent alternatives to residential and nursing care, lead to people going into care, not on the basis of their assessed needs but because of the requirement to spend that money. If there are no domiciliary alternatives and their development is prevented, there is no choice but to continue placing people in care, often away from where they live.
Mr. Rowe: That is what I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, but it is nonsense. There is no reason why social services departments, through contracts with the independent sector, should not summon into being alternative provision. That is what is happening in my local authority.
My local authority is not typical because it has spent the past two years developing care and it is fair to say that it has been thinking about the development of community care for much longer than that. Much of the pre-thinking that went into the legislation was based on what was happening in Kent. One consequence is that it is busily engaged in inventing contracts of a sort which will summon into being different ways of delivering different kinds of care.
I take one example. I think that I am right in saying that Kent no longer has any long-term residential homes. They are now linked service centres which are used as a basis for a wide variety of provision including day and respite care. People go there for the management of their domicilliary services, and so on. Such a wide and imaginative variety of resources will grow, and so they should. That is the way forward.
It is true that at the moment Kent has some 835 homes providing 17,000 places with a budget of £268 million and employing 20,000 people. Many of them are shaking in their shoes because they see that the emergence of community care will put a number of them at risk, and so it should. But instead of sitting back and going out of business because they cannot think what to do, the more imaginative home owners are already beginning to create other ways of delivering services.
For example, homes are becoming resource centres for carers and people use them on a daily basis for the provision of specialist teams to work in the community, whether to carry out simple carpentry tasks, which is often one of the things that people living on their own need—
Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) was referring to the fact that, while there is nothing to stop the private sector developing domiciliary care—some have already developed what were loss leaders which have had to be closed because of the impact of the recession on residential care homes—many local authorities are having to cut their home care services to meet the Government's spending limits while having to maintain existing patterns of spend on the independent residential care sector for the next year.
Therefore, although there is no reason in theory why the private domiciliary sector should not grow and

1153
flourish, the Government have created specific obstacles to its development in the short term, while forcing many local authorities to cut their existing home care services. Domiciliary care is severely at risk, certainly in the short term.
Mr. Rowe: I understand that local authorities vary greatly in the way in which they run their affairs and in the demographic and other distributions with which they have to cope. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister said at the beginning, the amount of money in real terms being spent on social services has rocketed in recent years. In some cases, the turnover—that is hardly the right word—in residential homes is rapid. People may die fairly swiftly or have to move into nursing homes or into other forms of disposition. When that happens, it will be the end of that perverse incentive which Griffiths was so anxious to remove and we shall see a new generation of forms of care and support. Certainly that is what I hope to see.
An area that I believe to be of central significance to the satisfactory delivery of community care is the liaison between the health service and the social services. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) made an important contribution on that point which I wish to underline.
In that provision there are two elements, the first of which is general practice. It is fundamental that general practitioners should collaborate in every possible way with the social services. In Kent, the chances of that happening have been enormously improved by the development of a sophisticated computer package developed by the social services so that every care manager in Kent should have access to the database for his clients. What is more, a simplified version is being made available to every general practitioner in Kent so that they can summon up, using a carefully guarded confidential password, that part of the assessment and database which refers to their patients and to which they should have access.
Nothing ever works on machinery alone, but there is no doubt that equipment is enormously helpful. If that newly pioneered programme works as it is intended to work, it should enormously improve the liaison between the general practitioner and the social services manager. One of the most encouraging features of the NHS reforms has been the astonishing increase in the number of staff being deployed from doctors' surgeries. I do not have the figures for later than 1990, but they have gone up from 37,000 in 1980 to 78,000 in 1990. Many of those—
Mr. McCartney: Consultants and tax consultants.
Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, shouts, "Consultants and tax consultants." If he cares to look at the figures for nurses, for therapists and even, in a growing number of general practice surgeries, social workers, he will see that the general practice surgery is becoming a central point for the delivery of care based in the community.
I want not rivalry between services and GPs but collaboration on that basis. May I say to the Minister, in passing and in public, what I have said to him before in private: that when we can get away from the constriction of a one-year contract on which it is extraordinarily difficult to plan, we should develop free-standing consortia of therapists, whether they be physiotherapists, occupational or speech therapists. Such consortia would be able to deliver services to the four purchasers which have now
1154
come into the market: schools, fund-holding practices, the health service and the social services. If they do not create a strong free-standing organisation of their own, therapists are liable to find themselves at the bottom of everybody's expenditure queue. For a whole range of people in the community, it is very often the services of therapists which are the most cost-effective way of helping them.
The document makes no reference to volunteers, of course, but I believe passionately that we underestimate and under-use volunteers and the potential for them. It has to be remembered that one of the biggest single demographic changes in the country will result, in the next 10 years, in literally millions of people retiring from their principal occupations with 30 or more years of active life ahead of them. Someone who retires from his principal occupation between the ages of 55 and 60 will be active for another 30 years. What is he going to do? Unless those people are enabled and encouraged, in large numbers, to do things for other people, they will themselves become clients of the social services because they will be bored and will find themselves falling heir to a variety of different ills.
The Prime Minister says that we need to release the tremendous resources in our people; this is one area in which we need a serious, well-designed and effective way of organising volunteers. Volunteers are one of the best ways of monitoring the quality of services. Volunteers going in and out of homes, going in and out of individuals' homes, reading to people and doing their shopping, are as good a check on the way in which the statutory services are delivering community care as any other mechanism of which we can think. It is important that we should do that.
I say to the Minister that community care will inevitably require some residential care. That residential care, which has so often been the scene of hideous scandals and which the Warner report has identified as extraordinarily under-trained, requires a substantial improvement in training, recruitment, monitoring and promotion of residential staff. There has to be a much greater interchange between residential and nonresidential staff. There have to be ways for staff to be encouraged to move from one residential post to another so they do not get stale and dug into various Chinese or other practices.
In that fight, the national vocational qualification is a huge card to play. I am extremely pleased at the way in which forward-looking social services departments, like that of Kent, are making use of the national vocational qualification as a way of authenticating or accrediting the skills that many middle-aged people bring, perhaps from the experience of caring for their own people, to residential care. I hope that the Minister will give every possible boost to the expansion of that programme.
6.15 pm
Ms. Tessa Jowell: I join other hon. Members who have talked about the popularity of a policy of community care. It makes sense—and by and large it is what people want as they grow older or experience disability—to live at home and for those friends and relatives who provide most of our community care to be properly supported in the job that they do in caring for them. However, users of community care services and their carers also emphasise other aspects of community care beyond just social care and health services.

1155
They stress the importance of being properly housed. Too often, community care is seen only in terms of what the social services department or voluntary social care organisations can provide. The fact that a person has a home is taken for granted, yet housing is an integral part of proper community care. So, too, is an adequate income. Given that so many disabled people rely on social security benefits as their major source of income, proper information about their entitlement to benefits and maximising the take-up of benefits to which they are entitled is critical. So, too, is the issue of transport and mobility. Being able to get around and to make choices about what one does each day depends on being physically able to leave home. That is what community care means, as described by disabled people and their carers.
In considering community care policy and its funding, it is also worth considering what makes good community care for disabled people and their carers. Often, it is not the volume of service, or who provides it. What matters is that the service is delivered with certainty, is flexible and takes account of the vast array of changing and different needs, that it is reliable and that people come when they say they will come.
Mr. Rowe: The hon. Lady is making a very powerful point, with which I wholly agree. Will she recall that there is at present before the House the Disabled Persons (Services) Bill, the purpose of which is to enable those who are particularly severely disabled but who wish to hire and fire some of their own staff to be able to have the cash to do that, rather than to have to get staff through some third party such as a local authority?
Ms. Jowell: Certainly disabled people and the organisations representing them will welcome the opportunity to have the cash to buy the care and support that they need. When I visited the centre for independent living in Boston some years ago, I was struck by the different approach to disability. That centre ran what was, essentially, a consultancy on the employment and management of teams of staff who supported disabled people, who then determined how the staff could be deployed so that they could go about their daily business in the way that they chose. That really represents freedom and freedom of choice for disabled people. The principles addressed by the hon. Gentleman are absolutely right and will be welcomed by disabled people.
This is also, perhaps, the moment at which to emphasise the great distress and anger among disabled people at the Government's decision to wind up the independent living fund, and their failure so far to provide any adequate explanation of how the alternative arrangements will be made. The independent living fund was probably the most popular benefit available to disabled people, precisely because it offered, on the basis of assessment, a degree of choice as to the nature of the care that people received and the support that they purchased for themselves, so that they could make their own choices about how they lived in their community.
It is very much to the Government's shame that they have chosen to wind up the fund in the context of the introduction of legislation which is about choice for disabled people, and it flies in the face of the choices which disabled people would themselves make. If disabled people
1156
were asked whether they wanted retention of the independent living fund or replacement along the lines that the Government propose, I guarantee that they would give the fund an overwhelming vote of confidence.
Returning briefly to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, of course we want to see an end to the loophole whereby well-intentioned local authorities have cash available to disabled people but have had to use a voluntary organisation or a third party as a conduit.
The essential tests against which we should be judging the provisions before the House today are that services are reliable—that the promised bus actually arrives—and that people have the opportunity to use services of high quality which they do not feel demean them as users. It is to our eternal shame as a country that so many disabled people and elderly people are being cared for in residential and other settings which none of us would choose for our families and which none of us who manage the services would choose. They are services for people who are unable to exercise any choice. If the implementation of this policy achieves the eradication of any stigma associated with using community care services, it will be a great tribute to those throughout the country who have worked to make the policy succeed. That is the important test.
It is extraordinarily difficult to achieve the complex objectives of the policy in practice. Described simply as the desirability of looking after elderly people in their own homes, providing support to carers, and responding to need rather than just delivering services, it all sounds incredibly straightforward. However, the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and other hon. Members have sat with me on the Select Committee during recent deliberations, and we have heard from local authority associations, regional health authorities and the social services inspectorate about the complexity of turning local authorities inside out and getting them to change course from being providers of services to developing the capacity to respond to people's needs.
I well remember a recent conversation with an elderly lady who was being assessed for community care services and whose needs were therefore being judged. She said, "I know that I am coping if my windows are clean." It is being able to meet sensitively that kind of very personal test of competence which is so terribly important to so many elderly people. The capacity to do that is one proof of how far local authorities can shift from being Henry Ford-like providers of services—on any terms so long as it is meals on wheels or a bit of residential care—to addressing the complex task of meeting the multiplicity of individual needs, which may include a preference for having clean windows.
Behind the general consensus on the desirability of community care, there are enormous tensions and the fault lines are beginning to open. It is around the opening of these fault lines that the consensus which saw this policy, which is now being implemented, through the last Session of Parliament is breaking down. It is very hard to reconcile the Government's protestations about the importance of choice and their determination to meet people's needs rather than simply deliver services with the increasing debate about the adequacy of the money being made available, and the glaring discrepancies which have been revealed between the estimates of the local authority associations representing both political persuasions and the calculations made by the Government.

1157
We must ensure not necessarily that agreement is reached at this stage on the precise figures, but that the Government's mind and, perhaps more importantly, their cheque book remains open, so that they can come to the rescue not just of local authorities, but of those elderly people who may be caught towards the end of this financial year with a local authority which cannot buy any more residential care for them, regardless of their need. We want an assurance from the Minister today that the Government's mind is open and that they will accept the evidence of underfunding as the first, very tricky year of implementation proceeds.
The second area of great concern, to which I have already referred briefly, is that of the loss of the independent living fund. Again, we look forward to hearing from the Minister just how the promise of choice is reconciled with the decision to withdraw a fund which for so many disabled people has represented what might be the only, rather limited, opportunity to exercise choice.
We must also address the real risk that an imperfect and inadequate system, led by social security, within which people's entitlement was clear, is being replaced by a system which relies very heavily on discretion and in relation to which individual service users and carers will have no redress and no right of appeal. I am terribly concerned that elderly and disabled people throughout the country may become prey to the discretionary judgments of social workers rather than having an explicit statement of their entitlement.
We also have to take account of the other pressures that local authorities are facing and which will impact on their ability to deliver properly what this policy promises. The Association of Directors of Social Services has provided compelling evidence of the cuts in social services which are likely to be implemented as a result of the requirement to meet Government spending targets over the next year. We know that the consequences of cuts in those services will be a betrayal of the promise to carers of improved and increased care and support. Ultimately, the one source of support that is always there is the carer—the friend or relative who provides most of the care and support for a disabled person.
On the basis of what we have heard and seen, local authorities are taking on the new lead responsibility for community care with great enthusiasm. In so doing, we and they want to ensure that they are not being set up to fail. There are grave risks of fragmentation in their critical lead role. As Sir Roy Griffiths rightly said in his report some years ago, it is through that lead role that the fragmentation which has so bedevilled the proper and seamless development of community care in the past will end.
Fragmentation remains a danger in two ways. The first is the lack of definition between social and health care to which other hon. Members have referred. It is still possible that an elderly person can leave hospital and, on the grounds of his continuing need for nursing care, be referred directly to a nursing home with which the health authority has a contract. That person will receive the nursing care free of charge. However, another elderly person who is placed in the same nursing home through the local authority assessment route may be required to top up or make a personal contribution to the cost of his care because his social rather than nursing needs were deemed to be paramount. Studies which have tried to establish the distinction between nursing care need and
1158
social care need have proved what a difficult boundary that is, but it is terribly important that it does not become a source of fragmentation and inequity in the new system.
The second risk is that general practitioners will not be sufficiently co-operative with the lead role of local authorities and, especially, that after 1 April this year GP fund holders may use their enhanced ability to purchase community health services on behalf of their patients so as to circumvent the local authority assessment procedure. Even before 1 April, we must anticipate some of the problems which may arise and which could defeat the policy. We must be assured of the Government's open-mindedness and their willingness to take action to avoid fragmentation.
As I represent the constituency of Dulwich in London, I wish to deal specifically with some of the problems facing London. A major problem was identified in the mid-year population estimates published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. It showed a substantial loss of population in London, especially among elderly people aged 85 and over. My borough of Southwark shows a staggering loss of 32 per cent. in its population of those elderly people. Clearly, that has severe knock-on consequences for the grant that Southwark will receive.
At a recent meeting which I, the hon. Member for Chislehurst and the London local authority associations attended, the Minister accepted that such a loss of population could not be accounted for merely by the fact that elderly people from London boroughs who need residential care have to be referred to private homes on the Essex or south coast. He said that we had to look for other reasons. We are grateful to the Minister for the undertakings that he made in that respect.
I hope that the Minister will also keep an open mind about the inequity of the distribution formula and its impact on London authorities. My own authority of Southwark stands to lose about £800,000 as a result of that formula.
Those problems must be dealt with as a matter of urgency. If not, the old lady from Dulwich to whom ray hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) referred will not have the choice of living in her own home in my constituency but will surely be shipped off to the Essex coast or the south coast, perhaps against her will. She will have to go because she has no choice and it is the only place where the residential care is provided. We want the Government to deal with those problems with an open mind as the policy unfolds, so that the good principles behind the policy will be safeguarded in practice.
6.36 pm
Mr. David Congdon: This has been an interesting debate on an important subject. Most hon. Members are fully committed to care in the community and what it involves, although, as the date of implementation comes closer, some concerns are inevitably raised.
However, community care is nothing new. It has been practised by many social services departments for many years. I do not believe that there will be a dramatic change on 1 April except in the critical aspect of the assessment process to which the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) referred.
I agree with the hon. Lady about care in the community and the sensitivity with which services should be delivered.

1159
In some ways, residential care is very easy to provide: it is usually provided in one building and, regrettably, people can be put into residential homes and forgotten because one knows that, broadly speaking, they will be cared for reasonably well.
However, under care in the community there is a much greater risk of services not being delivered sensitively and, certainly, not always being delivered at the right time, especially when a large number of agencies are involved. It will be a challenge for all the agencies to ensure that they deliver care in the way that it needs to be delivered to the people who need it, when they need it.
Reference has been made to the residents of Dulwich, a constituency that I have the privilege of knowing very well. As some hon. Members will know, in a former incarnation I was chairman of the Young Conservatives in Dulwich. I suspect that, far from being shipped off to the south coast, many elderly residents of Dulwich come to the many excellent independent homes in the borough of Croydon. Croydon has many such homes, which is why it is the only London borough that appears to benefit from the distribution of grant that we are debating.
I deal now with the independent sector in general. I thought that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) was rather unfair when he referred to the growth in the private sector as a free market experiment. We should not forget that many elderly people up and down the country have received excellent care as a result of the growth in the independent sector. We are very well aware of the fact that many of those people could have benefited from care in the community. Equally, however, there is a strong case for the independent sector.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Hon. Members who are present have heard me describe cases involving constituents who have ended up in private institutional care many miles from my constituency, at a cost to the state twice as high as would have been the cost of supplying the services needed to enable those people to remain at home. That is my objection to what the Government have done to encourage the explosive expansion of private sector care.
Mr. Congdon: I understand and appreciate that objection. The important point that I am making is that people with money can afford to buy residential care, wherever they want it, without any assessment, whereas people without money cannot afford to do so. The provision of income support has enabled the latter to secure residential care. However, there is a downside. If community care had been properly provided by the social services departments to which the hon. Member for Wakefield referred, people could have benefited from it. I readily concede that point. In fact, many social services departments have properly expanded their services to meet that very demand.
Equally, however, many local authorities have used their planning powers responsibly and sensibly to ensure that obstacles are not placed in the path of those wishing to set up independent homes. I make that point as someone from a borough which has an enormous number of independent homes and which came in for much criticism for giving planning permission for them. But the
1160
result is that many residents of my borough have been able to secure the required residential provision within their localities.
I take issue with the remark of the hon. Member for Wakefield that community care has become a byword for neglect. I certainly concede that in some areas there has been a shortfall in the provision of services for the mentally ill. In general, however, it is something of a disservice to those involved in community care to use such terms.
In this context, we must bear in mind the enormous growth in funding for health and personal social services. I was intrigued by the comment of the hon. Member for Wakefield about funds going back to the Exchequer. If funds have gone back to the Exchequer, I do not know where they have ended up. Over the past 13 years, there has been a growth of 60 per cent., in real terms, in NHS expenditure and an increase of two thirds in real terms in social services expenditure. I do not think that there has been a bonanza in this respect.
I understand the concern about the ability of social services departments to cope, given the amounts of money being allocated to them. Reference has been made to the fact that many social services departments are saying that, following the rate support grant settlement, they will have to cut their budgets in the forthcoming year. That point was made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). I regard that argument as a little odd. Everyone says that community care is very important. Certainly, those involved in local government say so. However, when it comes to the crunch, some authorities do not seem to be prepared to put their money where their mouths are. They should look at all their services and decide their priorities.
I am pleased to say that the council of which I was a member for 16 years was able continually to put growth money into social services. In the year beginning 1 April 1993, excluding the money for care in the community, there will be an extra £500,000 for the social services budget. If local authorities regard community care as a priority, they should do likewise in respect of their social services budget and should look to other services with a view to cutting out waste. Thus they could protect a valuable personal social service.
There are two issues before us: the scale of the funds being made available by the Government and their distribution. It is always possible to argue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) did, that there will never be sufficient funds to meet all needs. However, we have a responsibility continually to put extra resources into health and social services. That has indeed been done.
I had a particular interest in the discussion in the Select Committee on Health on the question of the appropriate level of funds to be allocated to social services. In broad terms, I was satisfied that the level and the basis of the calculation were reasonable. One can always argue for more, but one is dealing with a projection of the number of people who, under the previous rules, would present themselves as being in need of, and would secure, care in residential homes, and of what will happen after 1 April. That is an important point.
Also important is the fact that the Department of Health and its Ministers must review at the strategic level the numbers being provided for in the coming year, to determine whether the amount of money transferred is at the right level for future years. It seems to me that that

1161
must be done. No one can guarantee that the right amount of money is being transferred. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
An equally important issue is that of distribution. It is not surprising that a fair number of local authorities are protesting about the amount of money that they are receiving. In fact, I should have been very surprised if they had not done so. I should probably have wondered whether the Government. in their allocations, had been too generous.
It is difficult to make a fair allocation. I fully understand the arguments about basing allocation on standard spending assessments. I equally understand the argument about the need to avoid decimating the existing independent sector and pattern of provision. It is not for any ideological reason, for the purpose of protecting the private sector, that I say so; it is because many of those homes are providing good care.
At a time of great change—and there will indeed be great change over the next few years—it is important to avoid being too disruptive on day one. We do not know in detail how what is being introduced will work in practice. That is why I am very much in favour of an evolutionary approach. I might draw a comparison with the NHS reforms, in which case, although the purchasers enter into contracts with providers, the contracts, in general, have been in a steady state in year one.
That approach is rightly being adopted, in broad terms, in the case of care in the community. I say so with some caution, as we all wish to see resources switched, over a period, from residential care to community care. I realise how difficult it is to achieve that. Even when one sets out with such an aim, one has to be very careful to ensure that, over a period, resources are switched.
On allocations, there is concern that some London boroughs are losing—many would argue that that is the case. However, it is important to bear in mind the fact that the split between SSAs and income support is being treated in such a way as to ensure that an increasing proportion of the money allocated will be based on SSAs. That is an important point.
If we take the other money in the revenue support grant, these proposals should be seen in the context of representing an increase of 15 per cent. in SSAs for social services for local authorities. That is a significant increase. I hope that that will give local authorities the opportunity to get to grips with the job and successfully implement community care.
It is ironic that for many years local authorities have criticised the Government for taking responsibilities from them. Much play has been made of that. Local authorities put in a very strong bid to be given responsibility for care in the community. Many did not think that the Government would have the courage to give them that responsibility. The Government have had the courage to do so, and it is now up to the local authorities to get on with the job and do the best they can to implement the community care proposals sensibly and sensitively. Over the next year they should have a lively dialogue with Government about reviewing the amounts of money if they believe they have not got the necessary funding to implement their policies. At least they should get on with implementing the proposals for the benefit of the people in their communities.
6.50 pm
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate because it concerns one of the most important issues facing the country. The timing is good, because it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon). It means that at least the north of Croydon has been well represented in the debate. I thank you for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My colleague talked about Croydon. I too should like to start my speech by talking about Croydon, but rather differently. In my judgment, formed from talking to many people in Croydon, the dawn of the new community care age is opening darkly. The social services authority, Croydon council, is already making cuts in preparation for the new regime.
Yesterday I visited Bensham lodge, an old people's home in my constituency, which is facing the axe. Another home in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) is also facing the axe. Why? I remember experts telling us that old people's homes were not institutions but the homes of the old people; we were told that they were places where the old people lived and that the residents should be treated like other people who were living in their own homes.
What did Croydon council do? The council marched in one day and said to the residents, many of whom are frail, "The home will be closed. Here is the timetable." Many people were distressed. To that they were tearful is an understatement. The carers and relatives were concerned. They telephoned and asked me to go to the home to find out what was happening.
I visited the home yesterday and I was appalled. I tried not to raise the issue of closure with the old people because I knew how upset they were. I wanted to find out about the atmosphere, but the old folk themselves said to me, "Look at what is going on. The home is going to close, is it not? Why do we have to go?" It is a splendid home in very good grounds in the heart of Croydon and it is much loved by the residents and their relatives.
Now the council has had to think again briefly because properly a court elsewhere has said recently that councils cannot treat people in that way. The court decided that the councils could not close homes without consultation. Croydon council is now going through a consultation process. Cynically, people on the committee are saying that it is a process which they have to go through because the court has said so. As I understand it, it is not a proper process of consultation whereby old people will be listened to.
If there was proper consultation, there might be a change of heart and the home might be safeguarded. Instead, I fear that the residents will be shunted out to the private sector, not the independent sector. The provision of accommodation will be put out to tender and people who have lived in the same home as friends for many years will be split up. I take this public opportunity to urge the director of social services in Croydon and the chairman of the social services committee to visit the home, as I did, not to talk but to listen to what the old people in Bensham lodge have to say.
The fact that Crossfields, an excellent sheltered workshop in Croydon, for people with disabilities also faces the axe is another cause for concern. That workshop showed how employment can be a key factor in

1163
community care. The people were doing good work making windows and other things. Because of the recession, and because Croydon council wishes to withdraw a grant, the workshop faces closure. The people may be offered a day centre, but they do not want that. They want to work, like the rest of us: it gives some meaning to their lives. Work is an important aspect of community care for those with learning difficulties or severe mental handicap.
Because of the proposed closure of the old people's home and the sheltered workshop, I am not as confident as the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East about the prospects for community care in our borough.
The trends are clear, and I think we all agree on them. We see a reduction in public sector residential provision for old people. That is happening in the national health service and the public sector too. By contrast, there is a huge increase in the private sector. When he kindly let me intervene in his speech earlier, the Minister quarrelled with me and said that the independent sector was not the private sector but included the voluntary sector as well. I conceded that in my intervention, but I said that it was essentially the private sector.
Since the Minister finished his speech, I have looked at the figures to see what has happened to residential places in the public sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector between 1980 and 1990. I quote the data from Laing and Buisson, consultants of whom the Minister will know. That shows that, between 1980 and 1990, the local authority residential sector has declined by 3 per cent.; the voluntary sector has declined, not increased, by 7 per cent.; only the private sector has increased, by 416 per cent., if my calculator has not let me down; the private nursing home sector has increased by 457 per cent. Therefore, the growth in the so-called independent sector has been in the private, commercial sector, so let us have no nonsense on that score.
I do not know about the domiciliary sector in Croydon, but if the Minister thinks that there is a huge difference which makes his statement valid, no doubt he will remind me of that in his reply to the debate. I am talking about the private commercial sector, some of it good, some of it excellent, some of it shabby and awful where none of us would want to live or want our elders to live.
I focus briefly on an issue not referred to much on the Government Benches—the carers. The distortion of the community care policy into a residential care policy is extraordinary. The whole philosophy of community care was, strangely enough, about community care and not residential care. Because of the expenditure fix and the ideological concern of Government, regardless of need, to boost the private commercial, for-profit sector, we are now talking about residential care.
Sadly, when we should be talking about community care and the needs of carers, we are discussing the finances of residential care. We are doing it narrowly. We are not talking about employment, housing and the other dimensions of community care. What should have been a wide debate has become remarkably narrow. I think I know why the Government do not talk about carers any more. Of course, in speeches, they pat them on the back and say how wonderful and important they are, but we do
1164
not hear so much now about a brave new era after 1 April for the carer and those being cared for genuinely in the community. I wonder why.
I am struck by the evidence from the new Office of Population Censuses and Surveys general household survey. In 1990, it updated a survey of carers first done in 1985. The data were published a few months ago. The information has not received the attention is deserved. It showed that 15 per cent. of the people are carers, looking after elderly relatives or people with handicaps or disabilities; 13 per cent. of men and 17 per cent. of women are carers. That adds up to a huge army of carers, 6.8 million—an army of health and social service carers far greater than we find in social services departments of the formal national health service. It is the most important army, but the forgotten army of the welfare state. Some are under enormous burdens; one in 10 provide care for 50 hours or more a week. Without that enormous exertion of care, community care would totally collapse.
A problem with the House is that we are unrepresentative. Given the numbers of carers in the community, we would, if we were truly representative, number among us about 90 carers. I am sure that there are some who are doing excellent work, but if 90 Members were carers our debates would contain a greater sense of experience, expertise and passion. That would certainly be so if we were more representative in terms of gender and therefore in terms of care.
Imagine the difference if 90 Members were carers. The President of the Board of Trade, if a carer, would have to phone the Prime Minister and say, "I regret that I cannot close down the coal mines today because an elderly relative needs my care. I must take her to hospital. The home help has not turned up, so I cannot come to work today. Please look after the mines until I return." The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food might have to phone to say that he could not attend an official lunch or dinner. Or the Secretary of State for Transport would have to phone the office to say, " I regret that I cannot come in this week because there is a crisis of care in my family. I fear that I cannot play with my railway trains this week."
If a representative number of hon. Members were carers, the whole debate would be changed. I am not being frivolous. I give those examples to show how serious I am. If we had a better understanding of what is going on, we would have genuine community care in Britain, especially if more men and politicians were involved in caring.
The general household survey review of carers for 1990 makes interesting reading, especially when the figures are compared with the situation in 1985. For example, during those five years, there was a greater recognition by Ministers of the needs of carers. That recognition manifested itself in speeches and rhetoric, although it did not appear in reality and resources.
Carers were asked, in effect, "How often does the person for whom you are caring receive regular visits from the health and social services—the doctor, district nurse, home help, social worker and so on?" In 1985, 22 per cent. of those being cared for by carers had a regular visit from the doctor. By 1990, the number had declined to 16 per cent. For district nurses, the position was steady—only 15 per cent. received regular visits from a district nurse in both 1985 and 1990. For health visitors, there was a slight decline, from 6 to 4 per cent.
Ministers may say that community care, domiciliary care and support for carers is moving in the right direction,

1165
but they should accept that, while my hon. Friends and I say that that is nonsense and Conservative Members say it is true, the facts do not support their claim. I appreciate that in this place some people do not like the facts to get in the way of a good argument, but in this matter the facts speak more loudly than our speeches, and the facts show that we were providing less care for carers at the end of the 1980s than we were five years previously. In other words, all the talk about supporting carers is only talk. It is not happening in reality because we are providing less care.
If the Minister has evidence to prove that what I say is wrong, I shall be delighted to listen to him. I fear that I am right. Indeed, my fear about our neglect for the carer goes further. Because we are now emphasising residential care, hard-pressed social service authorities will have to use the domiciliary care that is available to them for those in the most acute need. Those authorities will say, "If you have a carer, you are not in acute need, so we will not provide more support for you and your carer." That will result in even more neglect of the carer.
When I spoke on the subject of community care shortly after coming to this place, I noted how often, in the sphere of child care or community care, a case of abuse or a tragedy had to occur to arouse public and parliamentary concern and, thank goodness, sometimes governmental concern. I asked then whether we had to continue along that road for ever, with a tragedy having to happen before action was taken.
Some months later, we began to take mental illness seriously, but only after an unfortunate citizen with schizophrenia jumped into a lion's den. What a sad commentary on society that was. It was also a sad commentary on the Government, because only after that incident did they start to bustle. I can imagine the meetings that took place behind closed doors as Ministers thought about the statements they would make. Ministers should walk around Westminster, go into the underground station or stroll up Victoria street and see what is happening. Why did somebody have to jump into a lion's den before action was taken?
There is already documentary evidence—there have been some excellent television programmes on the subject—to show that there is a danger that, out of frustration, after caring day after day, year after year, carers may sometimes hit out at those for whom they are caring. We must understand that situation. I appeal to the Government not to wait for tragedies and cases of abuse to occur in the sphere of true community care affecting the overstressed carer before a Minister appears before us and says, "I did not know it was happening. It is remarkable. I am setting up a committee of inquiry and we intend to take action."
I hope that, when replying to the debate, the Minister will talk about community care and not just about residential care. I urge him to spell out not just his ambitions for the carer but the reality of what is being provided. If he thinks that the evidence I have given about a lack of support for carers is wrong, I hope that he will say enough to prove me wrong. Let us hear about community care in this debate. After all, it is meant to be on the subject of community care.
7.5 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: This has been an excellent debate, with considered and constructive contributions from hon. Members in all parts of the House. It has reflected, particularly for hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), a long-term commitment to community care. I congratulate him on taking the opportunity to plunge a dagger between the Under-Secretary's shoulderblades in relation to the Minister's advocacy and assessment procedures.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks have also saved me having to make about half the speech that I had intended to make, because much of what he said represents Labour party policy. I invite him to sit on these Benches when we next debate the subject: that particularly applies to his remarks about advocacy and assessment.
The Minister introduced the debate in a rather blasé fashion. He appeared self-congratulatory as he set out his view of community care. He set himself up as a sort of Father Christmas, when in reality he is a bit of a Shylock. It is clear from the way in which the funding regimes have been constructed that a pound of flesh has been removed from virtually every social services sector. A dagger has been plunged into the heart of the concept of community care and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wickes) said, we are left with institutional and residential care as the way in which the Government are driving forward the concept of the market provision of care in the community.
The Minister also abdicated responsibility for the mental health services. Indeed, he neglected to refer to the subject, apart from a brief comment in answer to an intervention. He failed to identify any ring-fencing mechanism for resources for mental health services. He rejected the idea of the provision of financial regimes to achieve flexibility in providing employment projects, advocacy and assessment, permanent housing, non-clinical crisis houses and resources for residential care in appropriate settings, along with respite and crisis care for those with mental illnesses or learning disabilities.
It is tragic that, in a debate such as this, the Government should have abdicated responsibility in many other spheres. For example, they look to the Department of the Environment to set financial criteria, with the result that, from 1 April, about 80 per cent. of social services departments will cut their core services, even though those services are vital to assessing the level of facilities in the community, the standard of those facilities, and access to them by those with a mental illness or mental disability.
The Minister behaved disgracefully as he skated over the need to accept responsibility for the preparation of care strategies for offering choice and quality to clients and carers. He offered no protection for failed contractual arrangements, for protection for clients' rights and for standards of care in bankruptcy situations. He knows that such situations will arise because, in the privacy of discussions in the Department with various organisations, he has admitted to expecting a failure rate of between 30 and 40 per cent. in the next financial year in the private care sector.
That represents a phenomenal number of businesses in that sector likely to go out of business. Even so, only weeks before the introduction of community care, we do not know what protection arrangements have been made when contractual arrangements are broken. Local authorities

1167
will be left with the responsibility of clearing up the mess when, for various reasons, homes are unable to continue trading. Nor did the Minister show any sense of the need for a mental health service with a strategy, objectives, minimum requirements and some clarity of purpose to be developed.
I believe that the Minister should pay attention to six basic requirements for mental health services in connection with community care. They must be effective and challenging, created and fashioned by the experience of people involved in the system. They must be non-paternalistic and user-led, enabling and assessing choices and providing a real right of advocacy on behalf of client groups. They must be locally based and accountable and linked to a core of service providers, involving appropriate housing and primary care resources. Strategies must allow the full potential of people with a mental illness of disability to be realised. They must be well resourced and highly motivated and staff must be trained to the highest possible level.
That all requires resources at local authority level, yet, when the Government announced a £34 million fund for fighting mental illness last November, they operated a lock and key principle. Everybody welcomed the statement that additional resources were to be provided for mental illness services—but when we read the small print we realised that there were two major flaws in the proposed expenditure. First, local authorities would have to match payments on the grants pound for pound, at a time when the Department of the Environment is forcing local authorities to make real cuts in their budgets for social services and housing, and across the whole care spectrum. Authorities are also having to make real cuts in capital expenditure, as Environment Ministers told us in the debate on the revenue support grant settlement last week.
Furthermore, only 70 per cent. of the project funds will come from the Government; the remaining 30 per cent. will have to be met from local authorities' own resources. That was a simple and devious financial device which will mean that many local authorities will find it impossible to take up the resources and develop the strategies and objectives that I have outlined. It means that, after 1 April, there will be no real opportunity to develop core services for people with a mental illness.
It is not only Labour and Liberal party members in local government who complain about the way in which the Government have skewed the financial settlement towards the private sector, thus locking out choices and opportunities for other methods of community care. All those involved in community care who advocate on behalf of people suffering from a mental illness have expressed extreme concern because the transitional grant will not be spent on mental health services and because distribution and access to the grant will be arranged so that resources will be insufficient to provide the quality of care demanded in the White Paper.
There will be disarray in decision-making between what the Department of Health says will be the resource levels for local authorities and the reality. There will be a gap between the assessment and the requirement that local authorities provide services for individuals and collections of individuals suffering from a mental illness. There is a real conflict between assessment and advocacy.
1168
There is plain dishonesty when the Department of Health tells local authorities that they must give the client an open and fair assessment that clearly shows his or her needs, and that the client must have an opportunity to advocate for himself or herself—or that others should have the opportunity to do so on their behalf—while in the background the same Department sends local authorities a notorious circular saying that that might not be quite the way in which they should proceed and that they should not provide the client or the advocate with the full assessment arrangements or allow clients access to information in their computer data banks which could determine whether the assessment was appropriate and whether the level of needs revealed by the assessment was to be met.
That is disgraceful. The Government are putting clients, professionals and carers into potential conflict. People should be working together in the community, yet the Government are introducing mistrust of the assessment procedures from the outset. That mistrust will provide opportunities for legal challenges and resources will be spent in the courts instead of delivering professional services and access to those services.
The circular is a cowardly attack by the Government on those least able to defend themselves. The Government have hidden behind the responsibility that they have given to councillors and staff, hoping that, when legal challenges are made, the blame will be pushed on to local authorities rather than on to the circular. At the last minute of the debate, they have introduced confusion, leaving local authorities unable to assess at this stage whether to follow the circular or the original Government advice.
Things are even worse than that. Many local authorities are already involved in assessment procedures and have had advice from their district auditors. For example, in Gloucestershire the district auditor has already met members and officers of the county council and issued the authority with written guidance on assessment. A letter describing the meeting says:
"When we met the District Auditor she was very explicit about her advice that Members should make decisions and not leave it to officers and … that we should be open to and honest about the assessment of need."
The district auditor has submitted a letter to the authority setting out the requirements. What are the councillors and officers to do now? Do they follow the written advice of the district auditor? Do they follow the circular? Do they leave it to the courts? Or do they leave it to the Under-Secretary of State for Health?
The position is intolerable. Only a few weeks before taking up their community care responsibilities, local authorities have been given one lot of advice by the district auditor and two different sets of advice by the Department of Health. The Minister must sort that out quickly and assist local authorities or provide them with the management letter sent by the district auditor to Gloucester county councillors.
Will the Minister give us some insight about contingency funds in the event of contractual obligations not being undertaken? In the transfer of resources from local authorities for the provision of individual care packages, it is vital that, when those packages cannot be delivered, there is financial provision for alternative facilities of at least the same quality, and in the same area, within days or hours of the breakdown of the contractual arrangements.

1169
If a care home goes bankrupt, we cannot have local authorities scrabbling round at the last moment trying to find alternative placements for the elderly confused—people who, by the very fact that they have been committed to such institutions, must be frail and must suffer from a mental illness or from mental confusion. That cannot be countenanced in any circumstances. The Government should say now what contingency funds will be available if contractual arrangements are broken, as happens when a care home goes into liquidation. If they are not prepared to tell us now, they should prepare a circular at an early stage.
The Minister should also tell us the position on discharge plans. The Government made great play of discharge plans and talked of the need for discussions between local authorities, health authorities and trusts, but there should now be public honesty about the nature of the plans. Discharge plans should be public documents, so that not only the local authority and those involved in the delivery of the service, but the client groups and the clients themselves have access to the plans and information about them. Then they would know from the outset whether their interests were being met by the discharge plans and whether the assessments concerned allowed them the opportunity to object or to appeal.
The plans should not be excluded from the client's right to knowledge—both as an individual and because plans would be public documents. The community in the area concerned would know what the discharge plan was and what effect it would have. Perhaps the Minister can explain the effect of section 43 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act which deals with interventions.
Mr. Yeo: I shall not have enough time.
Mr. McCartney: The Minister says that he shall not have enough time, but he had plenty of time earlier. I hope that he is not making excuses, as we are all limited by time. He has had months to come to the House and has waited until there were only weeks to go before the implementation of his proposals to sneak in a three-hour debate on a Thursday night, whereas the House should have been allowed proper consideration of them. He should not object to Opposition Members asking for information. If he does not have time, perhaps he can give a commitment to offer me and my colleagues at the earliest opportunity a meeting at the Department or a debate in Government time about the consequences or the proposals.
Finally, perhaps the Minister can explain why yesterday the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security could give no commitment to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments on which groups would be able to claim from their local authorities a top-up on income support from 1 April. It seems incredible that the Minister did not know the consequences of the proposals. There appears to be a bit of a shambles between his Department and the Department of Social Security. Will he state clearly, within seven days if possible, the categories affected, so that local authorities, client groups and those who advocate them, can reach reasonable conclusions on the level and quality of care in the community for those who require services under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
7.21 pm
Mr. Yeo: We have had a most useful debate, characterised by the high quality of the speeches of hon. Members who have spoken often with professional or local government expertise. I am sorry that as the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has used 16 of the available 26 minutes, it may not be possible for me to respond as fully as I would wish to all the points that have been raised, but I shall do my best in the time available.
I am glad to see the return to the Chamber of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) whose attendance during the debate has been somewhat spasmodic. I advise her in good faith that, if she wishes her contributions to be taken seriously, it helps if she attends the bulk of the debate—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has just walked in during the past minute or two and is not aware of the fact that the hon. Lady was not even here when the debate started.
Several hon. Members referred to cuts. We are talking about a policy which has experienced a two-thirds real increase in expenditure since 1979. The standard spending assessments for personal social services have risen by more than one fifth in real terms in the past three years. The increase in standard spending assessments for this particular local government function has been higher than for any other except the police. If one includes the special grant that we are now about to approve, the resources available for personal social services in 1993–94 are more than one third higher in real terms than they were only three years ago.
The record of commitment that the Government have shown in allocating resources seems to be unmatched. The transfer money from the Department of Social Security was calculated on the basis of an assumption that income support limits would rise by 4.25 per cent. In fact, they have risen by 3.6 per cent., so even the transfer money has been inflated by assumptions which were calculated to be as generous as possible to the authorities receiving them.
The president of the Association of Directors of Social Services said after the announcement last October:
"In the context of the present economic climate",
my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health
"has done well to get this money and to give us specific funds for the second and third year of implementation".
I began with some sympathy for the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), as he had a difficult task this afternoon. He had to try to find grounds on which to attack or criticise the policy or its implementation. I am only sorry that in doing so he seems to have turned to his sponsors, the National Union of Public Employees, for advice. That is the only explanation that I can think of for his hostility to the independent sector.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Yeo: I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Makerfield has taken up so much time, so I will not give way. The hon. Member for Wakefield has had a good chance to speak today.
The statutory direction on choice that we have issued, and which binds local authorities to recognise the preferences of individuals in terms of where they go to receive residential care, does not seem remotely consistent with the hon. Gentleman's allegation that the policy is provider-led. It is clearly user-led. What did seem to be provider-led was the hon. Gentleman's assertion that

1171
choice for local authorities on how to treat drug and alcohol abusers was somehow constrained by the decision not to ring fence funds for that purpose.
Ring fencing would restrict the freedom of local authorities. It would perpetuate exactly the emphasis on residential provision for that group that the hon. Gentleman quite rightly is keen to see ended for other groups. Nothing whatever prevents local authorities from purchasing the services that are needed.
The hon. Member for Wakefield, in a moment which must have been intended as humorous, suggested that we should wait for independent sector provision to emerge before imposing our 85 per cent. condition—[Interruption.] If he consults Hansard he will find it. I am not quite sure how long we would have to wait in the London boroughs of Lambeth and Hackney for such independent sector provision. I wonder whether independent sector providers would even be able to talk to such authorities if we had not required them to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) paid tribute, for which I am grateful, to the community care support force. Its future is under consideration and it certainly will not continue in its existing form. There will, of course, be other monitoring of the policy after April through the regional health authorities and the social services inspectorate. My hon. Friend referred to the lateness of the figures, but in terms of individual authorities they are very little changed since the publication at the end of November of the split by function of next year's revenue support grant. However, I recognise that local authorities are now drawing up their budgets.
The £100,000 change in Bromley to which the director of social services drew attention is the result of the withholding from the report of the £20 million pending the outcome of the judicial review, so I am confident that my hon. Friend will find the final figure closer to what was originally expected.
He made an interesting and important point about unmet need. It is my view that the local authorities themselves are best placed to assess the need in their areas. That is far better than someone sitting in Whitehall trying to second-guess at a distance what will be needed in each authority. It may save time if I write to my hon. Friend about migration adjustment as it is a rather technical point. I shall be happy to copy in the hon. Member for Wakefield if he wishes.
Local authority topping up is another important point. We cannot sensibly require local authorities automatically to top up the costs of residential accommodation for someone whose placement in that accommodation was not the decision of that local authority, or where there was no opportunity to carry out an assessment. However, we are about to clarify what the local authorities should be doing.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) referred to the Association of Directors of Social Services survey. In my judgment, that was largely an exercise in defending personal social services against the encroachments of other local authority expenditure areas. In Gloucestershire it is much needed. Social services spending there is substantially below the level set in the personal social services standard spending assessment. It is precisely for that reason that we felt it necessary to introduce ring fencing so
1172
that Gloucestershire county council could not remove for other purposes the funds that we wanted to go into community care.
As for the numbers that we are assuming for transfer, we have assumed, based on past trends, a growth of 30,000 a year in Great Britain. Of course, that does not take account of the fact that we believe that in the medium term the policy will result in some diversion from residential into more domiciliary care and improved day and respite care services. The hon. Member for Cheltenham may find that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) can provide some helpful advice about how priorities should be reflected locally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) apologised in advance for the fact that he could not stay until the end of the debate, so I shall deal with his points separately. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East made a constructive speech. I do not know whether funds for this policy will be adequate. As I said, they are certainly much more substantial than anything ever envisaged before and much more substantial than would have been available for this client group if we had not changed the policy.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) seems upset about the growth of the private sector. I can only imagine that he wants to return to the local authority monopoly, inspired perhaps by the example of neighbouring boroughs such as Lambeth, where large-scale fraud is now under investigation, and Sheffield, where charge payers' money is being diverted from providing services to provide accommodation for the local Labour Members of Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman wanted facts, and I have just mentioned one. Another fact which I mention is that there has been a substantial shift in local authority expenditure away from residential care and towards domiciliary care. In 1978–79, just over £1 billion was spent on residential care and domiciliary care.
Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: I am sorry, I will not give way. On the same basis—
Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Yeo: On the same basis, in real terms the increase in domiciliary expenditure has been 80 per cent. and in residential care it has been 40 per cent. I am sorry that time will not permit me to answer all of the points raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield, but that is due to something outside my control. I say simply that the Government's commitment to the success of the policy has been demonstrated by our role in the preparations to which local authorities and health authorities have also contributed—
It being three hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [5 February].
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 6) (House of Commons Paper No. 404), which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.

Judges
7.32 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move,
That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
The draft order is made under section 2(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. It relates to judges of the Court of Appeal. The court is served by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the lords justices of appeal. The President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor also sit there from time to time. The lords justices form the main judicial strength of the court, although High Court judges sit with them to hear criminal appeals and other cases.
It is a matter of natural public concern that there should be sufficient lords justices of appeal to hear cases which involve the liberty of the subject or to determine matters of law which affect the citizen and the state. Apart from the small number of cases which go to the other place in its judicial capacity, the Court of Appeal is the pinnacle of our judicial system. It is therefore vital that its status and efficiency be preserved.
The maximum number of lords justices of appeal was increased from 23 to 28 by the Maximum Number of Judges Order 1987, and 28 judges now hold appointment, one of them since 11 January. The proposed order will increase the maximum number to 29.
In considering the justification for a further increase in the number of lords justices in England and Wales, I hope that it may be helpful to set the matter in the context of demands on the Court of Appeal civil division and the resources that have been available to that court recently.
At the end of 1991, Lord Donaldson, the then Master of the Rolls, in his review of the legal year, drew attention to the need for a
"small increase in the judicial establishment of the Court of Appeal".
At that time the establishment stood at 27 lords justices, in addition to Lord Donaldson. In the following year, the new Master of the Rolls echoed the call by identifying an increase in the number of lords justices sitting in the Court of Appeal as one means of helping to reverse the trend of increasing backlogs of work in that court.
The number of final appeals received in the civil appeals office over the past seven years has remained roughly constant, at about 900 cases a year. Although interlocutory appeals over that period have increased from fewer than 700 receipts to almost 800 in 1992, it still seems unlikely that the rise in backlogs of about 25 per cent. can be accounted for by additional appeals. Rather, it seems likely to be the result of a fall in the rate at which cases are disposed of.
It is not easy to determine the exact causes lying behind that fall, but the increase in reserved judgment from 15 per cent. in 1986 to 31 per cent. in 1991 suggests that one reason is that cases are becoming more complex and are therefore taking longer to dispose of. That view is reinforced by an increase in the number of civil appeals which take more than a year to hear.
In the light of the increasing backlog and the call made by Lord Donaldson for a
"small increase in the judicial establishment",
1174
which his successor echoed, an additional lord justice was appointed last month. That brought the complement up to the statutory limit, and the wish to add a further lord justice to the strength has necessitated this order.
I recognise that it may be argued that, given the current position in the civil division of the Court of Appeal, an increase of two lords justices is not in itself sufficient. I should explain to the House that the ability of the Court of Appeal to get through its business is not determined solely by the number of lords justices.
An internal report in 1989, which the then Master of the Rolls endorsed, made it clear that the need for lords justices could be lessened by employing more legal staff in the civil appeals office. In recognition of that fact, five new legal posts have since been provided for that office.
For completeness' sake, the House, in considering the justification for the proposed increase in the limit, will wish to bear in mind the fact that, the civil division of the Court of Appeal aside, lords justices also sit in its criminal division and the divisional court, as well as undertaking work outside the court, such as public inquiries and the chairmanship of such bodies as the Security Commission.
After careful consideration of the current and predicted work load of the Court of Appeal, it has been concluded that an additional appointment is necessary at this time and will assist in the more efficient dispatch of business of the courts, and that the House should further discharge its responsibility by approving the draft order. I commend the order to the House.
7.37 pm
Mr. Paul Boateng: The increase in the number of those appointed to the Court of Appeal is inadequate. The small increase in the complement which was envisaged by the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson, could not have been smaller in terms of the Government's recognition of the need which he outlined. Lord Donaldson asked for a small increase. I doubt whether he expected that it would be as small as one. We argue that the Government have not, with this order, satisfied the requirements of the Court of Appeal.
We want to know whether the Lord Chancellor and his Department took the advice of the present Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice before determining the figure of one which is referred to in the order. Did the Master of the Rolls advise the Lord Chancellor that an increase in the complement by only one was required? I doubt whether that was the case. In the interests of open government, I hope that the Minister will tell us how he and his Department arrived at an increase of one, bearing in mind the current pressure of work in the Court of Appeal.
The Minister referred to the remarks of Lord Donaldson as the genesis of this provision. If his remarks have had that effect, and several months later the Government have come forward with this paltry increase of one, it is to be hoped that Lord Donaldson's remarks on his retirement with regard to the number of judges currently sitting in the High Court will also be taken into account. The Minister will know, or certainly should know, the words of Lord Donaldson on that occasion. He was supported by all the most senior judges in England and Wales, without exception, who had come to that place to pay him worthy and just tribute. He said:
"I have no doubt that it is my duty to inform and warn both the Government and the public if the level of resources

1175
is such that the standard of service which the Court can offer is likely to decline or is in fact declining."
The Minister has pointed out that, in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, it is necessary and it is common practice from time to time for High Court judges to sit alongside Lords Justices of Appeal.
Lord Donaldson warned that, unless the number of High Court judges was increased and extra resources were provided, there would inevitably be a further decline in standards when standards were already declining. He chose to make that point in his valedictory remarks. His remarks have been echoed time and time again by his brother judges. Time and time again the Government have set their face against increasing the complement of High Court judges.
Undoubtedly we shall hear from the Minister in reply that the Lord Chancellor has established a review. When will we hear the results of the review, if indeed they are to be published? Bizarrely, at a time when the Government parade themselves in the clothes of open government and purport to share with all their citizens the nature, responsibilities and, in so far as they can, the workings of government, we still do not know whether the findings and recommendations resulting from the review will be published so that all may read them.
As the Minister said in his opening remarks, the complement of judges in the Court of Appeal and the High Court is a matter of legitimate public concern. The matter has been aired in the other place on numerous occasions and we welcome the opportunity to explore it in this House. The number of judges who sit in the High court relates to the number of judges who sit in the Court of Appeal and affects the expeditious dispatch of work. The overwhelming burden of evidence is of a civil and criminal justice system in a state of crisis.
That crisis has been drawn to the attention of the Government repeatedly. As long as the Government fail to address it, and turn a deaf ear to those who provide and those who consume judicial services, we shall air anxieties about the administration of civil and criminal justice at every opportunity on the Floor of the House.
We are indebted to their Lordships for their contribution to the debate, and particularly to the Lord Chief Justice. He has been a shining example of the importance of making heard in the clearest and most effect terms the contribution to the public debate of the senior judiciary. It was interesting to note his words, which were widely reported at the weekend, about the number of judges appointed to the High Court. As I know that you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, judges in the Court of Appeal are ultimately drawn from High Court judges. You will appreciate the importance of ensuring that sufficient judges sit in the High Court, from whom the additional complement of judges may be drawn.
We are obviously anxious to ensure that the workings of the High Court and the Court of Appeal are not impaired by insufficient judges in the High Court. The Minister will recognise the importance of the fact that the quality of judges in the Court of Appeal is perhaps higher than it has ever been. The most recent appointment was a particularly welcome one. It was broadly and warmly welcomed not only in the legal profession generally but outside it. One wants to ensure that the complement of judges in the High Court is such as to provide the broadest
1176
possible pool of high-quality judges. Therefore, it is important to ensure that further appointments are made to the High Court. The importance of that and the Government's failure in that regard was ably demonstrated by the Lord Chief Justice's remarks at the weekend.
The Lord Chief Justice threatened a confrontation with the Government on the issue unless he was allowed to recruit more High Court Judges. Although it does not go far enough, we welcome the order to increase the complement of judges in the Court of Appeal. But our question for the Lord Chancellor—or his surrogate, who will pass it on to the Lord Chancellor—is: when will we hear that the long called for and much sought after appointments to the High Court will be made?
When will the Minister and the Lord Chancellor announce the appointment of more High Court judges? Why is their dilatoriness so great that the Lord Chief Justice was forced to the point of making a veiled threat of resignation? He said:
"I have no immediate intention of resignation. But I can't do the job unless I have the judges."
Tonight we know that he is to have at least one more judge in the Court of Appeal, but we have heard nothing that will give Lord Taylor any confidence that the Government take seriously the obvious need for more judges in the High Court.
Judges appointed to the Court of Appeal currently have a critical function, which is made more important by the increase in the amount and complexity of work with which the High Court generally must deal. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in autumn last year the number of outstanding appeals had risen from 989 to 1,130 in 12 months. That led to a 12.5 per cent. increase in waiting times. Since then, the position has worsened, and it continues to deteriorate. We are not convinced that the addition of one judge to the Court of Appeal will make an appreciable difference to the current waiting times and the logjam in appeals.
One of Lord Donaldson's concerns was the fact that Appeal Court judges were increasingly being diverted to deal with criminal cases. He said that the
"civil division may be confined to hearing the more urgent appeals, leaving the rest to wait for very long periods of time".
That is all the more reason for increasing not only the number of judges in the Court of Appeal, but the number of High Court judges generally; such an increase would in turn affect the work load of the Court of Appeal.
A number of their Lordships, on both sides of the House and on the Cross Benches, pointed out forcefully the implications for civil liberties and the liberty of the subject, and the other potential constitutional dangers of failing to maintain the judiciary at its full complement. That would affect all the various divisions of the High Court; its most deleterious impact would not be confined to the expanding area of judicial review. It has become increasingly necessary to test in the courts an over-mighty state—a Government who have become too complacent and too accustomed to the exercise of unfettered power. The judiciary manage to ensure that some restraint is placed on the excesses of Government.
Of late, a number of Conservative Members have had their knuckles well and truly rapped—deservedly—by their Lordships, as a result of such excesses. A number of the mighty have been brought low and their golden locks have turned grey and hoary as a result of their experiences

1177
at the hands of the judges. We want more of that, which is one reason why we welcome the increase in the complement of the Court of Appeal.
We want the Government to be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny in terms of the exercise of their powers. It may be uncharitable, but we cannot help suspecting that their tardiness in regard to the appointment of judges—be it to the Court of Appeal or to the High Court—is linked to a disinclination to strengthen the hands of the judiciary. That is well demonstrated by their repeated failure to respond to the demand for an increase in numbers in the higher judiciary, and accounts for their presentation of an order that proposes an increase of only one to the complement of judges in the Court of Appeal.
We want the Minister to say that he will keep under constant review the number of judges in the Court of Appeal and the court's need for resources. We hope that the court will not have to wait for the valedictory utterances of the current Master of the Rolls to secure another increase of one.
The workings of the Lord Chancellor's Department should be made more public than they have been to date: the Department is a relatively new constitutional creation in its current form, with a House of Commons Minister having responsibility. We want to hear and see more of it; we want its workings to be more publicly revealed, in accordance with the spirit of the citizens charter. We are even happy to see more exposure for the Minister: indeed, the more he was exposed, the more I would welcome it, because the more we examine the Government's approach to the whole issue of civil and criminal justice, the less satisfactory it is revealed to be.
What is so disturbing is the fact that the Government seem to be immune to reasoned, objective criticism It is worth referring, albeit briefly, to the debate in the other place, which was initiated by Lord Irvine of Lairg on 22 October last year. On that occasion, judge after judge, retired judge after retired judge, and noble and learned Lord after noble and learned Lord rose to refer to the insufficiency of the higher judiciary. At the end of the debate, after a series of distinguished contributions, the Lord Chancellor was asked a direct question by Lord Irvine of Lairg: did he or did he not
"accept that there is a clear and present need for more High Court judges?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 1992: Vol. 539, c. 897.]
The Lord Chancellor replied at some length, saying that he believed that it was necessary to provide a basis for the answer to that question, and that he expected the review that was currently under way to do so.
We want the Minister to state unequivocally that that review will soon be completed, that its findings will be published in full and that all the resources needed by judges involved in the review will be provided. We also want to hear that the Government will accept the review's findings. Having prayed in aid the existence of the review for so long, for the Government then to say that once its findings are known, not only will they not be bound by them, but they do not intend to publish them, would result in their losing all credibility.
At a time of crisis in the judicial system, when there is open dissention between the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor about the sufficiency of judicial numbers, the public are entitled to a clear and unequivocal reassurance on the issue. We intend to ensure that they receive that reassurance.
8 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I apologise to the Minister for my late arrival, but I was caught on the wrong foot because I thought that the debate was starting a little later. I am glad that the Minister is likely to reply as he will have an opportunity to consider the few remarks that I want to make.
It is a definite step in the right direction for a junior Minister to he present to answer such a debate. All too often in the past there has been no direct accountability in the House, and I gladly acknowledge that step tonight. However, the subject that we are debating—the adequacy of the establishment of judges in the Court of Appeal—is of great importance, and it is not wholly satisfactory that there is no Cabinet member to answer the debate. In saying that, I cast no reflection on the Minister, whose personal credentials are held in high regard.
However, the constitutional arrangements are unsatisfactory. They confine to another place the Minister of Justice, in this country. He has the anomalous role of presiding over debates in another place and, from that position, making the appointments to the Bench and overseeing what we have by way of a Ministry of Justice, with responsibility for the state of the statute book and the state of law reform in this country. That anomaly can be corrected only by the appointment of a Minister of Justice who is a politically accountable and fully fledged Cabinet Minister elected to the House of Commons. Until then. I fear that such issues such as the one that we are discussing tonight will not be given the attention that they deserve. In the eyes of judiciary, such issues are clearly of great importance.
It has not been common in the past to find senior members of the judiciary who are openly critical of the Government in terms of the manner in which they have discharged their responsibility for the administration of justice. However, on the issue of appointments to the Bench, judges have been speaking out with a clarity which betrays the urgency of the matter.
The proposal that we are discussing may seem modest—it augments the Court of Appeal by one appointment. Indeed, considered in the light of the remarks—to which the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has already alluded—of Lord Chief Justice Taylor and others, about the under-provision in the higher reaches of the judiciary in this country, it is a modest development. The most notable speech was that made by Lord Chief Justice Taylor in the Dimbleby lecture, when he said that the judicial deficit was denying access to justice. The modest proposal before us does not meet that deficit.
The Court of Appeal is often augmented by judges from the High Court bench who sit for specific appointments and cases. That may be regarded as an inevitable and not wholly desirable illustration of the shortages, which the provision will by no means make good. The consequence of High Court judges augmenting the Court of Appeal in that ad hoc way ripples through the judicial system. Those judges have, in turn, to be replaced on the bench, thus contributing to the problems of the High Court. Therefore, in dealing with the proposal for one additional appointment, we must not overlook the fact that the issues are closely interrelated.
The evidence shows that expedition in the discharge of justice is being hampered by the shortage of senior judges. That is a matter of the greatest concern. I have no doubt

1179
of the Lord Chancellor's interest in the appointment of judges. He has always made it plain that he attaches the highest importance to the appointment of judges of a suitable calibre. He devotes much personal attention to ensuring that that aspect of his duties is fully discharged, and there is general admiration for some of his more recent appointments to the higher roles. I am happy to acknowledge the distinction of those appointments to the Court of Appeal and other senior courts of the realm. However, the Lord Chancellor's job goes beyond choosing suitable men and women for those senior positions. The Lord Chancellor must also ensure that there are adequate numbers on the bench to discharge judicial functions.
It has not been uncommon for judges openly to comment on such matters. Perhaps the recognition of the separate nature of their role and their natural reluctance to enter the political cockpit is not only understandable, but desirable. The distinction between the judiciary, and the Executive and the legislature, although not reflected in a written constitution—as it might be, and indeed is, in most countries—is one that we would do well to retain. However, when the line is crossed by the judges themselves—as it has been recently—we must recognise that a penumbra of discontent and anxiety lies behind that action. We are entitled to ask exactly what representations have been made by the judiciary about the numbers that they would consider necessary to ensure that there is no backlog of cases and that justice is not being denied.
The issue of a review has already been mentioned in the debate. We want to know how speedily it will be concluded and what evidence has been presented. One of the great anxieties about the judicial system—it is germane to the order—is the evidence of a further escalation of the costs of the judicial system, particularly legal aid. We are not debating legal aid today, but there is no doubt that the escalation of unit costs—which has, in turn, caused a rise in legal aid costs—is due to the number of judges available to hear cases. Many cases have to be adjourned because there are not sufficient judges to hear them. That has resulted in gross inefficiencies as well as the denial of justice. That was led in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee as recently as last week.
We are not talking about something abstract. It is not a matter of plucking numbers out of the air and saying that a certain number of additional judges would be appropriate to meet the problem. These are serious and hard questions, which must be answered by the responsible Department of State. We are entitled to know what evidence it has, and why it has taken such an extraordinarily small step. The appointment of one more judge to the Court of Appeal will have only the most modest impact on the High Court, where it appears that the worst problem exists, and would appear to go only a small way to meeting the anxieties so openly expressed by the most senior judges in the realm.
8.11 pm
Mr. John M. Taylor: It is gracious of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to acknowledge the ministerial post that I am doing my best to discharge. He merely addresses a truism when he says that the responsible Cabinet Minister is in the other place. My recent visits to that other place to listen to debates left
1180
me with the clear impression that there is no shortage of strongly held opinions on these matters in that House as well as in this.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is right to say that expedition is the friend of justice, just as delay is its enemy. I would not concede to him, however, that expedition in judicial matters resides exclusively in judge numbers. There are many other factors, and these are urgently exercising both the Lord Chancellor and his Department. There is a wish to improve the judicial process and to simplify it. Those matters are exercising the Runciman commission, which I understand is due to report later this year. It will note that its findings are to be most closely studied by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman will know this, I think, but I remind him that the hearing of criminal appeals has always fallen to High Court judges. Before the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1908, the Court of Crown Cases Reserved would consider appeals arising from points of law. That was done en bloc, with all High Court Queen's Bench division judges sitting. The Lord Chief Justice would preside. The Court of Criminal Appeal succeeded the Court of Crown Cases Reserved, and in 1966 the Court of Criminal Appeal was replaced by the Court of Appeal criminal division. It was felt that the Queen's Bench judges sitting therein would benefit from the chairmanship of the Lord Justice in each court. There is therefore no novelty in High Court judges participating in the affairs of the Court of Appeal.
I now direct my remarks more particularly to the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).
Mr. Maclennan: Before the Minister does that, I think that he will acknowledge that the Supreme Court Act 1981 makes specific and explicit provision for the appointment of judges and others to sit in courts on an ad hoc and temporary basis. It appears that that temporariness has been extended considerably to the point at which it is even being questioned whether what is being done is within the scope of the 1981 Act. It is extremely questionable whether appointments are any longer to be regarded as temporary.
Mr. Taylor: I shall have more to say about the strength of the appeal bench. Although all of us who have mentioned the matter may have risked the attentions of the Chair, I shall try to say in what I hope will be germane remarks a word or two about High Court judges, even though the order does not strictly relate to that section of the judiciary.
The Opposition's general concern to maintain our system of justice in good order is shared by the Government—hence the review of High Court judges' work, deployment and numbers. They are inevitably a scarce resource. We intend to ensure, however, that there are enough of them and that their skills are carefully husbanded. I think that we have the good will of all interested parties in taking that line.
I say, slightly reproachfully, that it would be improper to suggest that the Lord Chancellor would seek to weaken judicial manpower for political reasons. If pressed, I do not think that the hon. Member for Brent, South would subscribe to such a suggestion. I hope that he would not—indeed, I am sure he would not. To propose judicial review almost as a substitute for political opposition tells us much more about the Opposition than about judicial review.
Mr. Boateng: The Minister must face the fact that the number of applicants for judicial review has increased from 685 in 1982 to 2,437 last year. It is no coincidence that, in those 10 years, there has been only one Government in power—a Conservative Government. It is no coincidence also that it has been found that, with a Conservative Government in power, with a working majority, an effective way of challenging the abuses introduced by that Administration has been to use the divisional court. That is not to cast any reproach on the Opposition: it is to take the Government to task and to commend the vigour of the judiciary and the enterprise of the citizen.
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman knows that judicial review has been a growth industry. The only interesting speculation is whether it would have grown even faster had we had a Labour Government during the relevant years. I say with some satisfaction that that is entirely hypothetical: it did not arise and it does not arise.
The hon. Member for Brent, South speaks rightly about the quality of the appeal bench. We have fine traditions and high standards. He asked me, as did the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, whether one additional lord justice was sufficient. One additional lord justice was appointed last month, which made a total of 28. If the order is agreed to, a further lord justice will be appointed soon. An internal report presented in June 1989 recommended that additional lawyers be made available to the civil appeal office. With the assistance of the judiciary, calculations showed that six lawyers could save the time of two lords justices. Five additional lawyers were recruited after April 1990.
The former Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson, said in his valedictory speech in July 1992, to which the hon. Member for Brent, South has referred, that he was sure that the predicted saving in judicial time would accrue. The overall result is that, once the further lord justice is appointed, in two years two extra lords justices will have been added to the strength and the time of almost two lords justices released to meet any new work load—in a sense, four net new lords justices.
Mr. Boateng: It is a novel and interesting formula that two lords justices a-sitting equals six lawyers a-scribbling. We must get to the bottom of this. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that the appointment of two Lords Justices is saved by the appointment of six lawyers to the servicing
1182
department? If the Minister maintains that that is the case, I hope—he can have nothing to fear from this—that he will put the basis of that formula and calculation in the Library of the House of Commons so that we can all share in it, inform our legal and judicial brethren as to how they might better organise their time and also reassure the public on that point.
Mr. Taylor: The answer is yes, I do mean what the hon. Gentleman asks whether I meant. I draw my guidance in those comments, which were made in completely good faith and with confidence, from—not least—the last two reports of the Masters of the Rolls on the workings of the Court of Appeal.
As the hon. Gentleman invites me to put some comment into the public domain, I shall do so. We live in a world of scarce resources in every sense and there are many who claim, with every possible best intention, that more resources must be deployed in this, that or the other direction. Meanwhile, the Lord Chancellor has the task. It stays with him. After all the urging, his is the decision. In this, he has responded to calls for more lords justices made by old and new Masters of the Rolls in their annual reviews.
I risk a bare trespass, as others have done, on High Court judges. That there should be sufficient High Court judges is a matter of natural public concern. In recognition of that concern, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice asked a group of officials and some senior judges to advise them on the work, deployment and numbers of High Court judges. The only comment that I should properly make—I was challenged to make it by the hon. Member for Brent, South—is whether that report will be published. The answer is that the report was to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. It is a matter for them to decide between them and jointly whether it is to be published—and it will be.
Mr. Boateng: May I have the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak again?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): No, not tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.

