Sitting of 16 July 1993

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

  Police
  9.34 am
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I beg leave to present a petition that has been collected by Elizabeth Mary Lambert, a redoubtable lady of the constituency of Chesham and Amersham. She and nearly 3,000 petititoners wish to give more support to local police forces in relation to criminal damage to private and public property. They are appalled by decisions of the Crown Prosecution Service and believe that decisions not to prosecute are demoralising to the police. They want us to give more support to the police throughout the country.
  The petition ends:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will take the aforementioned into consideration.
  To lie upon the Table.

Social Security Fraud
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
9.35 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I am pleased to introduce this debate. My first task is to give the apology of the Liberal Democrat spokesman on social security, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who told me last night that he would be unable to attend this morning. As we know, we arrange our business only a few days in advance, whereas sometimes business for other parties is arranged much further in advance, and that is why the hon. Gentleman cannot be here this morning. I know of his interest in this subject, so I thought it best to record his apology. He has also taken the trouble to speak to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley).
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In the context of that apology, perhaps my hon. Friend could place on record the Liberal Democrats who have attended today in their leader's absence?
Mr. Burt: During the morning, we shall see whether any Liberal Democrats attend. My hon. Friend makes a valid point and during the day we will see whether any hon. Members travel the Liberal Democrat Benches.
It is a year almost to the day since the House had an opportunity to debate the important subject of social security fraud. On that occasion, at a considerably less civilised time of the day, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) secured an Adjournment debate to which my hon. Friend who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Employment responded.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary asks and receives no quarter. She brings a vim and vigour to the Dispatch Box which she displayed to the full in those debates. Indeed, a debate between her and my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield on the subject of fraud and social security abuse could sell more tickets than a gala night for "Jurassic Park". She takes that spirit to her new Department, and all her colleagues in the Department of Social Security wish her well in her new appointment.
Since the previous debate, the subject of social security has rarely been out of the public eye. Many facets of the benefit system are currently being subjected to scrutiny and welcomed public discussion. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has made it one of our priorities to bear down on fraud and abuse in social security, as every penny misappropriated means less for those in real need.
Today, the House has an opportunity to hear about the prevention, detection and deterrence measures that we are taking to tackle fraud and abuse in the system, and I propose to make that the focus of my remarks today.
The sheer scale of spending on social security means that it is in everyone's interest to maintain and preserve the integrity of the system. This year, spending on social security will be in the region of £80 billion—a massive amount by any standards, amounting to nearly a third of general Government expenditure and over 12 per cent. of the country's gross domestic product. To the taxpayer, that represents an enormous financial commitment—about £13 for each working person every working day.

1247
Without doubt, the vast majority of people claiming benefits are fully entitled to them. Social security exists to help those who genuinely need it, which is why we spend over £15 million a year on publicity to ensure that people have the information they need to enable them to claim what they are entitled to.
Regrettably, however, there are some people whose behaviour and actions bring the social security system into disrepute. They are cheats, pure and simple, whose exploitation of the system is costing the taxpayer dear; cheats because they effectively deprive the needy and vulnerable by claiming money from the public purse to which they are not entitled; and cheats are disliked by all fair-minded people in society.
Let us be quite clear about it; social security fraud is a crime—and a very selfish one at that, since every pound claimed fraudulently is a pound less available to people who are genuinely in need. It has been estimated that social security fraud could amount to more than £1 billion a year—in other words, the fraudsters are costing at least £1 a week for every working person in this country.
When people go down to the pub tonight, or visit the supermarket at the weekend, they should look at the prices and think about the extra pound that they could have had in their pocket. That pound has been taken from them by someone who has cheated.
No responsible Government can ignore fraud and abuse on such a scale. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has placed his commitment to bear down on fraud and abuse alongside our other priorities of making sure that help is focused on those genuinely in need. I stress that that commitment on fraud and abuse is made alongside our other priorities on behalf of the needy and the vulnerable in the system.
We have taken a number of measures to ensure that benefits are more effectively focused on people in need. For example, the Employment Service, which administers benefits paid to unemployed people, has in place procedures to test that those signing as unemployed are available for work and, moreover, are actively seeking it. Only this week, we have tightened up the income support rules that apply to people who come into this country from non-European Community member states so that they no longer have entitlement to benefit.
Our intention is to make sure that those people who are entitled to help get what they are entitled to—no more, no less. My essential message for the House is this: those who deal with us honestly and who are in genuine need have nothing to fear; but those who try to cheat the system will be caught, made to repay and could end up in court and earn a criminal record for themselves.
I recognise, of course, that the battle against fraud must be tackled on a number of fronts. On the one hand, there are claims that are fraudulent—either from the outset, or arising from a failure to disclose a material change in circumstances. Some people deliberately set out to defraud the system in this way; there is a worrying element in the criminal fraternity that has developed rackets involving multiple claims and false identities.
Others, however, seemingly drift into fraud—perhaps even unwittingly at first—for example, by simply forgetting to report a change in circumstances. But later, when they reflect on the cost of rectifying what started as
1248
a small lie, they turn a blind eye and perpetuate the falsehood, and, before they know it, a substantial overpayment has arisen. The boundary between forgetfulness and fraud has then been crossed.
Another area of fraudulent activity relates to the misuse of order books. To put this in context, in 1991–92 some £230 million worth of social security order books were recorded as lost or stolen, and 35 per cent. of those, worth approximately £85 million, were shown to be fraudulently encashed. A further £16 million was lost through fraudulent encashment of girocheques. Against that backdrop, it must therefore be right for the Government to take measures, first, to prevent fraud occurring, secondly, to detect fraudulent activity and thirdly, to deter would-be fraudsters from committing fraud.
In short, we are minimising the opportunities for fraud; we root out fraud when it occurs, we stop it from continuing and we recover amounts overpaid and prosecute offenders when appropriate.
Prevention is therefore at the heart of our anti-fraud effort. The social security system has always incorporated internal security and management checks—they are essential to prevent both internal and external abuse—but we owe it to the taxpayer to keep a tight system of validation and verification checks in operation to prevent abuse. We are constantly looking at ways in which to make those more effective through comprehensive assurance checks and an audit trail analysis to help us identify inconsistent or dubious pieces of information.
In this respect, technology plays a crucial role. The DSS and its agencies have been developing comprehensive and ambitious plans for fraud-resistant computer systems. We have already installed new computers to help fraud managers to identify patterns of crime, monitor performance and deploy resources in the most effective manner.
We are not only tightening up systems within the DSS. In recent months, significant progress has been made in combating order book and girocheque fraud through close co-operation and joint working with the Post Office—yet more proof, if it were needed, of the importance of the Post Office to the DSS.
A whole variety of improvements are now beginning to emerge, including, first, new, clearer guidance to Post Office counter clerks to help them spot various types of fraud which can occur—for example, bogus payees or manipulated and counterfeited payments. Secondly, an illustrated anti-fraud handbook has been produced for counter clerks called "Foil Fraud", which has been reinforced by a series of articles in Post Office Counters' internal magazine. Thirdly, the DSS and the Post Office have ensured more secure delivery of order books, safer storage and tighter control of order books once delivered. Fourthly, methods have been introduced to prevent encashment of order books reported missing.
That last intitiative is known to us as the ALERT project. It is particularly exciting, since it involves the use of new technology and the reading of bar codes printed on order books. Trials in the London area have already shown some impressive results, and an extension of the project is planned for the autumn.
The House will also know that we have been encouraging people to opt for automated credit transfer, ACT, because it is a safer, more cost-effective means of making benefit payments, and is far less prone to fraud and abuse than order books or girocheques. Hon.

1249
Members on both sides of the House have recently made clear the importance they attach to preserving choice in the method of payment, and we have reaffirmed our commitment, as I did today, to maintaining a network of post offices. But the fact remains that ACT is less susceptible to fraud, and our policy will continue to be to encourage people to opt for it.
Mr. Keith Bradley: When we debated ACT, there was some confusion about the financial implications for the Post Office of a large-scale move to that method of payment. Can the Minister give a further guarantee that, should that happen, no post office will be financially disadvantaged to the point where the savings the Government may make on ACT will mean that the post office network is no longer financially viable? Can he guarantee that the financial consequences of that policy change will not lead to the closure of post offices?
Mr. Burt: I am quite assured that the DSS's encouragement of people to opt for ACT is not a threat to post offices. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the financing of post offices is a complex matter, involving contracts with other Departments. We need a network of post offices, because they help us in so many ways to deliver benefits. We therefore believe that ACT, on its own, will not harm the post offices. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the intention of the DSS.
Mr. John Sykes: Does my hon. Friend accept that Opposition Members—there is only one here—are aware that people who want to opt for ACT can do so of their own accord? No Government on earth can force them to do so. The Opposition have whipped up a campaign of hysteria.
Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is right. It is a great shame that, all too often, policy ideas with many good intentions behind them can be unhappily distorted for purely party political ends by the Opposition. As a result, people are genuinely scared about matters that pose no threat to them. It is essential that we put our commitment on record. My hon. Friend is right that it is a great shame when those who should be more responsible fail to act in that manner.
As my hon. Friend has said, people will still have the option to receive payment at the post office and, for those who choose to be paid by order book, we are introducing this month a new design of order book, which contains a number of new security features. It will make illicit copying more difficult, with more secure watermarking and a variety of other complex design features aimed at decreasing the incidence of fraud and abuse.
The old order book had remained unchanged for many years. With new, modern printing technology, it is now easier for us to produce an order book. In addition to security arrangements, the new order book will combine a more user-friendly, easier-to-read format, which represents a significant step forward in our commitment to the customer, as well as illustrating our determination to prevent abuse and keep ahead of the fraudster. We shall continue to make the best use of design and print technology, introducing—without warning—new, subtle design changes from time to time to frustrate the efforts of criminals.
Our determination to root out fraud and abuse is perhaps best demonstrated by the sheer scale of the
1250
resources that we have dedicated to tackling fraud, the significant savings that they achieve, and examples of the kind of cases that have been identified in recent months.
This year, the Secretary of State has set a target of savings amounting to some £1 billion to be saved through the intervention of fraud teams working in the Benefits Agency and local authority housing benefit and council tax departments.
The Benefits Agency alone employs just over 3,000 highly effective and professional fraud staff. Most are employed in the 168 fraud sector teams, and 250 specialist staff based in London and other major cities are dedicated to the investigation of organised fraud, including cases involving stolen, altered or false proof of identity to make multiple claims; counterfeiting order books and girocheques; bulk or systematic theft and the buying or selling of instruments of payment; and pledging order books to moneylenders in exchange for cash loans.
In 1992–93, the organised fraud unit alone made 1,400 arrests and secured £42 million worth of savings.
The House should be under no illusion about the kind of determined fraudster we are up against today. Some are sophisticated, while others are plain brazen. The House will have seen or heard of the results of the operation in south-east London yesterday morning. I am assured by the team involved that it was not staged with a view to helping us out on this debate, but the publicity that it has usefully generated this morning has brought to the public's mind, first, the skill and determination of our fraud teams, to which I pay due tribute, and, secondly, the scale of the problems involved.
I shall give a couple of examples to colour in some of our people's activities. Some investigations start with a tip-off delivered on a scrap of paper. After nine months' investigation, Operation Rolling Stone led to the arrest and conviction of five men who had defrauded the benefit system of more than £500,000. In that case, the suspects were also being investigated by Customs and Excise for their part in a multi-million pound VAT fraud.
The gang used complex anti-surveillance techniques to evade the investigators, frequently changing journey patterns en route to the benefit office. After much painstaking work, our investigators could construct the pattern of the journey and gather crucial evidence of the criminal activities.
Our investigators must sometimes go to great lengths to pursue their quarry. In that case, they had to spend six hours in a seedy pub in a most undesirable area, with just a pint of shandy between them, and even had to join in the dancing. A final irony came when one of the team, sitting observing outside, found two of the offenders coming out of the pub. Unaware of the presence of the investigator's van, they kindly leaned against the vehicle and had a long chat about the identities that they had just used and where they were going next. Walls have ears, and so do vans.
Another case involved following a man who had claimed income support using different identities. His routine was relatively tedious: café for breakfast; benefit office; and finally the pub, where he would fall asleep. On one occasion, he varied the routine to visit the local cinema, where the film "Basic Instinct" was being shown. To maintain surveillance on that occasion turned out to be less onerous for one of our investigators. The fraudster in that case was convicted, and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

1251
Another case in south London resulted in 50 minicab drivers being found to be claiming benefit. That operation saved £165,000. One individual was found to be using false documents and identities and an empty property was being used for income support claimants, with a driver travelling more than 200 miles from his home area to work. I sometimes think that if people put as much time and energy into an honest day's work as they do into fraud, they would be pretty effective.
It is not uncommon for our investigators to locate a number of counterfeit order books in premises. A recent case, Operation Hammer, unearthed 90 order books, 450 counterfeit books, credit cards, cash cards, and blank birth certificates. Some £2·4 million was saved in that operation.
Naturally, work extends to co-operation with local authorities over housing benefit fraud. In one case, a claimant and a landlord were found guilty of conspiring to defraud the DSS and a local authority. The prosecution arose as a result of a regular cheque delivery exercise conducted by the local authority's benefits investigations team. From the authority's visit to deliver the benefit cheque, it appeared that the claimant did not live at the address for which he was claiming benefit.
Further investigations by the police showed that the gentleman had a variety of different identities, for which he had housing benefit claims at two different addresses. The police also found a letter from the landlord to the claimant, warning him that local authority staff were hand-delivering girocheques, and that therefore the landlord would be preparing a room for the claimant to show that he had lived at that accommodation. For that conspiracy, the claimant received a sentence of four years and the landlord a sentence of two years.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that the crackdown on fraud is happening nationwide? Only this week, 70 police officers were involved in swooping into properties in the Fishergate area of Preston, where more than 34 people were investigated and many were caught defrauding not only the DSS but housing benefit.
Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes a good point. All over the country, officers are working in close co-operation with other enforcement agencies like the police and local authorities, to find those who are defrauding the system. I am sure that my hon. Friend would like me to pay tribute to the officers involved in that operation, and to thank them for the savings that they have made on behalf of everyone else.
While discussing detection, I should stress the importance that we place on liaison with both the Employment Service—with whom we have entered into a joint agreement to improve liaison and conducted 200 fraud drives last year—and with local authorities.
That brings me to the much-improved arrangements for local authorities to help them step up their efforts against housing benefit and council tax benefit fraud. My Department already provides, free of charge, fraud training for local authority investigators. From April this year, we have provided fresh financial incentives for authorities to investigate benefit fraud.
Without the intervention of local authority fraud staff, housing benefit and council tax benefit fraud would remain
1252
undetected, and payments would continue to be made week after week to people who were not entitled to them. More anti-fraud efforts by authorities will therefore result in significant savings to the public purse, in which local authorities can now share. In addition to housing benefit and council tax benefit savings, authorities will also share in any associated savings in income support which they discover and which result from a successful investigation.
As a further incentive for authorities, full-rate subsidy is now payable on overpayments of benefit which result from fraudulent claims. Authorities will still be able to retain any overpaid amounts they recover. That presents an opportunity for authorities, as well as taxpayers, to benefit from increased efforts against fraud. Authorities stand only to gain. Once they achieve their baselines, there is no limit to the amount of financial benefit that authorities can receive from central Government under those arrangements; the more they save the taxpayer, the more they receive in additional subsidy.
We are also considering further measures that authorities can employ to prevent benefit fraud. For example, my Department has commissioned a study into setting up a central register of housing benefit claimants. The register's purpose is to prevent individual claimants and unscrupulous landlords from making multiple claims to benefit in one or more local authority.
The Government have put in place a package of incentives that has been widely welcomed. I have been much reassured by the spirit of co-operation that prevailed throughout lengthy consultations with the local authority associations on these issues, and I pay tribute to them. We now look to local authority and Benefits Agency fraud staff to work together, making the best use of their resources, to ensure that benefit is paid only to those with a genuine entitlement.
Finally, I should say a few words about what we can do to deter fraud. I have an important message for the fraudster, "Whatever sort of benefit fraud you are engaged in, not only will you get caught, but we shall require you to repay the money, and you could well find yourself in court facing a criminal record."
No one who commits benefit fraud can be sure of getting off without criminal prosecution. Our policy is to select the most appropriate cases for court action, and we have an almost 100 per cent. success rate. More than 5,000 people were prosecuted last year alone.
Increasingly, social security fraud cases attract high-profile publicity, such as we have seen this morning in some of the national newspapers. People are rightly disgusted when they see what cheats get up to, and the sense of moral outrage is understandable, particularly when every pound lost by fraud means a pound less to spend on the needy and vulnerable.
It is right that people should be outraged by social security fraud, so I also have a message for people who know someone else who is committing fraud: "If you know someone who is abusing the system, you are having to foot the bill, not the Chancellor—not me, not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and not the Government, but you, the ordinary law-abiding citizen of this country." I believe that publicity can act as a powerful deterrent, and I can assure the House that social security cheats will increasingly find themselves under the spotlight.
I thank those national newspapers that take the trouble to expose fraud and which cover—not just the incidents,

1253
but the convictions and sentences. In London, the Evening Standard has been running a campaign against housing benefit fraud, and a variety of national newspapers are also doing their best to help in the fight.
Ultimately, the Department of Social Security intends to ensure that, where there is no other means of support, the most vulnerable are protected. To do so, we need the support of the public and the taxpayer for what we do. We owe them a duty to ensure that the provision for others is spent not only wisely and fairly, but honestly. Those who seek to cheat on that support rob not just the Government, but every man and woman in this country—and up with that we will not put.
10.3 am
Mr. Keith Bradley: I welcome the Minister's opening speech, and the moderate and generally factual way in which he presented it. As the debate unfolds, I hope that the Jurassic tendency does not creep in, and that we can keep to the facts.
I wish to place on record immediately that the Labour party is as committed as any other party or the Government to rooting out fraud. We certainly support the measures that the Government have announced to ensure that the fraud crackdown continues.
We must place the issue in context, and I can do no better than quote the Secretary of State for Social Security, when he said that most social security claimants were
"as honest as the day is long".—[Official Report, 18 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 9.]
That does not mean that we must not root out fraud. I agree with the Minister that every £1 of fruad means El less to spend on genuine claimants in genuine need. We must be sure that all social security money is used for the right purpose.
The Minister briefly outlined some of the measures taken to combat fraud. They include financial incentives to encourage local authorities to fight housing benefit and council tax fraud, the allocation of additional resources to allow the Benefits Agencies to employ more specifically trained investigators and make greater use of information technology to identify fraudulent claimants, and the allocation of additional resources to fight fraud.
This morning, the hon. Gentleman has also outlined some new measures, partly based on the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, on the Government's investigation into combating organised fraud. I am pleased that the Minister has given more details on that measure.
I have a copy of the CAG's report. I found that the first recommendation involved the effective allocation of resources to meet the known fraud risk. The second consisted of four stars, as did the next. The following recommendation involved changing forms and the order books—an issue which the Minister dealt with this morning.
When I looked to see what four stars signified, I found that the information was not available on grounds of confidentiality. We are meant to be enjoying the spirit of open government, but it is fairly difficult for the Opposition to comment on some of the Government's measures, because we do not know what they are. I understand the reason for the confidentiality at one level—clearly, some of the actions must be confidential—but it is difficult to comment on all the work undertaken if some of it is kept secret.
1254
I shall comment on the some of the work already under way and then widen the debate to include the general issues of fraud and the other side of the coin: ensuring that claimants receive the benefits to which they are legitimately entitled. Much work has been undertaken in recent months, particularly by the Benefits Agency working in conjunction with local authorities. It must be stressed that local authorities have been as keen as the Government to crack down on fraud, particularly in respect of housing benefit and council tax.
Example after example throughout the country has shown that local authorities of whichever political persuasion are attempting to crack down on organised fraud. That fraud is often organised by unscrupulous landlords, who make bogus multiple cliams for housing benefit on behalf of individual tenants who do not exist.
We must praise the Association of London Authorities, which has worked with the London treasurers in establishing a London fraud unit in local government. That fraud team will ensure the sharing of information on fraud across boroughs and assist in preventing and tracking down large-scale fraud operations across London.
The team's activities have obtained some publicity, and I hope that this morning's debate will generate further publicity for its excellent work. I have read the detailed proposals of the work to be carried out by the Association of London Authorities in conjunction with other agencies. I commend its attempts to crack down on fraud across London.
My local authority in Manchester pays £130 million in housing benefit each year. An inquiry in 1991 showed that there was a high level of fraud among local landlords. Now, two fraud investigation teams have been appointed in the audit department specifically to deal with organised fraud involving housing benefit and individual fraud to ensure that loopholes are closed as quickly as possible. I commend local authorities throughout the country for the way in which they are seriously tackling the issue to good effect. Rooting out such fraud is in the best interests of genuine claimants.
There has been a change in the way in which local authority subsidy is arranged. The fact that local authorities received only 25 per cent. of the total cost of the money that they recovered through investigating fraud was unsatisfactory, and we welcome the fact that those authorities are now able to receive all the money obtained. An immense amount of work has been undertaken in recent months on the subject, but there is a feeling that many of the changes are being introduced too fast, without proper guidelines to ensure that the officers are fully briefed on the actions they should take.
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux questioned the adequacy of training given to fraud officers who, it said,
"often appear to be ignorant of the law and of claimant's rights and appear to be responsible to no one".
There seems to be a lack of accountability in some of the systems set up to undertake interdepartmental agency work. I hope that the Minister will look at some of the guidelines to ensure that adequate training is provided.
There is a feeling that the recovery targets set for local authorities are unrealistically high. I know that there is a lower level and a higher level, but my investigations across the country convince me that many local authorities find it extremely difficult to hit even the lower targets—not

1255
because of a lack of will to undertake the work, but from a feeling that the Government have set the targets unrealistically high. They should be reconsidered, to ensure that local authorities are given a realistic incentive to investigate fraud.
I make this point because local authorities have to allocate dedicated staff to undertake the investigations. Because of the tight budgets under which they operate, they want to be sure that the training and transfer of staff for fraud work will be cost effective. They must therefore be given, as promised, proper incentives by the Government to hit their targets by investing money in such work and getting it back when they actually hit the targets.
The fact that the Government, I understand, are looking again at the shape of the incentives regime is being viewed with some cynicism. I hope that the Minister will confirm today that there will be no negative change, and that local authorities will not be penalised for pursuing fraud. Local authorities must be able to gain benefits from investigations of this nature.
The Minister commented on the targets for fraud savings that the Government are setting in the social security budget. The Secretary of State has clearly said that he hopes to save £1 billion in the financial year by cracking down on social security fraud. The Employment Service has a separate target: 63,000 claims withdrawn following investigation.
That is a great hike compared with savings from previous years. In 1986–87, the target was £144 million, in 1990–91, it was £332 million, and in 1991–92, it was £433·7 million. So the target has been doubled in one year. We should continually bear in mind the fact that, in the context of the overall budget, even £1 billion is not a large amount. The overwhelming majority of claimants are honest and receive their just entitlement to benefit, as I have already said. In terms of overall expenditure on benefits, £1 billion is barely more than I per cent.—a tiny figure.
Clearly, every pound has to be used effectively—we do not deviate from that position—but let us always remember the context so that we do not get things out of proportion. In any case, Government targets do not always have to do with real money. Rule changes in 1989 expanded the number of items that can be counted as fraud savings.
In particular, the new rules included irregularities, not necessarily proven fraud, and they provided for notional savings from cases where an investigation might have found an irregularity without recouping any cash. Moreover, the figures are arrived at by multiplying recorded fraudulent claims savings, real or notional, by a factor of 32, based on the belief that, if a fraud had not been discovered, it would have taken at least 32 weeks before it was later discovered.
Thus, many target figures are only notional, not hard cash savings. They are extrapolations which the Government use to arrive at their £1 billion-worth of savings.
There is some danger of overstating the amount of fraud in the system. The Benefits Agency admits that it has no way of determining the true level of fraud:
"There is no fraud targeting of specific groups of people whether by race, region or national origin or by social status."
The agency emphasises:
1256
"We do not keep statistics on benefit fraud broken down by nationality or by immigration status, including asylum seekers."
It therefore seemed a little strange that the Secretary of State should say in Brighton last year:
"We have tightened up on bogus asylum seekers. Already nearly 20,000 have evaporated into thin air."
We are not arguing that bogus asylum seekers or people claiming social security benefits illegally should not be clamped down on; but I hope that, when the Government give statements to the press or the House, they will talk about actual figures and cases, and not make generalised statements that can be misconstrued. The problem, after all, is small.
I hope that we will remain cautious and not use emotive language when dealing with cases of fraud. Quite a number of welfare rights groups have expressed their concern about the treatment of certain groups who appear to be subject to special scrutiny and unreasonable testing, in the form of DSS identity checks in local offices.
I want absolute assurances from the Minister that fraud will be dealt with case by case, not by lumping together groups of people and making assumptions about whether they are more likely than others to put in fraudulent claims. We must ensure that investigations are done sensitively by well trained officers—and case by case, not judging by people's circumstances or status, be they homeless, young or any other type that the Government may want to pursue.
Mr. Nicholls: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that welfare rights organisations themselves should perhaps come out and make the point that it is no part of their remit to make light of fraud? Given the consensus between us on this occasion, it might considerably help the public debate if they made the point clearly that fraud is unacceptable, and if they urged their members and those whom they look after to co-operate as fully as they can in stamping it out.
Mr. Bradley: I am not aware of any welfare rights organisation that has publicly condoned fraud or that has not undertaken its duties with the highest professional competence. These organisations ensure that they do not assist bogus claims, and they carry out crucial work to make certain that everyone entitled to benefit receives the benefit for which he has sought assistance. These organisations also ensure that all the benefits to which people may be entitled are properly administered on their behalf.
As I have said, we must be careful not to be emotive or to generalise. I hope that we will not fall into the trap to which the Minister alluded—in previous debates some of those who have spoken have done no credit to themselves. They did not further the cause of ensuring that the debate is taken seriously.
The Secretary of State's speech at last year's Tory party conference had more to do with rallying his supporters and perhaps strengthening his position in the Cabinet than addressing the issue of fraud. [Interruption.] I shall take that as a sedentary comment. Would the Government Whip like to intervene?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We will obey the rules here.
Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman spoke about conduct in debates. My hon. Friends can speak for themselves, but I

1257
can say that no Minister has ever done anything less than full credit to himself in fraud debates. It is the Government's duty to make it plain to the House and the country how we feel about fraud. It is entirely right for us to express our views on fraud in strong terms.
Mr. Bradley: I shall leave others to judge the intemperate nature of those debates by reading them.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Fraud is obviously wrong, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to have in Government time a debate on tax evasion in the City of London, and major fraud by major companies?
Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend anticipates the next part of my speech. It is important to adopt an even-handed approach to fraud, and to examine it from all sides. To get a proper perspective, we must examine some high-profile fraud cases, expecially those involving tax evasion.
The Minister waved today's editions of the papers. By chance, I looked at yesterday's Evening Standard which states:
"Whitehall caterers cooked the books in £1 million fiddle."
We cannot look at social security or local government fraud without looking at fraud in Government, industry and private enterprise. High-profile trials have included Guinness, Blue Arrow and Maxwell. Those and many others have cost taxpayers billions of pounds.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that, although it is perfectly in order to make a passing reference to issues that may appear to be germane, the debate must centre on social security fraud.
Mr. Bradley: I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I wonder how many people who have been convicted of tax evasion and fraud are now on social security. According to the Government's estimate, tax evasion costs the taxpayer up to £4 billion a year. That places in context the Government's £1 billion target for social security fraud. That is a passing reference, and I shall say no more on the matter.
Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many cases involving tax fraud and companies going bankrupt in rather, shall we say, curious circumstances, there is often a great loss to the national insurance fund? That hits people who contribute to that fund, and it is important that that aspect of company and City fraud should be followed up as assiduously as any other kind.
Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend is right. We are debating the loss of taxpayers' money that could be used for other purposes, and especially to help those in the greatest need. Any loss of revenue disadvantages the country generally. We should clamp down on tax fraud and general fraud wherever it appears.
Mr. Nicholls: Crime is indivisible, and should be punished. Why does the hon. Gentleman seek to distinguish between the two types of fraud? Is he afraid of the tendencies of his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)?
Mr. Bradley: The hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening. I have made quite the opposite point—that the issues are not separate, and that we should look at the total
1258
loss of revenue. We should be even-handed in stamping out social security fraud or fraud in any other aspect of public or private life.
The debate has concentrated on organised fraud, which is the cause of most of the abuse. As the Minister rightly said, individual abuses often occur because of ignorance or mistakes in filling out forms. Only a small part of the saving of £433·7 million was due to the recovery of payments made as a result of error rather than overpayment as a result of fraud. I appreciate that when a claimant realises that he has made an error, it has to be rectified immediately. However, social security officers have a duty to give claimants the maximum help to ensure that they claim correctly.
Some valuable work has been undertaken to simplify claims forms, but more needs to be done, because, for many people, the forms are complex. Staff training, and officers who are sensitive in their dealings with claimants, will help to ensure that claimants do not encounter difficulties in filling in the forms.
I am sure that many hon. Members have taken up cases on behalf of constituents and, on making representations to social security officers, have found that mistakes in administering the forms have caused the difficulties. Money is repaid to the claimants, but we must ensure that claimants' errors that can be built into fraud statistics are balanced by statistics on administrative errors. That will ensure that benefits are properly calculated, and that people receive them when they need them rather than at some later stage.
The other side of the clampdown on fraud is an assurance that people will receive the benefits to which they are entitled. A high take-up is essential to ensure that the poorest in our society receive the meagre income to which they are entitled through the benefits system. In the wider context of the public expenditure debates, it is worrying that, in the Financial Times this week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quoted as saying:
"The reason why public spending is rising remorselessly is … partly the increasing take-up of benefits. The latter factor was a desirable thing but had to be re-examined in the light of public borrowing".
I should like an assurance from the Minister that there is no intention to "re-examine" the take-up of benefits, or to limit take-up by people legitimately entitled to them. It would be scandalous if it were to be looked at in that context. His words may have been truncated, but what he said was clear. We have to ensure that everyone receives their just entitlement from the benefits system.
The latest Government figures show that, in 1988–89, some £1·6 billion of benefit money went unclaimed. Figures compiled by the DSS and International Social Service for the main means-tested benefit show that a quarter of people entitled to income support do not claim that entitlement.
Over 30 per cent. of people entitled to housing benefit do not claim it, and approximately 50 per cent. of those entitled to family credit do not claim it. Take-up of family credit is now higher, at 64 per cent., as shown by a report from the Policy Studies Institute for 1991. Even so, many families are not claiming the benefit that the Government see as the crucial one to protect and support families in work.
Mr. Nigel Evans: While I accept that those who are entitled to benefit ought to receive it, the counter-argument is obviously true: those who are not entitled to