Judgments
8.24 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move,
That the draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.
The purpose of the draft order is to make some modifications to the rules which govern the allocation of jurisdiction to the courts of the different parts of the United Kingdom in civil cases. Article 2 deals with cases which have a connection with more than one part of the United Kingdom—for example, where the plaintiff is English and the defendant Scottish. Article 3 deals with the rules of jurisdiction in Scotland.
Our present rules allocating jurisdiction within the United Kingdom are contained in schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 and are based on those in the 1968 Brussels convention. That convention is concerned with jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments as between member states of the EC, and the main purpose of the 1982 Act was to give effect to the convention in the United Kingdom.
The rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels convention have now been modified in various respects—none of the changes is of the greatest significance—and we have decided that where our rules follow those in the convention they should follow suit with regard to the amendments as well. The power to do that is in section 14 of the 1982 Act.
The amendments are technical and we have consulted the legal profession about them. Both the Law Society and the Bar Council have confirmed that the amendments are sensible.
The order makes amendments to schedule 4 in three areas—contracts of employment, related claims concerning a contract, and real property and holiday lettings.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: It may save my intervening again if the Minister could say whether the professional organisations in Scotland were consulted and whether the Scottish Law Officers gave their views. They are not represented here tonight.
Mr. Taylor: I invited the Scottish Law Officers to be present if they so wished. All those whom the hon. Gentleman's question implies he hopes were canvassed were so canvassed.
The basic rule of jurisdiction in the Brussels convention is that a defendant must be sued in the country where he is domiciled. In specific types of case, alternatives are offered. Thus, article 5(1) provides that, in contract cases, a defendant may instead be sued in the courts for the place of performance of the contract. The convention said nothing originally about individual contracts of employment. It now contains a provision that the place of performance of such a contract is the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work. If he does not habitually work in any one country, he may choose to sue the employer in the courts for the place of business through which he was engaged.
I see no reason why schedule 4 should not be amended to keep it in line with the Brussels convention in that respect, and the order provides accordingly. It will make it clear that someone from Glasgow, for instance, who works
1184
in Scotland for a company based in London will be able to bring proceedings against the company in a matter relating to his employment in Scotland.
The order also permits a further choice which is given to a plaintiff employee by a new fifth paragraph in article 17 of the Brussels convention. That paragraph invalidates a choice of court agreement in cases concerning a contract of employment unless the agreement was made after the dispute arose. However, it allows an employee, but not an employer, to take advantage of a pre-dispute agreement which confers jurisdiction on a court other than that of the defendant's domicile or that of the place and performance of the contract.
Secondly, new paragraph 4 of article 6 of the Brussels convention provides that where there is both a contract case and a case relating to rights in real property between the same parties, the plaintiff may bring both actions in the country where the property is situated, rather than having to take separate actions in different countries. That is clearly convenient for the parties, and a similar provision has therefore been added to schedule 4.
Finally, the general rule that cases relating to property must be heard in the country where the property is situated has been amended with respect to the particular case of short-term holiday lets. Article 16(1) now confers alternative jurisdiction in such cases on the courts of the defendant's domicile, provided that both the landlord and the tenant are natural persons—that is to say, not companies—and are domiciled in the same country. We agree that this special provision is jusitified. It would mean, for example, that a dispute between two English people over a holiday letting in Scotland would not have to be heard in Scotland if it was more convenient for it to be dealt with in England.
Article 3 of the order amends schedule 8 to the 1982 Act which contains the rules as to jurisdiction within Scotland. Those rules also follow those of the Brussels convention, for the most part, and it is proposed to make the same amendments to them as those which have been made to schedule 4. These amendments also have the support of the legal profession in Scotland.
The changes contained in this order are useful ones which reflect those that have been made to the Brussels convention in the light of experience of its working. As I have said, interested bodies within the legal professions have agreed that they are sensible, and I commend them to the House.
8.32 pm
Mr. Paul Boateng: The contents of this order are non-contentious. They have been the subject of consultation and are, as the Minister has outlined, broadly welcomed. Having said that, it is interesting to reflect in a little detail on the primary basis of jurisdiction under the convention and to relate that to the schedules referred to in the order.
The primary basis is the domicile of the defendant. Unless an alternative basis of jurisdiction applies, a defendant domiciled in a member state must be sued in the courts of that state. There are, however, several alternative bases of jurisdiction which provide what might be termed non-exorbitant bases of jurisdiction of the type which all courts have traditionally claimed, so that a defendant domiciled in another member state may be sued in the

1185
English court if certain conditions apply. In a contract case, the condition would be that the contract was to be performed here.
The Minister has given an example of the impact of the order on contracts of employment and he gave an example of the relevance of the place of work and the place of performance of the contract.
Secondly, in a tort case, the defendant, albeit domiciled in another state, may be sued in the English courts if the damage was sustained or the tort was committed here.
Thirdly, and not unimportantly, subject to article 16 of the convention, the defendant has, in certain circumstances outlined in article 16, the option of voluntarily submitting to proceedings here. That is what I wish to speak about.
For many years, the courts of England have been developing a reputation and an area of expertise unparallelled in Europe or, I would go so far as to say, in the world. In 80 per cent. of the cases in the commercial court, one party is foreign; in 50 per cent. of cases both parties are foreign. The significance of this order to those figures will be obvious to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. as it will to the House—as will the concern that exists about the operation of the commercial court and therefore the context in which these orders will be applied.
The commercial court increasingly finds itself unable to operate as it should because of a shortage of High Court judges. That shows the relevance of an issue on which we have touched time and time again during this evening's work: the insufficiency of High Court judges. The importance of exploring this matter in full has dawned on Conservative Members, because leading City institutions are increasingly expressing their concern about the acute shortage of judges in the commercial court, a shortage which has an impact of the issues that are before the House tonight. Bodies such as the stock exchange, the Baltic Exchange, the British Bankers Association, the Grain and Feed Traders Association—not a body that normally comes to the attention of any but a highly specialised section of the public—have expressed their concern about the insufficiency of High Court judges in the commercial court.
I ask hon. Members to imagine what would occur when somebody was seeking to exercise his or her rights under this order. The Minister has referred to the schedule, which deals with holiday lets and with several other contractual cases that are likely to find their way into our courts. What will be the situation in the High Court and commercial court when this order is brought into effect?
Mr. Justice Saville gives some indication of that. He warns that the court's business is grinding to a halt. We are being invited by the Government to give effect to an order which will extend the jurisdiction in circumstances in which, already, the commercial court finds itself unable to deal with the business at present before it. Mr. Justice Saville says that the court's list
"is in complete disarray with no realistic prospect of being able to restore order. There is insufficient judicial manpower to deal with the cases stood out, let alone cope with the existing list as it comes forward. The carefully nurtured reputation of the commercial court is at risk of being lost."
The House is being asked to sanction an order which comes into effect at a time when the list of the commercial court is, to quote Mr. Justice Saville, "in complete disarray".
1186
It is worth listening to the concerns expressed by the head of litigation at Lovell White Durrant, Mr. Anthony Pugh-Thomas. He said:
"We have clients raring to go the week after next, and we have to tell them that they won't be heard until next April."
That was the situation on 8 December 1992 and it is even worse now.
Mr. John M. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The kinds of proceedings covered by this order are not suitable for, nor would they be covered by or litigated in, the commercial court.
Mr. Boateng rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. This order is principally about the simplification of formalities. I can understand the hon. Gentleman developing that argument, but he seems to be developing it a little more widely. Perhaps he could come back to the order, which is pretty tightly drawn, as he, as a lawyer, will understand.
Mr. Boateng: I will, of course, accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and assistance in this matter.
I think that it is worth looking at section 2 of the order, if the Minister will turn his attention to that. It refers to article 5, which deals with matters relating to individual contracts of employment. It inserts additional words and says that we are to look at where the employee habitually carries out his work. It goes on to say:
"If the employee does not habitually carry out his work in any one country, the employer may also be sued in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee was or is now situated."
Inevitably, the business infrastructure, which always, of course, includes the court system of any jurisdiction, will act as a magnet to the establishment of businesses, where the jurisdiction permits it, and this order deals with the issue of jurisdiction and will act as a magnet to action. Therefore, it is highly pertinent to examine the state of our commercial court, and I do not see how the Minister can pretend otherwise.
If a senior partner in a major City law firm says that considerable inconvenience is being caused to clients and that the state of the commercial court is a matter of embarrassment to the profession, that is relevant. What happens in the commercial court is inevitably influenced by what is happening elsewhere within the parameters of the High Court. Let me give an example.
Mr. Justice Saville was promised two more commercial court judges. I intend to go back to the Government's failings time and time again until this issue is resolved—that is why we are here; that is why we are spending the time we are on the floor of the House on this issue—and until the Government address the issue of how the measures which they introduce impact on the work load of the court.
Has the Minister considered this issue? Is there, as we speak, someone somewhere in the Lord Chancellor's Department who knows what the impact of this measure will be on the court system? Will it lead—this is a legitimate question to which we are entitled to receive an answer—to more people choosing to litigate in this country? Will it lead to an increase in the number of actions brought in this country? If it will, it is relevant that, as a result of delays elsewhere in the system of justice, Mr. Justice Taylor is unable to provide Mr. Justice Saville with his two more commercial court judges. Mr. Justice Saville

1187
expects that, instead of six judges, there will be only four. Three of them will be tied up on long cases, so that leaves one judge to handle the work of six.
In an earlier debate, which was brought to a speedy end, the Minister sought to introduce the novel formula that two Lords Justices of Appeal equal six lawyers servicing a department. Here we have one judge required to do the work of six judges. The broad statement of fact made by Mr. Justice Saville is that unless something is done now—this was in December, two months ago—the commercial court will cease to operate next term. That inevitably has a bearing on matters which the order seeks to address.
May we have some answers on the points made in relation to the likely increase in the number of actions and the extent to which the impact of that increase on judicial manpower has been taken into account? Can we hope that when the review of appointments to the High Court is published—we warmly welcome its publication—the passing of measures such as this will have been taken into account when ensuring that there are enough judges in the High Court?
Unless we have those assurances, many more evenings will be taken up with debates such as these. That is a promise: the Minister can be sure that we intend to fulfil our responsibility to make sure that the administration of justice takes place in the interests of the citizens and consumers.
8.47 pm
Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) asked me with some force—his question brooked no sidestep—whether I would state to him, to the House and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the impact of the proposals contained in this order was measurable. My answer is that the impact will be benign. It will not increase the number of actions; it will merely affect the distribution of actions within the United Kingdom by conveniencing the parties and giving them better and easier choices of venue.
That is why I submit that the measure has no enemies. In the course of its formulation, all interested parties, court users and wider interests, were consulted to find out whether it was genuinely thought to be an improvement—not a slavish imitation of something worked out in Brussels, or, indeed, something eccentrically and particularly British, but something between the two, taking the best of the European practice and the best of our own experience, reaching a compromise, and
1188
conveniencing litigant and lawyer alike. I suppose that one always has some innocence to lose—perhaps that is part of the joy of life—but I honestly did not imagine that the provisions would lead to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the commercial court. However, I can deal with them briefly.
On the commercial court, I have nothing to add to what I said on 19 January in an Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottoway). The remarks that I made then post-date the hon. Gentleman's comments this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  DEFENCE RESEARCH AGENCY
  That the draft Defence Research Agency Trading Fund Order 1993, which was laid before the House on 22nd January, be approved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Rescue Helicopter (RAF Brawdy)
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Nick Ainger: The petition has been signed by 19,676 people from Pembrokeshire and the rest of Wales. They are outraged because the Ministry of Defence intends to end search and rescue helicopter operations at RAF Brawdy in my constituency on 1 April 1994.
  The petition states that the decision
  will cause unnecessary deaths due to the greatly increased response times to reach incidents on the cliffs and coastal waters of West Wales and the international waters of the Celtic Sea and the Atlantic Ocean
  as well as on the mountains of west and south Wales. People are also outraged because the Ministry of Defence is putting the saving of money before the saving of lives.
  The petition ends:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House do not proceed with these proposals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

West Midlands Regional Health Authority
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
8.52 pm
Mr. Richard Burden: It is just 11 days since an announcement was made in the west midlands by the regional health authority and the South Birmingham district health authority. It was not made in the House. It was announced that the Secretary of State had decided that two hospitals in the South Birmingham district—the Woodlands Royal orthopaedic hospital and the accident hospital—were to close and that a third hospital—the general hospital—would lose its medical beds to make way for services transferred from the two closing hospitals.
The decision had been trailed for a long time. It had caused more controversy in my constituency and others than anything else that I can recall. People in Birmingham are asking why the hospitals are closing. I suspect that, when he replies, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), will tell us, as a subsequent statement told the people of Birmingham, that it has something to do with improving hospital and health care services for the people of Birmingham, and something to do with ensuring greater access to higher quality health care. If the debate runs true to form, that is what the Minister will tell us today.
Not many people in Birmingham or the west midlands as a whole will agree with the Minister. The South Birmingham community health council has roundly condemned the proposals and pointed out the effect that they will have on patient care. The Audit Commission undertook a study which showed that if the two hospitals were closed and many much needed beds were taken in the general hospital, it would ensure that other hospitals in north and east Birmingham were overstretched.
Consultants have warned of the danger of cross-infection if a burns unit from the accident hospital and all the orthopaedic cases from the Woodlands hospital are put together in the inadequate surroundings that will exist in the general hospital. Perhaps most importantly, the local people who use the services have said that they do not want the closures but that they want the two hospitals to remain open.
Dr. Lynne Jones: May I remind my hon. Friend that it is not only the people of Birmingham but the majority of medical staff and consultants who are worried about the proposals? Only today I had a telephone conversation with a consultant worried about the relocation of the major injuries unit from the accident hospital to the general hospital. At present, the unit is located next to casualty on the ground floor. The new facilities will be on the second floor, requiring the use of a lift. That is for critically ill and multiply injured patients for whom every second counts. They will have to go up two floors, having got into the centre of the city at a time when major road projects will cause disruption. That is another example of how patient care will be affected.
Mr. Burden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes her point forcefully.
The argument that the closures will improve services does not stand up to close inspection, and if the closures
1190
are nothing to do with improving services, what are they for? It seems to me and to most people in Birmingham that the closures are to do with the lack of money. To put it simply, South Birmingham health authority is going broke under the Government's policies. Community services in South Birmingham are under strain.
A constituent has been told that her nine-year-old boy will have to wait six months merely to see about an appointment for occupational therapy. Another constituent is having to wait 91 weeks to see a consultant who will then decide whether he can go on a waiting list for treatment on an arthritic knee.
Mental health services are also being affected. Only the other day we heard that nurses who had trained in South Birmingham and who could have used their talents for the authority and given health care to the people there will not be able to get permanent employment in a Birmingham hospital.
Why are South Birmingham hospitals so short of money? Why is the South Birmingham health authority in such difficulty? At one level, the situation is a testimony to the underfunding that the Government have brought to the national health service. The latest waiting list figures were issued just the other day. Over the past few months, Ministers have alleged that they have been reducing waiting lists. This is something that they have trumpeted. It is true that, in the west midlands, there has been a reduction of 38 in the number of people waiting between one and two years for hospital treatment. On the other hand, there has been an increase of more than 5,000 in the number waiting less than one year—the second worst in the entire country. There are now more than 90,000 people awaiting treatment in west midlands hospitals. In other words, the good news is not quite as good as Ministers would have us believe.
But the problems in the west midlands do not arise just from underfunding. Some of us have severe reservations about the use to which the money that is available is being put. In the last few years, a series of financial scandals have gripped the West Midlands regional health authority.
There has been the scandal of Qa Business Services, formerly the computer division—full title, management services division—of the regional health authority. That service was privatised. How the decision was made nobody quite knows; who was involved in it nobody quite knows, but it happened. Qa Business Services went bust within 18 months of its formation. Its employees—people who had previously worked for the computer division—lost their jobs, and more than 130 of them will lose up to two thirds of their pension entitlement because, as they were informed just a few months ago, the pension fund that they had been told was secure cannot meet the liabilities.
Then there is a consultancy, known as URG, which was meant to bring value for money to the west midlands supplies organisation. In that case, millions and millions of pounds were squandered. There was not much value for money there. A system called Healthtrac—again connected with the west midlands supplies organisation, and meant to be an all-singing, all-dancing new computer system—is the subject of an Audit Commission investigation. All the signs are that the report will show that more millions of public money have been wasted. This was confirmed last night by the former chair of the regional health authority.
Financial Information Packages—another private firm set up through the West Midlands regional health

1191
authority—has acted as a kind of siphon for public money. Apparently a proposed development on the land occupied by the Rubery hospital will fund the health care programme for Birmingham in the years to come, but nobody knows what the terms of that deal are; nobody knows whether it will bring much money in; nobody knows the exact terms of the deal between the health authority and the developers, or even whether the developers are really developers.
I come now to the South Birmingham health authority, whose formation involved a merger with the former Central Birmingham health authority. That merger was opposed by local people and by clinicians and others involved in the health service, but it was pushed through at the insistence of the region, with the collusion of Ministers. The result is a multi-million-pound deficit in South Birmingham. When one mixes into that equation the impact of the Government's so-called health reforms, one has a financial crisis such as that which now grips the health authority, whose managers are sending to staff circulars saying that it will not be possible to pay bills.
What has happened to those who are responsible for such financial crises? Just yesterday, the Public Accounts Committee of this House asked some pretty searching questions about that matter. The answers are quite instructive.
Mr. Chris Watney, the former director of regionally managed services of the West Midlands regional health authority, is the person who seems to have been most closely involved in the tie-up with the consultancy firm URG, which promised the people of the west midlands savings of up to £50 million but ended up costing them £4 million. Those costs included expenses running to about £350,000 for such items as leased houses in London for the firm's executives and their wives, the hire of aircraft to come to work, and lavish entertainment. What happened to Mr. Watney? Was he sacked? No. He received a redundancy pay-off of more than £80,000. It was subsequently discovered that he had been overpaid to the tune of more than £40,000. So much for Mr. Watney.
Then we have Mr. Martin Davies, the former director of finance of the West Midlands regional health authority, who, the former chair of the authority said, had signed the authorisation to go ahead with the URG contract without his approval. What happened to Mr. Davies? He resigned. Despite the fact that he had not been sacked, he received pay in lieu of notice. Then we have Mr. Ken Bales, the former chief executive of the West Midlands regional health authority. He too appears to have been well involved in a number of the major projects of that authority. No action was taken. He resigned, in the normal course of events, not very long ago.
Then we come to Sir James Ackers, who was the chair of the West Midlands regional health authority, the man whom the Secretary of State stood by through thick and thin. His name also crops up in the URG scandal. The Audit Commission had something to say about what it discovered about his involvement in that consultancy. He attended a dinner. I shall quote what the Audit Commission said about that dinner, at which the details of the contract, which lost the people of the west midlands £4 million, were apparently discussed:
"The details were … explained at a dinner (after the work had started) given for the Director (RMS), the RHA
1192
Chairman, the Director of Finance and the Chairman of the Members' Panel. The consultants said that this meeting was specifically to meet the RHA Chairman, to outline the cost and to ensure that the Director (RMS) had full authority to proceed. Afterwards the RHA Chairman said he did not realise that a firm agreement to do the work had been reached."
So he attended a dinner; the details were apparently explained; that led the next day to an authorisation being given, but he did not realise that a firm agreement had been reached.
What happened to him? There were calls for his resignation. Finally, he resigned just last month, in January. The Secretary of State accepted his resignation with these words:
"You have supported the reforms of the NHS and have overseen their successful implementation in the region. In addition, you recently initiated some important movements in the managerial structure of the region. Underpinning all this has been your personal commitment to the health service and its patients.
I should also acknowledge your valuable contributions as chairman of all the regional chairmen, and as a member of the NHS Policy Board which has advised successive Secretaries of State."
We discovered yesterday that what Sir James Ackers has contributed had been acknowledged by the Secretary of State, because we were told at the Public Accounts Committee that the Secretary of State had decided not to take action about the losses incurred under the stewardship of Sir James Ackers but to grant him a discretionary payment of an undisclosed sum.
So no action appears to have been taken against any of these people. We heard yesterday, however, of one person who is still employed by the West Midlands regional health authority who was given a telling off for what happened. That is the man who apparently was responsible for the overpayment of more than £40,000 to Mr. Watney. That man is the regional director of personnel, Mr. Mel Nock. He is an important man in the regional health authority to this day.
We have heard very little of Mr. Nock in the course of the story so far, but we need to know not just how he came to overpay Mr. Watney to the tune of £40,000 but what he knew of the other things that had been going on in the west midlands. He is the director of personnel, an important man. Apart from anyone else, the pensioners of Qa Business Services should know what the man responsible for personnel had to do with what happened in the regional health authority.
All this shows incredible double standards on the part of the Government. Let us imagine what would have happened if such financial scandals had involved not a health authority but an elected local authority. If a local authority had been involved, Ministers would have been screaming from the rooftops about surcharges and allegations about left-wing councils. What a difference we see when it is their boys who have been responsible for the scandals. When it is their boys who are involved, Ministers seem to take pride in avoiding answering questions from Members. There has been a series of reports on what has been going on, but very few of them have been published.
Just before Christmas, the district auditor sent a management letter to the senior management of the regional health authority. It detailed the stage which the district auditor had reached in his investigation. The letter was not confidential, but I have yet to see it; it has not been published. Indeed, in a question a short time ago, I asked whether the Minister would direct that the report be

1193
published. I was told in reply that there was no such report. I checked again, knowing that the document had been sent, and discovered that it was known technically as a management letter. I tabled another question asking whether the management letter could be published. I received the inevitable response—the sort of answer I have received often in recent months—that it was a matter for the regional health authority.
The Secretary of State has power to direct the publication of such documents, but she has chosen not to exercise it. Instead, the people of the west midlands, including hon. Members, are being kept in the dark. When scandals come to light, Ministers sit on their hands, especially if their boys are involved.
The chief executive of the NHS, Sir Duncan Nichol, attended yesterday's meeting of the Public Accounts Committee. He was asked what action he had taken to improve matters, in view of what had come to light, in the west midlands. He said that he had sent a letter to the various health authorities.
The problems in the west midlands still exist. We have a new chair, Sir Donald Wilson, brought in from Mersey regional health authority. He has said that there would be a new regime in the west midlands, that an audit committee would be set up and that new auditors would be appointed. Since his appointment, no further reports have been published.
My requests for publication of the management letter were made both before and after Sir Donald's appointment. I am told that, while what was said at the last regional health authority meeting was not confidential and that the reports could be published, they could not be published just yet, not while a Public Accounts Committee hearing was coming up and its discussions might be prejudiced by the publication of such documents at this stage.
What a load of rubbish. Those reports are still under wraps, and Ministers owe it to the House and the people of the west midlands to publish them. We in South Birmingham still have our deficit, and there is disagreement over how much it is. We were told a couple of weeks ago that it was under control and was less than £1 million. A couple of days later, we were told that it was between £2 million and £2.5 million. We do not know the causes of the financial crisis, and the report by consultants KPMG Peat Marwick has not been published. It was finished last summer, and when we ask Ministers to publish it, they reply that it is a matter for the West Midlands regional health authority.
What has been done to solve the problems of the west midlands? The only action of substance to have been taken in recent weeks is the decision to shut the hospitals. The managers do not suffer; they appear to get glowing tributes and pay-offs. The patients and those who work in the NHS suffer. Nurses are told that after their training they will not receive jobs, not because they are not needed in the area—we in south Birmingham need more nurses—but because of a shortage of money.
As the problems of the west midlands still exist, ask the Minister tonight to come clean and say exactly why our local hospitals are closing. When will the Secretary of State and others in the Government start listening and responding to what people in the west midlands are saying about the way in which their health services are being run? When will they respond to the three fundamental questions that we have been putting?
1194
First, may we have a full, independent public inquiry into what has been going on, revealing all the facts, not just those that Ministers want published? Secondly, we want to know exactly who is to blame for the financial crisis. Whoever is to blame—the West Midlands regional health authority or South Birminham—it is not the fault of the patients, so they should not be forced to suffer. Therefore, South Birmingham should receive the financial injection it needs to maintain local services and to ensure that patients do not suffer.
Thirdly, why is it so difficult for Ministers to say that regional health authorities should be open and accountable to the people whom they are supposed to serve? The health service is meant to be a service for people free at the point of need, but we are not seeing very much of that in the west midlands at the moment. I hope that, if the Minister is serious about improving health services in this country, he will change direction today and provide us with the cash we need. I hope that he will insist on openness, insist that the reports be published, and insist that accountability and democracy return to the health service in the west midlands.
9.15 pm
Dr. Lynne Jones: As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) said, there is apparently a requirement that health authorities and trusts conduct their business in as open a manner as possible. However, as we have heard, the reports on the activities of West Midlands regional health authority and South Birmingham health authority remain unpublished. Elected Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend and I have been unable to see the reports, while decisions have been taken against the wishes of the people of Birmingham.
In Birmingham, we have seen hospitals proposed for closure and campaigns against the closures. Hon. Members and elected councillors have expressed grave concern about what is happening in our health authority. On 25 November, I wrote to the Secretary of State expressing concern about the impact on patient care of the proposals to close the hospitals. I asked the right hon. Lady to intervene, because she had said that she was concerned about patient care. We hear a lot from the right hon. Lady about how much she cares, and I took her at her word—I thought that she did care.
On 5 January I wrote again, reminding the Secretary of State that I still had not received a reply to my letter of 25 November and explaining further concerns that had come to light, some of which have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield. Those concerns arise out of reports by the Audit Commission and by neighbouring health authorities, which are most concerned about the effect of the hospital closures on the people they are trying to serve. I still received no reply. I tabled a parliamentary question, but despite further reminders, including a conversation with the staff of the private office of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), and although I faxed a copy of my original letter, only today did I receive a reply.
It is too late. As my hon. Friend has said, the decision was taken last week. Neither the Secretary of State nor the Department of Health informed us of that decision, although they were polite and sensible enough to apologise

1195
to us a day later for the fact that they had not responded to our requests for a meeting with the Secretary of State and had not bothered to inform us before announcing publicly that they had decided to go ahead with the hospital closures.
My hon. Friend has explained the background to the decision—the financial deficit in South Birmingham health authority after the merger. We still cannot get to the bottom of exactly how big the deficit is; estimates vary dramatically. We know that letters went out to all members of staff informing them that, even now, bills presented after 28 December could not be paid. It seems that the financial crisis has still not been solved, yet the plans to solve it involve the closure of our hospitals. The rationale for these closures has always been that somehow it is an interim measure in the progress towards the grandiose plans with which we have been presented, entitled "Building a Healthy Birmingham". Like so many decisions from health authorities in the west midlands, those plans have been opposed by the majority of people for whom they are supposed to provide better services.
On Tuesday, Labour Members representing constituencies in the west midlands had a meeting with Sir Roy Griffiths. He confirmed that those plans have now hit the skids, as there are insufficient resources available. He told us that there was a capital moratorium and that, in his opinion, the health authority would get better value for money by tackling the maintenance backlog than by implementing the major new building programme that had been proposed.
Our hospitals are now being closed and facilities moved into the general hospital, on the basis that it will provide better services because the accident and emergencies services and the orthopaedic services would be better provided within a district general hospital. There is one problem with that argument and that is that all the services in the general hospital that give it its name—the general surgical and medical services—are moving out. The arguments about patient care do not stand up to examination.
At the last minute, in response to those valid criticisms, the health authority said that it would retain one consultant position and one consultant surgeon. Inquiries today reveal that the consultants being kept on are those who are due to retire, so, yet again, this is a temporary sop to attempt to justify an unjustifiable decision to decimate our services in Birmingham.
We are not opposed to changes in the configuration of our hospitals. For example, there is much support for the building of a new children's hospital and for the rebuilding of the elderly services block at Selly Oak hospital in my constituency which was condemned as long ago as 1978; yet it is still there and there are still no plans to replace it. Yes, there is scope for investment in our hospitals, but, for goodness' sake, why do not the Government intervene to ensure that the health authorities consult the city council and the elected representatives? Unelected, Government-appointed people have been riding roughshod over the views of elected representatives of the people of Birmingham, clinicians and others who know about our health services.
At the meeting with Sir Roy Griffiths, he accepted that there had been problems and that there was a need for
1196
greater consultation with the city of Birmingham and its elected representatives. He said that those responsible for problems in the past had now left the health authority. Sir Roy Griffiths and his adviser were somewhat embarrassed when they were asked under precisely what terms those people—Sir James Ackers, Mr. Ken Bales and Mr. Martin Davies—have left the authority.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield explained, the manner in which they left also causes great concern. They left not under a cloud, accepting responsibility for the manner in which they had run the health authority, but with very nice amounts of money, which I hope will be revealed. The people of Birmingham should know exactly what the financial arrangements were for the payouts to Sir James Ackers and the others who have been mentioned.
In the United Kingdom, we now have Government-appointed, non-elected representatives running our health authorities and health services. Obviously, that is the direction in which other public services are moving. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield said, if elected councillors had taken the same decisions as those non elected representatives took, they would have been rightly condemned.
I should like the Minister to respond in a way that gives the people of Birmingham and the west midlands confidence that people will be accountable for their actions and will intervene and listen to the views of the elected representatives and the people of Birmingham in future.
Our hospitals in Birmingham have not yet closed. There are still arguments about the effects of such closures on patient care. It is clear that the decisions were taken on financial grounds, not on the basis of improving facilities for the people of Birmingham. It is not too late for the Department of Health and Ministers to sit round the table and talk to the elected representatives to see whether they can find a way forward so that we can have confidence in the future and a pattern of hospitals which serves the people of Birmingham. They should ensure that decisions are not taken for short-term financial reasons.
9.26 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and the Minister for allowing me to take part in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking the initiative and managing to get this opportunity not only for himself but for other hon. Members from Birmingham to put to the Minister our serious concerns about the way in which the West Midlands health authority has behaved not just in recent weeks or months but in recent years.
My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and for Northfield have referred to the session of the Public Accounts Committee yesterday. As a member of that Committee, I shall not comment on yesterday's proceedings, because, as my hon. Friends will appreciate, we are considering our report, which will come out in due course.
The Public Accounts Committee has asked for further information before we report. We have asked for copies of some of the secret reports to which my hon. Friends have referred, because one of the features of the West Midlands health authority recently has been the series of secret reports which have been prepared but not published. Those reports have not been made available to hon.

1197
Members in the House and certainly not to the public. We know about the report of the National Audit Office on which the Committee took evidence yesterday, but that is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of reports.
We know that there is a series of reports from the Audit Commission. The Audit Commission told us that not only the contents but the subjects of the reports are confidential. We cannot even be told what the National Audit Office has reported on or found it necessary to investigate. There is a total shroud of secrecy. We have had some internal studies done. We have had the so-called Carver report which has not been made available to Members of Parliament or the public. I understand that we have had a report by Peat Marwick, which is secret.
I sometimes think that the West Midlands health authority is drawing up more reports than it is treating patients. As my hon. Friends have said, it is essential that we have a public inquiry so that all of us who live in and represent the west midlands, especially the city of Birmingham, can see exactly what is happening.
I shall not comment on the allegations and criticisms which have been made about Sir James Ackers and some of the former officers of the West Midlands health authority for the reasons which I have already explained. I expect that there will be some comments about those matters in the report which my colleagues and I will eventually publish on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee.
Other aspects of the affairs of the West Midlands health authority are already public knowledge. My hon. Friends have referred to the public report, endorsed by the West Midlands health authority and eventually approved by the Secretary of State for Health, ridiculously entitled "Building a Healthy Birmingham". My hon. Friends have described some of the proposals in that report, which, frankly, can be summarised as concentrating as many services as possible on one site—the Queen Elizabeth hospital.
When Sir James Ackers, as chairman of the health authority, was called upon to explain the reason for and motivation of the proposals, he used—in my hearing and more than once—a very revealing word. In describing the proposals to centralise services as much as possible on the Queen Elizabeth site, which is grossly inaccessible to most people in Birmingham except the middle-class people who live nearby, he used a most revealing word: he said that he would give us an excellent "campus". That is the only time I have ever heard anyone, or any Member of Parliament of any party, use the word "campus" in discussing hospitals. The proposal is not about treating sickness, disease and disability among the people of the city of Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands: it is about creating a university of Birmingham medical school. That was the motivation behind the scenes.
The health authority wanted to put as much as possible on one site near the university of Birmingham, so that students and consultants would not have to travel but the patients would travel to them. That is the wrong purpose behind the planning of hospitals. The people of Birmingham said so. Their elected representatives, city councillors as well as Members of Parliament, said so. Indeed, the local newspapers, which are not friends of the Labour movement, said that the strategy was appalling. I have yet to find anyone except the university of Birmingham medical school and the health authority who
1198
believes that the proposals in "Building a Healthy Birmingham" are good. I must add, of course, that the Secretary of State for Health approved the proposals.
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the sad saga was the attempt to manipulate public opinion. I use that word deliberately. I am a resident of Birmingham. I live in my constituency, as my hon. Friends live in theirs. I was surprised to receive a glossy leaflet through the letter box urging us to support the proposals in "Building a Healthy Birmingham". It was signed by the chairman of the East Birmingham health authority. It did not surprise me that he was in cahoots with Sir James Ackers, but it surprised me that, when I went to see the chairman of the district health authority, at his invitation, to discuss the proposals, he criticised them.
I told the chairman of the district health authority that I found it difficult to understand why I had received through my letter box a leaflet saying that the proposals were good when he had said that they were bad. He said, "I had to do it—it was written for me." All he did was put his name on the leaflet. It was written for him by the West Midlands regional health authority, and we shall never know what threats were used to make him put his signature on that leaflet.
The leaflet boasted about the improvements to come, which had already been approved. For the purposes of political propaganda, they were attributed to "Building a Healthy Birmingham". The leaflet said that a new maternity unit would be built as a result of the report, but that proposal had already been approved, and the money was there. There were several other examples like that.
A clear attempt was made to manipulate public opinion, but the health authority failed to do so—just as it failed to persuade the local people in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies in the East Birmingham health authority area that the proposal to have the first opt-out or trust hospital in Birmingham was a good thing. It failed to persuade not only the Labour party, which organised petitions against the proposal. To my certain knowledge, those petitions were also signed by supporters of the Conservative party; they agreed with us that the proposal was a bad thing, and wanted to keep East Birmingham hospital as it was.
The consultants had a ballot about the proposal to opt out. They did not like it. They did not want a trust. Other doctors at the hospital had a ballot. They did not want a trust. The nurses and other staff had a secret ballot. They did not like the proposal, either. They were opposed to it. But the health authority said that it knew best. The local people were overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal to opt out. The community health council, which represents local people, unanimously opposed the proposal for a trust at East Birmingham hospital. I declare an interest because the chair of the council is my wife.
Most significantly, one group of people opposed the proposal who could not be accused of having vested interests or not understanding the issues. I respect the opinions of that group most of all. They are the local family doctors. They were not consulted by the regional health authority. They were consulted by the health authority, but they were consulted on the initiative of East Birmingham community health council, which found that the family doctors were overwhelmingly opposed to the trust as well.
I was not surprised, but I was very sad, when West Midlands regional health authority rejected all our

1199
propositions. "We know best," the authority said, and the Secretary of State for Health rubber-stamped the decision in her turn—or was it his turn? The right hon. Lady's predecessor may have been in office then, but it makes no difference: the policies do not change just because the bottom on the seat changes. Anyway, the trust went ahead despite the opposition of doctors, nurses, national health service staff, local people, family general practitioners and all their representatives—again, on the basis of secret reports.
When I said that I did not know whether it was a good idea, and that I wanted to look at the business plan, I was told that I could not do so, because the plan was financial and therefore secret—like so much to do with money in the West Midlands regional health authority. No one outside the inner circle is allowed to know the financial realities until it is too late and wards and hospitals start to be closed.
My hon. Friends have described the position vividly. The closure of Woodlands hospital and the accident hospital, and the proposed closure of Birmingham General hospital down the road, have been overwhelmingly opposed—not only by local people who depend on those hospitals, but by the people of Birmingham in general. Their opposition, however, has been to no avail. Whatever else may be said about the affairs of the West Midlands health authority, it does not care about the views of local people, and it certainly does not represent local people.
My hon. Friends are right to criticise the authority's lack of accountability, and I support their call for a public inquiry into what has been going on in the authority. If that is too embarrassing for all the people involved, why do they not simply resign? It is not enough for Sir James Ackers to go, although he has headed the authority—and bravely said yesterday that the buck stops with him. He has not been alone: what about all the other political appointments to the authority—the faceless men and women who have acted as rubber stamps for the Government's policies? They, too, should go—and until they do, the people of the west midlands will have no confidence in their regional health authority.
9.37 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am glad to have this opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). Not surprisingly, the hon. Gentleman has concentrated on the difficulties faced by the West Midlands health authority rather than on its considerable achievements. Perhaps he should consider how to convince his audience that he is interested in health, rather than being concerned merely with the political and media appeal of the series of supposed conspiracies with which he appears to be obsessed.
We are talking here about health services, and there are good stories to tell about the health service in the west midlands—let us not forget that. The regional health authority is the largest in the country, comprising 19 districts and covering a population of some 5 million. Its financial allocation for 1993–94 is very large compared with the regional average: this year's allocation represents a 5 per cent. increase in real terms over that of the previous year. That increase, together with the commitment and
1200
dedication of the authority's staff, has enabled the authority to deliver a continually improving service to the population of the region.
In the past 10 years, under the active leadership of Sir James Ackers, treatment levels have risen dramatically. The treatment of in-patients has risen by 25 per cent. and that of day cases by 141 per cent.
In the past year alone, the total number of patients waiting more than one year for treatment has been reduced by 42 per cent. There is no longer anyone waiting more than two years for treatment, and more than 60 capital schemes have been completed by the authority since 1979. In south Birmingham, a new cardiac unit was opened at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in 1991 at a cost of £2 million. This year, the £13 million Queen Elizabeth psychiatric hospital received its first patient. Birmingham also leads Europe in providing the first quick and early diagnostic centre—a purpose-built facility at the Queen Elizabeth medical centre for the rapid diagnosis of cancer. Those are a few of the many notable achievements of which the region can be justifiably proud.
However, we must not forget—I have not been able to forget it this evening—that a number of issues in the west midlands have required serious attention. I shall outline some of them, together with the action that has been taken to resolve them.
Hon. Members know that the financial position of the South Birmingham health authority was the subject of an earlier Adjournment debate in the summer. It is not worth repeating all the details of the deficit, as we have already spent much time doing so. However, I remind the House that, in response to the problems of the deficit in south Birmingham, plans were produced that centred on removing the signicant duplication of services between the five major hospitals in the district—Selly Oak, Queen Elizabeth, Birmingham accident, royal orthopaedic and Birmingham general. It was proposed that the overspending would be removed not by cutting services, but by removing the costs of duplication of services and providing services more efficiently.
The main point of the plan that the regional health authority agreed last June was that services currently provided by the royal orthopaedic and Birmingham accident hospitals should be transferred to the general hospital and that most of the acute medicine and general surgery provided by the general should move to the Queen Elizabeth hospital.
The regional health authority followed the procedures laid down when closure or change of use for health buildings are proposed. There was a consultation period of more than three months, when the plans were widely circulated and everyone had an opportunity to comment.
Mr. Burden: Is the Minister aware of the distinct unhappiness among staff at the Birmingham accident hospital—one of those scheduled for closure—at the fact that they were not directly consulted about the closure plan? Has he been misinformed about that? If he has, does he now feel that the closure plan should be reopened if it is proved that not everyone who should have been consulted was consulted directly?
Mr. Sackville: I have no doubt that all the proper consultation procedures were carried out. I cannot claim that everyone was, or will be, in agreement, but the procedures were carried out.

1201
Ultimately, as in all cases when the local community health council cannot agree with the health authority's plans, the final decision rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. After careful consideration of all the evidence presented, I agreed, on behalf of the Secretary of State, the proposals put forward by South Birmingham health authority to close the Birmingham accident and royal orthopaedic hospitals and transfer the services to the general hospital in Birmingham. I notified the regional and district health authorities, as well as the hon. Members for Northfield and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), and letters were sent to the House on the day of my decision. Hon. Members representing other Birmingham constituencies were notified the following day.
For the benefit of hon. Members, I shall outline my reasons for the decision.
First, I see the closures as the best option for the continued and improved provision of accident and emergency and orthopaedic services within the district until such time as the new facilities at the South Birmingham medical centre become available. Secondly, they are a necessary step along the path to securing financial balance within South Birmingham health authority. Another factor is the age, condition and layout of the buildings of both hospitals. The high costs of meeting clinical, statutory and safety standards all speak against the retention of the hospitals.
I fully appreciate the strength of feeling for well-loved hospitals and my Department has received many letters praising the work of the royal orthopaedic hospital in particular. We must, however, take this opportunity to ensure that buildings meet the needs of modern health care and match the quality of medical and nursing care that takes place within those buildings.
There has been talk of cross-infection. The concerns about it have been considered and have been fully taken into account. As the hon. Member for Northfield knows, the burns unit will be housed in a self-contained unit with dedicated theatres. It will be located in a separate block away from orthopaedics. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman about that.
Emergency cover at the Birmingham general hospital has been raised. I remind the hon. Members for Northfield and for Selly Oak that the South Birmingham acute unit has stated that 24-hour medical and surgical cover will be available at registrar level. It will be provided on a rota basis from the Queen Elizabeth and Selly Oak hospitals. Additional consultant cover during normal working hours will be provided from the out-patient and day-case surgeries at the general hospital. Outside normal hours, dedicated consultant cover will be provided, and I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. Lady on that point.
Dr. Lynne Jones: We have been told that patient service could be improved by the relocation of the specialty hospitals in the district general hospital setting, yet the Minister is telling us that the relocation to the eneral hospital will result in cover being provided from the Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth hospitals, which are much further from the general hospital than they are from the present location. That does not square with the idea of an improvement in patient service.
Mr. Sackville: I can only seek to reassure the hon. Lady that adequate cover will be maintained. It is a matter that
1202
I have discussed with Sir Don Wilson. It is a point of considerable concern that must be considered, and I have received assurances. I shall personally monitor the continuing situation.
The hon. Member for Northfield concentrates very much on the problems that have occurred and he focused on the various doubts about the financial transactions that have been carried out by the region. Let him concentrate also on health services and on the efforts of all those who work for the health service in the west midlands so that he is able to take full account of the excellent work that is done.
I shall refer to some of the achievements within the west midlands. If we concentrate only on matters that are the subject of inquiries, a one-sided picture could be presented of health services in the west midlands. There are many positive features.
I point, first, to an interest of my own, which is the West Midlands ambulance service. It provides a good example. It is one of the largest ambulance services in the country. It has received accreditation to BS 5750 on the basis of a total quality service. It was the first ambulance service to introduce paramedic motor cyclists. It is currently leading the way in ensuring that all ambulance services have a trained paramedic included as part of their front-line teams.
This is one of the great success stories of the modern health service. Soon, the public in the west midlands and elsewhere will know that, every time an ambulance attends an emergency or accident, it will contain a paramedic as part of the crew, who will have been trained to a high level. The paramedic will have been trained specifically to resuscitate and support life in the pre-hospital period.
The West Midlands ambulance service has also just won the United Kingdom transplant support service contract, which commenced this month, for transporting teams and organs nationwide—an important and topical development.
Despite an 8 per cent. increase in emergency activity, the West Midlands ambulance service is an example of an efficient organisation with resources channelled towards patient care. All emergency vehicles are under six years old, and nearly all are now equipped with defibrillators.
Dr. Lynne Jones: I hesitate to intervene again, but the Minister has raised the issue of the ambulance service. I welcome his announcement about the involvement of paramedics, but information that I have received from a number of general practitioners in my constituency shows that all is not well with the West Midlands ambulance service.
For instance, the Minister should consider the case of the man who had to wait three hours for an ambulance which should have arrived within the hour, and who ended up having to have his leg amputated. I was also told of another two cases in which, in the end, patients took taxis and, if they had not done so, would have suffered a similar fate.
I have heard from other general practitioners that the ambulance service is not as fast as it used to be, so we have concern there as well. I am sorry to have to tell the Minister that, once again, he is out of touch with the reality on the ground.
Mr. Sackville: I have visited the ambulance service within the last two weeks, and I was extremely impressed

1203
with what I saw. I was aware of considerable dedication among staff, crews and management. It had one of the most impressive control centres that I have ever seen, and I have visited a large number in recent months. I am assured—I saw the figures to prove it—that response times are improving fast. In a large ambulance service—this is the second largest in the country—there will always be problems from time to time. All that I can say is that the quality of commitment and what has been achieved by the West Midlands ambulance service is striking.
Mr. Terry Davis: Did the Minister, during his visit to the west midlands, take the opportunity not only to visit the ambulance service but the head office of the West Midlands regional health authority in Hagley road to talk to its members? Was he impressed by that?
Mr. Sackville: I made a specific visit to the ambulance service, which is one of my particular interests. It is one of the success stories for which it should be given credit.
Mr. Davis: Has the Minister ever visited the office of the West Midlands regional health authority? Has he ever talked to its members? Does he not want to?
Mr. Sackville: I have not had the honour of visiting the offices of the West Midlands regional health authority. I have visited a number of hospitals and other health facilities in the West Midlands in recent months, and that is the important thing. It is what happens on the ground that matters.
The paramedic skills in the Staffordshire ambulance service should not be overlooked. Two members of the service were included recently in the team drawn mainly form the North Staffordshire trauma centre at the request of the Prime Minister to travel to what was Yugoslavia to provide help and paramedic advice to the people of that troubled country.
The West Midlands is making excellent progress on health promotion—the key theme of the White Paper "The Health of the Nation". I opened and addressed a conference on the health of the nation in Birmingham recently.
In Sandwell, a health fair and open day to promote healthy lifestyles has been organised by the family health services authority. Westminster now provides parents and children with regular health and safety advice. The priority health unit in Dudley is working with the FHSA and local GPs—
Mr. Burden: The Minister's comments are fascinating, but they are not the subject of this debate. Could I ask him to comment on this: Sir James Ackers, when he was the chair of the West Midlands regional health authority, stated that the "Building a Healthy Birmingham" plan, which, from what the Minister said, is still on the go, was not compatible with the creation of hospital trusts in the South Birmingham area. He said that until the "Building a Healthy Birmingham" plan was well down the road, the region would not support the creation of hospital trusts.
Since that time, expressions of interest have come in from the acute unit in South Birmingham. That is also a matter of some concern to my constituents. Will the Minister, in this review of the situation in the west midlands, tell us whether he looks with favour on those
1204
expressions of interest, or whether he agrees with Sir James Ackers that they are incompatible with the "Building a Healthy Birmingham" plan?
Mr. Sackville: I am absolutely in favour of the creation of trusts if the organisations and health facilities that wish to attain trust status are deemed suitable. There are some very successful health trusts in the west midlands. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Northfield had got past having to oppose trust status on political grounds, because the BMA and many other people have got past that stage. I think that he is living in the past.
I want now to mention the priority health unit in Dudley, which, working with the FHSA and local GPs, provides professional advice and care to patients requiring chiropody and audiology services through GPs' surgeries or in mobile units. Virtually all Coventry GPs are now involved in some form of positive health promotion, including well-woman clinics, heart disease prevention and advice on alcohol control and on how to stop smoking. Hereford, Worcester and North Worcester district health authorities have all appointed, for example, anti-smoking facilitators to work with GPs and to give advice to people who want to give up smoking.
For their own staff, West Midlands regional health authority recently held a health-at-work workshop to promote healthy lifestyles and to provide practical advice on how to achieve that.
That is what this debate is about; it is about health services in the west midlands, and if hon. Members are concerned only with what has gone wrong and what are the supposed scandals or problems in the financial management of the regional health authority, they are not interested in health.
Mr. Terry Davis: These are not "supposed" scandals. The Comptroller and Auditor General told the House that senior officials of the West Midlands regional health authority have shown a cavalier disregard for proper procedures and for proper standards of public life. Does he not understand that these are serious criticisms? Will he stop sheltering behind people working in the national health service? My hon. Friends and I have not criticised people working in the national health service. We have criticised the people running the service in the west midlands, the people appointed by this Minister and his Secretary of State. What has he to say to defend them?
Mr. Sackville: The net effect of the constant criticisms is to denigrate the efforts of all those who work in the health services in the west midlands. What the hon. Member and his hon. Friends need to do is spend a little more time seeing what is happening on the ground—
Mr. Terry Davis: Who spends more time on the ground—him or us?
Mr. Sackville: He will see that there are tens of thousands of dedicated people working for the health service in the west midlands who deserve a little praise and encouragement from time to time.
Mr. Burden: If the Minister agrees with me, as he seems to, that thousands of staff who work for West Midlands regional health authority, component hospitals and district health authorities are dedicated and need a fair deal, are not they entitled to know, as we are, the causes of the scandals in south Birmingham, to see the KPMG

1205
Peat Marwick report, to read the auditors' report and to find out and be told why millions of pounds that could have gone into improving health care has gone down the drain because the people running the health authority have mismanaged it? If he believes that they have the right to know that, will he today direct the publication of the reports to which I and my hon. Friends have referred?
Mr. Sackville: The hon. Member is obsessed with publication of reports. The matters that have been referred to tonight have been properly investigated. Any action that is due will be taken. He has my assurance on that.
In conclusion—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Mr. Sackville: In conclusion, I want to respond to what the hon. Member for Selly Oak said about giving people in the west midlands confidence about their health service. They can have the confidence of knowing that the things which have given rise to inquiries will be properly investigated and all the proper action will be taken. Where there are doubts as to finances and financial problems,
1206
such as in South Birmingham, action plans will be followed through which will bring those matters into balance.
I ask the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, as well as asking me for that assurance, to help to give that confidence to people in the west midlands and to ensure that financial problems are not the only things that they read about with regard to health in the west midlands; that they read also about the dedication and the work—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has twice received letters from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggesting that he come into the Department to discuss these matters. I had a very constructive meeting recently with the community health council, which he did not attend. He is welcome any time to come into the Department to discuss these matters with me; I hope that he will take me up on that.
I reiterate what I have been saying in the past few minutes. There have been great achievements in health in the west midlands which should not be ignored. They are achievements of which any region could be justly proud. They underline the region's enormous investment in and commitment to patient care and patient services.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Attercliffe Study
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what alternative sources of funding are available for the initiation of the Attercliffe study, following the ending of the urban programme.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Urban programme and urban development corporation resources have been used to fund the Attercliffe study. The study is now complete and the recommendations are being considered by Sheffield city council and its partners.

  Derelict land grant, city grant—both to be absorbed into the proposed urban regeneration agency—urban development corporation and European regional development fund resources may be available for those schemes which meet the relevant grant criteria and also have sufficient priority when considered alongside other schemes.

  In addition, the recent relaxations on use of capital receipts should enable Sheffield city council to assist such schemes from its own resources.

  Deposit Bond Bank Schemes
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many deposit bond bank schemes are currently in operation in England and Wales; and what is their location.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held by the Department.

  Refugees (London)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each London borough the latest actual and budget figures he has for expenditure on(a) housing, (b) education and (c) social services resulting from the acceptance by that borough of refugees to the United Kingdom; and if he will also list for each London borough the amount of specific grant allowed by his Department for this purpose.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information on actual and budgeted expenditure is not available centrally. Details of a special grant payable in 1992–93 to local authorities in respect of displaced persons from the former Yugoslavia are set out in the "Special Grant Report (No. 5)" which the House approved on 3 February.

  Disabled People (Council Tax)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what estimate he has made of the number of disabled persons in each council tax band B to H702
  inclusive who are likely to be eligible for a disabled person's discount; and what is the estimated cost of this discount for each band B to H, and in total for England;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of disabled persons living in dwellings valued in council tax band A who would be eligible for a discount if their dwelling were valued in any other band.

  Mr. Howard
  Figures are not available for the number of dwellings in each band likely to benefit from the reductions for disabilities scheme.

  Urban Priority Areas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 243, if he will name the external researchers referred to in his answer; and if he will give a full timetable for consultations on the methodology to be used for the review of urban priority areas.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The external researchers are the Centre for Urban Policy Studies, Manchester university. We will circulate shortly a paper by the researchers proposing a methodology to be used in analysing census data to the local authority associations and voluntary organisations. Given the technical complexity of the subject, we will seek to give as much time as possible for them to respond.

  Special Needs Housing
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the funding of special needs projects currently funded by the Housing Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Expenditure plans for 1993–94 include provision of £96·6 million for the revenue funding of special needs projects by the Housing Corporation. Most of this provision relates to projects which are currently receiving funding from the corporation.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ring-fence the current financial regime governing special needs projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Revenue funding for special needs projects is provided by my Department through the special needs management allowance paid to housing associations by the Housing Corporation. Provision for this programme in 1992–93 is £95 million, specifically for supporting the housing management costs of associations operating in the field of special needs accommodation. Funding for 1993–94 will include provision for an additional 3,000 SNMA bedspaces, the majority of which will receive capital funding from the corporation's approved development programme. In addition, the ADP will provide funds for 1,500 units of special needs accommodation not requiring support from SNMA.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to encourage special housing authorities being formed and run by disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to encourage the formation of such organisations.
  703
  The Housing Corporation currently supports about 250 housing associations which provide accommodation for a range of special needs, including the needs of disabled people.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of council tax payers eligible for a second homes discount in each band, and in total, for England; and what is the estimated cost of the discount for each band and in total.

  Mr. Howard
  The table shows the estimated number of dwellings which may be subject to two council tax discounts. The majority of these will be second homes. Local authorities will not be setting their council taxes until the spring; we have no estimate of the cost of the discounts that might apply to second homes.

  Band

  Number of dwellings ('000s)

  A

  126

  B

  78

  C

  88

  D

  59

  E

  40

  F

  25

  G

  25

  H

  9

  Total for England

  450

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he intends to adopt to allow local authorities continued borrowing during 1993–94 to cover the collection of outstanding arrears of 1990–91 and 1991–92 community charges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  During this year community charge collection has improved significantly, and it is essential that authorities continue to make every effort to collect all outstanding unpaid community charges. To assist authorities we are prepared to consider, in response to an application by an authority, granting an increase in its aggregate credit limit for 1993–94 to cover those unpaid 1990–91 and 1991–92 community charges which it expects to collect during 1993–94. This will enable such an authority to continue to borrow to cover these debts pending their collection during the course of next year.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 16 local authorities he referred to on 3 February,Official Report, column 342 which will receive a special grant to compensate them since their standard spending assessment is more than 5 per cent. lower than under the old basis of estimating; and if he will quantify the money each of the 16 local authorities will receive.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The "Special Grant Report (No.5)", which was laid before the House on 28 January 1993, sets out the authorities to which population loss grants are to be paid, and the amount of each grant. These are listed:
  704

  £

  Bracknell Forest

  690,257

  Richmondshire

  426,440

  Wokingham

  321,846

  Rutland

  189,768

  West Oxfordshire

  160,569

  Three Rivers

  139,901

  Colchester

  135,501

  Purbeck

  131,493

  North Kesteven

  118,575

  North Shropshire

  80,988

  Milton Keynes

  69,099

  Tendring

  66,819

  City of Oxford

  48,818

  East Yorkshire

  38,250

  Wealden

  35,790

  Surrey Heath

  20,050

  Local Authority Housing Investment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further conclusions he has reached following his consultation exercise on the development of the local authority housing investment programme process.

  Sir George Young
  Last May, my Department launched a major consultation exercise on the further development of the local authority housing investment programme process. The consultation paper made proposals designed to improve the way in which housing resources are used and to stimulate the involvement of local people in this process. It was suggested that local authorities should prepare new strategies covering the full range of housing activities in their area. It was also proposed that decisions on the initial allocation of Housing Corporation funding should be co-ordinated with local authorities' housing strategies for each area and recent trends in the allocation of HIP resources, designed to promote better value for the money spent through housing capital programmes, should be developed.

  Interim decisions on these matters, covering points which it was necessary to settle in time for the 1992 HIP round, were issued in July, Official Report, 10 July 1992, column 384. We have now reached conclusions on the framework for the HIP process in 1993 and later years.

  Our view is that the HIP process should develop progressively in a flexible manner, which allows scope for the differing circumstances of authorities and the developing housing policies of both local and central Government. To facilitate this, we intend to invite all housing authorities to draw up annual housing strategy statements in which each authority describes the needs and resources for housing in their area, and the plans and programmes which the authority has for addressing them. Housing strategies should be developed in consultation with the Housing Corporation, housing associations, the private housing sector, both rental and owner occupied, house builders, the voluntary sector, tenants groups and other interested parties. They should encompass all relevant functions and resources of the authority in a corporate approach.

  Alongside this, we intend to build on this year's success in co-ordinating the arrangements for the HIP and the Housing Corporation's approved development programme processes. We have reaffirmed our view that there is a role for a significant element of discretion in the

  705
  allocation of HIP resources, including a primary allocation criterion based on the efficiency and effectiveness of authorities in meeting housing need. And in particular we have reached the view that the statistical index used in the allocation of HIP resources—the generalised needs index or GNI—should be comprehensively reviewed, with special reference to the year-on-year stability of the index.

  In the spring, the Department will issue guidance to local authorities on the preparation of housing strategy statements and the submission of HIP bids for 1994–95.

  I have now asked officials to take forward discussions on the practical implications of these decisions with the local authority associations, the Housing Corporation, the National Federation of Housing Associations and other interested parties, as appropriate.

  I have placed in the Libraries of the House copies of a note which gives more detail of the decisions we have taken.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in respect of his Department's consultation document to local housing authorities proposing the transfer of the care element of the warden service in sheltered housing from housing revenue accounts to social service budgets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 10 February 1993]: Last September my Department issued a consultation document proposing temporary legislation, to be included in the Housing and Urban Development Bill, enabling local housing authorities to provide welfare services for their tenants and to account for the costs in their housing revenue accounts if they wish. These powers would avoid disruption and uncertainty in the wake of the Ealing judgment. The consultation document explained that the powers were intended to be temporary because it is the Government's intention that the housing revenue account should be a landlord account, and that welfare services should be accounted for elsewhere.

  My Department received approximately 130 representations widely welcoming these powers, but many suggested that welfare services should continue to be provided by housing authorities as part of the housing service, or at least until local government reorganisation was complete. We have made it clear that no decisions will be taken on whether or when to withdraw these powers until a further, full consultation exercise has taken place.

  I am issuing this further consultation paper today, and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the House Libraries. The paper is being sent to all local authorities and other interested parties, setting out proposals for the longer-term funding and provision of welfare services for tenants of local housing authorities. The paper proposes that housing authorities should retain the temporary powers, at present being considered as part of the Housing and Urban Development Bill, to provide these services for their tenants, until the current review of local government is completed. It also sets out options on which services might be excluded from the housing revenue account and on timing. We will take no decisions until we have considered what consultees have to say. Whatever
  706
  longer-term arrangements are then decided on, we will ensure that there will be no disruption to services for tenants.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will also be issuing a consultation paper on these issues shortly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Blepharospasm
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision his Department makes for sufferers of the condition blepharospasm; and of he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  A wide range of benefits is available to sick and disabled people, including sufferers of blepharospasm, provided that they meet the conditions of entitlement. Information about benefits is available from the Benefits Agency in leaflets and through confidential free telephone advice lines.

  Pensions
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures estimating the cost of reintroducing earnings uprating for the retirement pension and other linked benefits beginning in April 1996, giving annual figures in 1992–93 prices over a 10-year period.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, a comparison between the cost of earnings uprating of benefits and that of prices uprating of benefits from 1990–91 to 2050–51 can be made by referring to tables 13 and 14 of the "National Insurance Fund Long Term Financial Estimates—Report of the Government Actuary on the Second Quinquennial review under Section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975" published in July 1990 as HC 582.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to ensure that the hon. Member for East Lothian receives a reply to his letter of 4 November 1992 about the case of Mr. Mark Moffat, which was subsequently referred by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), to the chief executive of the Benefits Agency.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. I understand that Mr. Bichard has already replied to the hon. Member about this case.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each housing authority, for the latest year for which figures are available, the number of housing benefit claimants who live in(a) council housing, (b) other public sector housing and (c) private rented accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table. "Other public sector housing" is taken to refer to
  707
  accommodation provided by housing associations. The information relates to averages of the quarterly caseload counts, from the housing benefit management information system statistics for May and August 1992.

  Claimants of Housing Benefit by type of accommodation.