1259
benefit should not get it. That is the main thrust of our debate. Is not the hon. Gentleman's problem with the debate the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) last year in the Daily Express? He said:
"Labour has been linked to freeloaders for too long. I was brought up on a council estate and know ordinary folk expect rewards for hard work. They have no time for people who lie in bed when they are fit and able to get a job."
What is the hon. Gentleman's view of that?
Mr. Bradley: I have made the Labour party's position clear, and it does the hon. Gentleman no credit to undervalue the need to ensure that people who are justly entitled to benefits receive them. The figures that I have quoted clearly show that there is a vast amount of under-claiming of benefits.
Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Bradley: No, I will not give way at the moment, as I must continue with my speech. I hope that the Government—
Mr. Nicholls: We want Jeremy.
Mr. Bradley: I am sure that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will be able to make some salient points later. I am representing a vast number of Members of Parliament here this morning, and my hon. Friend will be helping me considerably.
I seek from the Minister an assurance that the publicity campaign to ensure that people receive their entitlements is not undermined by the need to reduce public expenditure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North has already mentioned them, perhaps now is the time to pay tribute to the work that welfare rights officers undertake throughout the country, not only with individual claimants but in taking up campaigns on benefits to ensure that all those in their locality are receiving the benefits to which they are entitled.
I am anxious that, through the multi-agency approach adopted with the clampdown on fraud, more work should be undertaken to ensure that there can be a one-stop method of claiming benefits. More resources must be put into computerisation of benefit records so that, when claimants arrive at one agency to claim a certain benefit, there is an automatic link-up with records from other departments and other agencies to ensure that they are quickly alerted to the fact that they may be entitled to other benefits.
The link between local authorities and the DSS is important in that process, but I know that local authorities would like more resources to develop internal computer systems—so that, for example, when individuals claim housing benefit, they are immediately alerted through the computer link-up to other local authority benefits to which they may be entitled, such as free school meals. That ensures that claimants do not have to trawl around different departments in the local authority to make different assessments and different claims to ensure that they are getting their entitlements.
More work needs to be done on such systems, and I hope that the Government will look at that with a view to putting additional resources into that aspect of local authority and other agency work, so as to simplify the
1260
system and ensure that people do not lose out on their benefits. The take-up of benefits is not satisfactory, and we must ensure that people receive their just benefits.
Another benefit that is not being properly considered by the Government is the social fund. The annual report of the social fund came out only last week, and it is a great sadness to millions that the Government have refused to reform it, despite many reports, such as that in March by the Social Security Advisory Committee describing it as "an appalling lottery".
Because of cash limits, even if a cause is judged deserving, a person may be refused help if the budget has been spent. The problem with the social fund has always been that the time of year when one walked through the door influenced whether one received help from it.
Many cases involve two people in identical circumstances, one of whom makes a claim from the social fund on 1 April, at the beginning of the year, and the other who claims later in the year, say in January or February. Because of the cash-limited nature of the social fund, the latter claimant does not receive money from the fund, because all the money has been spent. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the Government have not recognised the vast amount of research and work on the social fund that shows the faults in it, and that they have refused to accept those criticisms.
Richard Berthoud of the PSI calculates that the social fund distributes half as much—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues—perhaps he knows what I am about to say—I should say that it seems to me that the point that he is making is the reverse of fraud. The burden of his argument is that entitlements are not being dealt with. I hope that he will not pursue that any longer, because it is not strictly germane to the debate.
Mr. Bradley: I understand whay you are saying, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can only say that many of my constituents who have been to see me over lack of access to the social fund have said that they feel that it is fraudulent that they have not been able to receive help from the social fund. Within that broad context of fraud, I am discussing the inadequacies of the social fund. The Secretary of State said in the annual report on the fund that, in 1992–93, 45,491 people were refused a loan to buy essentials or were too poor or in debt to repay the loan. That does not bolster confidence in the social security review.
I accept that that may be slightly wide of the mark of the debate, but I hope that the Minister will urge the Secretary of State to look again at the organisation and administration of the social fund. It is a sad commentary that people are too poor to receive the help they so desperately need from the one source of money that may be available to them. Although they have to pay that money back, it is the only way that many people with short-term problems can gain access to funds over and above the meagre level of income support.
On top of that, the other sector where claimants feel that they may have been fraudulently dealt with is within the stiffer targets that have been introduced this year to reduce the number of people getting unemployment benefit.
The Department of Employment said that 9 per cent. of initial claims should not be pursued by civil servants—
Lady Olga Maitland:: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is not the hon. Gentleman's speech far wide of the subject of social security fraud? Should we not now return to the main point?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady can safely leave that matter in my hands.
Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief on that point.
We must ensure that, in the pressure to root out fraud, we do not also root out genuine claims, whether for unemployment benefit, social fund payments or any other benefit.
One worrying aspect of the changes in working practices within the social security benefit offices is the move to market testing. The social security fraud division of the Benefits Agency is a candidate for privatisation next year under the Government's market testing programme. During the feasibility studies, staff of the Benefits Agency expressed the fear that without direct accountability within the agency, there could be blackmail and abuse.
One study actually stated:
"The scope for abuse of this type of information is enormous and must be regarded as a very high risk area in the context of market testing."
I put that on the record so that the Minister can respond to it this morning and assure us about the way in which market testing and privatisation of the benefits system will be organised, especially in the most sensitive area of a crackdown on fraud.
I have made absolutely clear—and put clearly on the record—the Labour party's commitment vigorously to pursue fraud, not only in the social security system but wherever it may occur, and especially tax evasion. At all times, we must deal with the other side of the coin and be equally committed to ensuring that everyone receives his just entitlement under the benefits system. The system is complicated and complex, and a minefield for many individuals seeking help.
We must ensure—through the resources that we put into the system, the training of staff, the way that claim forms are considered and efficient administration—that each claim is dealt with carefully. The purpose of the staff must always be, as I am sure it is, that each individual receives the benefit to which he is entitled.
It is a worrying time to read in the public expenditure review the statement that I have already mentioned. We must not place the burden of that statement on the poor who are desperately trying to make ends meet through an inadequate system.
I repeat that the Labour party's commitment is to stamp our fraud, but it is also to ensure that each individual receives the entitlement that he so justly deserves.
10.44 am
Mr. Vivian Bendall: I want to discuss two aspects of social security fraud—first, in the minicab sector and, secondly, in housing benefit. I must first declare an interest as I represent the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association. That interest is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests.
A great deal of information has been collated by the association. It wrote to the Employment Service inspectorate setting out evidence given to the Public
1262
Accounts Committee. I want to draw the attention of the House to some of the facts and figures of cases analysed by the association. The first case, code name Operation Met 999 Special, occurred in 1991. Officers from the Metropolitan police and inspectors from the social security fraud squad interviewed 159 minicab drivers at Heathrow airport, of whom 62 were found to be claiming unemployment benefit. The result of that investigation was a benefit saving of £73,018.
The second case, Operation Icarus, also involved Heathrow. In July 1992, 150 minicab drivers were questioned, of whom 107 were found to be fraudulently claiming income support. There was a resultant benefit saving of £161,357. In April 1993, Operation Achilles—again at Heathrow—was run over three days. Of the 150 minicab drivers questioned, 50 were found to be claiming unemployment benefit. There was a saving of £45,000. More recently, on 25 June and 1 July, during an operation in London's west end, 89 minicab drivers were questioned of whom 26–30 per cent.—were found to be claiming unemployment benefit.
The Government estimate that there are 38,000 to 40,000 minicabs in the London area. Taking the first three cases, a total of 459 drivers—1/87th of the London total—were questioned, with a total benefit saving of £279,000. If the figures are representative of fraud within the minicab sector, £24 million in benefit payments could be saved. That is not an inconsiderable sum. Of course, fraud does not stop at London—it is occurring in many cities, such as Glasgow, Cardiff and Leeds. It does not need much imagination to realise that an enormous amount of money is being fraudulently claimed by minicab drivers.
I have been carrying out some investigations with the help of the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. Although it has not been stated, it appears to me that not enough money is being made available for the number of investigations required. Strangely enough, at this very moment a major operation is under way at Heathrow involving the Metropolitan police and social security fraud inspectors. However, the operation is time constrained because of financial restrictions.
My plea to my hon. Friend the Minister is that where it is clear that fraud is occurring—as investigations have proved a great deal of fraud is being perpetrated in the minicab sector in London and throughout the country—the appropriate action must be taken to stop that disgraceful practice. Not only are ordinary taxpayers footing the bill for that fraud, but minicab drivers are collecting fares and tips on which they are not paying tax. Enormous losses are therefore occurring across the board. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to make more finances available to combat that.
I crave your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, in deviating from the main issue to emphasise that enormous problems confronting the legitimate cab trade because of illegal touting—most of it by minicabs. If they were put off the road and prevented from operating, that would also stop fraudulent benefit claims.
If one wants to receive housing benefit, it is the easiest thing in the world to acquire from any letting agent the details of a property and then to receive housing benefit. Letting agents are becoming a little cute, and a letting agent may have the benefit paid direct to the landlord or to himself. I declare an interest, as a partner in an estate agency—so I know what happens.

1263
If a landlord or letting agent is not cute enough to have the occupier's housing benefit paid direct, more often than not—after the deposit and first month's rent has been paid—that is the last that either will see of rent on the property. Arrears rapidly accrue and, because of assured tenancy legislation, the occupier cannot be taken to court for two months. Even then, another two months may elapse because the courts are so busy. It may be five months at the earliest before the property can be repossessed, at a cost to the landlord of £3,000 or £4,000.
Of greater concern is the fact that an occupier may have pocketed the money he or she received as housing benefit and not passed it on to the landlord or agent. Just as the bailiffs are about to go in, the occupant may do a moonlight—and then move on to another London local authority. Because no check is made, that individual can then proceed to do exactly the same.
That happens time and again. The property world knows very well what happens to housing benefit, but how can that problem be stopped?
Mr. Roger Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware of another problem that particularly affects popular holiday areas where there is a need for affordable rented accommodation? I know from personal experience that if one has a capital gains tax problem, one can roll it over into holiday accommodation but not into rented accommodation for social purposes. The agency that handles my property has 6,000 properties, mainly in the west country, that are let out for holidays—often for that purpose. Does my hon. Friend, with all his professional experience, agree that, instead of making such a distinction, it would be better if more properties could be let at reasonable rents, preferably to local people? It all boils down to supply and demand.
Mr. Bendall: I cannot see any reason for that distinction. It would be advantageous to free such properties for permanent rather than holiday lets. The more property that is available for letting, the more likely it is that rents would be set at a sensible level, because the public would have a greater choice. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend in that respect.
For far too long, claimants have been arriving in one London borough from another, or from another part of the country, expecting to be rehoused. In the 1980s, when there was high employment in London and the south-east, such a policy might have worked to the benefit of people moving from the north, north-west or north-east, but now that unemployment is highest in London and the south-west, encouraging people to move from other parts of the country to London only makes the situation worse and produces inflated rents.
If more rented housing were made available in those other areas, at lower rents than in London, the rents in London would also be more sensible. The time has come for the Minister responsible—and that is not my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt)—seriously to examine that possible means of solving the problem of social security benefit fraud. A spin-off would be an easing of pressure on school and hospital places and on other social services.
As to stopping fraudulent claimants moving from one authority to another, no housing benefit should be paid to
1264
tenants; it should be paid only to landlords or their agents, and the landlord should be registered with the local authority. If a tenant left and the landlord failed to declare that change, the local authority would know where to find the landlord and there could be no nonsense.
Substantial savings can be made just by ending fraud in housing benefit and among minicab drivers, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, rightly, that those savings could be used to benefit genuine, less fortunate claimants. A good start would be to help pensioners and those in the poverty trap, just above income support level, who will be hurt most by the imposition of value added tax on fuel. Much benefit can flow from the right action against fraud. Ways can be found of dealing with that fraud and it can be stopped if there is the will.
10.57 am
Mr. Harold Elletson: I begin by telling the House about Jack O'Nory. I refer not to the well-known children's television programme but to the individual of that name, who submitted a claim for unemployment benefit last year—along with Count Dracula, Donald Duck and Gary Lineker. Their discovery contributed to the Department of Employment saving the taxpayer £34 million.
The Department of Social Security has a much larger problem combating fraud, and my hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that he intends to deal with it this year, to make savings of £1 billion. In view of money that would make available to the DSS to spend on other benefits, it is surprising that no Liberal Democrat Members are present for this debate. I assume that they are all in Christchurch, telling pensioners there how much Liberal Democrats care about social security issues. Those of us who are present for this debate will not fail to remind our constituents of the absence of Liberal Democrat Members and of their apparent complete lack of concern about social security fraud.
Blackpool and the whole Fylde coast region is an important area for the Department of Social Security. It is, after all, the centre of the administration of the Benefits Agency. It is also, unfortunately, a national centre for social security fraud and benefits abuse. Blackpool is by no means unique. It has a number of problems in common with other tourist resorts and it seems to act as a magnet for such activities for two reasons.
First, there is a thriving black economy in the town. There is much seasonal work available and that seems to attract one type of social security fraud. Secondly, by far the most important reason is the many hotels, guest houses, hostels and houses in multiple occupation which encourage large-scale housing benefit fraud. Blackpool, after all, has more bed space than Portugal and 2,000 properties that are what is commonly described locally as DSS hostels. That is extremely damaging for Blackpool's reputation as a tourist resort.
Blackpool seems to act as a magnet for fraudsters from all over the north of England and, unfortunately, fraud is conducted on a grand scale. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) said, that often results in landlords—or, in my case, mostly landladies—being defrauded. What is most disgraceful is that there is sometimes connivance by the landlords and by some employers at the two types of social security fraud.

1265
Those who make money at the expense of the town's genuine tourist trade by providing cheap, unregulated and below-standard accommodation for DSS customers are often prepared to turn a blind eye to housing benefit fraud. I hope that the Minister will accept that tightening up on fraud, especially in tourist areas and especially on housing benefit, has been and will be widely welcomed by all good, law-abiding citizens of towns such as Blackpool. They recognise that it is genuinely good for tourism, for business and ultimately for employment in those towns. It stops the drift into tattiness and seediness which is becoming a problem in so many of our leading tourist resorts.
I am delighted that the Benefits Agency especially is taking fraud in Blackpool seriously. In the year ending 31 March 1993,the Blackpool fraud sector, which covers the whole area from Lytham St. Anne's up to Knott End-on-Sea, carried out 2,158 investigations of which 914 cases resulted in a weekly benefits saving. Some 304 cases produced an instrument of payment saving and overpayment was detected in a further 304 cases. It is estimated that, because of that, there were gross savings last year of £2.5 million.
During the past couple of months, the Benefits Agency and the Department of Social Security investigations squad have launched Operation Sea Breeze. As part of that, the fraud support team investigated 1,600 claimants. Some 20 per cent. of them were found to be making false claims for housing benefit and income support. During the past few weeks, the squad conducted a dawn raid on four DSS hostels in my constituency. It found that of 70 claimants at those premises, more than half did not live there or had moved on. That is a shocking statistic. People locally were shocked by the sheer scale of fraud and it brought home to them what the scale of the problem is.
Mr. Sykes: Like my hon. Friend, I represent two tourist resorts, Scarborough and Whitby. We, too, have a growing problem with DSS hostels. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are the centres of crime and fraud? Does he also agree that the Department of the Environment could play its part in solving the problem by changing the use class orders so that local councils could make decisions about where the DSS hostels should be?
Mr. Elletson: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that the overwhelming number of people who, unfortunately, are claiming DSS benefits and living in temporary accommodation are genuine people with genuine problems. However, there are many who are not genuine. In tourist resorts such as mine and the one that my hon. Friend represents, there are now so many of these places that they are having an extremely damaging effect on the tourist trade. As I said, there are 2,000 such places in my constituency and I am sure that my hon. Friend has similar numbers in his.
I have to say that various Departments seem to be passing the buck. The buck must stop at the Department of the Environment, which must take the issue seriously. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pass our serious concern about the matter to the Department of the Environment and that he will ensure that it does something about the problem.
Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend has chosen an important and worrying subject to raise in this debate. I am sure that he is aware that this phenomenon occurs not only in Blackpool or Scarborough. I fear that
1266
all over the country, claimants who go to boarding houses usually have no connection with the area in which they are temporarily residing. They come from other parts of the country and they cause crime not only in the immediate vicinity, but in the hinterland, as has happened in the south-west. There is considerable fear in the south-west that some of the crimes there are committed by people from such areas.
Mr. Corbyn: What is the evidence?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot intervene from a sedentary position. There is a proper way in which he can do so
Mr. Elletson: I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson). There is plenty of evidence which the police will, I am sure, be delighted to provide to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). My conversations with the police in my constituency suggest that they are deeply aware of the problem. That is why they have done so much recently to investigate it.
I especially agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton about the number of people coming from other areas into towns such as Taunton, Blackpool and Scarborough, often because local hoteliers advertise in places such as Scotland and Liverpool for people to come to collect their DSS benefits, to register and to live in sunny Scarborough or sunny Blackpool. That cannot be good for them or those towns because we do not have the employment infrastructure to support them. It is a serious problem and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take it seriously and to pass on our concern to the Department of the Environment.
I also urge my hon. Friend to continue the clampdown that he has launched, which has been so successful in Blackpool and in other areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) mentioned the recent clampdown in the Fishergate area of Preston. Those activities are having a seriously good effect in such towns, as Operation Sea Breeze has had in Blackpool, and I hope that they will continue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and all those involved in them.
Mr. Knapman: Will my hon. Friend take the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for Taunton a little further? Genuine people with genuine claims would receive prompt service from Government agencies if there were fewer fraudulent claims.
Mr. Elletson: I agree absolutely. I cannot begin to estimate the time and finance involved in dealing with fraud. That must have extremely damaging consequences for those who have genuine problems. That is the whole point.
The scale of the problem nationally is alarming. In 1992–93, DSS investigators discovered that almost 250,000 people were cheating the system. The Department reckons to have saved about £500 million by stopping fraudulent claims last year. However, the Exchequer is losing about £2 billion a year through social security fraud. This year, we aim to save £1 billion through anti-fraud activities. It is vital that we concentrate on that. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, every pound lost means less for those who are in real need.
Earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security said that the increase in benefits

1267
that he was able to announce in extremely difficult economic circumstances was made possible largely because of the savings that had been achieved through cleaning up fraud. It is vital, therefore, that we should continue to do so.
I shall elaborate on a few of the points that have already been made about what else could be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North suggested that we should pay more attention to minicab fraud. He was absolutely right to make that point. As he said, it is not a problem which affects London alone. It is prevalent throughout the country, certainly in my constituency and others like it. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State are absolutely right to say that we should make fraud a priority. Earlier today, the Under-Secretary suggested that the priorities should be to prevent, to detect and to deter fraud. I hope that he will look at other specific areas where I believe we could make great inroads.
First, I urge the Under-Secretary to target tourist resorts for major clampdowns. That is bound to yield real savings for him. Secondly, and in line with that, he should consider the establishment of some form of telephone hotline, particularly in tourist resorts. If he did that and reached out to the public, I think that he would find a genuine and grateful response that would provide much information and enable him to deal with the problem in tourist resorts.
That is part of a wider point about better publicity. We must convince people who are tempted to defraud the system—both tenants, when it comes to housing benefit, Landlords and employers, who may connive at this sort of fraud—that they cannot get away with it and, more importantly, that they are likely to be caught. The Department of Social Security has a good record in clearing up fraud. It has a very good story to tell, particularly in constituencies such as mine where it is cracking down hard on fraud. We must make it clearer, perhaps at the point of requests for assistance with social security, that fraudulent claims will be dealt with and are likely to end up in some form of prosecution.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware of the fraud that asylum seekers coming into this country are committing and that, as from next month, all of them will be fingerprinted, a measure which was resisted strongly by Opposition Members?
Mr. Elletson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The scale of the problem and the amount of money that appears to be going out in fraudulent payments to those people is absolutely disgraceful and must clearly be regarded as another priority.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Elletson: Yes, I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman. I think that we have all been looking forward to hearing from him.
Mr. Corbyn: Just so that the record can be put straight, Labour members on the Standing Committee that considered the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill opposed the fingerprinting of all potential refugees, including children—which Conservative Members supported—because there is already a perfectly adequate system for identifying asylum seekers by the issuing of a
1268
letter, stamped and embossed, which also includes a photograph. We believe that the use of fingerprinting is an attempt to criminalise people who seek asylum in this country. That is why we opposed that provision and that is why a large number of libertarian and legal sources also opposed it.
Mr. Elletson: I am sure that my hon. Friends and the whole House will take note of the hon. Gentleman's reminder that the Opposition opposed that provision, but I think that they will be suitably sceptical about the excuses which the hon. Gentleman gave.
Mr. Corbyn: What excuses?
Mr. Elletson: I suggest also that the Under-Secretary of State should toughen up on landlords and employers who are prepared to connive at social security fraud. There is a substantial amount of evidence that fraud is taking place. I do not think that landlords, in particular, should be allowed to get away with it. I know that there have been prosecutions, but stamping out fraud needs to be a major priority.
It is also important that we should work on the type of system that delivers results in combating social security fraud and ensure better co-ordination between local authorities, the DSS, the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service. It has been the key to success in a number of recent operations, particularly in Blackpool, Manchester and Westminster. The Government have introduced a programme of incentives for councils to clear up housing benefit and council tax fraud. They can attract a 100 per cent. subsidy for benefits that have been overpaid. Councils will also share in any increase in benefits that these savings achieve. That must be good news.
Mr. Bendall: Is my hon. Friend aware that in London, where one local authority can rehouse people in another borough, those people are supposed to register when that happens but that, more often than not, they do not, which is why councils often cannot catch up with people?
Mr. Elletson: Absolutely. That problem is to be found all over the country. I hope that the Minister will take note of that point, too, and will pass on the message to the Department of the Environment.
The introduction of new technology will be important in combating social security fraud. The new computer system that is to be put into operation in the 160 or so fraud areas will have a major impact.
The Under-Secretary should not hold back in dealing with the problem. I am sure that he will not. In a climate of rising public expenditure, we cannot afford to waste money. Nobody would expect us to waste £2 billion a year on fraud. The Under-Secretary was right to say that the people of this country are outraged by fraud and they expect him to become the hammer of the fraudsters. I hope that he will take the gloves off and deal with this matter with an iron fist.
11.16 am
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: We in Northern Ireland have many problems—of identity, security, lack of parliamentary democracy. There are also problems over the way in which Northern Ireland legislation is handled in this House. There is also the problem of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Irish Government sticking their nose in

1269
our affairs. All these problems contribute to the unrest. That unrest and instability lead to the problems that we share with the rest of the United Kingdom: serious fraud and the abuse of the social security system.
One problem that concerns us very much centres on the legislation regarding homelessness and the fraud to which it has given rise. The Housing Executive was set up by the Government to look after and administer public sector housing, and its policy of housing homeless single people has led to great problems. Single homeless people use their houses only for the receipt of their social security cheques—well known as giro drops. They do not live in their houses. Many of them still live in the family home, but they use the social security system to get their cheques delivered to the houses that they have obtained through the Housing Executive.
The Housing Executive does not care too much about that, because it gets its housing benefit money through the Social Security Agency. It is one of the biggest problems we face, but it could be overcome if the Government would grasp the nettle and make the Housing Executive much more aware of its responsibilities. We have a large waiting list for houses. The people on that waiting list are legitimate family people who have been waiting for houses for years. While this system continues, they will never be rehoused.
Another serious problem concerns the building industry in Northern Ireland. I am sure that many hon. Members are aware of the serious scam perpetrated by the IRA a few years ago, when it defrauded the Government of literally millions of pounds through false tax exemption certificates.
The Government have recently produced a consultative document to regulate the building industry in Northern Ireland. I welcome it, but it does not get to the nub of the problem, because most fraud still involves social security and the 714 tax exemption system. Much could be done under existing legislation if the present law were applied with some force and vigour.
An example of the problems in the building industry is the way in which labour is brought on to building sites throughout the Province. Casual labour is bussed in to build houses and other buildings under Government programmes. The people involved are drawing the dole, but are prepared to work for cheap rates, which causes great problems for the wages system. In many cases, the labour even comes from the Irish Republic, and the people are allowed to go there one day a week to draw their dole.
One can imagine the problems caused for the building industry and for those who wish to get legitimate work in it, but are unfortunately unable to do so. When the Government try to investigate such problems, a paramilitary influence is unfortunately often brought to bear, and can stop investigations because of fear and intimidation.
There are also problems in the private sector, such as office cleaning businesses, where people are being employed "on the double" to clean offices and other public buildings. They, too, work for cheap rates. Even in the private security sector, some people work for as little as £60 a week, which causes great consternation and is certainly not helping our economy or people who wish to work legitimately. They are the great difficulties we experience in Northern Ireland, especially when some of
1270
the people involved are also drawing unemployment benefit, thus causing problems for the whole social security system.
As hon. Members will know, many chain stores are setting up in business in Northern Ireland, and some are doing well—some would say, much better than on the mainland. The reason is that we have a lucrative black market, which invariably distorts the unemployment figures and other statistics.
My purpose is to make the Government aware of our problems and to ask them to consult the various agencies more actively to combat this scourge in our community.
11.23 am
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I have been a Member of Parliament for 10 years. Before that, such are my curious tastes, I was an assiduous reader of Hansard. I was never aware of a major debate in which a major political party—or one which claims to be so—was content to field no spokesman.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Minister accepted the apology of the person who apparently speaks for social security matters on behalf of the Liberal Democratic party with his customary courtesy and friendliness. The Dispatch Box imposes that discipline on Ministers from time to time; luckily, those of us who are not charged with the responsibilities of office can take a more robust view.
It is extraordinary to hear the excuse that it is not possible for an hon. Member to speak to the House because the business was arranged only the week before. There have been times when I have been unable to speak in a regional debate affecting the west country for precisely that reason, but members of my party were here to speak on behalf of the people we all represent.
Clearly, one sometimes cannot tell what the business will be for the following Friday and cannot be sure that one will be here, but the idea that a political party cannot get anyone to turn up is extraordinary. Representatives of the Ulster Unionist party are here; I am sure that they find it extremely inconvenient to be here on Friday, but their party has arranged for representation.
We should remember that today the Liberal Democratic party is doubtless out on the streets of Christchurch telling the pensioners of Christchurch, whose pensions are paid from the social security budget, that they would like those pensions greatly enhanced. Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament will be telling them how outrageous it is that the Government have imposed value added tax on domestic energy, but they will not mention the fact that the idea was taken directly from the Liberal Democrats' manifesto. They will also not be telling the people of Christchurch that they were not present at a debate on social security fraud—the type of fraud which directly restricts the money avaialable to help pensioners and people who will be unduly affected by the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel.
Instead of posturing on the streets of Christchurch, the Liberal Democrats could have done something and made a contribution. They could have represented the causes and concerns of those they purport to represent, but they are conspicuous by their absence. It is quite contemptible.
Until recently, I was the Conservative majority leader on the Social Security Select Committee, an experience which I greatly valued. The Committee is chaired by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is an

1271
extraordinary performer. He has a knowledge of social security matters which is, I think, without equal. He has a fearless way of putting over ideas which are sometimes controversial, even within his own party. He plays a major role, and anyone who has an interest in social security, or anyone who is dependent on social security, could look to the hon. Gentleman as a model of how things should be done.
What I found impressive during my time on the Select Committee was the fact that one would never hear the hon. Member for Birkenhead suggest that fraud was anything other than wrong, wicked and criminal, and should be pursued accordingly. That was always his position, and he stated it fearlessly. Sometimes, I felt that, in an attempt to achieve an intellectual consensus, other members of the Committee found not the concept but the language in which it can be expressed rather troubling. For all I know, we may in due course hear something that reflects that position. In any event, it is important that we remember that that was the tone of the Select Committee when I was a member from 1990.
It is interesting that we have today heard precisely the same attitude from Labour's spokesman. I do not say that in any carping sense. I thoroughly enjoyed the contribution speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), and I hope that he will have gathered as much from the manner of my interventions.
Not only did I enjoy the content: I had to admire the style of delivery. The hon. Member's speech lasted 35 minutes, but I make no complaint about that. It was such a marvellous balancing act that I wondered how he would get to the end without being savaged by some of his colleagues. In the end, I detected that he was going to be savaged, but he managed to defer a mauling by what he said later in his speech. His speech was refreshing and, although it reflects the way in which these matters are dealth with in Select Committee, it is perhaps unusual to hear such a speech from the Labour Front Bench. It was welcome.
We began to see some internal tensions in the hon. Gentleman's presentation, but I realised that it would not have been appropriate to say quietly, as it were, from a sedentary position, "Cross the Floor, because I cannot tell the difference between us," because one or two things that he said finally made me feel that I could detect more of a difference between us than was readily apparent at first.
I have never understood—I say this with all the insincerity at my command—why the Labour party feels it necessary in debates on social security fraud to say at once, "What about crime in the big City?" I do not understand that—I say that with a straight face because I have been in the House for about 10 years—because it seems that crime is simply indivisible. Crime is wicked; wickedness should be punished, and criminals should be pursued and brought before the courts. That strikes me as so obvious that normally it should not need to be said.
If we were to have a debate on crime in the City—I would welcome such a debate and would take part—I cannot imagine making a contribution, either in a speech or from a sedentary position, let alone from the Dispatch Box, saying, "Yes, but what about social security fraud?" Although I do not understand it, I can speculate for a moment about what is going on.
1272
We have the revisionist tendency at the Dispatch Box—trying to square circles and make some sense of why traditional supporters have not been representing them for about a decade. On the other hand, they have their natural consitituencies represented by the serried ranks behind them which take a different view. That different view is much more primitive and goes a bit like this: crime in the City is committed by upper-class toffs who are absolutely dripping in money, whereas fraud in social security matters is committed by poor people who must defraud the system to live. That is the underlying animus which drives the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). The fact that that constituency must be dealt with by the Labour Front Bench means that we must pay lip service to that concept today.
One can have a bit of merriment at the difficulty of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen when they try to square the circle, but there is a much more serious point to be made. I accept at once that it is not intended, but we should consider for a moment how profoundly insulting it is to people who depend on social security benefits—we hope that it is for a relatively short period, but perhaps it is for their whole lives—to hear fraud talked about in these terms: "It is committed by people at the lower end of the market because they are so poor that they have no choice."
We will not find that from the sort of socialists represented by the Hampstead and Islington loveys. But what we will find among the working poor, or even sometimes the non-working poor, is that they are every bit as hard on crime and in favour of criminals being punished as those of us who earn vastly more. If we talked to those who represent not the flash showbiz end of support for the Labour party but the traditional bedrock working-class adherence, we would hear a line that is so stern that it makes me appear liberal and, frankly, that is remarkable. The idea that we must simply plant the idea that upper-class crime is reprehensible and lower-class crime is in some ways justifiable is not only wrong, daft and outdated but profoundly insulting to those for whose benefit that statement is apparently made.
When we talk about the effects of fraud and the money that is forgone by social security fraud, we are not talking about someone who made a mistake in filling out a form or who perhaps, because of the pressures he or she was under, made a false declaration on an isolated occasion; we are talking about large-scale sophisticated wickedness. That is what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was talking about when he referred to the latest fraud investigation.
We are talking about people of real talent who will divert their considerable energies to set up structures and complexities, which must require a lot of work. We are talking about systematically defrauding the system on a grand scale. We are not talking about an individual claimant who may be under a degree of pressure. We are talking about systematic, organised crime that needs to be stamped on—it can never be stamped out, but it certainly needs to be stamped on. Anyone who has any doubt that fraud is taking place on a grand scale is looking in an entirely different direction from that in which the rest of the world is looking.
If we look at the evidence produced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and some of the press campaigns and investigative journalism that have taken place, to which I shall refer in a moment, or think about the anecdotes that we hear—what our friends and constituents tell us—two

1273
things are clear: first, fraud happens on a grand scale and, secondly, it is unquantifiable and one cannot begin to tell what the savings might be. The hon. Member for Withington, who led with a skilful balancing act—of course, he expressed complete support for everything that the Government are doing—did not say "but"; there were "howevers", "furthermores" and swallowed phrases. I said "but", but the hon. Gentleman would not do it, which was rather unsporting. He said everything else but "but". To "put it in context"—a lovely phrase—he decided to slip in the statement that the amounts are relatively tiny. I do not know—a billion here and a billion there these days and we are beginning to talk about a week or two of the public sector deficit, so every little billion helps.
There is a slightly more serious point at stake. There must be something profoundly disillusioning for working people who are paying tax on a low income—although the rate has gone down greatly under the Government, it still represents a fair chunk of their income—and it goes against the grain when they know that in the house, the bedsit or the street next door there are people who do not get up in the morning who could and who are netting not that much less than they are. That is profoundly disillusioning and corrosive.
There is nothing worse socially than making people feel humiliated by working hard to earn a low wage when they know that there are more dishonest ways of earning about the same amount. Even if the amounts are small—even much smaller than I suspect they are—we owe it to the working people and, indeed, working poor people to ensure that, as far as we can in an imperfect world, every penny that is spent on social security is spent as intended.
Under the traditional demonology that usually characterises debates such as this—I accept that it has not done so today except in an undercurrent—the feeling has often been that we should face the fact that it is the rich who pay the taxes and they can afford to pay a bit. It is incredible that, in the past, such debates have taken place almost as though the way in which we judge a social security system is by measuring not the amount that reaches the people that it was meant to reach but the amount that was spent, squandered or raised. There are simply not sufficient rich people to provide in any abundance the money to fund something as vast as a social security system.
About 89 per cent. of the revenue raised in income tax is paid by basic rate taxpayers. There are simply not enough rich people, even if we confiscated all their money, to make more than a drop in the ocean compared with the total tax take. The fact is that social security payments are paid for by basic rate taxpayers.
In this debate, there has been a feeling among Labour Members that in some way the issue is all about the Government and how much money they give to people on social security. Perhaps it needs to be said, even in these revisionist times and subject to a speech that I am looking forward to hearing in a moment—
Mr. Sykes: My hon. Friend is staying only to hear the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that I am staying only to hear the hon. Member for Islington, North. I take that personally—I am upset about it.
1274
There is a serious point to be made. There simply is not sufficient money among the rich to be able to fund the social security budget, so we need to ensure that we target effectively.
There has not been much talk today about the sorts of benefits that can be subject to specific examples of fraud, but a point that constituents have raised in letters to me needs to be made: some people on invalidity benefit are worried that in some way the debate about invalidity benefit is directed at them. Obviously, it is not, but the figures tell a particular story. Apparently, the number of invalids has increased from 700,000 to almost 1·5 million over 10 years; that figure is incredible. If so many people are sick, that would be such an important matter that even the Labour party would not have missed the opportunity to exploit it. Those figures cannot be right.
Mr. Bendall: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures are totally contrary to all the health reports which state that people's health is improving?
Mr. Nicholls: That is right.
Some other factor is involved, which we cannot measure without further information, because it is obvious that some of those in receipt of benefit are not those for whom it was designed.
My hon. Friend the Minister has already spoken about the planned reform of the benefit system, but I hope that when he replies to the debate he will emphasise that we are not talking about chasing those people who should, rightly, claim benefit; we are trying to ensure that only those who are entitled should claim. I have received several letters from constituents who are worried that we are talking about an arbitary cut in benefits. We are not. We are trying to direct payments towards those who should receive them.
I thought that we should have heard more today, and perhaps we will, about new age travellers. I applaud the steps that the Government have taken in recent years to deal with the menace of supporting alternative life styles on the social security system when the system was not designed for that purpose. If a person is claiming income support in normal circumstances, he should be available for work. That is, of course, a passive test and we now know that it is relatively easy to avoid it. That person should also be actively seeking work. Obviously, one should do both. Two years ago, many of my constituents were outraged at the idea of bus loads of social security clerks being sent out to camp sites to facilitate the payment of benefits to people who, by any stretch of the imagination, did not satisfy those two tests.
Such abuse no longer takes place, but many of my constituents wonder how it is possible that people who have no intention of doing anything approaching a day's work are able to support their life style. They believe that there is still too much laxity in some quarters in ensuring that social security payments are applied properly. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about that later.
The fundamental point is that the welfare state was not designed as a mechanism for supporting those who regard themselves as being entirely outside society. The welfare state is a mechanism for supporting people in society who have fallen on hard times. Society can be broad and encompass a huge range of political ideas. It encompasses comfortably the position that I adopt in the political