  Local authority

  Local authority tenants

  Housing associations

  Other private rented

  Aberconwy

  1,733

  95

  1,331

  Aberdeen

  13,882

  636

  1,527

  Adur

  2,196

  48

  744

  Allerdale

  3,277

  2,489

  912

  Alnwick

  1,541

  261

  345

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,991

  304

  629

  Amber Valley

  4,024

  312

  1,202

  Angus

  5,402

  158

  1,055

  Annandale and Eskdale

  2,019

  42

  337

  Arfon

  3,253

  41

  1,478

  Argyll-Bute

  3,513

  534

  810

  Arun

  3,225

  627

  2,955

  Ashfield

  5,733

  328

  1,242

  Ashford

  4,606

  170

  995

  Aylesbury Vale

  4,998

  4

  1,387

  Babergh

  3,096

  108

  982

  Badenoch

  443

  75

  211

  Banff and Buchan

  4,597

  151

  506

  Barking

  14,118

  41

  1,075

  Barnet

  9,377

  515

  6,584

  Barnsley

  18,050

  787

  2,962

  Barrow in Furness

  2,957

  6

  1,713

  Basildon

  3,770

  40

  1,678

  Basildon(DC)

  6,928

  0

  0

  Basingstoke

  4,811

  549

  1,213

  Bassetlaw

  5,715

  217

  1,194

  Bath

  4,382

  483

  2,177

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  805

  22

  77

  Berwickshire

  970

  144

  195

  Berwick-upun-Tweed

  1,425

  59

  357

  Beverley

  2,618

  221

  831

  Bexley

  5,309

  387

  3,974

  Birmingham

  76,660

  8,754

  19,185

  Blaby

  1,244

  197

  420

  Blackburn

  8,661

  1,345

  1,422

  Blackpool

  5,039

  626

  6,293

  Blaenau Gwent

  6,696

  741

  787

  Blyth Valley

  5,390

  1,124

  697

  Bolsover

  4,226

  168

  1,075

  Bolton

  16,543

  1,386

  3,461

  Boothferry

  2,682

  106

  665

  Boston

  3,271

  80

  526

  Bournemouth

  4,635

  119

  8,751

  Bracknell

  3,974

  496

  864

  Bradford

  22,643

  7,264

  5,746

  Braintree

  6,283

  122

  1,219

  Breckland

  4,149

  277

  1,162

  Brecknock

  1,408

  143

  420

  Brent

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Brentwood

  2,165

  125

  460

  Bridgnorth

  1,860

  56

  536

  Brighton

  8,194

  1,385

  7,451

  Bristol

  23,178

  2,277

  10,833

  Broadland

  12

  2,237

  1,138

  Bromley

  415

  11,164

  2,900

  Bromsgrove

  2,179

  85

  503

  Broxbourne

  2,780

  218

  692

  Broxtowe

  3,817

  301

  1,486

  Burnley

  4,654

  536

  1,752

  Bury

  6,897

  883

  1,818

  Caithness

  1,641

  65

  230

  Calderdale

  9,640

  656

  3,053

  Cambridge

  5,288

  822

  1,870

  Camden

  17,896

  4,166

  8,558

  Cannock Chase

  4,883

  132

  814

  Canterbury

  4,476

  621

  2,513

  Caradon

  2,557

  81

  1,293

  Cardiff

  14,232

  3,343

  7,464

  Carlisle

  5,728

  196

  1,538

  Carmarthen

  1,890

  190

  837

  708

  Local authority

  Local authority tenants

  Housing associations

  Other private rented

  Carrick

  3,050

  27

  2,023

  Castle Morpeth

  2,065

  133

  335

  Castle Point

  1,408

  99

  697

  Ceredigion

  1,759

  143

  1,443

  Charnwood

  4,321

  366

  1,233

  Chelmsford

  5,001

  303

  1,030

  Cheltenham

  4,209

  447

  2,043

  Cherwell

  3,981

  345

  1,581

  Chester

  4,926

  53

  2,102

  Chester le Street

  3,842

  114

  323

  Chesterfield

  7,218

  407

  1,392

  Chichester

  3,537

  290

  1,303

  Chiltern

  0

  776

  2,068

  Chorley

  2,396

  1,350

  782

  Christchurch

  0

  1,191

  619

  City of London

  994

  0

  101

  Clackmannan

  6,388

  195

  328

  Cleethorpes

  2,029

  99

  1,370

  Clydebank

  5,694

  319

  604

  Clydesdale

  4,101

  100

  194

  Colchester

  5,417

  482

  2,268

  Colwyn

  1,720

  365

  1,538

  Congleton

  2,502

  80

  422

  Copeland

  2,925

  513

  1,752

  Corby

  3,724

  0

  1,010

  Cotswold

  2,736

  149

  1,070

  Coventry

  16,214

  3,065

  6,212

  Craven

  1,194

  63

  703

  Crawley

  4,840

  401

  687

  Crewe and Nantwich

  4,343

  201

  1,238

  Croydon

  12,541

  2,374

  7,047

  Cumbernauld

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Cumbernauld (DC)

  3,258

  0

  0

  Cumnock & Doon

  4,855

  87

  191

  Cunninghame

  11,320

  145

  1,384

  Cynon Valley

  3,649

  600

  1,074

  Dacorum

  6,168

  769

  648

  Darlington

  4,811

  486

  1,697

  Dartford

  3,174

  182

  878

  Daventry

  2,213

  0

  480

  Delyn

  3,050

  223

  727

  Derby

  11,077

  2,225

  4,331

  Derbyshire Dales

  1,931

  19

  624

  Derwentside

  7,737

  471

  832

  Dinefwr

  1,448

  96

  615

  Doncaster

  19,220

  357

  4,013

  Dover

  4,158

  535

  2,256

  Dudley

  20,713

  1,477

  1,487

  Dumbarton

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Dundee

  18,557

  1,591

  2,613

  Dunfermline

  9,247

  1

  1,492

  Durham

  5,566

  331

  792

  Dwyfor

  843

  77

  591

  Ealing

  11,127

  2,926

  7,152

  Easington

  9,907

  763

  846

  East Cambridgeshire

  2,342

  76

  688

  East Devon

  3,079

  217

  1,914

  East Dorset

  15

  1,514

  987

  East Hampshire

  2,625

  135

  998

  East Hertfordshire

  3,696

  91

  757

  East Kilbride

  585

  29

  435

  East Kilbride (DC)

  5,230

  0

  0

  East Lindsey

  3,526

  142

  2,894

  East Lothian

  6,023

  311

  633

  East Northampton

  2,510

  81

  639

  East Staffordshire

  3,288

  269

  925

  East Yorkshire

  2,760

  130

  2,218

  Eastbourne

  3,333

  740

  2,801

  Eastleigh

  2,749

  204

  1,244

  Eastwood

  833

  49

  243

  Eden

  1,017

  129

  564

  Edinburgh

  25,236

  922

  13,432

  Ellesmere Port

  3,763

  248

  551

  Elmbridge

  2,985

  79

  1,557

  Enfield

  11,484

  813

  5,127

  Epping Forest

  4,903

  295

  872

  709

  Local authority

  Local authority tenants

  Housing associations

  Other private rented

  Epsom and Ewell

  1,093

  181

  567

  Erewash

  4,549

  290

  1,398

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1,494

  417

  263

  Exeter

  3,996

  974

  2,734

  Falkirk

  13,208

  254

  857

  Fareham

  2,035

  125

  829

  Fenland

  3,175

  96

  1,306

  Forest Heath

  1,965

  138

  532

  Forest of Dean

  2,675

  276

  503

  Fylde

  1,378

  70

  1,412

  Gateshead

  20,209

  1,123

  4,200

  Gedling

  2,744

  312

  1,690

  Gillingham

  2,442

  234

  1,608

  Glanford

  2,010

  205

  680

  Glasgow

  101,048

  5,599

  15,875

  Glenrothes (DC)

  3,253

  0

  0

  Gloucester

  4,209

  581

  2,048

  Glyndwr

  1,607

  198

  475

  Gordon

  2,104

  109

  368

  Gosport

  3,279

  328

  1,141

  Gravesham

  4,610

  165

  1,234

  Great Yarmouth

  4,574

  333

  2,011

  Greenwich

  16,658

  1,916

  4,107

  Grimsby

  5,386

  591

  2,299

  Guildford

  3,745

  29

  1,715

  Hackney

  23,875

  2,365

  8,914

  Halton

  5,491

  1,963

  4,532

  Hambleton

  2,293

  1

  755

  Hamilton

  10,602

  268

  324

  Hammersmith

  10,792

  3,247

  6,265

  Harborough

  1,637

  27

  459

  Haringey

  18,340

  2,822

  17,846

  Harlow

  6,644

  263

  731

  Harrogate

  3,209

  461

  2,280

  Harrow

  5,400

  326

  3,309

  Hart

  1,366

  93

  587

  Hartlepool

  7,272

  1,165

  1,712

  Hastings

  3,280

  965

  3,347

  Havant

  2,405

  283

  996

  Havering

  12,620

  157

  2,208

  Hereford

  2,645

  281

  1,163

  Hertsmere

  3,626

  189

  644

  High Peak

  3,091

  271

  1,060

  Hillingdon

  9,631

  313

  3,072

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  2,575

  68

  678

  Holderness

  1,385

  21

  637

  Horsham

  3,119

  57

  1,218

  Hounslow

  7,520

  719

  3,322

  Hove

  2,572

  660

  4,861

  Huntingdon

  4,243

  91

  1,491

  Hyndburn

  3,025

  168

  1,491

  Inverclyde

  9,796

  362

  840

  Inverness

  4,632

  184

  866

  Ipswich

  6,512

  1,230

  2,404

  Irvine (DC)

  1,904

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  41

  9

  29

  Islington

  19,785

  1,547

  6,417

  Islwyn

  3,868

  467

  582

  Kennet

  2,623

  86

  738

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5,489

  4,662

  4,363

  Kerrier

  2,943

  51

  2,481

  Kettering

  3,196

  100

  1,045

  Kilmarnock

  7,927

  186

  648

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,124

  129

  244

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  26,581

  2,017

  7,129

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  4,307

  1,042

  1,318

  Kingswood

  2,728

  311

  631

  Kirkcaldy

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Kirklees

  19,804

  1,305

  4,745

  Knowsley

  18,373

  503

  3,234

  Kyle and Carrick

  8,145

  61

  1,180

  Lambeth

  23,729

  3,852

  8,773

  Lancaster

  3,365

  300

  4,396

  Langbaurgh

  9,905

  1,015

  1,985

  Leeds

  51,887

  3,855

  14,702

  Leicester

  20,671

  547

  7,270

  710

  Local authority

  Local authority tenants

  Housing associations

  Other private rented

  Leominster

  1,163

  78

  512

  Lewes

  2,481

  338

  1,465

  Lewisham

  20,435

  3,654

  8,324

  Lichfield

  2,917

  184

  615

  Lincoln

  6,342

  202

  2,230

  Liverpool

  40,991

  13,086

  17,041

  Livingston (DC)

  3,654

  0

  0

  Llanelli

  4,796

  297

  1,177

  Lliw Valley

  3,236

  261

  624

  Lochaber

  1,007

  82

  206

  Luton

  6,944

  619

  3,552

  Macclesfield

  4,007

  327

  1,447

  Maidstsone

  4,858

  265

  1,472

  Maldon

  1,460

  92

  646

  Malvern Hills

  2,937

  27

  883

  Manchester

  62,613

  6,413

  17,761

  Mansfield

  6,265

  690

  1,735

  Medina

  71

  2,303

  2,919

  Meirionnydd

  1,130

  62

  626

  Melton

  1,309

  0

  489

  Mendip

  3,310

  201

  1,668

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4,957

  12

  1,721

  Merton

  6,814

  1,216

  3,619

  Mid Bedfordshire

  3,467

  72

  672

  Mid Devon

  2,360

  218

  950

  Mid Suffolk

  2,523

  151

  612

  Mid Sussex

  52

  2,438

  1,308

  Middlesbrough

  12,793

  1,574

  3,096

  Midlothian

  3,645

  254

  893

  Milton Keynes

  8,220

  1,460

  2,154

  Mole Valley

  2,037

  41

  775

  Monklands

  12,986

  0

  319

  Monmouth

  2,820

  235

  594

  Montgomery

  1,426

  348

  622

  Moray

  4,181

  261

  803

  Motherwell

  16,944

  193

  654

  Nairn

  532

  32

  107

  Neath

  3,812

  505

  709

  New Forest

  4,560

  849

  1,654

  Newark

  4,238

  283

  1,446

  Newbury

  34

  3,274

  1,627

  Newcastle under Lyme

  5,681

  144

  1,193

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  28,697

  4,064

  5,927

  Newham

  18,921

  3,149

  12,328

  Newport

  9,317

  963

  2,797

  Nithsdale

  3,365

  177

  602

  North Bedfordshire

  0

  5,585

  1,850

  North Cornwall

  2,620

  290

  1,406

  North Devon

  2,330

  474

  2,310

  North Dorset

  1,688

  177

  516

  North East Derby

  5,803

  88

  629

  North East Fife

  2,927

  118

  594

  North Hertfordshire

  5,406

  725

  1,107

  North Kesteven

  2,875

  0

  769

  North Norfolk

  3,300

  89

  1,562

  North Shropshire

  1,750

  148

  613

  North Tyneside

  15,064

  2,284

  3,643

  North Warwickshire

  2,369

  110

  568

  North West Leicester

  2,954

  392

  679

  North Wiltshire

  3,850

  92,

  1,042

  Northampton

  9,822

  401

  2,899

  Northavon

  3,335

  274

  940

  Norwich

  12,692

  912

  3,630

  Nottingham

  25,849

  1,729

  10,215

  Nuneaton

  5,460

  285

  1,454

  Oadby and Wigston

  920

  69

  437

  Ogwr

  6,825

  653

  1,843

  Oldham

  15,075

  1,459

  2,864

  Orkney

  571

  60

  240

  Oswestry

  1,423

  9

  584

  Oxford

  5,967

  652

  4,061

  Pendle

  3,317

  190

  1,385

  Penwith

  2,399

  82

  1,781

  Perth and Kinross

  5,938

  299

  1,745

  Peterborough

  8,176

  1,930

  3,700

  Plymouth

  12,231

  1,841

  7,948

  711

  Local authority

  Local authority tenants

  Housing associations

  Other private rented

  Poole

  3,778

  556

  2,378

  Port Talbot

  3,664

  325

  632

  Portsmouth

  12,888

  2,234

  4,647

  Preseli

  3,413

  227

  953

  Preston

  7,071

  2,017

  1,650

  Purbeck

  1,181

  178

  639

  Radnor

  529

  96

  592

  Reading

  5,879

  869

  3,421

  Redbridge

  6,794

  523

  4,804

  Redditch

  4,837

  193

  506

  Reigate and Banstead

  3,447

  287

  1,050

  Renfrew

  17,606

  578

  1,223

  Restormel

  2,664

  108

  2,307

  Rhondda

  3,851

  669

  1,317

  Rhuddlan

  1,711

  222

  2,095

  Rhymney Valley

  8,101

  852

  1,081

  Ribble Valley

  863

  66

  360

  Richmondshire

  1,275

  69

  317

  Richmond upon Thames

  5,002

  463

  3,125

  Rochdale

  12,447

  1,345

  2,637

  Rochester on Medway

  18

  0

  8,803

  Rochford

  1,483

  116

  819

  Ross and Cromarty

  2,939

  140

  399

  Rossendale

  3,569

  356

  697

  Rother

  2,196

  278

  1,540

  Rotherham

  17,853

  1,200

  2,617

  Roxburgh

  2,308

  536

  239

  Rugby

  3,043

  472

  890

  Runnymede

  2,215

  165

  862

  Rural Wales

  468

  0

  0

  Rushcliffe

  2,257

  190

  1,382

  Rushmoor

  2,793

  174

  1,160

  Rutland

  881

  12

  256

  Ryedale

  0

  2,006

  888

  Salford

  23,735

  2,628

  4,967

  Salisbury

  3,924

  68

  1,835

  Sandwell

  31,516

  2,037

  2,248

  Scarborough

  4,139

  24

  2,785

  Scottish Homes

  36,448

  0

  0

  Scunthorpe

  4,763

  133

  1,177

  Sedgefield

  8,173

  751

  491

  Sedgemoor

  3,691

  252

  1,758

  Sefton

  11,286

  3,053

  5,965

  Selby

  2,520

  181

  850

  Sevenoaks

  27

  3,348

  1,196

  Sheffield

  51,877

  4,835

  6,278

  Shepway

  2,902

  144

  3,351

  Shetland

  882

  50

  72

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  3,618

  186

  1,183

  Skye and Lochalsh

  518

  49

  184

  Slough

  5,552

  234

  2,014

  Solihull

  9,347

  678

  956

  South Bedfordshire

  4,175

  323

  1,045

  South Bucks

  60

  2,005

  378

  South Cambridgeshire

  3,477

  173

  816

  South Derbyshire

  2,492

  33

  718

  South Hams

  2,338

  207

  1,288

  South Herefordshire

  1,298

  103

  586

  South Holland

  2,678

  11

  563

  South Kesteven

  4,844

  142

  1,637

  South Lakeland

  2,498

  64

  1,363

  South Norfolk

  3,161

  197

  928

  South Northants

  1,911

  40

  450

  South Oxfordshire

  3,331

  94

  1,297

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,835

  125

  982

  South Ribble

  2,372

  511

  514

  South Shropshire

  1,122

  134

  554

  South Somerset

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  South Staffordshire

  3,720

  331

  523

  South Tyneside

  16,860

  1,325

  2,542

  South Wight

  48

  1,717

  1,371

  Southampton

  11,797

  1,690

  6,762

  Southend on sea

  5,901

  945

  4,647

  Southwark

  26,969

  3,033

  3,598

  Spelthorne

  2,343

  7

  1,092

  St. Albans

  3,688

  238

  1,283

  712

  Local authority

  Local authority tenants

  Housing associations

  Other private rented

  St. Edmundsbury

  3,629

  168

  986

  St. Helens

  12,507

  2,002

  1,240

  Stafford

  3,868

  313

  938

  Staffs. Moorlands

  2,031

  141

  477

  Stevenage

  6,174

  288

  936

  Stewartry

  1,084

  67

  225

  Stirling

  5,798

  197

  525

  Stockport

  9,702

  1,944

  2,645

  Stockton on Tees

  11,410

  1,462

  1,754

  Stoke on Trent

  16,299

  905

  3,708

  Stratford-on-Avon

  3,514

  80

  1,097

  Strathkelvin

  3,711

  162

  287

  Stroud

  3,947

  21

  1,442

  Suffolk Coastal

  23

  2,480

  1,843

  Sunderland

  27,591

  2,703

  3,620

  Surrey Heath

  1,703

  83

  531

  Sutherland

  794

  63

  61

  Sutton

  6,441

  1,568

  1,445

  Swale

  19

  4,609

  2,043

  Swansea

  11,682

  1,074

  4,162

  Taff-Ely

  4,969

  264

  1,078

  Tameside

  13,282

  652

  3,430

  Tamworth

  4,319

  456

  537

  Tandridge

  1,768

  38

  506

  Taunton Deane

  3,951

  176

  1,844

  Teesdale

  651

  118

  395

  Teignbridge

  2,644

  126

  2,302

  Tendring

  2,822

  730

  2,972

  Test Valley

  3,756

  209

  823

  Tewkesbury

  2,200

  349

  647

  Thamesdown

  7,405

  701

  2,427

  Thanet

  4,588

  428

  5,366

  The Wrekin

  9,500

  787

  1,472

  Three Rivers

  3,009

  166

  516

  Thurrock

  7,680

  228

  1,138

  Tonbridge and Malling

  25

  3,728

  1,010

  Torbay

  2,551

  647

  5,442

  Torfaen

  8,067

  186

  736

  Torridge

  1,303

  128

  1,387

  Tower Hamlets

  24,736

  2,458

  2,775

  Trafford

  7,437

  1,390

  2,712

  Tunbridge Wells

  45

  3,206

  1,353

  Tweeddale

  585

  201

  142

  Tynedale

  2,038

  90

  555

  Uttlesford

  2,049

  26

  631

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,961

  496

  2,394

  Vale of White Horse

  2,896

  64

  1,045

  Vale Royal

  4,498

  309

  571

  Wakefield

  24,687

  482

  3,595

  Walsall

  21,471

  1,653

  1,792

  Waltham Forest

  12,188

  1,211

  6,378

  Wandsworth

  15,818

  912

  12,247

  Wansbeck

  5,227

  267

  834

  Wansdyke

  2,629

  135

  524

  Warrington

  7,803

  0

  3,646

  Warwick

  4,298

  865

  1,361

  Watford

  3,321

  109

  1,615

  Waveney

  3,812

  239

  3,807

  Waverley

  3,561

  98

  1,068

  Wealden

  2,492

  210

  1,351

  Wear Valley

  4,846

  981

  650

  Wellingborough

  3,405

  37

  1,126

  Welwyn Hatfield

  5,479

  231

  632

  West Devon

  1,023

  160

  951

  West Dorset

  3,054

  171

  1,136

  West Lancashire

  6,514

  195

  859

  West Lindsey

  2,722

  125

  1,002

  West Lothian

  8,372

  536

  497

  West Norfolk

  5,530

  486

  1,843

  West Oxfordshire

  2,459

  137

  1,124

  West Somerset

  1,295

  142

  805

  West Wiltshire

  3,654

  55

  1,729

  Western Isles

  1,406

  54

  183

  Westminster

  9,082

  3,184

  7,271

  Weymouth and Portland

  2,336

  0

  2,088

  Wigan

  20,183

  1,097

  2,122

  713

  Local authority

  Local authority tenants

  Housing associations

  Other private rented

  Wigtown

  2,441

  144

  486

  Winchester

  3,392

  325

  1,051

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  3,778

  123

  1,169

  Wirral

  16,281

  3,018

  7,827

  Woking

  2,601

  301

  741

  Wokingham

  2,060

  200

  725

  Wolverhampton

  23,703

  1,612

  2,708

  Woodspring

  5,351

  359

  3,239

  Worcester

  3,773

  607

  1,317

  Worthing

  1,916

  155

  2,952

  Wrexham Maelor

  8,694

  425

  938

  Wychavon

  3,826

  81

  750

  Wycombe

  4,943

  204

  1,329

  Wyre

  2,127

  133

  1,373

  Wyre Forest

  4,379

  175

  957

  Ynys Mon

  3,893

  380

  1,203

  York

  5,803

  495

  2,023

  N/a—No returns received from the authority.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Rape (War Crime)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to place on the agenda at the human rights conference in Vienna and the G7 meeting in Tokyo the violation of women as a war crime.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. Neither of these meetings would be the most appropriate forum in which to discuss the recognition of the violation of women as a war crime. The topic would be most suitably discussed under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross as guardians of the Geneva conventions. The ICRC plans to hold an international conference this summer which will review all aspects of the protection of victims of war.

  Iraq (British Prisoners)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made recently towards the release of Paul Ride and Michael Wainwright from prison in Baghdad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We continue to press for the release of Mr. Ride and Mr. Wainwright at every opportunity. The sentences imposed on the two men were grotesque. The Iraqi Government can be in no doubt that they stand to gain nothing from their continued detention.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the possible release of Michael Wainwright and Paul Ride.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have urged the Iraqis at every opportunity to release Mr. Ride and Mr. Wainwright without further delay. Their continued detention is a manifest injustice.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Government have submitted evidence to the United Nations Secretary General of war crimes in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia; and what proposal Her Majesty's Government now have to submit evidence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  To date Bosnia Herzegovina, USA, Venezuela, Australia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Russia, Colombia, Croatia, France, Turkey, Belgium, Italy, Slovenia, Albania, Canada, Mauritania, Sweden, United Arab Emirates and Denmark have submitted. We propose to submit substantiated evidence in the near future.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the percentage change in(a) real terms and (b) cash terms of his Department's budget from 1992–93 to 1993–94 (i) in total and (ii) separately for the diplomatic and aid wings.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 3 February 1993]: The figures are as follows:

  £ billion

  Aid wing

  1992–93

  2·152

  1993–94

  2.267

  difference in cash terms +5·3 per cent.

  difference in real terms +2·5 per cent.

  Diplomatic wing

  1992–93

  1·159

  1993–94

  1·220

  difference in cash terms +5·3 per cent.

  difference in real terms +2·4 per cent.

  Total for FCO

  1992–93

  3·311

  1993–94

  3·487

  difference in cash terms +5·3 per cent.

  difference in real terms +2·5 per cent.

  International Events
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the major international events in the United Kingdom and overseas in which Her Majesty's Government will participate in 1993; and which Minister will attend in each case.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [pursuant to his reply 29 January 1993]: I should like to add to the list of major international events in which Her Majesty's Government will participate, the world conference on human rights, attended by the Foreign Secretary or the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs.

  Debt (Developing Countries)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of developing country debt was scheduled to be cancelled at the outset of the Trinidad terms; and what proportion of total debt has been cancelled to date.
  715
  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  At the Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting in Trinidad and Tobago in September 1990, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then Chancellor, proposed a reduction in the stock of eligible debt of two thirds. In December 1991, the Paris Club of creditor countries agreed to allow creditors to provide the equivalent of 50 per cent. cancellation of eligible debts consolidated under each agreement. These terms also include an undertaking by creditors to consider a reduction in the stock of eligible debt after a period of proven financial and economic responsibility of three to four years. For some of the most desperately indebted countries this may not prove sufficient, and we therefore take every opportunity to build consensus with our Paris Club colleagues to improve the terms on offer.

  Specifically we are eager to see an increase in the amount of debt reduction available where necessary, and earlier action on the stock of eligible debt for debtors who already have a good track record.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is the total amount of bilateral debt that has been cancelled to date under the Trinidad terms;

  (2) if he will list the countries which have benefited to date from the cancelling of bilateral debt under the Trinidad terms, indicating the level of debt cancellation (a) in total and (b) as a percentage of each country's total level of foreign debt.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Fourteen countries have so far benefited from the Trinidad terms. The countries are Benin, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea Republic, Honduras, Mali, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia. (a) Trinidad terms involve the equivalent of cancellation of up to half the eligible debt consolidated under the agreements. We estimate that the agreements so far reached will result in the equivalent of the cancellation of about US$1½ billion of claims over the lives of the agreements. The agreements also commit creditors to take action on the whole stock of eligible debt after a period of three to four years financial and economic responsibility. The amount of debt cancelled will therefore increase as these agreements mature. Unfortunately, answering (b) would entail disclosing confidential details of debtor countries' obligations to their creditors, and is not in any event a useful comparison to make.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the value of the British output of unmanned aerial vehicles and the balance of payments for such products.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Figures for unmanned aerial vehicles are not separately identifiable in official trade statistics.

  Aviation Committee
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the members of his Department's aviation committee and the number of times it has met since 10 April 1992.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Aviation Committee has met three times since 10 April 1992.

  The current membership of the Aviation Committee is as follows:

  Chairman

  Professor J. L. Stollery

  College of Aeronautics

  Cranfield Institute of Technology

  Members

  N. V. Barber Esq.

  Chairman

  Aerospace and Defence Group

  Smiths Industries Plc.

  D. L. Bernstein Esq.

  Joint Managing Director

  Monarch Airlines

  R. H. L. Clark Esq.

  Managing Director

  Flight Refuelling Ltd.

  K. H. Coates Esq.

  Executive Chairman

  Meggitt Plc.

  A. C. D. Cumming Esq.

  Engineering Director

  British Airways Plc.

  C. C. Gustar Esq.

  Managing Director

  Westland Aerospace Ltd.

  L. A. Edwards Esq.

  Chief Executive, Dowty

  TI Group Plc.

  Professor K. Hayward

  Senior Course Tutor

  School of Social Sciences

  Staffordshire University

  Mrs. L. Lynn

  Vice President

  Airlines and Aerospace Department

  Citibank, NA

  R. M. McKinlay Esq.

  Chairman

  British Aerospace

  Airbus Ltd.

  R. W. R. McNulty Esq.

  President

  Short Brothers Plc.

  J. E. V. Rose Esq.

  Director—Corporate Development

  Rolls-Royce Plc.

  B. G. S. Tucker Esq.

  Director of Programmes

  GEC-Marconi Avionics Ltd.

  F. Turner Esq.

  Managing Director

  Lucas Aerospace Ltd.

  Cooker and Gas Fire Manufacturers
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the sector of industry which makes cookers and gas fires; how many such companies are known to his Department in the west midlands; and how many people are employed in the sector.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  United Kingdom production of cookers and gas fires in 1991 was £355 million. Of this, about 9 per cent. was exported. Firms in these sub-sectors have been adversely affected by the downturn in the housing market and in consumer demand.

  Twelve firms in the west midlands are known to make cookers or gas fires. These employ 3,700 people.

  Ship Building
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the gross tonnage of new merchant ships built in(a) United Kingdom shipyards and (b) EC countries in (a) 1974, (b) 1979 and (c)

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The total gross tonnage of merchant ships of 100 gross tonnes and over constructed in the United Kingdom and EC countries in 1974, 1979 and 1991 is as follows:

  Gross tonnage of merchant ships completed

  1974

  1979

  1991

  United Kingdom

  1,198,255

  691,404

  185,470

  EC total

  7,614,263

  2,777,757

  2,229,256

  Source: Lloyd's Register of Shipping.

  Notes:

  1. Only the EC members of 1974 have been included in the EC total, in order to provide a comparable series.

  2. From 1990 gross tonnage statistics for the Federal Republic of Germany have included the former German Democratic Republic. Hence the former German Democratic Republic is also included in the 1991 EC total.

  3. Figures for the gross tonnage of merchant ships in 1992 are not yet available. 1991 figures have been provided.

  BS 5750
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will carry out an independent evaluation of the costs and benefits of BS 5750; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government have no plans to carry out an independent evaluation of BS 5750. BS 5750 is a voluntary quality management standard drawn up by industry to meet its own requirements and published by the British Standards Institution. The BSI established last week a new policy committee for small businesses to address needs of small businesses in all areas of BSI's activities. In the light of recent press coverage of the costs to small firms of complying with BS 5750, this new committee will look, as an early priority, into the application and promotion of that particular standard.

  Liaison with Industry
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what liaison he has created within his Department and other concerned bodies charged with supervision of areas of concern to industry.
  718
  Mr. Heseltine
  I have established a number of new divisions in my Department with the task of developing a dialogue with individual sectors of industry. In addition, as I announced on 2 February, we intend to set up seven business task forces to review all regulations which affect business.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to modify the audit requirements of small companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Government are nearing the end of their review of audit and accounting requirements for very small companies and I hope to announce the outcome soon.

  Regulators
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what plans he has to review the powers and accountability of(a) Ofgas, (b) Oftel and (c) Offer;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the powers and accountability of Offer; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has received concerning the powers and accountability of Oftel; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what representations he has received concerning the powers and accountability of Ofgas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department receives representations from time to time concerning Offer, Ofgas and Oftel.

  The coal review has received a number of items of evidence which have a bearing on the working of Offer and Ofgas, and will take into account all the recommendations made regarding these bodies in the Trade and Industry Select Committee report.

  With regard to Oftel, some argue that its powers should be reduced, and some that they are inadequate. I believe that Oftel's powers are broadly right and there are no current plans to amend them.

  The regulators are accountable for the discharge of their statutory duties. Each presents an annual report to Parliament. Select Committees may—and do—call the regulators to give evidence. If a regulator's proposal for a licence modification is not agreed by the licensee, the issue may be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for its view on the public interest. Ultimately, regulators' decisions may be subject to judicial review.

  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase the transparency of(a) Ofgas, (b) Oftel and (c) Offer.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  With Government encouragement, the regulators already take great care to consult widely before reaching decisions on any issue, and to publicise their decisions and the reasoning behind them.

  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the regulators of the privatised utilities.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992 provided additional powers where
  719
  necessary to enable regulators to set and monitor standards of service. The regulators have used their powers effectively to promote competition, to secure fair prices, and to promote better service standards for customers.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department is giving the British bicycle manufacturing industry; and what efforts have been made to promote the British bicycle abroad.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  British bicycle companies are entitled to make full use of the many services including export advice from overseas trade services offered to United Kingdom industry by my Department, and the DTI vehicles division is specifically responsible for sponsoring the industry.

  The Bicycle Association of Great Britain is actively involved in British Overseas Trade Board activities and regularly sponsors a group of bicycle companies at a major overseas trade fair in Cologne.

  Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been(a) the range of estimated annual costs and (b) his Department's estimate of the cost to a typical self-catering accommodation business made by the consultees to his draft Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 consultation document; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: Consultees variously estimated the overall cost of purchasing new furniture to be in the range of £1,000 to £3,000, but gave no information on the basis of their estimates. The Department's estimate of the cost of purchasing new furniture to replace non-complying furniture is £850 for a self-catering unit accommodating four persons and is fully set out in the compliance cost assessment which was made available to all consultees.

  Leyland DAF
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take the necessary action to ensure that all designs and patents for the Leyland DAF product lines currently operating within the United Kingdom form part of the assets being handled by the receiver appointed for these operations.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: All drawings and designs which are at the premises of the United Kingdom companies in receivership are under the day-to-day control of the receivers and are being examined with a view to ensuring that a complete set is available in respect of current products. The receivers' solicitors have been instructed to advise them upon the ownership of intellectual property used in the companies and are currently assessing the position.

  Glass Curtain Walling
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of whether the criteria used to test the quality and strength of British glass curtain walling in France and Germany are discriminatory and a barrier to trade; and if he will make a statement.
  720
  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have no information that the criteria being used to test the quality and strength of British glass curtain walling in France or Germany are discriminatory against products from other member states and a barrier to trade. If I receive evidence of any discrimination or barriers to trade, in consultation with DTI colleagues, I shall take appropriate action to safeguard United Kingdom interests.

  Construction Projects
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what decisions he has made during the course of 1992 for or against major construction projects within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  I will write to the hon. Member once the information is available.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Loans
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining the form taken by relief from repayment of old aid loans by the United Kingdom Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since 1979 we have consistently pursued a policy of commuting to grants through retrospective terms adjustment the outstanding aid loans of the poorest countries and rescheduling other aid loans for other debt-distressed countries. We consider eligible countries on a case-by-case basis.

  The main criteria for RTA are poverty—the current threshold is countries with a per capita income of $545 or less—and firm evidence of commitment to IMF/IBRD-approved economic reform programmes. In the case of India, we provide equivalent measures, in the form of local cost aid to offset India's repayment of past aid loans.

  Forestry Aid
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much forestry aid is currently paid in fees to(a) British consultants and (b) educational establishments within the United Kingdom; and if he will list each educational establishment in receipt of such funding, indicating the amount granted in each instance.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We do not keep central records of fees paid to British consultants and educational institutions. Fees are negotiated contract by contract according to the tasks to be performed. The British institutions used in our forestry programmes include the University college of Wales (Bangor), the universities of Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Oxford and Reading and many other educational establishments and consultancy firms.

  Commercial Bank Debt
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much United Kingdom commercial bank debt has been cancelled under the Brady plan; and what is the cancelled debt as a percentage of outstanding third-world debt.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Direct figures of United Kingdom commercial bank debt cancelled under the Brady plan are not available. However, in 1990 and 1991, United Kingdom banks' holdings of debt reduction instruments ("Brady bonds") rose by £2,930 million and £850 million respectively, or £3,780 million over the two years. It is estimated that these holdings replaced nearly £6 billion of loans outstanding, and therefore accounted for around £2 billion of write-offs. These £2 billion of write-offs may he considered as estimates for the amount of debt reduction, or cancellation, involved, and represent around 11 per cent. of all United Kingdom bank debt outstanding to developing countries as at end 1991. Total write-offs for 1989–91 are estimated to have been £4,160 million.

  Debt (Developing Countries)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the level of debt repayments from developing countries received by the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years; and what was the level of new loans, investment, export credits and aid from Government and charities in each of those years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On the level of official debt repayments, I refer the hon. Member to the letter my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development wrote to him on 26 January, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Provision of information on debt repayment poses the same problem as does information on interest alone. The United Kingdom net official and private flows to developing countries 1989–91 as published in the "British Aid Statistics" are as follows:

  Official development assistance

  Official export credits

  Project loans1

  Voluntary agencies

  1989

  1,584

  209

  71

  150

  1990

  1,503

  259

  88

  170

  1991

  1,814

  192

  101

  215

  1 Project loans is the definition for loan money actually spent in any given year rather than loan money committed in that year.

  Figures for the seven years prior to 1989 are not immediately available. My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will write to the hon. Member with this information in due course.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of British aid in 1991 was included as debt relief according to the new directives announced by the OECD.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The amount of United Kingdom debt forgiveness counting as bilateral official development assistance, in accordance with directives agreed by the OECD, was £31 million in 1991. This includes debt covered by the Paris club's Toronto terms, plus ODA 722
  retrospective terms adjustment—the converting of old aid debts into grants—and normal debt rescheduling. No debt relief was granted by the Government under Trinidad terms in 1991 as it was only in December 1991 that the first two countries received these terms. Thus the debt relief granted in this form amounted to 1·71 per cent. of Britain's total official development assistance, or £1,814 million.

  EC Aid
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the impact on the United Kingdom aid programme of the increase in EC aid agreed at the Edinburgh summit.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our contributions to European Community aid programmes, both through the European development fund and through the EC budget, are part of our overall aid effort and are met from within the agreed PES provision for ODA's external assistance programmes.

  The agreement reached at Edinburgh on future financing provides for considerable growth in the aid programme funded from the EC budget up to 1999. For the period up to 1995–96 covered in the autumn statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer it is expected that the proportion of the ODA's budget going through the EC will increase based on existing plans. Since we cannot anticipate decisions on the overall size of ODA's budget beyond 1995–96, we cannot anticipate the share which will go through the EC.

  Tropical Forests
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures have been established to monitor the effectiveness of the tropical forest action plan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We monitor the tropical forestry action programme through attendance at international meetings such as the tropical forestry advisers' group and through the national forestry planning processes in countries where we have significant aid programmes in the forestry sector.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if she will make a statement on the relationship between the commitment in the forest principles to unrestricted trade and the policy of limiting trade to sustainably produced timber.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There is no conflict between the forest principles agreed at UNCED and the International Tropical Timber Organisation's target of the year 2000 for all internationally traded tropical timber to come from sustainably managed sources. Both the UNCED principles and ITTO aim to promote the sustainable management of tropical forests and preclude unilateral and discriminatory restrictions contrary to internationally agreed rules.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the United Kingdom's tropical timber imports are derived from sustainable sources.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There is no reliable way of determining whether or not timber entering the United Kingdom has come from a sustainable source.
  723
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the International Timber Trade Organisation concerning the report on threatened timber species produced in May 1991.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are in frequent contact with the International Tropical Timber Organisation about how best to develop and build upon the work to which the hon. Member refers. We have offered to help meet the costs of expanding this work and of hosting an ITTO workshop, due to be held in March, to consider and, if necessary, refine, the scientific methodologies used to assess the extent to which individual timber species may be put at risk by the international timber trade.

  World Bank
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account has been taken of the report on(a) the Pelosi amendment and (b) the portfolio management task force on World bank projects in deciding future United Kingdom funding arrangements for the World bank.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The so-called Pelosi amendment, which affected the United States position on environmental issues in multilateral development banks, is a matter for the United States Government. In the recently completed negotiations on the 10th replenishment of the International Development Association donors recommended to the bank's executive directors that once a borrower has made information on environmental assessments publicly available in the borrowing country, the same information should also be made publicly available at bank headquarters and in field offices in member countries.

  IDA donors, including the United Kingdom, welcomed the report by the bank's task force on portfolio management aimed at improving the quality of project design and implementation and called on the bank to bring forward detailed proposals to make them effective. The bank's board of directors has subsequently discussed the report and asked the bank's management to prepare an action plan in the near future.

  Deforestation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies have been made of the link between deforestation and population growth in the third world.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 4 December at column 427.

  Adjustment Lending
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what processes are employed by the Overseas Development Administration in seeking to assess and minimise the environmental impacts of adjustment lending.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We welcome the recognition that the multilateral institutions which are responsible for structural adjustment lending are giving to assessing the 724
  likely environmental consequences of such programmes and the assistance to developing countries to apply policies conducive to the protection of the environment. We support the World bank's position that more work needs to be done to identify the environmental impacts of adjustment lending. Where we are directly involved in adjustment programmes the processes set out in ODA's "Manual of Environmental Appraisal" apply, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

WALES

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make it his policy to establish a permanent commission on the Welsh language;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to develop a national Welsh language planning unit in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Language Bill would establish a new, statutory Welsh language board. The board will have a very wide remit extending to all matters relating to the Welsh language.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to bring forward a comprehensive strategy for the maintenance and promotion of the Welsh language in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government have a comprehensive strategy for the maintenance and promotion of the Welsh language of which the Welsh Language Bill is but the latest part. S4C has been a great success and remains one of the most visible and important manifestations of the Government's commitment to the language. The central place of the language in our education policies is demonstrated by the status of Welsh as a foundation subject under the national curriculum and, most recently, by our proposal to establish Awdurdod Cwricwlwm ac Asesu Cymru. Many other Welsh organisations, both statutory and voluntary, also serve to promote the language through its use in their various activities.

  This strategy can only be enhanced by our proposal to establish a statutory Welsh language board.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines to local authorities in Wales encouraging the establishment of Welsh language learning centres in each local authority area in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Local authorities are best placed to decide how to meet the needs of Welsh language learners in their areas. The Department has helped to fund the centres at Nant Gwrtheyrn and Canolfan Iaith Clwyd and also local authority Welsh for adults courses.

  Variable Message Signs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many variable message signs there are on each motorway and key trunk roads in Wales; and how many signs on each road have been placed within the last two years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Excluding lane control and matrix signs there are 11 electrically operated variable message signs on the motorway, 27 on the A55 and 14 on the A5 and Menai bridge; of these one, seven and zero respectively have been put in place in the last two years.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to the recommendations relating to opencast mining made by the Trade and Industry Committee in its first report on British energy policy and the market for coal, HC (1992–93) 237, in relation to opencast mining in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government have stated that they will take account of the Trade and Industry Committee's report before coming forward with their coal review White Paper which will be published shortly.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he approved offers of regional selective assistance to(a) Hoya Lens UK Ltd., (b) Ringshore Ltd., (c) W. A. Turner Ltd. and (d) Chartered Trust Ltd ; what public statements he has made on each of those approvals; and whether each of the grants has now been paid in full as offered.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information about RSA offers to the companies concerned together with the current position on grant payments is as follows:

  Company

  RSA assistance offered £ million

  Public statement

  Hoya Lens UK Ltd.

  0·950

  7 October 1988

  Ringshare Ltd.

  3·4

  1July 1992

  W. A. Turner Ltd.

  2·0

  28 February 1991

  Chartered Trust Plc

  0·990

  14 February 1990

  0·250

  13 June 1990

  1 Employment Gazette

  Note:

  None of the grants have yet been paid in full. Other details about projects are matters of commercial confidentiality.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Three different consultancies have been engaged to help the Department both in drawing up and undertaking its current market testing programme. They are Coopers and Lybrand, Touche Ross and Price Waterhouse. The total cost to date is £25,000.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many potato producers there are in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Potatoes were grown on 1,519 main agricultural holdings in Wales in 1992 according to the June agricultural census.

  Nicotine Patches
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he is making for nicotine patches to be prescribable in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Generally a doctor may prescribe under the national health service any medicines which are needed for the treatment of his or her patients. The exceptions are those drugs and other substances which have been listed in schedule 10 of the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 on the advice of the Advisory Committee on Drugs or the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances (ACBS). These items may not be prescribed by GPs for supply under NHS pharmaceutical services, but may be prescribed privately and in some cases may be purchased without a prescription.

  One patch has been included in schedule 10 on the advice of the ACBS, but the product is available on private prescription or over-the-counter from pharmacies. It is open to the committee to review the availability on GP prescription of any similar products.

  Tourism
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps his Department has taken to implement the recommendations of "Tourism in the UK: Realising the Potential" as it applies to his Department's responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Issues relating to tourism in Wales highlighted in the document "Tourism in the UK—Realising the Potential" are subject to continuing review. In particular:a. The Wales tourist board was granted powers on 16 March 1992 under the Overseas Promotion (Wales) Act 1992 to market the Principality independently abroad. I approved the WTB's overseas marketing plan on 5 February 1993 following consultation with the British Tourist Authority.
  b. The board has committed itself to the principles of the citizens charter which are fully represented in its current 1992–93 corporate plan.

  More generally, the WTB is at present developing a new tourism strategy which will address other issues raised within the document.

  Radioactive Contamination
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the sites within North Wales where his Department undertakes official radiation monitoring of coast contamination levels.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  On behalf of the Welsh Office, the directorate of fisheries research of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food undertakes regular monitoring of radioactivity in the surface and coastal waters of Wales. Details of this monitoring, including the sampling locations, are given in the annual aquatic environment monitoring reports, copies of which are held in the Library of the House.

  Housing
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the local authorities in Wales which have launched a review of private sector housing provision in their area as a result of the publication of "Agenda for Action on Housing in Wales".

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Against the background of the "Agenda for Action", all Welsh housing authorities have reviewed private sector housing provision in the context of their annual housing strategies and operational plans.

  Female Appointees
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of appointees to all of his quangos is female; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  At present 18 per cent. of appointees to the public bodies in Wales are female.

  I am seeking to increase the number of women holding public appointment in Wales and I am taking every opportunity to do this. My target is that by September 1996, 30 per cent. of public appointments in Wales will be held by women.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to appoint some female members to the Welsh Economic Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will announce my decision on the composition of the Welsh Economic Council in due course.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review the fees paid to pharmacists for dispensing expensive items; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Discussions with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee are taking place as part of the 1993–94 pay negotiations.

  Numbers of pupils in classes taught by one teacher: Maintained primary schools in England January 1992

  Local education authority

  Classes of size 1 to 30

  Classes of size 31 to 35

  Classes of size 36 to 40

  Classes of size 41 and over

  City

  107

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  7,786

  541

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  15,405

  1,305

  —

  —

  Hackney

  11,483

  219

  —

  —

  Hammersmith

  6,289

  565

  36

  48

  Islington

  10,691

  756

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4,761

  130

  —

  —

  Lambeth

  15,237

  630

  —

  —

  Lewisham

  15,632

  1,943

  74

  —

  Southwark

  15,363

  1,326

  77

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  11,483

  475

  77

  44

  Wandsworth

  12,530

  697

  38

  83

  Westminster

  6,459

  252

  40

  —

  Barking

  12,234

  1,297

  234

  —

  Barnet

  17,665

  1,806

  79

  101

  Bexley

  11,836

  4,913

  108

  —

  Brent

  15,930

  1,375

  75

  —

  Bromley

  12,941

  6,381

  36

  —

  Croydon

  18,159

  3,264

  36

  253

  Ealing

  18,672

  3,219

  110

  41

  Enfield

  13,684

  5,147

  38

  —

  Haringey

  16,060

  441

  40

  —

  Harrow

  11,162

  4,140

  —

  —

  Havering

  15,207

  2,585

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  12,302

  4,306

  439

  —

  Hounslow

  9,966

  4,894

  450

  90

EDUCATION

  Conductive Education
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will publish the Birmingham university report on the effectiveness of treatment at the Institute for Conductive Education in Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  It is intended that the full report, containing a description of the methodology of the research by Birmingham university and details of all its findings, will be published by HMSO on behalf of the Department in May 1993.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he plans to publish specified assessment and statementing timetables for special education needs applications to local education authorities.

  Mr. Forth
  Statutory timescales for the making of assessments and statements by LEAs would be embodied in regulations under the Education Bill. We propose to consult on a draft of those regulations later this year.

  Primary School Classes
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each local education authority the number of primary school pupils in class sizes of(a) 1 to 30, (b) 31 to 35, (c) 36 to 40 and (d) 41 and over in January 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested for single-teacher classes in maintained primary schools in England is given in the table.
  729

  Local education authority

  Classes of size 1 to 30

  Classes of size 31 to 35

  Classes of size 36 to 40

  Classes of size 41 and over

  Kingston upon Thames

  3,985

  4,486

  219

  —

  Merton

  9,669

  1,726

  113

  43

  Newham

  19,159

  1,000

  38

  256

  Redbridge

  6,512

  8,331

  145

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  7,773

  1,316

  37

  —

  Sutton

  7,102

  3,359

  181

  —

  Waltham Forest

  13,450

  2,763

  154

  41

  Birmingham

  71,712

  22,873

  868

  —

  Coventry

  20,086

  5,253

  505

  —

  Dudley

  16,571

  3,852

  116

  479

  Sandwell

  17,176

  7,549

  917

  105

  Solihull

  11,951

  4,637

  396

  44

  Walsall

  16,548

  3,606

  561

  146

  Wolverhampton

  17,206

  2,491

  192

  82

  Knowsley

  11,606

  3,568

  301

  238

  Liverpool

  35,624

  9,939

  511

  155

  St. Helens

  9,717

  4,467

  633

  —

  Sefton

  16,343

  7,586

  441

  —

  Wirral

  23,840

  3,170

  144

  —

  Bolton

  13,381

  6,879

  992

  398

  Bury

  9,606

  4,792

  521

  —

  Manchester

  31,572

  6,933

  678

  750

  Oldham

  11,617

  7,136

  667

  135

  Rochdale

  10,848

  5,969

  402

  —

  Salford

  16,199

  4,470

  191

  277

  Stockport

  16,815

  5,722

  930

  83

  Tameside

  12,096

  7,702

  365

  —

  Trafford

  9,179

  6,661

  987

  681

  Wigan

  16,198

  6,905

  1,692

  87

  Barnsley

  16,099

  3,099

  258

  125

  Doncaster

  19,539

  5,611

  799

  47

  Rotherham

  19,272

  2,362

  197

  411

  Sheffield

  33,145

  4,412

  1,497

  —

  Bradford

  25,451

  3,506

  73

  —

  Calderdale

  12,854

  3,763

  151

  —

  Kirklees

  22,097

  6,648

  613

  172

  Leeds

  31,747

  8,962

  2,179

  476

  Wakefield

  16,622

  7,130

  1,192

  —

  Gateshead

  14,919

  963

  77

  54

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  14,379

  4,593

  535

  112

  North Tyneside

  11,550

  2,478

  115

  335

  South Tyneside

  11,972

  1,940

  146

  53

  Sunderland

  21,534

  4,260

  72

  44

  Isles of Scilly

  134

  31

  —

  —

  Avon

  51,121

  19,247

  1,050

  —

  Bedfordshire

  26,717

  5,993

  1,235

  239

  Berkshire

  39,284

  13,063

  928

  100

  Buckinghamshire

  38,580

  15,001

  1,690

  450

  Cambridgeshire

  38,675

  12,993

  734

  41

  Cheshire

  50,103

  27,427

  3,725

  134

  Cleveland

  43,169

  10,344

  2,843

  47

  Cornwall

  23,833

  12,138

  1,212

  152

  Cumbria

  28,902

  7,164

  628

  102

  Derbyshire

  47,649

  22,117

  2,376

  86

  Devon

  52,754

  18,191

  1,887

  152

  Dorset

  23,516

  13,384

  1,069

  100

  Durham

  38,020

  11,146

  636

  185

  East Sussex

  28,550

  16,200

  182

  —

  Essex

  88,141

  27,344

  330

  —

  Gloucestershire

  30,707

  8,696

  146

  41

  Hampshire

  83,956

  33,788

  1,174

  181

  Hereford and Worcester

  36,571

  7,886

  551

  —

  Hertfordshire

  53,524

  17,985

  437

  —

  Humberside

  56,244

  13,976

  2,368

  260

  Isle of Wight

  5,281

  1,251

  74

  152

  Kent

  79,897

  35,803

  887

  227

  Lancashire

  67,412

  38,148

  6,256

  244

  Leicestershire

  56,514

  12,631

  788

  637

  Lincolnshire

  34,244

  9,839

  932

  —

  Norfolk

  46,131

  9,902

  225

  41

  North Yorkshire

  41,502

  10,693

  553

  —

  Northamptonshire

  35,474

  8,260

  294

  —

  Northumberland

  11,964

  5,565

  1,051

  94

  Nottinghamshire

  62,957

  12,826

  2,660

  170

  Oxfordshire

  30,860

  4,828

  306

  168

  Shropshire

  26,140

  5,256

  400

  153

  Somerset

  22,436

  9,290

  365

  —

  730 731

  Local education authority

  Classes of size 1 to 30

  Classes of size 31 to 35

  Classes of size 36 to 40

  Classes of size 41 and over

  Staffordshire

  61,668

  18,441

  1,938

  446

  Suffolk

  33,850

  4,712

  116

  50

  Surrey

  54,057

  12,387

  671

  50

  Warwickshire

  26,308

  11,817

  1,005

  —

  West Sussex

  37,320

  11,250

  218

  95

  Wiltshire

  32,664

  7,993

  405

  —

  ENGLAND

  2,720,594

  822,481

  68,133

  11,286

  Technical Qualifications
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action he is taking to improve awareness among employers of the value of technical qualifications as compared with A-levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend is working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and the awarding bodies to explain our reforms of vocational qualifications to young people, their parents, schools, colleges, employers and higher education institutions.

  The new general national vocational qualifications and national vocational qualifications are designed to exacting criteria and will offer routes to employment or higher level study, alongside A-levels and AS examinations. We intend that many young people will consider GNVQs in particular as an alternative or an addition to A-level study.

  Central Administrative Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many of the current administrative staff at the Department for Education and Office for Standards in Education of principal level and above have had experience in schools, colleges, universities or local government education administration; and what proportion this is of the total for each grade.

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: According to the information currently available to the Department, the approximate proportions of current administrative staff at the Department for Education at these grades who have had previous experience as teachers in schools, further education, universities or in local government education administration are as follows:

  Total staff in grade

  Grade 3—17 per cent.

  12

  Grade 5—28 per cent.

  43

  Grade 6—33 per cent.

  9

  Grade 7—25 per cent.

  131

  The figure for OFSTED is:

  Grade 7—38 per cent.

  8

PRIME MINISTER

  Definition of Regions
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to co-ordinate the definitions of regions used by Government Departments.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by his Government to ensure that Government Departments use a standard definition of the English regions.

  The Prime Minister
  There is a standard definition of the regions which many Departments use, particularly for statistical purposes. The structures they use for administrative purposes are often based on that definition, while also taking account of the regional pattern which is best suited to managing the services for which each is responsible.

  Pensions and Benefits
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up arrangements for(a) the targeted non means-tested retirement pensions and the child cash allowances and (b) the income support measures to be considered in a new department subordinate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer equivalent to the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise systems.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Trident
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Prime Minister what conclusions he has reached on the decision for the Trident refitting contract.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the replies given on 9 February,Official Report, columns 571–72, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Members for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) respectively.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Expenditure Scrutiny
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the oral statement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury of 8 February,Official Report, column 681, at what stage in the process of scrutiny of public expenditure the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Office will be examined.

  Mr. Mates
  The process of scrutiny to which the Chief Secretary referred will cover the activities of range of Great Britain programmes which, in Northern Ireland, are covered by the regional block. While my right hon. and learned Friend has a measure of discretion in the allocation of resources within the block, territorial expenditure is also subject to Treasury scrutiny and the implications of the Great Britain reviews will be taken into account.

  Government spend1

  Private sector spend2

  Science base3

  Government spend/Private sector spend

  Private sector spend/Science base

  Government spend/GDP

  Private sector spend/GDP

  Cash £ million

  Real terms4 £ million

  Cash £ million

  Real terms4 £ million

  Cash £ million

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1981–82

  639·6

  1,067·9

  77·6

  129·6

  923·4

  69·3

  8·4

  0·25

  0·03

  1982–83

  697·8

  1,087·6

  92·1

  143·5

  1,003·7

  69·5

  9·2

  0·25

  0·03

  1983–84

  730·0

  1,087·4

  112·1

  167·0

  1,054·2

  69·2

  10·6

  0·24

  0·04

  1984–85

  774·4

  1,097·9

  141·8

  201·0

  1,099·4

  70·4

  12·9

  0·24

  0·04

  1985–86

  839·7

  1,128·9

  177·9

  239·2

  1,180·0

  71·2

  15·1

  0·23

  0·05

  1986–87

  938·9

  1,222·9

  217·9

  283·8

  1,257·7

  74·7

  17·3

  0·24

  0·06

  1987–88

  1,055·9

  1,303·6

  257·1

  317·4

  1,353·2

  78·0

  19·0

  0·25

  0·06

  1988–89

  1,107·9

  1,275·2

  317·8

  365·7

  1,431·3

  77·4

  22·2

  0·23

  0·07

  1989–90

  1,149·6

  1,241·4

  392·4

  423·7

  1,544·4

  74·4

  25·4

  0·22

  0·08

  1990–91

  1,230·8

  1,230·8

  466·1

  466·1

  1,665·0

  73·9

  28·0

  0·22

  0·08

  1 Figures derived from Cabinet Office "Government Spend on Research and Development" and include research funded in Universities by Government Departments and the Research Councils and the Universities Funding Council. The latter figure is an estimate by Universities Funding Council of universities' spend on research from their block grants and fee income, to an accuracy of plus or minus 10 per cent. N.B. The method of estimating research expenditure incurred by universities changed from 1989–90 onwards.

  2 Figures taken from Universities Statistics—Volume 3 and include funding for research contracts from industry, charities, overseas and other sources.

  3 Total spend on the Science Budget and the Universities Funding Council estimates of spend on research from universities' block grant and fee income.

  41990–91 prices.

  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the proportion of research and development expenditure on fundamental science and technology as a percentage of gross domestic product for each year since 1981; and what is the Government's share of that expenditure for each given year;

  (2) what was the proportion of research and development expenditure on fundamental science and technology as a percentage of gross domestic product in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is not available in the terms requested. Government expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product on basic research, as defined by the

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions more than one public interest immunity certificate has been issued in criminal proceedings.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 1 February,Official Report, columns 17–18. In none of those criminal proceedings was more than one public interest immunity certificate issued.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Research Funding
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much in cash terms, in real terms and as a percentage of the science budget and that of the Universities Funding Council has been spent(a) by Government and (b) by the private sector on university research funding in each year since 1981; and what proportion of the gross domestic product those budgets amounted to in each of those years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is as follows:

  OECD, from 1984–85 to 1991–92 is listed in the table, together with available comparable information for France and Germany.

  Year

  United Kingdom

  France

  Germany

  1984–85

  0·24

  —

  —

  1985–86

  0·21

  —

  0·46

  1986–87

  0·20

  0·24

  —

  1987–88

  0·19

  0·24

  —

  1988–89

  0·20

  —

  0·46

  1989–90

  0·24

  —

  —

  1990–91

  0·23

  —

  —

  1991–92

  0·26

  —

  —

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The consultants used by my Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 are:

  Chris Goodall Associates

  DMW

  Ernst and Young

  PA Consulting

  Price Waterhouse

  Shreeveport

  Symonds Facilities Management

  Touche Ross

  The total cost of consultancy support is £323,477.

  International Organisations (Funding)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what account he has taken of changes in the exchange rate in the resource allocations of research councils that contribute to international agencies; and what effect he expects changes in the exchange rate to have on resources available within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The distribution of the science budget to the research councils which I announced on 10 February,Official Report, columns 630–31, was based on the advice received from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, which took full account of the changes in the relevant exchange rates.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the international organisations and agencies whose subscriptions are funded from research council resources; and if he will give the value of these subscriptions in pounds sterling for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Details of the expected expenditure by research councils on international subscriptions of over £100,000 in the financial years in question are as follows:

  Group of taxpayers1

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 5 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  Top 25 per cent.

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  All taxpayers

  Year

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Gross Incomes before tax

  1978–79

  5·0

  5

  14·9

  15

  24·3

  24

  45·9

  45

  51·0

  50

  102·8

  1983–84

  9·7

  6

  28·3

  16

  45·0

  26

  81·7

  47

  82·0

  47

  173·7

  1984–85

  10·9

  6

  31·4

  17

  49·6

  26

  89·3

  47

  88·8

  47

  188·8

  1985–86

  12·9

  6

  35·7

  17

  55·9

  26

  100·5

  47

  100·0

  47

  212·6

  1986–87

  14·6

  6

  40·3

  17

  62·8

  27

  112·2

  48

  108·2

  46

  233·5

  1987–88

  16·4

  6

  45·3

  18

  70·1

  28

  124·2

  49

  116·2

  46

  255·1

  1988–89

  21·2

  7

  53·8

  18

  82·2

  28

  142·4

  49

  129·3

  45

  288·0

  1989–90

  24·2

  7

  61·7

  19

  93·4

  29

  160·8

  50

  145·1

  45

  323·4

  1990–91

  28·3

  8

  68·7

  19

  102·8

  29

  177·0

  49

  161·4

  45

  358·3

  1991–922

  29·2

  8

  71·2

  19

  106·6

  29

  183·7

  50

  165·2

  45

  369·7

  1992–932

  28·6

  8

  70·1

  19

  105·2

  29

  182·6

  50

  164·0

  45

  367·4

  Income tax liabilities

  1978–79

  2·3

  11

  4·9

  24

  7·0

  34

  11·5

  57

  7·6

  38

  20·2

  1983–84

  2·8

  11

  8·5

  26

  12·2

  36

  19·5

  58

  12·5

  38

  33·4

  1984–85

  4·2

  12

  9·3

  26

  13·3

  38

  21·1

  60

  12·4

  35

  35·4

  1985–86

  5·0

  13

  10·6

  27

  14·8

  38

  23·2

  60

  13·6

  35

  38·8

  736

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN)

  55·613

  54·685

  European Space Agency

  28·080

  31·998

  Institute Laue-Langevin

  9·690

  10·860

  European Synchrotron Radiation Facility

  5·637

  6·780

  Anglo Australian Telescope

  1·512

  1·398

  European Incoherent Scatter Facility

  0·578

  0·655

  European Science Foundation

  0·324

  0·372

  (For all the Research Councils)

  Medical Research Council

  European Molecular Biology Laboratory

  3·000

  3·800

  European Molecular Biology Conference

  0·700

  0·900

  International Agency for Research on Cancer

  0·700

  0·700

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Ocean Drilling Program

  1·925

  2·010

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Income Distribution
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the information given in his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), 13 February,Official Report, columns 123–24, on income distribution.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest estimates are given in the tables. Estimates of income are based on information reported to tax offices and collected through annual surveys of personal incomes. For years before 1985–86, estimates exclude employees' contributions to occupational pension schemes and some investment income on which tax is deducted at source. For years up to and including 1989–90, married couples are counted as one taxpayer and their incomes are combined. Following the introduction of independent taxation, for 1990–91 onwards, husbands and wives are counted separately. Estimates are based on the surveys of personal incomes for years up to 1990–91 and projections of the 1990–91 survey for subsequent years; the latter are therefore provisional.
  737

  Group of taxpayers1

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 5 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  Top 25 per cent.

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  All taxpayers

  Year

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  1986–87

  5·8

  14

  12·3

  29

  16·9

  39

  26·0

  61

  14·5

  34

  42·8

  1987–88

  6·6

  15

  13·7

  30

  18·5

  41

  28·0

  62

  14·9

  33

  45·4

  1988–89

  6·8

  15

  14·3

  31

  19·4

  42

  29·1

  63

  14·9

  32

  46·5

  1989–90

  7·8

  15

  16·6

  31

  22·6

  42

  34·0

  64

  16·7

  31

  53·4

  1990–91

  9·2

  15

  18·9

  31

  25·4

  42

  38·6

  64

  18·7

  31

  60·4

  1991–922

  9·6

  15

  19·8

  31

  26·6

  42

  40·3

  64

  19·4

  31

  63·1

  1992–932

  9·3

  15

  19·3

  32

  26·1

  43

  39·5

  65

  17·9

  30

  60·6

  1 Married couples and single people for years prior to 1990–91.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the amount and share of income going to(a) the top 1 per cent., (b) the next 2 to 5 per cent., (c) the next 6 to 10 per cent. and (d) the next 10 to 20 per cent. and subsequent deciles; of tax units for each year since 1978–79, revalued at 1978–79 prices;

  (2) if he will list the tax take for (a) the top 1 per cent., (b) the next 2 to 5 per cent., (c) the next 6 to 10 per cent. and (d) the next 10 to 20 per cent. and subsequent deciles; of income groups for each year since 1978–79, revalued at 1978–79 prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Readily available estimates are in the income table. For 1978–79 and 1989–90, married couples counted as one taxpayer and their incomes are combined. Following the introduction of independent taxation, for 1990–91 onwards, husbands and wives are counted separately. The estimates of total income relate to income subject to income tax and excludes non-taxable income such as certain social security benefits.

  1978–79

  Quantile group of taxpayers1

  Tax liability

  Total income

  Percentage of total income

  Per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  Top 1

  2,300

  500

  5

  1–5

  2,600

  9,900

  10

  5–10

  2,100

  9,300

  9

  10–20

  3,200

  15,000

  15

  20–30

  2,500

  12,600

  12

  30–40

  2,100

  11,000

  11

  40–50

  1,700

  9,600

  9

  50–60

  1,400

  8,500

  8

  60–70

  1,100

  7,300

  7

  70–80

  780

  6,000

  6

  80–90

  430

  4,900

  5

  Bottom 10

  130

  3,700

  4

  All taxpayers

  20,300

  102,800

  100

  1989–902

  Quantile group of taxpayers1 (Per cent.)

  Tax liability (£ million)

  Total income (£ million)

  Percentage of total income

  Top 1

  3,400

  10,500

  8

  1–5

  3,800

  16,300

  12

  5–10

  2,600

  13,800

  9

  10–20

  3,600

  20,900

  15

  20–30

  2,600

  16,000

  11

  30–40

  2,000

  13,700

  10

  40–50

  1,600

  11,800

  8

  50–60

  1,300

  10,200

  7

  60–70

  1,000

  8,800

  6

  70–80

  760

  7,700

  5

  738

  Quantile group of taxpayers1 (per cent.)

  Tax liability (£ million)

  Total income (£ million)

  Percentage of total income

  80–90

  470

  6,200

  4

  Bottom 10

  170

  4,800

  3

  All taxpayers

  23,300

  140,800

  100

  1990–912

  Quantile group of taxpayers1

  Tax liability

  Total income

  Percentage of total income

  Per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  Top 1

  3,700

  11,300

  8

  1–5

  3,800

  16,000

  11

  5–10

  2,600

  13,500

  10

  10–20

  3,800

  20,900

  15

  20–30

  2,700

  16,500

  12

  30–40

  2,100

  14,100

  10

  40–50

  1,700

  12,000

  9

  50–60

  1,300

  10,400

  7

  60–70

  1,000

  9,000

  6

  70–80

  710

  7,600

  5

  80–90

  410

  6,100

  4

  Bottom 10

  130

  4,800

  3

  All taxpayers

  24,000

  142,300

  100

  1991–922

  Quantile group of taxpayers1

  Tax liability

  Total income

  Percentage of total income

  Percentage

  £ million

  £ million

  top 1

  3,600

  11,100

  8

  1–5

  3,900

  15,900

  11

  5–10

  2,600

  13,400

  10

  10–20

  3,700

  20,600

  15

  20–30

  2,700

  16,500

  12

  30–40

  2,100

  13,900

  10

  40–50

  1,700

  11,800

  9

  50–60

  1,300

  10,200

  7

  60–70

  1,000

  8,700

  6

  70–80

  700

  7,300

  5

  80–90

  400

  5,900

  4

  Bottom 10

  130

  4,700

  3

  All taxpayers

  23,900

  140,000

  100

  1 Tax units for years prior to 1990–91.

  2 In 78–79 prices.

  739

  1992–932

  Quantile group of taxpayers1

  Tax liability

  Total income

  Percentage of total income

  Per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  Top 1

  3,400

  10,500

  8

  1–5

  3,700

  15,200

  11

  5–10

  2,500

  12,900

  10

  10–20

  3,600

  20,900

  15

  20–30

  2,600

  16,000

  12

  30–40

  2,000

  13,500

  10

  40–50

  1,500

  11,400

  9

  50–60

  1,200

  9,800

  7

  60–70

  870

  8,400

  6

  70–80

  580

  7,000

  5

  80–90

  300

  5,600

  4

  Bottom 10

  100

  4,500

  3

  All taxpayers

  22,200

  134,800

  100

  Percentage of total tax liability Quantile group of taxpayers1

  Year

  Top 1 Per cent.

  1–5 Per cent.

  5–10 Per cent.

  10–20 Per cent.

  20–30 Per cent.

  30–40 Per cent.

  40–50 Per cent.

  50–60 Per cent.

  60–70 Per cent.

  70–80 Per cent.

  80–90 Per cent.

  Bottom 10 Per cent.

  1977–78

  12

  13

  10

  15

  12

  10

  8

  7

  6

  4

  3

  1

  1978–79

  11

  13

  11

  16

  12

  10

  9

  7

  5

  4

  2

  1

  1979–80

  10

  13

  10

  16

  12

  10

  9

  7

  6

  4

  2

  1

  1980–81

  11

  14

  10

  16

  12

  10

  9

  7

  5

  3

  2

  1

  1981–82

  11

  14

  11

  16

  12

  10

  8

  7

  5

  4

  2

  1

  1982–83

  12

  14

  11

  16

  12

  10

  8

  7

  5

  4

  2

  1

  1983–84

  11

  14

  11

  16

  13

  10

  8

  6

  5

  4

  2

  1

  1984–85

  12

  15

  11

  16

  12

  10

  8

  6

  5

  4

  2

  1

  1985–86

  13

  14

  11

  15

  12

  10

  8

  6

  5

  4

  2

  1

  1986–87

  14

  15

  11

  15

  12

  9

  8

  6

  5

  3

  2

  1

  1987–88

  15

  16

  10

  15

  11

  9

  7

  6

  5

  3

  2

  1

  1988–89

  15

  16

  11

  15

  11

  9

  7

  6

  5

  3

  2

  1

  1989–90

  15

  17

  11

  15

  11

  9

  7

  6

  4

  3

  2

  1

  1990–91

  15

  16

  11

  16

  11

  9

  7

  6

  4

  3

  2

  1

  21991–92

  15

  16

  11

  16

  11

  9

  7

  6

  4

  3

  2

  1

  21992–93

  15

  17

  11

  16

  12

  9

  7

  5

  4

  3

  1

  0

  1 Tax units for years prior to 1990–91.

  2 Provisional.

  Concessionary Benefits (Taxation)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 869, from the Secretary of State for Transport, how many persons in each of those categories are subject to taxation of the concessionary benefits; and what was the total income received from the taxation of this benefit for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Pensioners of British Rail and British transport police are not liable to tax on their travel concessions.

  Employees are generally liable to tax on the expense incurred in providing benefits for them, their families and dependants. However, the case known as Pepper v. Hart established that the relevant expense for in-house benefit is the marginal, or direct additional cost. This is nil or negligible for British Rail employees, the British Transport police, and former employees of the British Transport Docks Board, Sealink and Wightlink. The Inland Revenue is repaying any excess tax collected in the current and past years, estimated to be around £4 million a year, on request from employees and as tax offices identify the need to do so.

  Former employees of British Transport hotels who are still in employment and whose employers pay for their
  740
  1 Tax units for years prior to 1990–91.

  2 In 1978–79 prices.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage shares of income tax paid for each year since 1977–78, by(a) the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers, (b) the next 2 to 5 per cent., (c) the next 6 to 10 per cent. and (d) the next 10 to 20 per cent. and subsequent deciles.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates are given in the table. For years up to and including 1989–90, married couples are counted as one taxpayer and their incomes are combined. Following the introduction of independent taxation, for 1990–91 onwards, husbands and wives are counted separately. The figures in the table have been rounded to the nearest one per cent. and may not sum to 100 for each year.

  travel concessions are liable to tax on the cost to their employer. The total tax received in respect of these employees is not readily available.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1991; whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision or whether the service was contracted out; what was the name of the successful contractor where appropriate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury's 1992–93 market testing programme was set out in "The Citizens Charter, First report: 1992 (Cm. 2101)". It comprises nine services: economic model building and development; internal audit; the Library; recruitment; training; reprographics; stationery; consultancy inspection services activities; and Treasury security guard. The inclusion of the Treasury security guard is dependant upon the completion of a review currently being undertaken by Cabinet Office. The programme is due to be completed by September 1993. Work has started on a number of areas but none has yet reached the stage of competitive tender.

  Public Transport (Tax Relief)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received suggesting that there should be tax reliefs available to those who use public transport as a means of getting to and from work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am not aware of any such representations.

  Charities (VAT)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much value added tax was paid by charities in the latest financial year for which figures are available; and to how much this amount is equivalent in terms of(a) an increase in the standard rate of income tax and (b) an increase in the current rate of value added tax.

  Sir John Cope
  Information about the amount of VAT borne by charities is not collated centrally, but it has been recently estimated that charities pay up to £300 million in VAT each year. This amount is equivalent to approximately 0·2p on the basic rate of income tax or a change of 0·1 percentage point in the standard rate of VAT.

  Public Expenditure Review
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy for any new proposals arising from the public expenditure review, announced on 8 February, relating to(a) entitlement to pensions or (b) entitlement to benefit not to be implemented within the current Parliament.

  Mr. Portillo
  It would be premature to comment on the outcome of the review before it has started. The hon. Member will be aware of the commitments contained in the Conservative party's election manifesto.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the oral statement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury of 8 February,Official Report, column 681, when he expects the public expenditure review to be completed.

  Mr. Portillo
  The full programme of reviews is expected to be completed by the end of this Parliament, although preliminary conclusions from the four reviews started this year should help to inform the next spending round that begins in the summer.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value of mortgage interest relief at the standard rate(a) currently and (b) at the time in the last five years at which interest rates were at their peak level.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The cost of mortgage interest relief at the basic rate is about £5·2 billion for 1992–93 compared with £7·2 billion for the basic rate component of the relief in 1990–91.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue forgone by the Exchequer in respect of each main tax allowance.
  742
  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in appendix D of the "Autumn Statement Statistical Supplement" (Cm 2219) published in January 1993.

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the extra revenue if personal allowances relieved tax at(a) 20 per cent. and (b) 25 per cent.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest estimates are in the reply given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 13 January 1993, at columns 746–47.

  Statutory Instruments
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by his Department in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Nelson
  The number of statutory instruments laid before Parliament by the Treasury for Departments responsible to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is given in the table.

  Number

  1980

  86

  1981

  64

  1982

  73

  1983

  69

  1984

  98

  1985

  83

  1986

  84

  1987

  97

  1988

  96

  1989

  52

  1990

  43

  1991

  77

  1992

  98

  Banks (Customers' Personal Data)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will call for a report from the Governor of the Bank of England on the circumstances in which banks are requiring from new customers an agreement for their personal financial data being disclosed to third parties; and on whether such information has been discolosed without the knowledge or consent of the customer.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: No. Alleged breaches of the Data Protection Act 1984 are for the Data Protection Registrar, not the Governor of the Bank of England to investigate. Nor has the governor any specific responsibility for monitoring compliance with the common law duty of confidence which banks owe their customers. If proceedings are brought by customers, the courts will adjudicate on any alleged breach of duty.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to amend the Banking Act 1987 to ensure that personal financial data relating to bank and other financial institution customers cannot be disclosed to third parties without the customer's express consent.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: None. Banks owe their customers a duty of confidence under the common law in respect of all personal information, and

  743
  the confidentiality of computerised personal information held by banks is covered by the Data Protection Act 1984. The common law duty is set out in the code of banking practice—"Good Banking"—issued by the banks and building societies. Customers who believe that the code has been breached can take this up with the banking ombudsman. An independent code of banking practice review committee is responsible for reviewing the code. The enforcement of the 1984 Act is the responsibility of the Data Protection Registrar.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he will take to ensure that the Bank of England requires banks regulated by it to take adequate precautions to prevent unauthorised disclosure of personal financial data to third parties.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: The Bank of England has no specific responsibility for this matter, which falls to the banks themselves, the banking ombudsman and the Data Protection Registrar. If proceedings are brought by customers, the courts will adjudicate on any alleged breach of duty.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will discuss with the Governor of the Bank of England and the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board means of ensuring that banks and financial institutions

  Exchequer cost1, £ million

  Deductions

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Expenditure2

  1,800

  2,600

  3,200

  3,100

  2,800

  2,700

  2,400

  3,100

  3,900

  3,400

  of which:

  —Uplift on qualifying capital expenditure

  440

  330

  530

  720

  850

  550

  60

  85

  75

  neg

  —Relief for exploration and appraisal expenditure

  110

  420

  430

  370

  300

  360

  500

  600

  750

  700

  —Relief for research expenditure

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  20

  20

  —Cross field allowance for 10 per cent, of development expenditure on certain new fields

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  10

  25

  65

  75

  Other deductions

  Oil allowance

  180

  340

  390

  170

  280

  230

  220

  230

  170

  280

  Oil allowance for advance petroleum revenue tax

  320

  310

  180

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Safeguard: a protection for return on capital cost

  280

  400

  380

  500

  840

  575

  55

  45

  45

  95

  Tariff receipts allowance

  5

  20

  40

  40

  80

  70

  70

  70

  60

  80

  Exemption for gas sold to British Gas under pre-July 1975 contracts

  130

  150

  200

  200

  200

  170

  150

  140

  170

  190

  1 For each deduction the marginal cost is shown and therefore the costs are not additive.

  2 Including operating and capital expenditure.

  Government Shareholdings
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the quoted shareholdings together with their value, and the percentage of the issued share capital, owned by Her Majesty's Government; whether in each case the holding is associated with the right to appoint directors, or a golden share; and which Department has the power of appointment or of the powers of the golden share.
  744
  regulated and supervised by them do not disclose personal financial data to third parties without their express consent.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: I see no need to do so. The Governor of the Bank of England does not have any specific responsibility for the protection of personal financial data. This is the responsibility of the banks themselves, the banking ombudsman and the Data Protection Registrar. The Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulating organisations are already able to deal with complaints made to them about breach of fiduciary obligations owed to investment business customers.

  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the cost to the Exchequer of offsets against petroleum revenue tax, in each sector of the United Kingdom continental shelf, in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 10 February 1993]: The figures required for the United Kingdom and United Kingdom continental shelf are included in the table. A breakdown by sector of the continental shelf is not available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 10 February 1993]: The table shows the ordinary shares held by the Government, their market valuation and the percentage of the issued share capital that they represent. Where a special ("golden") share is held, this is shown together with the department exercising the rights attached and the expiry date, if applicable, on or before which the special share may be redeemed. Where the powers attached to a special share include the appointment of directors, this is shown.
  745

  Government ordinary shareholders in private sector companies

  Company

  Number of shares (millions)

  Market valuation (£ million)1

  Proportion of issued capital per cent.

  Special share

  Expiry date

  Department

  BAA

  14·7

  115·7

  3·0

  Yes

  DTp

  British Airways

  3·2

  9·5

  0·4

  No

  British Gas

  0·1

  0·2

  2—

  Yes

  DTI

  British Petroleum

  101·2

  270·3

  1·9

  No

  British Steel

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Yes

  31 December 1993

  DTI

  BT

  1,352·6

  5,627·0

  21·9

  3Yes

  DTI

  Mersey Docks and Harbour Co.

  12·4

  35·0

  20·7

  No

  Anglian Water

  2·6

  12·8

  0·9

  Yes

  31 December 1994

  DOE

  Northumbrian Water

  0·3

  1·5

  0·4

  Yes

  31 December 1994

  DOE

  North West Water

  2·7

  13·4

  0·8

  Yes

  31 December 1994

  DOE

  Severn Trent

  3·6

  17·2

  1·0

  Yes

  31 December 1994

  DOE

  Southern Water

  1·2

  5·9

  0·7

  Yes

  31 December 1994

  DOE

  South West Water

  0·1

  0·6

  0·1

  Yes

  31 December 1994

  DOE

  Thames Water

  3·6

  18·2

  0·9

  Yes

  31 December 1994

  DOE

  Welsh Water

  1·1

  5·7

  0·7

  Yes

  31 December 1994

  WO

  Wessex Water

  0·6

  3·7

  0·5

  Yes

  31 December 1994

  DOE

  Yorkshire Water

  1·6

  8·3

  0·8

  Yes

  31 December 1994

  DOE

  Eastern Electricity

  4·8

  20·6

  1·8

  Yes

  31 March 1995

  DTI

  East Midlands Electricity

  2·5

  10·6

  1·1

  Yes

  31 March 1995

  DTI

  London Electricity

  2·5

  11·0

  1·1

  Yes

  31 March 1995

  DTI

  Manweb

  2·2

  10·8

  1·8

  Yes

  31 March 1995

  DTI

  Midlands Electricity

  3·1

  14·6

  1·5

  Yes

  31 March 1995

  DTI

  Northern Electric

  2·0

  9·9

  1·7

  Yes

  31 March 1995

  DTI

  Norweb

  2·7

  13·1

  1·6

  Yes

  31 March 1995

  DTI

  Seeboard

  2·6

  12·1

  2·0

  Yes

  31 March 1995

  DTI

  Southern Electric

  3·4

  14·7

  1·2

  Yes

  31 March 1995

  DTI

  South Wales Electricity

  1·4

  7·1

  1·4

  Yes

  31 March 1995

  DTI

  South Western Electricity

  2·5

  11·7

  2·0

  Yes

  31 March 1995

  DTI

  Yorkshire Electricity

  2·7

  13·5

  1·3

  Yes

  31 March 1995

  DTI

  National Power

  500·2

  1,495·7

  39·2

  Yes

  DTI

  PowerGen

  317·9

  963·3

  40·7

  Yes

  DTI

  Scottish Hydro-Electric

  13·3

  41·7

  3·5

  Yes

  SO

  Scottish Power

  29·4

  87·1

  3·6

  Yes

  SO

  8,882·7

  1 Close, 8 February

  2 Negligible

  3 Powers include the appointment of a director or directors

  British Telecom
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how long the Government intend to retain part of their equity stake in British Telecom; and in which financial years he plans to make any further disposals of BT shares.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 10 February 1993]: On the 18 November 1992 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government's intention to sell part of their residual holding of shares in British Telecommunications plc in 1993–94. No decisions have been taken on the size, timing or structure of the sale.

  Written Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the advisory cost limit for answering written parliamentary questions in each year since 1980; what was the percentage increase in(a) constant and (b) actual terms in each year; when he next plans to uprate the limit; and if he will make a statement.
  746
  Mr. Dorrell
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 January 1993, cols. 437–38]: The percentage increases shown at constant prices were incorrect. For completeness the amended answer is restated as follows:

  Percentage increase since preceding change

  Year

  Advisory cost limit for answering written parliamentary questions £

  (a) At constant prices (indexed by GDP deflator)

  (b) Actual

  11980

  50

  —

  —

  1981

  50

  —

  —

  1982

  200

  -32

  +300

  1983

  200

  —

  —

  1984

  200

  —

  —

  1985

  200

  —

  —

  1986

  200

  —

  —

  1987

  200

  —

  —

  1988

  250

  -1

  +25

  1989

  250

  —

  —

  1990

  250

  —

  —

  1991

  250

  —

  —

  1992

  400

  +21

  +60

  1 (Unchanged since 1965).

  747
  The advisory cost limit was last increased on 1992 and this followed a major review of costs in 1991.

  The current level of £400 was fixed as a multiple of eight times the average marginal cost so that only cases of exceptional high cost might be affected and to avoid the need for frequent small increases.

  The limit may be increased from time to time in future when costs or policy suggest the need for a change.

HEALTH

  Schizophrenia
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients with schizophrenia were discharged from hospital in each year since 1986; and how many of these in each year were discharged(a) in less than one month, (b) in less than three months, (c) in less than six months and (d) in less than 12 months.

  Mr. Yeo
  The table gives the number of discharges from hospitals in England where a diagnosis of schizophrenia was made. 1989–90 is the only year where the quality of the information permits publication.

  Thames Regional Health Authorities Ordinary admissions (in-patients and day cases) and total number of average daily available beds: 1981—1990–91

  North West Thames RHA activity beds

  North East Thames RHA activity beds

  South East Thames RHA activity beds

  South West Thames RHA activity beds

  1981

  462,363

  26,947

  521,966

  28,357

  507,356

  27,217

  362,550

  25,267

  1982

  437,745

  25,852

  561,399

  29,298

  511,111

  26,816

  348,046

  24,021

  1983

  457,968

  25,342

  578,123

  28,741

  537,266

  26,356

  363,010

  23,719

  1984

  474,117

  24,529

  592,610

  27,951

  560,674

  25,260

  378,200

  22,994

  1985

  481,923

  23,816

  608,552

  26,854

  567,880

  24,297

  389,825

  22,210

  1986

  486,774

  22,905

  600,676

  25,982

  566,569

  23,096

  403,538

  21,141

  1987–88

  471,673

  21,119

  579,509

  24,369

  553,521

  21,250

  405,323

  20,140

  1988–89

  485,567

  20,145

  581,780

  23,290

  558,721

  19,552

  392,936

  19,073

  1989–90

  531,953

  —

  649,472

  —

  616,953

  —

  443,537

  —

  1989–90

  551,817

  19,221

  688,821

  22,199

  626,075

  18,461

  454,287

  17,888

  1990–91

  536,203

  18,105

  695,279

  20,608

  629,250

  17,333

  457,600

  16,596

  Notes:

  1. From 1981 to 1988–89 Activity figures are for in-patients (discharges and deaths) plus day cases.

  2. From 1988–89 to date Activity figures are for in-patients (finished consultant episodes) plus day cases.

  Source: SH3 return 1981–86: KP70 return 1987–88—1990–91.

  Thames regional health authorities Total number of average daily available beds—1981 to 1990–91

  North West Thames RHA

  North East Thames RHA

  South East Thames RHA

  South West Thames RHA

  1981

  26,947

  28,357

  27,217

  25,267

  1982

  25,852

  29,298

  26,816

  24,021

  1983

  25,342

  28,741

  26,356

  23,719

  1984

  24,529

  27,951

  25,260

  22,994

  1985

  23,816

  26,854

  24,297

  22,210

  1986

  22,905

  25,982

  23,096

  21,141

  1987–88

  21,119

  24,369

  21,250

  20,140

  1988–89

  20,145

  23,290

  19,552

  19,073

  1989–90

  19,221

  22,199

  18,461

  17,888

  1990–91

  18,105

  20,608

  17,333

  16,596

  Source: KH03.

  NHS Staff Statistics
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community psychiatric nurses, psychiatric social workers, health visitors, district nurses and practice nurses were employed by the national health service in the last five years.
  748

  Discharges with a diagnosis of schizophrenia from hospitals in England for 1989–90 (HES)

  Number

  Less than 1 month

  19,205

  Less than 3 months

  27,822

  Less than 6 months

  30,459

  Less than 12 months

  32,118

  Total for year

  38,047

  Hospital Beds
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of beds available in each Thames regional health authority in each of the last 10 years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  More important than the number of beds is the number of patients treated each year; this has increased by over a third since 1979. The information available is given in the tables.

  Mr. Sackville
  The figures for psychiatric social workers are not centrally collected. The other information requested is in the table.

  Whole-time Equivalent for Community Psychiatric Nurses, Health Visitors, District Nurses and Practice Nurses in England 1987 to 1991

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Community Psychiatric Nurses

  2,770

  3,080

  3,380

  3,600

  3,760

  Health Visitors

  10,730

  10,680

  10,050

  10,480

  10,380

  District Nurses

  9,500

  9,390

  10,160

  10,380

  9,900

  Practice Nurses

  2,770

  3,480

  4,630

  7,700

  8,780

  Source: Non Medical Manpower Census, form ANC4.

  Note: All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will review her Department's guidelines on the prevention of queue-jumping by general practitioner fund holders

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The joint guidance issued to hospital consultants on general practitioner fund holding on 11
  749
  June 1991 by the Department of Health and the Joint Consultants Committee, (Circular EL (91)84), is still valid and a review is not required. It states that:

  (i) common waiting lists should be used by provider units for urgent and seriously ill patients, and for highly specialised diagnosis and treatment;

  (ii) contract portfolios should be flexible and be worked out in close consultation with the hospital clinicians who have to deliver them;

  (iii) provider units should not offer contracts subject to (i) and (ii) which would disadvantage the patients of other purchasers.

  Copies of the circular EL(91)84 are available in the Library.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients registered with fund-holding practices are over pensionable age; and what is the corresponding proportion in the general population.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Provisional figures for England in 1991, the latest available, from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that 13·08 per cent. of males and 23·55 per cent. of females in the general population are over pension age. Comparable figures for fund-holding practices are not available centrally.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements she has made to monitor the financial procedures and health care quality of fund-holding general practitioner practices; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, regional health authorities have primary responsibility for the management and monitoring of the scheme. Regulations require fund holders to manage the fund efficiently and effectively and to submit income and expenditure returns regularly to family health service authorities. Their accounts are subject to external audit by the Audit Commission.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fund-holding general practitioner practices(a) are running and (b) have approval from her Department in (i) Cheltenham and (ii) Gloucestershire; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The South Western regional health authority is responsible for the management of the general practitioner fundholding scheme in these areas. The hon. Member may wish to contact Ms. Rennie Fritchie, the RHA chairman, for details.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what public appointments she has made since 1 November 1992; and what information she has on the political affiliations of those appointed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since 1 November 1992, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made the following appointments.

  Executive Bodies

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting—1 appointment (Chairmen)

  Tribunals

  Mental Health Review Tribunals—2 appointments

  Registered Homes Tribunal—3 appointments (Chairmen)

  750
  Advisory Bodies

  Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials—6 appointments

  Committee on the Safety of Medicines—13 appointments

  Expert Advisory Group on Aids—6 appointments

  Standing Medical Advisory Committee—1 appointment

  Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food—1 appointment

  Committee on the Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food—1 appointment

  Joint Planning Advisory Committee—2 appointments

  Joint Action for Implementation group—3 appointments

  Advisory Group on Rehabilitation—6 appointments

  National Disability Information Project Steering Group—1 appointment

  NHS Authorities

  Dental Practice Board—1 appointment (Chairman)

  Health Education Authority—2 appointments

  Prescription Pricing Authority—3 appointments

  Regional Health Authorities

  West Midlands RHA—1 appointment (Chairman)

  Yorkshire RHA—2 appointments

  North East Thames RHA—1 appointment (Chairman), 4 appointments (Members)

  Mersey RHA—1 appointment (Chairman)

  South Western RHA—5 appointments

  District Health Authorities—All appointments as chairpersons

  Northumberland DHA

  North Yorkshire DHA

  Bradford DHA

  Rotherham DHA

  Harrow DHA

  Hounslow and Spelthorne DHA

  North Bedfordshire DHA

  Bloomsbury and Islington DHA

  West Berkshire DHA

  Isle of Wight DHA

  Liverpool DHA

  Macclesfield DHA

  NHS Trusts

  NORTHERN REGION

  Newcastle Mental Health—2 appointments

  Northumbria Ambulance Service 1 appointment (Chairman), 1 appointment (Member)

  Freeman Group of Hospitals—2 appointments

  YORKSHIRE REGION

  St. James' University Hospital—1 appointment

  Bradford Hospitals—1 appointment

  Leeds General Infirmary—1 appointment

  TRENT REGION

  Northern General—3 appointments

  Lincolnshire Ambulance and Health Transport Service—3 appointments

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and the Montague Hospital—3 appointments

  EAST ANGLIAN REGION

  Norfolk Ambulance—2 appointments

  Anglian Harbours—2 appointments

  NORTH WEST THAMES REGION

  Central Middlesex Hospital—1 appointment

  Mount Vernon Hospital—1 appointment

  Hillingdon Hospital—2 appointments

  North Hertfordshire—2 appointments

  NORTH EAST THAMES REGION

  Royal London Hospital—1 appointment (Chairman), 1 appointment (Non-Executive Director)

  Royal Free Hospital—1 appointment

  Southend Health Care—1 appointment

  North Middlesex Hospital—1 appointment

  Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital—2 appointments

  751
  SOUTH EAST THAMES REGION

  Guys and Lewisham Hospital—1 appointment

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital—1 appointment

  SOUTH WEST THAMES REGION

  Homewood—2 appointments

  Lifecare—2 appointments

  St. Helier—2 appointments

  Royal Surrey County and St. Luke's Hospital—1 appointment

  Croydon Community—3 appointments

  Kingston Hospital—1 appointment

  WESSEX REGION

  West Dorset Mental Health—1 appointment (Chairman); 2 appointments (Non-Executive Directors)

  West Dorset Community—1 appointment (Chairman)

  Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases—2 appointments

  West Dorset General Hospitals—2 appointments

  OXFORD REGION

  Nuffield Orthopaedic—2 appointments

  SOUTH WESTERN REGION

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Mental Handicap—1 appointment

  East Gloucestershire—1 appointment

  Weston Area—1 appointment

  Taunton and Somerset—1 appointment

  WEST MIDLANDS REGION

  First Community Health—1 appointment

  Mental Health Foundation of Mid-Staffordshire—2 appointments

  Rugby—2 appointments

  Walsall Hospitals—3 appointments

  MERSEY REGION

  Wirral Hospital—1 appointment (Chairman)

  St. Helen's and Knowsley Hospital—1 appointment (Chairman); 2 appointments (Non-Executive Directors)

  Royal Liverpool University Hospital—1 appointment (Chairman); 1 appointment (Non-Executive Director)

  Aintree Hospital—1 appointment

  Wrightlington Hospital—1 appointment

  NORTH WESTERN REGION

  Mid Cheshire Hospitals—1 appointment

  Christie Hospital—1 appointment (Chairman); 1 appointment (Non-Executive Director)

  Manchester Central Hospitals and Community Care—1 appointment (Chairman); 2 appointments (Non-Executive Directors)

  For information on third wave trusts I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 2 February at column 153. Information on the political affiliation of appointees is not collected.

  Nurses
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bank nurses are currently employed, by regional health authority area, in the national health service; and what this number represents as a percentage of the total number of qualified nurses employed in the national health service in each regional health authority area.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  752

  NHS qualified nursing and midwifery staff (excluding agency) and bank staff, by RHA at September 1991

  Qualified nursing and midwifery staff2

  Bank nurses2

  Percentage

  Northern

  16,880

  410

  2·4

  Yorkshire

  18,480

  270

  1·4

  Trent

  23,290

  490

  2·1

  East Anglia

  9,810

  490

  5·0

  North West Thames

  16,280

  590

  3·6

  North East Thames

  20,050

  950

  4·7

  South East Thames

  16,620

  720

  4·3

  South West Thames

  14,120

  1,050

  7·4

  Wessex

  14,130

  560

  3·9

  Oxford

  11,320

  730

  6·5

  South Western

  16,130

  780

  4·9

  West Midlands

  25,210

  500

  2·0

  Mersey

  12,620

  480

  3·8

  North Western

  23,230

  470

  2·0

  Special Health Authorities

  5,050

  50

  0·9

  England1

  243,250

  8,540

  3·5

  Source: Non Medical Manpower Census, HAP(STATS)B, NHSME.

  1 England total includes figures for family health service authorities and other statutory authorities.

  2 Figures are whole time equivalents and rounded to the nearest ten.

  NHS Monitoring
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to monitor standards and service delivery in the national health service; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Patients charter and general standards of service are monitored at local level by district health authorities, general practitioner fund holders and family health service authorities. Regional health authorities take an overview of services in their regions and are accountable to the national health service management executive.

  All regional health authorities have established programmes of medical audit—covering both primary and secondary care—and are now extending this into wider areas including nursing audit. In addition, the clinical standards advisory group has been set up under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to advise United Kingdom Health Ministers on specific issues.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the firms of consultants used by her Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has used a number of consultants to assist in preparing the market testing programme, to support in-house bids, to advise market test managers and prepare specification. Between November 1991 and the end of March 1993 the Department has spent or is committed to spend about £375,000. The following consultants have been used:

  Coopers and Lybrand

  CSL

  Doctus Consulting Europe

  753

  Ernst and Young

  Kermon Ltd

  KPMG

  PE International Plc

  Procord Ltd

  Shreeveport Ltd

  Symonds Facilities Management Plc

  Touche Ross

  Community Care
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the representations she has received in respect of the Government's proposals for community care; and how many of those opposed, and how many were in favour of, the Government's proposals.

  Mr. Yeo
  The aims of the Government's community care policy enjoy wide cross-party support. The details of its implementation have been the subject of wide consultation and we have received many representations.

  Children (Secure Accommodation)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the weekly charges to local authorities for the use of secure accommodation for children in the last three years and the number of children placed in such accommodation by each local social services authority in the last three years.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information about charges in the form requested is not collected centrally. Information about the number of admissions to secure units in England for the last three years is published in "Children Accommodated in Secure Units During the Year Ending 31 March 1991 England". A copy is available in the Library.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to limit the prescription of oral contraceptives.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have asked the Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs to review the range of contraceptives available on national health service prescription. They will ensure that all clinical need continues to be met.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will publish a list showing the prescribed brands of oral contraceptive, their dose of hormones, and the price of a month's supply.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: The information requested is as follows.

  Brand and Active Constituents

  Price per month

  Combined oral contraceptives

  Binovum

  7 tablets of norethisterone 500 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 35 micrograms; 14 tablets of norethisterone 1mg and ethinyloestradiol 35 micrograms

  74·7p

  Brevinor

  norethisterone 500 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 35 micrograms

  57·3p

  Cilest

  norgestimate 250 micrograms, ethinyloestradiol 35 micrograms

  £1·90

  Conova 30

  ethynodiol diacetate 2mg, ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms

  80p

  Eugynon 30

  levonorgestrel 250 micrograms, ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms

  69p

  Femodene

  gestodene 75 micrograms, ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms

  £1·90

  Femodene ED

  (as for Femodene but with 7 additional placebo tablets)

  £1·90

  Loestrin 20

  norethisterone acetate 1mg, ethinyloestradiol 20 micrograms

  86p

  756

  Brand and Active Constituents

  Price per month

  Loestrin 30

  norethisterone acetate 1·5mg, ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms

  £1·26

  Logynon

  6 tablets of levonorgestrel 50 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms; 5 tablets of levonorgestrel 75 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 40 micrograms; 10 tablets of levonorgestrel 125 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms

  95p

  Logynon ED

  (as for Logynon but with 7 additional placebo tablets)

  —

  Marvelon

  desogestrel 150 micrograms, ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms

  £1·48

  Mercilon

  desogestrel 150 micrograms, ethinyloestradiol 20 micrograms

  £2·40

  Microgynon 30

  levonorgestrel 150 micrograms, ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms

  60p

  Minulet

  gestodene 75 micrograms, ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms

  £1·90

  Neocon 1/35

  norethisterone 1 mg, ethinyloestradiol 35 micrograms Norimin norethisterone 1 mg, ethnyloestradiol 35 micrograms

  65p

  Norinyl-1

  norethisterone 1 mg, mestranol 50 micrograme

  63p

  Ortho-Novin 1/50

  norethisterone 1 mg, mestranol 50 micrograms

  78p

  Ovran

  levonorgestrel 250 micrograms, ethinyloestradiol 50 micrograms

  37p

  Ovran 30

  levonorgestrel 250 micrograms, ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms

  57p

  Ovranette

  levonorgestrel 150 micrograms, ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms

  62p

  Ovysmen

  norethisterone 500 micrograms, ethinyloestradiol 35 micrograms

  57p

  Synphase

  7 tablets of norethisterone 500 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 35 micrograms; 9 tablets of norethisterone 1 milligram and ethinyloestradiol 35 micrograms; 5 tablets of norethisterone 500 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 35 micrograms

  £1·11

  Triadene

  6 tablets of gestodene 50 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms; 5 tablets of gestodene 70 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 40 micrograms; 10 tablets of gestodene 100 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms

  £2·65

  757

  Brand and Active Constituents

  Price per month

  Tri-Minulet

  6 tablets of gestodene 50 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms; 5 tablets of gestodene 70 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 40 micrograms; 10 tablets of gestodene 100 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms

  £2·65

  Trinordiol

  6 tablets of levonorgestrel 50 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms; 5 tablets of levonorgestrel 75 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 40 micrograms; 10 tablets of levonorgestrel 125 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 30 micrograms

  £1·09

  TriNovum

  7 tablets of norethisterone 500 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 35 micrograms; 7 tablets of norethisterone 750 micrograms and ethinyloestradiol 35 micrograms; 7 tablets of norethisterone 1 milligram and ethinyloestradiol 35 micrograms

  94p

  TriNovum ED

  (as for TriNovum but with 7 additional placebo tablets)

  98p

  Emergency contraception

  Schering PC4

  levonorgestrel 250 micrograms, ethinyloestradiol 50 micrograms

  1£1·40

  Preogesterone-only contraceptives

  Femulen

  ethynodiol diacetate 500 micrograms

  94p

  Micronor

  norethisterone 350 micrograms

  63p

  Microval

  levonorgestrel 30 micrograms

  £1·00

  Neogest

  norgestrel 75 micrograms

  78p

  Norgeston

  levonorgestrel 30 micrograms

  78p

  Noriday

  norethisterone 350 micrograms

  60p

  1 (for 4 tablets, ie one course)

  Source: British National Formulary no. 24 (1992)

  Funding
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent her Department takes account of(a) activity levels and (b) information on outcomes in assessing its funding requirements.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account she takes in determining the total expenditure on health care of international comparisons of health care spending as a proportion of gross domestic product; and what guidance she gives on the appropriate percentage that should be spent on medical and nursing salaries, administration salaries and costs, building maintenance and pharmaceuticals.

  Mr. Sackville
  A number of factors are taken into account in setting the overall level of funding available to the national health service, including the health benefits of 758
  increased activity, other developments and affordability. We will continue to achieve the best possible value from the record sums of money now spent in the NHS; spending in other countries with different health care systems is not relevant to decisions on funding the NHS.

  It is the responsibility of health care providers within the NHS to determine how best to deploy the resources which they earn from NHS contracts, to meet the requirements of purchasers and to achieve the maximum benefit for patients.

  Dentistry
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the women's organisations that were consulted by her Department or Sir Kenneth Bloomfield in respect of the Bloomfield report proposals to remove pregnant women and mothers with children under the age of one year from the exempt category for NHS dental charges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Sir Kenneth conducted his review independently.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of salaried dentists, orthodontists, dental nurses and dental hygenists for each district health authority, family health service authority and trust in England for each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of salaried dentists employed by family health services authorities in England during the last five years is shown in the table. The information is not recorded for district health authorities or trusts.

  Total number of salaried dentists as at 30 September

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Northumberland

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  2

  3

  3

  3

  5

  Essex

  3

  2

  1

  2

  2

  Camden and Islington

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  City and East London

  7

  7

  6

  6

  7

  Kent

  3

  2

  1

  0

  3

  Greenwich and Bexley

  8

  8

  7

  7

  7

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  2

  2

  2

  2

  29

  West Sussex

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Sandwell

  5

  5

  5

  1

  0

  Liverpool

  2

  2

  4

  2

  2

  Salford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  TOTAL

  38

  36

  33

  27

  65

  No separate record is maintained of dentists who specialise in orthodontics. It is estimated that there are some 28,000 dental nurses.

  The number of salaried dental hygienists for each of the last five years is set out in the table. Figures are not yet

  759
  available for the year ended December 1992. This information is not collected centrally for district health authorities, family health services authorities or trusts.

  Year ended 31 December

  Number

  1987

  2,330

  1988

  2,450

  1989

  2,648

  1990

  2,808

  1991

  2,953

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family health services authorities have used their capital reserves to maintain dental services since July 1992; and if she will publish the amounts in each case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 9 February at column 619.

  Family Planning Clinics
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the number of first contacts with people using family planning clinics and (b) the percentage of the female population seen at family planning clinics for each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for 1991–92 is not yet available. For other years the information for England is as follows:

  First contacts at family planning clinics (thousands)

  Total

  Male

  Female1

  Female contacts seen1 as percentage of population aged 15 to 49

  1988–89

  1,147·6

  32·4

  1,115·2

  9·5

  1989–90

  1,148·2

  32·7

  1,115·5

  9·5

  1990–91

  1,091·6

  31·9

  1,059·8

  9·0

  1 Whilst the great majority of first contacts will fall within the ages 15 to 49, there may be some above or below those ages.

  NHS Administration Costs
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what management studies by outside consultants are planned by her Department to make recommendations

  Available bed days on acute wards in the four Thames regions and special health authorities, 1991–92

  Wards open night and day (ie 24 hours)

  Wards open day only

  Total

  District Health Authority

  Bed days

  Daily average

  Bed days

  Daily average

  Bed days

  Daily average

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  2,542,148

  6,946

  87,091

  238

  2,629,239

  7,184

  E01

  North Bedfordshire

  117,914

  322

  1,620

  4

  119,534

  327

  E02

  South Bedfordshire

  144,378

  394

  6,520

  18

  160,898

  412

  E04

  East Hertfordshire

  110,050

  301

  4,364

  12

  114,414

  313

  E05

  North West Hertfordshire

  135,842

  371

  0

  0

  135,842

  371

  E06

  South West Hertfordshire

  108,095

  295

  6,155

  14

  113,250

  309

  E07

  Barnet

  233,596

  638

  7,434

  20

  241,030

  659

  E08

  Harrow

  162,205

  443

  11,500

  31

  173,705

  475

  E09

  Hillingdon

  48,390

  132

  0

  0

  48,390

  132

  E10

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  229,613

  627

  7,502

  20

  237,115

  648

  E11

  Ealing

  114,447

  313

  4,680

  13

  119,127

  325

  E14

  Riverside

  394,248

  1,077

  9,330

  25

  403,578

  1,103

  E17

  Parkside

  242,654

  663

  13,407

  37

  256,061

  700

  RAQ

  North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  151,481

  414

  4,160

  11

  155,641

  425

  RAR

  Mount Vernon Hospital NHS Trust

  132,106

  361

  0

  0

  132,106

  361

  RAS

  The Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  107,826

  295

  4,465

  12

  112,291

  307

  RAU

  Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  109,303

  299

  6,954

  19

  116,257

  318

  760
  on how administration costs can be saved and redirected to more effective provision of patient care within the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. It is the responsibility of health authorities and national health service trusts to ensure that administrative costs are kept to the minimum consistent with good management.

  Computer Services
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will remove Sir Robin Buchanan from the posts of chairman of Wessex regional health authority and chairman of the NHS Supplies Authority during investigations into the privatisation of computer services.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. I have every confidence in Sir Robin Buchanan as chairman of the Wessex regional health authority and of the National Health Service Supplies Authority. He has fully encouraged and supported the extensive action taken by management of the Wessex RHA to rectify the organisational problems associated with RISP.

  The district auditor commended the actions of the RHA in his report on the RISP project.

  Sir Robin was selected as the most appropriate chairman for the NHS Supplies Authority because of his wide knowledge and experience of supplies issues. Under his chairmanship, NHS Supplies is already demonstrating the savings that it can make in purchasing goods and services for the NHS, which leaves the NHS with more money for direct patient care.

  Acute Beds
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bed days were available on wards classified as acute, in each of the districts in the four Thames regions and special health authorities(a) during the financial year which ended 31 March 1992 and (b) during the first six months of the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for 1991–92 is given in the table. Information for 1992–93 is not yet centrally available.
  761

  Wards open night and day (ie 24 hours)

  Wards open day only

  Total

  District Health Authority

  Bed days

  Daily average

  Bed days

  Daily average

  Bed days

  Daily average

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  3,388,769

  9,259

  125,125

  342

  3,513,894

  9,601

  F01

  Basildon and Thurrock

  213,055

  582

  4,800

  13

  217,855

  595

  F02

  Mid Essex

  210,011

  574

  8,580

  23

  218,591

  597

  F03

  North East Essex

  171,928

  470

  8,317

  23

  180,245

  492

  F04

  West Essex

  190,390

  520

  3,528

  10

  183,916

  530

  F05

  Southend

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  F06

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  385,787

  1,054

  13,265

  36

  399,052

  1,090

  F07

  Hampstead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  F10

  City and Hackney

  293,166

  801

  16,470

  45

  309,636

  846

  F11

  Newham

  133,816

  366

  4,750

  13

  138,566

  376

  F13

  Enfield

  137,525

  376

  3,978

  11

  141,503

  387

  F14

  Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  F15

  Redbridge

  113,577

  310

  4,771

  13

  118,348

  323

  F16

  Waltham Forest

  198,369

  544

  0

  0

  198,969

  544

  F22

  Bloomsbury and Islington

  447,997

  1,224

  14,298

  39

  462,296

  1,263

  RAJ

  Southend Health Care NHS Trust Royal London Hospital and Ass.

  190,991

  522

  14,740

  40

  205,731

  562

  RAK

  Community Services NHS Trust

  239,794

  655

  7,784

  21

  247,578

  676

  RAL

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital

  232,601

  636

  12,538

  34

  245,139

  670

  RAM

  NHS Trust Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

  16,892

  46

  0

  0

  16,892

  46

  RAN

  NHS Trust

  75,948

  208

  1,116

  3

  77,062

  211

  RAP

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  136,324

  372

  6,192

  17

  142,516

  389

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  3,112,041

  8,503

  93,842

  256

  3,206,883

  8,759

  G01

  Brighton

  262,706

  718

  12,681

  35

  275,387

  752

  G02

  Eastbourne

  163,953

  448

  0

  0

  163,953

  448

  G03

  Hastings

  124,262

  340

  3,177

  9

  127,439

  348

  G04

  South East Kent

  197,856

  541

  6,390

  17

  204,346

  558

  G05

  Canterbury and Thanet

  273,734

  748

  6,144

  17

  279,878

  765

  G06

  Dartford and Gravesham

  168,504

  455

  6,682

  18

  173,186

  473

  G07

  Maidstone

  113,996

  311

  3,715

  10

  117,711

  322

  G08

  Medway

  196,547

  537

  2,072

  6

  198,619

  543

  G09

  Tunbridge Wells

  258,167

  705

  7,338

  20

  265,505

  725

  G10

  Bexley

  89,232

  244

  1,976

  5

  91,208

  249

  G11

  Greenwich

  274,000

  748

  7,531

  21

  281,731

  770

  G12

  Bromley

  182,110

  498

  8,180

  22

  190,290

  520

  G13

  West Lambeth

  276,298

  618

  0

  0

  226,298

  618

  G14

  Camberwell

  230,567

  630

  11,670

  32

  242,237

  662

  G15

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  RAV

  Guy's and Lewisham NHS Trust

  351,809

  961

  16,286

  44

  368,095

  1,006

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  2,237,531

  6,113

  44,743

  122

  2,282,274

  6,236

  H01

  North West Surrey

  141,279

  386

  0

  0

  141,279

  386

  H02

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  177,883

  486

  325

  1

  178,208

  487

  H03

  South West Surrey

  29,811

  81

  0

  0

  29,811

  81

  H04

  Mid Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  H05

  East Surrey

  142,428

  389

  4,398

  12

  146,826

  401

  H06

  Chichester

  142,960

  391

  1

  0

  142,961

  381

  H07

  Mid Downs

  190,516

  521

  806

  2

  191,322

  523

  H08

  Worthing

  177,465

  485

  2,797

  8

  180,262

  493

  H09

  Croydon

  205,756

  562

  906

  2

  206,662

  565

  H10

  Kingston and Esher

  840

  2

  0

  0

  840

  2

  H11

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  115,440

  315

  10,212

  28

  125,652

  343

  H12

  Wandsworth

  311,543

  851

  2,078

  6

  313,622

  857

  H13

  Merton and Sutton

  28,057

  77

  552

  2

  28,609

  78

  RA1

  Epsom Health Care NHS Trust Royal Surrey County & St. Lukes Hospital NHS

  131,640

  360

  1,783

  5

  133,433

  365

  RA2

  Trust

  145,001

  396

  6,120

  17

  151,121

  413

  RAW

  Lifecare NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  RAX

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  136,518

  373

  5.,856

  16

  142,374

  389

  RAY

  Homewood NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  RAZ

  St. Helier NHS Trust

  160,394

  438

  8,898

  24

  169,292

  463

  Special Health Authorities

  T01

  The Hospital for Sick Children The National Hospital for Neurology &

  129,109

  353

  4,570

  12

  133,679

  365

  T02

  Neurosurgery

  92,857

  254

  0

  0

  92,857

  254

  T03

  Moorfields Eye Hospital The Bethlem Royal Hospital & Maudsley

  38,742

  106

  2,940

  8

  41,682

  114

  T04

  Hospital Royal Brompton National Heart & Lung

  17,666

  48

  0

  0

  17,665

  48

  T05

  Hospital

  113,693

  311

  5,856

  16

  119,549

  327

  762 763

  Wards open night and day (ie 24 hours)

  Wards open day only

  Total

  District Health Authority

  Bed days

  Daily average

  Bed days

  Daily average

  Bed days

  Daily average

  T06

  The Royal Marsden Hospital

  111,979

  306

  0

  0

  111,979

  306

  T07

  Hammersmith & Queen Charlotte Hospital

  161,575

  441

  10,138

  28

  171,713

  469

  T09

  The Eastman Dental Hospital

  0

  0

  2,560

  7

  2,560

  7

  Source: KH03

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what directions she has given to regional health authorities, in respect of the release of information already collected by them in relation to the operation of the health service; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what guidance she has given on which tier of management should take responsibility for decisions on the release of information to hon. Members within regional and district health authorities; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have issued no directions or formal guidance to health authorities on the release of information to hon. Members. The patients charter however has set out important new commitments to publishing information. Beyond that, national health service authorities are responsible for deciding whether any further information should be made public.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her statement in respect of access to information by hon. Members of 26 January,Official Report, column 903, what directions she has given to the Yorkshire regional health authority to provide information already collected by that region in respect of statistical data relating to the normal operation of the health service within the Yorkshire region; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. Provisional waiting time information is collected for management purposes and is published on a quarterly basis. Provisional waiting list figures for 31 December 1992 were published on 9 February in press release H93/547 a copy of which is available in the Library.

  St. Thomas's Hospital
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the claim for central funding of the soft tissue tumour unit based at St. Thomas's hospital, London.

  Mr. Sackville
  The charitable moneys which currently are used to fund this service are to be withdrawn on 31 March 1993. From 1 April 1993 the unit will be brought into the national health service internal market. St. Thomas's hospital is working with the staff of the unit to help cost its work and charge referring hospitals for its services. The position of the unit will be kept under review as part of the national review of specialist services which is being carried out by the NHS management executive.

  GDP (Health Care)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of gross domestic product was spent on health in each year since 1984 in each European 764
  Community member state; and if she will give the percentage change in each case since (a) 1963, (b) 1970 and (c)

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: Total national health service expenditure in the United Kingdom as a percentage of gross domestic product in each year since 1984 is given in the table, together with the percentage real terms changes in total NHS expenditure compared with 1979–80. Figures for earlier years are not available on a similar basis, but show an increase in Government spending on health from 3·5 per cent. of GDP in 1963 to 3·7 per cent. in 1970.

  Figures for other EC countries are not available on a comparable basis.

  United Kingdom NHS expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  Year

  Gross expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  United Kingdom NHS expenditure percentage real terms change since 1979–80

  1983–84

  5·3

  16·1

  1984–85

  5·4

  18·7

  1985–86

  5·2

  19·1

  1986–87

  5·2

  24·0

  1987–88

  5·1

  29·1

  1988–89

  5·1

  33·7

  1989–90

  5·1

  35·4

  1990–91

  5·3

  39·9

  1991–92

  5·7

  48·0

  1992–931

  6·0

  55·4

  1 Estimate.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish figures showing health expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 January column 889]: I regret that there was an error in my previous reply.

  The estimated gross expenditure as a percentage of GDP for 1992–93 should read 6·0. The corrected table is as follows:

  United Kingdom national health service expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  Gross expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  1983–84

  5·3

  1984–85

  5·4

  1985–86

  5·2

  1986–87

  5·2

  1987–88

  5·1

  1988–89

  5·1

  1989–90

  5·1

  1990–91

  5·3

  765

  Gross expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  1991–92

  5·7

  1992–931

  6·0

  1 Estimate.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drugs
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new strategies he intends to provide to tackle drug problems in England and Wales.

  Mr. Jack
  In addition to developing the drugs prevention initiatives, whose lives were recently extended until 1995, we are implementing the EC directive on precursor chemical control, and putting through the House the Criminal Justice Act. Finally, at a national level, we are committed to bringing forward proposals to ensure that the control of drug misuse is co-ordinated more effectively.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new strategies he intends to promote to tackle drug problems in Blyth Valley.

  Mr. Jack
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 30 November 1992 about some of the projects in the north-east in which the drugs prevention team based in Newcastle has been involved and offered my assistance on any related matters he wished to raise including how these ideas might apply to Blyth. That offer still stands.

  Visa Nationals
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make arrangements during 1993 to reduce the maximum period for which a visa national may visit the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have no plans to reduce the maximum period for a visit specified in the immigration rules, but I will consider in due course whether any changes are called for in connection with the draft external frontiers convention when action is needed to ratify it.

  Stabbing
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many victims there have been of crimes of stabbing in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Jack
  We do not know the total number of victims of stabbings, which are not recorded as a separate offence category by the police. We do know that the number of homicides in England and Wales where the method of killing was by a sharp instrument were 182 in 1989; 184 in 1990; and 223 in 1991.

  Young Offenders
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to tackle youth crime.
  766
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government have introduced a wide range of measures which aim to prevent young people from committing crime. We have also considerably strengthened the powers of the courts to deal with those who do. I am now preparing proposals for new measures which will increase the powers of the courts to provide care and training in secure accommodation for juveniles who persistently re-offend.

  Racist Organisations
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in the law he is considering in relation to racist organisations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The views of racist organisations are repugnant to the Government and to the public at large and an offence is committed under the Public Order Act 1986 if there is the intention or likelihood of stirring up racial hatred, or if threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour takes place. The Government have no present plans to change the law.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the size of the prison population; and what the figure was three years ago.

  Mr. Peter Loyd
  On 31 December 1992 the prison population in England and Wales was 40,600. Three years earlier it was 45,900.

  Community Service Orders
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current use of community service orders.

  Mr. Jack
  The courts are making increasing use of community service orders. In 1991, 41,200 community service orders were started, an 8 per cent. increase over 1990.

  Police (Civilian Staff)
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civilians now work in the police force; and what change there has been in this figure since 1979.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There were 49,085 civilian staff employed by the police service in England and Wales at the end of November 1992. This is an increase of 14,455, or 42 per cent., since the Government first took office in 1979.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to take to improve the current system of electoral registration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have set up a working group of Home Office officials and representatives of electoral registration officers and local authorities to look at all aspects of electoral registration. We shall consider the working group's findings once it has concluded its work.

  Car Crime
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had recently with the Northumbria police authority about car crimes in the force area.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State met representatives of Northumbria police authority on 10 December 1992 to discuss matters of concern to them. Car crime in the force area was not raised specifically.

  Police (Restructuring)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the future organisation of the police force.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering what reforms may be needed and will announce his proposals as soon as possible. The interested parties will be consulted before final decisions are reached.

  Crime Prevention Board
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had from Crime Concern over the establishment of a new national crime prevention board; and what representations he has made.

  Mr. Jack
  The chairman of Crime Concern wrote to me last month welcoming the setting up of a National Board for Crime Prevention and seeking discussions on the relationship between it and the board. I have invited Crime Concern to come and discuss these matters with me once separate discussions between its representatives and senior officials on the ways in which they can contribute to the new developments on crime prevention have been completed. I have no doubt that Crime Concern will have a valuable contribution to make in assisting the work of the board.

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those organisations which have written to him to register their opposition to the proposals contained in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have arranged for a list of the main organisations who have written to us to be placed in the Library.

  Refugees (Detention Centres)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans Her Majesty's Government have to build new detention centres for refugees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We plan to provide about 300 additional detention places in phases from 1993 to 1995 to accommodate those detained under immigration powers, including asylum applicants. These plans have not yet been finalised.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish his consultation paper on wheel clamping on private property.

  Mr. Jack
  A consultation paper on wheel clamping on private land will be published later this month.

  Police (SSAs)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the standard spending assessment in respect of the police service for each local authority in 1992–93 and 1993–94; and if he will estimate the effect of this standard spending assessment if(a) the 1987 system of needs assessment and (b) the safety net arrangements introduced in 1988 had still been in place.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Police elements of English local authorities' standard spending assessments for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are given in the table. No figures are shown for Wales because Welsh local authorities' standard spending assessments do not identify separate elements for individual services such as police.

  Information on what current police standard spending assessments would be if they were calculated by reference to the distribution formula which was discontinued in 1987 is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  £ million

  Police authority

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Avon and Somerset1

  63·999

  66·489

  Bedfordshire

  25·127

  26·498

  Cambridgeshire

  26·516

  27·547

  Cheshire

  39·805

  41,·353

  City of London

  23·187

  26·570

  Cleveland

  31·139

  32·350

  Cumbria

  24·609

  25·566

  Derbyshire

  38·354

  39·846

  Devon and Corwall1

  60·620

  62·929

  Dorset

  26·993

  28·043

  Durham

  28·796

  29·917

  Essex

  64·662

  67·767

  Greater Manchester

  144·376

  149·884

  Gloucestershire

  24·546

  25·501

  Hampshire1

  71·551

  75·453

  Hertfordshire

  38·803

  40·290

  Humberside

  42·168

  43·809

  Kent

  68·381

  72·419

  Lancashire

  66·943

  69·547

  Leicestershire

  38·416

  39·910

  Lincolnshire

  25·002

  25·975

  Merseyside

  97·563

  101·359

  Metropolitan Police

  729·511

  761·712

  Norfolk

  29·978

  31·144

  Northamptonshire

  24·671

  25·630

  Northumbria

  74·676

  77·581

  North Yorkshire

  29·398

  30·541

  Nottinghamshire

  48·595

  50·485

  South Yorkshire

  62·838

  65·282

  Staffordshire

  45·921

  47·707

  Suffolk

  25·562

  26·557

  Surrey

  39·239

  40·503

  Sussex 1

  60·754

  64·003

  Thames Valley1

  85·179

  90·575

  Warwickshire

  21·520

  22·443

  West Mercia 1

  42,562

  44·218

  West Midlands

  143·090

  148·656

  West Yorkshire

  109·774

  114·045

  Wiltshire

  26·495

  27·763

  1 Combined police authority. Figures shown are the sums of police elements of constituent county councils' SSAs.

  Juvenile Crime
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to discourage crime by juveniles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government have already introduced a wide range of measures to discourage young people from committing crime. In the Criminal Justice Act 1991, implemented on 1 October 1992, we have recently strengthened the powers of the court in relation to defendants under the age of 18.

  Both in absolute terms, and as a proportion of all known offenders, the number of known juvenile offenders has declined in recent years. But the Government are not complacent. We are currently considering what additional measures it might be appropriate to introduce in order to deal more effectively with the small number of juveniles who persistently re-offend and for whom existing arrangements appear to be inadequate.

  Parliamentary Boundaries Commission
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Parliamentary Boundaries Commission.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the four boundary commissions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are making satisfactory progress with their programmes of work to review the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom.

  Youth Crime, Manchester
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to tackle youth crime in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 10 February 1993 at column 625.

  Operation Container
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of Operation Container; and what recent consultation he has had with the Greater Manchester police authority about its effects on policing in the conurbation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The prison service expects Operation Container to end shortly, although this will depend on the prison population, especially the numbers remanded and committed to custody in the north-west.

  The prison service has weekly meetings with the Greater Manchester police on Operation Container. In addition, on 5 February, the prison service area manager for the trans-Pennine area—which includes Manchester prison—discussed the management of plans to reduce numbers in police cells with the senior headquarters officers concerned. The implications of police cell usage on police operations was discussed at that meeting. It was explained that the police had successfully been able to confine the operation largely to rest day working in order to minimise the effect on normal police operations.

  HMP Doncaster
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now made a decision on whether he will allow the prison service to make an in-house bid for the management of Her Majesty's prison, Doncaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Terrorism and Drug Importers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in legislation will be required to permit the security service to develop its role in combating threats from terrorism and drug importers.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Security Service Act 1989 defines the functions of the service as being the protection of national security and the safeguarding of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats from overseas.

  The security service may conduct investigations only into areas which satisfy one or both of these criteria. Terrorism is referred to in the Act as a particular threat to national security and therefore falls within the criteria. The scale of drugs trafficking and other types of organised crime is not such that there is a current threat to national security. The security service therefore has no role in investigating these criminal matters and, contrary to recent press allegations, is not seeking one. The Government have no plans to amend the Act to redefine the functions of the service in this respect.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent new appointments he has made to the Police Complaints Authority.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Miss Linda Haye, formerly head of the youth and community department of Hertfordshire county council, has accepted my invitation to serve as a member of the Police Complaints Authority. She will take up her post on 15 February.

TRANSPORT

  ATOLs
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of package air travel operators who do not hold an air transport operator's licence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  It is an offence under the Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers' Licensing) Regulations 1972 for those who are required to hold an ATOL not to do so. It is not readily possible to estimate how many package holiday operators are in breach of that requirement at any one time; but the Civil Aviation Authority will, where appropriate, prosecute operators apparently guilty of such an offence and it is open to anyone who believes that an offence has been committed to report the matter to the authority.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider placing a legal responsibility on airlines
  771
  to ensure that operators of packaged air travel, whose reservations are accepted by them, are in possession of a valid air transport operator's licence and comply with relevant EC directives.

  Mr. Norris
  Such a responsibility has been placed on United Kingdom airlines by regulation 11(1)(a) of the Licensing of Air Carriers Regulations 1992.

  Cyclists, London
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will conduct a survey of the number of cyclists in central London who ride their machines after lighting-up time without any lights; if he will assess the risks to road safety resulting from unlit cycles; and what action he is taking to encourage them to ensure that they display adequate lighting.

  Mr. Norris
  Only about one fifth of all reported cycle accidents happen during the hours of darkness. It is not possible to estimate what proportion of these accidents is caused by the bicycle being unlit. The proposed survey would not permit this to be determined.

  The law requires front and rear lights to be used between sunset and sunrise. Advice to cyclists about this requirement is contained in the highway code and that message is reinforced in road safety campaigns, such as the "Cycle Safe" campaign which is to be run later this year.

  Road and Rail Freight
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportions of freight were carried by rail and by road in 1991, 1979 and 1967 in Great Britain, Germany and Japan.

  Mr. Freeman
  The most recent statistics readily available are for 1990, published, with 1980, in "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1992", tables 8.9 and 8.10. Statistics for 1970 onwards, with definitions and more detailed comparisons, are published in the transport statistics report "International Comparisons of Transport Statistics Part 1: Intermodal". Both publications are in the House of Commons Library. Reliable comparisons are not available for years prior to 1970.

  Piracy
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department's merchant shipping notice on piracy and armed robbery will be published.

  Mr. Norris
  Merchant shipping notice No. M 1517 "Piracy and Armed Robbery" is being distributed to shipowners, masters and crews. A copy of the merchant shipping notice has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Airline Competition
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to discuss airline competition with chairmen of British-owned airlines; and which chairmen he proposes to meet.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets chairmen of United Kingdom airlines to discuss matters of mutual interest.
  772
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will instigate an Office of Fair Trading investigation of competition and fare structures in the airline industry.

  Mr. Norris
  No. Within the EC, Community legislation covers these issues. Elsewhere, the Civil Aviation Authority already has appropriate powers.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what action the Civl Aviation Authority is taking to allow greater competition between British airlines on Atlantic routes with particular reference to the London to San Francisco service;

  (2) if he will use his powers to direct the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure greater consumer choice between British airlines serving Atlantic routes with particular reference to the London to San Francisco service.

  Mr. Norris
  We understand that cases concerning competitive aspects of north Atlantic routes, including competition on the London-San Francisco route, are before the Civil Aviation Authority. In view of the Secretary of State's appellate role, it would be inappropriate to comment.

  British Airways Board
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what continuing financial or related interest in British Airways the Government have following privatisation relating to the structure and composition of the board of directors.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government retained a small shareholding in British Airways following privatisation in order to meet entitlements which were expected to arise under the loyalty bonus arrangements forming part of the offer for sale. The holding currently amounts to about 3·2 million shares, or 0·4 per cent. of total shareholdings in the company.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will use his reserve powers to ensure the fair allocation at Heathrow airport of take-off and landing slots for large and small British airlines.

  Mr. Norris
  No. Slot allocation at Heathrow is a matter for the airport co-ordinator, working within industry guidelines and European Community legislation.

  Rail Subsidy
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will guarantee continuing levels of subsidy to prospective private sector railway franchisees for the full length of their franchise.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: It will be for the franchising director to negotiate contracts with private sector franchisees, and to make any subsidy payments necessary under them from within his budget. In doing so he will be in no different a position to any other public sector body in entering into contracts which run beyond the normal three-year public expenditure planning cycle.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what limit he will place on the amount of subsidy to be
  773
  offered to prospective rail freight operators under the arrangements announced by the Government for the next 15 years; and what estimate he has made of the total amount to be guaranteed.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The Government have not set a specific time limit on the new scheme—we have said that it will be reviewed after a period of operation. The amount of funds available will depend on the level of demand for the scheme, objective assessment of its benefits, and competing demands for public expenditure.

DEFENCE

  Aldermaston (Accidents)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department expects to reply to the letter from Greenpeace to Mr. Allen, senior administration officer at Aldermaston, concerning accidents at AWE Aldermaston.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Department will reply to the Greenpeace letter of 26 January 1993 concerning accidents at AWE Aldermaston as soon as possible.

  Bands
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the establishment of pipe bands of Scottish regiments, broken down by specialisation as appropriate; how they are funded; what are their annual costs; what training facilities for military piping are available, and at what annual cost; what is the annual income obtained from public or private performances of Scottish military pipe bands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Pipe bands are not separately established in Scottish regiments, but a regiment could have 15 pipes, six side drums, two tenor drums and a base drum. There is currently a piping school within the Household Division, a Guards Depot piping school and a piping and drumming wing of the Scottish Division and an Army school of piping. Central records are not held for the annual cost, the training cost or the annual income of pipe bands.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the establishment, annual cost and training arrangements for the pipe bands of the Royal Irish Regiment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no separate establishments for pipe bands in the regiment. The maximum number of instruments likely to be available to any regiment are 15 pipes, six side drums, two tenor drums and a base drum. Central records are not held for the annual costs of the bands. Pipers are trained at the Army school of piping in Edinburgh.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which ways the initial and subsequent training of band personnel varies between each of the services; and in each case what is the length of the full-time training undertaken.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The principal differences between the training of musicians in the services are due to different 774
  standards of musical competence on entry. The length and nature of training is affected by the degree of integration of musical and military training. In the Royal Marines these are fully integrated, whilst at the Royal Military School of Music and the Royal Air Force School of Music the training is predominantly musical, with military training being provided elsewhere. The lengths of training of personnel in the three services prior to joining a band are as follows:

  Royal Marines
  Musicians undergo eight terms of 15 weeks each. Buglers undergo five terms of 15 weeks each.

  Army
  10 weeks Common Military Syllabus (Recruits) and up to 44 weeks musical training, followed by three weeks on the Bandsmen Medical Assistants Course.

  Royal Air Force
  7 weeks initial recruit training; up to a year's musical training for non-graduates or, for graduates a shorter familiarisation course of between six weeks and four months (the length depends on individual capability); and three weeks and two days training as medical assistants.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to publish in full the review by the Commandant of the Royal Military School of Music of the future organisation, structure and geographical location of Army bands in the light of the restructuring of the Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is an internal review, and I do not therefore intend to publish it in full. No decision has yet been made on the recommendations put forward by the review, but an announcement will be made in due course once any decisions are taken.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what equivalent level of civilian paramedical expertise Army band personnel are trained; and where, when and how often they are trained in these skills.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Army band personnel are trained to medical assistant rather than full paramedic standards. On completion of music training they attend a medical assistant course at the Royal Army Medical Corps training centre and thereafter receive regular refresher training in their units by qualified instructors. This enables them to undertake mobilisation roles in direct support of medical units in war.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role is played by the bands of regiments deployed(a) on emergency tours to Northern Ireland and Belize and (b) on residential tours outside Great Britain.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The precise role of a band in any given theatre can vary, depending on the requirements of the unit commanding officer. On emergency tours to Northern Ireland and Belize bands deploy with units at the commanding officer's discretion, where they would typically man medical centres, deploy on patrol, as medical staff, and give concerts. When a unit has an integral band it would normally accompany the unit on residential tours outside Great Britain to BAOR, Cyprus, Hong Kong or Northern Ireland. Similar roles to those carried out on emergency tours are undertaken including taking part in ceremonial duties.
  775
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the rules governing the use of funds received by bands as a result of public engagements; what has been the total income in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will publish details of the level and nature of current commercial sponsorship of military bands.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In return for a contribution to public funds service bands are permitted to carry out fee-paying engagements. The total income, in the last financial year for which figures are available, 1991–92, was £113,000. There were fewer engagements that year as a knock-on effect of Operation Granby. Details of commercial sponsorship are not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It is not, however, believed to be significant in scale.

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) military operations and (b) operations in support of civil authorities in which Army band personnel have participated in the past 10 years, showing in each case the numbers participating and the nature of their activities.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Army band personnel may deploy, usually as medics, with the parent unit to any operational theatre, or on any operation in support of the civil authorities.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what charges will be raised by his Department for the flights currently being undertaken by an RAF C-130 in Guatemala; how many flights were undertaken; and from which agency the request for assistance originated.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The RAF C-130 flew nine sorties totalling 11 hours 20 minutes, in response to a request from the Overseas Development Administration. The flying charge, based on extra cost, will amount to some £16,500.

  Channel Tunnel (Challenger Tanks)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the arrangements which will apply to the transit of British and NATO military material through France via the channel tunnel; and if the railways in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the European mainland and (c) the channel tunnel can carry Challenger tanks.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No decisions have been made on the military use of the tunnel in peacetime. Cost will be a major factor in any decision to use the tunnel for routine movements. The dimensions of the Challenger tank, and the absence of suitable rolling stock, currently preclude it from movement on the railways in the United Kingdom. Challenger tanks are routinely moved by rail in Germany. The tunnel is physically capable of taking the Challenger tank although a number of technical aspects as well as commercial and safety aspects would have to be resolved first.

  TA Officers (Official Secrets Acts)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army officers have been charged under the Official Secrets Acts in each year since 1970; in 776
  how many of those cases the accused was kept in custody between arrest and trial, and for how long in each case; what was the outcome of each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Readily available records cover only the period since 1985. The information requested prior to that could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Since 1985 one Territorial officer has been charged under the Official Secrets Act—in 1992. That case is ongoing and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

  Military Training
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what basic military training is undertaken by(a) Army, (b) Royal Marine and (c) Royal Air Force band personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Royal Marine musicians and buglers are trained in a range of basic military skills, to enable them to fulful their peace and war roles, including medical support. For new entrants, this training is provided concurrently with musical training, and in the first 15-week term of their courses some 80 per cent. of the time is spent on basic military training. The proportion of time devoted to musical training increases in subsequent terms. Musicians and buglers undertake seven or more days military training each year following the completion of initial training.

  In common with all other recruits to the Army, Army musicians undergo the 10-week common military syllabus (recruits) course on entry, prior to joining the Royal Military School of Music for the musicians' foundation course. On completion of this, they attend a course for bandsmen medical assistants.

  Recruits undergo a seven-week initial training course, mostly in drill, at RAF Swinderby, before joining the RAF School of Music. On completion of musical training, trainees attend a medical training course, three weeks and two days long, to equip them for their role as medical assistants.

  Warship Refits
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy concerning competitive tenders for refitting of naval warships.

  Mr. Aitken
  It remains our policy that, wherever possible, and in the interests of providing overall best value for money, competitive tenders will continue to be invited for that portion of the naval refitting programme not allocated to the two royal dockyards as part of their core programme.

  HMS Gloucester
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his officials have discussed details of Devonport's offer to refit HMS Gloucester with(a) Babcock Thorn Ltd. or (b) other persons or bodies connected with Rosyth naval dockyard.

  Mr. Aitken
  I can confirm that no officials from my Department have discussed details of Devonport's offer with either Babcock Thorn Limited or other non-MOD bodies connected with Rosyth royal dockyard.
  777
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the 1990 decision to allocate HMS Gloucester to be refitted at Devonport was changed to a tender process; and for what reason the refit was allocated to Rosyth in 1992.

  Mr. Aitken
  HMS Gloucester was provisionally planned, in 1990, to be refitted at Devonport, but not formally allocated. For overall policy and value for money reasons, at that time it was decided to compete the refit. In 1992 the refit of HMS Gloucester was allocated to Rosyth in order to balance the naval workload there following the decision not to proceed with the planned refit of HMS Revenge.

  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the rescue missions flown by SAR helicopters based at(a) RAF Chivenor and (b) RAF Brawdy since 1986 have been to incidents in (i) Wales, (ii) the Bristol channel and (iii) Devon.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not held in the format required.

  Departmental Housing
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will give details on the level of demand for, and level of provision of, his Department's housing in Scotland;

  (2) if he will give details of the level of demand for, and the level of provision of, married quarters for armed forces personnel stationed in Scotland; and if he will break these figures down for each branch of the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 31 December 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, the Ministry of Defence owned 6,821 housing properties in Scotland of which 5,903 were occupied. A total of 6,519 of these were service married quarters of which 5,702 were occupied, broken down by service as follows:

  Married quarter stock

  Married quarters occupied

  Royal Navy

  2,058

  1,742

  Army

  1,566

  1,220

  Royal Air Force

  2,895

  2,740

  Total

  6,519

  5,702

  In addition 52 service families—10 RN, seven Army and 35 RAF—were being paid an allowance to rent private accommodation because of insufficient quarters at their place of duty. The number of families on waiting lists for quarters in Scotland and accommodated temporarily elsewhere could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The majority of the vacant married quarters owned by MOD were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation or were already allotted to service families who were due to move in shortly. In addition, 171 surplus married quarters were in the process of being sold.

  Three hundred and two properties were MOD civilian houses of which 201 were occupied. Fifty-two vacant properties have since been handed back to Dumbarton
  778
  district council and the handback of a further tranche of 34 vacant properties is under negotiation. In addition, 42 houses were in the process of being sold, mostly to sitting tenants.

  Forces Personnel (Scotland)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of how many armed forces personnel are currently stationed in Scotland; and if he will break these figures down by branch of the armed services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 1 January 1993 the number of armed forces personnel in Scotland were, in each service:

  Number

  Royal Navy and Royal Marines

  19,998

  Army

  2,185

  Royal Air Force

  7,532

  TOTAL

  19,715

  1 Including sea service personnel docked in Scottish waters.

  The figures include all personnel—male and female, officers and other ranks, trained and untrained.

  Barracks
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers(a) are, and (b) can be accommodated in barracks which are curently in use in Scotland; and which barracks these are.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Fifty-eight officers and 966 soldiers of the regular Army are accommodated in barracks currently in use in Scotland. These figures fluctuate daily owing to postings, enlistments and discharges. Barrack accommodation is available for 163 officers and 2,022 soldiers in Edinburgh at Craigiehall, the Castle, Dreghorn and Glencorse; in Inverness; in Fort George; and in the Hebrides at Benbecula and St. Kilda.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how many days per annum barracks not currently used by the Regular Army are used by the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve; which barracks are used by the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve; and if he will give similar information for Royal Navy quarters, Royal Air Force quarters and Royal Marine barracks.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Army Trucks
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sources of supply of 4 x 4 Army trucks there are in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We currently purchase 4 x 4 Army trucks from three companies in the United Kingdom. A number of other such companies have the capability to bid for any future orders.

  Royal Flight
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many crew, and at what cost, are permanently attached to the royal flight.
  779
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Two hundred personnel are permanently attached to the Queen's Flight, of which 21 officers crew the aircraft. The flight's personnel costs amounted to £3.776 million in financial year 1991–92.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to seek the establishment of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty before the expiry of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have always accepted the long-term goal of a comprehensive test ban to be achieved on a step-by-step basis. The case for extension of the non-proliferation treaty stands irrespective of the state of progress towards a comprehensive test ban.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Leptospira Hardjo
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he will take to eradicate leptospira hardjo infection from the national dairy herd; and what action is being taken to warn dairy farmers and the public about the dangers of this disease.

  Mr. Soames
  Leptospira hardjo is not a notifiable disease and there are no plans to introduce eradication measures. Vaccination and treatment are effective in protecting herds. The disease represents a potential hazard to those in direct contact with cattle, but is not a risk to the general public. In discussion with veterinary organisations, the Department has produced an advisory document, agreed with the Health and Safety Executive, which contains advice on avoidance and dealing with the disease and which is being published and circulated by the British Cattle Veterinary Association.

  High Tides
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department is taking in respect of the high tide levels predicted for March this year.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am aware that unusually high tides are predicted around some parts of the coast on 10–11 March as a result of a combination of factors, including the closeness of the moon's approach to the earth and the approaching equinox. In itself, this does not pose a flood risk since coastal defences are designed to provide a margin over highest astronomical tide levels. However, much will depend on weather conditions at the time. The Meteorological Office's storm tide warning service, which is funded by this Department, will continue to monitor the situation closely and pass any necessary warnings to the National Rivers Authority. In addition, officials in the Department have written to local flood emergency contacts drawing their attention to the possibility of high tides in early March so as to enable the local services involved to be ready to respond to any flood warnings received.

EMPLOYMENT

  Check-off Deductions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will estimate the number of consents that would be required under the proposed requirement that employers seek renewed consent to check-off deductions.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Green Paper "Industrial relations in the 1990s", published in July 1991, quoted a 1989 survey which suggested that some 7 million employees are currently covered by check-off arrangements. Under provisions contained in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill every employee who wishes to pay union subscriptions through check-off will need to give written consent before deductions are made, and to renew that consent every three years. Where employees are covered by check-off arrangements when these provisions come into effect, employers will have one year during which to seek their written consent that they wish to continue to pay their subscriptions in this way.