1275
firmament and that adopted by the hon. Member for Islington, North, to whose contribution we look forward. Some new age travellers whom I have met, however, are so far removed from the sense of community and from those who are entitled to rely on the welfare state that they are unable to tell the difference, politically, between the hon. Gentleman and me. That is distressing for both of us.
In no sense can the social security system and the welfare state be considered suitable mechanisms for supporting people whose life styles are so vastly removed from what society as a whole judges to be acceptable.
There is nothing wrong in adopting an alternative life style. There is nothing wrong in people saying that the apparatus of the civilised society, demoracy, the Westminster model and the rest is not for them. What is not acceptable, however, in any circumstances, is for people who have made that decision to expect that their activities should be funded by those whom they hold in complete contempt.
It has been said by Ministers and by Conservative Back Benchers that the key is to ensure that the funds get through to those who are entitled to them. The speech by the hon. Member for Withington was interesting and of a different tone from that adopted by many in the Labour party. I suspect, however, that there are still many in the Labour movement who would suggest that the aims and intentions of the social security review are not what they seem. It is worth while emphasising again what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in a recent debate:
"What we want is a better system which ensures that the most vulnerable people in society are protected and that all of us have the means to cope with the needs and variations of life. But to do that we must make sure that the benefits system is affordable. It cannot indefinitely outstrip the economic means that the country has to pay for it. If it did so, it would become unsustainable."
My right hon. Friend's conclusion sums up the whole debate, because he said:
"That would be the greatest betrayal of those in need and damage the economy."—[Official Report, 7 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 6.]
There is no Government who can pay out the money to those on benefit, just the taxpayer. We must do our duty by the taxpayer and those who need to be maintained by the system. We must therefore take the social security review seriously.
We must ponder on the fact that the Liberals could not even be bothered to turn up for the debate. We must hope—I do not have a great deal of it—that what we have heard from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Withington, in his new-model, revisionist speech, represents the views of the serried ranks on the Opposition Benches. But we shall see.
11.45 am
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have heard many speeches from the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), but his performance today must rank as one of his greatest and most idiotic.
The hon. Gentleman set up a huge Aunt Sally and spent 20 minutes trying to knock it down. At the end of the speech, he let the cat out of the bag, however, when he revealed that the proposed reform is what we all know it
1276
to be about: it is a huge smokescreen to divert attention from the real intentions of the Conservative party to weaken, if not destroy, the social security system.
The hon. Gentleman tried to foster the idea that everyone on the Opposition Benches, and certainly Labour Members—the Liberals are not here, so we do not know their views—supports and condones fraud. He knows perfectly well that no Opposition Member does that. He also knows perfectly well that the major scandals of housing benefit fraud that have been uncovered in London in the past few weeks have been uncovered, yes, by Lambeth and Lewisham councils' internal investigations. The pressure from Lambeth, Lewisham, Croydon and Waltham Forest—not all Labour authorities—has led to the establishment of a London-wide investigation team headed by the treasurers of all the London boroughs, irrespective of party. They are determined to get to the bottom of the massive abuse of housing benefit fraud by landlords, claimants and all sorts of people.
The hon. Gentleman should remember that, in the early 1980s, many people expressed concern when his Government proposed the transfer of payment of housing benefit to local authorities. At that time, the Minister and I were members of the London borough of Haringey. I do not know what view the Minister took of that decision, but Haringey said that it was not a good idea for local authorities to take over the administration of that benefit. Haringey could envisage the precise problem that would arise without a unified system of benefit payment. As a result of the change, London had 32 different systems of administration of housing benefit. That was a perfect opening for the fraudulent abuse of the housing benefit system. That is precisely what happened.
The hon. Gentleman should at least recognise that London Labour authorities have attempted to get to the bottom of the abominable housing benefit fraud perpetrated by landlords. To pick up on what the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) said earlier, I also believe that that fraud has been encouraged by the deregulation of rents. That has meant that private sector rents have sky-rocketed and that, as a result, the amount paid out in housing benefit has increased.
I favour a return to a system of rent regulation. I do not see why millions should be paid into the pockets of private sector landlords, bed-and-breakfast millionaires, who have made a fortune out of the Government's refusal to invest in a housing building programme and an affordable rents programme. It is the Government who have lined the pockets of private sector landlords.
I am not in favour of fraud. The hon. Member for Teignbridge and I both sat on the Social Security Select Committee. He has tried to create illusions about what some Labour Members are supposed to have said, but he knows that his suggestions resemble nothing that we said.
En passant—as they say—I find it a bit rich that Conservative Members talk about fraud and dishonesty when all of them, except the Minister, has at least one paid job, if not 20, as well as being a Member of Parliament. That is immoral. People are elected to the House to be full-time Members of Parliament, not to take secondary incomes on behalf of private companies.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman look around him for a moment and speculate about where all his hon. Friends are?
Mr. Corbyn: I have honestly not the slightest idea where my hon. Friends are. I imagine that the majority are in their constituencies dealing with the problems occasioned partly by the poverty that many people suffer since the Conservative party came to office.
Mr. Richard Spring: The hon. Gentleman referred to rent controls. In New York, the middle class—the tax base—has been driven out, leaving only a limited number of rich people supporting a considerable number of people living in subsidised housing. That has resulted in the diminution of living standards for everyone concerned, distortion in the housing market and a housing policy that no one would sensibly wish to emulate.
Mr. Corbyn: It is a measure of how far the Conservative party has been driven to the right that Conservative Members now quote New York as a dangerous example of a step towards socialism because of its rent control system.
I favour rent controls because rents charged, particularly in London, are astronomical. Private sector tenants come to my advice surgery and tell me that they pay £150 a week for one or two-bedroomed flats, which are often in bad condition, and they cannot get them repaired. Many pay far higher rents. Is it right that landlords should make so much money from rent? The Government lifted rent controls and said that housing benefit levels should be set by the market. A system of rent controls would make more affordable accommodation available and people would not have to spend such a huge proportion of their income on rent.
The Conservative party is trying to increase council and housing association rents.
Mr. Bendall: If we bring back rent controls in the private sector, available properties will dry up. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a matter of supply and demand. As I said in my speech, if local authorities or Governments limited the amount that they paid on rents, it would bring rents down.
Mr. Corbyn: The cash limiting route, which the hon. Member for Ilford, North suggests, would be even worse. It would be as bad as the social fund, writ large. Under the social fund, people must be lucky enough to have their application accepted in the first 10 days of the month. They might then receive a loan, but will be unlikely to receive a grant. If they apply for a social fund payment towards the end of the month, they will have no chance and will go to the bottom of the queue for several months thereafter. Women who are victims of domestic violence must go into hostels and cannot be rehoused because the social fund cannot pay out for the basic necessities of life. That is injustice and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) said, that is a fraud against people who have paid tax and national insurance and are looking for just one job, unlike Conservative Members who hold dozens of jobs.
Mr. Bendall: I was arguing that for one-bedroomed properties in a certain geographical area, the rent that one can pay should be limited. That rent could be £80 or £90 a week. A two-bedroomed flat could cost £100 a week and a three-bedroomed house could cost £120 a week. You have limits and you control them in geographical areas. Rents in parts of the north are much cheaper than in
1278
London. Landlords will still have a fair return for their money but, as you rightly say, people will not have to pay £150 a week for one bedroom.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman inadvertently used the wrong expression. All remarks should be addressed to the Chair. Clearly, his remark was intended not for me but for the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
Mr. Corbyn: No one was suggesting for a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were trying to rent out a flat for £150 a week—[Interruption.] We are not allowed to discuss that possibility, but I am sure that you are not.
Conservative Members do not agree that we should restore rent controls. They have encouraged a free market economy and created bed-and-breakfast millionaires, who are making a great deal of money from the social security system. I should prefer more money to be put into capital investment programmes so that all the out-of-work building workers could be given something useful to do, such as building houses for the homeless. That would be a sensible way to approach the issue.
No one condones fraud and I was surprised that the hon. Member for Teignbridge did not mention the serious fraud in Westminster city council. First, it sold its cemeteries for 5p and then it used £15 million of public money to buy them back. An investigation is now being carried out into the council's housing department, resulting in the office of the council's Conservative leader being raided by the chief executive to provide papers for the Director of Public Prosecutions' investigation into the administration of Westminster city council.
I hope that Conservative Members will also condemn the sale of those cemeteries and the unfortunate circumstances that followed in which Westminster residents were expected to pay £15 million to get back something that belonged to them in the first place. By the way, no one was surcharged for that.
Mr. Nicholls: I see no need to distinguish between crime committed by one person or another, whatever his or her political view. Real opposition to crime should be indivisible. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for playing into my hands because he is an honest and honourable man. Every time he finds himself forced to condemn crime among people whom he regards as socially unacceptable bed-and-breakfast millionaires, he tries to justify it by introducing a political dimension. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that his mind is set somewhere in Russia in 1880.
Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Russian history is slightly awry. Peter Kropotkin had not even written "The Price of Bread" in 1880, which was long before the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. Nevertheless, this is not a debate about Russian history or the fate of the Soviet Union.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman condemns what has happened in Westminster city council. I hope that he will condemn Conservative councillors obstructing that inquiry and the shredding of documents before the investigation officers arrived at the city hall to look at documents involving that council's housing policy.
Mr. Nicholls: I shall pass no comment on matters of which I have no knowledge but which sound as though they are sub judice. Will the hon. Gentleman consider

1279
what impression is made on people outside when they hear him talk about crime and justify it by referring to Conservative crime? That is a ludicrous position to adopt, although it is consistent with the hon. Gentleman's approach to such matters.
Crime and the need to condemn it should be indivisible. The hon. Gentleman does neither himself nor his constituents any favours by trying to justify crime in party political terms. As he knows, 1880 was when his ludicrous ideas were being formed.
Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of history is even weaker than I had thought. Socialist ideas started long before 1880, indeed, before 1780—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will spend some time in the recess doing some reading, as it might help him—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Gentleman return to the subject of the main debate on social security fraud?
Mr. Corbyn: I do not for a moment condemn the hon. Member for Teignbridge for being politically motivated in his comments. I am sure that nothing could be further from his mind.
The housing benefit fraud, which has gone on in London and elsewhere, is absolutely appalling. It is being dealt with by the actions of local authority councillors and officers who have got together to do so. Nobody condones such fraud, but some credit should be given to those honest local authority officials who have attempted to get to the bottom of the fraud.
As I recall, the Government came to office on a programme designed to get rid of quangos and to ensure that things were better run and there was more accountability. Many jokes used to be made about the former Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, and his predilection for appointing people to the boards of quangos. We heard much about that in the 1979 election campaign, but there are now many more quangos and far less accountability in our society and far more money is paid directly by central Government to unaccountable organisations.
I am not suggesting that housing associations are intrinsically fraudulant or wrong, but there is much less accountability with respect to the money paid to housing associations to build than there is with respect to the money paid to local authorities to build and administer housing. The same applies to national health service trusts, which are not as accountable as direct health authorities. I could continue with more other examples.
If we are to achieve a more honest society, we must set good examples. The Conservative party and some of the gutter press must set a better example. They should pursue City fraud as assiduously as social security fraud—
Mr. Nicholls: Ah!
Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman says, "Ah!", but what I am saying is relevant. We must investigate British companies that deliberately site their head offices in tax havens in order to avoid paying tax in this country. The hon. Gentleman knows what the Select Committee on Social Security, which was investigating the fraud involved in the Maxwell pension fund, has been discussing. There must be accountability in our society. One of the causes of
1280
the Maxwell pension fraud was the lack of accountability in the way in which the pension fund was run. The same is true of almost every pension fund in which there is a lack of democracy.
We live in a society in which, increasingly, many people are extremely poor and are in danger of losing their benefits. The Government—initially led by the then Prime Minister and the chair of the Conservative party in 1985—are increasingly targeting benefits. None of us condones fraud, but I believe that the Government and many Conservative Members promote such discussions when they know full well that the problem of housing benefit fraud is being addressed by local authorities. In doing so, they are motivated by the fact that such a discussion will divert attention away from their real agenda of cutting the social security bill, targeting benefits and reducing the level of payments to people in desperate need.
I spent yesterday evening visiting young people at the Centrepoint hostel for the homeless in London. Those young people are homeless for all sorts of reasons—some have run away from home, others have been thrown out of home, and many of them have been terribly abused and mistreated. They explained their problems when trying to obtain the benefits to which they are entitled. At my constituency surgery this evening in Finsbury Park, I am likely to be visited by many people who cannot obtain housing benefit, a social fund loan, income support or a pension. Those people live in desperate poverty and have to borrow off their friends and neighbours to survive until next week, which is an indictment of our society.
When the social security legislation was pushed through the House in 1986, one of the key issues was that the Department of Social Security would no longer be obliged to give advice and information to everyone about their right to claim and their eligibility for benefit. That is why many benefits are not taken up in some districts. The advice is simply not forthcoming and the voluntary agencies are so strapped for cash that they are unable to give advice; some of them have had to close down altogether. There is something deeply wrong in a society in which young people, pensioners and those living in desperate poverty who are entitled to benefit cannot obtain it. We must look at both sides of the coin. We must condemn fraud, but also condemn a system that is incapable of paying people who are desperately in need in order to alleviate their poverty.
12.4 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: We have covered a tremendous amount of ground this morning, but I am not sure that all the contributions have been meaningful, particularly those from the Opposition. I join my hon. Friends in saying that it is remarkable that, for a debate on a subject on which there is so much national concern, only two Labour Members are present and there is no one in the Chamber to represent other parties, including the Liberal party. That tells us something about the Opposition's commitment to social security fraud, about which every man and woman feels deeply offended.
I was even more depressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who seemed to be selective in his condemnation. He seemed to spend more time worrying about tax evasion and other issues that are totally unconnected with the subject of today's debate. He

1281
exploited political correctness and appeared to suggest that a good, honest, working-class man was incapable of committing fraud, whereas landlords were all villains.
Mr. Corbyn: When did I say that?
Lady Olga Maitland: That was the clear implication of the hon. Gentleman's speech. As is said so often by Conservative Members, crime is crime, and must be condemned on that basis.
When I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), I found myself scratching around to find signs of his commitment to stamping out social security fraud. In his 40-minute speech, he made only scant mention of that subject. He mentioned other issues such as entitlements arid tax evasion.
I take heart from the words of the words of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who seems to have a genuine commitment. He made a statement to The Guardian which was published in January:
"It is the Labour party that is seen as in favour of mollycoddling people. We have to be tough with ourselves and ask why that has happened. We have to convince people that we are not a tax and spend party."
I congratulate him on making it clear that it is time to look at social security fraud and people who claim money which is not theirs by right.
I congratulate the Government on their genuine commitment to stamping out social security fraud, and on the many measures that they have taken to do so. The world seems to be divided into two categories: workers and shirkers. We appear to have become a nation of cheats who rob the needy. On average, every working person pays £13 every working day to support the jobless, the elderly, children, the sick and the disabled, but last year alone, a mind-boggling £500 million was creamed off—stolen by fraudsters. Some of them are petty criminals; some have a misplaced belief that one small lie does not matter. Others form themselves into well-organised gangs—as happened in the case of the counterfeit books in Brixton, described in the papers today. Those books had a face value of £35 million.
It is deeply disturbing to learn that there appears to have been an Irish nationalist connection with the case in Brixton. It is also disheartening to realise that, for every pound snatched from a needy person, someone who is desperate, frail or vulnerable loses—the money has gone to line the pockets of thieves and cheats who are greedy for easy money.
Cheating the welfare state has been considered fair game, the acceptable face of fraud. Nowadays, the friends and relatives of cheats do not seem as shocked as they used to be—until the day comes when they want to claim benefits themselves, only to discover that the money has already been stolen from them. The cost of social security theft is reckoned to be the equivalent of a penny on income tax.
The time has come to put an end to this so-called national sport. Stealing from benefits agencies is the same as stealing from one's neighbour: the money all comes from the same source. The only difference is that the seemingly anonymous state benefits agencies, funded by the taxpayer, have now had enough.
The public are fighting these shabby people now, which is why I offer my admiration for the Government's
1282
determination to stamp out this pernicious scam and for their decision to allocate an additional £10 million to allow the Benefits Agency to deploy more manpower and improved computers, with more cross-referencing. This will help the agency to target money better and to save next year about £1 billion—money which can then be given to the people who deserve it. It is important to remember the vulnerable, not to defend these cheats, a practice which the Labour party, at least by implication, seems to go in for.
It is time to make it abundantly clear that the law will be enforced. People who think that they have been getting away with fraud for years are going to find it infinitely more difficult to do so in future.
My constituency of Sutton and Cheam—agreeable, pleasant and leafy—attracted some fame the other day when I publicly drew attention to the problems of persistent juvenile crime—a problem which is reflected nationwide. In the same way, we are also vulnerable to cheats who put in fraudulent claims. I am often left speechless by the shirkers who come to my surgery and blatantly say that they cannot possibly work.
The other day, a barman told me that he was not working; he was claiming income support. When I asked why he did not find another job in a bar, he told me that he was very selective about the kind of bar in which he wanted to work, and that he was quite happy to wait and to live on a minimal amount of money. How dare he say that? He is a shirker. Perhaps we should follow the Italian example and put an end to giving such people support when they have no intention of seeking work.
I also find it irritating beyond belief when a youngster aged 21 or so tells me that he is not working. I ask him whether he has any plans to work. He says that he cannot find any. I now have an answer for such people. I produce magazines and lists of employment agencies. I offer them the Evening Standard, and I tell them not to come back to see me for at least two weeks and then to tell me how they have got on.
I know that these youngsters can find work. The trouble is that they are selective and lazy and will not do menial labour, plenty of which is available. When my son comes down from university, he picks up two jobs in one day because he is prepared to do dirty work. I do not see why the young should consider themselves above what I call, good honest toil. As far as I can see, it is theft if they claim income support.
As for those who claim sickness benefit, I find it astonishing that people who seem perfectly healthy and capable of working at least in an office, if not in a strenuous job, should tell me, as a man did recently, "My wife is going out to work and I am claiming income support." I should like to know why that man is not going to work. The time has come to be much more rigorous—
Mr. Bradley: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that GPs are falsely giving sick notes to sickness benefits claimants?
Lady Olga Maitland: I am suggesting that GPs are perhaps not careful enough when assessing people's health. Sometimes they become too sympathetic to a person's social circumstances and agree to give him a sick note. GPs need to be given clear guidelines on what is expected of them.
In my constituency, a tremendous amount of good work is being done to uncover fraudulent claims. North Surrey fraud office, covering an area from Croydon all the

1283
way to Mitcham and Morden, Wimbledon and Sutton, has saved £6·2 million that would otherwise have been stolen last year. A sub-office dealing with unemployment benefit saves about £6,000 a month by its vigilance. In Sutton, we have two full-time investigators who, last year, prevented the theft of £500,000. With a staff in north Surrey of 19, admittedly costing £500,000 a year, I reckon that the investment has been well worth it, given the size of the savings.
Sutton does not have quite the same problems as some other areas, So I should like to turn my attention to Haringey, whose fraud squad is hard at work. It caught up with nearly £1 million-worth of fraudulent claims last year.
I am reminded of the occasion two years ago when I spent a week in a hostel for the homeless. I was doing a test case for a radio programme about living on income support—
Mr. Bradley: How much were you paid for it?
Lady Olga Maitland: Nothing.
Apart from one other person in that bed-and-breakfast accommodation, the 29 residents were all immigrants—from Turkey, Bangladesh, west Africa and the West Indies. I am not saying that they were frauds; I do say that they came to this country because they knew that we would give them the most generous income support and a life style that they could not enjoy in their own countries. We should give that some attention, too.
I congratulate the Government on encouraging and giving incentives to local authorities to investigate fraudulent claims. The scheme is working well. Sutton has three full-time officers in the field, and the benefits of that are clear. Their experiences would be laughable if it were not for the tragedy of the mockery of the system. Moonlighting is rife and is almost seen as a game of touch and get away. The cheats are almost blatant in their efforts to claim money.
Last week, I was told about a young man who drew up outside our local unemployment office in his work van which was emblazoned with the company name. He shot in, signed up and tried to shoot out. Another man on his way to work turned up in a works van with a ladder on top. More extraordinarily, a taxi driver parked his cab outside the benefits office and went in to sign on while his paying passenger waited in the back seat. In another case, although not in Sutton, a man answered a call on his mobile phone from his office while trying to claim.
Our fraud investigators have a sharp instinct for cheats, and can sense when things are not right. Is a jobless man a little bit too tidy and smart? Could he have just walked in from his office? How energetic and interested is he in seeking work? Is he available for interviews, and how many telephone calls has he made? Has he written many letters? The officers tell me that the busy man suddenly signs himself off the dole when requested to come for an interview when the appointment might conflict with his job. As for the requirement to attend a mandatory week's course, the long-term unemployed person suddenly discovers that he has found work after all.
It is also important to visit employers who take on itinerant casual labour. Such employers engage staff at unsociable hours which suit night security workers and minicab drivers, people who can still clock into the
1284
unemployment office during the day. Minicabs should be licensed in the same way as black cabs, so that their operators are exposed to the same disciplines. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) on graphically demonstrating the way in which they have abused the system.
Some people who try to claim support from the Benefits Agency should not do so at all. They are well funded, with money in the bank or the building society, although sometimes there is a misunderstanding about what the money is for. I was told this week that it is not unusual for someone to say, "But that is my funeral money. Surely you cannot take that away from me." It should be carefully explained to people seeking income support that we are not trying to run them out of business or deprive them of their funeral money, but there is a difference between having money for one's funeral and claiming money to which one is not entitled.
We must crack down on scroungers, and especially on those who apply in several names. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, spoke about people who use fictitious names such as Count Dracula, Jack O'Nory, Donald Duck or Gary Lineker when claiming benefit.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for Employment on her push to investigate alleged cheating. As a result, 50,000 people suddenly and mysteriously withdrew their claims. She uncovered a fraud in which people working abroad claimed unemployment benefit in Britain. Investigators discovered that groups of workers, mainly in construction, had been hired to work abroad and given time off every 13 weeks to return to Britain to sign on the dole and receieve unemployment benefit. I regret that that is possible if a claimant lives more than six miles from a benefit office.
It is disgraceful that employers have colluded in this way and turned a blind eye to employees who are on the dole. They have some responsibility, because they rely on the fact that people are claiming money in order to pay them lower wages. A London magazine distribution company had 1,000 false names on its books, ranging from William Shakespeare to William Caxton, Mickey Mouse and Nick Faldo. That went on for five years, but I am delighted to say that it ended with a conviction for false claims.
When I first entered Fleet street, some moons ago, there was a definite scam in the old-style printing industry. Printers clocked in using fictitious names, so that they could double-charge on social security. Fraud is rampant in the garment sweatshop industry. A series of visits recently resulted in 190 people withdrawing claims, with a saving to the Government of £330,000.
An investigation of part-time workers in the packaging, land work and perfume industries in the east midlands led to 303 people signing off the unemployment register. In the south-east, 733 people left the register, saving the state £670,000. In Scotland, more than £5 million was saved when investigations resulted in more than 7,000 people withdrawing claims.
It is appropriate that my hon. Friends, but not Opposition Members, should pay attention to new age travellers. It is offensive to see the way in which those people trample across our country and have the nerve to lay down the law according to their lights. The party is over for these hippies. From now on, they will not be able to get dole money in the free and easy way that they have

1285
obtained it in the past. They never show any intention of looking for work. The war on those dole cheats reached new heights when investigators learned that £55 million in benefits should not have been handed out in 1991. It was discovered that one in five of the 230,000 claimants was a cheat.
The challenge in dealing with cunning cheats who use a variety of well-tried and up-to-date rewarding techniques is depressing. Many claimants know the complex rules by heart, and are well versed in how to get round them. One rule that is exploited to the full is that unemployed people are entitled to seek work in their own field first, even if it is known that work is unlikely to become available. That gives the more imaginative claimant unlimited scope to come up with occupations that are disappearing or in which there are few readily available jobs.
On a broader level, I have found when talking to people who are on income support for genuine reasons that I have had to point out to them that, if they are in a certain job and the work is finished, they should look for work in another sector. There tends to be a rather blinkered approach. People must understand that, in their lifespans, they may have to change their careers two or three times. Mobility and flexibility have to be encouraged.
Housing benefit abuse has been well documented by Conservative Members. It is a scandal. In Sutton, we are exposed to the same problems of collusion between landlords and their tenants, as elsewhere. We hear of the landlord raising the rent, the tenant claiming the increased rent and the two splitting the profit. Sometimes, tenants make claims on fictitious addresses, arranging for money to be sent to other addresses before being sent on to them. I welcome the suggestion of a national cross-referencing index on multiple housing benefit claims to ensure that it is impossible for those cheats to get away with it.
To multiple addresses can be added multiple names. In the most bizzare case that I have heard of, a man had 37 different identities. That particularly happens with immigrants. It may be politically incorrect to touch on this, but I will identify their origins. They are largely west Africans, with highly complicated names. The trend in that section of the community should not be left unnoted.
Our European friends are not much better. In the 1950s and 1960s, Italian immigrants flocked to this country, eager to work, to win a better life style and to contribute, and they succeeded. The country's presentation changed with the rise in the number of Italian restaurants, pizza bars and similar establishments, of which Sutton has an excellent supply. However, the situation has now changed.
The Sunday Express ran a front page headline saying:
"Crackdown on Euro Spongers—Lilley moves to stop Britain being a soft touch on handouts."
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that, and I congratulate a campaigning newspaper on doing a worthwhile task. It certainly had a case to report, and that case has been taken up in other newspapers.
For instance, the Daily Mail ran a story saying:
"Rocco is Italian, idle and a heroin addict and you pay for him to live in comfort."
Rocco is aged 22, and his story is depressing. He came to this country. He knows that we are a soft touch. He picks up £67 a fortnight, and in addition, £90 a week for a shared room in a smartly decorated King's Cross bed-and-breakfast hotel—a useful sum. I can only describe him as
1286
a permanent loafer and a scrounger, but at least he gives the British welfare system high praise because it is easy to tap into. He says:
"In Italy, you would never get money if you haven't worked, and you would never get a flat that's paid for."
He simply cannot believe his luck. Furthermore, as a citizen from a fellow European Community member country, he is entitled to all the free medical treatment he needs, and he is a drug addict. He has access to the best possible NHS treatment, free housing, income support and the occasional crisis loans. Now, he teaches others how to milk the system.
Another Italian, Marco Redi, aged 26, has spent the past seven years sponging off our system claiming money from our social security system. He is a drug addict and has HIV and is getting the best possible treatment. He is blatant about his idleness and lack of willingness to seek work. He says:
"In Italy you get minimal help but here, it's very nice—I'm staying."
That is ironic, given that unemployed British nationals living in Germany, France and Spain get no financial help. Their insurance-based systems do not pay out unless the claimant has been in work. In Italy, a Briton down on his luck gets only 20 per cent. of his salary, for just six months—and that is only if he can prove that he has been in work. No proof, no dole.
In short, thousands of foreigners have been coming to Britain and claiming millions of pounds of benefits. Therefore, I welcome the Government's announcement this week that they intend to close that loophole in the income support rules and bring to an end the scam from which 10,000 have benefited, to the tune of £17 million.
Another area of abuse concerns single-parent families. People seem to be nervous of identifying that social grouping. However, whether or not it is politically correct, I do not hesitate to do so, because single-parent families, like everyone else, have responsibilities to society. They are not immune from and above the law. They must abide by the rules, and should not be given a free hand to cheat and to take money that is not theirs to claim.
One example of abuse is a single mother in her housing-benefit-subsidised council flat who allows her boy friend, who may be in work, to move in with her. Technically, she is no longer single, and she should not claim the advantageous benefits available to single parents.
Often, the cheat begins unwittingly. The boy friend spends the odd night in her flat, then weekends, then he is there more often than not, and then he becomes a permanent fixture and part of the household. It is right that we should rigorously ensure that those women who are backed up by a partner are brought to book if they continue to claim benefits to which they are not entitled.
Mr. Bradley: Can the hon. Lady tell the House the precise number of single parents in the position that she described? Precisely how many claimants is she talking about, and what is her source for that statistic?
Lady Olga Maitland: I am unable, at this moment, to give the precise figures, but I shall provide the hon. Gentleman with them at a later date. The background to what I am describing has come from my local Benefits Agency office.
Another abuse of the system is fictitious desertion. A woman with children pretends that her husband or lover

1287
has deserted her, and then claims housing benefit, income support, one-parent benefit and council tax benefit. All told, that can add up to more than £100 a week free of tax. It is little wonder that some couples go to considerable lengths to pretend that their relationship is over. We must breed a new habit of honesty. Such flexible households are not above the law, and should not consider themselves free to claim money that is clearly not theirs.
Another deeply serious point, which has already been raised, is the extensive theft of benefit books. Last week, a man in Sutton was arrested for stealing cheques sent to tenants in a multiple-occupation house. Officials say that that is just one small example of a large story. They estimate that the biggest losses come from stolen and counterfeit benefit books and girocheques. In north Surrey in the first quarter of 1991, more than 62,000 social security books were recorded as lost, stolen or destroyed. The head of the Benefit Agency's organised fraud unit said:
"It is easier to counterfeit a benefit book or girocheque than it is to go into a bank with a shotgun. There are fewer risks and the returns are as good."
In the past, a criminal having 100 stolen books could draw £8,000 a week, and might hand over only 5 per cent. of that to the accomplices who posed as claimants.
I congratulate the Government on acknowledging the seriousness of that problem, and my hon. Friend the Minister on demonstrating that much work has been done to make sure that such counterfeiting cannot occur in future. The message must go out to fraudsters and forgers that they can no longer get away with it. Benefit books will be like bank notes—forgeries will be easily detected in future, and those using them will be brought to book.
Clear guidance must be given to post offices and others who are confronted by a claimant who says, "My book has been stolen or mislaid. Can I have another?" Double encashment has been a great loophole in the system, but it is now being closed.
A rational approach must also be taken to invalidity benefit. Can it be true that the number entitled to claim it has more than doubled in the past decade, from 700,000 to 1·5 million? Have we suddenly become a deeply sickly society? I believe that doctors have unwittingly been over-generous to their patients, in helping them to claim more than that to which they were entitled—bearing in mind that invalidity benefit is higher than unemployment benefit.
More than two thirds of the general practitioners in a survey by "Monitor Weekly" admitted that they had signed benefit forms for patients whom they knew not to be sick, or whose sickness did not prevent them from working. Most newspapers argue that changes should be made. On 12 June, The Times commented:
"The number of claimants has more than doubled, although there is no evidence of a corresponding increase in ill health."
The Daily Express asked:
"why should the benefit not be re-examined … a stringent medical examination would seem only fair."
Although medical examinations are not as widespread as they might be, it is interesting to note that 50,000 claimants failed to report for a medical assessment last year, and consequently had their invalidity benefit stopped.
We must give GPs clear guidelines, and educate them in the fact that their job is to make a medical assessment and
1288
that they should not confuse their priorities. A GP may assess a crane driver with a history of heart attacks as unfit for work, but would that man be unfit for work behind a desk?
It is hard to understand how one GP managed to support the claims of a farmer who stole £36,000 by claiming invalidity benefit while doing three jobs. He was originally diagnosed as suffering from multiple sclerosis. I am glad that his condition was not too serious, but he managed to continue running his 30-acre farm, undertake sub-contracts and run a haulage business. His family—a wife, two sons and a daughter—and another farmer all colluded with him.
The examples are rife and rampant. One could go on for days describing cases of scamming, cheating and shirking. I congratulate the Government on their enormous determination to increase the search for more fraudulent claims. Their target of £60 million nationally on a £10 million investment in investigation resources is enormously worth while.
We must continue with our drive to encourage local authorities with incentives. There is no doubt that my Sutton council is encouraged, and that it has stretched its energies to seek our fraudulent claims, because it knows that it will get back a percentage to carry on with its work. The loopholes for abuse are still there. We must continue to modernise our information technology, and we must continue to update our cross-referencing to make it impossible for people to get away with fraud.
Above all, we must encourage a public spirit of coming forward with information about social security abuse. Information from the public already forms a major part of the basis on which investigations are made.
People should not feel guilty about giving information about their neighbours. They do not feel guilty if they report a bank robbery, and they do not feel guilty about reporting a major crime in another area. Why should they feel guilty about reporting that a neighbour is cheating? Who is more worthy of protection—the petty criminal neighbour or the needy victim who is prevented from getting the just help he needs? The money that is saved will help him even more.
The issue raises the question of identity cards. If we know who everyone is, we can immediately tap into the computer and thus make fraud far more difficulty. Some people say that identity cards are another form of Big Brother. In certain situations, such cards are worth while. We are all surrounded by Big Brothers anyway, because we are on various computers and we carry various cards.
Identity cards would give us just the means of getting information for the benefit of us all. Employers should follow the French system of logging with the Department of Social Security the names of all those whom they have laid off. That would not cover everyone, but it would make it more difficult for people to claim benefit to which they were not entitled.
I may have seemed rather hard, and to be pushing those who carry out scams and who are shirkers. They are indeed a very unpleasant part of our national life. However, I recognise that the vast majority of those who claim social security are entirely genuine, and that a far smaller number are fraudulent. People who are honest and in genuine need have nothing to fear about claiming benefits. Those who claim them fraudulently must know that we shall find them wherever they are. We will catch them. We will make them repay their debts. We will make