  Strikes
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost due to strikes in the north-west of England in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is provisionally estimated that in the twelve months to November 1992, the latest period for which data are available, 33,000 working days were lost in the north-west of England. Working days lost in the previous 10 calendar years are given in the following table:

  Working days lost in strikes in the North West region

  Calendar year

  (thousands)

  1982

  989

  1983

  765

  1984

  1,381

  1985

  403

  1986

  390

  1987

  374

  1988

  459

  1989

  730

  1990

  722

  1991

  245

  Wages
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many firms in the east midlands have been found to be paying below minimum rates set by wages councils in each of the last 10 years; and what is the amount of money calculated to be owed to employees in each of these years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Following the merger of the east and west midlands in 1986 to form the midlands division of the wages inspectorate, separate records for the east midlands were no longer kept. The available information is provided in the tables.
  781

  Midlands (east)—Wages inspectorate 1982–1985

  Year

  Number of establishments underpaying

  Amount of arrears assessed £

  1982

  532

  160,400

  1983

  573

  167,449

  1984

  534

  184,673

  1985

  430

  142,417

  Midlands (east and west)—Wages inspectorate 1986–1991

  Year

  Number of establishments underpaying

  Amount of arrears assessed £

  1986

  943

  302,947

  1987

  525

  199,584

  1988

  747

  190,698

  1989

  822

  160,827

  1990

  749

  197,916

  1991

  835

  179,478

  Prince's Trust
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what support the Government are currently giving to the Prince's Trust in its work to help the unemployed.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  The work of the Prince's Trust assists both employed and unemployed young people. It is therefore not possible to identify support specifically for the unemployed.

  In the current year, the Home Office and DHSS (Northern Ireland) contributed £67,780 to the Prince's Trust volunteers. The Department of Employment
  782
  contributed £4·375 million to the associated Prince's Youth Business Trust. Further support from public funds has been provided locally through training and enterprise councils.

SCOTLAND

  Children's Hospice
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the establishment of a children's hospice in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The statement which my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Local Government made on 2 December 1992 indicated that we accepted there was sufficient evidence of demand to support the establishment of a children's hospice in Scotland. We also believe that, having taken the initiative, the voluntary sector, as is the case with adult hospices, is best placed to develop such a project. While we remain convinced of the advantages of a combined effort by all those interested in taking this matter forward, we also believe that such an effort will be enhanced if there is a clear national focus for the activity. We have therefore decided to support the Children's Hospice Association Scotland (CHAS) in its proposal to provide a children's hospice suitably located to meet the demand from all parts of Scotland. I strongly urge all those with an interest in this development to add their efforts to those of CHAS. The Government are showing their support of CHAS in a tangible way by awarding them a grant under section 16B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 as a contribution towards their core administrative costs.

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

Council Tax Appeals: Finance
Lord De Freyne Lord De Freyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What financial provision has been made to cover the costs of appeals against the valuation of property for the council tax.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government have made available £36.2 million in 1993–94 to enable the Valuation Office Agency to deal with proposals from taxpayers to alter their council tax bands. The Government have also considered the financial requirements of valuation tribunals, which will hear council tax appeals, and have increased provision in England by about £2.7 million in 1993–94.
Lord De Freyne: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. Having heard that there will be approximately 3,000 appeals in Oxfordshire and remembering that there are about 48 counties in England, will that not add up to a very large sum? Does it not show that in some cases the valuations are wrong and that that will have a knock-on effect to the final account? Will the Minister estimate the cost of a total revaluation on that basis?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have absolutely no idea where my noble friend gets his figures from. We believe that we have made sufficient financial provision to allow for appeals. I should point out that in the first instance the matter will not go to appeal because it will be subject to review by the listing officer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord not recognise that after the fiasco of the poll tax, it is very important that the council tax should be seen to be properly administered and fair? If that is not the case, it will be a disaster. Is the noble Lord aware that many people are worried about the system of valuations, the criteria which were used for those valuations, and the method used by estate agents, apparently on the instructions of the Inland Revenue? Will the noble Lord further take into account the possibility that the criteria for appeals are extremely difficult for people to understand? The appeals procedure only starts at the end of March or early April, just before the tax is implemented. Will the noble Lord comment on that and perhaps reconsider the Government's view on the matter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no. It is really very simple. After 1st April anyone who feels that his
758
property is in the wrong band can apply to the listing officer for the band to be changed. Within six months that decision can be taken forward to the valuation appeals department for an ultimate decision. It is not a complicated appeals system, and we expect that there will be very few appeals.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, in view of my noble friend's Question, it strikes me that the Government are rather in the position of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland. She says to Alice, "What square do you want to be on?" "Oh that square", says Alice. "That square, we shall have to walk very fast to get there", says the Red Queen. After they have been walking or running for 10 minutes, Alice says, "This is ridiculous. We are just where we were before. We are no further on." "Nonsense" says the Red Queen "if we had not been running as fast as we have, we shouldn't even be standing where we are now."
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend makes a useful and interesting observation which has amused the whole House.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, one of the biggest anomalies in the valuation of the properties is that they are being valued at prices which applied about two or three years ago. That is ridiculous. Are the Government prepared to do anything about it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that the valuation date was set for 1st April 1991. Clearly, a date had to be set for the valuation prior to the introduction of the tax. The point is not that the valuation will be the same as that which will apply in April 1993 but that the values of all the houses will have changed at roughly the same level in the intervening period.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, will my noble friend correct what may be a misunderstanding which arose from a question from the Front Bench opposite? Surely the estate agents who are acting as agents for the valuation officers are not setting their own guidelines but are following guidelines set by the valuation department. Therefore, there will be a uniformity of guidelines throughout the country.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Furthermore, the value is not an exact value because we are dealing in bands. Therefore, the value can be at one point between two other fixed points.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise and is he aware that if he thinks that this matter is simple, he really is living in wonderland? Does he not appreciate that the points raised by my noble friend on the Front Bench are anxieties of the general population? Will he say whether the valuation departments have sufficient staff to enable them to reply to the many requests for information which have been received. I am certainly having difficulty in obtaining a reply to my letters.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that the departments are fully staffed and, as I indicated in my

759
original Answer, are fully financed. The noble Lord will not receive a reply to some of his inquiries until after the tax is in place on 1st April.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, will the Minister say whether there is any special significance about 1st April being the chosen date?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is near the beginning of the fiscal year.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, if Alice appeals, can the appeals court grant Alice her costs if it so wishes?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we do not expect that any costs will be incurred in appealing. It is a simple matter of fact as to whether or not a property should be in one band or another.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not the case that there have been consultations with the local authority associations? Will the Minister say what are the results of those consultations and what is the view of the local authority associations?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, local authorities have been fully consulted at every step of the way on the implementation of the council tax. I can only assume they are quite happy with the arrangements. I have not received any complaints.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the band in which people find themselves is not a matter of fact but rather a matter of opinion?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is a matter of market value, or at least perceived market value. Whether that is a matter of fact or opinion is for debate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as the noble Lord regards this matter as terribly simple, will he explain how bands can be decided by perceived market value, to use his expression, when many estate agents, under instruction—I wish to correct the noble Lord who criticised me—from the Inland Revenue, have not even looked at many of the properties they have been valuing?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the point is that valuers were asked to place properties between bands. Band D in England, for instance, comprises properties worth more than £68,000 but not more than £88,000. That is quite a wide target for valuers to hit.

Broadcasting Companies: EC Ownership Rules
3.11 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking within the European Community to ensure that United Kingdom television contractors are not discriminated against in the matter of cross-frontier takeover bids.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government are concerned that the legislation of a number of EC member states contains provisions which discriminate against nationals of other member states in the matter of ownership of broadcasting companies. We have informed the European Commission of our concerns and understand it has action in hand against several of our partners.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. However, is he aware that from 1st January next year it will be entirely open for great continental media conglomerates to make take-over bids for total ownership of television contractors in this country, whereas it will be impossible for British interests to make comparable bids on the Continent? Will the Government seriously consider extending the moratorium inserted in the Broadcasting Act to a time when there is a level playing field within the European Community for these matters?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are taking action as regards the European Commission and the Commission is taking action against a number of countries. Take-overs are an important market discipline and after the initial moratorium it would not be right for the ITC to interfere with issues of ownership. An extension of the moratorium after the end of 1993 would require primary legislation, as would any change to allow a large ITV franchise holder to take over another large franchise holder.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, what makes the Government think that the European Commission has the necessary powers of discernment to enable it to draw any conclusions or make any decisions on this matter?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord an example as regards Belgium. In Wallonia significant equity participation by the Francophile print media is guaranteed on the commercial channels. In Flanders at least 51 per cent. of the capital of a commercial TV licensee must be owned by the publishers of Flemish language print media. The European Court of Justice has recently ruled that these Flemish measures are contrary to the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is no chance of anything being changed within 10 months—before the end of this year —through the European Community? Therefore —this comes back into the Government's court—something has to be done between now and January (the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, pointed this out) otherwise our ITV companies are wide open to take-over by Germans, Italians and anyone else who wishes to do so.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Buxton. It is frustrating that this problem is taking so long to be resolved. However, as I said, progress is being made. This is an area of complicated EC and national legislation. The Commission has been made aware of the problem in other member

761
states and is taking action. We will provide further details of our anxieties and assist the Commission in pursuing those anxieties in whatever way we can. If any European company wished to take over an ITV broadcaster, it would have to abide by the licence conditions.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the debates on the 1990 Broadcasting Act noble Lords on this side of the House fought hard to obtain a two-year moratorium on take-overs by TV companies but the Government settled on a period of one year? In view of the continuing recession and the turmoil that the UK industry is in, will the Government reconsider extending the moratorium and will they reconsider the matter of legislation? That is a small thing compared with both the principle and the fact of the matter we are discussing. Will the Government consider extending the moratorium, preferably to 1996 when the BBC Charter is due for renewal? That would permit our entire broadcasting system to be considered at the same time.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the ownership rules were thoroughly debated by Parliament. It is too early to consider any changes when the new system has been operating for only a month. I remind the noble Baroness that the ITC chairman, Sir George Russell, proposed a one-year period when the provision was being debated. As I said, an extension would require primary legislation.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, does the Minister realise that if this anomaly is taken to its extreme Telefis Eireann would be able to take over Ulster TV? Surely no one in this country would wish that anomaly to arise.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, no one can simply come along and take over Ulster TV, or indeed any other ITV franchise. Take-overs will be subject to the oversight of the ITC once the moratorium is lifted. The ITC must ensure that the original licence conditions continue to be met regardless of changes in ownership.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, as our own legislation — that is; the Broadcasting Act 1990—enables citizens of the EC to own British television stations, if this matter cannot be solved by our partners in the Common Market will the Government consider amending our legislation so that we have a level playing field, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said —I use that awful clichÉ—between ourselves and the rest of the Community?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we can own television stations in some European countries. Some European countries—for example, France and Italy—are not restrictive about ownership as regards EC nationals. However, what is fair—we do this—is that countries may apply ownership restrictions equally to both their own nationals and nationals of other member states.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I hope the Minister will tell his noble friend Lord Archer that the Irish took over British broadcasting many years ago. Will
762
he confirm that, apart from the obscure case of Italy, no EC country except the UK allows foreign creditors to gain control of its television? Is it not therefore an inevitable consequence that, come next year, continental media companies looking to expand are bound to target the relatively small UK television companies? Does not the Minister agree that we have suffered for long enough from foreign control of our newspapers? What will the Government do, until that distant and remote time when the EC imposes a level playing field, to maintain British control of our television?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, a number of things are happening. The European Commission has recently produced a consultation document entitled Pluralism and Media Concentration which sets out a number of different options. The Government will consider the paper carefully before deciding how to respond. There are a number of other countries in Europe—for example, Italy and Luxembourg—which do not have restrictive conditions.

National Park Authorities
3.17 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to introduce legislation upgrading the status of all national park authorities to that of independent planning boards in the next Session of Parliament.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, our policy statement on the national parks, published in January 1992, promised legislation to create independent authorities for the eight national parks in England and Wales currently run as county council committees. I appreciate the priority which many attach to this legislation and I regret we were unable to secure a place for it in this parliamentary Session. The legislation, however, remains a priority.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he recall that his honourable friend Mr. David Maclean, speaking in the Lake District last July, stated:
"It was unfortunate that heavy pressure on the legislative programme for this parliamentary session"—
he was speaking in the previous parliamentary Session—
"prevented a place being found for the national parks"?
However, he continued:
"national parks remain a high priority".
The Minister will be aware that those remarks were made during the previous parliamentary Session and there is no sign yet of national parks legislation this Session. Can he reassure me concerning the next Session?
Secondly, will not the local government reforms at present in progress in England and the legislation to that end in Wales leave the national parks which are at present run by county council committees in limbo, without powers? Will it not also raise a question mark concerning their financing and accountability until

763
that national park legislation is in progress? Does the Minister agree that there is great urgency in this matter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we 'are still in the same parliamentary Session as when my honourable friend David Maclean made that statement in the Lake District. In answer to the noble Lord's substantive point I can say that transitional arrangements may be necessary. They can be put in place to smooth the path to independence. The Local Government Commission has been instructed that the responsibility for national parks should not be affected by the commission. It is certainly not our intention that the national parks should be left in limbo as a result of the work of the commission.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, does the Minister share my concern about transitional arrangements for national park authorities if independence is delayed? For example, as a result of local government reorganisation the Snowdonia National Park will now fall under three independent unitary authorities. Does he agree that that can only lead to confusion?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am aware of the anxieties of my noble friend. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we can put transitional arrangements in place if that is required. We do not want the national parks to be left in limbo.
Baroness White: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that the issue is much more urgent in the case of Wales than it is in England? There is no commission for Wales; the Secretary of State makes up his own mind, whether we like it or not. Is the Minister aware that it appears from the Secretary of State's present proposals that in the Brecon Beacons National Park there will be no fewer than seven separate new independent local authorities with whom the national park authority will have to negotiate? How can there be adequate strategic planning in those circumstances? Does the noble Lord agree that there is an urgent need for a sensible approach to the situation which I described?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness put the point extremely well. I have every sympathy with the position which she explained. However, I hope that she will accept my original Answer. The issue has priority and we hope to bring legislation forward soon.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister used the word "priority" twice. Does he recall that in 1989 a White Paper on restrictive trade practices was described as priority legislation yet it is now 1993? Further, will the noble Lord take on board seriously the points raised by my noble friend Lady White? Will he accept that if local government reorganisation is to be imposed on Wales, with new authorities to be established on 1st April 1995, it is essential that the Government introduce legislation in the next Session?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am well aware of the situation in Wales, as I have already indicated. As I said, it is an area of priority for us.
Lord Moran: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the review panel under the chairmanship of Professor Ron Edwards found evidence within the parks of deteriorating environmental quality and permanent damage to the landscape? Does he accept that independent status and greater powers for the park authorities are urgently needed to enable them to resist the increasing threats from developments, above all from major roads such as the proposed Euro-route and the proposed trans-Pennine route?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the national parks have always been under pressure and it has been necessary to strike a balance between protecting the environment and encouraging visitors to enjoy the qualities for which the parks were originally designated. We have not waited for designation to give the parks greater protection. In January 1992 we published revised planning policy guidance for the parks in which we stated that major developments should not take place in the parks save in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that since the Government, the Association of County Councils and many others are agreed that it is desirable to achieve the objectives of the Edwards Report on national parks, it is worrying that the legislation is being delayed, possibly so that it can form part of a large Environmental Protection Agency Bill? Can he assure the House that this relatively uncontroversial issue can be dealt with in a small separate Bill soon instead of having to wait for massive environmental legislation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the legislative programme in the current Session proceeds considerably faster than we anticipate it is possible that there will be room to bring forward a Bill. However, I fear that that is unlikely.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware—although there is no reason why he should be—that I live in the middle of the Peak District National Park? Is he further aware of the remarkable record of success of the Peak park board, which is due to the fact that it is run as an independent authority? Is it not a fact that it is that very independence which enables national park authorities to manage their areas with freedom, enterprise and imagination?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on living in one of the most attractive parts of our countryside. I am, of course, aware of the positive work which is carried out by all the park authorities. I agree with the noble Lord that independence will give the park authorities greater clarity of vision and all the other advantages which he mentioned.

Fraud and Drug Investigations: Responsibilities
3.26 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the police are to remain the principal agency responsible for the investigation of fraud; and whether the police and HM Customs and Excise will remain the agencies responsible for investigation of, and criminal intelligence connected with, offences of drug trafficking.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the police will continue to be the principal agency responsible for the investigation of fraud. The police and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise will remain responsible for investigating and dealing with drug trafficking.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply, which I welcome. Is he aware of the suspicions which have been created in recent weeks, both among senior police officers and a wider public, by widespread Press reports that the Government are considering giving some responsibility to the Security Service for investigations of that character? Is he aware that that suspicion is due in part to the fact that when similar Press reports were published at the beginning of last year concerning investigations into IRA terrorism they were described at the time as speculative; but unhappily were followed by a Statement by the Home Secretary that the Security Service was to be given just such a responsibility?
Is the noble Earl aware that the Answer he has given today will reassure a number of people about the Government's intentions? However, many of us would be grateful if he would comment on the letter which the Home Secretary sent to Mr. Blair in which he appeared significantly to qualify the assurance which has been given today?
Earl Ferrets: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is worried by newspaper reports. However, he will not believe everything that appears in newspaper reports. I can assure him that there is nothing in those rumours when I say that the Security Service is governed by the Security Service Act 1989. Under that Act, the Security Service can act only either to protect national security or to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. Fraud and drug trafficking, although serious, do not constitute a threat to national security. The Security Service therefore has no locus in investigating fraud or drug trafficking. The Security Service has never sought to become involved in that area.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that our Customs and Excise personnel are held in high esteem throughout the world, in particular by many European countries which they help? Do the officials receive remuneration for the valuable help which they give in investigating drug offences?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, so far as I know, Customs and Excise officials are paid. I do not know the point to which the noble Baroness refers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his second reply, the Minister appeared to indicate that newspaper reports were at issue. I put it to him that that is not the case. These are direct quotations from a letter from the Home Secretary to Mr. Tony Blair. He stated:
"I can therefore give you a clear assurance that while this assessment remains",
that is, while none of these matters is on such a scale as to constitute a threat to national security,
"there will be no question of the Security Service undertaking investigations in such matters".
Is that not a qualification of the unequivocal assurance that the noble Earl gave in his first Answer? Will he tell the House who is responsible for deciding what are matters of national security? Have there not been changes in the assessment of what are matters of national security?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any difference or qualification. As I explained to your Lordships, the Security Service is governed by the Act. The Act states what it is permitted to do. It can only take action to protect national security. If drug trafficking or fraud were of such a high scale that it affected national security, the Security Service could act. But that is a very unlikely situation. That is the only qualification that my right honourable friend would have given.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that the remarks he made on drug trafficking also refer to money laundering?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Question referred to drug trafficking. Money laundering may result from drug trafficking. However, the point that I impress upon the noble Lord is that intelligence may be gathered by other people but that the investigating process is carried out by the police.

Business
3.31 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Royal taxation.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment a Prayer to annul the Social Security Benefits (Amendments Consequential upon the Introduction of Community Care) Regulations 1992 will be taken.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill: Instruction
3.32 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Bill has been committed that Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 be considered after Clause 4; and that, further to the Instruction of Tuesday last, Amendments Nos. 96 to 106 be considered after Amendment No. 95.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may express my gratitude to the Minister for taking account, in this Instruction to the Committee, of the points that I made in responding to the first Instruction to the Committee on Tuesday last. I hope that he will not think me ungrateful if I express the wish that the Instructions had been taken at one time. When I approached the Government on Monday and suggested that the schedules should be taken with the clauses to which they refer, only half that suggestion was taken into account on Tuesday. The second half is being implemented now. It would have been better for the orderly conduct of business in Committee if the decision had been taken straightaway on Monday, or indeed, before.
I hope that I may be forgiven for raising at the same time the matter of the availability of relevant documents for Members of the House in relation to the Bill. On two occasions we have been told just prior to the matter coming before the Committee that the documents to which we have to refer and indeed to which we have put down amendments were not the most up-to-date. On the first occasion we were told only on Monday evening that the draft Immigration Rules to which we had been working, and which we had obtained from the Printed Paper Office, were not the most recent version. Yesterday evening we were told for the first time that the draft procedure rules to which we had been working, and which we had obtained from the Printed Paper Office, were not the most up-to-date version. I have ascertained that no up-to-date version was delivered to the Printed Paper Office in time for it to be considered.
I suggest that the proper conduct of the business of the House in its capacity as a revising Chamber is not helped by the failure of the relevant department to provide to the Printed Paper Office the relevant documents as soon as they are available. The damage is compounded by the fact that the absence of those documents was not first noted when amendments were put down. It was then denied. It was only at the very last moment that we were told that the proper documents were not available.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I refer to the first part of the noble Lord's complaint. I agree that if the Instructions had been dealt with at one time it would probably have been tidier. I do not believe that anything has been lost. We moved the Instruction on Tuesday; we are moving an Instruction today. The
768
schedules can be taken in their due course, and correctly. I accept the noble Lord's stricture. I believe that such a course would have been easier. I am sorry if I have inconvenienced him thus far.
On the second point, the noble Lord complains that the relevant documents were not available. What he really says is that he put down the wrong amendments. The amendments which he put down referred, as he had anticipated, to the rules for immigration officers and then to the appeals procedure rules. If the noble Lord puts down amendments which he then finds are the wrong ones, he cannot blame the Government. We gave the correct rules to the Printed Paper Office, as I understand it, when the Bill was first published on 21st October. If, for some reason, the noble Lord has picked up the wrong version and put down his amendments in the wrong format, I do not believe that the Home Office or myself can be blamed.
If the noble Lord had been in touch with the Home Office first and had said, "This is what I anticipate putting down. Do you think it is all right?", we would have been only too happy to have given guidance. I recommend that to him.
I believe that I am right in saying that the amendments which the noble Lord put down were to the appeals procedure rules belonging to the previous Bill which was withdrawn on the dissolution of Parliament. The present Bill has rules for immigration officers and for appeals procedures. They were laid in the Printed Paper Office. I am sorry if the noble Lord picked up the wrong ones.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, that is grossly unfair. If the mistake had occurred once there might be some justification for what the noble Earl says. The fact is that it occurred twice. As I understand it, the arrangement was that the noble Earl's department sent to the Printed Paper Office the up-to-date rules so that they could be printed in the Marshalled List and amendments to those rules set down. A mistake was made on the first occasion. It is possible that there may have been some misunderstanding at that stage.
Clearly, once the mistake had been corrected, it should not have been repeated. But it was. The situation was corrected by his department, I understand, at about six o'clock last night—unfor-tunately, too late for the Printed Paper Office to correct the Marshalled List. That leaves your Lordships in some difficulty.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not see that. The noble Lord said that my reply was grossly unfair. I do not believe that it was. My department carried out its responsibilities and ensured that the Printed Paper Office had the correct rules. The noble Lord shakes his head. If he can tell me that the Home Office has not provided those rules, I shall certainly look into the matter. My information is—I have no reason whatever to doubt it—that the rules were given to the Printed Paper Office when the Bill was published.
It may be that there were two sets of rules. Perhaps they looked the same. It may be that the noble Lord picked up the wrong version. We let the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, know as soon as we discovered the problem. I accept that there is a problem. However,

769
with respect, I do not believe that it is the department's fault when it gave the Printed Paper Office the correct papers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I go further than saying that the reply was unfair. I am sorry but I have to say that the reply is incorrect. Having given notice at Second Reading that we were going to incorporate the draft Immigration Rules and Procedure Rules into the Bill as amendments so that the matter could be properly debated, we then—as I think is the correct procedure—went to the Printed Paper Office and obtained from it the text of the draft rules. We only discovered on the eve of each of the debates that the most up-to-date version of the draft rules had not been provided to the Printed Paper Office by the Home Office. My inquiries indicate that the Printed Paper Office is entirely guiltless in the matter.
Clearly, there is a conflict of evidence here and it is not a matter which can be pursued on the Floor of the House between Dispatch Boxes. But I shall certainly seek to ensure that the truth is investigated and reported to your Lordships' House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, clearly the information which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has is different from the information that I have and there is a difficulty. The important point is to ensure that whatever has happened does not happen again so that everyone is armed with the right papers.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
3.41 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Housing of asylum-seekers and their dependants]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 23, leave out ("or has available for his occupation").
The noble Baroness said: There are two arguments which I ask the Committee to consider. One is a technical point and the other a humane point. The clause adds an extra test for asylum-seekers to that which other applicants for housing must meet. An applicant will have to show that he has no accommodation at all available to him. I believe that that is unnecessary because, under Section 60 of the Housing Act 1985, housing authorities already have a duty to consider whether an applicant has made himself intentionally homeless and whether he has accommodation available.
Under Section 58(2A) of that Act, a person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is
770
accommodation which it is reasonable for him or her to occupy. Section 58(2B) provides that housing authorities may have regard to the general circumstances prevailing in relation to housing in their area when they are considering whether it is reasonable for someone to occupy accommodation.
In addition to the legislation, there is a code of guidance which local authorities have a duty to consider. It states that there is no simple test of reasonableness; each case must be looked at on its merits. Thus, we already have the intentionally homeless test, we also have definitions of availability. So why is it necessary to have the words in the clause?
The second point, which is perhaps more a matter of common humanity, is that the additional test is vague. I believe that it is discriminatory to add a series of additional tests for a particular group of applicants for housing. Those requirements will add to the uncertainty faced by asylum-seekers, by applicants in need of assistance. They could also be interpreted to mean that almost any accommodation could potentially be available. Church halls, recreation centres and community centres are used on occasion to provide emergency shelter for asylum-seekers. Voluntary agencies, friends and acquaintances provide space overnight on a floor. Is that accommodation which is available for occupation?
It is perhaps worth pausing on the point that the Home Office provides financial assistance to voluntary agencies to allow asylum-seekers to be accommodated overnight, pending referral to local authorities. Is that accommodation which is available for occupation? Or is there some hidden agenda here that the grant is not to be continued? Is it the Government's intention that housing authorities should be able or required to speculate about the availability of accommodation? I believe that they should not and I ask the Committee to consider those words. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I appreciate that we are only debating Amendment No. 9 at the moment, but the criticisms which the noble Baroness rightly made of Clause 4(1)(b) are much more broadly based than Amendment No. 9 alone. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I refer also to my Amendment No. 11, which attempts to achieve the same objective by excluding any accommodation which is not occupied by the applicant at the time the application is made. It seems to us that the way in which the Bill is phrased at the moment, including the words,
"has available for his occupation",
and including the phrase to which we shall come later, "however temporary", strikes at the heart of any attempt by humanitarian bodies—charities, local authorities or any bodies concerned with the requirements of those most in need —to provide temporary or emergency accommodation for people coming to this country and finding themselves in need.
The question has to be asked whether the Bill would exclude an asylum-seeker coming to the country and finding accommodation under the

771
auspices of Crisis at Christmas. It seems to me that as the Bill is drafted, such a person would be excluded from rights under the homelessness legislation.
The fundamental failing of Clauses 4 and 5 and the whole housing provision in the Bill is that they seek to impose on local authorities a duty which they bitterly resent and have no wish to acquire of deciding about homelessness cases in terms not of the need but of the status of the applicant. They are bitterly resentful of the idea that they should be put in a position of having to decide whether they will treat people differently, "not because you are most in need but because you are an asylum-seeker". The local authorities do not know the definition of "asylum-seeker". It is not their job to determine whether someone is an asylum-seeker, their job is to deal with housing problems. They do not desire those additional duties and responsibilities. I hope that the Government will see fit to mitigate the severity of the Bill as it is drafted in that respect.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I too wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together. Like others in the Committee, I have considerable reservations about Clauses 4 and 5 but I wish to speak in particular on the words,
"has available for his occupation any accommodation, however temporary".
It seems to me that the accommodation is likely to be of two kinds. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, it may be accommodation available through charities or churches. Church halls are sometimes made available for that purpose. My understanding is that if the phrase, "however temporary" is left in the Bill, it means that accommodation provided by a charity or church is regarded as sufficient.
Not only will that mean that someone who is put up in a church hall is unable to apply for any further housing, but also charities and churches will be put in great difficulty. Either they offer the accommodation with the possibility that it will be used for a considerable time and in the knowledge that the only way in which someone being housed can be brought under the provisions of the local authority is to put them out on the streets; or, alternatively, such accommodation will be used long-term. That is not the intention of the charities or the churches. We cannot provide that kind of long-term accommodation.
Also, it seems to me that the phrase, "however temporary" creates a difficulty for those who provide the crisis accommodation which should be available for people when they first arrive in the country. It seems to me that the other kind of accommodation which might be available is that which comes from families or friends. Once again the same situation applies. If a family puts up a relative, however briefly, maybe squeezing him on to the floor of the home, that will be regarded as accommodation, however temporary. The only way such a person can then be given local authority provision is for the family to put that person out on the street. That is not a humane way of treating people as they come to this country; I hope therefore that the amendments will receive support.
Lord Renton: While, on Tuesday, I strenuously opposed the pleas of the Opposition parties and the right reverend Prelate, I have a great deal of sympathy for what has been said with regard to the amendments now being considered. It is quite right, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, that we should consider Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 together. They raise the principle of whether homeless people who belong to this country anyway and asylum seekers should be treated differently or in the same way. The amendments mean that they would all be treated the same. I believe that that is right. I would, however, point out to the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the right reverend Prelate that the amendments would make it rather more tough for asylum seekers than the Bill does. It is a concession to asylum seekers which I understand other homeless people would not have that they can prove that there is accommodation available, not merely that they have it. They will be given the opportunity of having available any accommodation, however temporary.
That is a concession to asylum seekers which, as I understand it, local people do not have under the general law relating to accommodating homeless people. It would be granted to asylum seekers. I must confess that so far I have an open mind on the issue. I am interested to hear what my noble friend has to say. But I believe that a very strong point has been made in favour of consistency in our laws relating to homeless people. We should not treat one kind of homeless group differently from another kind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I tremble at the thought of disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the wording of legislation. But I think he has it wrong on this occasion. Clause 4(1) is so drafted that the conditions,

"(a) that he is an asylum-seeker or the dependant of an asylum-seeker, and

(b) that he has or has available for his occupation any accommodation, however temporary",

do not provide a concession to asylum seekers. The conditions go on to remove from local authorities the requirement that they should make accommodation available for such a person or persons under the homelessness legislation. So it is the exact reverse of the position as the noble Lord understands it.
The wider the definition of those who come under paragraphs (a) and (b), the wider is the removal of obligation on a local authority to provide accommodation under homelessness legislation. We are seeking to narrow the definition of asylum seekers under (a) and (b) in order to restrict the removal of obligation. I am sorry to express it in double negatives, but there is no other way of doing it—to restrict the removal of an obligation of a local authority to provide accommodation under homelessness legislation.
Lord Renton: I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord in his interpretation of Clause 4. I know that the side-note is intended only as guidance to the legislators and users of statutes. But the side-note says:
"Housing of asylum-seekers and their dependants".

773
It does not refer to the housing of all homeless people. The beginning of Clause 4 also states:
"If a person ('the applicant')".
As I understand it, the applicant in this case is a person to whom the Bill applies. The clause has to be read in the context of the Bill. It is undoubtedly a concession, the applicant merely having to prove that he has available—not "has" but "has available"—accommodation, "however temporary". That, I understand, is a concession which the more general law does not give. That is why I say, as I thought the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had said, that we were making an exception from the general law relating to homelessness.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will forgive me, I must pursue this point. The present situation is that whether people are asylum seekers or not, if their need is such that they require housing under the homelessness legislation, local authorities are required to give them such housing. What is proposed is an exception to the requirement that local authorities should house certain people. The wider the exception is, the more people come outwith the requirement on local authorities to provide housing under homelessness legislation.
Lord Beloff: I simply say, then, that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I cannot understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. What the passage says is that if accommodation exists for those people, however temporary, then the obligation of the local authority lapses. Surely that is a discrimination against the asylum seekers, and not in their favour.
Lord Roskill: I do not wish to comment critically on what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. It is a matter of the construction of the statute. But with respect to the noble Lord, clearly the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is right. There is here a provision which excludes an obligation which otherwise exists upon the local authority. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness are concerned to narrow the width of that exception. That is what the amendment is designed to do.
Lord Strathclyde: As Members of the Committee who have followed the Bill will know, I come fresh to Clauses 4 and 5 which deal with housing. I thought it would be useful to preface my remarks to the amendments by explaining what they do. Although the number of asylum seekers accepted under the homelessness legislation is not great, it concentrates on a few authorities—mostly those facing great pressure on their housing stock for other reasons. The clauses limit the initial entitlement of asylum seekers under the homelessness legislation to temporary accommodation. That will allow authorities to make better use of their permanent housing stock in providing homes for other homeless families.
The Bill ensures that homeless asylum seeking families will continue to be able to rely on local authorities to provide them with accommodation. Temporary accommodation does not mean poor
774
accommodation. Increasingly it is of a standard at least as good as much of the permanent stock into which homeless families are subsequently moved. Moreover, with the speedier procedure for the resolution of applications believed to remain that will follow from the passage of this legislation, asylum seeking status will be a short-term affair.
I should also point out to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that there is nothing in the Bill that prevents a local authority from offering an asylum seeking family permanent accommodation from day one if it so chooses. But we believe that, as a result of the modest delay in right of access to permanent housing for any individual asylum seeker, housing authorities will find the extra flexibility useful in managing their housing stock that will result from the measure.
I turn to the amendment. I have a slight confusion. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, proposed Amendment No. 9. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke to some extent on his Amendment No. 11 and my noble friend Lord Renton spoke to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11. I am delighted to direct my remarks to the order in the original list or in whatever way the Committee prefers. I can group all three amendments together or take them one at a time. I am not receiving much guidance from noble Lords.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall be happy to take all three amendments together. I was wondering whether to refer to the next amendment in responding to the Minister. The arguments are not dissimilar and it is certainly clear that other Members of the Committee are directing their minds to all three amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: On that basis I shall do the same. Amendment No. 9 would remove the idea of accommodation being "available for his occupation". I draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (1) of Section 60, and Section 75 of the 1985 Act from which the phrase is drawn. The idea of availability is intended as a defence against someone making himself intentionally homeless in order to take advantage of the homelessness provisions. The same applies in this legislation and I would expect local authorities to apply similar tests. I believe that it is right to treat asylum applicants in a similar way to other homeless applicants.
There is an understandable anxiety over what sort of accommodation can be regarded as being available to asylum seekers when an assessment is made of whether or not they are homeless. I recognise that, but believe it is based on a misunderstanding. The Bill makes clear that accommodation must be "reasonable … to occupy." Use of that term in subsection (1) (b) of Clause 4, parallels the phrasing of Section 58(2A) and Section 60 of the 1985 Act. The term recognises that there are different housing conditions in different areas. It might be reasonable for a family with two or three children to expect accommodation with three bedrooms in somewhere like Manchester, whereas (in the prevailing circumstances) a smaller unit might be acceptable in inner London. It is for local authorities

775
to decide what is reasonable in the light of prevailing local circumstances, and their decisions are open to challenge in the courts through judicial review.
With regard to the concept of reasonableness in relation to the accommodation of asylum seekers, that is new ground. Local authorities may feel it appropriate to recognise that until such time as an application for asylum has been approved the need for accommodation need be only temporary, so that at that stage only a limited level of security of tenure is required. But they must still have regard to meeting adequate standards. I doubt whether sleeping on a friend's floor or in a make-shift dormitory in a church hall —as suggested by the right reverend Prelate—would be regarded as "reasonable accommodation", particularly when we remember that the prime beneficiaries of the homelessness legislation in this context are families with children.
The noble Baroness quite rightly mentioned the Code of Guidance on Homelessness. That is a theme that will recur during the course of our discussions on the clauses. Once the Bill has received Royal Assent we shall be amending the Code of Guidance on Homelessness, to which the local authorities are required by statute to "have regard". We will take account of the provisions of the new legislation and we will consider what needs saying on the matter.
The term "however temporary" is used in subsection (1) (b) of Clause 4 in distinction to the requirements that flow from Part III of the Housing Act 1985, under which someone is defined as homeless if he has no interest in a property, or licence to occupy it—in broad terms, if he has no degree of security in his existing accommodation. Such a concept is the necessary complement to the duty that the 1985 Act imposes on local authorities to secure permanent accommodation for those it accepts as homeless and in priority need.
"However temporary" could mean that someone who was staying with friends, or in hotel accommodation, might not be regarded as homeless if it was "reasonable" for him to continue to occupy that accommodation. Reasonableness in that regard will take account of how satisfactory the friends' accommodation is and their willingness to continue to house him. The costs of the hotel will be looked at and the applicant's ability to afford it.
But the provisions of the 1985 Act in relation to threatened homelessness also apply; they state that someone is threatened with homelessness—and therefore falls within the ambit of the homelessness provisions—if he is likely to become homeless within 28 days. The Bill will not postpone the authority's duty to intervene under the homelessness legislation until the applicant is literally without anywhere to stay. So it is simply not true to suggest that a family would have to wait until it was literally out on the streets before a local authority has a duty to provide accommodation. Again it will be for the local authority to which the application is made to decide when to intervene on a case-by-case basis in the light of prevailing circumstances.
776
Amendment No. 11 covers similar ground to Amendment No. 9. As I said, we need the concept of "availability" in the legislation as a defence against someone making himself intentionally homeless in order to take advantage of the homelessness provisions. The reference to availability for only 28 days is, I feel, unnecessary. The provisions of the 1985 Act in relation to threatened homelessness continue to apply for asylum seekers. They state that someone is threatened with homelessness—and therefore falls within the ambit of the homelessness provisions—if he is likely to become homeless within 28 days. The Bill will not postpone the authority's duty to intervene under the homelessness legislation until the applicant is literally without anywhere to stay.
I re-emphasise a point I made earlier to the right reverend Prelate and other Members of the Committee who raised it. The scenario painted whereby an asylum seeker and his family are shifted round, possibly from one short-term lodging to another, without being able to qualify under the homelessness legislation should not happen. In that context I have already said that we shall be reviewing the homelessness Code of Guidance to take account of the need for legislation and will make it clear to authorities just what their responsibilities are. That is one of the matters we shall need to cover.
I accept that I have been rather lengthy in covering my responsibilities. I hope that I have explained what the clauses are about and dealt with the specific points raised in a way which will allow noble Lords and the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are grateful for the length at which the Minister considered the amendments. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, agreed to take the three amendments together. That is the most sensible course.
In the course of his remarks the Minister twice fell into error; once in the level of his understanding of the nature of local authority finance and the homelessness legislation, and then simply as regards his understanding of the legislation.
The Minister said—I could hardly believe my ears when I heard it—that nothing prevents local authorities from treating asylum seekers, if they wish to, as though they fell under the homelessness legislation. I can only think that he has been concerned with these matters south of the Border for so short a time that he has not had an opportunity to visit any of the local authorities who have severe problems with homelessness. If he had made any investigation whatever he would have realised that, although local authorities support the homeless legislation and recognise its justice, they find great difficulty in putting it into effect.
The rising level of homelessness in this country means that local authorities which are concerned to carry out their legal obligations correctly find themselves in the position of putting those who have been in the housing queue to the back of that queue over and over again. Those who have been waiting, without being homeless, for council housing find it more and more difficult to achieve council housing.

777
Local authorities do not reject homelessness legislation but they really cannot be expected to operate it on a discretionary basis. They cannot be expected not to take every opportunity that they can to reduce the legal obligations on them and to care for the people who have been on their waiting lists for a very long time. Anyone who does not understand that does not understand very much about the nature of housing need in this country.
The Minister went on for some time about the concept of intentional homelessness as if our amendments would break into the concept of intentional homelessness, which is of course an exception to the duties of local authorities under the homelessness legislation. There is nothing in the Bill and nothing in our amendments which removes the provisions of the homelessness legislation under which local authorities have no responsibilities to those who are intentionally homeless. That will be the case whether or not asylum seekers are included in the homelessness legislation. It is utterly misleading for the Minister to suggest that anything in the amendments removes the intentionally homeless provisions of homelessness legislation.
Lord Renton: I am sure that we are all anxious to get this right and I was attempting to do so. I still feel, having heard the lengthy explanation of my noble friend the Minister, that Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would be contrary to the interests of the asylum seeker. I concede that Amendment No. 11 should be considered as something which helps them. But we want to be very careful indeed that we do not weaken the Bill from the point of view of getting this right for those who are genuinely seeking asylum.
My noble friend made a sensible plea to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord to withdraw their Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. I do not know whether he was going further with regard to Amendment No. 11 at this stage. It is with great humility that I ever disagree with a noble and learned Lord but I think that perhaps both of us might have listened to the Minister first. I, having done so, now feel as I have just said.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may butt in. Whether or not the amendments are grouped together, they are taken separately, so at least we can discuss them all at once at this stage. I hope that that will not confuse my noble friend Lord Renton.
The point of this clause is to change the current right which asylum seekers have to permanent accommodation. They will have a new right to temporary accommodation. I explained in my preface why the Government feel that that is desirable. Essentially, that is what we are talking about in these clauses. The discussions that we have had so far explain the Government's view vis-a-vis these amendments.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I am aware of the tremendous strains that are put on local authorities through homelessness legislation. But the debate today has nothing to do with overall policy on homelessness. What it has to do with is the rights of asylum seekers. All I said—the
778
noble Lord has not disagreed with it—is that if local authorities so choose, they can continue to treat asylum seekers in the same way.
Baroness Hamwee: This has been a very interesting debate which will certainly bear reading and rereading. The Minister made two statements at the start of his comments which seemed to be contradictory and added to my cause for concern. He said that the provisions will allow local authorities to make better use of their stock for other homeless families. He then went on to say that local authorities will have the right to treat asylum seeking applicants in a similar way to other applicants. It is that different approach in the different tests which are applied to asylum seekers which worries me and, I believe, other noble Lords.
The Minister made some welcome comments—it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that—about church floors and friends' floors not amounting to reasonable accommodation. He said that it would be appropriate for a local authority to take account of the willingness of a provider to provide a floor or whatever it might be and the cost of the accommodation. But this is to be a matter for a code which, by definition, we have not seen. We must look at the words which will appear on the face of the Bill and on the face of the Act.
Perhaps I may make one or two more comments and also move to Amendment No. 10. The temporary nature of the accommodation is a test which no other housing applicant faces. Our homelessness legislation which it is intended should apply to these applicants as well as others defines the threat of homelessness as being likely to occur within 28 days. So is "however temporary" less than 28 days? As a matter of common sense, the English language tells me, for one, that it is.
One point may or may not have been made—perhaps the right reverend Prelate made it—so I think it is worth repeating. I refer to the possible effect of discouraging existing providers of accommodation. They may think that by providing a floor for asylum seekers to sleep on, or a perch for them to perch on, temporarily, they may be causing those asylum seekers —those housing applicants—additional problems because they will disenfranchise themselves from the rules which would otherwise give them the ability to be considered had they not had that accommodation. That is a cause for concern in that it might deter those of good will who are hoping to help asylum seekers in that situation.
The comment was made that it will be for different housing authorities in different areas to decide what is reasonable and that there will always be recourse to judicial review. I am tempted to wonder aloud about the availability of legal aid for that but I will not do so this afternoon. I am sure that noble Lords would not want to see additional pressure brought on the courts by using such a sledgehammer to crack this nut.
Finally, I wish to come back to the matter of the common sense interpretation of these words. I believe that they provide a double test for these applicants. In fact, one might say that they put them in double

779
jeopardy. Given the interest and concern that have been shown, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kennet, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Barnett, L.

Lawrence, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Listowel, E.

Beloff, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bottomley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Meston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mulley, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Palmer, L.

Desai, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Diamond, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkender, B.

Roskill, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Fitt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Geraint, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shannon, E.

Stedman, B.

Guildford, Bp.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thurlow, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hayter, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Healey, L.

Underhill, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hooson, L.

White, B.

Howell, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Arran, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Astor, V.

Aldington, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Auckland, L.

Alport, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Blatch, B.

Blyth, L.

780

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Brentford, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cadman, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Middleton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Morris, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chalfont, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Moyne, L.

Chesham, L.

Munster, E.

Chilver, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nelson, E.

Cockfield, L.

Newall, L.

Colnbrook, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Crathorne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cross, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Pender, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denham, L.

Prentice, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Derwent, L.

Reay, L.

Downshire, M.

Renton, L.

Elibank, L.

Renwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elles, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Erne, E.

Sandford, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Sandys, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Finsberg, L.

Spens, L.

Flather, B.

Stewartby, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stockton, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strange, B.

Gainford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Geddes, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swansea, L.

Goschen, V.

Swinfen, L.

Hacking, L.

Swinton, E.

Haddington, E.

Tebbit, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Teviot, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

Hood, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wakeham, L.

Kimball, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Westbury, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L.

Leigh, L.

Wolfson, L.

Long, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume for the Statement.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Royal Taxation
4.28 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on Royal taxation. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about my further discussions with Her Majesty the Queen about taxation and Civil List payments.
"On 26th November, I told the House that the Queen had asked me to consider the basis on which she might voluntarily pay tax on her personal income and also take responsibility for certain payments under the Civil List arrangements. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales had made a similar request in respect of his income from the Duchy of Cornwall.
"I am now able to tell the House that the further discussions between the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and the Royal Household have been completed, and that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness have accepted the arrangements proposed.
"The Royal Trustees are today publishing a report setting out the future tax arrangements for both the Queen and the Prince of Wales. The report includes a memorandum of understanding recording the detailed rules which will apply for income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. The agreement takes effect from 6th April 1993.
"It provides for the Queen to pay income tax on all her personal income, whether from investments or from other sources. In addition, tax will be paid on that part of the Privy Purse income which is used for private purposes. There will be no tax payable on income from the Civil List since that is used to meet official expenses and is not a source of personal income for the Queen; the same will apply in respect of other payments and facilities provided by the state for official purposes. The Queen will also pay tax on any realised capital gains on her private investments and on the private proportion of assets in the Privy Purse.
"In the unique circumstances of an hereditary monarchy, special arrangements are needed for inheritance tax. There could, for example, be no question of taxing assets such as the Royal Palaces which the Queen owns as Sovereign and not in a private capacity. The agreement reached with Her Majesty therefore provides that inheritance tax should apply to all bequests or gifts by the Sovereign other than to transfers of assets from one Sovereign to his or her successor.
"As the House will know, the Prince of Wales is already fully liable to tax, except on the income he receives from the Duchy of Cornwall. From 6th April 1993 he will pay income tax on his Duchy of Cornwall income to the extent that it is used for
782
private purposes; this arrangement will replace the voluntary payment of 25 per cent. of Duchy income that he currently makes to the Consolidated Fund.
"The Inland Revenue will administer these arrangements, and the tax received from the Queen and the Prince of Wales will be included in the Inland Revenue's accounts. The Queen and the Prince of Wales will both have the same confidentiality on tax matters as any other taxpayer.
"Although these arrangements are voluntary, both the Queen and the Prince of Wales intend that they should continue indefinitely. Any changes in taxes or tax rates will automatically be applied to these arrangements.
"The report of the Royal Trustees also sets out the new arrangements that are being made for the management of the Royal Collection of paintings and other works of art. The Royal Collection is held by the Queen as Sovereign and passes from one Sovereign to the next. The collection cannot be sold to generate private income or capital for the use of the Queen, and the Queen does not benefit personally from the income generated by the collection.
"So as to make the status of the Royal Collection clear, Her Majesty intends that the maintenance, conservation and presentation to the public of the Royal Collection should in future become the responsibility of a new charitable trust. The trust will fund itself from the income generated from admission charges and other sources. These new arrangements should improve access to the Royal Collection for the whole country.
"The report also confirms that the Government have accepted the Queen's generous offer to refund the cost of a further five of the parliamentary annuities payable to members of the Royal Family under the Civil List legislation, in addition to the three annuities she already refunds. This will apply from 1st April 1993. The result will be that only the annuities paid to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh will continue as a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund.
"I am confident that the House will welcome these initiatives by the Queen and the Prince of Wales. The new arrangements will ensure that so far as possible the Queen will pay tax on her personal income according to the normal tax rules and will herself take responsibility for the Civil List payments to almost all other members of the Royal Family".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. Although I have very little to say to the House, perhaps I may say at the outset that it seems an eminently sensible way of dealing with what might have proved a potentially embarrassing matter.

783
The structure that has been outlined this afternoon by the Leader of the House clarifies the position, particularly in so far as it emphasises the necessary distinction to be drawn between those money and assets which are personal to Her Majesty and those which are necessary for the proper performance of her duties. I have only one question to ask on that, relating to inheritance tax. Although I totally accept that inheritance tax can clearly not be payable on such assets as the Royal Palaces, which the Queen owns as the Sovereign and not in a private capacity, I am not quite so sure why inheritance tax should not be applicable to other assets which are transferred from one Sovereign to his or her successor. That seems a blanket provision which goes perhaps a little too far.
My only other point of detail relates to the Royal Collection. Again, the way in which it is proposed that this national treasure should be dealt with seems thoroughly sensible. I believe that no fewer than 7,000 paintings and 20,000 Old Master drawings form part of the Royal Collection. Perhaps I may express the hope that they will be a little more visible in the future than perhaps they have been in the past—although I recognise that efforts have been made in recent years to try to enable more people to see them. If they are to be administered by a charitable trust, I hope that they will become—if I dare to use the European phrase—more "transparent" in the future than perhaps they have been in the past.
It is a sensible arrangement and we are grateful to all those who have been involved in bringing it about. We appreciate the fact that the initiative in this matter came from Her Majesty.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I have very little to say about it. I start as he finished, by saying that we recognise that the initiative came from Her Majesty the Queen, which makes the whole Statement very much more acceptable to everyone concerned. It is plainly a sensible way of dealing with what could have become a difficult problem as time went on. We are very glad that this arrangement has been arrived at.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I am particularly glad that the Royal Collection will be in the hands of a charity. Those of us who have from time to time seen some of those pictures realise what a marvellous collection it is. We realise also that, not only in the Queen's collection but elsewhere in the country, too many marvellous works of art are hardly ever visible to the public because they are hidden in cellars, attics or wherever it is that galleries hide their things—but they are not seen by the public. It is very much to be hoped that the change will mean that those quite remarkable pictures will be seen by a great many more people.
In connection with the tax arrangements, I am sure that the changes in the funding of the five other members of the Royal Family from the Civil List to the Queen taking major responsibility will be
784
welcomed. Given all the discussions that are taking place in connection with the monarchy, changes of that kind can only be helpful.
I have only one question and I am sure that there is a straightforward answer to it although it is not immediately apparent to me. Page 3 of the Statement refers to Her Majesty's personal income
"whether from investments or from other sources".
I am not quite sure what is meant by "other sources". Does the phrase mean such things as very large gifts or the yacht? What are "other sources", or is that a convenient term which can be kept to deal with borderline considerations which are perhaps better not discussed? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could comment on that.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their welcome for this Statement. I am particularly pleased that they stressed that the initiative for the new arrangements came from Her Majesty the Queen herself. I am sure that that was a great help to us all in finding a satisfactory solution to these matters and that this new arrangements will endure for a long time.
Not many questions were raised, but I shall do my best to answer the three that were asked. First, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked me about inheritance tax. As the Statement made clear, inheritance tax will apply to all bequests or gifts by the Sovereign, except transfers of assets from one Sovereign to a successor Sovereign. The reason for this—I am sure that, on reflection, the whole House will think that this is right—is that the monarchy is an institution. It needs sufficient private resources to allow it to continue to perform its traditional role in our national life and to have a degree of financial independence. That is why we believe that the passing of assets from one Sovereign to another helps to ensure that that will continue.
As regards the question of the Royal Collection, I am sure that the noble Lord is right in saying that the new arrangements will work much better. The works of art will continue to be held by Her Majesty the Queen as Sovereign, but the trust is being set up to look after the objects in it and to be responsible for their maintenance and display. I have no doubt that part of the objective is to ensure that those marvellous items are better available for other people to view. I am told that one of the first tasks is to prepare a complete inventory of all the items. I was interested to find that this is being done with the aid of computers, but it will still take to 1997—about 2 million man hours of work—to achieve, so it is a formidable task.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I do not believe that there is anything particularly sinister in the words "other sources". I can well imagine the Inland Revenue thinking that that would be an appropriate phrase to include, whatever the circumstances. There may be other things similar in nature to investments, but not quite investments, that produce income from time to time. I should also stress that the Government believe it is very important that both Her

785
Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales are fully entitled to the same confidentiality in their affairs as any other taxpayer in the country.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, as an old servant of the Queen and of the monarchy I listened to the Statement with the greatest interest and respect. There is only one point about it that concerns me. I fear that the Queen may not receive the full credit which I believe is her due for these new arrangements that she has agreed to and indeed initiated. The Statement made on 26th November came in the wake of the fire at Windsor and I believe that many people in this country connect that fire and the other events of the Queen's annus horibilis with these new arrangements for taxation which differ so much from what was arranged when she originally came to the Throne. I should be most grateful therefore if the noble Lord would confirm my understanding that discussions about the new arrangements between the Royal Household and the Treasury began as long ago as last February.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right in asking me to confirm that point. I can certainly confirm that discussions about these matters started to take place long before the fire at Windsor. I am not certain whether February was the date, but it was certainly many months before the fire. The noble Lord is also correct to stress that Her Majesty the Queen initiated those discussions.
As the noble Lord raised the matter of Windsor, although I imagine that most people in your Lordships' House know this, I should also say that the Government have had a clear financial responsibility for the structure, maintenance and restoration of the castle since 1831, so that is nothing new. In the discharge of that responsibility, the Government will obviously pay the cost of restoring Windsor to a proper state.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, although I agree with all that has been said about this being a perfectly reasonable arrangement and that the Queen is entitled to the same confidentiality as any other taxpayer, perhaps the noble Lord will accept that these are not quite the normal rules. As he said, it is a voluntary affair for the Queen but for most taxpayers it is not voluntary. However, I am not complaining about that. On the question of deductible expenses, is it intended that the payments to other members of the Royal Family should be an allowable expense for tax purposes set against the Queen's investment income?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I seem to remember that in the days when he was Chief Secretary he thought that it was a privilege to be able to pay tax, but over the years he has become a little more balanced in these matters. As I understand the explanatory memorandum, as regards the Civil List payments which will continue to be paid out of the Civil List to those members of the Royal Family who receive them but which will be reimbursed by the Queen, those moneys will be a
786
deduction from the Queen's income. Technically, those moneys would be taxable in the hands of those members of the Royal Family who receive them, but in practice they are fully absorbed in carrying out their royal duties and, as they all carry out royal duties, it is right that they should be allowed to have the expenses of carrying them out deducted from their income.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, there will be great pleasure on all sides of the House at the fact that this controversial matter has ended in such a gracious and dignified way. Having said that, will the House forgive the punctiliousness of a humble lawyer if he deals with the answer that the Leader of the House gave to the question on inheritance tax? The noble Lord said, perfectly justifiably, that when assets pass from one Sovereign to the successor, there should be no inheritance tax. Some of us who deal with these matters know that inheritance tax is payable when gifts are made prior to demise. In order to be precise, in those circumstances will the exemption apply if at the time the gift was made within the period of the demise it was made to the person who was deemed to be the successor, or is it to be the successor who is in fact the successor? I know that this is a punctilious point, but we should have clarity.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, with his acute mind in these matters, the noble Lord has asked a question which I should prefer to study more carefully before answering. However, perhaps I may answer it in this way. On my reading of the Statement and of the background to it, the gifts from Sovereign to successor Sovereign are exempt from inheritance tax. I therefore presume that it would not be to her heir but to the successor Sovereign; in other words, those assets which passed on her death or when she gave up the throne.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I rise only to underline one point. The Leader of House made it clear that the same privacy that attaches to every individual will attach to the matters raised in his announcement. Perhaps I may remind him that, as soon as this Statement becomes public, various press organisations will make every possible calculation and use every possible method to indicate what the income might be and what the tax might be. Great care will therefore be needed, as I am sure is always given, to ensure that there is no unwelcome invasion of privacy.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right. I sense that every Member of the House agrees with him. These are personal matters. Her Majesty the Queen is of course entitled to the same confidentiality as the rest of us. It is not for me to give any more information on that point. However, I know that I should not be breaching any great confidence if I were to say that many of the estimates are gross exaggerations of the position. They nearly always include assets such as the Crown Jewels and residences used for official as well as private occasions. In that sense, they are not part of Her Majesty's personal wealth.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House clarify one small point about the Trustees of the Royal Collection? Is their role purely one of caring for and making arrangements to display the existing collection, or will they have any role to play in adding to or disposing of items in the collection and advising Her Majesty on that kind of management of the collection?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the trustees' principal role is as I indicated, but I am sure that they are the type of people who will have wider experience which could be of value in the long-term development of the collection.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that for some time—by that I mean a few years—there will be difficulty in obtaining what one might call the correct assessment of tax? I say that because the arrangement is new, or at least new, I understand, since the time of Queen Victoria. In those circumstances does he also agree that it would be wise to have some kind of supervision or committee—I do not suggest something as strong as a Select Committee —in which there is a public interest? That might include and, in my view should include, Members of this House or another place to see that its whole implementation will be parallel to the arrangements applying to all of us who pay income tax. Whether your Lordships agree or not, there has been a decrease in the monarchy's popularity in recent months. The public interest would be served if close attention were to be paid to what is to happen about the assessment of income tax over the next few years.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I have to say that I do not agree with the noble Lord.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a legitimate question. The memorandum of understanding which is the basis upon which the arrangements will be carried out has been agreed to and signed by the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue. He will obviously have to be satisfied that the arrangements are being carried out properly. To that extent the matter is not dissimilar from the way in which other people's tax affairs are dealt. The Inland Revenue will take part in agreeing to the matter. With regard to other matters—not Her Majesty's income —such as the Royal yacht and so on, which receive government grants, they are subject to National Audit Office investigation. The audit of the Civil List is carried out by the Treasury. That has been done since 1816. I believe that to be a satisfactory arrangement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may make just one further short point on confidentiality, because if Her Majesty's confidentiality is breached so is the confidentiality of all of us breached. Can the noble Lord give an assurance that if that confidentiality is breached the full rigour of the law will be applied to those who breach it, whether they be civil servants, newspapers—high or low—or whoever?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I have every sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord. However, it is not part of my responsibility to enforce the full rigour of the law. If I had that responsibility I would tend to exercise it in the way that he suggests.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that, although your Lordships have properly looked at a number of details contained in the Statement, in doing so we might have overlooked and underestimated the extent to which Her Majesty has taken this action indicates her graciousness and sensitivity to criticism and anxiety to adapt the monarchy to the current and contemporary situation? That in itself is an indication of her anxiety to serve the nation and to ensure that the monarchy continues to be a vital part of our British constitution.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the remarks he made, which sentiments I fully share.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
4.56 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 4.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 12 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 13.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 89. The provisions deal with security in two senses: security of tenure and the general position of an asylum seeker. Clause 4(3) and the paragraph of the schedule referred to propose to limit the rights of occupation of an asylum seeker by not allowing him to hold a secure or assured tenancy. That limitation will extend for up to 12 months after he ceases to be an asylum seeker. It is another piece of discrimination, in the sense of the asylum seeker being treated differently from others who hold tenancies. It adds to his insecurity while he awaits the determination of his application for refugee status. It is an insecurity in terms of his accommodation which will continue even after refugee status has been granted by the Secretary of State.
If an application for refugee status is refused, the applicant is likely to be deported. If it is granted, what benefits are there to be derived from limiting the rights of occupation properly provided? A subsidiary but important point is that the provision will require housing authorities to pass on information about the status of an asylum seeker to housing associations so that no permanent right of occupation (no secure or assured tenancy) is granted. Of course, most asylum seekers will tell the housing authority of their status. They need to show why they left their previous accommodation so that they are not regarded as

789
intentionally homeless. It is objectionable to require a matter which should be regarded as confidential not to be so treated. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: Amendment No. 12 goes to the heart of the housing provisions in the Bill by seeking to delete the provision that would limit an authority's duty towards asylum seekers to the provision of temporary accommodation.
I remind the Committee that the intention behind Clause 4 is to ensure that an asylum seeker cannot acquire the right to be allocated permanent accommodation under the homelessness legislation until his right to remain in this country has been established, although that does not prevent the authority providing such accommodation if it so wishes.
But the asylum seeker does have the right to temporary accommodation, if he meets the criteria of priority need set out in the homelessness legislation. Much of the temporary accommodation that authorities provide these days is of a good standard. We believe that temporary accommodation should be sufficient for people whose long-term future in this country has not at that stage been decided, particularly as the length of time required to determine a case should be reduced substantially as a result of the provisions of this Bill.
In providing temporary accommodation for asylum seekers, local authorities should adopt the same sort of approach as they use for other applicants under the homelessness legislation. While this sometimes involves the use of bed and breakfast accommodation, authorities are increasingly looking to other more satisfactory forms of accommodation, such as short term leased housing. There is no intention to treat asylum seekers any differently from others housed in temporary accommodation. And the same standards as to public health and hygiene—and to overcrowding—will continue to apply in all cases. The fact that accommodation provided for the asylum seeker happens at that point to be temporary should not mean that its quality is unsatisfactory. Nor does it mean that the asylum seeker is deprived of any opportunity to secure permanent accommodation in the future; it merely sets back the timing of this corresponding to the progress of his application for asylum.
Once he has been given leave to remain in this country the former asylum seeker starts with what is, in effect, a clean sheet as far as his status under the homelessness legislation is concerned. Subsection (4) of Clause 4 provides that he is deemed to have made a fresh homelessness application. The provisions in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1, which Amendment No. 89 seeks to delete—these are grouped amendments—follow from this. They work by analogy with what is already contained in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the 1985 Act for the generality of homelessness applicants. Those provisions are there to allow an authority to re-house a homeless family in property which would normally be let under a secure or an assured tenancy, without guaranteeing security of tenure until it has confirmed that the family in question do indeed qualify for it under the homelessness legislation.
790
Without the assurance that it can if necessary repossess the property during this period, an authority would be reluctant to re-house homeless families in their own stock until such time as they had completed all enquiries about entitlement under the homeless legislation. This would mean a spell in temporary accommodation elsewhere (which might include bed and breakfast) for more homeless applicants; clearly that is not desirable. It is fair to say that the parallel provision in the 1985 Act has caused no particular problems, either for local authorities or for individuals.
When we allow for the different circumstances of asylum seekers, and the fact that their applications are deemed to have been re-made following the granting of leave to remain, the provisions in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 are no different from those that apply to the generality of homeless applicants; there is no intention of imposing less favourable conditions on them.
As I said at the beginning, these amendments go to central issues in the housing provisions in the Bill. Amendment No. 12 is no more than an attempt to wreck those provisions. Amendment No. 89 negates what we see as a central principle of the arrangements that we are proposing. We are ensuring that asylum seekers will receive satisfactory accommodation from the moment they are accepted by local authorities under the homelessness legislation. In due course, when their future in this country is assured, they will be entitled to the same housing provision as anyone else accepted under the homelessness legislation.
I hope that that explains what we are doing in these clauses, and that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for some of the comments he made in that reply, particularly with regard to the standard and quality of accommodation. I hope that those will be reflected in the code when it is published. I pause because the Minister, who is nodding, may like to give us some assurances on that.
Lord Strathclyde: At this stage perhaps I could give some general assurance about the code. I am conscious that when we discussed the last amendment the noble Baroness mentioned the code. The code which is already published deals with the generality of homelessness legislation. It is done in that way because homelessness must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, guidance is provided to local authorities to lead them through the legislation.
I have already given certain assurances during the course of this Committee stage that there will be guidance to local authorities; as I have also said on this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: The guidance to local authorities that that, despite the different treatment on the face of the Bill, should not apply when the detail of the code comes to be applied in terms of the standard, will be very welcome. We have heard several times—and of course it is welcome—that asylum seekers should receive the same treatment as other applicants, and

791
that after they have leave to remain they will start with a clean sheet and will be treated in the same way as the generality of other applicants.
Paragraph 6(1) of the Schedule specifically provides that they may not obtain a secure tenancy or an assured tenancy before the expiry of the period of 12 months, effectively beginning with the date on which the landlord is supplied with information that they are able to remain. If the underlying message is that the generality of homeless applicants are to wait 12 months and more perhaps that means another debate, but I do not think that one can accept that the provision of the Bill treats asylum seekers in precisely the same way.
However, I am conscious of the fact that this debate has not attracted other contributors. The words "secure tenancy" and "assured tenancy", being somewhat technical, have a certain ring which perhaps makes one shut one's ears. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Baroness does so, I should like to assure her that my silence was only an indication of my entire satisfaction with the way in which she dealt with the arguments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 41, leave out from ("shall") to ("and") in line 42 and insert ("continue until, in the case of that person being refused refugee status or leave to remain in the United Kingdom, such time as he leaves the country;").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple and I hope relatively uncontroversial amendment, because I think there could be an error in the drafting of the Bill.
The way in which the Bill is drafted at present means that a local authority can evict an asylum seeker as soon as the housing authority has been notified by the Home Office that refugee status has been denied. However, there could be a gap between the time that that notification is given and the time when the former asylum seeker has to leave the country. When this matter was raised in another place I understand, although I do not have the column reference, that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment, Mr. Robin Squire, gave an assurance that families would not be thrown onto the streets. This amendment would secure that position, and I hope that the Government will find it acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend replies I must in all conscience apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and to the Committee for my disagreement with him over the effect of the first two amendments that we discussed this afternoon. On further consideration of the matter I say that the noble Lord was right. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, for correcting me. I shall try to do better on future occasions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to acknowledge the generosity of the noble Lord's most recent remarks. I have always been very much in awe
792
of him as an expert on the drafting of legislation, and I was petrified at the thought that I had to cross swords with him on that matter. It was a great relief to me to learn, first from the noble and learned Lord and then from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, himself, that I was not in error. I am grateful for what he has just said.
Baroness Hamwee: I too am reassured by those words and I am grateful to the noble Lord. In view of my comments on a previous amendment, I should say that we support the amendment moved so beautifully and adequately by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not wish to break into the happy atmosphere which has developed in the Committee. I fully understand the anxiety which Members of the Committee have expressed as regards this amendment. It is certainly not the Government's intention that, where an asylum seeker's application to remain is refused, he should at once be deprived of his accommodation. I assure the noble Lord that this is not what we expect to happen.
A person only ceases to be an asylum seeker as defined in the Bill when any appeal he may be making has been finally determined. Therefore, his entitlement to accommodation runs until the time at which he is finally asked to leave the country; as long as an appeal is under consideration he retains his rights under this legislation. Once he is refused leave to remain in this country, he will be expected to depart within a matter of a few weeks at the most. For the housing authority that will be the natural way of terminating the provision of accommodation.
Realistically, the housing authority is not going to be sitting on the doorstep waiting to eject the asylum seeker and his family the moment it hears the asylum decision. Even if it were to want to take positive action to ensure that the accommodation was vacated, it would commonly need to obtain an eviction order from the courts. It will take more time to obtain that than it will take an asylum seeker and his family to leave the country.
The Bill as drafted does not prevent an authority from continuing to offer temporary accommodation for a further period if it wishes, and I am sure it would apply a degree of flexibility in those circumstances. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that the situation he has envisaged is already catered for.
Perhaps I should confirm that this area will be covered by the code to which I have already referred. Having said that, it would be perverse to give someone a continuing right to accommodation when it has just been decided that he has no entitlement to remain in this country. That is what the amendment would do, but I hope that I have reassured the Lord and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I do not believe that we should be asked to depend upon assurances when what we seek can be written on the face of the Bill. If what the noble Lord says is true—and it probably is true—that people will not be evicted, and the Government intend that they should not be evicted, why do they not accept the amendment, which would

793
make that quite clear? It would inconvenience no one because it would not alter the situation which the noble Lord has described.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. We all know that, in order to obtain the court's assistance in obtaining an eviction order, court proceedings must be instituted. However, there is nothing to stop an official of the local council banging on someone's door and telling them that under a certain section of an Act, he and his family must leave that property. We are dealing with a person who is a guest of our country while his application is being considered. It may have been decided that his idea of persecution is not sufficient to warrant his being admitted to asylum status.
I share the disquiet about matters on which we have received assurances being put into a code. Here I look at the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is a sturdy fighter for Bills saying simply what they mean. Codes are like subordinate legislation, although they do not even have the force of subordinate legislation.
How do I know, how does any Member of the Committee know that a code will not be altered in two minutes, as it can be, as it is purely a question of advice? We now have the opportunity and, indeed, the duty, to see that certain provisions are included in the Bill while others are excluded from it. That is why an amendment of this kind is tabled. We appreciate the Minister's assurances about a code. However, he is being rather simplistic. What he suggests will not ensure that proper consideration is given to those people whom we are trying to look after.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I was not proposing to enter into the discussion but the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was kind enough to challenge me slightly.
One realises the difficulties which codes sometimes produce. However, a code has the advantage that it removes the necessity of writing a vast amount of detail into a Bill as to the way in which a public official has a responsibility to exercise a discretion. Provided that it is done within the terms of the statute, it is easier to give him some guidance. There is a fair amount of detail in Clause 4 and it has to be read in the light of other legislation dealing with homelessness. Therefore, there would be great advantage in dealing with the matter as the Minister suggests. This is an occasion on which we might hope that a code will give helpful guidance to officials rather than something which could trip people up on the law.
Lord Mishcon: I do not wish to conduct a debate across the Committee, much though that is always welcome when it is with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who always treats one with such courtesy. However, that is not the answer to this amendment, which does not go into lengthy details. It merely secures the position that there shall not be a peremptory exit by somebody who has come to these shores in need of help. The amendment seeks only to carry that through.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I cannot understand why the Minister resists the amendment, because it spells out what should happen. A person is allowed to stay in the property until he is refused refugee status or leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The amendment spells that out and that is what the Minister said would happen. In that case, why will he not accept the amendment?
Lord Strathclyde: I do not wish to create disagreement between the Government and the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord McIntosh of Haringey. There are two points to be considered. First, much of what I have said is based on the code of guidance on homelessness which is given to local authorities. Dealing with homelessness is an extremely complicated matter. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, it is often inappropriate to make allowances for every possible case on the face of the Bill. It is unnecessarily rigid to write the provisions into the Bill. The code is altered only after extensive consultation with local authorities, because ultimately they have to apply it. Of course, authorities have a statutory duty to have regard to those codes.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made a very good case for putting what we mean on the face of the Bill. However, I hope that he will accept that, in dealing with those issues, which can mean different things to different people because of the individuality of the case, sometimes it is neither possible nor desirable to do so.
On this specific issue, there is a question of practicalities. I suggested in my initial response that, even if the housing authority concerned wished to evict a post-asylum seeker who was waiting to go back to his original country—in any case the housing authority probably would not want to evict such a person—it would be extremely difficult for it to do so because it would have to get permission from the courts. That would take a substantial amount of time. To oblige the asylum seeker and his family to leave the accommodation would take a longer amount of time than the time required for the deportation process to be concluded.
I started off by saying I had some understanding of the case the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, put forward. However, I hope the Committee agrees that this area is best left to the code of guidance and to the discretion of housing authorities. It is not our intention to have people put out on the streets before it is time for them to leave the country.
Earl Russell: I accept the Minister's comments as regards it being difficult for a local authority to evict a post-asylum seeker before he is due to leave the country. But suppose by some chance a local authority were able to do so, the question arises of what happens to the former asylum seeker in the meantime. If the order for deportation is not yet served, where is he to go in the meantime? When the Government wish to deport such a person, will they find him?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Earl makes a valid point. That will clearly be a difficulty. There is no guarantee that, if a person has been given the right to

795
remain in a house awaiting deportation, he will stay there in any event. If he wished to disappear from sight, he would do so whether or not he was allowed to stay in that house.
Baroness Hamwee: I say with respect that I do not think the Minister has answered the first part of my noble friend's question. Perhaps he will do so and at the same time tell the Committee whether it is satisfactory that an asylum seeker's position depends on the inability of the courts to deal with matters as fast as they otherwise might. Much of this argument seems to hinge on the fact that the processes of law are likely to take 12 months or so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister and I are well known in the Chamber for being emollient and conciliatory people. When the Minister said he was understanding in this matter I began to think things were not so serious and that I should withdraw the amendment. However, the more he spoke, the more I began to realise how serious this matter is and how wrong the Government are about it. The Government are wrong as regards their drafting of the legislation because they are deliberately refusing to place in the Bill a safeguard which should be in legislation. This matter should not be left to a code of guidance for local authorities.
It is well known that I am not one who seeks to place more and more specific duties on local authorities. However, local authorities are at crisis point all the time as regards homelessness legislation. They are constantly seeking vacancies for people who are in great need of housing. They will be tempted to take action to remove someone from a house as soon as they are notified that they can do so. The provision in the Bill is an unnecessary denial of the protection of homelessness legislation.
The Minister also said a local authority would have to obtain an eviction order to evict a former asylum seeker, and that that process might take longer than the process the Home Office has to follow to remove a former asylum seeker and his family from the country. That is not true. For example, if the former asylum seeker is in bed and breakfast accommodation —the Government have insisted the Bill refers to accommodation as being "temporary only"—all a local authority has to do is to stop paying the accommodation bill. The former asylum seeker will then be kicked out of the accommodation. That can happen within days.
It is not satisfactory for the Minister to express goodwill and to say this matter will be dealt with by a code of practice. His facts are wrong and his interpretation of the powers of local authorities is wrong. He is once again placing asylum seekers into an intolerable position. As my noble friend Lord Mishcon said, the asylum seekers are guests of this country.
I did not intend to seek the opinion of the Committee on this amendment but, having heard the arguments, which, in my view, are overwhelmingly in favour of this modest piece of protection, I wish to do so. This modest measure would not cost a significant
796
amount of money but it could well avoid a considerable amount of human misery. I believe I ought to take the opinion of the Committee.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 107.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jay, L.

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Birk, B.

Longford, E.

Blackstone, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon, V.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rennell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strafford, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Healey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Underhill, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hooson, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Chilver, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Crathorne, L.

Arran, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Astor, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Auckland, L.

Davidson, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Denham, L.

Beloff, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Birdwood, L.

Derwent, L.

Blatch, B.

Downshire, M.

Blyth, L.

Elles, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elton, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Brentford, V.

Ferrers, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Finsberg, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Flather, B.

Butterworth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Cadman, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Caithness, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Geddes, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Goschen, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Haddington, E.

Carnock, L.

Henley, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hooper, B.

797

Howe, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Reay, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Renton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Renwick, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Davids, V.

Layton, L.

Sandford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Seccombe, B.

Liverpool, E.

Selborne, E.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Mersey, V.

Swinfen, L.

Middleton, L.

Teviot, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Moyne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Munster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Nelson, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Vivian, L.

Orkney, E.

Wakeham, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Westbury, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Westwood, L.

Pender, L.

Wise, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wolfson, L.

Prentice, L.

Resolved in the native, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.32 P.m
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 4, leave out (", at that time").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 14 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. In contrast with the previous amendment this amendment relates to the successful asylum seeker whose position is confirmed in this country. I want to state my case in relation to what my noble friend Lord Renton said earlier about our desire to treat asylum seekers in the same way as other people in this country. A few minutes ago, speaking in the context of a previous amendment, my noble friend the Minister said that once an asylum seeker's position was accepted he started again on the housing ladder. It seems that the asylum seeker is playing a game of snakes and ladders. He goes up the ladder when his asylum application is granted, but the same day he goes down the snake when he is told that he has to go back to the bottom of the housing ladder.
I accept that the asylum seeker should only be entitled to temporary accommodation. However, I do not accept that once his status is granted he should have to start all over again. The effect of the amendment is simply to ensure that he can retain his place on the housing ladder and be treated in the same way as other homeless people in need of accommodation. The amendment merely requires the local authority, once asylum has been granted, to backdate any new application to the date on which the asylum seeker first applied so that he continues in the same position in the queue as before. I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. The noble Viscount explained the position with great clarity. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not in his place because, as the noble Viscount said, in his earlier intervention the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that he thought that everyone should be
798
treated in the same way, whether asylum seekers or resident applicants for housing. The noble Lord may think that they are being treated equally but the clause as it stands demonstrates that they are not.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, pointed out, asylum seekers climb to the top of the queue and then their application for accommodation is treated as applying from the moment when their application for asylum is granted. That seems to be unfair and unjust, but it is characteristic of the way in which the Bill treats these people. It appears that asylum seekers are thought to be trying to get the better of the system. In fact, no one seeks asylum for fun. People seek asylum because there is nothing else for them to do. They are in a desperate condition. They should not be punished. I do not say that they should be encouraged, but they must be treated fairly. That is the purpose of the amendment and I believe that it is a purpose which the Committee should support.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is a fundamental reason why the amendments of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, should be supported by the Committee. By the time they reach the stage which the noble Viscount mentioned these people are no longer asylum seekers. They are legitimate inhabitants of this country. If they want to become citizens they may do so at a later date, but they are inhabitants of this country and their status is equal to that of any other inhabitant of the country.
Such people have suffered a period of persecution in their own country of such severity as to convince the Home Office that the person's application for asylum is justified under the immigration rules. Secondly, even in this country they have experienced a period of considerable uncertainty, probably involving mental distress. They are almost certainly living in temporary and unsatisfactory accommodation. It is now suggested that, having been through all that, they should go to the back of the queue again. I cannot see the justification for that. I cannot see on what basis the Government can plausibly oppose the amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I should also like to support the amendment. There seems to be a logical flaw here. The argument that is being set before us is that asylum seekers are temporary residents and therefore are entitled only to temporary accommodation. However, asylum seekers fall into two categories. In the first are those whose cases are determined on the basis that they are not entitled to asylum. They have no right to accommodation and will leave the country. In the second category are those whose cases are determined as meriting asylum. From the beginning they have been permanent residents. That is made clear at the moment of determination, but their case has always been solid. To call them temporary residents for a while and then permanent residents does not fit the case. Their status as asylum seekers is temporary, but there are various other people whose status is temporary but who may be rehoused—for example, those who are out of work for a while—or who fall into a number of other categories.
The argument that temporary residents are entitled only to temporary status does not stand up. Not only

799
is it contrary to logic but, as other noble Lords have said, it is contrary to justice. It does not seem to be fair that those who have had to wait for a while for the determination of their status should at that moment, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, made clear, go once again to the back of the queue. We ask the Government to consider the matter seriously.
Lord Strathclyde: The provisions of the Bill are designed to relieve the burden that falls on certain housing authorities as a result of pressure placed on them by asylum seekers making applications under the homelessness legislation. Asylum seekers are of course assured a satisfactory underpinning level of temporary accommodation, but the intention is that they should not acquire the right to permanent accommodation until such time as they have also been granted leave to remain in this country. Hence the provisions in subsection (4) of Clause 4 mean that an asylum seeker's application under the homelessness legislation is taken to be made at the time the person ceases to be an asylum seeker—in other words at the time he receives a positive decision on his application for leave to remain.
We believe that that is the proper way of doing things. It means that a local authority can offer an asylum seeker temporary accommodation at the time he first applies without necessarily having to ensure that he satisfies all the tests they would normally apply to an ordinary applicant under the homelessness legislation since they know that there will be this further opportunity for review.
There could be circumstances where, for instance, since the time the asylum seeker is granted leave to remain, his circumstances have so changed that he no longer qualifies under the homelessness legislation; for example, because his dependants are no longer with him. It would, I believe, be difficult in those circumstances for a hard pressed housing authority to justify granting him a secure tenancy in scarce housing stock when there is a whole queue—
Baroness Seear: Is the asylum seeker any different from any other homeless person? When a homeless person reaches the top of the queue and his children have quit the nest—or whatever the situation may be —he is in an exactly similar position. Is not the refugee who has now become a regular homeless person in exactly the same position? What is the difference?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Baroness interrupted me in mid-flow. Perhaps I may reach the end of what I was going to say. She may still not like the answer that I give, but I shall seek to give it.
It is wrong for a local authority to justify granting a secure tenancy when there is a queue of bona fide homeless people waiting to be rehoused. A couple of points need to be explained.
Lord Tordoff: I apologise for again interrupting the noble Lord. He referred to a queue of bona fide people. The asylum seekers are bona fide too.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall take no more interruptions until I have finished, and then noble Lords may make as many speeches as they wish.
Such people do not have to start again or make a fresh application. As drafted, the Bill merely allows an authority to consider the asylum seeker's circumstances at the time that leave to stay is granted.
I remind the Committee that temporary accommodation is not bad accommodation. Although I have said that there is a queue of bona fide homeless people, "queue" is the wrong word to use. The allocation of permanent accommodation is entirely at the discretion of the local authority. It is ultimately the local authority which will decide who to put where, as it already does, under current legislation.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: I am disappointed in the answer that my noble friend gives. With other speakers, I question the validity of some of his arguments. I question how a change in the order can increase the burden on local authorities, as my noble friend said in his opening sentence. That seems to be a non sequitur.
We are referring to a change in the order. If my noble friend is right when he argues that there is no queue because the local authority has a discretion about who receives what accommodation, I question the more the significance of the clause that my amendment seeks to change.
I am not convinced by my noble friend's statement that there is not a queue. I expect local authorities to treat housing applications largely in the statutory order in which they arise. I am not happy with my noble friend's answer; he has not convinced me. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wishes to intervene.
Baroness Hamwee: It is kind of the noble Viscount to give way. I did not seek to interrupt him. However, fearing that he might withdraw the amendment, I wished to put a couple more points to the Minister.
First, the Minister spoke of relieving the pressure on housing authorities. He referred earlier, rightly, to the pressure from asylum seekers on particular local authorities. A small number of authorities is under specific pressure. Is his concern for those few authorities, or does he expect that, having been granted leave to stay, asylum seekers may then search more widely? It does not seem likely that they will sit back, heave a sigh of relief and say, "Now we can go and live in Havering or Croydon"—I pick authorities which may not be under such pressure—having been under an authority experiencing pressure such as Westminster. It is perhaps a rhetorical point because I do not believe that it is a likely situation.
Secondly, the Minister stated that when asylum seekers have been given leave to remain they will take their place in the queue, will be treated in the usual way and may be given a secure tenancy. However, during the past hour we debated Schedule 1(6) (1) which provides that they may not be given a secure tenancy before the expiry of 12 months.
Lord Strathclyde: I am not sure that I have entirely understood the noble Baroness's point. Perhaps I may express again the principle that we seek to achieve in the clauses.
Asylum seekers will acquire their full rights to a range of benefits, including full rights to housing, only from the time that they have been granted the leave to remain. If noble Lords disagree with that principle, it is up to them to make the point and to let the Committee decide. However, that is the fundamental principle that we seek to achieve within the clauses —that the full right to housing is not granted until the leave to remain is granted.
Although the noble Baroness stated that her first point was rhetorical, perhaps I may reply. Once a person has been given the right to remain, he is then treated as an applicant for homeless provision in the same way as anyone else, depending where he comes in terms of priority needs.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may intervene. He argues that the asylum seeker is entitled to full rights only from the time that the courts decide that he is a genuine asylum seeker. However, the courts have decided that he is a genuine asylum seeker from the moment that he put in his application. Therefore the principle which underlines the Bill—the Minister said that it was a point of principle—is based upon a fallacy. I hope that he will prove me wrong, but I do not believe so.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: That is the point. When the Home Office decides finally that a person is entitled to remain in the country because he is a refugee, it means that he was so entitled from the time that he arrived. That is what the noble Lord's amendment expresses. It is worth remembering that most local authorities have waiting lists. If we ask that the applicant should join the waiting list again when the decision is made about his status, we are handicapping him. We have already handicapped him enough by insisting that he can only have temporary accommodation. But at least when it is finally decided that he may stay and he is entitled to full and proper accommodation, it should be from the date when he applies. It is from that date that he was a refugee.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Pitt, for so clearly making the precise point that I was trying to make earlier of the status being determined at the point when the applicant was first present. It seems to me that the Minister is not putting the effect of the Bill clearly. Very few asylum applicants obtain permanent rehousing before their application is determined, even though the long delays in processing are well known. The vast majority will still be in temporary accommodation. We ask that they take their place in the queue from the moment of their original application for asylum.
Lord Strathclyde: I explained earlier that the Bill as drafted merely allows a local authority to look at the circumstances of asylum seekers at the time when leave to stay is granted. However, I do not wish to press the debate much further. I accept that there is
802
confusion in what I am putting forward. I am happy to consider the debate that we have had, take the points away and reflect on what has been said. I understand the points Members of the Committee have made and perhaps I have not expressed myself well. However, I am happy to look at them again.
Viscount Brentford: On the basis of that assurance, some of us would be happy to meet the Minister next week, if he so wishes, to discuss the matter further. We look forward to his reflections which I hope will have a capital "R" and will be true and genuine reflections. I am sure that they will be because I could not accept many of his points as being factually right. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hamwee: Grateful as we all are to the Minister for assuring us that he will consider the anxieties expressed on the last amendment and reflect on them, I hope that will not be necessary. I invite the Committee to consider whether the clause in its entirety should remain part of the Bill.
Housing provisions are included in the Bill to make provision for the treatment of persons who claim asylum in the United Kingdom. Why are the housing provisions included and why are they necessary? We have been given many assurances this afternoon that asylum seekers will not be treated differently from other applicants for housing. We have also been given assurances about matters—and if I describe them as "subsidiary" I do not mean that they are unimportant but perhaps they come second in the chain of events. We have been given assurances about such matters being dealt with by way of the code of guidance. That code, which is currently to be observed by housing authorities, will be amended to take account of the provisions of the Bill.
For the reasons which have been expressed throughout the afternoon, I believe that asylum seekers should be regarded as bona fide and proper people with rights. To the extent that there should be any separate provision, I do not accept that they should be treated differently. If there are minor ways in which local housing authorities should treat them, they should be dealt with by way of the code of guidance.
Asylum seekers or refugees—the term by which most of us know these people—are not given particular favours. However, they should be guaranteed equal treatment under the law. They should not be treated better but certainly no worse. Why is it necessary to restrict the homelessness legislation, which was introduced in 1977 with wide-ranging all-party support, and focus on a small and vulnerable group of people?
For the reasons which we have covered quite extensively this afternoon, I believe that both Clause 4 and Schedule 1 are unnecessary. They duplicate existing provisions. My notes say that they will serve to create confusion; and some of the debates we have had this afternoon entirely bear that out.

803
The provisions are also discriminatory. They require checks to be made on a small proportion of the total number of applicants for accommodation. They draw local authorities into immigration policy. I do not believe that those authorities should concern themselves with immigration policy.
If there is to be no difference in the treatment of asylum seekers, then there is no need for the clause. The housing legislation is clear.
Local authorities have a duty to assess applicants for accommodation where a person and any dependants have no accommodation, no access to accommodation, or where there are threats of violence or actual violence, there are provisions for giving priority to certain applicants. For example, in the case of pregnancy, mental illness or disability. Local authorities are required to conduct tests of intentionality. I apologise for that horrible word. They are required to assess whether an applicant is intentionally homeless within the provisions of the Housing Act.
There is a well-established principle that local authorities should treat everyone equally under the law. The code of guidance issued by the Department of the Environment requires equality of treatment; it requires local authorities to disregard immigration status. It advises that passports should not be checked as a matter of routine. Paragraph 4.8 comments on checks based on a person's appearance, accent or name which raise doubts and uncertainties about the fairness of the treatment they may receive and delay in processing housing applications. The paragraph then states:
"These are directly discriminatory and therefore unlawful".
That law is our law on racial discrimination.
Clause 4 requires local authorities to check the asylum status of applicants. That can only be done if they ask people who might appear to be refugees to make a declaration as to whether they are asylum seekers. We are all worried that such inquiries might be prompted by a person's appearance or a person's difficulty with the English language.
I have already said that the provisions will draw local authority housing staff into the area of immigration. I do not believe that that is right and it will place a heavy demand on staff and an acute responsibility. That is not part of their role.
The Minister has already explained to the Committee that refugees account for a large burden on a small number of authorities. In fact, they account for less than I per cent. of all homelessness applicants, but it is a large burden on some authorities. What we have not heard is any suggestion that the allocation of accommodation is misused, abused by refugees or local authorities. We have had telling debates about the reference to accommodation being "however temporary", to its availability. We all, I am sure, share an anxiety that guests to our country—as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly described them—should be met with a humanitarian response.
Members of the Committee have explained their worry that voluntary organisations—the Churches
804
and others—who care for asylum seekers may, because they are anxious that they will prejudice the status of the asylum seekers, find themselves in an impossible position. Are they to assist on a humanitarian basis, or are they to hang back and refuse assistance because that might jeopardise the prospects of a refugee? The refugee arrivals project uses Home Office funds to provide emergency hotel accommodation. Are local authorities now to say that that accommodation is satisfactory? There will certainly be a temptation to do so. That is a very expensive way of providing accommodation and it will be for the Home Office to provide the expenditure to deal with it.
The Government must recognise the reality of the position faced by most, if not all, asylum seekers. There are very few local authorities that can offer an asylum seeker a permanent tenancy. The reality—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to it—is bed-and-breakfast. It may be a short-life unit of unsatisfactory accommodation. It may be a temporary place in a leased unit of accommodation.
There is guidance to which local authorities must have regard. That guidance should be sufficient. There are very clear provisions in the 1985 Housing Act. There are very clear safeguards against abuse.
The clause will have the consequences that I referred to: the effect on voluntary agencies and an increase in costs, in that authorities will be encouraged to offer only temporary shelter. And asylum seekers in temporary accommodation will find themselves in additional difficulties in pursuing their legal rights. They will have problems in receiving notices about appeals and about determinations of their position. There is a provision in the schedule that notice will be given if it is "available … for collection". The schedule does not even go so far as to say that it would be reasonable to expect that it might be collected.
I referred to the matter of racial discrimination, and I must come back to it. The Campaign for Racial Equality is one of a number of organisations that have expressed concern that the clause is racially discriminatory. They express the fears that I have already described. Not only do I believe that the clause is unnecessary; it is an objectionable clause. The civil liberties implications are such as to make us pause and reflect. I hope it is decided that this clause should not remain in the Bill. Members of the Committee are very fair-minded and have a particular understanding of the problems of immigrants to our country. I hope that that will be shown in the consideration of the clause.
6 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I support the noble Baroness on this point. The clause occasions me a great deal of worry. In principle it is discriminatory —deliberately discriminatory. The Minister admitted that. It deliberately allows asylum seekers to have only temporary accommodation. I may not agree with that principle—I think it is wrong—but another point worries me much more; namely, that it will be discriminatory in practice. At the moment, when somebody applies for accommodation nobody asks

805
whether he is an asylum seeker. Let us be frank with each other. Unless the authority is worried about, for instance, a particular person's speech, he will not ask a white person whether he is an asylum seeker. But the moment somebody black—
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may interrupt. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also mentioned this point; namely, the idea that questions will be asked and that it is a terrible affront. Already dozens of questions are asked by housing authorities of people applying for accommodation. There are checks on their financial status; checks on their marital status and on whether there has been marital breakdown; on whether they have families, and so on. Another check on asylum status is made from the Home Office. The authorities will discover whether those people are asylum seekers generally by asking where the applicant lived before and why he left. There is nothing racially discriminatory in all of that.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I am sorry. The Minister may be living in a different world to the one I live in. But in the world in which I live, when the question arises of one's immigration status, the moment some black person is seen he is questioned about it.
Let me digress slightly. One of the reasons why we are all so worried is this. There is no racial discrimination legislation European-wise, and many people who go to Europe from this country—I am not talking now just of "plebs" but of people who go from here representing the Government —are asked all sorts of questions over there that are never asked of any noble Lords. That is the real world. I am saying straight that whatever view the Government may have, in practice Clause 4 will be racially discriminatory. What will happen is that any black person who is homeless, whatever other questions he is asked, will also be asked about his status migration-wise. It is in that sense that the clause is racially discriminatory.
It probably is discriminatory in a technical sense too. I have been reading the Race Relations Act and I believe that technically it probably is racially discriminatory. But I leave that aside. It is the practical side that worries me. When people seek accommodation—being homeless is a terrible position to be in—they will find themselves asked the sort of questions that they no longer expect people to ask them because they may well have been living here for 20 or 30 years.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not see the clause as in any sense racially discriminatory. I think that the noble Lord opposite must have completely misapprehended the position. In any event, asylum seekers, or refugees—I prefer the word "refugees" —come from all parts of the world. Probably the biggest generator of refugees at the moment is central Europe. There are perhaps more people there in physical danger from the various things that are happening than anywhere else. I look on the clause simply as being necessary to protect the interests of those people who live near the airports. The refugees come in mainly by air and are normally placed in temporary accommodation near the airport; near, in particular,
806
to Heathrow or Gatwick, both of which are places I have had some occasion in the past to study and of which I have some experience.
It is necessary, in fairness to applicants for accommodation who normally live near those airports, that some limitation, and some control, is exercised on the taking up of accommodation by refugees. Otherwise, homeless people—people in need of accommodation—simply because they live near to the airports will find themselves penalised and unable to obtain accommodation.
As I understand the clause—I speak subject to correction —it is designed to regulate the granting of accommodation to refugees and to secure that a fair balance is maintained between the interests of those local inhabitants who have been kept on housing waiting-lists for years and the refugees coming in. Both classes of person excite one's sympathy; both are in real need of accommodation. But if the demand of the refugees in those limited areas is to be fully met, it will swamp the accommodation that can be provided.
If the noble Lord opposite wants a way to raise racial feeling, that is the way to do it. If people think that, because they live near an airport and refugees are coming in in large numbers to that airport, they will have less chance of obtaining accommodation than those who live in other parts of the country, that is exactly the way to generate feelings which he and I, and I am sure other Members of the Committee, deplore.
I hope that my noble friend will stand firmly behind the clause, which I see as a necessary part of the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, in opposing the Motion that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. Is it not the case that this is the first example since 1977 of a substantive amendment to homelessness legislation which deprives applicants of their rights?
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said a moment ago and heard the points that he made regarding those seeking asylum status coming from many parts of the world and being of many races. But the truth is that they are a vulnerable group of both black and ethnic minority people—"ethnic minority" being a much wider term. Regardless of what part of the world they come from they will be excluded from welfare provision.
The provisions of the Bill will create enormous difficulties for local authorities, specifically in two regards. First, it will create a difficulty in regard to the amount of work which will be necessary. Reading the schedule in the Bill it seems to me that local authorities will have to be involved in a series of notifications and checks. That surely will involve more bureaucratic work and will be an additional burden on local authorities. In addition, I take entirely the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, regarding the way in which that will be perceived by ethnic minority groups, and the feelings that are generated will be projected on to the local authority. It is the local authority which, for the first time, is being given a requirement to check on immigration status.

807
The Minister said that all sorts of questions are asked, and indeed they are. But at the moment questions are not asked about immigration status. Indeed, the current guidance from the Department of the Environment is that local authorities should not be concerned with that status. It seems to me inevitable that with the kind of questions that will be asked feelings will be projected on to the local authority. If that is the case it will put a strain on the relationships between black and ethnic minority communities as a whole and on local authorities.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said in regard to the danger of local people feeling that they are deprived because the needs of asylum seekers are being put above their own needs. I take that point extremely seriously and I take seriously also the possible consequence of a decrease in good relations. But is not the answer to that the provision of proper resources to such authorities to deal with the situation? We shall be considering amendments later in Committee concerning addition-al resources and it seems to me that that is the way to deal with the matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the right reverend Prelate will allow me to intervene. It is easy to say that, but most of the areas adjoining airports have limited space and little room for building. Whatever financial resources are made available, in many cases it will not be possible to provide sufficient accommodation on the land concerned. The right reverend Prelate really must face facts.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The fact remains that, like it or not, there is a problem and we must find ways of facing it. I do not believe that the way the Bill proposes to tackle it in any way meets the point made by the noble Lord. The necessity will still be there for temporary accommodation. Therefore, it seems to me that the clause will create considerable difficulties and I oppose it.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Perhaps I may say a word in response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He said that the largest source of refugees was from central Europe and specifically the former Yugoslavia. That is not the case. By far the largest number of people seeking asylum status in the world at large is within Africa. They are actually saturating Africa and one of the ironies of the situation is that the poorest countries have the biggest numbers of refugees to look after. But looking at the total number of refugees accepted in London from 1991 to 1992, 31 per cent. came from Somalia, 17 per cent. from Zaire, 6.2 per cent. from Sri Lanka, 5.6 per cent. from Iraq, and only 3.9 per cent. from Yugoslavia. That may reflect our rather ungenerous policy towards Bosnians and others who are trying to get away from there, most of whom—over 400,000 —are settled in Germany, Austria and other countries on their borders.
808
If the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is anxious about the fortunes of boroughs near the airports, such as Ealing and the prime case of Hillingdon—and he has every right to be because Hillingdon has terrible stresses placed upon its administrative structure by the need to tackle the problem of refugees with no additional resources—we shall later be discussing whether or not the Government should contribute extra resources to boroughs of that sort. It will be interesting to see whether the noble Lord opposite, who feels that those boroughs are put under pressure by their responsibilities, supports that amendment. I hope that he will.
If the Government want to help the people in Hillingdon or Ealing they will give them more resources. Costs are substantial. In Hillingdon it is reckoned that on housing the cost is £180,000, for education it is £73,000 and for social services £1 million. Those are large sums for boroughs that are strapped for money which do not receive assistance from central government.
I fully share the views of the right reverend Prelate and of my noble friend Lady Hamwee in saying that one of the most objectionable parts of the Bill is the involvement of other people to check on immigration policy. That is what is wrong with the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. That is what is wrong with this Bill. We are involving local authorities in immigration matters. Those matters are governed by central government and it is wrong that local authorities should be involved.
Whatever anybody may say, by asking that specific question of a specific group of people—and I bet that that group of people will be primarily people who are black—the fear of discrimination on those grounds will be aroused, whether or not it is justified. It will of course be justified because we know that discrimina-tion occurs. It is therefore doing a real disservice, not an imaginary disservice, to race relations in this country if those sensitivities, those realities, those facts of life are not taken into account.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I shall intervene briefly in the debate and reserve my main comments for the new clauses standing in my name and those of my noble friends who support them. I am prompted to intervene by the remarks of the right reverend Prelate who devoted part of his speech to what he saw as the considerable difficulties and problems which the clause will impose on local authorities.
The local authorities affected by the arrival of asylum seekers are, overwhelmingly, within the area of Greater London. I happen to be, for the moment, president of the London Boroughs Association. All I wish to say is that the London Boroughs Association welcomes the Bill and in particular it welcomes the clarification Clause 4 gives to authorities on their duties under the homelessness legislation. The London Boroughs Association would scarcely say that, I am bound to say to the right reverend Prelate, if its members were feeling overwhelmed by the difficulties and problems that they would be facing in having to administer it. The association has looked at the matter extremely carefully. It has consulted its local authorities which have to administer the homelessness

809
legislation. It very much welcomes what the Government have put forward here. It has, of course, a gripe about resources, but to that I shall return later.
Lord Ackner: I wonder whether the provisions of the homelessness legislation have not been somewhat overlooked. They are now to be found incorporated in the Housing Act. They are designed to give a very substantial advantage to those who are shown to be homeless—not intentionally homeless—and fall within one of the categories of priority need. When they do that they jump the entire queue on the housing list and are entitled to what is looked upon as being permanent accommodation.
I would respectfully submit that this obligation to provide permanent accommodation is not really directed at those whose status is still undecided. As and when the applicant succeeds in obtaining asylum, having qualified under the fairly stringent categories, he falls, assuming that he complies with the obligations (he must do) under the legislation to be permanently housed—but permanently to house someone whose stay in this country may be very limited? Although one has every sympathy with the asylum seeker, there are bound to be many who will fail to achieve this status. To expect local authorities, with the enormous burdens on them, to find permanent accommodation for someone who may be impermanent seems not to be what this legislation was designed to do vis-á-vis the housing authorities.
Viscount Brentford: As one who has spoken from behind my noble friend the Minister in opposition to him, perhaps I may make my position clear. On this occasion I am supporting him and believe that the clause should remain in the Bill. I endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has said. As I have already made clear, my view is that the accommodation for an applicant should be temporary.
As I understand the Bill, the local authority is responsible for ensuring that there is reasonable accommodation available for every asylum applicant. That is important. There is no question that a church hall floor offered by a charity will be treated as reasonable accommodation. I therefore believe that the clause should remain in the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot resist starting by referring to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. He said that what happens at the moment is that those who have impermanent residence obtain permanent accommodation. If their residence is impermanent they lose it as soon as they lose their presence in the country. Their accommodation can hardly be more permanent than their physical presence in this country.
We have treated this clause with respect and with care and we have tried to amend it in detail. That is our duty as a revising Chamber. On two occasions when we have put matters before the Committee we have failed to persuade the Government, and only on one—if the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, will forgive me—secondary issue have we achieved even the promise that the Minister will reflect on these
810
matters between now and a later stage. It is our duty to do what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has invited us to do—think about the clause as a whole and think about the effect that it has both on asylum and on housing legislation in this country.
I go so far as to say that Clause 4, Clause 5 and Schedule 1 are improper. All that the Long Title of the Bill refers to is making provision for persons who claim asylum in the United Kingdom. It makes no reference to the housing provision that is made for them. It makes no suggestion that these people, while they are here, will be treated differently from those in comparable need who do not have that status. But that is what the Bill does even though the Long Title makes no reference to it. I suggest to your Lordships that this is wrong in asylum terms because it imposes, in effect, a punishment on those who seek asylum in this country, a punishment which is entirely unconcerned with the validity of their claim. It applies to those who will be accepted as well as those who will be rejected. It is also wrong because it introduces totally new concepts into our housing legislation.
Homelessness legislation is one of the most difficult things to swallow because what it does is to put certain people at the front of the queue. That has always been done. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spelt it out in proper detail. It has always been done on the basis of need. It has always been done on the basis of being physically homeless in the sense of being on the doorstep, or virtually on the doorstep. It has been done in terms of the quality of accommodation, in terms of family needs, in terms of threats of violence and so on. What is now proposed is that in addition to that there should be questions of status.
I suggest to the Committee that if this matter had been put forward with the first Bill in 1991 we might have treated it slightly differently from the way we should treat it now. A lot of the pressure that exists because of asylum seekers is in fact being dealt with by administrative means. First, because of the very welcome recruitment of additional immigration officers, the time spent waiting for a decision is gradually falling and therefore the number of people awaiting a decision in accommodation for homeless is falling. That in itself should make us think about the necessity for the Bill. Secondly, on the specific question of housing for asylum seekers, the new standard application letter with a photograph is avoiding many of the difficulties which we would otherwise experience through the inability of housing authorities or anyone else to identify adequately those who come in as asylum seekers.
The Bill should not have been brought forward at all, but as it has been brought forward, it should not have been brought forward with these housing provisions. They are damaging to our housing legislation, they are damaging to the integrity of the way in which local authorities are able to deal with housing those most in need and they discriminate between one group of people on the basis of their status rather than of their need. I support the proposal from the noble Baroness that we should not allow this clause to stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the clause. The points that have been brought out, such as the enormous cost of social services in Hillingdon, are very interesting. I should like to point out that Westminster Council is having to face exactly the same costs on asylum seekers. They are costing more than £1 million a year. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that there is a problem near the airports. That is true. A recent television programme showed how the total housing allocation of a small council near one of the airports would be used up by the arrival of a small group of asylum seekers. That was an interesting case which drew the problem to the attention of all of us.
The problem with legislation for the homeless is now great; all council housing officers are now burdened with the enormous problem of sorting out every case which comes to them. They would look on this provision as a protection. It would at least enable them to work out which cases should have priority. There is an industry developing in some parts of this country where people already have accommodation provided, supposedly for the homeless, at a cost of about £300 per week per person. That accommodation is already lined up for friends who are picked up at the airport. We have to be very careful about that situation. It has changed from that which used to affect the railways and the airports.
The problem is now much more widespread. People want to go to the most desirable areas; and arrangements will he made for them to be picked up at the airport and taken there. There is quite an industry involved which is causing great anxiety to councils. When legislation for the homeless was brought in, it was intended to cover genuine cases of homelessness. It was never envisaged that it would grow to its present size where it has taken away waiting list opportunities almost entirely in many parts of London. This provision is very important. I have known of people waiting 25 years on a housing list and I do not believe that they will ever get accommodation because they are always leap-frogged by someone else. I support the retention of the clause.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a very dangerous line of argument put forward by the noble Baroness. Asylum seekers account for only 1 per cent. of the number of homeless in this country. The increase in homelessness which the noble Baroness accurately described is not caused by any change in homelessness legislation or by asylum seekers. It is caused by the failure of the housing policies of this Government.
Lord Strathclyde: I have listened with very great interest to the exchanges which have taken place on this clause stand part debate. One of the things which surprises me is that I have not heard a case put as to why asylum seekers should continue to have a right to permanent accommodation. I believe that the Opposition have completely failed to put that case. I
812
shall seek to put the case as to why they should lose that right, but gain a new one to temporary accommodation.
I start by setting the record straight and explaining a number of things that this clause does not do. It does not deprive asylum seekers whose situation qualifies them for re-housing under the homelessness pro-visions in the Housing Act 1985, of access to accommodation. From the moment a housing authority accepts the applicant as homeless, it has a duty to ensure that he has reasonable accommodation available to him. If he does not, then the authority has the duty to provide temporary accommodation until the asylum seeker is granted leave to remain in this country. Thereafter, he enjoys the same rights as anyone else under the homelessness legislation.
And the Bill does not consign the asylum seeker and his family to indefinite periods sleeping in church halls, or on the floor of a friend's house. That would not be regarded as satisfactory temporary accommodation. Nor does the Bill prevent an authority from offering an asylum seeker the secure tenancy of a council-owned property from the day on which that asylum seeker approaches the authority. Indeed, the authority may do this regardless of whether or not the applicant meets the normal criteria under the homelessness legislation.
What the clause does do is limit the duty of a local authority towards an asylum seeker to the provision of temporary accommodation until such time as the applicant has been granted leave to remain in this country. Although the number of asylum seekers accepted for re-housing is quite small, they concentrate in a few areas. In a number of areas— chiefly but not exclusively in London as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said—the proportion of homelessness acceptances accounted for by refugees is running at 8 per cent. or more.
Under present legislation, when an authority accepts a household as homeless, it has to assume it will be required to provide permanent accommodation for that family even if, on an interim basis, it puts the family in temporary accommodation. And it would be wrong of the authority, under existing legislation, to treat one class of homelessness applicants, such as asylum seekers, any differently from the rest. They could not reasonably leave all their asylum seekers in temporary accommodation until their asylum applications are resolved, while moving other types of homeless households on to permanent accommodation.
However, authorities will be aware that a proportion of these applications for asylum will be rejected by the Home Office. So there will be an extent to which they will find themselves planning to provide permanent accommodation for people who will have no continuing right to it. That means that permanent accommodation will be misused and withheld from those with a genuine entitlement to it, be they other homeless families or those from the waiting list. Given that the boroughs who receive the most asylum seekers are among those facing the greatest housing pressures overall, this is not a sensible state of affairs.

813
The Bill overcomes the problem by limiting an authority's duty to the provision of temporary accommodation until such time as the applicant's right to remain in the country has been determined. And it does this as part of a package of measures that are designed to reduce the time taken to resolve applications for asylum to a few months only. So no one need expect an extended period in temporary accommodation.
This country has a long and honourable record of giving shelter to those fleeing persecution, which the Government are fully committed to continuing. The housing provisions in the Bill ensure that scarce housing resources are properly used, and are not wasted by being allocated to people who are subsequently shown to have no right to remain in this country.
It is already accepted practice in many areas for homeless applicants to be given temporary accommodation until their eligibility for permanent accommodation under the 1985 Act has been established. These provisions extend this proposition by allowing local authorities to provide only temporary accommodation until a further criterion of eligibility has been established for asylum seekers; namely, their right to remain in the country.
This clause is not racially discriminatory, and it is not unfair. It obliges local authorities to provide good quality but temporary accommodation to those who are seeking asylum in this country. I believe that that is right and correct.
Baroness Hamwee: Again, the Minister makes one welcome comment. He said that it is wrong to treat one class of homeless people differently from others. That is precisely the point. He asked why we have not argued for a right to permanent accommodation. My argument is not that asylum seekers should be treated better, it is that they should be treated no worse and that, in the words which have been used so often this afternoon, they should not be treated differently. They should not go to the back of the queue and be disentitled to a secure tenancy for 12 months after determination of their status.
Mention has been made of permanent accommodation. The reality is that in many local authorities the only accommodation that can be offered is bed and breakfast. In any event, most asylum seekers are single men; and under the Housing Act such people do not have priority in terms of accommodation. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, believes that the clause will be welcomed by the local authorities because, if I understand her correctly, it will enable them not to have to apply the further test to particular applicants. That is precisely the kind of different treatment that I fear.
As regards the location point—namely, the airports —as two noble Lords have said, it is the City of Westminster which, in London, has the most difficulty. That is not a borough which is immediately served by an airport. The Refugee Arrivals Project and the Refugee Council, both of which are funded by the Home Office, meet refugees at airports near London. Their arrangements are to find housing across as broad an area as they can and not to swamp
814
local authorities near airports. They disperse people who come to our country and who "need"—if I may use that word —to be housed.
With regard to the point about racial discrimination, the Commission for Racial Equality has received a large number of complaints in recent years from people who have been asked to produce a passport to prove their entitlement to a service across a wide range of services and who are offended at being singled out for such treatment apparently on the basis of their skin colour. We have mentioned the code of guidance and, as identified in the code, that practice is racially discriminatory. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, rightly referred to the practical implications of what has been proposed and to the fact that individuals will inevitably be caught up in a checking process.
If there is to be no difference in the treatment of asylum seekers compared with that afforded to other applicants for housing (as we have heard so often in the past few hours), there would be no need for the clause. If there is a need for the clause, it must be because there is to be a difference, and my fears would be justified. I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 50.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Geddes, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Goschen, V.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Halsbury, E.

Henley, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Astor, V.

Howe, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blyth, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Lyell, L.

Brentford, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cadman, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caithness, E.

Moyne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orkney, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Carnock, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Prentice, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Chilver, L.

Reay, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Renton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

St. Davids, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Stewartby, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Davidson, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Elton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trumpington, B.

Finsberg, L.

Ullswater, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Wakeham, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Wharton, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

815

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jay, L.

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Monkswell, L.

Bottomley, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Desai, L. [Teller.]

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Richard, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Downshire, M.

Russell, E.

Eatwell, L.

Seear, B.

Ennals, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Foot, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Guildford, Bp.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hamwee, B.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

White, B.

Healey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 4 agreed to accordingly.
6.48 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Housing of asylum-seekers and their dependants: supplementary]:
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 11, line 8, leave out ("have reason to believe that the applicant") and insert ("are informed by the applicant that he").
The noble Viscount said: In speaking to this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 88 which follows on from it. I touch now, among other things, on the nasty question of racism. The effect of Schedule 1(2) is to ease a problem for the local authorities. As the Bill stands, local authorities are required to contact the Home Office if they have reason to believe that an applicant may be an asylum seeker. But what is going to make an official aware of the fact that he has to ask such questions? Presumably he will not ask such questions of somebody who looks like any other member of this Committee. He will ask them of someone of a different colour.
That is what worries me. It puts a great, and possibly illegal, burden onto the housing authority which has to consider, "Have we reason to believe that the applicant is a qualifying person?". That is not something that we should ask the housing authority to consider. I understand that the Commission for Racial Equality and other bodies have expressed alarm at the provision because of the race relations implications for local authorities affecting certain applicants for housing. In practice, most asylum seekers and refugees tell the local authority what their status is because they have to show why they left any previous accommodation, whether in this country or in another country, in order to deal with the possibility that they might be deemed intentionally homeless.
With this amendment, the Bill would leave it up to the applicant himself to inform the local authority about his asylum seeker status, as would normally happen anyway. If he chooses to tell the authority, the
816
provisions about temporary accommodation would apply only then, but the housing authority would not have to make further enquiries to check up on his previous housing history. The local authority will then check the information with the Home Office. However, if he does not choose to tell the authority, it could ask why he had left the previous accommodation and form its own view on his application. No contact with the Home Office would be necessary.
The second amendment consequentially removes the paragraph relating to offences as that is otherwise adequately covered by other statutes. The amendment thus removes one aspect of the Bill which has been condemned by various bodies as most oppressive and is seen as burdensome by many local authorities. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall not repeat the arguments ably put forward by the noble Viscount, but I want to point out one curious effect of the schedule. I have been told by ministers on a number of occasions this afternoon that the provision for treating asylum seekers differently under the homelessness legislation is not mandatory on local authorities. If they do not want to implement it, they do not need to. Yet the schedule puts an absolute duty on local authorities to make these enquiries of people whom they have reasonable grounds to think are asylum seekers or qualifying persons, as the schedule puts it in a snooty way, whether or not they intend to implement the provisions of Clauses 4 and 5.
There is a conflict here between the claim that this is only an opportunity for local authorities to treat the applicants differently and the absolute duty which is placed on them in the schedule. That absolute duty, which would be removed by the noble Viscount's amendment, is wrong and he is right to seek to take it out.
Baroness Hamwee: I support wholeheartedly the comments of the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I was delighted to see that the amendment had been put down. When I first read the Bill I went back and re-read those words with a sense of bemusement. I wondered whether, in 1993, in a Britain that holds itself to be open-minded and not discriminatory, I had correctly read those words. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I too should like to support the amendment. It is definitely an improvement on the Bill and I hope that it will be accepted.
Lord Bonham-Carter: The provision is frankly absurd. The Government often inveigh against bureaucracy, yet, under this amendment, an authority that has no asylum seekers of any kind will have to change all its forms and ask everyone who seeks housing whether they are an asylum seeker, knowing perfectly well that the chances are about a thousand to one against. They will have to train their staff as to how to treat asylum seekers that do not exist and will not come. I do not know what benefit this gives anyone. The dangers that it can give rise to are obvious and have been mentioned and should be taken into account by the Minister.
Lord Strathclyde: There is no difference between the Government and the noble Lords who have spoken about the need for housing authorities to preserve proper confidentiality about asylum seekers. We recognise that in some cases they may fear that the persecution that leads them to leave their own country is following them to the United Kingdom. They would not want their status and personal details widely bandied about. They need to be assured of the discretion of housing authorities.
However, I feel these amendments are not the best way of assuring that proper level of privacy. The first amendment, No. 87, would transfer the responsibility of establishing whether an applicant under the homelessness legislation is an asylum seeker from the local authority to the applicant. So the amendment is in effect saying that the applicant must go to the authority and say, "I am applying for accommodation under the homelessness legislation and, by the way, I am also an asylum seeker."
I very much doubt that an asylum seeker, who will be coming from another country with another culture and a different legal system, will be sufficiently aware of the requirements of this legislation to understand his precise duties in this matter. It is very unlikely that he will be familiar with the terms of what will then, I hope, be the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.
The second amendment, No. 88, seeks to delete any offence of non-disclosure of asylum-seeking status from the provisions of the Bill. So, even though the asylum seeker is under a duty to inform an authority of his status, there would be no penalty for failing to do so. That should give the asylum seeker special status over other homelessness applicants. It is an offence under existing legislation to make false statements, withhold information or fail to disclose a change of circumstances while a homelessness application is under consideration.
Overall, these amendments would make the application of the housing provisions of the Bill optional and at the discretion of the asylum seeker. They give the housing authority no opportunity to check the position. I am sure that most asylum seekers will co-operate fully in making their position clear when they make an application under the homelessness legislation. But as the purpose of the Bill is to limit an asylum seeker's rights under the homelessness legislation until such time as his status is determined, I do not think that we should rely solely on the asylum seeker to provide the information required to make the provision effective.
The question of confidentiality and the advisability of an authority checking on the status of asylum applicants is a matter of sensitivity. As I remarked earlier, housing authorities habitually handle sensitive information about homelessness applicants, such as victims of domestic violence or pregnant women. They are fully able to ensure the proper safeguards in such cases and I see no reason why they should not do so here.
818
As I said earlier, we shall be revising the homelessness code of guidance to take account of this legislation and we shall remind authorities of the need for confidentiality in dealing with asylum seekers.
It is not that we are entirely without heart or against my noble friend's proposal. It is, as I have explained, that it is quite unnecessary.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I should like the Minister to give some thought to this point. If we accepted Amendment No. 87 and rejected Amendment No. 88, we would certainly have removed some of the fears that I mentioned because there would be no need for the questions. That was the point that I was raising when I said that it would be racially discriminatory. The obligation would then be on the applicant to inform the council that he was an asylum seeker. There is nothing wrong then in saying that if he does not do that he has committed an offence. That would remove the necessity for the council to ask applicants about their status. I am sorry, but I know that that is what will happen.
7 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My noble friend the Minister seemed to speak largely about the fact that confidentiality would not be breached. I may have missed it, but I did not hear anyone talk about a fear of confidentiality being breached. That was not my anxiety. I have two worries, one of which I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for pointing out and to which I had meant to refer. It is the obligation being put on local authorities which worries me. Secondly, a question that my noble friend did not answer was: what are the factors which will lead a housing authority official to make inquiries about an asylum seeker's status? I am worried that that will lead to problems with the Commission for Racial Equality. What are the factors that will lead him to make those inquiries? He does not have to make inquiries of every applicant on the housing list but just those whom he believes could be asylum seekers. What is that but racism? That is what worries me, and I do not think my noble friend answered that question. He might like to do so.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may help my noble friend. He is right to say that local authorities will not inquire about everyone because in most cases it will be obvious whether someone is an asylum seeker. One of the ways of finding out will be from the answers to the questions about where the person last resided and why he or she left. If it is another country, I suspect that that will be a clear indication that other inquiries should be undertaken.
Viscount Brentford: I am grateful to my noble friend for that answer. I see that, but I am still not fully at ease over the issue. I do not intend to divide the Committee a second time so quickly. This time, I shall reflect upon what my noble friend said, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: No.
7.2 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): The Question is, Whether the said Amendment (No. 87) shall be agreed to?
As many are of the opinion will say, "Content?" To the contrary, "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.
Division called.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. The Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Not-Contents have it.
[Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Grants to housing authorities
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make a specific grant to any housing authority which in any year incurs significant expenditure in making housing provision for asylum-seekers or their dependants.
(2) Expenditure under subsection (1) above shall be treated as "significant" if it increases an authority's housing expenditure by more than ten percentage points above the level it would have been but for such expenditure.").
The noble Lord said: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take also Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 19A. On a previous amendment I mentioned that I am president of the London Boroughs Association. The burdens of looking after asylum seekers and bearing the costs of dealing with asylum seekers fall overwhelmingly upon members of that association and other boroughs in London. The estimate is that in any year that may be costing them and their community charge payers £40 million or perhaps more.
Amendment No. 17 deals with housing expenditure and provides that there should be a specific grant. Amendment No. 18 sets up a reporting procedure to cover not just housing but education and social services expenditure. The order of magnitude of expenditure that falls upon authorities is staggering. In an earlier debate it was said that the London Borough of Hillingdon, which bears the brunt of unaccompanied children, spends about £1 million a year on social services for asylum seekers in that category. It spends nearly £120,000 on housing and £73,000 on education. That does not relate to Hillingdon alone. Kensington and Chelsea spends £850,000 on social services, £120,000 on education and £207,000 on housing.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has already pointed out that in any one year Westminster spends nearly £1 million on housing asylum seekers and their dependants and some £320,000 on social services. The London Borough of Lambeth spends a staggering £1.25 million on social services for asylum seekers. The figures are not insubstantial. They fall disproportionately upon a relatively few authorities.
It is not so much a question of where the burden of this falls—it falls on the charge payers of this country
820
—but of how it is shared out between the different groups of charge payers. It is most unfair that for this very specific burden of dealing with asylum seekers the whole of the cost should fall on the relatively few authorities, most of them in London, who have to cope with the problem. It is one which should be shared much more widely. I make it clear that I am not looking for additional expenditure. I am looking for the way in which it should be shared and at what the mechanisms should be to ensure that that happens.
The Government have recognised the principle that it should be shared more fairly. There was the case last year, already referred to in the debate, of the Yugoslav refugees who arrived in Stansted Airport, where they immediately became the responsibility of the Uttlesford District Council —a council dear to my heart, and one to which I pay the community charge. It is a small council with a modest housing programme, but it was completely overwhelmed when it suddenly had to cope with a flood of refugees from former Yugoslavia. As another noble Lord has already said, 100 asylum seeking families absorbed the entire house building programme of that small local authority. The leader of that council created a considerable stir in a very short period of time, and the Government responded. A special grant was allowed. Unfortunately, the terms of the grant were so tightly drawn that only three districts qualified and the total amount for that came to less than £80,000.
The distribution is to be based on what has been called the Bellwin formula—a scheme introduced by my noble friend Lord Bellwin back in the early 1980s. It means that authorities are reimbursed 85 per cent. of their costs above a threshold. In the case of the Yugoslavs, the threshold was 29.4 pence per relevant head of population.
However, the grant is restricted to those who come from the former Yugoslavia only. One must ask what is the logic of that? They comprise a very small proportion of the total refugees, as has already been pointed out. But if it is for Yugoslavians, why not for Somalians, Zaireans and the others who come to this country? Is not the principle equally applicable? Happily, the Government have recognised that there is some justice in that case. Last week there was the announcement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in another place that there is to be a new special grant. Perhaps I may quote from his speech in the debate on 3rd February on local government finance, at col. 343 of Hansard:
"I am pleased to announce today … a related scheme to apply for the coming year in respect of another small group who place a disproportionate burden of costs on a small number of authorities… I refer to the unaccompanied refugee children who arrive from time to time at the major ports of entry into this country and who become an immediate burden, usually on the authority in whose area they arrive".
He went on:
"Over time, the presence of these children in an area is reflected in the SSAs, but those assessments rely on data collected nationally and are therefore subject to inevitable time lags, whereas the costs imposed by these children are at the highest immediately after their arrival".
I shall want to come back to that sentence, because I think it may contain a misapprehension. He went on:

821
"We therefore think it right to introduce a special grant scheme, also along the lines of the Bellwin scheme, to assist authorities in these circumstances".
I should like to say straight away to my noble friend on the Front Bench that this special grant for refugee children is most welcome. It is particularly welcome to boroughs in London such as I have mentioned—Hillingdon and Kensington and Chelsea—which have significant numbers; but my right honourable friend said that they were small numbers compared with the totality. Indeed, there was a reference to this in the speech of my noble friend Lord Ferrers in the debate on the Select Committee report on migration on 8th February when, at col. 475 of Hansard, he too said:
"The numbers are relatively small".
But that is not all. There is no guarantee that this is going to be extended beyond next year, 1993–94, and it does nothing to help those authorities—I have already mentioned Westminster, and Ealing is another one—where the costs are not related to unaccompanied children but to housing whole refugee families.
It is very difficult for anyone to estimate how that new special grant will benefit London authorities and how much they will get. The London Boroughs Association does not have the figures for all authorities. But there is another point here, which will bring me in due course to the main thrust of what I want to say.
The Bellwin formula referred to by my right honourable friend was originally devised to compensate authorities for extra expenditure as a result of the severe winter of 1981–82, a kind of one-off occurrence which it would have been unreasonable for them to have made provision for or to ensure against. It was used to compensate authorities for the great storm of 1987, and those authorities dealing with the influx of Kurdish refugees in 1988–89. Eighty-five per cent. of additional expenditure over a threshold is reimbursed by the grant.
We come to the problem of the threshold. There is a specific question which I should like to put to my noble friend on the Front Bench. Originally, the threshold was a product of a 1.15p rate. When we moved to the community charge, the threshold for London authorities was set at £2.01 per head of relevant population—that is to say, of community charge payers. I have already said that Uttlesford was on the basis of 29.4p per head of relevant population. But is that right? Should we be basing it on population, or is there some suggestion that it should be based, as we move to the council tax, on a council tax base, as it were going back to the revenue?
Perhaps I may quote one or two more figures. Taking Kensington and Chelsea's costs of unaccompanied refugee children for next year budgeted at £850,000, if one bases the grant on resident population, as has been done in the past, the grant would come to £540,000, but if the Government are really thinking of basing it on the council tax base the grant would come to only £390,000. One could quote similar figures for other authorities.
My first question therefore is to ask whether my noble friend can tell us which is going to be the basis for establishing the threshold for the unaccompanied children's special grant.
There is a wider issue: that of whether these costs should be the subject of a special grant or what is technically called a specific grant. As I said, this was a special grant, and in the passage I quoted from my right honourable friend's speech on 3rd February he said that the grant was introduced because SSAs,
"rely on data collected nationally and are therefore subject to inevitable time lags, whereas the costs imposed by these children are at their highest immediately after their arrival."
This implies that the special grant will cover the initial period prior to the data being incorporated on the SSAs. I say to my noble friend that this is misleading. The indicators in SSA methodology are incapable of separately identifying refugees' needs and cannot target authorities with refugees and asylum seekers. They can simply reflect the number of children in a particular category who are present in the authority in question. Therefore, any question of the time lapse is largely irrelevant. The children at risk index, which forms part of the personal social services SSA, does not contain a factor for ethnic origin or any other factor sensitive to the needs of refugee children.
Therefore, the case which I wish to put to the Minister is that this is not a case for a special grant because it is not a one-off situation. We need what is technically called a specific grant. A specific grant is a grant which is available to particular authorities with specifically identifiable needs. In general, it is top sliced off the totality of the grant sum agreed each year between the Department of the Environment and the Treasury. It is then available to pay to the authorities concerned. Thus, the burden is spread among the totality of authorities in that the specific grant has come off the top and the rest is available for distribution by use of the SSA formula.
Are there precedents for that? Indeed, there are. Specific grants cover a range of services and client groups, many of which are directly comparable with the service needs of refugees and asylum seekers. Under the Local Government Act 1966 there are Section 11 grants for the personal social services of Commonwealth immigrants. Under the same section there are grants for the education of those Commonwealth immigrants. There is a specific grant for the education of travellers' children.
Those grants represent a long-term funding commitment to cover the service provision of a specific nature. Special grants are ad hoc one-off grants. Specific grants represent the fact that there is a long term continuing obligation. There could hardly be a clearer case of a long term continuing obligation which falls on relatively few authorities grouped almost exclusively around the main airports, and in particular Heathrow. Almost all of them are to be found in London.
My amendment deals only with housing because I was advised that housing is within the remit of the Bill but that it would not be in order to make the same provision for social services and education. Authorities need specific grants. That does not add to public expenditure but merely redistributes it to reflect those needs.
Amendment No. 18 provides for an annual report to Parliament. I believe that we should have that. The costs fall on local authorities and the costs of local

823
authorities fall on local charge payers. It seems to me that where specific additional costs fall on charge payers Parliament should be informed of that.
It is a question of how the money is distributed. Among the London boroughs there is a strong feeling that at present it is not shared fairly. I hope that my noble friend can give them some comfort on that point. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I wish to speak briefly on this group of amendments and in particular to Amendment No. 19 standing in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Hylton. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, covered the ground fully and has explained the problems. I support all that he said about the costs falling on a small number of local authorities through no more than an accident of geography.
I do not believe that one can argue that it is not a national responsibility. The principle has been accepted by the Government in making the special grants to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred. However, I agree with him that special grants are not the way to tackle this problem. Specific grants are the right approach.
I do not exactly part company with the noble Lord's arguments. Perhaps I did not pause long enough to consider that I might be going too far in view of the scope of the Bill. The noble Lord's amendment deals only with housing and not with the other services. It also has a threshold of 10 per cent. I understand the noble Lord's discretion and modesty in limiting himself in that way, although I should not have exercised those qualities. The Committee needs to cover the other areas of service; in particular, education and social services. As the noble Lord explained, those services are extremely costly and the costs should be borne by the whole community and not where, by a mere accident of geography, they happen to fall.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is undoubtedly a complex matter, although I hope that it is not as complex as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has made it appear to be. I share the doubts of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as regards the 10 per cent. threshold. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could tell the Committee exactly how many authorities would benefit from that concession. I suspect that it may be Uttlesford and nowhere else.
My second doubt about the noble Lord's amendment is that it refers only to housing costs.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I should have wished the amendment to cover housing education and social services but, as I said, I was advised that if I included education and social services in the new clause I may have been out of order. In Clauses 4 and 5 the Bill deals with housing which is why my amendment deals only with housing. I may have been wrongly advised but that was the advice that I was given.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The effect of the amendment must still be taken into account. The
824
estimated expenditure on asylum seekers in 1992–93 for Hillingdon, to which the noble Lord referred, is £118,000 on housing, £73,000 on education; but £1 million is spent on social services provision. Therefore, as the noble Lord recognised, it is clear that the amendment would not meet the point.
I find it a curious argument that only housing can be dealt with in this Bill because the Long Title of the Bill makes no reference to housing. I should be interested to hear from the Minister what is the advice on the legitimacy of adding education or social services which are no less and no more in the Long Title than housing.
I wish to advocate Amendment No. 19 standing in my name, which is another attempt to secure from the Government recognition of the problem already referred to. It seeks to secure that the Secretary of State satisfies himself that a housing authority has sufficient resources available to perform its duties under the homelessness legislation.
I recognise that the amendment is defective in the same way as regards social services and education expenditure and it is not an amendment that I wish to press. We seek recognition of the problem by the Government and an indication of movement.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. I should like to comment briefly on Amendments Nos. 19 and 19A. The noble Lord has dealt with Amendment No. 17 extremely thoroughly. It is a serious matter for Westminster City Council to have to spend £1 million on housing which, I believe, is comparable to Hillingdon's social services expenditure. Those are not small sums.
As regards Amendment No.18, I believe that an annual report to Parliament would have great merit in many ways. It would show which local authorities were suffering from a financial burden from having to support asylum seekers. That problem appears to be concentrated in certain areas. It would benefit both the asylum seekers coming to this country and the receiving local authorities if fewer asylum seekers came at one time as they tend to head for certain areas. An annual report would reveal the movements of asylum seekers in this country and it would show if any trend or pattern were developing.
Amendment No. 19 standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others is an interesting one and I certainly do not object to it. We shall have to wait to hear what my noble friend the Minister says about social services. As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I could not understand why Sections 4 and 5 were referred to. I do not understand why the amendment did not refer to Clauses 4 and 5.
7.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When a Bill is in progress through Parliament sections are known as clauses. They become known as sections when the Bill becomes an Act.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am most grateful for that explanation. I thought the amendment might

825
have been referring to sections of Clause 5. However, I still cannot support the noble Lord even though he has now clarified the amendment.
His Amendment No. 19A is in effect asking for an open cheque. We would all love to be told that every local authority could be given enough money all the time to fulfil every demand that is placed upon it whether that concerns housing, health, social services or any other area. However, things do not work like that in the real world. Resources have to be rationed so that local government manages to survive in one way or another. Amendment No. 19A, as it stands, is rather sweeping in that respect. Consequently I find it rather an odd bedfellow to be grouped with Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19. I support Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19.
Lord Finsberg: I have only a few comments to make after the excellent analysis of my noble friend Lord Jenkin. However, one would expect an excellent analysis from one of the few people who understand the basis of local government finance. That subject is a mystery to most people. It is not quite as complex as the Schleswig-Holstein affair but it is pretty close to it.
For many years I represented part of the London Borough of Camden and I was the leader of Camden Council when Camden experienced a large influx of homeless people, many of whom were refugees. That situation arose because the three railway stations in the area made it easy for people to reach.
I wish to support the amendment we are discussing because it widens the scope for action. It would not just be a case of assisting Uttlesford, for example. Over the past couple of decades there has been an influx of Iranian refugees and Ethiopian refugees and one cannot expect to receive special grants, as it were, each time there is an influx of asylum seekers. Sadly, flocks of asylum seekers will arrive from other countries in the future because the world is that sort of place at the moment. It would be a pity if on each occasion such asylum seekers arrived one had to ask the Government to use the Bellwin formula in relation to a particular country.
I commend the concept of these amendments to the Committee. I am sure my noble friend the Minister will recount the words all Ministers are told to say in their briefs; that is, he will have been told either to resist the amendment or to say he will reconsider it. Certainly the drafting of the amendment will never satisfy the parliamentary draftsmen as they are never satisfied with drafting unless it is their own work. However, I hope the amendment will receive a sympathetic wind from the Minister.
Lord Strathclyde: It is always difficult to disagree with a case that has been so eloquently put by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. As a former Secretary of State for the Environment he brought a unique breadth of experience into his opening remarks. As my noble friend well knows, the local government finance settlement takes into account all new and existing pressures on local authorities, together with the opportunities for savings and efficiency measures. It provides all authorities with the necessary resources to discharge their responsibilities
826
effectively. It may not represent the level of resources that authorities would like but it reflects what the country can afford.
Authorities should therefore generally have sufficient resources to cope with costs to which refugees and asylum seekers give rise. However, I should stress that we accept that there can be exceptions to this principle. My noble friend has mentioned some. In 1989 we made available a special grant towards the extra costs to certain London boroughs that resulted from the sudden influx of a large number of Turkish Kurd refugees. As has been said, last November the Minister for Housing and Planning announced that we would be making a grant available to those authorities who faced exceptional burdens as a result of the sudden influx of displaced persons from the former Yugoslav republic. When the 1992–93 allocations of that grant were debated in another place last week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that the grant would also be available for 1993–94. He also mentioned that for 1993–94 a special grant would be made available to cover the immediate costs associated with the arrival of unaccompanied refugee children.
In making available these grants the Government have responded to concern that there may be unusually severe problems with which local authorities cannot be expected to cope. But we must recognise that these were exceptional circumstances. The annual local government finance settlement provides sufficient resources to allow a prudent authority to discharge all its responsibilities effectively; this includes a reasonable allowance for meeting the costs of homelessness. Authorities cannot predict in advance the precise number of homeless families for whom they will be required to provide services, but a well-managed authority will have made a sensible provision for fluctuations in the predicted level of homelessness acceptances, including acceptances of applications of those who happen to be asylum seekers.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 suggest that we should be making a special grant for the costs to which asylum seekers give rise. My noble friend suggested a 10 per cent. threshold. As I explained earlier, we have recognised that where exceptional costs arise, additional aid should be made available; but such circumstances are limited. Merely to trigger grant by passing an arbitrary threshold is unnecessary, bearing in mind that both SSAs and HIP allocations will be higher precisely because the presence of asylum seekers will already be reflected in the indicators used to decide those allocations.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, asked how many authorities fall within the 10 per cent. threshold. The costs to which asylum seekers give rise are only part of a subset of costs for special needs which all authorities face. We do not collect separate data on costs that arise specifically from asylum seekers. In other words, the question the noble Lord asked is unanswerable.
It is difficult to see what the merit of making a special grant would be, as the second amendment