1289
them go to court and, if necessary, they will be heavily fined, and may even pay the ultimate price of going to prison. It is morally wrong for people to steal, to lie, to cheat and to punish the very people whom society most wants to help.
12.48 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who made a great and comprehensive speech which was thoroughly well researched. All of us in the Chamber enjoyed listening to her.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) talked about a Jurassic tendency in the Conservative party. I have not yet seen the film, but I know that the Jurassic tendency applies to dinosaurs. Dinosaurs disappeared because of evolutionary improvement. Does evolutionary improvement account for the fact that the Labour Benches are so bereft of Members today? I can offer no other rational explanation.
Apart from Jurassic tendency, what is of great interest—I hope that the ladies and gentleman of the press will pick this up—is the marshmallow tendency: appealing on the outside but no substance in the middle. I am referring, of course, to the Members of the Liberal Democrat party who are so conspicuous by their absence today. On an issue of such importance, it is disgraceful that that party, which is always so sanctimonious about social security, should not be represented here today.
I imagine that the Liberal Democrats will he in Christchurch today talking about the need to increase pensions, benefits and so on, but the fact is that pensioners, like everybody else in receipt of benefits, suffer from fraud and abuse, and their investigation is part of the whole review of social security. Therefore, it is a great disappointment, which I hope will be noticed by everybody, that no Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament are here today. As I said earlier, it is the marshmallow tendency—looking good on the outside, but having no substance in the middle.
All hon. Members are in favour of a benefits system that protects the most vulnerable in our society—the sick, the disabled, the unemployed and the elderly—and an element of Conservative thinking is that there should be a safety net through which people cannot fall. We are spending £80 billion out of nearly £250 billion on social security. About £50 billion of the £250 billion is being borrowed and the amount of interest which has to be paid on that sum is increasing. If, therefore, there is any way of reducing public expenditure by cutting the fraudulent abuse of taxpayers' money, wherever it exists, we must do it.
Our duty in terms of social security is to help people in need. Every pound that is wasted or lost to fraud means less for those who are in real need. As the Under-Secretary of State pointed out, it is instructive and important to note that anti-fraud activity will save £1 billion in 1993–94—a substantial sum of money. I very much welcome the additional resources that are being made available to the Benefits Agency so that it can use modern technology to weed out false claims. The additional £10 million a year to be provided for this purpose is welcome. The fact that the
1290
anti-fraud yield was £341 million in 1990–91 and that it has risen to nearly £500 million in the last fiscal year is, again, to be welcomed.
I refer to the problem of bogus asylum seekers, to whom the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred. There are millions of potential economic migrants in the world. Outside Russia, 25 million Russians are having their civil liberties, including their language rights and political rights, removed. We see in eastern Europe the potential for economic migration on a substantial scale. Because of our generosity as a nation in always taking in people who are genuine refugees, something which we have done for hundreds of years, we act as a magnet to people who are in difficulty. While we have always welcomed genuine refugees, we now have the economic migrant. That is why all of us welcome the fact that the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill will clamp down on bogus asylum seekers and speed up the assessment process.
Two thirds of the asylum seekers arriving at our ports do so with no valid documents and might be suspect. The hon. Member for Islington, North said that fingerprinting was wrong, but it is at least a unique record of each individual. How else are we supposed to prevent abuse? Photographs and documents can be doctored and the solution advocated by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues is in fact no solution at all. I hope that we shall continue to deal rigorously with a serious problem which can only grow worse as the years go by in view of the political turbulence all over the world. The traditional hospitality of the British people must not be abused. In a period of high unemployment all over Europe, we must protect British people, their jobs and their employment opportunities from bogus asylum seekers and others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam graphically outlined the unparalleled generosity of the British taxpayer to other EC citizens. Newspapers and surveys by interested parties have uncovered enormous potential financial abuse. Britain is unique in that someone arriving by ferry can be given DSS leaflets in a number of European languages to tell him how to claim benefit. We are the only country to provide that service, which is almost an encouragement.
British nationals visiting Germany, Italy or France get no help at all. As my hon. Friend said, those countries have an insurance-based system under which one cannot claim benefit unless one has contributed to the insurance programme. The only two countries in which such benefit is automatic is Belgium and Ireland, and it lasts for three months. We must compare our social security set-up with that on the continent because many people involved in this area believe that our system leads to abuse as people come here with the intention of claiming benefit.
What always amuses my hon. Friends is that if the Labour party can attack this country or cite an aspect of life in another country which is better than ours it will unhesitatingly do so. I have heard the chandeliers in the Moscow underground being used as proof that Moscow had a better public transportation system, even under the old creaky communist system. Labour Members often cite France as an example of a country with a superior social security system. However, British nationals going to France receive no housing benefit. That is in contrast to newspaper reports which show clearly that in London housing benefits of up to £300 a week are being paid to EC nationals. That is an abuse of the system. British and other

1291
EC citizens going to France get absolutely nothing and information provided by the French equivalent of the DSS is provided only in French.
Germany is often supposed to have a pension system that is superior to ours, but only people who have worked and paid social security contributions for at least 12 months in the preceding three years can receive unemployment benefit. Needless to say, information is available only in German. By contrast, Denmark has a more rigorous system, and there are limits. It has a generous unemployment benefit system—people get 90 per cent. of their previous wage. Once again, EC nationals cannot qualify unless they have been living in Denmark for 12 months and have paid into the state unemployment fund. Needless to say, information about that is available only in Danish.
In Spain, there are no payments and information is available only in Spanish. In Portugal and Luxembourg, there are no benefits either. As I said, the only two countries in which there is something parallel to our system are Belgium and Ireland and payments continue for only three months.
There is substantial abuse because of the comprehensive social security benefits that are available to EC residents who come into the United Kingdom. However, I am glad that that has been tightened up and, undoubtedly, my hon. Friend the Minister will allude to that later. In the United Kingdom, proof of nationality must be provided. At the local DSS office, the interviewee must show that he or she has completed a national insurance record. That is helpful.
Another matter that must be examined is whether the rent is reasonable. If it is shown that rent is reasonable, 100 per cent. housing benefit is paid. What is the definition of "reasonable"? It is arbitrary. In central London, rent can be expensive and, therefore, costly to the taxpayer. Therefore, probably and potentially, an indeterminate amount of money is given to those individuals to the disadvantage of genuine British claimants. I am glad that that has been tightened up, but more could be done in that direction.
My hon. Friend the Minister talked about involving local authorities and sharing in the savings from fraud. I commend him on those remarks, because the new set-up announced in April gives local authorities an incentive to be involved. Local authorities keep 15 per cent. of the savings generated and, through anti-fraud efforts, that will rise above a threshold to 20 per cent. in 1993–94 and 17·5 per cent. in 1994–95. The reason for the rise is to give a boost and encouragement to effect those savings. Out of that will come a total saving of some £185 million, of which £45 million will usefully be retained by local authorities.
I turn my attention to the question of students. I have recently visited Japan and Taiwan and I was delighted with the number of students coming to the United Kingdom from those countries. Of course, they are areas of considerable economic growth. If we examine the history of Britain, students coming here have then returned to their home countries and played an important part in the lives of their nations. We should continue to welcome students for as long as we have excellent universities—and, of course, we shall continue to have them in the future.
1292
In 1991, which is the last year for which full figures are known, 200,000 students from outside the EC came to Britain. While that is excellent news for the reason that I suggested—enhancing British prestige and increasing British influence in their home countries—it is clear from newspaper reports that there is abuse. Students working part time have certainly claimed income support in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to identity cards. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to give an assurance on that, because, apparently, in student cities and towns—expecially in London—there is a roaring trade in bogus EC identify cards. It is difficult to determine the difference, for example, between a Colombian and a Spaniard, and other nationalities. That places considerable strains on the system and it is abused.
Another matter with regard to people arriving here is the increasing number of people who seem to appeal to the Home Office for a review of their conditions of entry to the United Kingdom to gain income support. While the Home Office is reviewing that, benefit is still paid. My understanding is that 10,000 people from abroad will not now receive income support, which involves savings of £17 million and is very welcome. However, asylum seekers will continue to receive benefit while the Home Office processes their cases under the urgent case rules. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will keep that process under constant review to ensure that it is not abused.
The scourge of the new age travellers, happily, has not afflicted the part of the world that I am privileged to represent, Suffolk and East Anglia. Under the actively seeking work test introduced in 1989, real attempts are now being made to address this problem. My constituents were very alarmed recently when a gipsy horse fair was held in my constituency. Happily, it passed off without major incident, but there was a considerable fear that a whole range of different individuals, including new age travellers, would arrive.
It is right that individuals who clearly have no intention of working—whom, in the past, DSS officials have bent over backwards to help—should now have to take on personal responsibilities and that their relationship to work should be more clearly defined.
The hon. Member for Islington, North made an interesting and curious speech. It is always comforting for my hon. Friends and myself to know that the Labour party has such individuals propagating a certain point of view. The whole thrust and ethos of his speech was less appropriate to a debate about social security fraud and abuse than to a national heritage debate. Such a speech, reflecting such attitudes, should be inscribed, illuminated, and put up next to a famous tomb in a cemetery not far from his constituency, where there are more specialist millionaires than the bed-and-breakfast millionaires to whom he constantly alluded.
It is clear that there is a feeling in this country that we have a comprehensive welfare system, which spreads far and wide and provides help to many people. It has been open to abuse, but there is a sentiment in my constituency and elsewhere that fraud and abuse must stop. Much of the evidence is clear and has been provided in the courts; much is anecdotal. The I-can-get-away-with-it mentality is deeply offensive to the British people, who are very fair-minded and have a liberal disposition to those who are disadvantaged for whatever reason.

1293
We do not want to become a society of sneakers and snoopers, but I endorse the sentiments of my hon. Friends that it is up to us who observe the flagrant abuse of the system to make it known. That is in the interests of genuine recipients. All of us have a part to play in this.
There is an increasing mood of revulsion in the country about social security fraud. We are in a period of high unemployment, yet there are occasions when it is difficult to obtain seasonal labour in certain parts of my constituency because the black economy has become so entrenched. Part and parcel of the Government's intention in reducing taxation at many levels was to do away with the black economy.
We should give absolutely no quarter to cheats. That is very much the sentiment in my constituency and all decent people will welcome the moves announced by the Department of Social Security. Only genuine recipients with a genuine need should receive benefits. I am comforted by my hon. Friend the Minister's earlier remark that he will do everything possible to root out fraud and abuse—root and branch.
1.9 pm
Mr. Bradley: This has been an interesting, wide-ranging and informative debate. I intend to be brief in winding up because I want to hear the Minister comment on the many points that have been made. I hope that he will allow me to intervene in his speech, if appropriate, to clarify some of his answers.
Listening to the debate, I felt that I was in a no-win situation because I thought that I had made it absolutely clear that the Labour party was as committed as the Government to rooting out genuine fraud. I identified organised fraud as the major problem on which we need to concentrate. Many of the Government's initiatives have centred on organised fraud. Conservative Members who spoke earlier in the debate accused me of being a revisionist within the Labour party for taking that view. However, as the debate unfolded, it appeared that I had not made the position clear and that Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), thought that I was soft on fraud. Clearly, my words were not worth the paper on which they were written.
May I therefore reiterate, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, that we are committed to rooting out genuine fraud wherever it occurs, whether it is perpetrated by individuals or organised gangs. Whether it is against the social security system—the Government have set a target of £1 billion—or involves tax evasion, totalling £4 billion, it is a loss to the public purse and the taxpayer and means that essential services such as social security are consequently underfunded. I hope that I have made that clear.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bradley: I shall happily give way to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam so that she can confirm that she hears what I say, has watched my lips, and will now accept the Labour party's position on the matter.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the importance of chasing, with all the energy that it
1294
deserves, the multiple number of petty criminals? By their sheer numbers, their scale of fraud is every bit as important as the small number of major fraudulent claimants.
Mr. Bradley: I could not have been clearer in stating the Labour party's position on clamping down on fraud, wherever it may be, but—I was accused earlier of not saying "but" so I shall stress it now—the hon. Lady is wrong because most fraud is organised rather than perpetrated by individual claimants. If she can quote figures to the contrary, I shall accept a further intervention, but mere supposition is not good, enough. Would she like me to give way to her on that point?
Lady Olga Maitland: No.
Mr. Bradley: Right.
Mr. Bendall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bradley: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene on that specific point, I shall give way.
Mr. Bendall: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I gave him some specific figures.
Mr. Bradley: I do not wish to enter a dialogue across the Chamber, because I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would quickly intervene, but the hon. Gentleman's figures did not undermine my basic contention that the vast amount of fraud throughout the social security system—housing benefit, council tax and social security benefits—is organised. That is what the Government have been concentrating on recently.
I have made it clear that, wherever that abuse comes from, the Labour party is determined to tackle it in the same way as the Government, and I hope that the Government will accept that position.
I have listened to the debate with interest. I shall put aside the rather insulting comment by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about our GP service, but she must justify many of the points that she raised. I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady has agreed to write to me about those matters. I was surprised when she said that the evidence for the abuse that she was claiming came from her local benefits agency. If that was the case, it may have clamped down on the abuse, which may no longer exist. I look forward to receiving information from the agency on the exact numbers and extent of the abuse in the context in which the hon. Lady mentioned it.
I do not want to concentrate too much on the hon. Lady's speech, but I was pleased that she was able to tell the House that her local authority is achieving its initiative targets. The success rate is patchy throughout the country and I look forward to the Minister making further comments on that. The patchiness is not due to lack of initiative or effort on the part of local authorities, many of which are finding it difficult to reach the lower end of the target scale, let alone the upper end. Therefore, they cannot benefit from the incentive of receiving 100 per cent. of the money retrieved. That creates difficulties when transferring resources into the fraud sections of local authority departments and ensuring that those authorities receive the money for the effort that they make. I am pleased that the Sutton and Cheam authority is achieving its targets.
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. We have made the Labour party's position clear—we welcome many of the initiatives already undertaken and

1295
some of the new ones mentioned by the Minister today. I stress the support that the Labour party gives to the excellent work being undertaken throughout the country through a multi-agency approach with local authorities, benefits agencies, police and other agencies working together in rooting out fraud. They have made immense strides in the short time given to them to organise and establish internal organisations and to ensure that they work as effectively as possible. I hope that, in time, resources will be made available to ensure that staff are properly trained so that matters can be dealt with sensitively and efficiently.
I repeat my concern that when the Government attempt to root out fraud, they apply the same effort and commitment to ensure that those eligible for benefits, whatever they may be, receive their just entitlements. It is particularly important that, at a time when the poor are getting poorer, and the rich richer—there is no question but that that is true, as all the statistics show—we ensure that poor people receive the meagre benefit payments to which they are entitled. I hope that the Government, through their own publicity and by supporting the excellent work of welfare rights officers and local authority social services departments, will continue the take-up campaigns to ensure that individual claims are dealt with efficiently and claimants receive the money to which they are entitled.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the clampdown on new age travellers. It is an understandable move, but it has caused great anxiety among the public. We must not confuse that subject with the view that people are not actively seeking work. All the surveys carried out, whether by Government Departments, advisory committees that advise the Government or independent research, clearly show that the overwhelming majority of unemployment benefit claimants actively seek work. It is only a tiny minority who do not—I am pleased to see the Minister nodding in agreement and I know that the Secretary of State has made the same point. The overwhelming majority of claimants are genuine and are actively seeking work.
The latest report on the subject, issued this year by the Low Pay Unit, written by Alex Bryson and John Jacobs, and entitled "Policing the Workshy"—I commend it to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam—clearly showed that people are actively seeking work and are prepared to revise their initial hopes of finding a certain type of job, given the limited number of opportunities available in the climate of high unemployment. These people are sometimes not well advised by the unemployment officers with whom they deal, who should explain to them more clearly that it would be in their best interests to reduce their expectations.
Perhaps one of the greatest impediments to seeking work is the fact that people have to fill in so many forms and complete a great many interview references showing that they have been going out looking for work. That time might be better spent actually looking for work. Still, the results of the research are clear: the vast majority of the unemployed are actively seeking work and the only reason why they claim unemployment benefit is that they cannot find a job of any kind.
1296
The Opposition are committed to ensuring that the social security system enables all who are entitled to them to receive the benefits that they so justly deserve. Although we need to look at fraud, we should bear in mind that there is also fraud that needs stamping out in the tax system and in public life generally, whereupon the money can be used in everyone's best interests.
In the pages of the Financial Times, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, writing about attempts to control public expenditure, implied that one reason for the massive hike in the social security budget was the success of the Government's take-up campaigns, urging people to apply for benefits. I seek an absolute assurance from the Minister that in the public expenditure review—we shall return to it in the autumn, when I am sure the Government will give us plenty of opportunities to debate their attempts to curb the social security budget—there will be no suggestion of the Government's undermining people's just entitlement to benefit. The Government must ensure that benefits that are still not the subject of 100 per cent. take-up are publicised by Government and local authorities. Only thus can we be certain that the people who deserve our support through the social security system will actually receive it.
1.23 pm
Mr. Burt: This has been a most interesting and enjoyable debate, as these Friday mornings often are. We have attempted to shoot one or two stereotypes. The Government have been at pains to confirm that we pay as much attention to ensuring that those entitled to money get it as we do to curbing fraud and abuse. The Opposition spokesman has been equally determined to show that the Labour party is as rigorous about fraud and abuse as it is about ensuring that everyone gets his just deserts. Back Benchers have united to condemn Her Majesty's absent Liberals. So we have all had an enjoyable morning.
We have done some serious work along the way. I shall reply to the speeches of my hon. Friends before dealing with matters raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.
I am thankful for the help that we have received from members of the London cab drivers club and the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association. I pay tribute to them for their assistance in dealing with the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) of trying to uncover fraud in the taxi business. We welcome their co-operation. We work closely with them and will continue to do so. The members of those bodies work with some other Departments and the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North about the operation at Heathrow is for the Department of Employment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North could have raised another issue, but, perhaps because of his position, he decided not to do so. I shall raise it for him. It is that those who drive taxis and register as unemployed, thus taking money to which they are not entitled, are helping to drive out of business those whom my hon. Friend seeks to help. They are taking their jobs. My hon. Friend was right to mention the efforts of the taxi drivers who, day in and day out, look after people in this place. Their honesty and integrity is impugned by those who break the rules and we welcome their efforts to assist us in trying to discover the culprits.

1297
My hon. Friend spoke about housing benefit and payments to landlords. He has been kind enough to write to me on the subject. I shall make clear the rules relating to the direct payment of landlords. Local authorities are required to make direct payment of housing benefit to landlords when direct payments for service charges and rent arrears are already being made from income support. Secondly, it is paid in cases where tenants have arrears that are equivalent to eight times or more the weekly rent, unless it is in the overriding interest of the tenant that the benefit should not be paid directly to the landlord.
Local authorities may use their discretion to make direct payments of housing benefit to landlords when the tenant consents to it or requests it. They can also be made without the tenant's consent if that is considered to be in the interest of the tenant and his family. Such payments can also be made without the tenant's consent if he has left the accommodation to which the benefit relates and there are rent arrears at that address, but the amount. paid directly must not exceed the arrears.
I share the worries of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North. The Department encourages closer liaison between local authorities and landlords. I was interested in his idea of a registration scheme to control fraud. It has attractions and I will bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of my colleagues in the Department of the Environment. The day-to-day administration of housing benefit is the responsibility of local authorities and we are cautious about imposing additional burdens on them. The issues that my hon. Friend raised are precisely those that the cross-London steering group will address. I shall say more about that group in my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), who was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), spoke about the problems of those who live and work in tourist areas. Such problems arise because of the movement of people and the claiming of benefit, sometimes inappropriately. We must maintain a balance. Where people live is largely a matter of individual choice, and the free movement of people is an essential feature of an efficient labour market. The Government do not wish to restrict that.
It would be wrong to impose controls through the benefits system on the area or type of accommodation to which people wished to move. To go down such a restrictive route in a democratic society would be fraught with difficulty. It is better to ensure that the conditions of entitlement to benefit are rigorously satisfied and that those who abuse the system lose all claim to financial support from the taxpayer.
That is why I was pleased that my hon. Friend spoke of Operation Sea Breeze and that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) spoke of the recent operation in Preston. Only by making it clear and public to people that those who abuse the social security system will be caught shall we be able to make progress.
We will continue to bear in mind the problems of tourist resorts when we are targeting our clampdowns, and I hope that my hon. Friends will be reassured by that. We will also look at the suggestion of improving the contact between the Benefits Agency and the public in disclosing fraud. We also now have the national service level agreement with local authority associations, designed to improve inter-agency liaison and co-operation, particularly in relation to housing benefit frauds in tourist areas, to which my hon. Friends referred. We will continue to
1298
develop those relationships further to improve our record in catching those who abuse the system. I hope that those measures will be of assistance to my many hon. Friends who represent tourist areas and associated places.
The speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) reminded us of the problems over the water. I was pleased that he did so, and am grateful for his attendance this morning. I listened to him with care. Just the other week, I was fortunate enough to visit the Province, in connection with the launching of the Child Support Agency there. I enjoyed my visit—I always enjoy my visits there—and I look forward to making more. I will ensure that his remarks, which fall more appropriately in the remit of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office, are brought to their attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) made an interesting and powerful speech. He was kind enough to apologise to me because he is unable to stay for the winding-up speeches. He reminded us most importantly that the money that the social security system distributes is not its own money. It does not belong to the Department, to the Chancellor or, sadly, to me. It is money which we have taken from people, who have earned it, to ensure that public services and the needs of others are looked after. That reiterates the point that Ministers have made from the Dispatch Box many times. Those who abuse the system are not getting back at the Tory Government but robbing their friends and neighbours. My hon. Friend made that point extremely clearly.
My hon. Friend also made an effective point about the attitudes of working people towards fraud. He made a clear distinction between those attitudes and the attitudes that we sometimes hear from those who represent left of centre parties. The hon. Member for Withington made his party's view clear, and I respect and understand that. However, some Opposition Members have said things that have caused us worry, and may have caused the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) to make his comments, which have been quoted today, about molly-coddling and the Labour party's past associations. We should welcome a break with those associations, but they have been at least part of the reason why the Labour party has seen such a slide in its support in the past decade.
The hon. Member for Withington, like others, spoke about new age travellers. Without necessarily condemning the life styles of those who seek to be alternative, many of us feel strongly that they should not support that by claiming from the rest of society. The concern about new age travellers is not that they want to be different—many people want and are entitled to be different; the question is whether they are entitled to be different at other people's expense. Unfortunately, new age travellers symbolise those who want their alternative life styles to be supported by the very people whose attitudes they mock and deride. That is why it has been necessary to take action.
Nevertheless, the Department must always remember that any measures it takes cannot be directed at individual groups on the basis of, "We don't like your face, John." We must draw up rules that apply to all, which is what we have done in toughening the regulations on the requirement actively to seek work, about which my hon. Friends feel so strongly. The Employment Service ensures that all those who register for unemployment benefit are taking reasonable steps to find employment. Regulations

1299
were introduced in December 1992 to remove entitlement to income support from unemployed people and childless couples who do not actively seek work.
Measures have also been taken to ensure that benefit claims by new age travellers do not inconvenience ordinary members of the public. One or two of my hon. Friends referred to the trestle tables set up to pay benefits on one occasion last summer and said that that was awful. I understand their point, but, on behalf of the Benefits Agency, I must explain that it must bear in mind the care and consideration that it owes to other claimants. If a large group of new age travellers descends on a particular office, that can be intimidating for the staff and for other claimants. On past occasions, we have been requested by the civil authorities to find an alternative way to pay benefits to new age travellers and that has been the driving force, rather than any desire to give preferential treatment to new age travellers or others who descend en masse on a particular office.
We have tried to ensure that it is clearly understood that new age travellers must satisfy the same conditions for entitlement to benefit as everyone else by proving that they are both available for and actively seeking work. We maintain close co-operation with the police to minimise any disruption to other benefit claimants and to prevent new age travellers from making fraudulent benefit claims.
The Benefits Agency has established a central contact point to enable police intelligence units to share information so that district managers can be forewarned of approaching groups of travellers. That will help the agency to handle benefit claims in the most efficient way, with due regard to the needs of its other claimants. It is well aware of the need to clamp down on any fraudulent claims.
I hope that that explanation has put the matter in context. I recognise that, in total, new age travellers constitute a small proportion of those claiming income support or unemployment benefit. However, in the areas where they congregate they can cause considerable disruption to ordinary people who are going about their business and are frightened by the presence of people who are identifiably different. Of course, the fact that a person's appearance is different is not the issue, but it is wrong when such people use their numbers to be intimidatory. The Benefits Agency is entitled to feel uncomfortable about that, on other people's behalf. My hon. Friends have made their position clear and I am happy to assure them that the agency takes the matter seriously.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) reminded me of bygone days. A decade ago, I served with the hon. Gentleman on Haringey council. It was wonderful in the early days. If it had not existed, the Sun would have had to invent it—it did everything that was expected from a loony left Labour council. It was marvellous. There were three political parties on the council at that time—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Withington will give me a little leeway. That council was comprised of the Labour party that ran the council, the Conservative opposition, and the Labour party that did not run the council. The degree and intensity of debate between the two Labour parties was of the greatest concern and interest to us all. I must leave it to the hon. Member for Islington, North to say which side of the counter he was on in respect of that debate. At least I
1300
learnt at first hand the difficulties of looking after a London borough and of providing the housing and other benefits that are now part of my brief.
The hon. Member for Islington, North referred to the cross-London boroughs team. We acknowledge the initiative involved in bringing that team together and its effect, and we shall strongly support it. The hon. Gentleman spoke of his recent visit to Centrepoint. Some months ago, I visited Centrepoint in Vauxhall. We have made, and continue to make, strenuous efforts to ensure that young people who are entitled to receive benefit do so. I was struck by the number of youngsters at Vauxhall who had come from disturbed backgrounds. They move about a lot and it is difficult for them to obtain information—and for benefit staff to keep track of them and to help. We have sought to improve our information procedures. The hon. Member for Islington, North did not acknowledge that or give credit where it was due.
As to hardship payments, we have improved the information available, to make it clear that more people are eligible than was originally thought. We have produced a booklet to help young people and their advisers. Each Benefits Agency office has a special officer with responsibility to liaise and deal with young people. We have made strenuous efforts to help. Sometimes, we have been hindered by comments by Opposition parties to the effect that no young people can claim benefits—period—and that income support cannot be paid to any 16 or 17-year-olds. That is not true. In particular circumstances, 16 and 17-year-olds can receive income support. However, we have often reiterated our general policy that that is not the best option for them. Sixteen and 17-year-olds should be in continuing education, training or jobs. We will not change that policy, because we believe it is right. Where people fall through the net and are vulnerable, the Department stands ready to support them. We are trying hard to get the balance right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) made a spirited and determined contribution to the debate and gave a variety of examples of fraud being tackled in different circumstances. She gave a catalogue of the savings that can be achieved by a determination to detect and to root out fraud.
The point that I most drew from my hon. Friend's speech relates to attitudes. She indicated how attitudes to fraud and to similar crimes have changed. Some people feel that if they are taking money from the Department of Social Security, they are taking money from the Government and are somehow being clever or getting their own back. That is not true. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge spoke of our belief that all crime is indivisible. I condemn City fraud and sharp practice as determinedly as anyone, and as the hon. Member for Withington would expect. Just as crime is indivisible, so, too, are attitudes to dishonesty. If people think that obtaining something from the Government by subterfuge is all right, we shall be on a slippery slope. Perhaps we are many years down that slippery slope.
One reason why we face the high benefits fraud bill that we do is that attitudes have changed in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. The spirit of honesty for which she called must be rekindled, but that cannot be done solely by the Department—or by the House in the attitudes that it displays, although that can help. Neither can it be

1301
rekindled solely by the Government. The spirit of honesty and fair dealing of one towards another is a matter which society must take strongly. The various opinion formers, whoever they may be, must support all those who profess adherence to values that are decent, honest and timeless. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam were timely today and I thank her for them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam also referred to the progress that we have sought to make on order books. I am pleased that she welcomes our efforts. We have made strides in ensuring that order book fraud will be more difficult. It costs a great deal of money, so I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and for her support for those who have done so much work to take that process forward.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) referred to the difficulties caused by the thin borderline between legality and abuse. That has been marked by some newspaper articles about some who have come to this country from the European Community and who appear to be taking advantage of our benefits system. That is a genuinely difficult issue because we have treaty obligations to those in the European Community, and we are determined to stand by and to support those obligations.
However, I agree strongly with those who have expressed concern about the apparent ease with which people from other EC member states can claim benefit here. We have already tightened up the income support rules that apply to people who come from other member states to seek work here. My hon. Friends were right to raise points about that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds was especially concerned about housing benefit. Overseas students are not treated more favourably than home students. Most are excluded on the ground of nationality. Only certain vulnerable students may claim housing benefit, and overseas students who have overstayed their period of leave, who are subject to a deportation order or who are judged by the immigration authorities to be illegal immigrants are excluded from housing benefit, even if they are in a vulnerable group.
As the House appreciates, there is a distinction between persons from abroad and persons from the EC, to whom different legislation applies. We have carefully tightened up this week on particular abuse that was prevalent among persons from abroad. Most of them come to this country on visas that provide that they will not be in receipt of public funds while in this country. It has become the practice for some 10,000 a year to apply, towards the end of their stay, for leave from the Home Office to vary that restriction. The law was that if people applied for such leave, benefits became available at that stage. Few who made a request to change the visa in the particular circumstances that they described would have their visas changed. Accordingly, this country found itself paying £17 million of benefits a year to people who had no hope of having the visa restriction changed. This week, therefore, we have moved to close that loophole and we believe that were right to do so.
I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds that we keep the position on asylum seekers pretty well under review. However, I make it clear to the House generally that the restriction I have just mentioned does not apply to genuine asylum seekers. This country
1302
has a long and proud tradition of being able to receive those who, for various reasons, are unable to continue their activities abroad. That tradition goes back to the Huguenots and many others.
However, we must be careful in these modern days, especially because of the problems of economic migration which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds made clear, to ensure that that hospitality is not abused. There is a difficult line to find, as debates in the House over the past two or three years have made clear. The Department of Social Security will faithfully back up the view of the Home Office in its distinctions on particular cases. I assure the House that we look carefully at the matter, but that we intend to ensure that those genuinely claiming to be refugees will get through under the new system far more quickly. They need not fear; they will continue to be covered. I hope that, by doing so, we strike the right balance between this country's proper hospitality and abuse.
Mr. Bradley: Although I agree with what the Minister has said, will he confirm, so that we do not again get matters out of context, that the numbers of people who apply for political asylum are small, so that the amount that we are talking about is equally small?
Mr. Burt: Yes, indeed. Applications for asylum in the United Kingdom totalled 22,000 in 1990. In 1991, they shot up to 44,000. The Home Office took certain action and, by 1992, the figure had come down to 24,000. That shows how volatile the numbers can be in particular circumstances, but they illustrate that we are talking about small numbers.
It is interesting, however, for those who look after purses to note that small numbers add up to a lot. The hon. Gentleman is constantly on at me and my colleagues about small amounts of money that we might be able to use to improve the benefits system in a particular way. We have to tell them that we are sorry, but we do not have the money. The £17 million that I have just referred to and false claims can add up to the sort of money that we might be able to use for just those things on which we want to spend money. That is why small amounts are important.
The hon. Member for Withington referred to take-up. I tried to make it clear in my speech that I had set my remarks about fraud in the context of this Government's determination to ensure that those who are entitled to benefits get them. The total amount unclaimed is estimated to be £1·7 billion, but that sum has to be set in the context of the amount actually claimed. We must remember that almost £9 out or every £10 is claimed and that four out of five who are eligible to make a claim do so. It also tends to be the smaller amounts that people do not claim, rather than the larger amounts. We want people to claim what they are entitled to, but we cannot force them to claim. Nevertheless, we have taken action, though various campaigns, to try to improve information about benefits. I mentioned earlier the £15 million that we spend annually on trying to make sure that people know what is available.
As for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks, my right hon. and learned Friend was not suggesting in any way that the Department of Social Security should discourage the claiming of benefit. What he was seeking to do, and what the Government have sought to do in recent weeks, was to make it clear that the whole of the social

1303
security budget has to be looked at in terms of trends for growth. My right hon. and learned Friend was looking at the trends in the number of people making claims.
Reference has already been made to the impact that these trends have had on invalidity benefit. Concern has been expressed about who is truly eligible for invalidity benefit and who is not. It was in that context that the Chancellor made his remarks, but the Department and the Government are determined to ensure that those who are eligible to claim do so. There was no suggestion in my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks that that will not remain the case.
The hon. Member for Withington referred to the perceived threat to post offices. I was able to say a few things at that time. May I reiterate, however, that the anticipated growth of automated credit transfer is likely to be more than offset by an overall increase in the volume of DSS transactions with the Post Office over the next few years. We are committed to ensuring that our contractual arrangements with the Post Office continue to promote a viable and national network of post offices. We have already given that commitment. I am happy to reiterate it.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the National Audit Office report. We welcome that report in general. It reinforces a number of messages that we have been trying to get across about the need to bear down on fraud and abuse. It highlighted the extent of instrument of payment fraud—the order books. The report was complimentary about the results achieved. It highlighted a number of areas for improvement: more effective allocation of resources, improved intelligence gathering, greater security of order book delivery and the need to change the style, design and content of order books.
We have already taken action. Reference has been made to the work that we have done on order books, the result of which was introduced this week. We are also committed to investing in better intelligence sharing and in specific action with the Post Office to help to improve the delivery of order book transactions.
The hon. Member for Withington referred to the need for secrecy about the report. I hope that I can reassure him. We have two things principally on our minds in relation to the restriction of information. The first is the need to protect our investigative staff. It should be noticed that yesterday's raid, which involved the seizure of benefit books and the possible saving of many millions of pounds—one national newspaper today suggested £36 million—had to be carried out with armed police available. People who are involved in criminal operations that could net such large sums will go to great lengths to protect themselves and stop at very little to get away with their crimes. It is essential that we protect our staff, so we have to be cautious about information in some cases.
Secondly, and as the hon. Gentleman recognised, we also have to bear in mind the risk of copycat fraud, so we sometimes have to be a little careful about the information that we can relese to the public. Knowing him as I do, I am sure that, in our private conversations, we can come to proper arrangements about any information that he might legitimately need for his work. There is no problem about that.
We spent a little time talking about local authorities and their involvement in helping us with housing benefit
1304
fraud. I pay tribute to their work. We have found them enormously helpful in many ways. I regularly meet representatives of local authority associations to discuss their housing benefit work, and I have found it one of the best examples of co-operation between national and local government that I have come across in my time in the House.
The hon. Member for Withington raised an issue mentioned to him by organisations such as citizens advice bureaux. They wonder whether, in view of the speed of the changes, we provide enough training. We try to ensure that we do. We provide free fraud training for local authority fraud investigators, and we have been able within our own budget to secure additional funding for that purpose. More than 80 per cent. of the investigators who attended the training in 1992 felt confident that they could usefully apply what they have learnt. We monitor the training to ensure that it is adequate. We thus take full account of the concerns of people outside and inside the system.
I have already mentioned the cross-London fraud working group, which is a very helpful initiative. The Department has agreed to support actively this newly formed London-wide team of local authority specialists, which has been set up to tackle organised housing benefit fraud. I am happy to support that team and have already agreed that DSS officials should attend its meetings. That should ensure the contintuation of the good relationship between central and local government. In answer to a specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, I am sure that he will find the team very helpful in dealing with the problems of hopping from borough to borough.
The hon. Member for Withington referred to the new system of subsidies and the changes that we have made. He expressed concern about the setting of targets. As I said, I have spent considerable time discussing such subjects with local authority representatives. The development of systems to encourage local authorities to uncover housing benefit abuse takes time, and we keep that development under review. We believe that the baseline targets that we have set have been appropriate. They are not too difficult to achieve, but we will keep them under review. We in no way intend to create disincentives for local authorities that have achieved a high level of performance. We shall review the baseline setting methodology in the light of the savings achieved in the coming year.
Mr. Bradley: How many local authorities have achieved their targets at the lower level and at the higher level?
Mr. Burt: I may have to write to the hon. Gentleman about that; it is an especially detailed point. The higher baseline represents less than 3 per cent. of expected housing benefit and council tax benefit expenditure. If local authorities provide sufficient additional resources to tackle fraud seriously, there is no reason why savings far in excess of the baselines should not be achieved.
Mr. Bradley: My question was asked in the light of the Minister's statement that the Government believe that the targets are appropriate. Clearly, we need to know how appropriate. We need to know what performance levels local authorities are achieving against the targets. I believe that an answer may now be winging its way to us.
Mr. Burt: The information provision system in this place is amazing. On this occasion, I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman because it is too early to say precisely what the achievements will be. I sought to show, by the answer that I gave—that the higher baseline represents less than 3 per cent. of expected housing benefit council tax benefit expenditure—that we have set realistic targets. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but we know that from the local authorities.
The way in which we have worked with local authorities and changed the incentives—I know that the hon. Gentleman and local authorities welcome that as a response to what they have been saying to us—shows our good faith on this matter. It is to our mutual advantage that we work with local authorities and provide a system that saves the public money, but, at the same time, enables local authorities to do that little bit more. That has been the intention of finding a system that has given them an incentive to do work that then gets them extra money. That is not a bad thing for local authorities and they have appreciated our efforts there.
With that good faith in mind, we will look at the targets, because it is not our intention to penalise local authorities that are working effectively. I am not sure how I can help the hon. Gentleman further, but I am happy to listen.
Mr. Bradley: The Minister's comment slid off his lips, as we were expecting the answer from somewhere else. He said that he would write and tell me which local authorities had achieved their targets. Perhaps when he sees that information, he may be in a better position to review the targets.
Mr. Burt: I give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that when I am in a position to write to him with substantial information, I will do so. It might be a little precipitate to do that now, but I note the hon. Gentleman's point and I will write to him.
In conclusion, I shall clear up a few final points because we have covered so much. Market testing is a real issue in the Benefits Agency and the Government. The aims of market testing are clear. We are trying to ensure that good value for money is achieved. Sometimes, the best way to save money and change practices has been through the process of market testing. No firm decisions have been made on any market testing of the fraud operation.
We are carefully exploring the scope for ensuring the most efficient and cost-effective way of handling fraud investigations. A preliminary study has been carried out, which will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, whatever arrangements might be entered into in the future, questions of sensitivity and confidentiality will remain of paramount consideration.
1306
I turn to the point of targeting our anti-fraud effort. I can reassure the hon. Member for Withington that, as far as I am concerned, cases are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Having said that, we cannot ignore patterns of fraud when we see them. In recognising the context of fraud, and perhaps finding an area where fraud, or a specific sort of fraud, is prevalent, individuals are treated as individuals. Benefit investigators know that. If we get that balance right, we will be able to deal with the sensitivities raised by the hon. Gentleman, which are shared by many, and ensure that we direct our efforts to recover fraud savings from the areas that are most likely to produce them.
We have had a long and useful debate on the subject of fraud. With estimated savings of £1 billion this year, that amount is a substantial part of any Government's budget, even a Department of Social Security budget of £80 billion. I am grateful for the attention and attendance of my hon. Friends, who gave us the benefit of their thoughts on this subject. They can reassure their constituents that they have a Government who are determined to ensure not only that those who are entitled to benefits receive them, but that those who are not, do not.
The warning is clear for those who seek to cheat, not me, but their fellow citizens. They will be found out and forced to repay. They may find themselves with a criminal record or a spell in gaol. We know that there are serious fraudsters about. There is nothing wrong in letting people know that other folk are diddling them. I hope that the Government's message of determination will be noted from the debate.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Social Security Fraud

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That—

  (1) this House do meet on Tuesday 27th July at half-past Nine o'clock;

  (2) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 17 (Time for taking questions), no Questions shall he taken, provided that at Eleven o'clock the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit Questions to be asked which are in her opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members; and

  (3) at Three o'clock the Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question, provided that this House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Cedars Nursery, Nottingham
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
2.5 pm
Mr. John Heppell: First, I thank the Speaker's Office for giving me the opportunity to raise this issue today.
I became interested in child care because of something that happened locally. I do not profess to be an expert on it, but I have some knowledge of Cedars nursery in my constituency, which is due to be closed. I should therefore like to address the issue on a national level and a local one.
My knowledge about child care nationally stems from what has happened locally. It seems fairly strange that, at a time when many of our major employers are banding together to try to guarantee better child care facilities in the community, the national health service should cut its child care provision. Those major employers are members of the forum, Employers Childcare, and they include the BBC, British Telecom, British Gas, the Co-operative bank, Kingfisher plc, Rover Group and the TSB Group plc. They all want to improve child care provision in the community. They are not driven to do that because child care is an equal opportunities issue or a women's issue. They are not concerned about issues that are peripheral to their business. They are not in the business of charity.
The aims of that forum are clearly set out in its statement, which says:
"The provision of quality child care will help businesses to maximise their commercial potential and make the best use of the skills and labour available."
The members of that forum want to make their businesses more efficient and effective. They want to improve the provision of child care in order to retain their highly skilled and experienced staff and to reduce recruitment costs, absenteeism and poor records on punctuality—all caused because of the conflict between child care and work. They want to stop waste and increase their profits.
The House should remember that I am talking about hardheaded business men—sometimes they are hardhearted—whose interest in child care is not founded on charity. They want to invest in it because they realise that they spend tens of thousands of pounds on training staff and that those staff acquire years and years of experience. Employers recognise that their small investment in child care makes not only common sense but good economic sense. I am pleased to note that the Secretary of State for Employment seems to support that important initiative.
There is no doubt that our record on child care is not good. We do not offer the same level of provision as that offered by our European competitors and that puts us at a real disadvantage in the market. According to a survey conducted in 1992 by the organisation, Working for Childcare, which is devoted to promoting good child care in the United Kingdom, there are fewer than 450 workplace nurseries in the United Kingdom and 50 per cent. of them are in London or the south. That amounts to some 12,000 full-time day care nursery places, which represents just one place for every 300 children who require it.
Although I welcome the tax relief proposals that the Government made in 1990, they will have little effect because 60 per cent. of workplace nurseries are in the public sector and cannot benefit from tax relief. Only 16
1308
per cent. of such nurseries are in the private sector. Joint schemes between the public and private sectors represent some 20 per cent. and may be the best way to improve child care. I do not wish to be dogmatic because I am happy whether workplace nurseries are run privately, by the public sector or by a partnership between the two. I simply want more child care places to be made available.
The national health service has more workplace nurseries than any other employer. I applaud many of the district authorities' imaginative child care initiatives and congratulate them on their vision in realising the benefits of child care. However, we must put the figures in perspective. The NHS has more workplace nurseries than any other employer because it is the biggest employer in Europe, employing more than 1 million people, three quarters of whom—750,000—are women. Because the NHS is so big, its child care provision is not as good as one first thinks.
I shall quote the figures produced by the British Medical Association because those produced by the Department of Health are abysmal. The BMA's figures show that, of the women who leave the NHS for maternity reasons, only 17 per cent. return to the NHS after the first year of pregnancy. By comparison, more than 50 per cent. of women who leave their employment in banks for the same reason return after the first year. What is the Government's response to that? Clearly, something is wrong if only 17 per cent. of nurses return to work in the NHS. What are the Government doing about it? The Department of Health's response seems to be that it is doing very little and plans to do even less in the future.
When seeking answers, I deliberately narrowed my inquiry down to nurses because I thought that if I asked about all staff I would get no answers. I discovered that the Department of Health had incomplete records for 1988 and 1989 because 11 regional and district health authorities had not responded to its inquiry. The Department's 1990–91 records for the number of people who left the NHS for maternity reasons were also incomplete because 27 units either did not reply or the data that they provided were inadequate and could not be used in the statistics.
However, it became clear that thousands of nurses were leaving the NHS every year for maternity reasons. When I tried to find out how many returned to the Department of Health after maternity leave, I discovered that there was no record of that. That is abysmal. The retention saving for just one D-grade nurse is some £28,000. That makes me wonder how much money is being lost to the NHS because people still maintain health care philosophies dating back to the last century. I hope that I shall receive a positive response from the Minister about the Department of Health's national strategy. The employers forum and many major employers say that the Government need a national strategy for health care—where is it?
Compared with the private sector, the NHS has a good record, but that is not to say that it has a good record per se. I am worried that, particularly with the introduction of trust status, if no direction is given by the Secretary of State, the Department of Health will not provide any sense of direction. If there is no direction from the Department of Health, there will be no direction from the regional or district health authorities. That will create a feeling among the trusts and units being set up, which do not share the long-term economic view of child care, that they have no incentive to push for a health care strategy.

1309
I have two questions for the Minister on the national strategy. Will he consider two of the recommendations made by the British Medical Association in its report, "Childcare for Doctors in the National Health Service"? First, will he ensure that the national health service unit conducts a comprehensive survey of child care provision on behalf of the NHS management executive? Will that survey address the specific needs of health service employees who have to work shifts and at weekends?
Secondly, will the Minister ensure that NHS and trust hospitals have an incentive to provide child care facilities through some form of subsidy equal to the tax relief enjoyed by private employers? At present, private employers benefit from tax relief, but NHS or trust hospitals cannot, which leaves them without an incentive. Had those two recommendations been in force, the local incident which I am about to describe would not have occurred.
I refer to the closure of Cedars nursery. It is an excellent nursery which I have visited on several occasions, and I have talked to staff, parents and people involved in it. The Minister may ask why the nursery is to close. I think that he has some reasons for its closure, but I hope to persuade him otherwise. The nursery is not going to close because there is no need for it in the district; there is a definite need—the health authority has 15,000 employees and the nursery has 30 places. At best, it can provide places for 40 children from 40 different families. Therefore, it is obvious that there is a need for it.
The nursery is not going to close because staff and parents do not want it to remain; they do. It is not going to close because it is unsuccessful; it has been an enormous success. There are two reasons why the nursery is to close: first, the district health authority did not have the foresight to plan properly to ensure that the nursery survived, and, secondly, many of the senior management in the NHS are not committed to child care.
Cedars nursery was set up 20 years ago. A few Saturdays ago, I went to its anniversary celebrations. If I or anyone else had any doubts about how successful and prestigious the nursery was and how much support it enjoyed among people in the district, those doubts would have been wiped away by the anniversary celebrations. So many people responded to the invitations that there had to be two celebration cakes. As I walked about the 30-place nursery, all I heard from the hundreds of people who attended the anniversary celebration—including parents, children, past parents and past children—was praise for the nursery. I have heard praise for the nursery from everyone who has had any involvement with it. It is echoed by everyone I talk to in the NHS—every trust, unit and hospital. They all say that it is a marvellous nursery and a great success.
In correspondence on this issue with the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), the chairman of the health authority said:
"Managers here at the Health Authority, in conjunction with the providers in Nottingham—whether it be directly managed units or NHS Trusts—will continue to explore all options which will allow us to maintain what I am pleased to note is acknowledged as an 'excellent nursery education' in a way that is equitable to all those parties involved."
That is hardly faint praise—the man means it. The problem is that he goes on to identify the reasons why the nursery is to close.
It is astounding that the nursery should be closed for the reasons given. Now that the units are going their
1310
separate ways because they want to achieve trust status—some have already achieved it—Nottingham health care unit, which itself is in the process of going for trust status, feels that it has been left holding the baby; indeed, it feels that it has been left holding a number of babies. It has been left with the funding and running of a nursery which predominantly caters for the children of staff who work in the other units, which have now become trusts. The staff at the unit therefore say that the nursery is not their responsibility, because they are not using its services.
The city hospital trust and the Nottingham community health trust, with staff whose children attend the-nursery, say that they were never given funding for the nursery; it went to the other units—so it is not really their responsibility either. When I tell the district health authority that the nursery is going to close, it tells me that it is now a purchaser, not a provider of facilities—so the nursery is no longer its responsibility. I do not exactly agree with that. When I write to the Secretary of State, I receive a letter from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), saying, in effect, that it is not his responsibility either.
The facts are that the nursery is closing down, and that it is not the responsibility of the units, the trusts, the DHA, the RHA, the Secretary of State or the Department of Health—so no one is to blame for the closure. I should be failing in my duty as a responsible Member of Parliament if I accepted these explanations for closing an excellent nursery which is highly regarded by everyone in the area.
The Minister, in his letter, did attach a certain amount of blame to someone. He said:
"Officials have contacted Nottingham Health Authority and I understand that employees have asked for future child care initiatives for health service staff in Nottingham to concentrate on the development and strengthening of holiday play schemes, which will benefit more people than the current nursery is able to help."
If that is what the Minister understands—I do not know where he gets his information from—he is wrong. Surveys among NHS staff show, depending on how the questions have been asked, that child care features prominently among women's priorities, as do workplace nurseries.
A survey carried out in my region, but not my district, by the Central Nottinghamshire health authority states, in its final paragraph:
"More flexible working patterns and a seven-day week all-year round Creche were commonly felt to be the most important provision of the future."
The questionnaire sent by the Central Nottinghamshire health authority to its staff asks ambiguous questions. This affects my patch because it is in the area of the district health authority. People were asked about their problems with child care and the greatest response was about cost. They said that expensive child care was the biggest worry. The second concern, which was well above worries about finding suitable carers, upset children and unsympathetic managers, was the lack of workplace child care facilities.
Workplace nurseries did not come top of the replies to the question about how matters could be improved. Child care vouchers and cheques were most mentioned. However, 67 to 80 per cent. of the parents were in favour of workplace nurseries for one to four-year-olds. The Minister has been sadly misinformed if he has been led to understand that the employees want to get rid of the nursery.
The final proof that the staff are not the reason for the closure is that the union has formally invoked the

1311
grievance procedure on behalf of the staff because the nursery is closing. It lists matters such as recruitment, retention, lack of suitable alternatives and commitment to equal opportuntiies as reasons for doing that.
The nursery closure is a direct result of reorganisation for trust status. I shall not engage in an argument with the Minister to try to persuade him to stop his plans for creating hospital trusts, but I hope that he accepts that in urging hospitals to seek trust status the Government did not intend to close excellent nurseries. That is effectively what is happening because no one is prepared to take responsibility for what existed before. I hope the Minister agrees that the responsibility lies with the district health authority. Before trusts were proposed, the health authority should have made appropriate plans to ensure that the nursery was properly catered for and assured of survival.
Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will make representations to Nottingham district health authority about the absurdity of a Department campaigning vigorously to increase child care places and putting up about £45 million to do it, while at the same time denying such facilities to people in my area because those making the decisions about it follow the child care philosophy of three decades ago.
Those who understand the importance of child care are members of the Employers for Childcare which is campaigning for more child care. I wish that my district health authority had the same competence so that we could be assured of decent child care facilities.
2.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) on having the good fortune to secure this debate. I spent six weeks prior to my appointment seeking the same good fortune but without success. My consolation prize is to respond to the debate. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing before the House the proposal by Nottingham health care unit, which is part of Nottingham district health authority, to close the Cedars day nursery.
The letter that I sent to the hon. Gentleman clearly states:
"It is a matter for each local authority to determine and fund the provision of child care facilities for staff in the light of local need."
There is no question of not knowing who is responsible. I did not use the word "blame", because I was not apportioning blame. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that I understand that those are matters wholly for the district health authority. The Secretary of State and I do not have jurisdiction. It is not like a case of hospital closure, where the community health council can appeal to the Secretary of State.
The debate gives us the opportunity to explore together the issues and decisions in the case and reflect on some of the wider points that the hon. Gentleman has made. I listened to him with interest. I welcome his acknowledgment of the initiatives in the NHS.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
Mr. Bowis: The initiatives are important. They are developing and I am sure that both the hon. Gentleman and I hope that they expand in many other parts of the NHS. I recognise the local knowledge and concern that underlie his remarks. I am sure that he is anxious to secure the best possible facilities for his constituents and shares with the management of Nottingham healthcare unit and the two Nottingham trusts—Nottingham city hospital and community health—a real concern to ensure that employees derive all possible assistance in combining a career with a balanced and harmonious family life.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about records, responsibi lity, employment and local decisions. As is the case with banks, those are not for national decisions, but for local decisions. It is not for the Department to second guess the local needs and priorities as assessed and decided upon by the local district health authority. That is its job—it knows how to do it best—and we support it as far as we can in the conclusions that it reaches.
The proposal at issue is that the Nottingham healthcare unit does not wish to run the Cedars day nursery at a financial loss, and the nursery will have to close not later than 31 March 1994. The nursery was established in 1973 as a child care facility for the children of staff employed by Nottingham health authority. It has been managed by the general hospital, which now forms part of the Nottingham healthcare unit. It is financed by fee income from parents and a joint subsidy from the Nottingham district health authority and the two trusts. The majority of registered users work at the city and community health NHS trusts. That is, 62 per cent., or 26 children, from the former and 21 per cent., or nine children, from the latter, with four children from the district health authority.
Let me stress, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly stressed, that the manager and nursery nurses at the Cedars are to be congratulated on the high standard of child care that they have provided over the past 20 years. The hon. Gentleman spoke of people echoing that fact, and I am happy to join them on behalf of my Department. That fact has not gone unnoticed and has been valued and praised by parents and hospital management alike. Despite that quality, it has not attracted the numbers to fill the nursery. Cedars offered a much-needed resource in previous years, particularly when there was little or no independent nursery provision in the area and when the child minder network was both in its infancy and very informal. Just over one third of its 30 places have been provided for children aged up to two years.
Between 1988 and 1992, the number of places in registered day nurseries throughout the country grew by 100 per cent., while the number of child minders rose by 40 per cent. There are now 90,000 places in registered day nurseries all over the country, and 106,000 registered child minders offering 240,000 places for the under-fives. Despite the tone of the hon. Gentleman's comments, I hope that he will recognise that there has been extraordinary progress to providing a multi-agency approach and giving choice of different types of provisions—the hon. Gentleman acknowledged the desirability of that—and there are the figures to show it.
Mr. Heppell: I do not dispute the fact that extra places have been made available through child minders and private nurseries. The difficulty in the recruitment of

1313
children for the nursery arose only when the health authority let it be known that it intended to close the nursery.
Mr. Bowis: There are at least 130 nursery places within a two-mile radius of the Cedars. Therefore, managers in Nottingham have asked themselves whether it is justifiable to continue to subsidise a loss-making facility with money that could otherwise be spent on direct patient care.
As a small, 30-place nursery, which is not based on a major hospital site, the Cedars meets only a very small part of the child care requirements of the 14,000-plus people employed by the health service in Nottingham. Nor is it ideally located for the majority of Nottingham health care unit staff, who typically form less than 10 per cent. of the registered users of the facility.
I understand that the decision to close the facility has not been taken lightly. Over the past five years, the future of the Cedars has been carefully considered by local managers. Currently, the facility is subsidised by the district health authority and the two trusts. However, even with parents paying a rate of £65·25 per week, which compares with a commercial rate in the area of between £65 and £82·50, there remains a subsidy to find, amounting to £4 per full session per child.
The nursery carried a deficit of £38,000 in 1992–93 and expenditure is expected to outstrip income by more than £28,000 again in 1993–94. That does not take into account the considerable capital expenditure for upgrading the fabric of the Cedars that would be required if the facility were to remain open—for instance, repairs to roofing, guttering and the ventilation system. It is believed that that money could be better spent in the health service on patient care.
A business plan for recovery of the capital costs of the upgrading, together with recovery of the existing subsidy over the next three years, would require an immediate increase of almost 30 per cent. in the weekly charge at the Cedars for current users. That would bring the charge up to almost £85 per week, which is well above the cost of places available in the commercial sector. Indeed, I understand that those 130 private nursery places nearest to the Cedars cost less than £75 per week.
Alternatively, the Nottingham health care unit estimates that it would be necessary to double the number of children using the nursery in order to make a commercial case for continuing to run it. I am told that the average occupancy at the Cedars over the past year has been 65 per cent., and I understand that the capital cost alone of expanding the nursery to accommodate twice that number would be in excess of £170,000.
I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there is another, expanding facility close to the Cedars—the Queen's medical centre at the University hospital NHS trust. It is within 10 minutes travelling time of the Cedars and is a 50-place, privately run day nursery. It is expanding its capacity to 78 places and has already agreed with the Nottingham health care unit that children from the Cedars can be accommodated there if the parents so wish. The charge for a full place, including meals, is about £77 a week, which is £8 less than the charge that would be required for the Cedars were it to become commercially viable.
The hon. Member will join me, I am sure, in applauding the decision of managers at both Nottingham trusts to consult with staff about future staff benefits. The city
1314
hospital NHS trust has surveyed one in four of its employees and, in the light of the results, has decided to focus its child care efforts on strengthening the holiday play scheme and finding other ways of assisting with child care responsibilities. It has appointed someone who delights in the title of human resources planning and rewards manager—I hope that he speaks in simpler terms than that title implies—specifically to examine the issues of staff benefits and appropriate child care provision. The trust has therefore decided not to continue to subsidise the Cedars after March 1994.
Nottingham community health NHS trust has discovered that a centralised day nursery facility does not meet the needs of staff working across Nottingham. Efforts will therefore be directed at developing holiday play schemes. I understand that the trust will also discontinue its subsidy of the Cedars after March 1994.
The hon. Member will be aware that nursery places in the commercial sector are available in Nottingham. There are 37 nurseries listed in the city, Broxtowe and Rushcliffe areas, and the Vernon Park day nursery, which is due to open later this year, has advertised 50 places with rates of £70 per week, only a little above the current rate at the Cedars and considerably below the figure required for the nursery to become viable commercially. Nottingham also has an inner-city task force, which has been supporting a number of nursery and child care projects.
I understand that the Nottingham health care unit has always been prepared to consider any proposal put forward by parents or staff, or both, for the future of the Cedars. However, lengthy deliberation has shown that no viable business case has yet been found for keeping the nursery open. Nottingham health care unit and Nottingham health authority agreed to a proposal by parents and staff to form a co-operative to run the nursery, but that option has not been taken up by the parents.
Mr. Heppell: The option to form a co-operative was suggested by the parents. The only problem was that staff were worried that they would have to resign from the NHS to take up posts with the co-operative. The parents asked the unit's management whether they would second the staff to the co-operative, which would have paid them—there would be no cost to the NHS. It was simply a matter of protecting the employees' rights. The unit said that it was not prepared to do that, and in effect gave an ultimatum that unless the staff resigned by 31 May, the co-operative option was off.
Mr. Bowis: I entirely understand that. I imagine that parents and staff would have had to decide on certain issues. Nevertheless, the possibility was explored, even if—as the hon. Gentleman suggests—it was not possible to pursue it for the reasons that he gave, and perhaps for other reasons.
Managers at Nottingham health care and Nottingham health authority are to be commended for recognising the great duty that they owe to the seven staff currently working at the Cedars. The managers would like to put an end to months of uncertainty and to explore reemployment opportunities within and outside the health authority. Their intention is to redeploy staff into suitable alternative posts where possible, or to assist with finding alternative employment.
I emphasise that there is no doubt about the national health service's commitment to child care provision. The

1315
Department of Health fully recognises that good child care facilities can be of considerable help—and here I echo the hon. Gentleman's remarks—in reducing staff turnover, recruiting and retaining the services of NHS staff with young children, and competing for skilled staff in the labour market.
In particular, the provision of suitable child care facilities is a key factor in increasing women's participation in the work force, if they choose that following the birth of a child. As the hon. Gentleman lists equal opportunities as one of his special interests, I am sure that he will welcome progress in that respect.
In May 1991, the General Whitley Council reached agreement on new provisions for child care, which commended to health authorities the establishment of an appropriate range of facilities, including workplace nurseries, holiday play schemes and child care voucher arrangements. That is an enabling agreement, which gives each employer discretion to determine the type of assistance appropriate to local circumstances.
In 1991, the Department of Health also launched its "Women in the NHS Initiative" and subsequently joined the Opportunity 2000 campaign, to put women's issues on the NHS managerial agenda. As a result, there has been
1316
much interest generated throughout the NHS, and many authorities and trusts are looking at how they can improve their employment practices.
In reality, that has meant that local management has had to examine all aspects of employment practice, including flexible working, term-time hours, job share and, of course, child care. A survey by the NHS management executive at the end of 1991 showed that more than half the health authorities in England provided some form of help with child care. That is progress, and should meet some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
The NHS management executive recently produced a booklet, "School's out—initiatives for out of school child care", which focuses on the approaches that trusts and authorities have taken to improve the quality and quantity of child care available outside school hours and during holidays.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising those issues and for the chance to respond. I, for one, am firmly committed to the provision and development of appropriate forms of child care in the national health service in the light of local recruitment and retention needs, and in the light of the needs and wishes of local people—as assessed and responded to by local health authorities and local NHS trusts.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Three o'clock.

EDUCATION

  Centre for Young Musicians
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will take steps to ensure that musically gifted children from all parts of inner London can continue to receive tuition at the Centre for Young Musicians.

  Mr. Forth
  The activities of the Centre for Young Musicians are funded from a number of sources—including the Department for Education. We are supporting the central costs of the centre with £100,000 funding for each of the three years 1993–96. I welcome the support given by private sponsors and hope that London children will continue to benefit from the opportunities offered by the centre.

  Non-vocational Adult Education
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the standard spending assessment allowances for non-vocational adult education for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 listed by education authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Provision for the further education for adults for which education authorities are responsible is included within the education component of standard spending assessments, but is not separately identified.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Crown Court Cases
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many persons were found guilty following a not guilty plea in Crown courts in England and Wales during 1991; and how many of those were subsequently given a non-custodial sentence.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  During 1991, a total of 15,379 defendants were convicted in the Crown court following a plea of not guilty to all or to some counts. Of these, 7,161 received a non-custodial sentence.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal have been allowed and dismissed in 1992 and the first quarter of 1993.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is as follows:

  Appeals to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  19921

  249

  493

  January to March 1993

  62

  123

  672
  1 Complete figures are not available for 1992. The figures given are estimates based on average returns for the eight months of that year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average delay listed by each immigration appeals hearing centre (i) between receiving the explanatory statement and papers about a case(a) from a British post overseas and (b) from the Home Office and sending those papers to an appellant or his or her authorised representative and (ii) between the hearing of an immigration appeal by an adjudicator and the despatch of the determination to the appellant or authorised representative.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  All appeals to the immigration appellate authorities—IAA—are at present registered at their centre at Thanet House in London. On receipt of an appeal, whether from a British post overseas or from the Home Office, the IAA on average dispatches copies of the case papers to the appellant or his of her authorised representative within five days. The IAA's individual hearing centres do not record the average time between the hearing of an appeal by an adjudicator and the dispatch of the determination to the appellant or authorised representative. It is estimated, however, that the current average time for the IAA as a whole is six to eight weeks.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals to immigration adjudicators have been allowed and dismissed in 1992 and the first quarter of 1993, broken down according to the nationality of the appellant and the type of decision appealed against.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested, broken down according to the country where the application was made, is set out in the tables.