827
suggests. Where special grants are made, the costs they meet may of course be set out in the special grant reports which require approval by resolution in another place. To suggest that the reports could show the effects of additional costs on the council tax is to misunderstand the workings of local government finance. Because SSAs distribute resources according to spending needs—and these include meeting the needs of asylum seekers—all authorities who budget prudently should be able to provide a full range of services while setting their Band D council tax at around the level of the council tax for standard spending at Band D.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes suggested there was a need for statistics to be collected. I entirely agree with her. We have started to collect information on the proportion of refugees who comprise homelessness acceptances. That was begun in 1991. Over time useful data will be built up and we can use that as part of the statistics on homelessness.
Amendment No. 19 also proposes a specific grant for the costs of asylum seekers. We are not in favour of establishing a large number of ad hoc specific grants from within a fixed total of resources; this simply detracts from the general pool of unhypothecated resources for local authorities to spend at their discretion. I am not sure that I can accept the distinction made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin between special and specific grants. He will be aware that that is a technical matter. Substantively we do not accept that there are necessarily costs which cannot be picked up by the main mechanisms for distributing resources to authorities through SSAs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Minister leaves that point perhaps I may say that it is my understanding that in the past SSAs have been set with particular reference to the numbers in the population from the new Commonwealth and the Indian subcontinent. Asylum seekers tend not to come from those areas. Can the noble Lord assure the Committee that there is no discrimination against those boroughs which have large numbers of people arriving from areas other than the new Commonwealth and the Indian subcontinent?
Lord Strathclyde: I am not aware that that has been a problem in the past. It is not one that I have heard raised by local authorities. As the noble Lord knows, the lines of communication between local authorities and my department on SSAs are wide open and any individual local authority which believes that it has that problem is welcome to come forward and state it.
The noble Lord's amendment, Amendment No. 19A, is of a similar character in seeking to require the Secretary of State to satisfy himself about the adequacy of resources for meeting the housing needs of asylum seekers. The level of resources made available to local authorities reflects a balance between our assessment of their overall spending needs and what the country can afford.
The provision of temporary accommodation is an important responsibility, but it can be discharged in a number of ways and there are substantial variations in
828
the costs incurred by different authorities. Making a specific assessment of resources authority by authority would be fraught with difficulty.
Moreover, provision of housing is only one of a number of responsibilities which call on an authority's resources. There is always a temptation to identify specific services which could merit preferential consideration and then to call on Ministers to specify resources for that service. However, that would remove a significant measure of discretion from local authorities, which is bad for accountability and local democracy. Were we to go down that path in regard to the costs of asylum seekers, what other costs might we be also asked to consider? I suspect that the result would be even further government involvement in the management of local authority affairs. I cannot believe that local authorities would welcome that.
I know that many authorities are unhappy with the level of central government support for local government, but the appropriate level of support for the coming year was decided in another place last week. Dissatisfaction on that score is not a reason to overplay the costs that refugees impose. Refugees and asylum seekers can be an expense to authorities, but they are an expense which is already provided for within the generality of local government finance and the amount that Parliament believes local government ought to spend. It is always tempting to identify a specific area of expenditure for which there is no budget line locally and which is not separately identified in the amounts provided from central government and to seek special provision for it. But for the reasons I have given—and I am sorry that I have done so at length —I feel it is not necessary. I know that my noble friend will be disappointed by what I have said, but I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am naturally disappointed that my noble friend is not able to accept the substance of the case. I accept that the drafting of the amendment may well leave much to be desired, but one is not a parliamentary draftsman.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that in my opening address—which I concede was probably too long—I made the case unnecessarily complex. Having grappled with the subject I can only say that it is complex. The whole area of special and specific grants was a very arcane part of the rate support grant settlement which one had to deal with. That is precisely what we are dealing with here. As a long-term solution I am seeking a specific grant which is top-sliced off the main body and then distributed specifically to the authorities which bear the brunt of this problem.
My noble friend has made a number of important points. Before I withdraw the amendment perhaps I may ask him one question. I wonder whether I may have my noble friend's attention? He has raised a number of important points, some of which I have not discussed with those who have briefed me for the debate. Will he agree that between now and Report stage representatives of the London Boroughs Association may come to see him so that, in the light of what my noble friend said and of their very real

829
concern, some way forward may perhaps be found which would be acceptable to both parties? If my noble friend were to agree to that suggestion I believe that we might make some progress.
Lord Strathclyde: I apologise to my noble friend for my momentary lapse of concentration. I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the lines of communication between local authorities and my department are always open. It would therefore be wrong of me to refuse my noble friend's suggestion that there should be a meeting between myself or my department and himself and the London Boroughs Association. I appreciate that the matter is extremely complicated, and I believe that it is one which is better solved in discussion round a table rather than on the Floor of the Chamber.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am grateful to my noble friend. We shall certainly follow up that invitation. It is interesting that this matter was not aired in another place and that it has been left to this Chamber to raise the problem. It is a very good example of what the House of Lords can do.
In my noble friend's speech I recognised many of the phrases which were put into speeches which I delivered in not altogether dissimilar debates in another place, and I recognise that it is a complex matter and that he has done his best to help.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment perhaps I may ask whether any discussions might extend to the other London boroughs. I do not have a brief to speak for the other local authority association in London since my own borough is a member of the London Boroughs Association. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that the problems he described are common to all the London boroughs to some extent and are not dependent on party political colour.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I can say to the noble Baroness, as President of the LBA, that the more common ground that we can find between that association and the Association of London Authorities the better pleased I shall be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage resumes at 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Social Security Benefits (Amendments Consequential Upon the Introduction of Community Care) Regulations 1992
7.47 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Social Security Benefits (Amendments Consequential Upon the Introduction of Community Care) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992, 3147) be annulled.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I believe that we are all used to social security matters being complicated. When we have thrown in a large element of health, a dash of environment and, in dealing with ex-offenders, a certain amount of Home Office, we have something of a quadrilateral of complications. For that reason it is impossible to explain what is involved without a little complexity, but I shall try to keep that to a minimum.
The regulations against which I seek to pray are consequent on the introduction of community care. They deal with residential care where responsibility is being transferred to local authorities. A jigsaw of funding systems is being put together. There is an income support residential allowance for the residents which is fixed by these regulations. It is from the size of that component that questions necessarily arise about the other components. The local authorities are to contract with residential care organisations for the others. To deal with that a special transitional grant is being made to the local authority for a period of three years, after which it will be covered by the standard spending assessment. There are also further regulations to come from the Department of Health under the National Health and Community Care Act 1990, to which my noble kinsman may refer.
A great deal of what I wish to say arises from Regulation 2A, which fixes the income support component of this financial jigsaw at £45 outside London and £50 inside London. It is that factor which raises questions about the other components of the jigsaw.
The information that I have—there seems to be general agreement on it among those involved—is that the actual cost of running a residential care home, depending on the type of care provided and care comes in many types, is not less than £150 to £200 a week. There is a considerable difference between that amount and £45 to £50. Without asking my noble kinsman to commit himself to an exact figure, does he agree that those figures are in the target area? Is he confident that local authorities at present are in a position to meet that discrepancy?
I have a more technical question. At what rate will standard spending assessments for local authorities allow for their need to provide this care in future? Further, is he entirely satisfied that the system will work to the advantage of London? As we know, London has special problems in many areas. Homelessness and alcohol dependency are among them. The formula for the special transitional grant has not worked entirely to London's advantage. Of

831
London's special transitional grant, 8 per cent. would go simply for existing commitments on drugs and alcohol. The total of London's existing commitments would take up between 104 per cent. and 105 per cent. of its special transitional grant. That factor may create a slight problem. I shall be glad to hear from my noble kinsman on that subject.
My noble kinsman will not be surprised to hear that there is still some doubt about the preserved rights of those residents still in the homes who will continue unless or until they move to receive income support at the old residential care rate. I am sure that he well remembers our debates on the subject in 1990. No doubt he is tired of the subject. However, I am sure that he has learned, as we all have, that being tired of an argument, regrettably, is not enough to make it go away.
At present 117 members of the Association of Charity Officers are spending £4.8 million topping up amounts for people who receive the present level of residential care support. That takes 38 per cent. of charities' expenditure on old people. If local authorities have the idea that they can use the level of income support under preserved rights as a baseline, to indicate how much they need to provide, it could create severe problems.
We also believe that there is a special problem in residential care when dealing with people who are by nature itinerants. It is a problem of particular concern to those who deal with drug and alcohol dependence—to St. Mungo's, and St. Martin's of Tours which deals with ex-offenders. It has always been a question whether local authorities are the best body to provide for and recognise the needs of itinerants. There is, too, a special problem for those who provide hostel accommodation for people who move on fairly frequently. It means that the proportion of their population who enjoy the preserved rights at the higher level of income support will drop much more rapidly than in, say, long-stay homes for the elderly.
There is some problem in applying this local authority-based scheme to itinerants. Which local authority is to be responsible? We are told that the test will be that of the ordinary residence of the person concerned as defined under the National Assistance Act 1948. That is not the same test as the one which local authorities are accustomed to using: the local connection under the housing and homelessness legislation of 1985. The ordinary residence of someone who is homeless and sleeping on the streets can be difficult to discover. Even when one has all the information, it may be difficult to decide. There is a problem about relying on the place of origin of the homeless person who seeks accommodation in care. The only source of information of origin is often the person himself. Sometimes if he has been on the road a long time, or if he has problems with mental illness or alcohol dependence, the information may not always be trustworthy. The parish account of Folkestone in 1623 records a payment of 6s. 8d. to one who came from the land of Babylon. When a local authority is told that, what is it to do?
There is also a problem about ex-prisoners. Costs will fall disproportionately heavily on those boroughs, in particular in London, which include prisons. If that factor becomes recognised, the Home Secretary may find that local authorities are keen to resist the building of a new prison in their areas. He could find that unfortunate.
With the insistence on the place of origin, the Government risk recreating many of the difficulties which were so familiar under the operation of the 1601 Act. There used to be, so to speak, games of ping-pong between two villages, each stating that the other was the place of origin. The hapless person could be sent to and fro, in some cases for as many as 10 years at a stretch. We do not wish to return to that situation.
If the Government consider the way in which schemes such as the rough sleepers initiative have been working, they will accept that for itinerants there is a case for government responsibility and that possibly local authorities are more suited to taking responsibility for stable residents in their own areas than for transitional people who cannot clearly be pinned to any area.
There is considerable anxiety among housing associations about the lack of interaction between the care arrangements for community care and the rearrangements for housing. There is worry about whether the Department of the Environment will continue responsibility for capital and revenue funding for housing associations. If money is transferred to local authorities for the care component, but not the housing component, one cannot conjure the housing component out of thin air and there will be a financial problem.
There is, too, some concern about whether local authorities will be in a position to offer a fair price. Methodist Homes for the Aged has written to 114 departments of social services from whom they have received 61 responses. That is not many, since 1st April is not far off. Only five of those quoted a price. Some of them invite tenders. That creates the suggestion that they are thinking in terms of a free market in care. An auction in care must inevitably be Dutch, and a Dutch auction tends to risk lowering the standard of care provided. It begins to sound a little like the way Crassus used to run the fire services in Rome. He used to draw up outside a burning house and make an offer for the house; if it was refused he folded his arms and a few minutes later he made a lower offer, which was usually accepted. We do not want community care to go that way. I shall be interested to hear what my noble kinsman has to say to convince me that it will not. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Social Security Benefits (Amendments Consequential Upon the Introduction of Community Care) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992, 3147) be annulled.—(Earl Russell.)
8 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for having introduced this important issue. I am a stranger to the subject, I wandered into it and to begin with, whenever I read the regulations of our welfare

833
state, I am staggered by their complexity. It is an extremely complex issue and so far as I can see this Motion and the regulations make it even more complex. As the noble Earl pointed out, part of the problem is that the regulations under Section 43 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 have not yet been issued. Thus there is great uncertainty about what will face local authorities when the regulations finally come into force.
It seems to me that, when the system of financing is changed on 1st April, the principal purpose of the legislation will be to take care of those in long-term residential care. As the noble Earl said, there are problems with that as well; even those people in long-term residential care seem to require a top-up of one kind or another. Charities are currently bearing the costs.
That problem apart, what we face here is that, while such people are taken care of, many of the peripheral cases have been sadly neglected. We must ask the Minister this evening this question: how do the Government envisage that the various peripheral entities will be taken care of?
Perhaps I may go through the points quickly because the noble Earl has already mentioned most of them. First, there is the problem of the homeless and itinerant. Who will take care of them? Last night we had a debate on the mentally disordered offender. Many noble Lords pointed out that such offenders are not likely to be popular or high on the local authorities' list of priorities. Similarly, the homeless are not popular, nor are they high on the list of priorities and they are unable to lobby to obtain their entitlement. Given the usual shortage of resources that local authorities face—and in this case we already know that the amount of money transferred from the DSS to local authorities is inadequate: that has been shown several times—we shall face the problem that people with low priority will suffer. I should like to know from the Minister how he sees the problem of those who are homeless and itinerant. I recognise that they are two different categories, but how will they be dealt with under the shortage of resources?
A further set of problems arises with drug and alcohol abuse cases. There was a such a case pending yesterday before the High Court and I do not know whether it has yet been settled so perhaps one cannot talk about it. I should also declare an interest in the matter, in that I am the chairman of an inner city drug intervention agency. I know from that standpoint that there is a great deal of uncertainty among agencies which are struggling to manage, even with current standards. When the new set of rules comes in on 1st April, the agencies will move down the list of priorities for local authorities and they are worried as to how they will survive.
Thus the problem of drug and alcohol users—who are sometimes both homeless and itinerant and for whom the local authority pays when they arrive at the drug intervention agency—is an open question. There is a problem about the resources for them.
One or two questions were raised in another place yesterday when the issue was discussed which I may as well raise now in order to obtain clarification on them.
834
One issue is that it seems that paragraph (1ZE) discriminates against residents who live in supported lodgings or small residential homes. I readily admit that I am not an expert on this so I may have got it wrong but it appears to me that the people who have been resident in supported lodgings or small residential homes since 1st April 1987 are about to lose their rights to income support payments towards their fees. I am surprised that the Government are discriminating against small residential homes: I thought that small businesses were the thing. I know that the Federation of Small Businesses is unhappy about the forthcoming changes on 1st April.
Lastly, I quote a problem from the Official Report of another place. It is peculiar that residents in terminal care will suffer particularly because income support limits for them will be frozen from April. I do not quite know how one discriminates between residents in terminal care and other people. Why is income support for them being frozen? Again, I admit that I may have got it wrong but I should like clarification from the Minister.
We thank the noble Earl once more for raising these important questions. It seems a pity that the debate is so short: we need a much larger debate on all these issues. Perhaps we shall have another opportunity for one.
8.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I feel that there no doubt will be other opportunities to debate these matters, just as there was a debate last October instituted by the noble Lord's noble friend Lord Carter, when my noble friend Lady Cumberlege dealt with a great many of the points and matters of concern relating to community care.
What we are specifically debating today are purely the social security regulations and what I might call the social security contribution to the community care arrangements. I am well aware that both the noble Earl and the noble Lord have covered ground well beyond those regulations and I am most grateful to my noble kinsman for giving me advance notice of a considerable number of the points he wished to raise. He has not now raised some of them, but I shall certainly be able to write to him on those specific points. I appreciate the concern of my noble kinsman in view of the hour and the time that we have available.
Before dealing with some of the specific questions that have been raised, may I just very briefly say what the purpose of the regulations themselves is? Even if it is just in a couple of sentences, I think it is worth getting on record the points behind the regulations. The community care reforms require major changes to certain social security benefits and the purpose of the regulations is purely to introduce the necessary changes to the regulations concerning income support, housing benefit, attendance allowance and disability living allowance, particularly the care component. I should stress that it will affect only the care component, not the mobility component in the

835
disability living allowance. The amendments contained in the regulations are simply, as I said earlier, the necessary DSS contribution towards achieving the community care objectives.
As both my noble kinsman and the noble Lord will be aware, we spend considerable sums of money. Currently some £2½ billion are being spent through social security on the special high levels of income support paid to people in residential care and nursing homes. Just to underline the problem that that £2½ billion points us towards, the figure was a mere £10 million back in 1979, when there were some 12,000 people in residential care and nursing homes being supported by the social security system. It has now risen to some £265 million.
Our aim obviously at the outset has been to ensure that such sums of money are spent in the most beneficial way and that available resources are targeted in those areas which will provide the greatest help and the maximum effect. We hope that the new community care arrangements will provide the vehicle with which to ensure that this happens to a much greater extent than the current system allows.
I do not intend to describe the regulations in detail which are, in the way of social security matters, necessarily very complex. Many are of a purely technical nature. I should like to deal with some of the points that my noble kinsman and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, have raised.
The first and most important is on the adequacy of income support levels for those with preserved rights. As my noble kinsman made clear, we have been over that course before. I believe this point is underlined by the figures I recently quoted: I have to make clear that no government could aim to meet the full cost of all fees in homes through a system of income support limits. I hate to think what would happen to the level of some fees if we had no limit and if home owners (as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate) were able to set their own fees and to claim whatever they wanted. Over the past three years there have been four (in just three years) significant increases in the limits. Increases from April 1992 were well over inflation. One of the largest increases last time went to the very dependent elderly people in residential care homes—that was £15 from April 1992—which helped about 40 per cent. of people in that type of home. In that context, I should like the noble Lord, Lord Desai, to look at the freezing of just one particular rate last year. As with all up-rating measures, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has to make very difficult decisions about the priorities. That is why some of them went up and some did not. But overall, the noble Lord will find that most limits for 1993 increased above the rate of inflation.
As for the future, those individuals with preserved rights will have those levels up-rated each year so long as there are people with preserved rights. That could be for a very considerable number of years. Each year my right honourable friend will have to make, as he has done in the past, the same judgments about how much they should be up-rated each year to cover inflation and rising costs in the homes. I can assure my
836
noble kinsman that my right honourable friend will continue to do that each year. I can make no predictions as to what level he will set them at. One cannot make predictions as to what other pressures on the budget there will be and what, for example, the state of inflation will be.
My noble kinsman then turned to Regulation 2A and the level of the residential allowance which has been set, as he puts it because he is in London at £50; I would put it at £45 because I speak for the rest of the country. It is set at the two different rates. Last year my right honourable friend announced that he would be introducing the residential allowances. He said that the level of the allowance was expected to be in the range of about £35 to £50. At that time he was unable to announce the precise level because we were awaiting the results of a survey carried out by the Department of the Environment on the level of rents typically paid by people in sheltered housing accommodation. We felt that was the best available guide to the housing cost of people in residential care and nursing homes. I stress that it is just to cover the housing cost. As I said, when we were finally able to announce the level of allowance, it was at the top end of the range that my right honourable friend put it: at £45 per week, or £50 for my noble kinsman in London. My noble kinsman raised the question: would local authorities have adequate funding to pay the extra costs of someone who was in a St. Mungo's home with drug or alcohol problems? I believe that is the example he used.
Currently, income support will pay £210 or £220 from next April to residents in homes which cater for drug addicts and alcoholics. The money that will be transferred to local authorities uses that current expenditure as a base line and local authorities will be expected to be able, with the funds transferred to them, to continue to meet the need for that type of care. I stress that it will be some £472 million in the first year that will be transferred to the local authorities and to the NHS towards hospice funding to meet their new responsibilities. That is £472 million from my own department, the Department of Social Security. The Department of Health have, in addition, made a further £166 million available for local authorities in England alone (I am afraid I do not have the United kingdom figure) to help them with their new arrangements.
Overall, resources for community care will then continue to be considered in the normal way throughout the public expenditure process. After the first three years that will take into account any further forecast DSS savings to my department as the numbers continue to fall off relating to the remaining number of people with preserved rights to higher rates of income support.
The commitment which we gave in the White Paper was to transfer to the local authorities the resources which the Government would but for those arrangements have provided to finance care through social security payments to people in residential care and nursing homes. The transfer is to be distributed by a 50 per cent. reference to the local authorities' standard spending assessment—50 per cent. by the

837
current patterns of income support spend as measured in January and July last year. The rest of the special transitional grant is to be distributed according to the social security standard spending assessments.
In future years a similar distribution is proposed but only the annual increment of the transfer will be included in the grant with the previous year's transfer moving into the local authority's base line revenue support grant. Therefore, overall, an increasing proportion of the transfer money as time goes by will be distributed by the standard spending assessment (the SSA).
My noble kinsman also referred to a report of the Association of Charity Officers and its survey. I think he was worried that the burden will continue to be shifted on to charities by local authorities merely using the remaining but preserved rights income support rates as a base line. I acknowledge that at present many charities are providing funds to top up the income support people in independent homes where the benefit does not meet the full cost of the fees. I have already dealt with why we feel we cannot meet any cost, however high.
I point out that under the new arrangements local authorities will be responsible for paying the full fee charged by the home. Residents will be able to choose what home they go to; but if they select a home whose charge is not within the range the local authority normally meets, then relatives or charities may wish to make up the difference to enable the resident to go to a more expensive home. But it will be the local authority who will remain liable for the full fee charged by the home.
My noble kinsman was somewhat concerned that there would be, to use his words, something of a Dutch auction, in terms of the contracts that were placed by the local authorities. We do not think it sensible to attempt to dictate centrally how authorities should make their contracts, nor the specifications, terms and conditions that they should use. It is up to them to negotiate prices on the basis of their local knowledge and circumstances. They have a duty to obtain the best value for money and the highest quality of care for their clients. We certainly expect them to use the contracting process to secure just that.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, expressed anxiety reflecting the worries expressed by his colleagues in another place, that regulations under Section 43 of the 1990 Act have yet to be seen. I understand that the Department of Health is currently considering the extent to which local authorities should be enabled by regulations under the National Assistance Act 1948 to make residential accommodation arrangements from April 1993 for people who have preserved rights to the higher levels of income support under the current system.
A consultation exercise with the local authority associations and the main voluntary organisations took place at the end of last year. The regulations and covering guidance circular to the local authorities are currently being drafted. They will be laid before Parliament shortly. I am afraid I cannot go beyond that at the moment.
838
The noble Lord, Lord Desai wondered why we were excluding self-funding residents in "small homes". I can assure the noble Lord that that was given careful consideration. There were two practical problems. First, it would be necessary to establish, perhaps several years after the new arrangements came into effect, where the person was resident on 31st March 1993. Owners of larger homes have to keep records of their residents but small homes are not at present required to do that.
Secondly, the adjudication officers would need to establish whether the care criteria which currently entitle people in small homes to the special higher levels of income support, had been met on 31st March 1993, which again creates a practical problem. We believe that few people will be affected by the new rules. I would also stress that the absence of preserved rights does not place those residents at a disadvantage. They can still look to the local authority for an assessment of their care needs in the same way as any other potential new resident.
Both my noble kinsman and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, expressed anxieties relating to itinerants and the definition of "ordinary residents". I can only say that a draft guidance circular on the settling of disputes about "ordinary residents" which will deal with the problem of itinerants was sent by the Department of Health to local authority associations and the main relevant voluntary organisations yesterday, 10th February. In the light of any comments received, the circular will be finalised and issued to all local authorities towards the end of March. As I say, at the moment it is a matter for consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, expressed some anxiety about services for homeless people and felt that they might be to some extent sidelined. We believe that they should receive care on the same basis as all other systems. Local authorities will need to develop flexible systems of assessment and care management to meet the specific needs of homeless people and ex-offenders with high care needs. We shall shortly be issuing guidance to local authorities to help them resolve disputes about ordinary residents and indicate their responsibilities in individual cases.
We accept that housing is an important element in community care. Further guidance has been issued to social services departments and housing authorities stressing the importance of close collaboration between them. We shall certainly continue to maintain regular contact at ministerial and official level within the departments to ensure that there is close contact particularly between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health. Obviously the effect of the new community care changes on housing supply and demand will be gradual. As I said, we hope that various authorities will work together to identify what they see as the needs to ensure that their planned and operational strategies work together and coincide.
I hope that I have dealt with most of the problems and anxieties of my noble kinsman and the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I hope that my noble kinsman will not be pressing his Prayer. I shall respond to his letter

839
in due course on those points of concern that he did not elucidate in the debate. In the meantime, I commend the regulations—to a full House!—and repeat that I hope my noble kinsman will not be pressing his Prayer.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman warmly for the care and courtesy of his reply. I can assure him that the further points I shall make are simply in the form of questions.
I take his point about relying for fixing levels on level of rents in sheltered housing. But there is a real difficulty in making that separation between housing and care costs. It sounds clear enough in theory. It is not always quite so clear in practice. Also, we should all be prepared to think, as we go ahead on this, about how different one residential care home is from another. They provide different sorts of care for different sorts of problems. If we were to adopt the idea that one level of funding is absolutely right for all homes regardless of what sort of care they provide, we might run into unnecessary problems.
I was grateful to my noble kinsman for acknowledging as clearly as he did that charities are at present topping up the preserved rights. I take his point about the difficulty of meeting any level of fee and am well familiar with the argument. We do not need to go into that. The only point is that, if charities are putting that much of their income into one area, they will be asking the Government to take on other areas which otherwise they would have taken on. It becomes a merry-go-round which may be worth thinking about.
I was grateful to my noble kinsman also for not slamming the door on what I said about itinerants. It is a problem that we have discussed before. My noble kinsman may remember—I am not sure whether he was in the House at the time—the debate on women's refuges on 11th March last. The same problem arises. There is a deep reflex in local authorities towards saying, "These are not local people", even where there is clear guidance otherwise.
I am glad to hear about the draft guidance. I look forward with a great deal of interest to seeing it and I shall wait to see what happens next. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until fifteen minutes before nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.28 to 8.45 p.m.]

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
House again in Committee.
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 19A not moved.]
Clause 6 [Protection of claimants from deportation etc.]:
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 20:
840
Page 5, line 27, leave out from ("when") to ("he") in line 28 and insert ("any period to appeal, or to apply for leave to appeal, against any refusal has lapsed, or any appeal lodged has been finally determined,").
The noble Lord said: I shall not keep the Committee very long with this amendment, which in any ordinary circumstances I would scarcely need to move. However, in the context of this Bill, we have to move almost everything that seems to affect the rights of people who seek asylum. The amendment seeks to ensure the protection of an applicant during the time when he has applied for his status as a refugee to be recognised and he is awaiting a decision, and also during any appeal period or when an application for judicial review is sought.
It would seem absolutely obvious and inevitable that someone who had applied for judicial review for his right to remain in this country and to be recognised as a seeker for asylum, and hence a refugee, would not be deported. But odd though it may seem, that is not the case. It is because it is not the case that we want to insert the amendment into the Bill. Indeed, the previous Home Secretary is now appealing to the House of Lords after being found in contempt of court for removing an asylum seeker who came from Zaire while judicial review was being sought. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will tell us that it is quite unnecessary to accept the amendment because that kind of thing would never happen. The fact of the matter is that it has happened, but because it has happened and can happen again we feel it necessary to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was agreeably brief. He said that it is important to move an amendment on everything in the Bill. If I may say so, I think that he is over-enthusiastic about that. He then went on to say that I would say that the amendment is unnecessary. He has taken the words out of my mouth. I was not going to be quite as abrupt as that, but as he has used those words I am bound to agree that that is so.
The Bill already makes provision in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of Schedule 2 to suspend any action to remove a person from the United Kingdom while his asylum appeal is pending. That is what the noble Lord wishes to do. It will allow a person who wants to appeal to remain here pending the determination of his appeal. Under the Bill, in most cases that person has 10 working days in which to make his appeal after his initial application has been rejected.
There are some people who accept the decision and who indicate immediately that they do not wish to appeal. I suggest to the Committee that it is perfectly reasonable that such a person should be removed forthwith. If the amendment were to be accepted he would then have to stay in this country for a further 10 days. The Bill would prevent him from being sent back. That person would have to stay here for 10 days, probably in detention and to his own disadvantage and at considerable public expense. I do not believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, wants or what the Committee wants. The point that the noble Lord wishes to protect is actually protected.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I am glad of the assurance that there is protection and that the present Home Secretary will not find himself in the position of his predecessor, who is now appealing to the House of Lords because of doing precisely what I am seeking to prevent. I would like an assurance from the noble Earl that the situation that has occurred with the gentleman from Zaire who was deported while a judicial review was being undertaken cannot occur under this Bill. Can the noble Earl assure me that that is genuinely the case? We shall come later to the question of 10 days because we regard that as far too short a time in which the whole process can take place. It is the subject of another amendment later on.
I want to be given an assurance that the situation which now exists as regards the gentleman from Zaire who was deported while a judicial review was taking place is now covered by the present Bill. In those circumstances I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Earl Ferrers: It would be quite wrong to begin equating the provisions of a Bill with a particular case that may be in train at any one time. The case to which the noble Lord refers is the subject of judicial review and has nothing to do with this matter.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I may have misunderstood the noble Earl. The point I am making is that if someone is appealing under judicial review and in his status as a refugee—he is seeking asylum—he can be deported, that seems to be an atrocious state of affairs. I am trying to make certain that people who are exercising their legitimate legal rights to appeal against the decision to deport cannot be deported while that process is taking place.
Earl Ferrers: If the noble Lord looks at Schedule 2, paragraphs 6 to 8, he will see that there is the ability to suspend any action to remove a person from the United Kingdom while his asylum appeal is pending. What the noble Lord is concerned with in this amendment is to ensure that where a person is appealing he should be allowed to stay. If the noble Lord's amendment were agreed to, one would be obliged to retain for 10 days a person who did not want to appeal. That is an absurdity.
The point which the noble Lord is concerned about is met because there is the ability to suspend the action. The Bill prevents anyone with an appeal pending from being removed. As a matter of practice, we would not normally remove a person who is seeking judicial review. The amendment which the noble Lord has moved refers only to appeals. It does not apply to judicial review. I can assure him that one would not normally remove a person who is seeking judicial review.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I am interested in what the noble Earl has said and I shall read it very carefully. Perhaps we shall have to come back to this matter at Report stage, if necessary. I am now prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Refusal of leave to enter at port of entry.1971 c. 77
.—(1) The Immigration Act 1971 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 13(3) at end there shall be inserted—
"or unless he was refused leave at a port of entry under circumstances where he had already been given leave to be in the United Kingdom either indefinitely or for a given period and where that person was in the latter case returning to the United Kingdom within the period for which the original leave had been given.".").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry that this amendment has to take the form of a new clause. That is necessary because the whole of the asylum procedures which are introduced or altered in this Bill refer to applications from those who are already in this country at the port of entry. We are concerned here with the removal of the right of appeal from a very large number of potential asylum seekers. This amendment is concerned with the removal of the right of appeal from those who are not in the country at the time for very good reason.
There are two kinds of people whom we believe should retain their right of appeal; namely, those who are residents and who are returning to this country and those who have limited leave to be here and who are returning during the currency of that limited period. I do not need to make this into a complicated issue. These two groups of people who may for quite legitimate reasons wish to leave the country during their period of residence or of permitted and limited right to remain here should have the same right of appeal as those who are already in this country. I very much hope that the Government will see the logic of this measure and agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: As the noble Lord has explained, Section 13(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 permits a person who is the holder of a current entry clearance or work permit and who is refused leave to enter the United Kingdom to exercise his or her right of appeal before removal. The reason for this is that these people will have had to satisfy us before they set out that they had fulfilled the requirements of the Immigration Rules before they received the entry clearance or the work permit. In other words, their examination has already taken place while they were abroad. As a result there is a presumption that they will be given leave to enter. The Immigration Rules make it clear that leave to enter will be refused only in exceptional cases such as if the entry clearance was obtained by fraud, if there has been a change in circumstances or if refusal is justified on such grounds as the person's criminal record or because it would be conducive to the public good. In these cases, where a person appears at the point of entry having obtained an entry clearance before embarking, there is a presumption that leave to enter will be granted. It is right, therefore, that when on the very exceptional occasions that happens and the person is refused admittance, he should be allowed to appeal against that refusal before he is removed from the United Kingdom.

843
The amendment would extend this privilege to a person who had previously had indefinite leave to remain or who had previously had a limited leave and who sought to return again within the period for which the leave to enter or remain had been granted. There can be no presumption that such people will be given leave to re-enter, and I cannot see why the special privilege of an appeal before removal should be extended to them. As with any other passenger who does not possess an entry clearance, the immigration officer will have to conduct a full examination at the port and will have to be satisfied that all the requirements of the Immigration Rules are met. If they are not, leave to enter should be refused and, as with other passengers, removal should take place before that refusal is appealed. Equally, of course, there is no presumption that a passenger will be refused.
One can take as an example the tourist who comes to this country and who is given leave to enter for six months. He may spend three weeks in the Lake District having a lovely holiday and then go to the Continent. When he leaves this country, his leave to enter terminates. If, after his holiday on the Continent, he wishes to return to this country to collect his suits which he might have had made, he will then apply for leave to enter. He will almost certainly have it granted for a further six-month period, but he will be in exactly the same position as when he first entered. The immigration officer will have to satisfy himself that that person qualifies under the rules.
A six-month leave to enter means that a person has a right to stay for six months—not that he can go in and out of the country like a shuttlecock for six months. One must remember that all visitors can come to the United Kingdom unless there is a reason to believe that they are not coming as visitors—in other words, that such a person is a student, might take employment or be a burden on the state.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the right of appeal for asylum seekers, but this amendment would not affect asylum seekers. All asylum seekers who are refused entry at a port will have a right of appeal in the United Kingdom under Clause 8(1).
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I was wrong about the right of appeal, I apologise, but the rest of the Minister's answer seems quite extraordinary. If somebody comes to this country as a visitor (or for whatever reason) and is given six months' right to be in this country, are the Government now saying that, if that person has occasion to leave the country during that six-month period and to return during the currency of the permitted visit, everything is up for grabs again and that person may have to persuade immigration officers all over again of his or her right to be in this country? I find that extraordinary.
Is this a country with fortress barriers around it? Is there something contaminating about visiting the Republic of Ireland, France, Denmark or wherever during the period of a visit to this country? What
844
about a person who has the right to visit this country for six months in order to visit older or younger members of his family and who then wishes to take advantage of that visit to visit other members of the family in, say, other parts of Europe? We are talking about people who have a perfectly genuine right to be in this country. We are talking about people who are resident here and who go abroad and are returning, and those who are returning within the currency of a limited leave.
I said that I apologised about referring to the right of appeal but, on reflection, I am not so sure about that. After all, Clause 10 is all about the denial of the right to appeal and paragraph (b) would deprive all these people of their appeal rights, so perhaps it is relevant to our consideration of this amendment.
The idea that someone coming to this country with six months' leave to be here is not allowed to leave the country for any period during that six months without being subject to interrogation and the risk of that leave being terminated in the middle seems quite extraordinary. I wonder whether, on reflection, the Minister will wish to adhere to that view.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says that this is a most terrible departure and that people who come to this country will no longer be allowed to go abroad. There is nothing new in that. It happens at the moment. A person's leave to enter lapses when he or she goes abroad. That person must then qualify to come back whether or not the return is in the period of the original leave. That has always been the case. I have already explained it to the noble Lord as best I can. He said that a person has a right to be here, and that is perfectly true. That person has a right to be here for a period of up to six months. Once he leaves and goes abroad, that right to be here ceases. Whether he stays here for three weeks or three months, once he goes abroad that right ceases. All that such a person has to do is to reapply when he or she re-enters the country.
I can reassure the noble Lord that all visitors can come to the United Kingdom unless there is reason to believe that they are not coming as visitors—in other words, that they are using the application to be a visitor to masquerade the fact that they are students or taking employment. There is nothing new. The noble Lord is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Lord Bonham-Carter: The fact that it is not new does not make it less bad. The fact that a person can have the right to come here for six months but if he or she then leaves the right is lost is not made more rational or more sensible by the fact that it is happening already. Perhaps one might use the Bill to improve things a little, but it seems beyond the Government's imagination to realise that anything could be improved. If one is given the right to be here for six months and then goes to Paris for three days, it seems very odd that one will not be allowed in again —that one would have to reapply. It is absolutely dotty.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is using curious words. He says, "If you have gone abroad, you are not allowed to come in again"—
Lord Bonham-Carter: One has to apply.
Earl Ferrers: Of course one has to apply but that does not mean that one is not allowed to come in. All that one has to do is to say, "Look, I want to come as a visitor", and one will be allowed in as a visitor.
Baroness Seear: Where is the "of course" about it? Why does such a person "of course" have to apply? If the Minister has said that a person can come in for six months, I do not see any "of course" about having to ask again. The burden of proof is on the Government to explain why, having said that a person can be here, they then say that that person cannot be here. If it is going to be automatic, what is the point of making anyone ask?
Earl Ferrers: Because it might not be automatic because the person might not be a genuine applicant. I have tried to explain it. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, sometimes finds it very difficult to understand these minutiae, but the fact is that any visitor will be given the right to enter unless there is a reason why he should not be given that right—and I have explained those reasons. What that person is given is the right to enter and to stay for up to six months. Once he leaves that is the end of that, and then he can apply again. If he goes over to Calais for a bit of duty-free shopping and then comes back, he will say to the immigration officer, "I have had leave to stay here for six months but I have slipped over to Calais and have come back again and now I want to stay as a visitor", and he will then, of course, be given leave.
Baroness Hamwee: We heard earlier in the debate of the welcome appointment of extra immigration officers. How much time does it take an immigration officer to consider whether the motives of someone who has gone abroad to Calais for a duty-free shopping trip or whatever may have changed?
Earl Ferrers: I do not think that, in the case which I have described and which is uppermost in the Committee's mind, the time taken would be very long.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let us suppose that I were the accounting officer responsible for the immigration service and I had to reply to the questions of the National Audit Office or the Public Accounts Committee. If I said, as the Minister has just done, that those who have permission to be here for a period of six months and who go across to Calais for a duty-free trip will be re-examined, I should have a pretty poor case to put to anyone who was seeking value for money from the immigration service.
This is patently nonsense. It is absolutely clear that permission to be in this country for a period of, say, six months means permission to be in this country for six months. There is nothing that a trip to Calais, Copenhagen or Madrid can affect. It is a waste of immigration officers' time to be involved in issuing re-entry permits to people in those circumstances.
846
Indeed, it is worse than that because they will do that only to people with black faces. That is what will in fact happen.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord cannot get away with that. There is no foundation whatsoever for him to say that. If that is the basis of his amendment, it takes on a very different hue indeed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to say that, if that is the basis of the Government's response to my amendment, it is quite unsuitable. I suggest to the Minister that there is a perfectly decent and honourable way of getting round the matter which he has not suggested; namely, to say that, when those who are in this country for a period of six months leave this country, they should be given a stamp showing that they are entitled to go abroad and come back without question during that period. I have not heard the Minister suggest that as a solution, but it would certainly save immigration officers' time and prevent the discrimination which I am convinced will occur between one kind of person and another.
I remind the Minister that we are talking about two kinds of people only: those who are resident in this country and have a right of residence here and those who have the legal right to be here for a period of up to, say, six months and who return to this country during that period. They are not sneaking into the country. There is no reason why they should be subject to extra controls. They have a right to be in this country just as you and I have.
I am profoundly dissatisfied with the reasons given by the Minister for opposing the amendment. As regards my second category, I am not satisfied that the appeal procedures have not been taken away unjustly. I shall return to this matter when we come to Clause 10 on Tuesday of next week. However, in the meantime I shall consider the best form in which to pursue the matter because I can assure the Minister that it will be pursued. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Curtailment of leave to enter or remain]:
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 5, line 40, at end insert (" provided that the leave is of six months or less duration.").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we come to Clause 7 which in some ways is one of the most objectionable clauses in the whole Bill. In some ways it is related to the issues that we have just been debating, although perhaps "debating" is not the correct word. It provides that, if those people who have leave to come to this country then apply for asylum, they may find that their existing and valid leave to be in this country may be curtailed. The Secretary of State may:
"by notice in writing give to the person concurrently with the notice under paragraph (b) above"—
that is, the notice of rejection of appeal—
"curtail the duration of the leave".

847
That is an extraordinary proposal which is not in any way justified by the identified problems with asylum seeking in this country. It is a gratuitous addition to the Bill which should be removed altogether.
In accordance with the way in which we normally treat these matters, we shall seek to find improvements in the wording of the Bill and, if necessary, make minor adjustments to the wording before we decide whether the principle that appears to be so objectionable should be questioned in our consideration of the Bill.
Amendment No. 23 is a modest amendment. We do not propose to remove the provisions of Clause 7(1); we propose that the curtailment power given to the Secretary of State by that clause should be restricted to those who have leave of six months or less. I do not know, because I have no way of knowing, what proportion of people who are affected by the clause will have permission to be in this country for six months or less. All I know is that the idea of curtailing the leave of those who have permission to be in this country for six months or less merely because they apply for asylum while in this country is—I shall not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and call it a foul abomination—contrary to natural justice. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I must apologise to the Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for not being in my place when the amendment was moved. The thinking behind the clause seems to be that an asylum application which has been rejected is likely to have been made in bad faith. That is not necessarily the case. One could perfectly well imagine, for example, an application for asylum from, shall we say, East Germany or Romania made early in 1989 in good faith which, nevertheless, was not accepted because it was out of date by the time it came to be adjudicated upon.
I do not see what useful purpose is served by insisting that people who are students in this country should be unable to finish their courses because the Home Secretary has not looked with favour upon their claims for asylum. The whole clause is unnecessary. I hope that the amendment will be looked upon with favour.
Lord Renton: I find some difficulty with the amendment. We are dealing with people who have come here with a claim for asylum. They have the opportunity of having their claim considered by the Home Secretary. If the claim is rejected, whether the person should be given an opportunity to stay longer should not depend upon whether original permission to stay was of any particular duration. There could be cases where someone had obtained permission for a longer period of stay, and had done that rather meretriciously. It may then be found that his claim for asylum is not well-founded.
In those circumstances, I do not see why that person should be given a greater privilege than a person who had been given permission to stay for only
848
six months or less. I do not see the logic of that. So I shall be surprised if my noble friend the Minister felt that he could accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord is bad for my health. This is the second time in one day that I have had to challenge his interpretation of the wording of legislation, and I do not like it. I venture to suggest that he is wrong. First, this part of Clause 7 does not refer to those who have already applied for asylum. They have limited leave under the 1971 Immigration Act and that is not asylum. Secondly, there is no question here of them applying for an extension of their leave. We are saying that if the duration of their leave is six months or less, they should be excluded from the curtailment provisions. I suggest that on both those aspects the noble Lord's interpretation of the amendment is mistaken.
Lord Renton: I shall answer the noble Lord as calmly as I can. I do not see how he can say that the provision does not apply to those who have applied for asylum because Clause 7(1) (a)—that comes into this—refers to:
"the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention".
We are dealing here with the convention relating to the status of refugees—people applying for asylum. From the terms of the clause as drafted, I should have thought that it was plain that we are dealing here with people who think that they have a claim for asylum. It certainly includes them.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I could help the noble Lord, Lord Renton, a little. In Clause 7 we are dealing with people who have a perfectly ordinary leave to be here for a purpose which we must presume to be legitimate since the Secretary of State has allowed it, who then apply for asylum and their application is refused. I tried to argue that the refusal of asylum to the claimant, in some of the cases I mentioned, need not imply any bad faith on the part of the applicant. In any case, it does not affect the good faith of the initial claim to be here, which is now curtailed under this Bill because he happens to have appealed for asylum while enjoying it.
I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, used the word "meretritious". A failed application and a meretritious application are not necessarily the same. If I may offer the noble Lord an analogy, in a common law criminal trial the defendant goes into the box, swears his innocence, and is convicted. We do not prosecute that defendant for perjury, and I think that is good. It is the same sort of construction for which we are asking on behalf of asylum seekers. We are asking for those who apply for asylum and have the ill fortune to be refused not to be labelled meretritious or perjurous but to continue to enjoy those rights which had been perfectly legally granted. I hope that that is of some help to the noble Lord.
Lord Renton: I did not say that it was always a meretritious claim. I said that it might be one. That is quite different. We must see what my noble friend will say, but I think that the words are neither necessary nor, indeed, justifiable.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to a person who has a perfectly normal leave to remain here and while here asks for asylum. The noble Earl said that that does not affect their good faith in originally being here. I think that that was the noble Earl's expression.
The fact is that the great majority of those who claim asylum after entering the United Kingdom are people who have obtained leave to enter as visitors. It often becomes clear that seeking asylum was really their intention from the start and that they have no intention of leaving at the end of their purported visit. It would make no sense at all to provide, as we are doing in the Bill, for accelerated determination of claims for asylum and of any appeal against refusal, but then to permit an applicant to stay here for several more months in order to complete his supposed holiday.
We envisage that most of the people who will be dealt with under the provisions of Clause 7 will be visitors of that kind. But it would be wrong to exclude, as Amendment No. 23 would do, the possibility of using those powers against anyone who had a longer leave. For example, if a person has come here as a university student and has leave to remain here for three or four years, but it becomes quite clear that he has dropped out of his studies and then he claims asylum, there is no reason at all why that kind of person should then expect to be allowed to stay here for the balance of his original leave which he has then ceased to take part in.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Is the Minister telling us that there is no way under existing immigration rules whereby somebody who is here for, say, an academic course and who ceases to take part in that course—and therefore ceases to be eligible—cannot have his presence in this country curtailed? I cannot believe that the existing rules do not already allow curtailment of his presence in this country when the reason for it has expired without adding the provisions of Clause 7 of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had been able to exert the patience for which he is renowned, he would have heard me say that I recognise his anxiety that a person who is here lawfully should not put himself in jeopardy of removal simply by making a claim for asylum which is then refused.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Exactly!
Earl Ferrers: Yes, exactly. That was the point that I was coming to when the noble Lord interrupted me. I assure the Committee that the provision will not work in that way. For example, let us suppose that a student who is here on a long course hears of sudden changes in his country which cause him to be frightened. He claims asylum. If his application is refused, he will be permitted to complete his studies, provided that he continues to meet the requirements of the rules relating to students.
I was trying to draw a distinction between that kind of person and a person who claims to come here as a visitor or student and then claims asylum when we
850
know that the real reason for him coming in the first place was to claim asylum and not to be a visitor or a student. For example, if a student drops out of his studies, claims asylum and his claim is rejected, there is no reason why he should be allowed to stay.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Surely, the important point is his reason for claiming asylum. That is the crucial point.
Earl Ferrers: The crucial point is why he came here in the first place. If he is here as a student and is carrying out his student responsibilities properly and then claims asylum which, for various reasons, is rejected, he will be allowed to stay. However, let us suppose that a person says he is here as a student in order to gain entry to this country. He then claims asylum, which is rejected. It is then discovered that he has not bothered to attend his courses—did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, make an interjection? I did not hear him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am glad to make an interjection. I can only describe the sound that I made as a non-verbal expression of disbelief. The Minister has not denied my earlier assertion that there are adequate provisions in existing legislation for removing those who are here under false pretences. That is what he was referring to in his latest speech.
If people are here claiming to be students who are not students and not attending their courses, their permission to be here can be curtailed. It can be curtailed without the provisions of Clause 7.
What the Minister has said was very interesting. I shall not pursue the amendment to a Division because although he does not realise it, in effect the Minister has already yielded a large part of the argument. We shall find a way to bring forward an appropriate amendment at a later stage.
The Minister cannot claim, and has not yet attempted to claim, that those who are here under false pretences, whether or not for the purpose of seeking asylum, cannot be expelled by curtailment procedures which already exist.
Earl Ferrers: That never came into our discussions. We are discussing whether a person whose claim for asylum is rejected and who is then found to be here under false pretences should be allowed to remain here.
If you ask for asylum, you do so because you think you will be persecuted in your own country. If that appeal is rejected, you are no longer an asylum applicant. The authorities are then entitled to ask what that person is doing here. It may be found then that he has come to the country as a student but is not continuing with his studies. The position is perfectly clear and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is barking up the wrong tree.
Baroness Seear: I am not clear about a great deal of this; but there is one point in particular I should like to raise with the Minister. Let us suppose that this chap has stopped attending his courses. According to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, he can be turfed out because of that.

851
Let us suppose further that while he is misbehaving in that way, he claims asylum but that claim is based on a dramatic change in his own country which means that it will be extremely dangerous for him to go home. Does his non-fulfilment of the conditions of the permission he was given to enter the country—that is, to attend university —invalidate his claim to asylum which otherwise would have been a genuine claim because of the dangers he would now face if he returned to his own country? Is the noble Earl saying that such a student's misbehaviour at university cancels all rights to make a claim for asylum and to be judged on the genuineness of his need for asylum?
9.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I did not mean to imply that. A person may be in this country when he discovers that the conditions in his own country are going from bad to worse and that a holocaust has occurred. The person may then consider he will face terrible persecution if he returns to his own country. He can apply for asylum and his case will be considered. He may well be granted asylum. However, he may not be granted asylum. Then the officials will examine his case. They will discover, for example, that he is at university and he is pursuing a five-year course in the hope of becoming a doctor. In those circumstances he will probably be allowed to stay in this country. If, on the other hand, they discover the person is not attending his course, they will then ask him why he entered the country. If he says that he is a student but he has not attended his course for the past year, the officials may conclude that the person masqueraded as a student to enter the country and then apply for asylum. If such a claim for asylum is rejected, I cannot think there is any point in that person continuing to masquerade as a student.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said such bogus people can be deported under the present rules. It is perfectly true that leave can be curtailed, but that is a long and protracted process and it often involves successive rights of appeal against, first, curtailment and then against deportation. For that process to be initiated officials must know the person has done something wrong. Often that comes only to light when he makes an application for asylum.
Earl Russell: The noble Earl made a comment which may be helpful to the Committee. He used the example of a student who had dropped out of university. I have not recorded his exact words but I believe he suggested that curtailment of leave to remain in this country might not occur in the case of a bona fide student who was continuing his studies. If that is correct, and if the noble Earl were prepared to write that into the Bill, it could be helpful. However, there is another area where there is deep disagreement. It concerns the point raised by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter on whether we should be concerned with the genuineness of the reason for which a person first obtained entry or with the genuineness of the reason which led the person to claim asylum.
852
When I was 18 I hitch-hiked around France with a friend who first came to this country at the age of five as a refugee. She came in August 1939. She has told me that to this day she cannot pass through Aachen Station without being sick. I understand that that person claimed to be taking a holiday when she arrived in this country. That, however, was not her intention. I cannot see what was wrong with that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to have to tell the noble Earl that the amendment would not deal with the problem of his friend because it would still permit curtailment for those who seek leave to enter the country as a visitor but who are really seeking asylum. The amendment is not as far-reaching as he would like.
Earl Russell: I was merely answering what the Minister had said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that. Clause 7, as it stands, does not limit the Secretary of State's powers or the reasons he gives for curtailment of leave. Those powers still exist under existing legislation. We do not need this provision to achieve that purpose. The Minister revealed the core of this matter in his previous intervention when he said what is wrong with the existing provisions—I am paraphrasing his remarks—is that they can take too long with the various rights of appeal. He said that, generally speaking, the existing provisions are inconvenient. However, I accept that those are words that he would never use.
I persist in my view that what the Minister said has revealed the inconsistency, short-sightedness and, to some extent, prejudice behind the Government's thinking. There is ample reason for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment and return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The purpose of the amendment is to preserve the existing rights of appeal against curtailment. The absence of a right of appeal against the removal of an existing right is particularly objectionable. It is hard to see what possible justification there can be for changing the existing law, as this part of the Bill does, to remove the protection of an appeal to an independent adjudicator for a person whose lawful stay in the United Kingdom has been curtailed. The seriousness of the decision to curtail leave is apparent from the fact that it could lead directly to deportation and detention under Clause 7(4). The amendment would also mean that there would be a right of appeal under the Bill against the asylum refusal under Clause 8(2).
It is essential that the protection of an appeal against the curtailment of leave should remain. Otherwise the person could only appeal against deportation should the Home Office make a deportation decision. It must surely be wrong in principle that a person who has abided by his or her

853
conditions of stay and has done nothing unlawful should be faced not only with the stigma of deportation but the very real practical difficulties that may result from it merely because he or she has applied for asylum. There must surely also be a right of appeal against curtailment.
The amendment, in effect, also makes it clear that such a right of appeal should extend not only to the justification for the curtailment itself—not merely to whether the applicant falls within the terms of the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees—but also to whether the curtailment decision is in itself merited.
For example, a student would have the right to argue at such an appeal that the curtailment was wrong and that he or she still fits into the immigration rules as a student and should continue to have leave on that basis despite a refused asylum application. There will be many instances where, for example, a student still intends to leave the United Kingdom at the end of a course of study, even where it may not be possible for him or her to return to his or her country of origin. There may be connections with another country to which it is possible to go. Alternatively, during the appeal period the situation in the country of origin may either become safe or become very much worse. In either case, on either ground, an appeal might be successful.
It is surely important that people should have that right of appeal and be able to put their case forward to avoid not only the stigma of deportation but its practical difficulties when there is no justification for it.
At the Report stage of the previous Bill in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said:
"If a student appeals, due to the refusal of his asylum claim, he can at the same time appeal against the curtailment of his leave as a student".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/92; col. 272.]
If the Home Office believed then that an appeal right could continue to exist without negating the provisions of the Bill I ask the Minister to say when he replies to the amendment what arguments have now convinced the Government that it is right to remove that right of appeal. It must surely be basically unjust and unjustifiable to cut short leave which has been granted without any right of appeal or redress or even explaining why that is being done in this way in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: At first sight I find the position very confusing. We are dealing with very fine distinctions. We have to compare curtailment of leave already granted under Clause 7(1) with the appeal against variation of leave under Section 14 of the 1971 Act; and appeal to a special adjudicator under Clause 8(2) against variation or refusal to vary under Clause 8(2) of the Bill.
Those are very fine distinctions indeed. To that extent I believe that it is a good thing that the noble Baroness has moved her amendment, if only so that we can bring to our own minds that there is a fine distinction and hear what the Government have to say about it.
854
Having heard the discussions on the previous amendment, which dealt with what happens under Clause 7(1), I believe prima facie that the Government have the right idea about making a distinction. But of course I shall be interested to hear what further argument my noble friend puts forward in favour of making that distinction.
Earl Ferrers: I had hoped that I should be able to satisfy my noble friend. Nothing is more important than satisfying that, although it is equally important to satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. There may be a misunderstanding. We are not removing a right of appeal. We are expediting the process. The power to curtail the leave of a person who no longer qualifies to stay here is not in fact new. The power exists under the 1971 Act and the current Immigration Rules. But it is a power which is rarely used because it is a protracted and cumbersome way of seeking to ensure a person's departure.
Let us consider the position. At present when leave is curtailed, a person has a right of appeal under Section 14(1) of the 1971 Act. He appeals. If the adjudicator turns down his appeal, the person can then appeal to the tribunal. If the tribunal also turns down his appeal, he is obliged to leave the country. But he may not leave the country. If he still refuses to leave the country, he must be served with a notice of a decision to make a deportation order against him. He then has a right of appeal against that decision. If he then goes to the adjudicator, and if the adjudicator turns down his appeal, he can then appeal to the tribunal. It is therefore quite possible for a person to spin out the whole process to absurd lengths.
In Clause 7 we seek to create a much quicker procedure. There will be no separate right of appeal against the curtailment decision and the deportation order. At the same time that the asylum claim is refused and the leave is curtailed, the applicant will be served with a notice of intention to deport him. He will then be able to appeal against that decision under Clause 8(3) of the Bill. Then he will be able to argue all the merits of his case on that appeal.
We are therefore creating a workable system which will enable people who have no further claim to remain here to be removed in a reasonable time, but at the same time ensuring that there is a proper safeguard against the possibility of removing people unfairly. I believe that the noble Baroness will realise that she was in error in saying that we are removing the right of appeal. We are not. There is a right of appeal but that long, protracted process will take place in one period of time.
Baroness Mallalieu: I cannot accept the way in which the noble Earl described the intention behind this clause of the Bill as merely expediting the process. In effect, what it is doing is truncating the process by taking out a number of the present stages which means, as I said when I outlined my reasons for moving this amendment, that it is not until the last ditch that there is any right of appeal at all. For example, to take an analogy from my own area, it is as though the criminal field were clogged up with appeals in the Court of Appeal. Adopting this

855
procedure, the noble Earl would be removing the Court of Appeal so that one would have to go to the last stage, the House of Lords, before one had any rights.
It cannot be right, for the reasons that I have already outlined, that it is not until the notice of deportation is served that someone has the opportunity to present their case. I am profoundly unhappy with the explanation that the Minister gave. I see the difficulty of the fine distinction and I am grateful for the limited assistance which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, felt able to give to what I said.
I shall certainly look at what the Minister said, but his answer is unsatisfactory. Although I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage, it is one to which we shall undoubtedly have to return.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line 8, after ("order") insert ("if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person will not report to an immigration officer at an appointed time;").
The noble Baroness said: Subsection (4) of Clause 7 is another unnecessary provision as the Home Secretary already has the power under Schedule 3 of the 1971 Act to detain a person against whom a decision to deport has been made. There is no need for that to be repeated in the Bill.
The amendment would do no more than this: it would provide for bail to be granted as the norm for asylum seekers who are appealing against deportation unless the immigration officials could provide a reasonable ground for detention. What, I ask, could be more reasonable than that? It would also put the onus on the immigration officer to show the grounds for detention and he or she would have to justify that in any appeal. It would simply go some way towards importing the presumption of bail which is provided for the citizens of this country in the Bail Act 1976 to immigration detainees as well. It would also help to ensure that detainees had some idea of why they were being detained and the possibility of applying for bail.
The detention of asylum seekers is surely something which must concern us all because many of those people will already have suffered a great deal in the country from which they have fled. Sometimes they have been under arrest or detained there. They may have been tortured or in other ways traumatised by their experiences. They have fled that country and come to this country where they believe that they are safe, only to find themselves detained here. The information that has been provided by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture shows the effect of detention on some asylum seekers to be serious.
The provision, which does no more than provide bail facilities for them unless there are reasons for thinking that they will not turn up, is vital. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I do not believe that there is merit in the amendment. Like my noble friend on the Front Bench, many years ago I had to consider whether
856
there should be a deportation order and had to advise the Home Secretary of the day whether or not he should sign a deportation order. One was always conscious that if the person were not detained he would get lost in our huge community. This is too easy a country in which to get lost. It is well known that there are always a great many people who are here illegally. For some of them the period of permission to remain has expired. There are various kinds of illegality. They do not all do what it is hoped under the amendment the person who has had a deportation order made against him will do. They do not report to the immigration officer at an appointed time. That really is a hostage to fortune. It is too big a risk for the Government to take.
Lord Bonham-Carter: The noble Lord has expressed in his inimitable fashion the philosophy which lies behind the Bill and which we touched on in the Second Reading. The philosophy behind the Bill as expressed by the noble Lord is to prevent abuse. I should have thought that the philosophy behind a sound Bill would be: let people in who are in danger of persecution. I would prefer to let one or two abusers in rather than consign one or two people to abuse, persecution, torture and death. That is the difference between the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and me. That is the difference between his opposition to the clause and my support for it.
Earl Ferrers: That is a fairly fundamental difference. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, says that he would rather have a few people in who should not come in rather than reject a few people who ought not to be rejected. Nobody wants to reject anyone who ought to stay. But if the noble Lord were to follow that line of thinking, he would find that the number of people who ride into this country on the backs of that kind of argument would be even greater than it is at the moment. The noble Lord cannot pretend that people do not abuse the system. They do. We are trying to stop those people abusing the system but allow the genuine applicant to come through.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, smiles and "putters" away on the Bench. But he must know that there are plenty of people abusing the system. That is the reason it is necessary to tighten up.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am directly challenged. The number of people who have been convicted of abusing the system in that way is 27.
Earl Ferrers: That is not so. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that that was the number of people convicted of social security frauds. It is not the number of people who come in. Can the noble Lord therefore explain to me why, when 6,000 people are invited to apply to say why they are in this country, only 1,500 turn up? What happens to the others? They do not bother because they find it more convenient not to do so. I cannot express strongly enough the fact that if one is to have a system—there has to be a system of immigration control—it has to be one that is adhered to and not abused.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was asked a direct question and I respond. Neither the Minister nor I can tell why 6,000 people who were invited to attend did not attend. But I can suggest other reasons than that they are abusing the system. For example, they could well have left the country already. There are many reasons other than abuse why people should not pursue claims for asylum. The Minister has no better information than I do. It is an unknowable statistic.
Lord Renton: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who I realise is sometimes as sensitive as any of us, would not take it amiss if I were to say that if he were in the position of my noble friend Lord Ferrers at the Home Office at the moment, he would not use the argument that he uses now.
Lord Bonham-Carter: The argument cannot be confuted. It is hypothetical to the last degree. What the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would be doing if he were in the position of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is open to any amount of speculation. The argument does not stand up for one moment.
Earl Ferrers: After that altercation, perhaps I can continue with my speech. I was trying to help the Committee; but, understandably, your Lordships prefer to be sidetracked.
Amendment No. 25 seeks to say that a person can only be detained if there are reasonable grounds for assuming that he will not comply with other restrictions requiring him to report to an immigration officer. That is essentially what happens at the moment in immigration cases when detention is considered. It will continue to be so under Clause 7 of the Bill. The power to detain will only be exercised if we do not think that the person will keep in touch and that a failure to detain will frustrate the intention to enforce departure.
It is perfectly obvious that detention is not undertaken lightly. It has an obvious impact on the individual concerned. It also happens to be extremely costly and it is generally undesirable for the department to tie up limited accommodation unnecessarily. But it must remain an option for those relatively few cases where we have reason to believe that an applicant will not co-operate or comply with other restrictions that may be placed upon him. It is reasonable to have that provision in the Bill.
Baroness Mallalieu: I must be naive. I had fondly thought that this was an amendment which would commend itself to the noble Earl. Re-reading this part of the Bill with the hindsight of his interpretation of it, what he has just told us the Bill says is not what I understand it to mean.
The proposed amendment does no more than say what the noble Earl requires; that is, that if there are reasonable grounds for believing that somebody will not turn up or will disappear into the community, then he can be detained. No one is quarrelling with that; no one is seeking to allow people who clearly intend to abscond, to do so. Where that is apparent, it would be right to detain them. That is what the amendment does. It does no more.
858
I am pleased to hear the noble Earl say that where there are no such fears, somebody will be permitted to retain his liberty. Frankly, that is not what the clause at present says. It is for that reason that the amendment attempted to spell it out. If the noble Earl intends that to be the meaning, I hope that he will give consideration to the amendment between now and the next stage of the Bill and seek himself to clarify the position. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 6, line 11, at end insert:
(" (5) Any decision to detain and the grounds therefor must be given to the person detained in writing and in a language which he understands.").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that I am not naive in moving Amendment No. 26. It is intended to provide for some information in relation to detention to be given to those who are detained—those who are seeking asylum—which they can understand. One of the most common problems that seems to arise is that those who are detained later ask their advisers what is going on because they do not know why they are being detained and what steps are open to them. This modest provision seeks to make that clearer to them. I hope that it will commend itself to the Minister.
Lord Renton: For once, I find myself in agreement with the Front Bench opposite. It may be that it is something that already happens. If it is part of primary or secondary legislation, or a matter of practice and direction, the amendment will not be necessary. I hope that it is something that is already done. If there is no authority for doing it, then there may be an advantage in having something on the lines of the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I start to get worried when my noble friend agrees with the Front Bench opposite. I shall try to be not too despairing. I fully concur with the view that applicants should be informed about the processes that are affecting them, particularly where a matter as serious as detention is concerned. However, I am not convinced that such a requirement needs to be placed on the face of the Bill.
Perhaps I can tell your Lordships what happens. Applicants who are to be detained are notified in person by the detaining immigration officer in any language which they can understand and by an interpreter, if necessary. We shall certainly give consideration to whether any new written notice is needed more fully to reflect the procedures under the present legislation.
It is impracticable to expect notices to be available in every conceivable language. There are hundreds of different languages, including 50 different forms of Chinese. Many countries—for instance, in Africa—have dialects which are almost as different as languages. It would be difficult to provide written material in every language. However, we shall certainly see that they are informed of what is happening in a language which they understand. I shall certainly consider the matter.
10 p.m.
Lord Renton: I appreciate the difficulty of producing it in writing. I see several difficulties in that. Calligraphy varies enormously even within the same language. My noble friend mentioned Chinese. Some of the people concerned may well be illiterate. For them it would be an even greater mystery. I am glad that my noble friend has given a sympathetic reply. I realise that he will have to consider that there are practical difficulties in putting it into writing.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he said in relation to the amendment. I hope that, notwithstanding the difficulties which we can readily see in relation to having a large number of prepared texts showing the reasons for the detention and indeed the appeal procedure, he may give consideration to having certain of the more commonly required ones prepared. I am grateful to him for indicating that at the very least an interpreter will be available. That will go some way certainly towards dealing with the problem of those who may speak unusual dialects. No doubt arrangements can be made for them. I am grateful to the Minister for saying he will look at this matter again and for what he has agreed so far. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Appeals to special adjudicator]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 16, at end insert ("or on the ground that if removed from the United Kingdom he would be required to go to a country where he has a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinions or membership of a particular social group.").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 30, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 34, 36, 38 and 105. With these amendments we move to Clause 8 and to Schedule 2, Clause 8 being concerned with the whole issue of appeals to the special adjudicator. I apologise to the Committee but I am bound to return in considering these matters to the subject that we first discussed on Tuesday afternoon, which is the question of the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention.
The amendments are designed to widen the grounds on which an appeal can be brought. In all these amendments we have used the phrase:
"on the ground that if removed from the United Kingdom he would be required to go to a country where he has a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinions or membership of a particular social group".
The problem with the 1951 convention—I pay all tribute to those who formulated it, because it was a remarkable achievement of its time—is that Article 33 only prevents states from sending refugees to a country where their life or freedom will be threatened. There is not any express provision in the convention prohibiting the return of persons to a country where they would be at risk of a form of persecution that does not involve a threat to life or liberty.
We know only too well from experience of the past 40 years that there are many forms of persecution other than threats to life or liberty. In the literal sense, infringement of life or liberty does not include torture. It does not include economic deprivation or starvation. It does not include many of the ways in which those in positions of authority or in positions of power without authority in countries where there is no established rule of law can prosecute persecution—I cannot bear that phrase.
The restrictive nature of the proposed right of appeal which is provided in the subsections of Clause 8 is reinforced by the provisions of the draft asylum rules which we have already discussed. They restrict the grant of asylum to those who are able to establish a threat to their life or freedom. Indeed, the current rules on asylum entitle a person to asylum on the basis that he has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons in the convention. In those provisions it is necessary to prove a threat to life or liberty. We are saying that Article 33 is significantly more restrictive. The proposed asylum rules are significantly more restrictive than the provisions we wish to see as spelt out in our amendments.
Perhaps I may give some examples, although it is a very difficult thing to do. The essence of many of these cases is that persecution takes place in secret. Nevertheless, we may consider the example of a woman seeking to establish that she is likely to be the victim of intimidation by systematic rape or similar abuse if returned to her own country.
We have all read the newspapers in the past few weeks about the former Yugoslavia. We all know that there has been a form of oppression by systematic, deliberate rape of women of one nationality or religion by men of another nationality or religion. It does not come within Article 33 of the 1951 convention and it does not affect life or liberty. Nobody dies and nobody is detained as a result, but it is clearly persecution in any sense in which we would understand it.
Another example may be that of a man who seeks to establish that his family home or other property would be burnt down or otherwise destroyed in the event of his returning to the country. Again, nobody who has read the newspapers in recent weeks and months could deny that that is exactly what has been happening. I can stick to Yugoslavia or talk about Nagorno Karabakh or Somalia. There are many places where it is well known to all of us that this form of persecution takes place. It is not covered by Article 33 of the 1951 convention and it does not form a part of the right to appeal to a special adjudicator under Clause 8(1) of the Bill.
As regards a person seeking to establish that he will be the victim of any form of torture or other ill-treatment falling short of a threat to his life, I hardly need start to spell out the reality. It is well known that that is happening in many parts of the world. It is well known that if only people could get to a port of entry here they would put forward what would appear to any reasonable person to be a justifiable application for asylum. Article 33 of the 1951 Convention on Human Rights, with all its

861
virtues, does not cover that and appeals under those circumstances to a special adjudicator would not be allowed.
All of these amendments appear to us to conform to what ordinary decent people would consider to be the kind of persecution from which we, as a civilised country, would wish to protect them if we could. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The wise and high-minded principles stated in these three amendments in full are taken from the Convention on the Status of Refugees which, under the Bill, the Government and officials acting on their behalf are bound to observe and so are those who hear appeals. Frankly, we do not need to write them into the statute because the obligation is already there. Indeed, at the very point in the clause at which the amendment is to be inserted there is a reference to
"the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention".
Those obligations are stated in the amendments. I do not think that we need the amendments, especially when it is suggested that exactly the same words should be used in three places in one clause. That is most unusual. I do not think that we need to set it all out here.
Earl Ferrers: I am bound to say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. These amendments would entitle a person to appeal against a refusal of asylum not only on the grounds that his removal would be contrary to our obligations under the 1951 convention but also on the ground that, if he was removed, he would have to go to a country where he has a well-founded fear of persecution. It seems superfluous and confusing to provide for that alternative ground of appeal.
Let us examine what happens. The asylum system is intended to protect the life and freedom of refugees. That is its whole point. When a person claims asylum, there are in essence two questions to be decided. The first is, does he have a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion? If the answer to that question is "yes", he is a refugee as defined in Article 1 of the 1951 convention. If he is a refugee, the second question is whether, if he were required to leave this country he would have to go to a country where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of one of these factors. If the answer to that second question is also "yes", then his removal would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 33 of the convention. Those are the issues to which those who are responsible for determining asylum claims and the authorities who are responsible for deciding asylum appeals must address their minds. Those are the issues which are covered by the grounds of appeal set out in Clause 8.
The amendments would be confusing and they are unnecessary. Clause 8, as drafted, permits any appeal to be considered in the full context of the convention. The amendments would merely confuse that.
Lord Renton: I said that the same words would be repeated three times, but what I meant is that they would be inserted four times altogether in one clause. We really cannot have that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that that is a problem. They would be inserted four times in the clause and once in the schedule, so the noble Lord is underestimating our persistence. There is no difference between spelling out the occasions when an appeal should be considered in the way that we have and spelling it out in the way that the Bill does, which is in terms of the convention. That is repeated many times in the Bill—and quite properly, in my view.
Our concern with these amendments is that Article 33 of the convention is inadequate for this purpose even if there is a threat to "life and liberty", which, if I may go back even further to 1945, were considered then in almost Rooseveltian terms. Perhaps I should go back to the Declaration of Independence and to the concept of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Those phrases, however, are not adequate to reflect and represent the horrors which cause people to present themselves at our ports of entry.
I did not hear the Minister confirm the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Although this is not a matter on which I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee, it is certainly not a matter on which I can undertake to withdraw altogether. It may be a matter to which we shall wish to return at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 38 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 39 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 90:
After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule:

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill

  SCHEDULE PROCEDURE RULES PART I INTRODUCTION
  Commencement and revocation
  1.—(1) These Rules shall come into force on a date specified by the Secretary of State by Order.
  (2) In the 1984 Rules—

  (a) rule 14(2) (b); and

  (b) the words "8(5) or" in rule 28,

  are hereby revoked.
  Interpretation
  2.—(1) In these Rules—

  "the 1984 Rules" means the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984;

  "the 1971 Act" means the Immigration Act 1971;

  "asylum appeal" means any appeal made under any of the subsections (1) to (4) of section 8 of this Act and shall include any appeal which, by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 of this Act, shall be dealt with in the same proceedings as the appeal brought under any of those subsections;

  "special adjudicator" means an adjudicator designated under section 8(5) of this Act; and

  863

  "the Tribunal" means the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

  (2) In these Rules, the time by which any act must be done shall be calculated in the manner provided in rule 30.
  Application
  3. All asylum appeals shall be brought under these Rules.