  Month ending January 1992 to December 1992 Appeal categories—EEC

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  —

  3

  2. Exclusion—External Appeals

  —

  9

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  —

  1

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  —

  1

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  —

  —

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  —

  1

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  —

  —

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  —

  —

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  —

  1

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  —

  1

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  —

  12

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  —

  1

  673

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  —

  1

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  —

  —

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  31

  Appeal categories—Bangladesh

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  4

  16

  2. Exclusion—External Appeals

  —

  34

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  23

  203

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or nances or fiancees)

  115

  749

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  4

  23

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  152

  937

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  2

  5

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  50

  117

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  1

  7

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  1

  14

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  5

  127

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  1

  7

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  1

  1

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  —

  —

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  359

  2,240

  Appeal categories—Ghana

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  2

  46

  2. Exclusion—External Appeals

  4

  21

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  14

  51

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  74

  288

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  —

  12

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  6

  9

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  1

  1

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  —

  11

  674

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  3

  2

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  —

  14

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  8

  367

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  5

  108

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  —

  1

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  —

  1

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  117

  932

  Appeal categories—India

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  —

  13

  2. Exclusion—External Appeals

  1

  39

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  6

  22

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  687

  2,198

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  10

  27

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  72

  217

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  15

  34

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  67

  215

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  47

  100

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  1

  36

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  24

  532

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  2

  38

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  2

  2

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  —

  1

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  934

  3,474

  Appeal categories—Jamaica

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  —

  13

  2. Exclusion—External Appeals

  5

  57

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  4

  49

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  88

  397

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  —

  15

  675

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  18

  36

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  1

  2

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  5

  18

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  —

  2

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  —

  4

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  6

  224

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  2

  25

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  —

  4

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  1

  4

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  130

  849

  Appeal categories—Nigeria

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  1

  63

  2. Exclusion—External Appeals

  2

  37

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  3

  37

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  272

  1,989

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  5

  27

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  15

  33

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  2

  2

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  4

  15

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  2

  1

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  5

  36

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  55

  1,259

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  11

  362

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  —

  23

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  —

  7

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  377

  3,891

  Month ending January 1992 to December 1992

  Appeal categories—Pakistan

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  1

  18

  2. Exclusion—External Appeals

  2

  33

  676

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  —

  20

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  611

  2,525

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  4

  46

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  166

  400

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  10

  24

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  370

  842

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  79

  179

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  1

  35

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  26

  515

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  2

  45

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  —

  8

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  —

  4

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  1,272

  4,694

  Appeal categories—All Other Countries

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  10

  109

  2. Exclusion—External Appeals

  55

  879

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  15

  73

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  672

  4,218

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  29

  259

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  82

  374

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  16

  41

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  21

  80

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  7

  20

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  39

  238

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  118

  2,735

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  9

  224

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  2

  17

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  —

  19

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  1,079

  9,186

  677

  Month ending January 1993 to March 1993

  Appeal categories—EEC

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  —

  1

  2. Exclusion—External Appeals

  —

  —

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  —

  —

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  —

  —

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  —

  —

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  —

  —

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  —

  —

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  1

  —

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  —

  —

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  —

  —

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  —

  —

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  —

  —

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  —

  —

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  —

  —

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  1

  1

  Appeal categories—Bangladesh

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  —

  3

  2. Exclusion—External Appeals

  —

  5

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  4

  36

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  44

  219

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  —

  4

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  20

  143

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  1

  —

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  12

  33

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  —

  2

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  —

  —

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  2

  26

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  1

  5

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  —

  —

  678

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  —

  —

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  84

  476

  Appeal categories—Ghana

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  —

  3

  2. Exclusion—External Appeals

  —

  6

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  —

  2

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  32

  114

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  —

  1

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  2

  9

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  —

  —

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  —

  2

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  —

  —

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  —

  2

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  2

  77

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  —

  41

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  —

  —

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  —

  —

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  36

  257

  Appeal categories—India

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  —

  2

  2. Exclusion—External Appeals

  1

  5

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  1

  7

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  169

  393

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  1

  6

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  17

  66

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  6

  11

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  21

  55

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  15

  26

  679

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  —

  8

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  6

  93

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  —

  16

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  1

  1

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  —

  —

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  238

  689

  Appeal categories—Jamaica

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  —

  1

  2. Exclusion—External Appeals

  2

  19

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  —

  —

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  15

  57

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  —

  —

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  2

  4

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  1

  1

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  1

  3

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  —

  1

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  —

  3

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  6

  77

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  —

  10

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  —

  1

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  —

  —

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  27

  177

  Appeal categories—Nigeria

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  1

  8

  2. Exclusion—External Appeals

  —

  15

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  3

  8

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  91

  542

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  —

  7

  680

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  —

  11

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  1

  1

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  1

  5

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  —

  —

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  —

  4

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  12

  251

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  —

  100

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  —

  1

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  —

  1

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  109

  954

  Appeal categories—Pakistan

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  —

  7

  2. Exclusion—External Appeals

  —

  3

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  1

  3

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  184

  437

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  2

  3

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  21

  70

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  2

  3

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  84

  155

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  13

  21

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  2

  7

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  2

  105

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  —

  22

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  —

  1

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  —

  —

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  311

  837

  Appeal categories—All Other Countries

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  Exclusion—Appeal at Port

  —

  15

  Exclusion—External Appeals

  20

  214

  681

  Number allowed

  Number dismissed

  3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement

  3

  21

  4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  174

  1,156

  5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment, Business or Independent Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  8

  49

  6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by Wives and Children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  41

  82

  7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by female fiancees

  5

  10

  8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by husbands

  10

  33

  9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male fiances

  1

  9

  10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S. 14(2))

  1

  50

  11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter

  14

  456

  12. Decision to make Deportation Order

  —

  95

  13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

  —

  —

  14. Giving of Removal Directions

  —

  4

  15. Destination Only Appeal

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  277

  2,194

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements he has made to deal with the effects of the right of appeal for all refused asylum-seekers provided in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor will designate 16 full-time and 15 part-time adjudicators to act as special adjudicators. These will be appointed from the cadre of experienced immigration adjudicators and will deal with appeals by refused asylum seekers under the Act. In addition, a new regional centre has been opened at Hatton Cross, near Heathrow airport, which will provide 15 hearing rooms; this has replaced the five hearing room centre at Harmondsworth which has been closed.

  Benzodiazepine
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many legal aid certificates have been issued in repect of claims arising from the ingestion of benzodiazepine tranquillisers; how many of these have been discharged; and how many are subject to appeal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A total of 13,168 legal aid certificates have been granted in respect of proceedings relating to benzodiazepine tranquillisers. The position on these is constantly changing, but, at present, more than 7,000 certificates have been discharged and several hundred are awaiting decisions on appeal.
  682

TRANSPORT

  Rail Routes (M25)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been made of the improvement, reintroduction or new building of passenger rail routes that would provide rapid inter-urban transport between travel generation centres adjacent, or with easy access, to the M25 motorway.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Heathrow access and London south-west quadrant study has considered options for new rail links within range of the M25. That study is being considered in the wider context of transport and planning issues in London. I understand that some other ideas for rail projects adjacent to the M25 have been proposed outside the Department. In general however, since for most users the M25 is a relatively small part of their overall journey, rail links which simply connected towns close to that motorway would not provide a very attractive alternative.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects services through the channel tunnel to commence.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for Eurotunnel.

  Red Star
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bids to buy Red Star have been received to date.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail is responsible for the sale of Red Star. The number of bids received is a commercial matter for BR.

EMPLOYMENT

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to provide more apprenticeships; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In national vocational qualifications we now have an employer-led framework of qualifications which young people can achieve through work-based training, building on the best of our apprenticeship traditions. These training arrangements and qualifications have much to contribute in improving economic competitiveness and equipping young people for rewarding careers.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he proposes with(a) the Trades Union Congress and (b) employers to consider ways of stimulating the growth in the number of apprenticeships in British industry.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Interest in a modern, revitalised apprenticeship system features prominently in discussions I have with representatives of both employers and employees. All concerned need to be clear that work—
  683
  based training and vocational qualifications deserve equal esteem alongside other education and training options open to young people.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list for each annual labour force survey since 1984 and for the spring 1992 and winter 1992–93 surveys the number and percentage of 16 and 17-year-olds in full-time employment;

  (2) if he will list for each annual labour force survey since 1984 and for the spring 1992 and winter 1992–93

  Persons aged 16/17

  Great Britain

  Numbers of 16/17 year olds (000's)

  Percentage of total 16/17 year olds

  Year/quarter

  Total

  In full time employment

  ILO Unemployed1

  In full time education1

  Not in full time education

  In full time employment

  In full time education

  Not in full time education

  ILO unemployment rate (per cent.)2

  1984 (spring)

  1,749

  512

  223

  973

  777

  29·3

  55·6

  44·4

  21·5

  1985 (spring)

  1,717

  521

  214

  920

  797

  30·3

  53·6

  46·4

  20·3

  1986 (spring)

  1,667

  510

  219

  897

  769

  30·6

  53·8

  46·2

  20·8

  1987 (spring)

  1,663

  486

  201

  943

  720

  29·2

  56·7

  43·3

  19·4

  1988 (spring)

  1,626

  522

  150

  916

  710

  32·1

  56·3

  43·7

  14·1

  1989 (spring)

  1,523

  313

  107

  867

  657

  20·6

  56·9

  43·1

  10·8

  1990 (spring)

  1,449

  275

  103

  889

  560

  19·0

  61·3

  38·7

  11·5

  1991 (spring)

  1,369

  212

  129

  874

  495

  15·5

  63·8

  36·2

  15·2

  1992 (spring)

  1,339

  177

  122

  925

  414

  13·2

  69·0

  31·0

  16·1

  1992–93 (winter)

  1,300

  157

  125

  913

  387

  12·0

  70·2

  29·8

  17·6

  1 16/17 year olds included as ILO unemployed may also be in full time education.

  2 ILO unemployed as percentage of total 16/17 year olds economically active (ie in employment + ILO unemployed).

  Source: Labour Force Survey (not seasonally adjusted).

  Youth Training
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, further to his answer of 8 July,Official Report, column 263, how many participants in total were on youth training in January (a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c)

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information about the number on youth training in January 1991 is not available, but the March 1991 figure was 314,000. In January 1992 and January 1993, there were 303,000 and 293,000 people respectively on youth training in Great Britain.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 375, if he will place in the Library copies of the figures underlying his conclusion as to the level of cost savings possible through the contracting out of public services.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) on 21 May 1993,Official Report, columns 324–25.

  Additionally, my officials are currently collating the market-testing figures for the year to March 1992. I shall publish the results in due course.
  684
  surveys the number of 16 and 17-year-olds International Labour Organisation unemployed and their ILO unemployment rate;

  (3) if he will list for each annual labour force survey since 1984 and for spring 1992 and winter 1992–93 surveys the number and percentage of 16 and 17-year-olds (a) in total, (b) in full-time education and (c) not in full-time education.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Civil Service Occupational Health Service
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the annual report of the Civil Service Occupational Health Service will be published.

  Mr. David Davis
  Part I of the annual report of the Civil Service Occupational Health Service for 1992–93 is published today. This reports on the health of the civil service. Part 2 of the report, which covers the activities of the Civil Service Occupational Health Service during 1992–93 and includes the agency's accounts, is intended to be published by 30 July. Copies of both parts will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses on publication.

  Environmental Technologies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he make a further statement on the benefits that will accrue to the environmental technologies of the implementation of his strategy for science as set out in his White Paper, Cm 2250.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The White Paper "Realising Our Potential" will help us build on our strengths in science, engineering and technology. In particular, environmental technologies will benefit from the work of the Natural Environment Research Council, with its new mission statement and the closer relationship it will establish with users of its research.
  685

PRIME MINISTER

  Heating Costs
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his estimate of the(a) average, (b) highest and (c) lowest cost of heating a dwelling in (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland for (a) the winter months and (b) the summer months, and indicate in each case the cost for (i) solid fuel, (ii) electricity, (iii) oil, (iv) natural gas and (v) bottled gas; and if he will list the locations in each of the countries which were used for samples to estimate these costs.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally, but the estimated comparative cost of heating two, three, and four-bedroomed homes using different types of fuel and power can be derived from a publication entitled "Comparative Domestic Heating Costs in the UK" published by Sutherland Associates, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what reply he has given to the letter on the THORP from the Japanese group which visited him on 15 June.

  The Prime Minister
  A reply will be sent shortly.

  Ministers (Directorships)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Ministers retain directorships of companies; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 107 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". No central record is held of such information.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, columns 13–14, when he expects to be able to place in the Library the requested document regarding deaths resulting from the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  The Prime Minister
  The production of a comprehensive list of people killed since 1968 as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, and in related incidents in Great Britain, the Irish Republic and mainland Europe, requires extensive and painstaking research. Information on mainland Europe, which is available only after 1978, and Great Britain is nearly complete and will be placed in the Library in the next fortnight. Work on the remaining information is well advanced, and the completed data will be placed in the Library as soon as they are available.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the actions taken by the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina which Her Majesty's Government consider to have fulfilled the requirements of the London conference, and the ways in which they have failed to co-operate satisfactorily with the international community's peace efforts.

  The Prime Minister
  The Bosnian Government have been unable to realise the objectives of the London 686
  conference owing to the actions of their other parties, in particular the Serbs. The international community has repeatedly made clear that it will not accept a settlement in Bosnia which is dictated by the Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Muslims. We hope that the Bosnian Government will soon be in a position to enter into negotiations with the other parties under the co-chairmanship of Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the actions taken by the Government of Croatia which Her Majesty's Government consider to have fulfilled the requirements of the London conference, and the ways in which it has failed to co-operate satisfactorily with the international community's peace efforts.

  The Prime Minister
  While we consider that the Serbs bear the main burden of responsibility for the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, we are also not satisfied that the Croatian Government have so far fully met the requirements of the London conference to achieve a peaceful settlement in Bosnia. European Community Foreign Ministers will be considering on 19 July whether measures should be taken against the Croatians so long as they are engaged in activities contrary to the London conference principles.

HEALTH

  Dissatisfied Patients
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take steps to introduce the necessary changes to second and third stage complaints procedures by dissatisfied patients to ensure that an independent lay assessor is part of the assessment team; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have no plans to make changes to the clinical complaints procedure, in advance of any recommendations which the National Health Service Complaints Review Committee, chaired by Professor Alan Wilson, will be making at the turn of the year.

  Neurology Services
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will indicate the proportion of patients per neurologist within each(a) standardised United Kingdom region and (b) each district health authority and health trust area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table. Data are not available below regional level. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Hospital consultant neurologists per 1,000 population by region 30 September 1991

  Consultants

  Population in '000s per consultant

  England

  208

  231

  Northern

  11

  278

  Yorkshire

  12

  304

  687

  Consultants

  Population in '000s per consultant

  Trent

  14

  331

  East Anglia

  8

  251

  North West Thames

  18

  189

  North East Thames

  27

  141

  South East Thames

  21

  176

  South West Thames

  18

  161

  Wessex

  12

  242

  Oxford

  15

  174

  South Western

  7

  459

  West Midlands

  15

  348

  Mersey

  7

  320

  North Western

  13

  318

  SHAs

  33

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. The sum of regional consultation figures does not equal the England total since some doctors hold contracts in more than one region.

  2. n/a means "not applicable".

  High Blood Pressure
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate her Department has made of the annual national health service hospital costs incurred in treating patients who suffer heart attacks or strokes caused by raised blood pressure that have not been treated with medication.

  (2) what estimate her Department has made of the additional annual cost of the national health service that would be incurred if the 75 per cent. of untreated patients suffering from high blood pressure, as identified in "The Health of the Nation" survey were to be treated with (a) calcium antagonist preparations, (b) Ace-inhibitors, (c) beta-blocking agents and (d) beta-blocking agents in combination with diuretics.

  Mr. Sackville
  No information is held centrally on which to base such estimates.

  Community Care Assessment
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will include in the guidance issued to local authorities on assessment procedures under the new community care arrangements a requirement for authorities to pass on to clients the full results of assessment, irrespective of whether the resources are available fully to meet a clients needs.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have made it clear to authorities that they should share the results of assessments with users so that they know where they stand. There are no plans to issue further guidance in this area.

  Paediatric Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average daily number of available paediatric beds in 1991–92 in England, including special health authorities.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Average of daily number of available paediatric beds

  Region

  1991–92

  Northern

  731

  Yorkshire

  809

  Trent

  879

  688

  Region

  1991–92

  East Anglian

  290

  North West Thames

  593

  North East Thames

  639

  South East Thames

  754

  South West Thames

  495

  Wessex

  461

  Oxford

  399

  South Western

  559

  West Midlands

  1,090

  Mersey

  642

  North Western

  1,158

  Special Health Authorities

  447

  England1: Total Paediatric Beds

  9,944

  1 Figures do not add to England total due to rounding.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many special paediatric intensive treatment unit beds there are; how many are temporarily closed; and what estimate has been made of the number required to conform with best practice.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 17 June at columns 704–6.

  Children
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children there were under 16 years in 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest available information shows that the estimated number of children under 16 years of age, resident in England at mid-1991, was 9·7 million.

  Water-borne Diseases
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 1, if she will list the five commonest diseases associated with poor water supply and sewage disposal found in the United Kingdom and the incidence of those diseases in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The incidence of diseases are recorded in the Communicable Disease Report published weekly by the Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The source of infection for each case of disease reported cannot always be ascertained. It is therefore not possible to list the five commonest diseases associated with poor water supply or sewage disposal.

  Dental Charges
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what help she plans to give to persons currently facing increases in their dental charges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Help with the cost of dental treatment is already available to patients on a low income. Some 21 per cent. of adult courses of treatment are provided with full or partial relief from charges.

  Child Migrants Trust
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will now finance the Child Migrants Trust in its work of tracing the families of child migrants.
  689
  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has awarded the trust a grant of £25,000 for the current financial year.

  Respite Breaks
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action her Department is taking to ensure that the new arrangements for community care provide adequate opportunities for disabled people and their unpaid carers to have a respite break; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The first two key objectives of the community care reforms are to promote the development of domiciliary, day and respite services; and to ensure that service providers make practical support for carers a high priority. The reforms require authorities to assess the needs of carers as well as the people for whom they care. They also provide greater incentives for authorities to provide respite care.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  International Investments Gibraltar Ltd.
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will endeavour to place on the agenda for discussion at the next Anglo-Irish Conference meeting the action taken by the Irish authorities against Mr. William Flynn, in order to persuade him to stop his campaigning for defrauded investors in International Investments Gibraltar Ltd. and its associate companies in the Irish Republic.

  Sir John Wheeler
  There are no plans to raise this matter, which is not covered by the Anglo-Irish agreement and, thus, does not fall within the field of activity of the intergovernmental conference.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his replies of 26 April and 4 May,Official Report, columns 220–22, what is the actual cost benefit rating for each of the 11 major road schemes referred to in those replies.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:-

  Scheme

  Rating

  Comber By-pass

  9.26

  A5 Burndennet

  0.85

  Antrim-Ballymena: Stage 2

  1.91

  Omagh Through-pass: Stage 2

  5.32

  Belfast Urban Area Plan roads—Purdysburn Road: Stage 1 (1995–96)

  7.10

  Balmoral Avenue-Malone Road Junction (1996–97)

  23.18

  Forster Green Junction (1996–97)

  9.13

  Comparable figures for the remaining schemes are not available

  Bank of Ireland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Bank of Ireland's operations in Northern Ireland reflect the fair employment ratios set down by the Fair Employment Commission.

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Bank of Ireland. Every employer covered by the terms of the Fair 690
  Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 is required to determine whether it is affording fair participation in employment to members of both communities and, if necessary, to take affirmative action. In support of these employers, the Fair Employment Commission provides, on request, information and advice on any aspect of fair employment practice, including catchment areas.

  The commission is also required to ensure that employers are complying with the legislation, that employers' determinations concerning fair participation are correct and that, where necessary, employers are taking the appropriate affirmative action.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he will take to reduce the levels of rural housing unfitness; and what action he plans for areas with particularly high levels of unfitness.

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive—the Executive—whose chief executive has advised me that the most significant way in which it can reduce rural dwelling unfitness is through the home improvement grant scheme.

  To tackle the highest levels of rural unfitness, the Executive since 1989 has identified rural priority areas. It is intended to review the basis of these with the intention of extending them and to intensively market and counsel occupants on the opportunities and options offered by the new housing renovation scheme. From the current financial year—1993–94—the Executive expects to approve around 2,000 rural grant applications annually.

  To a more limited degree, rural new building will help to further reduce unfitness. Several small settlements and `crossroads' areas now have a number of new build schemes to rehouse households living in unfit dwellings; around 200 houses are expected to be provided over the next two years. Additionally, the Executive has provided office accommodation and administrative support for the Rural Housing Association as well as identifying several rural locations where new build to meet the local needs of families living in unfit accommodation could be supported.

  Railways
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now place in the Library the conclusions of the consultant's report on private sector involvement in Northern Ireland Railways.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. The findings of the study are still under consideration.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action will be taken by the Fair Employment Commission to ensure that the Agricultural Research Institute, Carrickfergus borough council, Chief Electoral Office and the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company implement affirmative action and outreach programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  All public concerns specified at 1 January 1990 under the Fair Employment (Specification of Public Authorities) Order (Northern Ireland) 1989, as amended,
  691
  were required to have completed a review of their employment composition and practices by 1 January 1993. Where, as part of this review, an employer determines that members of a particular community are not enjoying or are not likely to continue to enjoy fair participation in employment, the employer is required as part of the review to determine reasonable and appropriate affirmative action.

  The Fair Employment Commission is currently studying public sector employers' reviews to establish whether the commission considers that the employers' determinations concerning fair participation are correct and to promote affirmative action where it is necessary.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action will be taken by the Fair Employment Commission to ensure that private sector concerns which employ fewer than 10 employees from one community implement affirmative action and outreach programmes.

  Mr. Atkins
  Under section 31 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, all registered concerns are required to complete a review of their employment composition and practices within three years of the date of their registration with the Fair Employment Commission.

  The commission is using its statutory powers to ensure that employers have completed their reviews in accordance with the legislation and, where necessary, are taking the appropriate affirmative action and have set goals and timetables for change.

  Additionally, the commission is using its powers of investigation under section 11 of the Act to conduct investigations into 47 large private sector concerns, some of which have a very low representation of one community.

  Young People
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of(a) 18-year-olds, (b) 17-year-olds and (c) 16-year-olds in January (i) 1991, (ii) 1992 and (iii) 1993; and if he will list for each year the number in full-time education in (1) schools including maintained, independent and special schools and (2) further education, excluding those on youth training schemes in colleges.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The available information is as follows:

  Table 1: Mid-year estimates of Northern Ireland population

  1991

  1992

  1993

  18 year olds

  26,702

  25,854

  25,149

  17 year olds

  25,652

  24,981

  24,468

  16 year olds

  25,009

  24,537

  24,735

  Table 2: Number in full-time education

  Schools

  Further Education

  Total

  1990–91

  18 year olds

  4,553

  4,113

  8,666

  17 year olds

  9,417

  5,506

  14,923

  16 year olds

  16,923

  3,186

  20,109

  1991–92

  18 year olds

  4,464

  4,506

  8,970

  692

  Schools

  Further Education

  Total

  17 year olds

  9,431

  5,111

  14,542

  16 year olds

  16,544

  2,777

  19,321

  Notes:

  1. Schools figures relate to January; Further education figures relate to November.

  2. Comparable information is not available for 1992–93.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Probation Service
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications for the Probation Service of the provision of same-day reports in Crown court cases where a not guilty plea is followed by a finding of guilt.

  Mr. Maclean
  In asking probation services to provide accelerated pre-sentence reports in the Crown court, we took account of the findings of the review by Her Majesty's inspectorate of probation of the operation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which was published last month, and concluded that it would be practicable within current resources to set a same-day target where a custodial remand would otherwise be required.

  Runciman Report
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish a response to the report of Lord Runciman on the criminal justice system.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am considering with my ministerial colleagues the timing and form of the Government's response to the royal commission report.

  Security Service
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make available more information about the Security Service following the publication of the White Paper on open government.

  Mr. Howard
  I am pleased to announce that a booklet about the Security Service, describing its role, responsibilities and organisation is being published today. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The booklet is a significant step towards greater openness in the Security Service. The information in it will increase understanding of the service's work, while preserving the secrecy necessary to maintain operational effectiveness.

  Immitation Fire Arms
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received calling for curbs on the carrying of imitation firearms.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the past year, the Home Office has received represntations calling for further controls on imitation firearms from the Banking Insurance and Finance Union and the Financial Services Staff Federation.
  693

  Bones Analysis
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of his Department's analysis of the bones brought from Ekaterinburg, Russia, in July 1991 for identification.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This is a matter for which the Forensic Science Service is responsible, and the chief executive has provided a reply.

  Letter for Dr. Janet Thompson to Mr. David Atkinson, undated:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question about the project being undertaken by the Home Office Forensic Science Service (FSS) on the remains found near Ekaterinburg, Russia, in July 1991. As you know, the Chief Executive of an Executive Agency, with the agreement of the Minister, replies to Members of Parliament on operational matters. I am therefore replying on behalf of the FSS.
  The project has now been successfully completed and we announced the results on 9 July. As a result of the DNA analysis, scientists believe that five of the nine skeletons found are those of the Tsar, Tsarina and three of their daughters. This conclusion is the same as that reached by anthropologists in Russia.
  The statistical analysis was complex. The scientists estimated a 98·5 per cent. probability for the identification, based on a neutral interpretation of the previous anthropological evidence and on the least likely interpretation of the DNA evidence.
  The scientists involved in the project will submit their work for publication and peer review in the scientific literature to enable other scientists to examine their work and conclusions. Further work will be needed to refine the statistical analysis. Once validated, we hope soon to be able to put the techniques used into practice in criminal casework to the benefit of the criminal justice system as a whole.

  Spouses and fiance(e)s in the Indian subcontinent initially refused and subsequently granted entry clearance on appeal by reason for refusal, 1991 and 1992

  Initial refusals

  Granted on appeal

  Primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom:

  Couple could not accommodate and/for maintain themselves without recourse to public funds:

  Primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom:

  Couple could not accommodate and/for maintain themselves without recourse to public funds:

  Solely for this reason

  Partly for this reason1

  Solely for this reason

  Partly for this reason1

  Solely for this reason

  Partly for this reason1

  Solely for this reason

  Partly for this reason1

  1991

  Bangladesh

  Husbands

  90

  40

  20

  30

  20

  —

  2—

  —

  Fiances

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wives

  2—

  2—

  20

  10

  —

  —

  10

  2—

  Fiancees

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pakistan

  Husbands

  760

  660

  40

  660

  210

  280

  20

  270

  Fiances

  100

  70

  2—

  70

  50

  50

  2—

  10

  Wives

  40

  30

  140

  40

  2—

  2—

  50

  2—

  Fiancees

  2—

  2—

  20

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  India

  Husbands

  270

  20

  2—

  20

  50

  —

  —

  —

  Fiances

  210

  20

  —

  20

  50

  —

  —

  —

  Wives

  130

  20

  2—

  10

  20

  —

  —

  —

  Fiancees

  70

  20

  —

  10

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indian sub-continent

  Husbands

  1,120

  710

  70

  700

  280

  280

  30

  270

  694

  Police Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he proposes to set up to ensure Londoners are consulted on(a) his statement on the future of the police service, (b) the Sheehy report and (c) the recommendations of the Royal Commission on criminal justice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The White Paper on police reform—Cm 2281,—invites views on various reform proposals, including the question of the boundaries of the Metropolitan police district. My right hon. and learned Friend has asked for comments from interested persons, including Londoners, on the recommendations of the reports of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards—Cm 2280—and the Royal Commission on criminal justice—Cm 2263. Copies of all these documents are available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office and two copies of the digest version of the White Paper have been placed in every public library.

  Immigration
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) husbands, (b) fiancés, (c) wives and (d) fiancées refused wholly or partly on (x) primary purpose and (y) support and accommodation grounds in 1991 and 1992 in (i) the countries of the Indian subcontinent and (ii) any other country for which statistics are available appealed against the refusal; and how many of the appeals in each category were (1) allowed, (2) dismissed, (3) withdrawn and (4) are pending.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is given in the table and relates to the numbers of applications for entry clearance initially refused and the numbers granted following an appeal in the Indian subcontinent. Not all those refused initially go on to appeal.

  Information by reason of refusal is not available for countries outside the Indian subcontinent.
  695

  Initial refusals

  Granted on appeal

  Primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom:

  Couple could not accommodate and/for maintain themselves without recourse to public funds:

  Primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom:

  Couple could not accommodate and/for maintain themselves without recourse to public funds:

  Solely for this reason

  Partly for this reason1

  Solely for this reason

  Partly for this reason1

  Solely for this reason

  Partly for this reason1

  Solely for this reason

  Partly for this reason1

  Fiances

  310

  100

  2—

  90

  100

  50

  2—

  10

  Wives

  180

  50

  170

  70

  30

  2—

  50

  10

  Fiancees

  70

  20

  20

  10

  10

  —

  —

  —

  1992

  Bangladesh

  Husbands

  120

  70

  40

  60

  70

  20

  20

  30

  Fiances

  —

  2—

  —

  2—

  —

  —

  2—

  —

  Wives

  10

  10

  20

  30

  —

  2—

  —

  2—

  Fiancees

  2—

  —

  2—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pakistan

  Husbands

  720

  570

  120

  570

  160

  190

  10

  190

  Fiances

  80

  40

  10

  40

  20

  30

  2—

  20

  Wives

  40

  30

  190

  40

  10

  10

  20

  10

  Fiancees

  2—

  10

  10

  10

  2—

  —

  2—

  —

  India

  Husbands

  240

  20

  2—

  20

  90

  —

  —

  2—

  Fiances

  200

  20

  —

  20

  50

  —

  —

  —

  Wives

  180

  40

  20

  40

  50

  —

  —

  —

  Fiancees

  70

  20

  2—

  10

  10

  2—

  —

  2—

  Total Indian sub-continent

  Husbands

  1,090

  660

  160

  630

  320

  220

  30

  220

  Fiances

  280

  60

  10

  60

  70

  30

  2—

  20

  Wives

  230

  70

  260

  100

  60

  10

  20

  20

  Fiancees

  70

  30

  10

  20

  10

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1 Includes double-counting of those for which refusal was jointly for these reasons. All figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2 Equals less than 5.

  Note: Initial refusals and numbers granted on appeal do not necessarily refer to the same individuals as an appeal may not be decided in the same year. These figures include some revisions.

  Winson Green Prison
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will order an inquiry into the release of Mark Jarvis on home leave from Winson Green prison;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the circumstances which led to the last release of Mark Jarvis from Winson Green prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given to both these questions.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated July 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about Mark Jarvis being granted home leave from Birmingham prison.
  I refer you to my letter in reply to the Question to Mr. Graham Allen NIP on 13 July published in the Official Report (columns 429 and 430), a copy of which is enclosed.
  As you will see from that reply the decision to grant home leave was reviewed by the governor at Birmingham. The area manager has also reviewed the circumstances in which Mr. Jarvis was granted home leave and he also concluded that the decision was not an unreasonable one.
  In the circumstances I am satisfied that there is no need for a further enquiry into this matter.
  696

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answers of 7 June,Official Report, column 32 and 25 June, Official Report, column 325, how many projects are covered by the £13.5 million expected cost of the market-testing programme for 1993–94; to what services they relate; how much is to be spent on each project; and how much will be paid to outside consultants for each project.

  Mr. Hague
  The expected cost of £13.5 million was broadly estimated for the financial year 1993–;94. At present there is a total of some 50 individual projects and they relate to the following services:

  Accommodation and Office Services

  Archival Storage

  Audit

  Catering

  Customer Services

  Data Entry

  Debt Recovery

  Fraud

  Legal Services

  Medical Services

  Personnel

  Printing

  Publishing

  Recruitment

  697

  Storage and Distribution

  Training

  Video Production

  The individual projects will be subject to a market test through the tendering of some 93 separate contracts/ service level agreements.

  It is not possible to state the level of expenditure on individual projects as this largely depends on each project's needs, which are dictated by the scale and complexity revealed by the market testing process.

  While there is an anticipated need for some external consultancy, it is not possible to determine the level of expenditure of individual projects.

  EC Expenditure
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each country in the European Community(a) the total expenditure on social protection, (b) the per capita expenditure and (c) expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Expenditure on social protection 1991

  (a) Total

  (b) Per capita

  (c) Per cent. of GDP

  Belgium

  42,004·2

  4,191·2

  26·7

  Denmark

  23,790·6

  4,608·7

  29·8

  France

  274,763·9

  4,803

  28·7

  Germany

  316,931·1

  4,952

  26·6

  Greece

  113,723·5

  11,367·8

  120·7

  Ireland

  7,912·4

  2,240·2

  21·3

  Italy

  230,651·9

  3,991·3

  24·4

  Luxembourg

  2,259·7

  5,797·3

  27·5

  Netherlands

  77,172·2

  5,101·1

  32·4

  Portugal

  15,919·4

  1,616·9

  19·4

  Spain

  95,019·5

  2,432·9

  21·4

  United Kingdom

  210,597

  3,653·5

  24·7

  11989.