PART II APPEALS TO SPECIAL ADJUDICATORS
Application of Part II
4. This Part applies to asylum appeals to a special adjudicator.
Leave to appeal
5. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), an application for the leave of a special adjudicator shall be made not later than 10 days after the applicant has received notice of the decision against which he wishes to appeal.
(2) The time specified in paragraph (1) shall be 2 days in a case where the application for leave relates to an appeal under section 8(1) of this Act and there has been personal service on the applicant of the notice of the decision.
(3) Subject to paragraph (4), an application for leave shall be made by serving upon—

(a) in the case of an application relating to an appeal under section 8(1) or (4) of this Act, an immigration officer; and

(b) in the case of an application relating to an appeal under section 8(2) or (3) of this Act, the Secretary of State,

the Form prescribed in the Schedule to these Rules which shall be accompanied by the notice (or a copy of the notice) informing the applicant of the decision against which he wishes to appeal and the reasons for the decision.
(4) In any case where an applicant is in custody, service under paragraph (3) shall be upon the person having custody of him.
(5) Upon receipt of an application for leave, the immigration officer or Secretary of State (as the case may be) shall forthwith send to a special adjudicator that application (and the notice or copy accompanying it) together with the notes of interview and any documents upon which reliance was placed in reaching the decision.
(6) A special adjudicator shall determine an application for leave as soon as practicable and, in any event, not later than 5 days after receiving the documents referred to in paragraph (5).
(7) A special adjudicator shall determine an application for leave without a hearing.
(8) A special adjudicator shall send to the applicant and to the immigration officer or Secretary of State (as the case may be) a notice of his determination and, where leave to appeal is refused, the reasons for the refusal.
Notice of appeal
6.—(1) The application for leave to appeal shall be deemed to be the appellant's notice of appeal.
(2) The special adjudicator shall not later than 5 days after leave to appeal has been granted serve on the appellant and on the immigration officer or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State a notice of the date, time and place fixed for the hearing.
(3) The notice of appeal may be varied or amplified by the appellant and served on the special adjudicator and on the immigration officer or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State not later than 5 days after he has received the notice that leave to appeal has been granted.
Response by Secretary of State
7. Where the notice of appeal or any variation or amplification of that notice made pursuant to rule 6(3) discloses any new facts or matters in support of his asylum appeal not previously raised by the appellant, the Secretary of State may, not later than 5 days after the time provided for by
864
rule 6(3) has expired, serve on the appellant and on the special adjudicator a written statement relating to that new fact or matter.
Parties
8.—(1) The parties to an appeal shall be the appellant and the Secretary of State.
(2) The United Kingdom Representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees shall be treated as a party to an appeal upon giving written notice to the special adjudicator at any time during the course of the appeal that he desires to be so treated.
Determination of appeal
9.—(1) Subject to rule 29, a special adjudicator shall determine an appeal not later than 42 days after leave to appeal has been granted.
(2) Subject to rule 35 of the 1984 Rules (as applied by these Rules) an appeal shall be determined by hearing unless—

(a) the special adjudicator is satisfied, having regard to the material before him or to the conduct of the appellant, that the appeal has been abandoned by the appellant; or

(b) the decision being appealed against has been withdrawn or reversed, and the special adjudicator is satisfied that written notice of the withdrawal or reversal has been given to the appellant.

(3) The special adjudicator shall determine the appeal without a hearing upon being satisfied in accordance with paragraph (2) (a) or (b).
Adjournment of hearings
10.—(1) Subject to rule 9(1), a special adjudicator may grant an application for an adjournment of a hearing upon being satisfied that there is good cause for the adjournment.
(2) Where a hearing is adjourned, the special adjudicator shall give notice either orally or in writing to every party to the proceedings of the time and place of the adjourned hearing.
Promulgation of determination and reasons therefore
11.—(1) Where the special adjudicator does not reserve the determination on the appeal, he shall pronounce the determination and the reasons therefor at the conclusion of the hearing, and shall send to every party to the appeal not later than 5 days after the conclusion a copy of the document recording the determination and reasons.
(2) Where the special adjudicator reserves the determination on the appeal, he shall not later than 5 days after the conclusion notify every party to the appeal of the determination and the reasons therefor by sending each party a copy of the document recording the determination and reasons.
(3) The determination on any appeal, and the reasons therefor, shall be recorded by the special adjudicator in a document signed by him.

PART III APPEALS TO TRIBUNAL FROM SPECIAL ADJUDICATOR

  Application of Part III
  12. This Part applies to appeals to the Tribunal from the determination of a special adjudicator.
  Leave to appeal
  13.—(1) An appeal shall be brought only with the leave of the Tribunal.
  (2) An application for leave to the Tribunal shall be made not later than 5 days after the applicant has received notice of the determination against which he wishes to appeal.
  (3) An application for leave shall be made by serving upon the Tribunal the Form prescribed in the Schedule to these Rules which shall be accompanied by the document (or copy of the document) recording the special adjudicator's determination.
  (4) An application for leave shall be determined not later than 5 days after its receipt by the Tribunal.
  (5) An application for leave may be determined without a hearing.
  (6) The Tribunal shall send to the parties to the appeal a notice recording the determination of the application for leave and, where leave to appeal is refused, the reasons for the refusal.
  Notice of appeal
  14.—(1) The application for leave to appeal shall be deemed to be the appellant's notice of appeal.
  (2) The Tribunal shall not later than 5 days after leave to appeal has been granted serve on the parties to the appeal a notice of the date, time and place fixed for the hearing.
  Parties
  15.—(1) The parties to an appeal shall be the persons who were the parties to the asylum appeal.
  (2) The United Kingdom Representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees shall be treated as a party to an appeal upon giving written notice to the Tribunal at any time during the course of the appeal that he desires to be so treated.
  Time within which appeal is to be determined
  16. Subject to rule 29, every appeal under this Part shall be determined not later than 42 days after the date of service on the Tribunal of the appellant's notice of appeal.
  Determination of appeal
  17.—(1) Subject to rule 35 of the 1984 Rules (as applied by these Rules) an appeal shall be disposed of by hearing unless

  (a) the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the material before it or to the conduct of the appellant, that the appeal has been abandoned by the appellant; or

  (b) the decision which was the subject of the asylum appeal has been withdrawn or reversed, and the Tribunal is satisfied that written notice of the withdrawal or reversal has been given to the appellant.

  (2) The special adjudicator shall determine the appeal without a hearing upon being satisfied in accordance with paragraph (1) (a) or (b).
  (3) Where the Tribunal considers it appropriate to do so, it may instead of determining the appeal, remit the case to a special adjudicator for determination by him in accordance with any directions given to him by the Tribunal.
  Adjournment of hearings, personal attendance of appellant and promulgation of determination and reasons therefore
  18. Rules 10 and 11 of these Rules shall apply to this Part as they apply to Part II except that—

  (a) the references in those rules to "special adjudicator" shall be taken to be references to the Tribunal; and

  (b) the reference in rule 10(1) to rule 9(1) shall be taken to be a reference to rule 16.

PART IV APPEALS FROM TRIBUNAL

  Application of Part IV
  19. This Part applies to applications under section 9 of this Act for leave to appeal from a final determination of the Tribunal.
  Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal
  20.—(1) An application to the Tribunal for leave to appeal shall be made not later than 10 days after the party seeking to appeal has received notice of the determination.
  (2) An application for leave shall be made by serving upon the Tribunal a notice of application for leave to appeal in the Form prescribed in the Schedule to these Rules.
  (3) An application may be determined by the President or a chairman of the Tribunal acting alone.
  (4) The Tribunal shall determine the application without a hearing unless it considers that there are special circumstances making a hearing necessary or desirable.
  (5) The Tribunal shall determine the application, and shall notify the parties to the proceedings of the determination and the reasons therefor, not later than 10 days after the Tribunal has received the application.

PART V GENERAL PROCEDURE

  Application of Part V
  21.—(1) This Part applies to—

  (a) proceedings to which Part II applies (appeals to special adjudicator);

  (b) proceedings to which Part III applies (appeals to the Tribunal from special adjudicator);

  (c) (in relation to rules 28–30 only) proceedings to which Part IV applies (appeals from the Tribunal); and

  (d) applications for bail.

  (2) Rule 18 of the 1984 Rules shall apply to this Part as it applies to Part III of the 1984 Rules.
  (3) Rules 23, 25–36, 37 (except paragraph (a)), 38, 40–42 and 44–45 of the 1984 Rules (as applied by this Part) shall apply to this Part as they apply to Part IV of the 1984 Rules.
  (4) In the 1984 Rules applied by paragraphs (2) and (3)—

  (a) references to "adjudicator" (other than the reference in rule 33(1) to the chief adjudicator) shall be taken to be references to a special adjudicator; and

  (b) references to "appellate authority" shall be taken to be references to a special adjudicator or the Tribunal.

  (5) Rules 22–27 amend the application of the 1984 Rules for the purposes of this Part.
  Conduct of proceedings at hearings
  22. In rule 28 of the 1984 Rules, the words "and after complying where appropriate with the provisions of Rule 1(3)" shall be omitted.
  Burden of proof
  23. In rule 31 of the 1984 Rules, the reference in paragraphs (1) and (2) to "the Act" shall be taken to be a reference to this Act.
  Hearing of appeal in absence of appellant or other party
  24. In rule 34 of the 1984 Rules—

  (a) the reference in paragraph (2) to rule 24 (of the 1984 Rules) shall be taken to be a reference to rules 6(2) and 10(2) of these Rules; and

  (b) paragraph (5) (a) shall be omitted.

  Summary determination of appeals
  25. In rule 35 of the 1984 Rules, the reference in paragraph (1) to "previous proceedings" shall be treated as including proceedings under this Act.
  Performance of functions of Tribunal
  26. In rule 42 of the 1984 Rules—

  (a) sub-paragraph (c) (i) shall be omitted; and

  (b) the reference in sub-paragraph (c) (ii) to rule 21(1) shall be taken to be a reference to rule 17(3) of these Rules.

  Notices etc
  27. In rule 44(1) of the 1984 Rules, paragraph (d) shall be omitted.
  Deemed grant of application
  28. Where a special adjudicator or the Tribunal fails to determine any application for leave under these Rules within the time prescribed, the application shall be deemed to have been granted.
  Extension of time limit
  29. Where a special adjudicator or the Tribunal is required under these Rules to determine an appeal or to provide notification of the determination (and the reasons therefor) within a time prescribed, the special adjudicator or, as the case may be, the Tribunal may if necessary extend the time so prescribed either to enable it fairly to determine the appeal or (as the case may be) to provide the notification.
  Time
  30.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), any notice or other document that is sent or served under these Rules shall be deemed to have been received—

  (a) where the notice or other document is sent by post, on the second day after which it was sent; and

  (b) in any other case, on the day on which the notice or other document was served.

  (2) Where a notice or other document is sent by post to a special adjudicator or to the Tribunal, it shall be deemed to have been received on the day on which it was actually received by the special adjudicator or, as the case may be, the Tribunal.
  (3) Where under these Rules, an act is to be done not later than a specified period after any event, the period shall be calculated from the expiry of the day on which the event occurred.
  (4) Where the time provided by these Rules by which any act must be done expires on a Saturday, Sunday or a bank holiday, Christmas Day or Good Friday, the act shall be done in time if done on the next working day.
  (5) Where, apart from this paragraph, the period in question being a period of 10 days or less would include a Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday, Christmas Day or Good Friday, that day shall be excluded.
  (6) In this rule, "bank holiday" means a day that is specified in, or appointed under, the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 as a bank holiday.").
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 90 introduces a new schedule to the Bill which, to the best of our ability and the best of the knowledge made available to us, comprises the procedure rules which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would in due course present to the House for approval. I shall not go into the drafting issues of the procedure rules and the question of what is the most up-to-date version because this is a matter which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will recognise that I shall have to pursue with him individually rather than in Committee. However, if we take it as the basis for discussion that the rules as printed on the Marshalled List are, to the best of our ability, a representation of the draft rules which the Government propose to introduce when the Bill achieves Royal Assent, that gives us the basis for discussion.
  We introduce this lengthy amendment and the amendments to it, which are put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, because it is our view, as it was with the draft immigration rules, that no proper consideration of the issues raised by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill can be carried out without a consideration of the details of the provisions which unfortunately are not enshrined in primary legislation. The Government propose that the detailed application of the provisions should be, in the one case, in draft immigration rules which will be a House of Commons paper and therefore, as I understand it, could be prayed against, and, in terms of the procedure rules, a statutory instrument laid by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
  Our objections to this part of the Bill can be adequately expressed only in terms of our objections to the procedure rules. Without wishing to intrude on the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will move, I suggest in broad terms the ways in which we believe the procedure rules that we have tabled for discussion are inadequate.
  First and most importantly, we are deeply unhappy about the time-scales laid down for appeals. The draft rules give the appellant notice of appeal within 10 days of receiving notice of a refusal decision. They require that the adjudicator serve notice of time, date and place of hearing within five days of the receipt of notice of appeal. They require that the hearing be determined within 40 days of the receipt of notice of appeal. However, there is also provision in the procedure rules for special provision to be made in the appeals procedure for those whose claims are certified by the Secretary of State as being without foundation. There is provision in Schedule 2 for the definition of what is considered to be without foundation. If that is provided for, a two-day time limit is given to lodge an appeal for those who make applications on entry to the UK—that is, port applicants—and where the Home Office chooses to serve a refusal notice personally on the applicant. There is no specific reference to applications being held to be without foundation or to applicants being in detention. It then provides one day for the adjudicator to serve notice of time, date and place of hearing in cases certified as groundless, and eight days for determination of appeal in cases certified as groundless.
  In Committee in another place there appeared to be some indication that the two-day limit would apply only to cases deemed to be without foundation and to persons held in detention. That is not what the rules say. The rules are wider in their application. The Home Office briefing note supplied as an appendix to the Immigration Rules does not say that.
  What we have set down in the new schedule, and what is in the amendments to it set down by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, should not be taken to indicate that we are not in favour of a tighter time schedule. Of course we are. One of the prime elements in asylum cases must be that justice is reached quickly because, in the classic phrase, delay itself is a form of denial. A reasonable time must be allowed for the avoidance of lengthy and unnecessary delays. It must provide sufficient time for the case to be properly put and carefully determined, especially in matters which relate to life, liberty and fundamental human rights. If the time limits are mandatory, they must be realistic and enforceable.
  It is our contention that the procedure rules proposed here do not meet those requirements and that the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will move are necessary to correct the inadequacy of the rules. I commend the amendment to the Committee, subject to the amendments which will be moved by the noble Lord.
  Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 90, Amendment No. 91:
  In paragraph 5(1), line 2, leave out ("10 days") and insert ("14 days").
  The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 92, 93, 94 and 95. I shall to some extent cover some of the ground covered by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It is necessary to repeat some of the points because they are essential if justice is to be done in the case of those people with whom we are concerned.
  Amendment No. 91 extends the time for appeal to 14 days. That is not excessive; it merely gives a little more leeway. Amendment No. 92 removes the two days to appeal provision for those who are applying at a port and upon whom a refusal notice has been served in person. Those time limits jeopardise families, and that is central to the whole process. I cannot believe that there is any difference between the two sides of the Committee on this matter.
  We are trying to produce a procedure which is fair, which is seen to be fair and which both parties can recognise to be fair. The difficulty is that the Government's proposed measures appear to put speed and so-called efficiency ahead of and at the expense of justice. In that way it is easy to unclog the system. One just cuts out various procedures or speeds them up to the extent that they cannot work effectively. For example, the proposed 48-hour time limit for lodging an appeal is in the opinion of the CAB, which has some experience in these matters, unrealistic. For a person coming to a new country who is in detention, who does not know the law or language and who may not find officialdom reassuring, 48 hours is far too soon to lodge an appeal.
  We have been over this ground many times in our discussion of the Bill. It is far too short a time to conduct a proper preliminary interview which, for the reason which we have discussed at length earlier in the Bill, people may be very reluctant to undertake and which, even in the best of cases, in the view of CABs may take three or four hours. It is also quite likely to be unsatisfactory given the traumatised state of mind of those who are victims of the situation we are describing.
  Amendment No. 93 covers ground which we have already dealt with; that is, that the claimant for asylum should be provided with a statement of the facts, the inferences made, the laws which are applicable and an explanatory statement, if necessary, in a language which he can understand. I know that the noble Earl has agreed to that in principle, having pointed out some of the difficulties involved. Therefore, I shall not dwell on that.
  Amendment No. 94 simply makes it essential that the appellant be entitled to free legal advice at all stages of the proceedings. Our procedure rules make no such provision. It seems absolutely essential that such provision should be written into the legislation and should not depend on assurances given in your Lordships' House or in another place. It is even more important given the powers in paragraph 4 with which the Secretary of State is invested; that is, to certify that a case is without foundation. That is one of the phrases in Schedule 2 which I find most disturbing.
  The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has frequently assured the Committee that legal advice would be available. If that is the case I cannot see why he should have any objection to having it written in, as we suggest. It also relates to the times.
  Amendment No. 95 is, again, a time-limit matter: leave out "42 days" and insert "12 weeks". This is a question of giving time for the process to be conducted
  870
  properly, time for the claimant to get proper advice and understand the situation, and of giving proper time to the hearing of an appeal.
  The argument is the same throughout the amendments. It is one which should be taken seriously. I would point out that one curiosity is that time limits are applied to the process of adjudication but that the Home Office is not subject to time limits; it merely has targets. That seems to be an asymmetry which should be put right. I should like to know why, if claimants for asylum should be so rigidly tied down to time limits, the Home Office should simply be supplied with targets. My experience of Home Office targets is that they are very large indeed.
  Lord Renton: I wonder whether I might seek the guidance of the Lord Chairman of Committees. Technically speaking, we are at present discussing the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, to the new schedule moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I wish to argue that the schedule should not be added to the Bill at all and that therefore we need not take up time discussing the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. May I do that or not?
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I think that the noble Lord is mistaken. I have to call Amendment No. 91 as an amendment to No. 90. We have to work through Amendments Nos. 91 to 95, and then we shall be able to deal with Amendment No. 90.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Renton: I am grateful for that guidance.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: I beg to move.
  Earl Ferrers: I can understand the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Renton about this because he is right that the rules should not be written into primary legislation. However, again we must follow the curious procedure which we followed the other day. Perhaps my noble friend was not here so I shall remind him of what happened. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, tabled an amendment to insert the Immigration Rules into the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, tabled amendments by which they could be altered. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, moved his amendments and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, graciously accepted them, almost as though the Government had nothing to do with it at all. We then had an amended set of rules. Consideration was then given as to whether those rules should be inserted into the Bill and the Committee decided that they should not be. We have the same ritual dance today but the characters have changed. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, proposes the new schedule and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has tabled amendments to it. The only difference is that the alliance is slightly wider today.
  I hate to say it but the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is under a misapprehension. He said that we are trying to unclog the system but by doing so we are cutting out procedures or speeding them up. With regard to the first amendment, the noble Lord is

  871
  seeking to continue the present system under which an appeal must be lodged within 14 days. There is a misapprehension here. The 14 days of the present system refer to 14 consecutive days. The provision in the proposed paragraph 30(5) makes the 10 days 10 working days rather than 10 calendar days because they exclude Saturdays and Sundays. If the noble Lord looks at it he will see that paragraph 30(5) states:
  "Where, apart from this paragraph, the period in question being a period of 10 days or less would include a Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday, Christmas Day or Good Friday, that day shall be excluded".
  Under the new rules, the appeal time is more generous because bank holidays, Christmas Day and Good Friday are excluded. If the appeal falls within that time, a person has a longer time in which to appeal.
  The second amendment is intended to leave out the provision whereby the period allowed to give notice of appeal is reduced from 10 days to two days in port cases where the Secretary of State has certified that the claim for asylum is without foundation and where notice of the decision against which he is appealing has been served on the applicant in person. That provision must be retained in the interests of speedy resolution of cases where a claim for asylum is without foundation; for example, where the ability to return the applicant to a safe third country may turn on the speed of his removal. That matter is addressed also in Amendment No. 97 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I shall address the need for a short time limit in greater detail when the Committee discusses that amendment.
  The Bill gives asylum seekers a right which they never had before. They are now being given a right of appeal while they are in this country. Previously, they were sent away and their only right of redress was an appeal from abroad. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, should be encouraged by that.
  Amendment No. 95 seeks to double the period allowed for a special adjudicator to determine an appeal. That increase is unnecessary and undesirable. The 42 days which are allowed in the draft procedure rules are adequate for most cases. Where further time is needed—I ask the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, to look at draft rule 31; that might be draft rule 29 in the version which is cited in Amendment No. 90—that allows a special adjudicator to extend the prescribed time if it is necessary to enable him to determine the appeal fairly. That provides a safeguard for the exceptional case where further time is required. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will agree that on those three amendments it is a case of game, set and match.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not begrudge the Minister his little bit of fun on the procedures we have adopted. I did not begrudge him that on Tuesday either. However, I do not any the less regret the fact that we have proceeded in this way because I believe the core of understanding of the provisions of the Bill depends on an understanding of what the Government actually intend to introduce in the draft immigration rules and what they intend to introduce in the draft procedure rules. The Minister claims that
  872
  in relation to the amendments which have been tabled to the draft procedure rules he has achieved game, set and match. I suggest he has scored only one hit out of five and even that one hit is pretty dubious.
  The Minister pointed out that in paragraph 5(1) of the draft procedure rules the 14 days which existed in the past, which was a calendar period, is now 10 days excluding Saturdays, Sundays, Bank Holidays and some other days. If that was the intention of the Government why on earth did they not say so? They could perfectly well have avoided a change. They could perfectly well have stuck to the existing rules. No one would have noticed and no difficulty would have been caused. If the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, wishes to withdraw that amendment I shall be quite content for him to do that. I do not think anything would be lost by it, but on the other amendment—
  Earl Ferrers: Is the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, should withdraw an amendment which gives the applicant a longer period for appeal?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It was the Minister himself who suggested that 14 days under the amendment, as defined in paragraph 5(1), is a shorter period than the 10 days which is already provided. Therefore, I do not think that question arises. As regards the other amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, they are, of course, concerned with the special appeal procedures for claims without foundation. When I read that part of the Bill, in Schedule 2, I immediately put quotation marks around the phrase "without foundation" because the only definition of "without foundation" is the opinion of the Secretary of State.
  Similarly, in Schedule 2 paragraph 4(3) (b) the words "frivolous or vexatious" appear. There are no quotation marks around that phrase but of course it is equally subject to the interpretation of the Secretary of State. I am well aware that there have been occasions when the courts have been called upon to decide what is without foundation and what is frivolous and vexatious, but I do not think the Government wish to pursue the issue of court decisions about the Secretary of State's decisions. We are then into the area of judicial review. I remind the Committee that the present situation is that with the bad drafting of legislation that we have and the bad thinking of Government behind it judicial reviews have increased to such an extent that the delay before judicial review is achieved is approximately 18 months.
  I suggest it behoves the Government to try to be precise about their wording and not to leave it to the risk of judicial review before the intention of Government can be understood as they present legislation. This seems to me a classic example of an accelerated procedure for cases which are claimed to be without foundation when there is no other definition of "without foundation" other than that the Secretary of State thinks that it is without foundation.
  I suggest to the Committee that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, which remove the provisions for an accelerated special appeal

  873
  procedure, are entirely justified and that the procedure rules would be better without those provisions. If the noble Lord moves those amendments I am prepared to accept them as improvements to Amendment No. 90.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: I listened with interest to what the noble Earl said. I welcome the right of appeal in this country. It would be ungenerous not to say that it is unquestionably an improvement. However, when he used the phrase "Game, set and match" my thoughts went back to the last time it was used. The events which have occurred since then seem to make it a dangerous claim for anyone of his political stripe to make at this juncture.
  Most of the points which the noble Earl made were dealt with extremely effectively by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I shall not go over that ground again, except to say that I share with the noble Lord the gravest reservations about the use of the phrase "without foundation". It simply means "in the opinion of the Secretary of State". It is a dangerous phrase to introduce into our procedures in this context and requires clarification.
  I had not intended to press the amendments at this stage but, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is happy to accept them, I am happy to accept his acceptance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment to Amendment No. 90, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 90, Amendment No. 92.
  In paragraph 5, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
  On Question, amendment to Amendment No. 90 agreed to.
  Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 90, Amendment No. 93:
  In paragraph 5, at end of sub-paragraph (5) insert ("and shall produce a written statement of the facts relating to the decision or action appealed against and the reason therefor.").
  On Question, amendment to Amendment No. 90 agreed to.
  Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 90, Amendment No. 94:
  In paragraph 5 at end of sub-paragraph (5) insert:
  ("() The appellant shall be entitled to free legal advice under the legal advice and assistance scheme at all stages of these proceedings.").
  On Question, amendment to Amendment No. 90 agreed to.
  Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 90, Amendment No. 95:
  In paragraph 9, line 2, leave out ("42 days") and insert ("12 weeks").
  On Question, amendment to Amendment No. 90 agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Amendment No. 90, as amended, be agreed to.
  Lord Renton: This proposed new schedule is headed "Procedure Rules". We have dozens of tribunals of an administrative, quasi-judicial kind in addition to the courts themselves. Each of those bodies has its own rules of procedure, none of which is contained in Acts
  874
  of Parliament. The rules of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which are called the Judges' Rules, are approved by the Lord Chancellor after a committee of judges appointed by him has advised him upon them. Indeed, those judges have the right to vote on them. It is unthinkable that those purely procedural and administrative matters should be contained in primary legislation. If this became a precedent the statute book would be cluttered up with dozens of similar schedules, and quite wrongly so. It is not the job of Parliament to deal with procedural and administrative matters.
  No points of substance arise within these rules. They are rules for the conduct of appeals to special adjudicators and appeals from the tribunal. The nearest that we get to anyone's particular rights are of a familiar kind; namely, the time that needs to be given before various appeals are lodged before various events occur. But that is not a matter for Parliament. In any event, a number of those purely procedural rules of court and of tribunals are contained in statutory instruments which can be tabled and prayed against.
  I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will not try to add the provision to the Bill. It would be wrong in principle and, quite frankly, that is not the job of Parliament.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am glad that the noble Lord is back on top form. Certainly his understanding of the niceties of subsidiary legislation has never been better deployed. I think he goes a little far when he states that it would be wrong in principle for those rules to be included in primary legislation. On reflection, he might agree with me that what is included in rules which may be laid before Parliament, statutory instruments (such as these procedure rules), schedules to Bills, and clauses in Bills, is a matter of judgment. Certain aspects of the procedure rules are included in Schedule 2 to the Bill and require further primary legislation in order to be amended.
  I do not dissent from his general judgment that procedure rules ought not to be included in legislation. I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. However, the opportunity to consider in Parliament the detailed way in which the Government propose to implement what is otherwise only outline legislation is valuable. I do not regret having provided that opportunity by tabling Amendment No. 90 as a new schedule to the Bill. I am happy to give way in order to hear what the Minister has to say on the issue before I make up my mind what to do.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is absolutely right to decide that he does not wish to press the amendment. My noble friend Lord Renton is quite right to say that it would be wrong in practice to have such rules in primary legislation because it could be so inflexible. The correct place for them is secondary legislation.
  However, the noble Lord was justified in using the procedure which enables the rules to be discussed. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor

  875
  produced draft rules for discussion. He will obviously wish to take note of what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has used the opportunity today to discuss them. That is perfectly justified, but I am glad that he has decided, as I understand it, to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Renton: Perhaps I may comment on one point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made. He stated that the second schedule deals with rules of procedure. It does not. It amends the 1971 Act, which gives powers to make rules of procedure. That is rather different.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is entirely correct. I agree with the noble Lord on that point. I do not believe that there is any difference between us, although if we both had been Members of the committee on delegated legislation we could no doubt have had lengthy academic arguments on the point.
  I do not disagree with him that it is valuable to have different degrees of flexibility and certainty in legislation; and that to have some matters on the face of the Bill, and others not on the face of the Bill is entirely proper. It is inevitable that the Opposition will always disagree with the Government as to where the line should be drawn. Our purpose in this case was not to conflict with anyone else's view about where the line should be drawn, but to open up the issues for discussion in Committee. We have achieved that ambition. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham Carter, for his assistance in the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 2 [Appeals to special adjudicator: supplementary]:
  [Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
  Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 97:
  Page 14, line 1, at beginning insert: ("Save that the time limit for giving notice of appeal shall be not less than 10 days following the receipt of the decision on the subject matter of the appeal,").
  The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this characteristically modest little amendment, I repeat what I said on Second Reading. I enthusiastically welcome the Government's change of heart in agreeing to a proper right of appeal being accorded to asylum seekers. My only sadness is that in making this generous gesture, the Government have in one category of persons annulled the whole purpose of the activity, the subject matter of one's appreciation.
  The 48-hour provision does two things. It offends one's sense of justice because one does not provide a right to put in a notice of appeal to people who are likely to be in great difficulty with language matters, probably suffering from great trauma and anxiety, in a foreign situation. They have no entitlement, as such, to legal advice or assistance. They may or may not have immediately available the assistance which they can obtain. I understand that people in this category are in detention and are likely to be even more upset and confused as a result of the unusual situation. To provide them with 48 hours in which to put in a notice
  876
  of appeal, which is to set out the grounds upon which they contend the decision is wrong, I repeat, offends one's sense of justice.
  However, there is another aspect to this. I fully sympathise with and welcome the Government's endeavours to speed up the machinery so that the valid asylum seeker can establish his claim speedily and those who do not qualify realise that they have failed to qualify without a long drawn-out delay.
  What is being done here is designed, as I understand it, to speed up the process. It will be counter-productive because the word will soon go around, "You automatically, as a conditioned reflex, enter a notice of appeal. Forty-eight hours is so short that you won't have access to any legal advice that is available; or if you have access, the legal advice will not be capable of being provided on so serious a matter, like a knee-jerk reaction". The result will be that everyone in this category will appeal. With the deepest respect, that seems to me to be a nonsensical activity by the Government.
  I noticed that the noble Earl's eyebrows went up when I referred to the modesty of the amendment. All I have put in its place is 10 days—not even 10 working days, but 10 days—as being, in my respectful submission, a very abbreviated period to put in a notice of appeal setting out the basis upon which one challenges the decision. I cannot for the life of me see why that modest improvement on the time, from the point of view of the asylum seeker, will wreck the Government's desire to deal with this special category of case with the maximum of reasonable speed. There has been a reference to how that might prejudice the situation of those to whom it will be said that there is a safe third country to which the applicant might be returned. But the answer to that is that the safe third country may, on inquiry, turn out not to be a safe third country for the applicant.
  I have been provided by Justice with two cases that apparently went to the court. I believe it right that they should be recorded.
  Mr. Y is a Somali, who came to the United Kingdom via Italy, where he claimed he was prevented by officials from making an asylum claim. The Home Office, without any evidence, argued that that could not be the case, even though there are substantiated cases of breaches of international procedures in European countries, including the United Kingdom itself. The court criticised the Home Office for failing to make inquiries in Italy and ordered that the claim be properly considered.
  Mr. H, a Vietnamese, was refused asylum in Hong Kong under the rapid screening procedures which have been criticised by Amnesty International and others. When he succeeded in reaching the United Kingdom, the Home Office ordered that he be returned to Hong Kong. The court took the view that there were important issues at stake and ordered the case to be considered. So snap decisions may be very vulnerable and once again that will be another source of applications for judicial review which will merely add to the delay, add to the expense and clutter up a court which is already overburdened with applications of that kind. I beg to move.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, remarked that my eyebrows elevated when he said that he was merely putting down a characteristically modest amendment. If they raised themselves, it was merely because of the modesty of the noble and learned Lord in his description of his own amendment. I recognise the concern that has been expressed about the provision of the draft asylum appeals procedure rules to allow some asylum seekers only two days in which to give notice of appeal. Perhaps I could first make clear the cases which will be subject to the shorter time limit.
  There will be three conditions which must be met for the two-day limit to apply. First, the appeal is under Clause 8(1). It is an appeal against a refusal of leave to enter at a port in the United Kingdom. Secondly, the appeal is one in which the Secretary of State has certified that the asylum claim is without foundation. That requirement does not appear in the draft of the procedure rules which was published with the Bill, but I can assure the Committee that it will appear in the final version. Thirdly, the notice of refusal must be served on the applicant in person. In practice, that will mean that the applicant has been detained pending the decision on his application.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said that people will be traumatised and will come in a distressed state. The great majority of cases which fall within those conditions will be cases where the person has arrived from a safe third country to which it is proposed to remove him. Those cases are regarded as without foundation in the terms of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2. They do not raise any issue as to the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention.
  I remind the Committee that the obligation in question is not to send a refugee to a country where his life or freedom would be threatened. That would not he so if he was being returned to a safe third country. The issue to be decided in these cases is not whether the applicant is a genuine refugee—in other words, not whether he has a well-founded fear of persecution in his own country—but simply whether, if he is removed to the third country from which he has arrived, that country would deal with him in accordance with the requirements of the Convention. That is generally an issue which can be decided on the basis of what is already known about the laws and practices of that other country.
  Therefore, when a person has arrived from a safe third country and has claimed asylum, it is vital that the immigration authorities should be able to deal with that case quickly. The longer a person remains here, the less likely it is that the authorities of the other country will accept him back. There is no hard and fast rule on how soon a person must be returned if he is to be accepted. That will depend not only on the country concerned but also on such factors as the length of time the person has spent there and the strength of his connections there. Certainly, access to the full asylum appeals process which the Bill creates would mean that in virtually every case a person would stay here so long that it would be impossible to get the safe third country to accept him back. That would undermine the internationally accepted
  878
  principle—and it is internationally accepted—that refugees should seek asylum in the first safe country which they enter. It would make it much more difficult to prevent misuse of the asylum procedures by those who are not refugees.
  That is the reason that I consider a short time limit for giving notice of appeal is necessary in those cases. I remind the Committee again that they are cases where the applicant is "without foundation".
  The noble and learned Lord expressed anxiety as to whether the two-day period is adequate to seek legal advice. The position is that the asylum seeker will already have been given the opportunity to seek legal advice, either from the refugee centre or from a solicitor, when he first makes his asylum claim. He will have had the opportunity to have assistance in putting his case to the authorities before a decision is reached. The notice will be served on him in person, and we envisage that that will, whenever possible, be done in the presence of his representative so there will be no possibility of the delays and uncertainties which might arise through delivering it by a postal service.
  It will be explained to the applicant, if necessary by using an interpreter, why his application is being refused and what is to happen to him. The two-day time limit will begin to run from that moment, and in that time all that he and his adviser need do is to give notice of appeal. In that kind of case there is no question of a representative needing to find evidence to support the substantive asylum claim within the two-day period. The procedural rules permit the initial grounds of appeal which were given in the notice to be amplified, or varied, by the leave of the special adjudicator.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, argued that a longer period for giving notice would result in fewer appeals because advisers would persuade their clients not to make hopeless appeals. Of course I bow to the experience of the noble and learned Lord in relation to other judicial proceedings, but I doubt whether a longer period to appeal will result in any noticeable reduction in the number of appeals in this type of case. As I have already indicated, a person who is determined to gain entry into the United Kingdom, regardless of the merits of his claim to asylum, has everything to gain from spinning out the proceedings as long as possible. I suggest that it is unlikely that, whatever advice was given to him by his legal adviser, he would be dissuaded from appealing if that were the only way to delay his departure.
  An effective filtering mechanism is required to prevent the new appeals system which we are providing from becoming clogged up with claims which do not involve any real issue regarding the protection of the life and freedom of refugees, but which are claims without foundation. Failure to provide an effective filtering system merely encourages further misuse of the system and messes up the system for the genuine applicant. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will see that the two-day period which we have in the Bill is not nearly as constrictive as he thinks.
  Lord Ackner: I am bound to say that I do not understand how this can be described as an effective

  879
  filter system. The whole idea of a filter system is to give time for advice and thought to be applied. Perhaps I may give a simple example. An application has to be made to the court for leave if a person wishes to appeal against the length of a sentence. That is a filter system. Some will get through that filter if there is merit in the appeal. Others will not if the appeal has no merit. That is a filter system. This is not a filter system. This is requiring an immediate reaction to a refusal. There is no filter there at all. As I have indicated, the result will be automatic appeal. As I understand it, the noble Earl seems to accept that because he is not prepared to accept that time for advice might result in fewer appeals. I know not why he takes that view.
  Again, to go back to one's experience in the criminal field, legal aid is automatically given after a person is sentenced to imprisonment for the person to be advised as to whether there are any valid grounds of appeal against that sentence and for counsel under legal aid, if he so advises, to settle the grounds for appeal. It acts as an excellent filter system. There are very many cases where, inevitably, a person sent to prison wishes to appeal. He gets the advice, probably, that he is very lucky to have got as little as he did and he had better leave it there. Counsel will not settle in those circumstances grounds of appeal, and that is the end of it. That is an effective filter system.
  This is not an effective filter system at all. This is harassing a person who is in a very vulnerable state either to give up or to put in an automatic notice of appeal. It seems to me, with great respect, to be counterproductive and to have been unjustified.
  Baroness Seear: The Minister said that in the great majority of cases these people will be coming from a safe haven to which they could be sent, but all legal provision is to be much concerned with the minority of cases where people are not in a satisfactory position. The noble Earl leaves entirely on one side what would be the position of that minority. He seems to be happy that, provided the majority are all right, the minority, who by definition are not all right since it is only the majority who are all right, can fend for themselves. The noble Earl once again said that these would be cases where there was no foundation for the claim. But that decision will be made—we have argued this before this evening—by the department. It will be made by the administration and not by a judicial procedure. That is not acceptable to a great many noble Lords.
  Finally, the noble Earl has raised the point about which we argued at considerable length at Second Reading. I refer to the idea to which the noble Earl clings all the time that people must be sent back to the country to which they first went when they went into exile if that was a safe haven. As we said on those occasions—it is surely still valid—they may merely have touched down in those countries. And in any case one must continue to challenge the idea that if they go to the country to which pretty well everyone goes at first stop because it is the nearest one, it is entirely acceptable that they should be sent back to that country. That is an extraordinary argument which we cannot possibly accept.
  Earl Russell: Listening to the exchanges between the noble and learned Lord and the noble Earl, I hear a really classic example of the clash between the judiciary and the Executive. The noble Earl said that we were dealing with cases without foundation. I believe that that must mean cases which appear to the Secretary of State to be without foundation. He said that we were dealing with the return to a safe third country. Again, I believe that that must mean countries which appear to the Secretary of State to be safe.
  These are not facts but opinions of one party in a judicial case. In the court the Executive and the other party have to appear equal. That is why it is so important to have a court. It is not acceptable for a litigant to say "I will not appear before the court. Your claim is without foundation". In any subject, that would be regarded as a contempt. If the rule of law is to mean anything, it should be regarded as a contempt in the Executive also.
  Lord Renton: I would not dare to pretend to express an opinion on one side or the other where a noble friend on the Front Bench and a noble and learned Lord seem unable to agree. If this paragraph were not in the schedule or something like it somewhere, it would mean that a particular person who wished to appeal under Section 8 of the Act and who had other matters on which he wished to appeal in relation to immigration, might have to go through two separate appeal procedures, whereas as a result of paragraph 2 he can have it all done at once by a single adjudicator. That seems to me to be an advantage.
  Earl Ferrers: I should like to help the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in her anxiety if I could. She says that I am always saying that the majority of these people may have come from third countries and she asks about the minority. We have to realise that people who are caught by the two-day rule are those whose applications are without foundation. Rule 4(3) states that the claim is without foundation if, and only if,
  "it does not raise any issue as to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention; or it is otherwise frivolous or vexatious".
  When the person makes his claim for asylum he will have the advice of a solicitor or the refugee legal centre to put his case, which will be considered. If it appears that he has come from a safe third country, under the terms of the United Nations convention a person is obliged to seek refuge in the first country and not to go to another.
  The noble Baroness says that that is bad luck and that we might like to take some people. One can only operate a worldwide asylum system if one has international agreements. There is such an agreement. When such a person applies for asylum he will come under the two-day rule only if it is considered that his application is without foundation. From that moment the two days will run, during which time all he has to do is lodge an appeal and say, "I am going to appeal against that decision. In other words, I believe that I have got a right of asylum which is with foundation".
  That appeal will be considered by an adjudicator who is a judicial officer appointed by the noble and

  881
  learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He is not a member of the Home Office. It would be confirmed by an official from the Home Office only if the adjudicator agrees that there is no further right of appeal. If the adjudicator does not agree, he can remit the case for further consideration. That is the point of the two-day period. During that period one has the right to say, "I want to appeal", and the appeal is then considered by somebody independent.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, says that those people will be harassed, but they will not be harassed by the United Kingdom. If they are without foundation, they will have almost certainly come from a safe third country. One must then ask,"Are we under an international obligation to accept such people?" The international obligation is that one is not obliged to accept them. One may wish to do so; one may accept them; but one is not obliged to do so—and if one is not obliged to do so, such people cannot oblige this country to undertake asylum procedures. That is the position.
  I think that the noble and learned Lord will realise, on reflection, that although such people are necessarily anxious we in this country have to provide a swift answer -and a swift answer is correct. They will have time to appeal and to have their cases considered. Cases will be considered by an independent adjudicator. I do not think that that is unfair.
  Lord Ackner: This is clearly an important matter. As we approach midnight, it is farcical to think that there is any real possibility of testing the opinion of the Committee. The noble Earl has spelt out - and I am grateful to him - in detail exactly to what this peremptory requirement is directed, and I should have liked time to think about it. I anticipate that this matter will have to be further considered. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  11.15 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.98:
  Page 14, line 7, at end insert:
  ("(3A) Any special provision made in the rules of procedure under section 22 above pursuant to sub-paragraph (3) above shall include provision for—

  (a) the production of a written statement by the respondent to an appeal of the facts relating to the decision of action appealed against and the reasons therefore;

  (b) the bringing of detained appellants before the appellate authority for the hearing of their appeals;

  (c) procedures for the resolution of any dispute as to the existence or extent of any right of appeal whether conferred by this Act or by Part II of the 1971 Act;

  (d) procedures for the purpose of ensuring that appellants have access to free legal advice and representation throughout appeal proceedings;

  (e) time limits of sufficient length to enable appellants to seek and obtain legal advice before bringing an appeal, to prepare grounds of appeal, to seek evidence in support of the appeal and to prepare adequately for the hearing of the appeal.").

  The noble Lord said: With this amendment we move from the issue of deadlines. I am pleased to hear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has not
  882
  withdrawn his objections to those provisions even though, rightly, he felt it necessary to withdraw his amendment.
  We move now to the provision of safeguards in the procedures which are to be laid down under Schedule 2 for inclusion in the procedure rules. Rather than looking at dates, we are now looking at the actual matters which are vital to the effective conduct and determination of any appeal. As the Committee has now recognised, the rules themselves will be made by statutory instrument rather than included on the face of the Bill. Therefore, they will not be capable of amendment by Parliament. So it seems important that we should ensure in advance that Schedule 2 closes as many possibilities of injustice in the drafting of the rules as possible.
  In Amendment No. 98, we are inserting the requirement for the inclusion of provision for,
  "(a) the production of a written statement by the respondent to an appeal of the facts relating to the decision of action appealed against and the reasons therefore".
  That is so that the Home Office has to provide a statement which states the evidence, the findings of facts, the inferences made, the applicable law and how it will be applied. This is not required at the moment under the draft procedure rules.
  We also seek to provide for,
  "(b) the bringing of detained appellants before the appellate authority for the hearing of their appeals".
  Again, that is not provided for in the draft rules. The amendment will ensure that detained appellants can be present for and able to give evidence at any hearing of their case.
  We also seek to provide,
  "(c) procedures for the resolution of any dispute as to the existence or extent of any right of appeal whether conferred by this Act or by Part II of the 1971 Act".
  Again, there is no indication in the draft rules as to whether there is an asylum issue before the adjudicator and therefore whether the more generous procedures in the 1984 appeal procedure rules for the generality of immigration appellants should apply.
  Paragraph (d) refers to:
  "procedures for the purpose of ensuring that appellants have access to free legal advice and representation throughout appeal proceedings".
  This is the subject of a number of amendments which will come before the Committee, but there is no duty in the draft procedure rules to ensure the availability of legal advice, free of charge. I understand that the Government intend to provide that; but we think that rules that are in the form of a statutory instrument should contain those provisions.
  Paragraph (e)—here we come back to time limits —refers to:
  "time limits of sufficient length to enable appellants to seek and obtain legal advice before bringing an appeal, to prepare grounds of appeal, to seek evidence in support of the appeal and to prepare adequately for the hearing of the appeal".
  These seem to us to be the minimum requirements which should be provided in the statutory instrument if it is expected that Parliament should give approval to it. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: The aims of each of the five points mentioned by the noble Lord are laudable aims. The only question is whether they should be contained in

  883
  primary legislation or, as they would normally be, in rules of court, or not need stating at all because, as a matter of practice in the administration of justice in this country, they are fundamental rules which are always obeyed. For example, it is unthinkable that the respondent should not give a written statement setting out the reasons for his decision in the matter which is being appealed against. It should not happen.
  As for bringing the detained appellant before the appellant authority, the appeal should never be heard unless he is there. That is fundamental. I believe that natural justice is the term of art to describe it.
  The resolution of a dispute as to the existence or extent of any right of appeal is a matter in which the adjudicator would have to decide whether the rules of court required him to decide.
  We then come to legal aid. I stand open to correction—perhaps the noble and learned Lord or my noble friend on the Front Bench will correct me—but my recollection is that eligibility for legal aid —that is what paragraph (d) deals with—has not been included in primary legislation as regards detailed examples, but always in directions issued by the Lord Chancellor or in rules of court. So we do not need that in primary legislation.
  As for the time limits of sufficient length to enable appellants to seek and obtain legal advice before bringing an appeal, I am not sure whether that needs to be governed by statute. If not enough time has been given, the special adjudicator would take note of it and grant further time for it to be done.
  Although I appreciate the thought which the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Bonham-Carter, have given to these points, I respectfully suggest that it is not necessary to put them in the Bill.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps it would save time if I say that if the Minister would agree without demur to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and agree that all those things are matters of natural justice and would without doubt be included, I could speedily withdraw the amendment.
  Earl Ferrers: I am all for dealing with matters expeditiously, but not quite as expeditiously as that. My noble friend Lord Renton is correct that the provision of legal aid is laid out in statutory instruments. The amendment contains five points. The first would require the Home Office, on receipt of an asylum appeal, to produce a written statement explaining why the asylum application was refused. That is the procedure followed when notice of an immigration appeal is given to the Home Office. The requirement for production of an explanatory statement is written into the Immigration (Appeal Procedure) Rules 1984. The procedure will be different in relation to asylum cases. When a non-asylum immigration application is refused, the refusal notice gives only the broad grounds of refusal. An explanatory statement is required to enable the adjudicator to see the full facts leading to the decision.
  In asylum cases, when the refusal notice itself is served, the applicant will be given a full statement explaining why his application has been refused. It is
  884
  not necessary therefore to provide for the preparation of an explanatory statement after the appeal has been lodged, because all the information that would normally go into an explanatory statement will have been given to the applicant at the time his application is refused. It will be included among the documents which the draft rules require the Home Office to send to the adjudicator.
  The second point would require provision to be made for the bringing of detained appellants before the appellate authority for the hearing of their appeals. I doubt whether that is necessary: the draft procedure rules give only a very limited discretion to an appellate authority to determine an appeal in the absence of the appellant. Nevertheless, I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will look carefully at whether any provision needs to be made in the final version of the procedure rules.
  The third item is a procedure for the resolution of any dispute as to the existence or extent of any right of appeal: such a right exists under Rules 8 and 11 of the 1984 procedure rules, which require that if the Home Office entry clearance officer or immigration officer alleges that the person is not entitled to appeal, the appellate authority shall determine that as a preliminary issue. I can confirm that provision for a similar procedure is to be included in the final revision of the asylum procedure rules.
  The fourth point concerns access to free legal advice. That is, as I have already said, not an appropriate issue for inclusion in these rules of procedure.
  Finally, the amendment would require the procedure rules to provide time limits of sufficient length to enable the appellant to do a number of things. I have already dealt with why we believe that the time limits provided in the procedure rules are adequate to enable to applicant to obtain legal advice and submit his grounds of appeal. It is not clear to me why the amendment would allow the appellant time to
  "prepare adequately for the hearing of the appeal",
  before he has even given his notice of appeal. That seems a little illogical.
  For those reasons I believe that the Bill is better without the amendment.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I feared that the Minister would not take the simple view of these matters which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, put before the Committee. It was a complex answer. I shall have to consider it. It is not a matter upon which I wish to divide the Committee, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
  The Chairman of Committees: I have to tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 100 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 101 to 106.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 100 is in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. My present intention is not to move the amendment on the grounds that the noble and learned

  885
  Lord has already covered the argument on the issue of appeals without foundation fairly adequately. If he agrees, I propose not to move the amendment.
  Lord Ackner: I kept away from that ground, because I thought that I should be out of order. I should like the amendment moved so that I can raise a point on it.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 100:
  Page 14, line 12, leave out paragraph 4.
  The noble Lord said: I am happy to accede to the noble and learned Lord's request. I, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have already referred to appeals which are without foundation. It is clear that the phrase "without foundation" does not mean without foundation, it means what the Secretary of State chooses to call without foundation. The examples which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, gave in speaking to an earlier amendment are very good examples of that.
  I suggest to the Committee that every person whose status is under challenge must have that status determined by law and not simply by the diktat of the Secretary of State. The point of asylum procedures is precisely to determine whether a claim is well founded rather than to have this division at the very beginning of the procedures in which the Secretary of State says, "No. I is well founded, No. 2 is not well founded, No. 3 is well founded", and so on. It makes a mockery of all the other protections which you bring into what are accepted as being well founded claims or claims with foundation. Indeed, if it is taken to its logical extreme any claim which has not been determined as being without foundation must have a presumption in favour of being accepted.
  The purpose of the without foundation provision is the accelerated procedures which we have debated at some length, and I shall not go into that, but both because the issue itself is of some importance and because the noble and learned Lord has more to say on the subject I beg leave to move Amendment No. 100.
  Lord Ackner: I know that the noble Earl tends from time to time to treat my suggestions as Greek gifts, but I should like to point out to him that this provision taken with the 48-hour provision can prove an embarrassment for the following reason.
  As I understand the noble Earl, as matters stand it is only where the Minister operates under paragraph 4(3) that he can abbreviate the time to 48 hours. A 48-hour case necessitates the Minister certifying under that paragraph. I do not take the view that the Minister can say, "I and I alone make the decision as to whether a claim is without foundation. The test is clearly an objective one. For the purpose of this paragraph a claim is without foundation if and only if it does not raise any issue as to the United Kingdom obligations under the convention or it is otherwise frivolous or vexatious". That is not a subjective approach; it is an objective one. It does not say, "For
  886
  the purpose of this paragraph a claim is without foundation if and only if the Minister thinks it does not raise any issue". The trap that will confront the noble Earl is that there is only jurisdiction under this provision to resort to the 48 hour abbreviation if it is, viewed objectively, a case which does not raise any issue as to the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention or if it is otherwise frivolous or vexatious.
  So we can look forward with scant enthusiasm to a person who receives a 48-hour requirement saying, "You have no jurisdiction to impose a 48-hour requirement upon me because, judged objectively, this case does raise an issue as to the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention and, judged objectively, it is not frivolous or vexatious. I am off to the Divisional Court for judicial review to get a declaration to that effect." Therefore, that 48 hours turns into not 48 weeks but probably 48 months. As I say, it is an offering to the noble Earl which I am sure will be thrown back at me but I make it with all humility. This is folly and it is a further indication of counter-productivity arising out of this rush into making decisions with too little thought.
  Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for giving me a gift of some description. He says, with humility, that this is folly. I hope that it is not folly. I should like to explain to the noble and learned Lord why I believe that he may have misdirected himself. The noble and learned Lord is worried because the Secretary of State may decide that a claim for asylum is without foundation and he claims that the Secretary of State says, "I, and I alone, make that decision."
  When a person comes into the country he seeks asylum. As I explained earlier, he will have legal advice as to his asylum rights. Anyone operating on behalf of the Secretary of State must take a decision. In this case the decision which must be made is whether it is a claim without foundation. If it is, it means that it does not raise any issue as to the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention. The officer concerned must take that straightforward decision.
  If the gentleman concerned believes that the officer is wrong, he has the right of appeal and the right of appeal in this country. All he has to do is to give notice of the fact within 48 hours that he wishes to appeal. The decision made by the immigration officer is then the subject of an appeal. That appeal is heard by an independent adjudicator. It is only if that independent adjudicator says that the officer was right and that there is no right to asylum that the provisions of the Bill come into operation.
  The noble and learned Lord is not quite right to say that the Secretary of State says, "I, and I alone, make the decision." That decision is confirmed by the independent adjudicator.
  Lord Ackner: I am seeking to suggest to the noble Earl that for the sake of an eight day abbreviation —that is, the difference between two days and the 10

  887
  days which I have suggested—the Secretary of State has laid himself open to potential cases of judicial review.
  I do not say that the Secretary of State can rely on his having honestly expressed a bona fide opinion. As this Bill stands, as I see it, he cannot use the abbreviated procedure unless, judged objectively, there is no issue arising in relation to the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention or the application is otherwise frivolous or vexatious.
  Therefore, as soon as the requirement for putting in a notice of appeal within 48 hours is levied upon the individual, he can seek judicial review saying, "The 48 hour abbreviated procedure cannot apply to my case because, viewed objectively, this is not a case which raises no issue. That is a point of law and I ask the Divisional Court to rule upon it".
  It is not a question of an appeal against the decision; it is a rejection by the applicant of the abbreviated procedure which he says does not lie in his case because the Minister is wrong in his decision that the case is without foundation. That is why I am saying for a paltry eight days the Minister lays himself open to the prospect of judicial review. If he wants to do so, so be it. I was merely offering a warning as to what is conceivably on the cards.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can see that the Minister will reflect on that point, and is already reflecting on it. I do not wish to speed up his reflection but to leave him the entire period between now and another stage to continue his reflections in the light of the noble and learned Lord's comments. Clearly the difference between two days and 10 days—the eight days which the noble and learned Lord refers to—is important if only for the fact that one needs the 10 days to argue a case effectively. The absence of those eight days enables an applicant who feels aggrieved, who takes the view—I use the noble and learned Lord's phrase—viewed objectively, that he has a case which he has not been able to argue effectively, to take the case before a judicial authority.
  Earl Ferrers: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord but I think he is in error over one point. He said that if one changes the figures from 10 days to two days it will not give the applicant time to have his case considered or put forward fully. That is not so. All he has to do in the two day period is to state he wishes to appeal. Thereafter his case is given the fullest consideration.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The phrase that I used was "argue effectively" rather than the phrases which the Minister has used, but of course the special appeals procedure only starts with the two days instead of the 10 days. It continues with an accelerated timetable for all of the rest of the stages of the appeal. It is the adoption of the accelerated timetable which denies the appellant the right to argue effectively.
  The Minister has been warned by the noble and learned Lord that there is a risk of judicial review. He has been warned —it is no more than that—that the assertion that a case is without foundation depends on
  888
  the assertion that no contraventions of the 1951 convention arise. However, he has chosen to ignore those warnings. I think he will find that that will come back on him at a later stage, or even after the Bill has been passed. But with that warning I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 101 to 106 not moved.]
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Clause 9 [Appeals from Immigration Appeal Tribunal]:
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 7, line 1, leave out from ("Where") to ("the") in line 6.
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 40 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 41, 44 and 46. This group of amendments will extend the new avenue of appeal, which is created by Clause 9, from asylum cases only to all final determinations by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. It will, I hope, be generally welcomed by the Committee. It means that the opportunity to seek leave to appeal on a point of law to the relevant court will be available both in asylum and other immigration cases. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  11.45 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 41:
  Page 7, line 7, leave out ("the appeal") and insert ("an appeal brought under Part II of the 1971 Act (including that Part as it applies by virtue of Schedule 2 to this Act)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 7, line 9, after ("law") insert ("or fact").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 42, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 43 and 45. The amendments follow directly from the amendments just moved by the Government. Those amendments extend the scope of appeals on points of law to immigration as well as asylum cases. In Amendment No. 42 we propose that the scope of appeals should be widened to include questions of fact as well as of law.
  I am aware that this is a very wide topic which has been very much a matter of public debate in recent weeks. The scope of the activities of the Court of Appeal—the pressures on the Court of Appeal and the types of case which have come before and ought to be before the Court of Appeal —is a very wide subject. In particular reference to this Bill, it seems proper that appeals should include questions of fact as well as questions of law, because the interpretation of fact is all-important in deciding whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution.
  At the risk of shortening the proceedings, perhaps I may say that the law on asylum, compared with some other law—and I speak as a non lawyer—is relatively straightforward. We do not like many of its provisions, but our difficulty is not that we do not understand it. The facts in asylum case appeals are of enormous importance, and the facts are very difficult to determine. If it is thought to be, as is normally the

  889
  case, a question of fact whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution then an appeal procedure which refers only to questions of law rather than to questions of fact is grossly inadequate for the purpose. The courts must be able to consider the substance of a claim as well as the legal points.
  Amendment No. 43 would remove the need to apply for leave to appeal to a higher court or tribunal. That has already been removed for the initial appeal because a great deal of opposition was expressed to the need to apply for leave for the initial appeal. It is logical also to remove the requirement to apply for leave to appeal to the higher court. The issues raised in asylum cases are important. They ought to be fully aired.
  Amendment No. 45 is a purely technical amendment which brings the provision in respect of England and Wales and Northern Ireland in line with that for Scotland. The Court of Session is the Scottish equivalent of the High Court rather than of the Court of Appeal.
  The purpose of all the amendments is to minimise delay and the misuse of judicial time in High Court appeals so that appeals can be heard effectively at the lower level if necessary. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: I should remind the noble Lord that we are now dealing with appeals to the Court of Appeal, although a later amendment suggests that it should be to the High Court. In any event, an appeal on a point of fact would involve a rehearing of the evidence. I do not know whether the noble Lord realised that would be the effect of his amendment.
  It should be remembered that the evidence has already been heard by the special adjudicator. It has been considered by the immigration appeal tribunal. We do not ask the Court of Appeal to hold rehearings. There are certain circumstances in which the Court of Appeal can order a rehearing by the court of first instance; but that is not what we are dealing with here.
  It may console the noble Lord to know that if the Court of Appeal, having had the facts presented to it as found by the evidence in the court below, comes to the conclusion that the facts do not warrant the decision that was made, whether it was a legal decision or a matter of discretion on the part of the court, the Court of Appeal has power to allow the appeal. But the Court of Appeal simply does not indulge in re-hearings, which is what an appeal on the facts would involve.
  Earl Ferrers: Amendment No. 42 gives an avenue of appeal under Clause 9 on issues of fact as well as of law. Issues of fact in asylum cases will have been thoroughly considered no fewer than three times by the time that the tribunal determines an appeal: first, by the Home Office; secondly, by a special adjudicator before whom the appellant will have had the opportunity to give evidence; and, thirdly, by the tribunal itself. Most immigration appeals will have been through a similar process, although in some cases the appeal goes directly to the tribunal rather than first to an adjudicator.
  Adjudicators and the tribunal consider questions both of fact and of law. As a matter of general
  890
  practice, the Court of Appeal does not, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, usually interfere with a tribunal's finding of fact, in particular where such findings turn on which witnesses are to be believed or the weight to be given to particular evidence. We can see no reason to make an exception to this practice in relation to asylum and immigration appeals.
  Amendment No. 43 would delete the requirement to obtain leave before bringing an appeal on a point of law to an appropriate court. A leave requirement is routinely provided for in the case of appeals to the Court of Appeal from courts such as the county courts and tribunals such as the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I can see no reason why a particular exception should be made in this case. The absence of a leave requirement would be likely to result in an unacceptably large number of unmeritorious appeals having to be heard by the Court of Appeal, thereby causing significant delays in those courts and consequent hardship for litigants. The requirement for leave is a perfectly reasonable one for which there is ample precedent. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, were still present, I am sure that he would agree with that.
  The appeals system which the Bill provides for asylum seekers already offers a two-stage appeal—first, to a special adjudicator and then to the tribunal. Clause 9 provides a further right of appeal, with leave, on a point of law to the Court of Appeal.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, rather surprisingly, that the purpose of his amendments was to minimise delay. But Amendment No. 45 seeks to add one more layer to the process by having the appeal from the determination of the tribunal go to the High Court. Those cases which involve important points of law would no doubt go from the High Court thereafter to the Court of Appeal also. The aim of Clause 9 is to provide an effective way of resolving disputed points of law which arise from immigration and asylum appeals without the necessity of resorting to judicial review. It is not simply a mechanism for drawing out the appeals process as long as possible. The view of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is that it is better to allow the appeal to go direct to the Court of Appeal and so keep delays to the minimum. There is nothing new about that. I understand that that is consistent with the way in which appeals arising from tribunals under social security legislation are dealt with.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If it were not nearly midnight I should be glad to open a general debate on the terms of reference of the Court of Appeal and the restriction on the Court of Appeal to deal with points of law. I believe that recent cases which have achieved a great deal of publicity indicate that what is at present the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, says, may not necessarily be right. However, perhaps we shall find another occasion for that debate.
  I hear what the Minister says. I accept that what he says is in accordance with precedent in other types of appeal. But I do not accept that the appeal procedure which he has outlined is necessarily adequate for asylum or indeed immigration appeals. I shall have to

  891
  consider more carefully the way to present the argument. However, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 44:
  Page 7, leave out lines 14 to 17 and insert:

  ("(a) if the appeal is from the determination of an adjudicator or special adjudicator and that determination was made in Scotland, the Court of Session; and

  (b) in any other case, the Court of Appeal.").

  The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 40. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 46:
  Page 7, line 21, at end insert:
  ("() In section 33(4) of the 1971 Act—

  (a) for the words "in the case of an appeal to an adjudicator, the" there shall be substituted "an"; and

  (b) after the words "section 20" there shall be inserted "or section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993".").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Earl Ferrers: I believe that this would be a suitable moment to adjourn proceedings. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at four minutes before midnight.

  OUTPUT PER PERSON: STATISTICS
  OUTPUT PER PERSON: STATISTICS
  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE: ACHIEVEMENT OF SERVICE TARGETS
  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE: ACHIEVEMENT OF SERVICE TARGETS
  ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS PRODUCTS: LABELLING
  ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS PRODUCTS: LABELLING
  FLOOD PREDICTIONS, MARCH EQUINOX
  FLOOD PREDICTIONS, MARCH EQUINOX
  HM PRISON WOLDS: RACE RELATIONS POLICY
  HM PRISON WOLDS: RACE RELATIONS POLICY
  DTI DEREGULATION UNIT: AIMS AND COMPLIANCE COSTS
  DTI DEREGULATION UNIT: AIMS AND COMPLIANCE COSTS
  AIRPORTS: SUPPLEMENTARY CREDIT APPROVALS
  AIRPORTS: SUPPLEMENTARY CREDIT APPROVALS
  ROYAL NATIONAL THROAT, NOSE AND EAR HOSPITAL
  ROYAL NATIONAL THROAT, NOSE AND EAR HOSPITAL
  DISPENSING APPLICATIONS: APPEALS
  DISPENSING APPLICATIONS: APPEALS
  CARDIOLOGY AND CARDIOTHORACIC SURGERY
  CARDIOLOGY AND CARDIOTHORACIC SURGERY