  Source: Social Protection Expenditure and Receipts 1980–1991 Eurostat.

  (a) Total expenditure in millions of purchasing power standards (Purchasing power standards (PPS) take comparative price levels in the countries into account).

  (b) Per capita expenditure in purchasing power standards.

  (c) Expenditure as a percentage of GDP.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Inland Revenue (Relocation)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his latest estimate of the public expenditure savings which will arise from the transfer of the Inland Revenue headquarters office from London to Nottingham; and how these savings are to be achieved in terms of accommodation, staffing and other general running costs;

  (2) when he expects the transfer of Inland Revenue headquarters office from London to Nottingham to be completed;

  (3) what is the current cost of running Inland Revenue headquarters offices in London and Nottingham, indicating accommodation and salaries costs in each place.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The offices included in the Inland Revenue's relocation from London to Nottingham are a number of headquarter units and a number of operational 698
  offices. At present, just under two thirds of the posts or staff involved have already moved to temporary accommodation in Nottingham, and the remainder are still based in London.

  The cost in 1992–93 of the staff already in Nottingham is around £20 million, of which some £14 million is pay and £2·5 million is accommodation. The 1992–93 cost of the staff still based in London is about £21 million of which some £13·5 million is pay and £3·5 million is accommodation.

  The currently estimated annual net pay and accommodation savings are around £12 million a year from 1996–97 to which some £4·5 million is pay and £7·5 million is accommodation.

  On present plans, the relocation to the new purpose-built centre will be completed by April 1995.

  No. 11 Downing Street
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost of replacing the carpeting on the second floor of No. 11 Downing street.

  Sir John Cope
  The carpet on the second floor of No. 11 Downing street has not been replaced. One room on the second floor was recarpeted in 1991 at a cost of £963.

  Tax Allowances and Reliefs
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the savings from restricting all tax allowances and reliefs to(a) a 25 per cent. rate of tax and (b) a 20 per cent. rate of tax, showing the amounts for each allowance and relief.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 15 July 1993]: The estimated full-year yields at 1993–94 income levels are shown in the table.

  £ million

  Restriction to

  25 per cent.

  20 per cent.

  All allowances and reliefs

  2,400

  8,900

  Personal allowance (excluding age related addition)

  1,000

  5,200

  Married couple's allowance (excluding age related addition)

  320

  1,100

  Age allowance1

  —

  100

  Mortgage interest relief2

  —

  860

  Pension contribution reliefs3

  470

  1,000

  1 The higher levels of the age-related personal and married couple's allowance given to those aged 65 and over, subject to the income limit.

  2 Mortgage interest relief is currently restricted to the basis rate of tax. The yield from restricting the relief to 20 per cent, is based on the conventional assumption that interest rates remain at their current levels.

  3 Employees' contributions to occupational pension schemes and contributions to personal pensions including retirement annuity premia and free standing additional voluntary contributions.

  No account has been taken of possible behavioural changes resulting from such restrictions. Figures for the major allowances and reliefs show the yield from restricting each allowance or relief separately. If two or more were restricted, the total yield would be greater than the sum of the figures for individual allowances.
  699

  EC Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Economic and Finance Council of the European Community met in Brussels on 12 July. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council discussed the convergence programme circulated by the United Kingdom in May of this year. The programme reflects the Government's economic strategy for sustained non-inflationary growth set out in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" published on Budget day. In discussion, I underlined the Government's determination to take the action necessary to reduce the budget deficit. I also drew the Council's attention to the emerging signs of broad-based economic recovery, our recent good record on inflation, and highlighted the favourable prospects for growth in the United Kingdom economy by comparison with other member states.

  The Council welcomed the United Kingdom programme as ambitious and built on realistic assumptions and there was support for the Government's commitment to a firm anti-inflationary strategy. The adoption of a budgetary consolidation strategy and the measures taken in the Budget were welcomed. Ministers also noted the substantial progress already achieved by the United Kingdom in introducing structural reforms and welcomed the Government's continued commitment to supply-side reform.

  The general economic situation in the Community was also discussed in the context of the Council's six-monthly multilateral surveillance discussions. Ministers underlined the importance of the conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council on economic recovery and unemployment. The Council also stressed the need to address fiscal imbalances and to create conditions which would permit further reduction of interest rates in some member states. It was agreed that national convergence programmes were a valuable instrument of economic policy co-ordination. Without prejudice to the national responsibility for programmes, it was agreed that it would be desirable for them to cover a common time horizon and for them to be updated annually.

  Ministers had a first discussion of the Commission's ideas for interest rate subsidies for European investment bank lending to small and medium-sized enterprises and bridging finance for structural funds spending in the context of a general discussion of follow-up to the European Council. These proposals are likely to return to the Council later in the year.

  Finally,, there was a short discussion of tax-free allowances for travellers entering the Community from third countries and travellers within the Community. Germany maintained its objections to the increases proposed.

  No formal votes were taken. The Council conclusions on the United Kingdom convergence programme and the communiqué on multilateral surveillance were agreed by consensus.
  700

WALES

  Valuation Tribunals
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many(a) officers and (b) members of staff employed by the joint Gwynedd/Clwyd valuation tribunals office speak Welsh; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action he proposes to take to ensure that appellants in Gwynedd are able to correspond with the officers of the joint Gwynedd/Clwyd valuation tribunal office and to have their cases heard through the medium of the Welsh language; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many (a) officers and (b) members of staff employed by the joint Gwynedd/Clwyd valuation tribunal office have a sufficient knowledge of the Welsh language to correspond through the medium of the language; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In appointing staff to the new joint office, the Gwynedd and Clwyd valuation tribunals were required to take account of the Secretary of State's policy that a fully bilingual service should be provided. Questions about the staff appointments are matters for the tribunals themselves as the employers. The tribunals are being provided with the necessary resources to pay for the Welsh language training of staff; and to deal with any specific issues concerning Welsh language correspondence and enquiries. The tribunals hear cases in Welsh as appropriate and will continue to do so.

  Neurology
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the specialist centres in Wales in neurology and the treatment of epilepsy, indicating the number of patients treated by each centre in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The hospitals listed in the table treated patients in the speciality of neurology during the financial year 1991–92. It is not known centrally how many patients treated for epilepsy are included with the figures. It should be noted that patients with a diagnosis relating to neurological problems may sometimes be treated by consultants in other specialties.

  Number of patients treated

  Hospital

  In-patients

  Day cases

  New out-patients

  Clwyd

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  —

  —

  333

  Ysbyty Maelor

  —

  —

  200

  East Dyfed

  West Wales General

  —

  —

  233

  Bronglais

  —

  —

  18

  Gwent

  Nevill Hall

  —

  —

  29

  Monmouth

  —

  —

  34

  Royal Gwent1

  —

  —,

  153

  Mount Pleasant

  —

  —

  67

  Gwynedd

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  —

  —

  249

  Mid Glamorgan

  Prince Charles

  —

  —

  4

  Mountain Ash

  1

  —

  —

  Bridgend General

  —

  —

  109

  East Glamorgan

  —

  —

  38

  Powys

  Breconshire War Memorial

  —

  —

  45

  701

  Number of patients treated

  Hospital

  In-patients

  Day cases

  New out-patients

  South Glamorgan

  University Hospital of Wales1

  772

  32

  1,575

  Rookwood

  309

  23

  61

  Llandough

  —

  1

  84

  West Glamorgan

  Singleton

  100

  1

  488

  Fairwood

  8

  —

  —

  Morriston

  767

  1

  752

  Clydach War Memorial

  26

  —

  —

  Neath General

  —

  —

  228

  1 Includes paediatric neurology.

  Health authority

  Consultant neurologists1

  Patients per consultant2

  In-patient

  Day cases

  New out-patients

  Clwyd

  0·46

  —

  —

  1,159

  East Dyfed

  0·09

  —

  —

  2,789

  Gwent

  0·09

  —

  —

  3,144

  Gwynedd

  0·36

  —

  —

  692

  Mid Glamorgan

  0·52

  2

  —

  290

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Powys

  0·03

  —

  —

  1,500

  South Glamorgan

  3·67

  294

  15

  469

  West Glamorgan

  1·55

  581

  1

  947

  1 Whole time equivalent staff in post as at 30 September 1991. Includes consultants in the specialty of paediatric neurology.

  2 Patients treated in the specialties of neurology and paediatric neurology during 1991–92.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to which of those housing associations operating in Wales are based(a) in Wales and (b) outside Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is Housing for Wales policy to provide grant aid only to registered housing associations based in Wales. The whole of the development programme is therefore carried out by Welsh associations; but a few English associations continue to own and manage small numbers of homes in Wales.

  Burial Grounds
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding differences between the responsibilities of the Church in Wales and the Church of England in relation to the maintenance of closed burial grounds; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The only representations received on this subject have come from the hon. Gentleman: four letters since June 1990. My right hon. Friend does not propose to take any action at this stage.

  Health Line Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the monthly amount of inquiries made to Health Line Wales since it was set up; and what independent evaluation he has commissioned of the value for money to be obtained from its operation.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Between 30 November 1992 and 30 June 1993, a total of 1,703 calls were received by Health Line Wales, broken down by month.
  702
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will indicate the proportion of patients to each neurologist in each district health authority and health trust area in Wales;

  (2) how many neurologists are based within each district health authority and health trust in Wales; and how many neurologists specialise in epilepsy.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of neurologists and patients per neurologist is given in the table. It is not known centrally how many of the neurologists specialise in epilepsy.

  Number

  January

  208

  February

  580

  March

  374

  April

  252

  May

  196

  June

  93

  All calls are monitored and this information forms part of the full internal evaluation of the service currently being undertaken. It will include an external consumer satisfaction survey by independent market researchers of a random sample of the users of the service. The evaluation report is expected during early August.

  Young People
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of(a) 18-year-olds, (b) 17-year-olds and (c) 16-year-olds in January (i) 1991, (ii) 1992 and (iii) 1993; and if he will list for each year the number in full-time education in (1) schools, including maintained, independent and special schools and (2) further education, excluding those on YTS in colleges.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information required is given in the table.

  16 years

  17 years

  18 years

  1991

  Population1

  36,100

  36,800

  39,000

  Students in full time education:

  School2

  13,487

  8,957

  1,114

  Further education3

  8,047

  6,997

  3,940

  1992

  Population1

  34,400

  36,100

  36,600

  Students in full time education:

  School2

  14,276

  9,385

  1,228

  Further education3

  8,886

  8,076

  4,580

  703

  16 years

  17 years

  18 years

  1993

  Population1

  32,800

  34,500

  36,000

  Students in full time education:

  School2 4

  14,570

  9,538

  1,213

  Further education3 4

  8,943

  8,786

  5,095

  1 All population data refer to mid year (June). 1991 data are final mid year estimates for 1991—produced by OPCS. 1992 and 1993 data are 1991 based OPCS projections (based on provisional 1991 mid year estimates)—produced by Government Actuary's Department.

  2 At January each year, ages at 31 August the preceding year. Includes Sixth Form Colleges.

  3 Full time and sandwich courses at November of each academic year, ages at 31 August preceding each academic year.

  4 Data for 1993 are provisional.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial assistance he has granted to the Welsh Grant-maintained Schools Association; what assistance in kind has been granted to the association; what proposals he has for further grant-in-aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My Department does not provide assistance, financial or otherwise, to the Welsh Grant-Maintained Schools Association. However, officials have met members of the organisation to discuss a wide range of issues relating to the grant-maintained sector in Wales.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Offshore Oil and Gas Licensing
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to release information regarding the special conditions attached to blocks awarded in the 14th offshore oil and gas licensing round.

  Mr. Eggar
  The special conditions attached to blocks awarded in the 14th offshore licensing round are the most far reaching to date in terms of environmental protection. It is my intention that those conditions attached to licences in order to protect the environment should be made available. My officials are currently consulting the industry and those bodies which advised on the conditions regarding the separation of their commercially confidential elements from those which can be disclosed. I am anxious to release as much of this information as possible.

  Defence Industry (Reduction)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what specific steps are being taken by his Department to assist those areas which have been affected by the recent reductions in the level of defence procurement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: My Department provides advice to defence companies on diversification opportunities, through the "Changing Tack" regional seminar programme and associated help manual. In addition, areas which are adversely affected by reductions in defence spending may be able to benefit from the EC Konver initiative, which will be worth some £15 million to the United Kingdom as a whole.
  704

  EC Funding
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those applicants which his Department has submitted or is planning to submit for funding under the Konver programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: The Konver scheme has not yet progressed so far. European Community procedures for such schemes require general national programmes to be written and approved before individual applications can be considered.

  The European Commission has asked for proposed national programmes for Konver—not individual applications—to be sent to it by 31 August. Individual United Kingdom applications will be considered as soon as possible after the Commission has agreed the United Kingdom's Konver programme; I hope that that will be early in the autumn.

  Meanwhile, in order that the scheme may proceed in the United Kingdom as soon as possible after the Brussels procedures have been completed, the Government will invite draft applications in August, following completion of the consultation process now being undertaken by my Department.

ENVIRONMENT

  Industrial Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in his plans to conduct a survey of industrial pollution expenditure.

  Mr. Yeo
  We shall start work on the survey later this year.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the calculation used in determining the scheme tax band when assessing levels of council tax transitional relief entitlement; and if he will list both the scheme and actual figures for every band in each London borough.

  Mr. Baldry
  Scheme taxes used in the calculation of transitional relief are calculated by charging authorities in accordance with part II of schedule 2 to The Council Tax (Transitional Reduction Scheme) (England) Regulations—SI 1993/175. For the other information requested, I refer the hon. Member to the tables that have been placed in the Library following the answers given to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 24 May 1993,Official Report, column 369, and to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Mr. Henderson) on 31 March 1993, Official Report, column 295.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration governed his decision on the timing of the release of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's report on waste substitution; by what means the release of the report was publicised; what representations have been made to his Department before and after the release in regard to the timing and contents of the report; and what considerations
  705
  of commercial sensitivity underlay the decision to remove certain information from the published version of the report.

  Mr. Yeo
  This report was placed in the Library of the House following agreement on the commercially sensitive material which needed to be withheld, and a RWMAC press release was issued. There remain a number of points that require clarification and RWMAC will be asked to undertake further work on this and to report. This further report will be made available on the same basis.

  PSA BM Scotland
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the bids which were received in response to the competitive tender of the PSA BM business; and what was the basis on which the successful tender by SERCO was accepted.

  Mr. Baldry
  The following bidders were shortlisted as potential purchasers of PSA Building Management Scotland: a joint venture between Amey and Sir Alexander Gibb and partners; Serco; and a management buy-out team. Serco was chosen as the purchaser because it best met the criteria set by the Government. The main criteria were:

  the overall financial value of the offers

  bidders' financial status

  the credibility of bidders' long term future plans

  bidders' commitment to developing the business in the private sector

  bidders' intentions regarding staff and the prospects for staff

  bidders' response to the proposed secondment and pension arrangements

  bidders' commitment to ensuring continuity of service to existing customers"

  THORP
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, following his recent announcement of a further consultation period on THORP, if he will list(a) the relevant officials, (b) agencies and (c) consultants, who will be involved; and by what processes the consultation will be carried out.

  Mr. Yeo
  We intend to consult the same statutory consultees and other bodies who were recently consulted by the regulatory authorities, and to make the consultation documents available to the public in the same way.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) of 28 June,Official Report, column 392, whether the documents he intends to release in connection with a further round of consultation will be made available in translation in the language of the principal countries contracted for reprocessing at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Yeo
  No.
  706

  Environmental Ideas
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to improve the communication of environmental ideas, problems and solutions to the public.

  Mr. Yeo
  My colleagues and I take every opportunity to raise public awareness of environmental matters. The Department runs information campaigns on specific issues and encourages and supports local authorities, industry and the voluntary sector in their public information work in the environmental field. In order to get the environmental debate on a sound factual footing, we published in October last year "The UK Environment", the first comprehensive compilation of statistically based information on our environment. Returns from readers show that it has been welcomed as a positive contribution to improving public understanding.

  Environmental Performance Indicators
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he or officials of his Department have had with the Chemical Industries Association on environmental performance indicators.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend is due to meet the Chemical Industries Association on Tuesday 20 July and this is one of the topics proposed for discussion.

  Oil and Gas Exploration
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to produce environmental sensitivity maps of the United Kingdom continental shelf area indicating where the Government would not allow exploration for oil and gas.

  Mr. Yeo
  None: it is more efficient to consider these questions in relation to each area as and when the possibility of licences for exploration is considered.

  Warehouse Racking Systems
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to implement the recommendation of the Wood committee that warehouse racking systems should be deleted from class 4 of the Plant and Machinery Order.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are currently considering all the Wood committee's recommendations as part of the preparation for the 1995 rating revaluation.

DEFENCE

  Trident
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what information published by, or received from Nirex his Department based the reply to question 8 contained in his departmental memorandum to the Defence Committee, HC-Paper 549, page 38.

  Mr. Aitken
  The reply to the question referred to was based on information contained in confidential management documents produced by Nirex. Some of this information is also contained in the publicly available Nirex report No. 327, dated 21 October 1992.
  707
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many copies of his Department's brochure, "Trident: Thirty Years of the Polaris Sales Agreement" have been published; at what cost; and to whom it has been disbributed.

  Mr. Aitken
  A total of 10,000 copies of the brochure "Trident: Thirty Years of the Polaris Sales Agreement" have been printed. Copies have been sent to, among others, the media, members of the public, local councillors and hon. Members. A number have been placed in the Library of the House. The overall cost of producing the brochure was some £26,000.

  Depleted Uranium Shells
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) of 1 July,Official Report, columns 630–31, when he expects to begin the environmental impact assessment at Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright. respectively, to which he refers; if Her Majesty's Health and Safety Executive produced a report following its 1986 visit to Kirkcudbright; and if Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution produced published reports following the visits to Eskmeals in 1989 and 1993 to which he refers.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department is already in the process of commissioning independent consultants to undertake an environmental impact assessment at both Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright. A suitable company will be engaged by late summer or early autumn. The Health and Safety Executive did produce a report following its 1986 visit to Kirkcudbright. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution did not produce published reports following its visits to Eskmeals in 1989 and 1993.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies his Department has conducted on the pyrophoric qualities of depleted uranium when distributed into particulate matter on impact in an armour-piercing shell.

  Mr. Aitken
  Neither the Ministry of Defence nor the Defence Research Agency has conducted studies or trials specifically addressing this phenomenon. Data available from United States sources indicate that it has no military significance.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 July,Official Report, column 639, if Her Majesty's Government made any submissions to the European Commission, pursuant to article 34 of chapter III of the Euratom treaty, when United Kingdom depleted uranium shells were tested at La Gramat in France in 1990.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Euratom treaty does not apply to military activities. There was therefore no requirement to make any submission to the European Commission regarding the testing of depleted uranium shells at Gramat in France.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when British Nuclear Fuels was awarded the contract to monitor for radioactivity at the Dundrennan test range at Kirkcudbright following the testing of depleted uranium shells; and if the monitoring reports have been published.
  708
  Mr. Aitken
  British Nuclear Fuel's contract to analyse samples from the Kirkcudbright range commenced on 1 May 1992 and was renewed earlier this year. As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 1 July 1993,Official Report, column 630, copies of the monitoring reports on the three ranges where DU rounds have been fired will be placed in the House of Commons Library once they have been checked to confirm that no classified information is included.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the tests for the armour-piercing capability of depleted uranium shells are conducted.

  Mr. Aitken
  All tests in the United Kingdom of the armour-piercing capability of DU shells are carried out in the enclosed butt facility, known locally as "VJ Battery", at Eskmeals. The tests at Kirkcudbright are to test the range and accuracy of DU rounds and no firings have ever been carried out against armour targets there.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 51, if he will set out (a) how many depleted uranium shells have been recovered following test firing into the Solway firth and (b) what monitoring has been undertaken of the Solway firth as to radioactive contamination from the shells.

  Mr. Aitken
  No DU rounds have been recovered from the Solway firth to date. Environmental monitoring arrangements are set out in the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces' to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 14 June,Official Report, column 474.

  Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition planned to be held in Aldershot between 5 and 10 September.

  Mr. Aitken
  We have received numerous written representations concerning the Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition both from hon. Members relaying the views of their constituents and direct from members of the public.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what tests and studies the chemical and biological establishment at Porton Down has carried out on the organophosphorous binary reactant QL; when these experiments were carried out; and for what purpose;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 163, how many memoranda of understanding have been agreed in the field of chemical and biological defence, as opposed to offensive chemical and biological warfare, involving Britain and the United States of America since 1963; what was the subject and nature of each memorandum of understanding; and in which year each memorandum of understanding was agreed;

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 162, what information his Department has

  709
  with the United States of America relating to technical work on its binary chemical weapon, M-687 155 mm artillery round; and how and when this information was exchanged;

  (4) in which years VX nerve gas was stored at the Ministry of Defence's establishment at Nancekuke in Cornwall; and why it was stored there;

  (5) pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 160, when Australia and New Zealand joined the tripartite technical co-operation programme; for what reasons Britain agreed to each of these two countries joining the programme; and if information was exchanged under the programme on the subject of chemical and biological defence and warfare before 1967;

  (6) when the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down started and completed work on the AR5 aircrew respiratory system; in conjunction with which other countries the research and development of the system was carried out; under which specific defence agreement this collaboration was arranged; and if this system is now in service with any other countries;

  (7) pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 162, how many exchange postings in relation to binary chemical weapons the United Kingdom and United States Governments arranged and in which years; and under which specific defence agreement these postings were arranged;

  (8) what experiments his Department carried out on Q fever; when these experiments were conducted; for what purpose the results of these studies were passed to either the United States of America, Canada or Australia; and why and when these results were passed to other countries;

  (9) if all research carried out by the Ministry of Defence's chemical and biological research establishment at Porton Down into LSD was conducted within the establishment itself;

  (10) what factors led to the signing of the 1980 memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada on chemical and biological defence, as referred to in his answer of 21 May 1992, Official Report, column 255;

  (11) pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 162, when the two memoranda of understanding referred to in the answer were signed; how many other memoranda of understanding relating to chemical and biological defence Britain has signed with Australia since 1963; and what they were about;

  (12) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 164, if he will list the location, dates and participating countries at each of the subsequent tripartite conferences on toxicological warfare until the present day; and if he will outline the recommendations and conclusions of each of these conferences;

  (13) which British scientific research institutions have received stocks of toxins and biological agents from the United States of America Department of Defence since 1979; which toxins and biological agents have been transferred and when; which United States Department of Defence establishments have supplied these toxins and biological agents; under which defence agreements these toxins and biological agents were transferred; and for what purpose on each occasion;

  (14) on what dates, and in which publications, scientists on extramural research projects funded by the chemical
  710
  and biological defence establishment, Porton Down, published their findings in 1991, as referred to on page 15 of the establishment's annual report 1991–92;

  (15) for what reasons the Ministry of Defence delayed dismantling its nerve gas agent plant at Nancekuke, Cornwall after the Ministry had decided to decommission the plant; what tasks were carried out at the site in the intervening years between the decommissioning and dismantling; and if these tasks were connected to the United Kingdom's chemical and biological defence programme;

  (16) pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 164, if he will publish the official name and details of the informal agreement under which the 15th tripartite conference on toxicological warfare was organised; and if this agreement still exists;

  (17) how many members of the 1985 independent advisory group on Gruinard island have since been on scientific advisory committees serving the Ministry of Defence or the the Porton Down chemical and biological warfare establishment;

  (18) what experiments his Department has carried out on the chemical agent B staphylococcal enterotoxin; when and where these tests and studies were carried out; for what purpose; when the results of these experiments were first exchanged with the United States of America, Canada or Australia; and if this exchange occurred under the arrangements of the technical co-operation programme.

  Mr. Hanley
  These are matters for the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document and I have asked him to reply.

  Letters from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 16 July 1993:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what tests and studies the chemical and biological establishment at Porton Down has carried out on the organophosphorus binary reactant QL; when these experiments were carried out; and for what purpose (Question 12, Order Paper, 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.3. As part of this work, it is necessary to evaluate the potential hazard from nerve agents such as VX. In order to do this, work was carried out at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Nancekuke from early 1960 to about 1968 to study the transesterification process involving QL as part of the study into the nerve gas VX.1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him, pursuant to his Answer of 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 163, how many memoranda of understanding have been agreed in the field of chemical and biological defence, as opposed to offensive chemical and biological warfare, involving Britain and the United States of America since 1963; what was the subject and nature of each memorandum of understanding; and in which year each memorandum of understanding was agreed (Question 13, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.2. The United Kingdom abandoned offensive work on chemical and biological weapons in the late 1950s and since then the role of the Chemical and Biological Defence

  711
  Establishment has been to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them.3. The following agreements in the field of chemical and biological defence involving Britain and the United States of America have been agreed since 1963;

  (a) The United Kingdom-United States of America-Canada Memorandum of Understanding on chemical and biological defence was signed in 1980 and addresses research, development, production and procurement of chemical and biological defence equipment.

  (b) The NATO Army Armaments Group (NAAG) Panel VII on nuclear, biological and chemical defence involving both Britain and the United States of America was set up in 1967. This addresses the standardisation of NBC equipment and procedures.

  (c) The United Kingdom-United States-CanadaAustra lia American British Canadian Australian (ABCA) Armies agreed The Basic Standardisation Agreement in 1964 with the aims of ensuring the fullest cooperation and collaboration between the Armies, the highest possible degree of interoperability through standardisation and the greatest possible economy through the use of combined resources and effort. This includes a group known as the Quadripartite Working Group (QWG) which has a panel on NBC defence.

  (d) The Technical Cooperation Programme which was set up in 1958 activated its Sub Group Eon chemical and biological defence in 1967 which has the aim of promoting collaboration in chemical and biological defence research.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him, pursuant to his Answer of 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 162, what information his Department has with the United States of America relating to technical work on its binary chemical weapon, M-687 155 mm artillery round; and how and when this information was exchanged (Question 15, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.

  3. The United States of America has provided technical information to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down which has enabled us to evaluate the potential hazard to the United Kingdom Armed Forces should a potential aggressor State utilize biological binary weapons.

  4. This information has been provided during the course of the development of the M-687 binary artillery round as part of the regular briefings provided by the United States on their chemical and biological programme. Much of this information has been in the public domain and has been provided to the United Kingdom for background information.

  5. As the United Kingdom abandoned all offensive work on chemical weapons in the late 1950s, there has been no collaboration with the United States of America on the M-687 binary chemical artillery round.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him in which years VX nerve gas was stored at the Ministry of Defence's establishment at Nancekuke in Cornwall; and why it was stored there (Question 16, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. Samples of VX nerve agent were stored at Nancekuke between 1957 and 1976 for studies into the storage stability of
  712
  this agent so as to assist in our evaluation of the potential hazard to the United Kingdom Armed Forces should an aggressor produce such materials.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him pursuant to his Answer of 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 160, when Australia and New Zealand joined the Tripartite Technical Co-operation Programme; for what reasons Britain agreed to each of these two countries joining the programme; and if information was exchanged under the programme on the subject of chemical and biological defence and warfare before 1967 (Question 19, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. Australia joined the Tripartite Cooperation Programme in 1965 and, since it was no longer a tripartite organisation, the name of TTCP was changed to The Technical Cooperation Programme thus retaining the same initials. In 1969 New Zealand also joined The Technical Cooperation Programme. Our records do not indicate the reasons why the United Kingdom, US and Canada agreed to each of the two countries joining the programme.

  3. Information on chemical and biological defence was exchanged prior to 1967 under the American, British, Canadian and Australian (ABCA) agreement and before that under the close cooperation which existed between the Allies during World War II.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him when the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down started and completed work on the AR5 Aircrew Respiratory System; in conjunction with what other countries the research and development of the system was carried out; under which specific defence agreement this collaboration was arranged; and if this system is now in service with any other countries (Question 21, Order, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down started work on the AR5 Aircrew Respiratory System project in 1976 whan the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment provided advice to the lead Establishments of the Defence Research Agency Farnborough (then the Royal Aircraft Establishment Farnborough) and the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine on overall NBC philosophy, materials and testing. CBDE has continued to provide advice in support of the in-service deployment of the AR5 Aircrew Respiratory System.

  3. No other countries were involved in the development of the AR5 which is currently in-service with the UK Armed Forces and is also used by the US Navy and Canadian forces.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him pursuant to his Answer of 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 162, how many exchange postings in relation to binary chemical weapons the United Kingdom and United States governments arranged and in which years; and under which specific defence agreement these postings were arranged (Question 23, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. As the United Kingdom abandoned work on offensive chemical and biological weapons in the late 1950s, there have been no exchange postings in relation to binary chemical weapons between the United Kingdom and the United States Governments as the US binary programme began in the 1970s.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what experiments his Department carried out on Q fever, when these experiments were conducted; for what purpose the results of these studies were passed to either the United States of America, Canada or Australia; and why and when these results were passed to other countries (Question 27, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  713

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.

  3. The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has carried out research on Coxiella Burnettii, the causative agent of Q-Fever. This work was carried out in the late 1980s and has been directed at the development of identification techniques for the organism based on gene probe and antibody technologies. The results of this work have formed part of the programme of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment which is the subject of collaboration with the United States, Canada and Australia under The Technical Cooperation Programme and with the United States and Canada under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him if all research carried out by the Ministry of Defence's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down into LSD was conducted within the establishment itself (Question 30, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.

  3. The majority of the work at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment into the evaluation of the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is carried out within the Establishment. Extramural research contracts are placed with universities and other higher education institutes and industry when these outside bodies have an appropriate expertise that is not available within the Establishment and which compliments the expertise of the Establishment.

  4. Insofar as the research into LSD is concerned, most of this work was carried out within the Establishment. Some complementary research was carried out in a university under extramural research contract to the Establishment.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what factors led to the signing of the 1980 memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada on chemical and biological defence, as referred to in his Answer of 21 May 1992, Official Report, column 255 (Question 31, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.

  3. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention was signed in 1972 and entered into force in 1975. As it was then perceived that the threat from biological weapons had reduced, steps were taken in both the United Kingdom and the United States to reduce their biological defence programmes. There was also a reduction in chemical defence work in the 1970s.

  4. As a consequence, it was recognised in both the United Kingdom and the United States that there would be mutual benefits from close collaboration in the fields of chemical and biological defence. Consequently, the Memorandum of Understanding was drawn up between the United Kingdom and the United States together with Canada and signed in
  714
  1980 with the objective of integrating the chemical and biological defence programmes of the three countries to the maximum possible extent.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him, pursuant to his Answer of 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 162, when the two memoranda of understanding referred to in the answer were signed; how many other memoranda of understanding relating to chemical and biological defence Britain has signed with Australia since 1963; and what they were about (Question 32, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The Memorandum of Agreement between the UK and Australia relating to a joint programme of research, investigation and material testing at the Joint Tropical Trials Research Establishment (JTTRE) was signed in October 1977 and this superseded the Joint Tropical Research Unit Memorandum of Understanding signed in December 1970 which in turn replaced an earlier Memorandum of Understanding in 1962 setting up the Joint Tropical Research Unit.

  3. There have been three other agreements with Australia relating to chemical and biological defence since 1963:

  (a) The Technical Cooperation Programme set up in 1958 under which chemical and biological defence was addresed in Sub Group E which was created in 1967. Australia joined The Technical Cooperation Programme in 1965 and information on research into chemical and biological defence has been exchanged with Australia under this agreement since Sub Group E was created in 1967.

  (b) The United Kingdom-United States-Canada-Australia American British Canadian Australian (ABCA) Armies agreed The Basic Standardisation Agreement in 1964 with the aims of ensuring the fullest cooperation and collaboration between the Armies, the highest possible degree of interoperability through standardisation and the greatest possible economy through the use of combined resources and effort. This includes a group known as the Quadripartite Working panel on NBC defence.

  (c) The United Kingdom United States and Canada Air Standization Coordinating Committee (ASCC) was extended to include Australia in 1964; the ASCC has a working party addressing CB defence.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him pursuant to his Answer to the honourable Member for Brent East on 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 164, if he will list the location, dates and participating countries at each of the subsequent tripartite conferences on toxicological warfare until the present day; and if he will outline the recommendations and conclusions of each of these conferences (Question 34, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The locations, dates and participating countries at each of the subsequent tripartite conference on toxicological warfare until the present day are as follows:

  (a) Fifteenth Conference held in the United Kingdom in 1960 and attended by representatives of Canada, United Kingdom and United States.

  (b) Sixteenth Conference held in Canada in 1962 and attended by representatives of Canada, United Kingdom and United States.

  (c) Seventeenth Conference held in the USA in 1964 and attended by representatives of Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and United States.

  3. In 1965 the America, British, Canadian and Australian (ABCA) Armies Group reviewed the effectiveness of these toxicological conferences. This led to their being subsumed into the Technical Cooperation Programme under which Sub Group E on Chemical and Biological Defence was created in 1967.

  4. It is not practicable to outline the recommendations and conclusions of each of these conferences as these were the subject of trinational and, in the 17th meeting quadrinational

  715
  agreement. It would be necessary to seek the agreement of all the countries concerned to the release of the recommendations and conclusions of these conferences.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him which British scientific research institutions have received stocks of toxins and biological agents from the United States of America Department of Defense since 1979; which toxins and biological agents have been transferred and when; which United States Department of Defense establishments have supplied these toxins and biological agents; under which defence agreements these toxins and biological agents were transferred; and for what purpose on each occasion (Question 36, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to have available small quantities of the materials which may be used as chemical or biological warfare agents by a potential aggressor.

  3. It is not possible for us to comment on what toxins and biological agents may have been received by other British scientific research institutions from the United States of America Department of Defense since 1979. This reply is necessarily limited to the Ministry of Defence scientific research institutions.

  4. The quantities involved are very small and in no way could be regarded as stocks of agent. Small quantities of the following toxins and micro-organisms which might be used by a potential aggressor as biological agents have been provided:

  (a) Shellfish toxin (saxitoxin) from the then US Army Chemical Research and Development Center in 1982

  (b) Clostridium perfringens betatoxin from the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases in 1992.

  (c) Bacillus anthracis strains from the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases in 1985. The strains received did not contain the toxin plasmid and are regarded as attenuated strains.

  5. In addition other materials including some vaccines and simulants have been transferred which are neither toxins or biological agents. All the materials transferred have been to support collaboration into the provision of effective protective measures.

  6. These materials have been supplied under The Technical Cooperation Programme and under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him on what dates, and in which publications, scientists on extramural research projects funded by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, published their findings in 1991, as referred to on page 15 of the Establishment's annual report 1991–92 (Question 39, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. It is not the practice of the Ministry of Defence on both national and personal security grounds to identify links between the Ministry of Defence and the contractors engaged on extramural research. It is left to the individual contractors to decide whether or not to disclose their contracts with the Ministry of Defence. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him for what reasons the Ministry of Defence delayed dismantling its nerve gas agent plant at Nancekuke, Cornwall after the Ministry had decided to decommission the plant; what tasks were carried out at the site in the intervening years between the decommissioning and dismantling; and if these tasks were connected to the United Kingdom's chemical and biological defence programme
  716
  (Question 41, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. Work on the pilot scale nerve agent plant at Nancekuke was completed and the plant decontaminated in January 1956 before the decision was taken to decommission the plant later in that year. The plant was partially dissembled to allow other work to be carried out on the site. This other work included tasks related to the chemical and biological defence programme such as the manufacture of a dye for detector paper, a chemical needed to produce P2S, which is an ingredient in medical countermeasures against nerve agents, as well as research work aimed at determining whether other nerve agents presented a hazard to British Armed Forces.

  3. The plant was not finally dismantled until the closure of Nancekuke in the late 1970s because of the absence until then of the necessary resources as great care was taken to avoid any hazard to the staff involved in the dismantling work and to ensure that any toxic chemicals were safely disposed of.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him, pursuant to his Answer of 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 164, if he will publish the official name and details of the informal agreement under which the 15th Tripartite Conference on Toxicological Warfare was organised; and if this agreement still exists (Question 44, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Exeuctive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The 15th Tripartite Conference on Toxicological Warfare had its origins in informal agreements of 1946 which in turn had their roots in World War II allied cooperation between the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. Whilst the agreement which led to the Toxicological Warfare conferences no longer exists, its spirit continues in respect of the cooperation between United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand under the Technical Cooperation Programme in the activities under Sub Group E on Chemical and Biological Defence. This transition from the Tripartite and eventually Quadripartite Conferences occurred in the mid 1960s.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him how many members of the 1985 Independent Advisory Group on Gruinard Island have since been on scientific advisory committees serving the Ministry of Defence or the Porton Down chemical and biological warfare establishment. (Question 47, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The Independent Advisory Group on Gruinard Island was established by the then Chief Scientific Adviser of the Ministry of Defence writing to the President of the Royal Society to invite him to nominate a Chairman for the Independent Advisory Group. The Chairman of the Advisory Group then decided who he wished to have on his Advisory Group and he chose its membership which included a representative from the Scottish Home and Health Department. At the time of their appointment, none of the members of the Independent Advisory Group on Gruinard Island were on or had been on scientific advisory committees to the Ministry of Defence or to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down.

  3. The Independent Advisory Group on Gruinard Island carried out its work during the period 1985 to 1989 which resulted in Gruinard Island being returned to its original owners in May 1990. Since becoming members of the Independent Advisory Group on Gruinard Island, one member of the Group has served as a member of the Chemical and Biological Defence Board of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council and subsequently as a member of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what experiments his Department has carried out on the chemical agent B staphylococcal enterotoxin; when and where these tests and studies were carried out; for what purpose; when the results of these experiments were first exchanged with the United States of America, Canada and Australia; and if this exchange occurred under the arrangements of the Technical

  717
  Co-operation Programme (Question 48, Order Paper, 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.

  3. Staphylococcal enterotoxin B is a potent toxin produced by the bacterium staphylococcus aureus. The toxin causes vomiting and diarrhoea and is known to be highly active when delivered by the aerosol route and for these reasons, the toxin is considered to be a potential biological agent which might be used against the United Kingdom Armed Forces.

  4. The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has carried out studies on staphylococcal enterotoxin B to assess the potential hazard to the United Kingdom Armed Forces and to devise effective protective measures such as detection and medical countermeasures against this toxin. The results of this work have been exchanged with the United States, Canada and Australia under the Technical Cooperation Programme since 1979 and also with the United States and Canada under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence since 1980.

  Defence Scientific Advisory Council
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name all the chairmen and chairwomen of the Defence Scientific Advisory Board since 1984.

  Mr. Aitken
  I assume that the hon. Member refers to the Defence Scientic Advisory Council. Its chairmen since 1984 have been:

  1981–1984 Mr. P. E. Trier

  1985–1991 Professor Sir J. I. G. Cadogan

  1991–present Professor D. E. N. Davies

  Army Recruitment
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department expects to implement plans for gender-free physical testing for recruitment to the Army.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is currently planned to introduce gender-free testing of Army recruits in April 1995.

  Royal Family
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to his Department of expenditure in support of the royal family in respect of(a) the Royal Yacht, (b) the Queen's Flight, (c) royal flights in civil aircraft and (d) equerries for the 1992–93 financial year.

  Mr. Hanley
  Expenditure in 1993–93 was as follows:

  £ thousands

  (a) Royal Yacht

  8,361

  (b) Queen's Flight

  7,590

  (c) Royal flights in civil aircraft

  9

  (d) Equerries

  170

  Note: The figure for The Queen's Flight is a total operating cost. The flight is not exclusively used by the Royal Family, but it is not possible to allocate expenditure to users without disproportionate cost.
  718

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 July Official Report, column 629, what is the proposed United Kingdom contribution to the 1994 budget for the preparatory commission for the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons; and how much will be charged to the estimates for 1993–94.

  Mr. Hanley
  The executive secretary intends to present his 1994 budget at the September plenary session of the preparatory commission of the chemical weapons convention. Until then it is not possible to give accurate assessments of the United Kingdom contribution and of how much will be charged to the estimates for 1993–94.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a full disclosure of the details of Britain's past chemical warfare activities, under the terms of the chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Hanley
  After United Kingdom ratification and the convention has entered into force.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has of the existence of(a) Serbian and (b) Croatian regular forces in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Hanley
  We are aware of media reports claiming the presence of Serbian and Croatian regular forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Any information gathered by UNPROFOR troops about force composition would be passed through the United Nations chain of command, ultimately to the Security Council. As a member of the Security Council, the United Kingdom receives information reported by UNPROFOR.

  Military Tasks
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to provide more detailed information on the estimated costs of the individual force elements allocated to military tasks, as described in Cm. 2270, page 23.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no plans to publish detailed information on the estimated costs of force elements.

  Tornado
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role Tornado F3 aircraft and regular infantry batallions have in the provision of a strategic and substrategic nuclear capability.

  Mr. Hanley
  Tornado F3 aircraft are required as part of the forces necessary to safeguard the deployment of the deterrent. Regular infantry battalions are required as part of the forces necessary to safeguard the physical security of nuclear assets and the command and control infrastructure. In both cases, the units involved are normally available to carry out other tasks in peacetime.

  Surface-to-Air Missiles
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sea-launched medium-range surface-to-air missile capability is currently operational.
  719
  Mr. Hanley
  RN carriers and anti-air warfare destroyers are currently armed with the Seadart medium-range surface-to-air missile system.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ground-launched medium-range surface-to-air missile capability is currently operational.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no ground-launched medium-range surface-to-air missile currently in operational service with United Kingdom Forces. RAF Tornado F3 aircraft provide the United Kingdom with a medium-range air defence capability, and these are supplemented by Royal Navy destroyers and Sea Harriers. A shorter range ground-launched surface-to-air missile capability is provided by the Rapier and Javelin air defence systems.

  Queen's Flight
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consideration he has given to the procurement of new aircraft for the Queen's flight.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no current plans to procure new aircraft for the Queen's flight.

  Diego Garcia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current size of the naval party based at Diego Garcia.

  Mr. Hanley
  The party consists of three officers and 38 ratings and marines.

  Service Units
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether information on the average annual running costs of service units has contributed to the information given in Cm. 2270, page 23.

  Mr. Hanley
  The estimated force element costs referred to in "Defending Our Future"—Cm. 2270—were derived from a wide range of data sources, including, where available and appropriate, running cost information.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current average annual running costs of all those units listed in Cm. 2270, page 22, table 3.

  Mr. Hanley
  Running cost information could be provided for those units listed at page 22 of "Defending Our Future" only at disproportionate cost. Information on running costs for each top-level Budget is set out in the supply estimates—Cm. 495–1.

  Rapid Reaction Corps
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts concerning the future use of the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps in United Nations military operations.

  Mr. Hanky
  NATO Defence Ministers agreed at the December 1992 defence planning committee meeting, that support for United Nations and CSCE peacekeeping should be included among the missions of NATO forces and headquarters. In principle, therefore, the Allied 720
  Command Europe rapid reaction corps would in future be available for such support to the United Nations in common with other NATO formations.

  Defence Staff
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the compendium of staff targets and staff requirements, referred to in Cm. 2270, page 73.

  Mr. Aitken
  We plan to publish the compendium as a special issue of the "Defence Contracts Bulletin", on 21 July. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether compendium of staff targets and staff requirements that he is due to publish will include in-service dates.

  Mr. Aitken
  Yes.

  Departmental Land
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much land his Department proposes to(a) purchase and (b) dispose of in the coming year.

  Mr. Hanley
  Purchase of land is carried out on an opportunity basis once a landowner has indicated a willingness to sell a particular area of land. Similarly, we do not maintain a record of the area of land we expect to dispose of as changes in site boundaries often occur before a property or piece of land is finally sold.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was his Department's total land holding in the United Kingdom for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department's total land holding in the United Kingdom for each of the past five years was:

  1 April 1993 242,542 hectares

  1 April 1992 243,333 hectares

  1 April 1991 242,865 hectares

  1 April 1990 240,613 hectares

  1 April 1989 241,300 hectares

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards discount sales of Ministry of Defence flats to service personnel leaving the forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  Surplus flats in Scotland are wherever possible offered for sale to service personnel through the services' discount scheme. This scheme is open to all eligible service personnel, not just those leaving the forces. Surplus flats in England and Wales are not offered for sale through the discount scheme because of different property laws, and are instead offered for sale to housing associations in exchange for nomination rights on a percentage of the properties to house those leaving the services over the next few years. If sales cannot be agreed on this basis, the properties are offered for sale by tender on the open market.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards residence by separated wives of service personnel with children in Ministry of Defence married quarters not required for use.
  721
  Mr. Hanley
  If the separation arises because the requirements of the service prevent a wife and family accompanying her husband on a posting, she will be allowed to remain in her married quarter for up to 12 months. If a service man is posted away for a longer period, his wife will normally be given the opportunity to join him. If she chooses not to, she must vacate her quarter within three months. If there are special or compassionate circumstances, which prevent her from joining her husband, she may be offered a surplus married quarter, subject to availability, in the area of her choice.

  If the separation arises because of the breakdown of the marriage, an estranged wife will be allowed to remain in her married quarter for a period of 93 days, to allow her time to find alternative accommodation. If the marital breakdown occurs overseas, the wife will he moved at service expense to an address of her choice in the United Kingdom. If a wife has no home to go to, she will be offered a surplus married quarter in the United Kingdom, where she may stay for up to 93 days.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of providing caretaking for empty Ministry of Defence married quarters over the past year.

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of providing caretaking for some 2,000 surplus married quarters in the process of being sold amounted to £270,000 in financial year 1992–93. Caretaking costs of empty properties which are not surplus to requirements are not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel left the forces in 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  34,254 personnel left the services in 1992 and 19,292 joined.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Depleted Uranium Shells
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Ministry has made of the environmental effects of the test firing of depleted uranium shells(a) on land-based test ranges and (b) on the sea in regard to implications for flora and fauna of the test localities.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces' reply to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 14 June, Official Report, column 474.

SCOTLAND

  Forest Charter
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in the light of the initiatives produced by the United Kingdom forest charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The issues raised in the forest charter, a statement produced last November by the United Kingdom Forests Network, are being considered in the preparation of the United Kingdom's national plan for the 722
  implemtation of the forest principles agreed in Rio. The views of non-governmental organisations will be sought later this year before the plan is completed.

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends putting out to tender the contract to construct the new maternity unit at Glasgow royal infirmary which will serve eastern Glasgow; what construction timescale is involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: Plans for the development of a new maternity unit at Glasgow royal infirmary are currently the subject of detailed consideration and at this time no formal submission for approval to build has been submitted.

  It is primarily a matter for individual health bodies to progress building projects from approval to build through to the tender stage and the timing of construction work is dependent on this process.

  Scotland in the Union Initiative
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what public bodies he envisages relocating functions and staff within Scotland as part of the Scotland in the Union initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1993]: The White Paper "Scotland in the Union" (Cm 2225) indicates that the Government intend to seek opportunities for further dispersal both of parts of the Scottish Office and of non-departmental public bodies for which I am responsible. I announced on 29 June our decision to relocate part of the Scottish tourist board to Inverness and we shall continue to seek to identify other units or bodies which it would be operationally feasible and financially attractive to relocate when practical opportunities occur.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average daily prison population at the latest date for which figures are available and in the previous five years.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: I have asked Mr. E. W. Frizzell, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, to arrange for a reply to be given to the hon. Member.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 16 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Question asking what was the average daily prison population at the latest date for which figures are available and in the previous 5 years.
  On 25 June 1993 the actual population was 5772. The average population for the current financial year so far, ie 1 April 1993 to 25 June 1993 is 5827. The average population for the five previous financial years is as follows:

  Number

  1991–92

  4,897

  1990–91

  4,738

  1989–90

  4,886

  723

  Number

  1988–89

  5,168

  1987–88

  5,421

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Theatres
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the overall amount, and proportions of theatre groups' incomes derived from ticket

  All figures are in £ at actual prices

  Company

  Earned Income

  Local Authority

  SAC

  Sponsorship

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  Borderline

  1981–82

  46,005

  28

  31,930

  20

  83,500

  52

  —

  —

  1991–92

  142,112

  43

  36,840

  11

  149,025

  45

  —

  —

  Brunton theatre

  1981–821

  2,144

  6

  19,038

  54

  14,000

  40

  —

  —

  1991–92

  88,344

  35

  117,270

  47

  41,468

  16

  2,650

  1

  Byre theatre

  1981–82

  47,818

  49

  15,000

  15

  35,000

  36

  —

  —

  1991–92

  105,025

  44

  465,120

  20

  84,114

  35

  1,900

  1

  Citizens theatre

  1981–82

  119,679

  25

  112,475

  24

  240,000

  51

  —

  —

  1991–92

  428,549

  32

  408,666

  31

  490,272

  37

  —

  —

  Communicado

  1981–824

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  70,738

  29

  26,500

  11

  126,260

  51

  21,000

  9

  Dundee Rep

  1981–822

  —

  —

  30,696

  —

  78,000

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  345,749

  46

  189,855

  25

  215,684

  28

  4,060

  0·5

  Perth theatre

  1981–82

  114,730

  37

  78,918

  25

  118,000

  38

  —

  —

  1991–92

  691,000

  59

  231,000

  20

  214,988

  18

  41,000

  3

  Pitlochry festival theatre

  1981–82

  214,376

  56

  47,807

  13

  120,000

  31

  —

  —

  1991–92

  640,524

  70

  70,300

  8

  197,327

  21

  8,000

  1

  Royal Lyceum

  1981–82

  173,936

  28

  126,000

  21

  310,000

  51

  —

  —

  1991–923

  554,780

  36

  467,000

  31

  471,051

  31

  37,960

  2

  1 The Brunton theatre project was first funded in 1981–82.

  2 No performances, as the theatre was being built.

  3 Theatre closed for renovation, April-September.

  4 Not in existence.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the admission of Israel to one of the regional groups at the United Nations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We believe Israel should be allowed into the Asian group of the United Nations. But until they are, we would not object to Israeli membership of the Western European and others group of the United Nations if there were a consensus among other member states.
  724
  sales grant aid, and private sector sponsorship in 1992 and 1982, including any ventures which are wholly commercial in character.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that the hon. Member's question relates to theatres in Scotland. The information requested is not held centrally. The following figures, provided by the Scottish Arts Council, relate to those drama companies that receive revenue funding from the council. No information is held on wholly commercial productions.

  Diplomatic Service
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what shrinkage has taken place of posts in Her Majesty's diplomatic service in Latin America in the last 12 months; and if he will pubish a table of numbers of United Kingdom-based diplomatic, aid and trade staff in each Latin American country for the most recent available date.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There has been no reduction in the number of British missions in Latin America in the last 12 months. The number of United Kingdom-based staff was reduced from 162 to 150 in the 12 months up to June 1993.

  The table shows the number of diplomatic service staff in each post in June 1993, together with the man years dedicated to aid and trade.
  725

  Country

  Post

  United Kingdom-based staff 1993

  Trade 1993

  Aid 1993

  Argentina

  Buenos Aires

  16

  2·00

  0·05

  Belize

  Belmopan

  6

  0·40

  1·15

  Bolivia

  La Paz

  4

  0·20

  0·00

  Brazil

  Brasilia

  17

  0·70

  0·05

  Rio de Janeiro

  5

  1·25

  0·00

  Sao Paulo

  4

  2·00

  0·00

  Chile

  Santiago

  14

  2·00

  0·15

  Colombia

  Bogota

  10

  1·45

  0·20

  Costa Rica

  San Jose

  4

  1·10

  0·80

  Cuba

  Havana

  10

  0·35

  0·05

  Ecuador

  Quito

  5

  0·65

  0·50

  El Salvador

  San Salvador

  2

  0·05

  0·05

  Guatemala

  Guatemala City

  6

  0·20

  0·25

  Honduras

  Tegucigalpa

  2

  0·15

  0·35

  Mexico

  Mexico City

  17

  2·30

  0·40

  Nicaragua

  Managua

  2

  0·25

  0·55

  Panama

  Panama City

  2

  0·35

  0·00

  Paraguay

  Asuncion

  2

  0·45

  0·05

  Peru

  Lima

  6

  0·45

  0·30

  Uruguay

  Montevideo

  4

  0·30

  0·25

  Venezuela

  Caracas

  12

  2·00

  0·00

  Overall Totals

  150

  18·60

  5·15

  Entry Clearance Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many entry clearance application staff in each high commission or application point in the Indian sub-continent are(a) men and (b) women; and what facilities exist for female applications to be interviewed by women staff.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of(a) men and (b) women entry clearance application staff in each of the posts in the Indian sub-continent are;

  Men

  Women

  Islamabad

  30

  17

  Karachi

  5

  7

  New Delhi

  10

  17

  Bombay

  11

  24

  Madras

  2

  4

  Calcutta

  2

  3

  Colombo

  4

  6

  Kathmandu

  2

  2

  Dhaka

  1—

  1—

  1 Figures not available.

  Facilities exist at all these posts for female applicants to be interviewed by female staff or to have a female officer present at the interview if they so wish.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with the Secretary-General of the United Nations as to the next action to be taken by the United Nations following the breakdown of the United Nations-sponsored talks on Cyprus; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Turkish Government following the recent breakdown on the United Nations-sponsored talks on the future of Cyprus; and if he will make a statement;
  726
  (3) what discussions he has had with the Greek Government following the breakdown of the United Nations-sponsored talks on Cyprus.; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what discussions he has had with President Clerides following the breakdown of the United Nations-sponsored talks on Cyprus; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) if he will raise the issue of Cyprus during the forthcoming Commonwealth conference of Heads of Government in Cyprus in October; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what actions he proposes to take with the Secretary-General of the United Nations to encourage sucessful continuation of the talks on the future of Famagusta; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The intercommunal dispute in Cyprus is the subject of intensive negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General. This process has our full support and it is important not to start new initiatives that may confuse or cut across the United Nations effort.

  On 30 June the United Nations Secretary-General issued a report detailing the progress of the latest round of talks and proposed confidence-building measures which would bring both Varosha and Nicosia airport under United Nations control. Our permanent representative to the United Nations, in his capacity as President of the Security Council, replied by letter on 7 July asking the Secretary-General to continue his efforts and report again in September. The latter's special representative is at present visiting the area.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the way forward with Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Inonu on 14 July and will take further opportunities to promote the Secretary-General's mission between now and September.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions during the course of 1993 the British high commissioner to Cyprus has visited northern Cyprus; whom he has met during his visits; and what was the purpose of each visit.
  727
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  One of the duties of Her Majesty's high commissioner in Cyprus is to maintain contact with the leaders of the Turkish Cypriot community in order to promote and protect British consular or other interests. In this context he and members of his staff are frequently in northern Cyprus.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Nations monitors are allocated for duties in Kosovo; how many United Nations monitors are currently on duty in Kosovo; from which countries they originate; what plans there are to increase United Nations monitors in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no United Nations monitors allocated for duties or currently on duty in Kosovo. However, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 14 July, column 556, on the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe missions in Serbia.

  Mr. Sodagar Hussain
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British post in Islamabad received a copy of a letter from the hon. Member for Bradford, West to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, concerning the case of Mr. Sodagar Hussain—IMP H 312018/2 (S); Po 13775/93; what reconsideration the entry clearance officer has given to this case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The high commission in Islamabad has not yet received the letter from the hon. Member concerning Mr. Sodagar Hussain which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office undertook to send in his letter to the hon. Member of 5 July.

  I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit as soon as the entry clearance officer in Islamabad has reviewed the case in the light of the hon. Member's letter.

  Mrs. Assia Andrabi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the detention of Mrs. Assia Andrabi, her husband, and baby daughter, at Srinagar airport in Kashmir by Indian security forces on 5 February; if he will ask the Indian authorities for information about where Mrs. Andrabi, the leader of Dukhtaran-e-Millat, a voluntary women's organisation in Kashmir, is detained; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received no previous representations concerning Mrs. Andrabi and her family. From our initial inquiries we understand that they are being held in Srinagar. The high commission in New Delhi has requested details of the whereabouts of Mrs. Andrabi, her husband arid daughter, from the Indian authorities. I will write to the hon. Member once the response of the Indian authorities has been received.
  728

  Bosnia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries which have designated troops to protect protected areas in Bosnia; how many troops each country has committed; when those forces are expected to arrive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Offers received, and under consideration, by the United Nations of forces to deter attacks against safe areas include:

  Numbers

  Turkey

  1—

  Malaysia

  1,500

  Pakistan

  3,000

  Bangladesh

  1,220

  Tunisia

  1,000

  Nordic Contingent

  900

  Jordan

  900

  Holland

  200

  Norway

  2—

  1 Up to a Brigade (about 4,000)

  2 Construction Unit (strength unknown)

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Nations is expected to finalise detailed rules of engagement for military personnel engaged in the protection of protected areas in Bosnia; to whom those detailed rules of engagement will be communicated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Ground forces deployed with UNPROFOR to deter attacks against safe areas will operate under existing UNPROFOR rules of engagement. Rules of engagement for air support of safe areas have been developed by NATO in conjunction with UNPROFOR and are being forwarded to the United Nations and troop contributors for agreement. All personnel are fully briefed on the UNPROFOR rules of engagement in force.

  Mr. Graham Noble
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 501, what further information he has obtained about Mr. Graham Noble, of Brighton, who is detained by Serbs in the Krajina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Noble has been charged by the Krajina Serbs with espionage. It is unclear at this stage exactly how long it will take to investigate his case. Her Majesty's embassy in Belgrade is pressing the Krajina Serb authorities to grant consular access to Mr. Noble for an official from the embassy in Zagreb which has consular responsibility throughout Croatia. Mr. Noble continues to receive visits from the local representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross who reports that he is well. UNPROFOR in Croatia have offered their good offices to try to arrange a visit by Mr. Noble's brother.
  729

  Vukovar (Hospital Abductions)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 501, concerning patients and staff abducted from hospitals in Vukovar in 1991, why the UN commission of experts decided not to attempt identification, exhumation and return of all the bodies; whether the Croatian authorities have sought the assistance of Her Majesty's Government in this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The UN Commission of Experts plans to carry out a more detailed examination of the mass grave site at Ovcara in the near future. This will include exhumation of all of the bodies. But the Commission will attempt to identify only 20, sufficient to link the gravesite with the disappearances from Vukovar hospital. The remainder of the bodies will be handed over to the Croatian authorities for identification. The Croatian authorities have not requested Her Majesty's Government's assistance in this task.

  Mr. Sheikh Riaz Ahmed
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 500, when the British embassy at Paris expects to receive a reply to the formal note sent to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning the refusal to allow Mr. Sheikh Riaz Ahmed to enter France; when the British embassy is going to send another note; if he will raise this matter with his French ministerial counterpart; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British embassy in Paris has kept in close touch with the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Despite several reminders, interim replies to the embassy's note were not received from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs until 6 and 8 July. There are still some points which need clarification and the embassy is pursuing this.

  I have no plans to take this matter up with my French counterpart at this time. I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I have a further report.

  War Crimes Tribunal
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the establishment of a war crimes tribunal; when it is expected to sit; and what rules for admissible evidence will be used.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 827 establishing an international tribunal for former Yugoslavia, the United Nations Secretary-General has been making arrangements for its functioning. The first task is to appoint the prosecutor and judges of the tribunal. The prosecutor should be appointed within the next two months. The judges will be elected by the United Nations General Assembly this autumn. The rules of evidence and procedure will be drawn up by the judges once appointed.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on evidence which has been gathered by international 730
  organisations for future consideration by a war crimes tribunal; how such evidence is likely to be presented; and how it will be categorised.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Most information submitted so far to the United Nations Commission of Experts, who are charged with the collation, analysis and investigation of such evidence, has been collected by states. We understand that Amnesty International has submitted three reports on war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and that Helsinki Watch has submitted one. It will be for the prosecutor and judges of the international tribunal, once appointed, to decide how this evidence might be categorised or presented.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on supporting a war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; what the cost of the United Kingdom's commitment is likely to be; who will bear the cost of locating and transporting witnesses before the tribunal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully support the creation of an ad hoc tribunal for former Yugoslavia. The tribunal is to be funded from the United Nations regular budget. The financial annex to the United Nations Secretary-General's report on the means of establishing the tribunal includes an estimate of $30·5 million for all the tribunal's costs for one year once it is operational. The estimate will be scrutinised by the United Nations Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions at this year's United Nations General Assembly.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations into alleged war crimes in the former Yugoslavia have been undertaken; how many of the alleged perpetrators are(a) Croat, (b) Muslim and (c) Serb; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Commission of Experts was established in September 1992 by United Nations Security Council resolution 780 to collate, analyse and investigate evidence of war crimes committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 submitted to the United Nations under the terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 771. The commission is building a data base of incidents, victims and alleged perpetrators. At this stage it is not possible to say how many alleged perpetrators come from each party to the Bosnian conflict.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government will take in respect of possible threats by the Government of Iran Mujaheddin bases in Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The possible contravention of Security Council resolution 598 is a matter for the Security Council which is permanently seized of the issue. We have expressed our serious concern at these air raids to the Iranian authorities. In a letter of 25 May to the United Nations Secretary-General, the Iranian permanent representative to the United Nations said that the air raids had been carried out in self-defence on the basis of article
  731
  51 of the United Nations charter and without prejudice to Iran's policy of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq or its commitment to SCR 598.
  732

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

UN Humanitarian Relief: Adequacy
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in the light of recent experience in Bosnia they will now take action as a permanent member of the Security Council to make certain that the United Nations has at its disposal the means to ensure effective humanitarian relief and protection whenever they are deemed necessary.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the UN General Assembly is soon to undertake a full review of the performance of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, including the ways and means of improving the delivery and protection of humanitarian relief through the most appropriate and cost-effective agencies. The UN General Assembly is also soon to review the overall funding of the UN.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she not agree that the average ratio of UN peacekeeping costs to national military expenditure for member states is still only one US dollar to every 1,000 US dollars? Is it not in effect highly cynical to give the UN responsibilities for which it is not adequately resourced? As a permanent member of the Security Council, will the Government now pursue the priorities, first, of more UN capability for prevention rather than cure—for instance, early warning, pre-emptive diplomacy and conflict resolution—secondly, more resources for properly-trained UN peacekeeping forces, and, thirdly, sufficient means to ensure the delivery of humanitarian supplies to those in need?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I should have thought that from my Answer today, and certainly as a result of three previous Questions that the noble Lord has asked me, that he had taken that meaning. It is essential that the UN has adequate resources to meet growing demands for humanitarian relief and to protect those delivering the relief. But we must realise that where we can prevent, as I believe we have effectively done in Macedonia and other places, and where we can go in in advance—and there are many areas of the world where that is required—enormous long-term costs are involved. Nevertheless, that is still better than having to give the immense amount of aid, such as the £131 million we have given, to try to keep people alive in Bosnia.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend give an assurance that as a result of the natural feeling of horror in this country about what is
420
happening, the Government will not be pushed into exposing British troops or British personnel generally to unnecessary additional risks?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. That is one of the reasons why we have made it absolutely clear that if conditions worsen still further we must look at the situation facing not only the UNPROFOR and British troops but also our own aid workers in Bosnia.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, recently the Foreign Secretary said that perhaps it was about time to have another go at reviving the United Nations Military Committee, that saddest of all casualties of the cold war. Is that now a fixed objective of the Government and, if so, how are they pursuing it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is one of a number of suggestions that has been put forward; it certainly is not a fixed objective. One of the greatest problems that we must face is the suddenness with which many situations arise. It is most important that the UN should have its disaster relief abilities at such a stage that it can move in very quickly. That is one of the objectives of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that besides the term "whenever" in the noble Lord's Question there should also be the word "wherever", which must range from the Pacific Rim, to Central Asia, to Africa, to the Middle East, to Europe and to Latin America —terrifying prospect?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, indeed, it is a terrifying prospect. If your Lordships saw some of the papers which come daily across our desks describing the assistance that is required they would realise how difficult it is to support all demands. We cannot respond to all the claims. It is necessary that more attention is paid to priorities of need and also to preventing need, as I said some moments ago.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the command structure of the United Nations forces, given the disturbing evidence coming out of Somalia and the reports in today's newspapers that. United Nations troops are selling fuel and weapons to people in Bosnia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know that there were troubles in Bosnia with some UN troops who are no longer there. But that is, I might say, an old story. It is important that where a commander is put in charge, as General Bir is in charge of military exercises under UNISOM in Somalia, all other commanders must follow that command. Unless that happens—and a lot needs to be done to make it so—there is no way in which one can prevent the deaths and the trouble.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one cannot deliver aid across a battlefield? Therefore, in Bosnia the priority must continue to be the seeking of a political settlement. In that connection, can my noble friend say anything about

421
the meeting yesterday between her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the German Foreign Minister?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I would be delighted to be able to give my noble friend Lord Beloff good news, but the discussions being carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and Mr. Stoltenberg are the crucial discussions. I am sure that Herr Kinkel was supportive of what the Foreign Secretary was saying yesterday.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on the question of humanitarian aid, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that many of us who listened to her excellent broadcast at about 7.30 this morning will agree with her observations that there are shortcomings among some of the principal member states of the European Community in failing to put their money where their mouth is?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in fact there are worse debtors than the member states of the European Community as regards UN subscriptions. The United Nations is owed more than 2 billion dollars in assessed regular budget and peacekeeping fees. That is an enormous sum, but I am told that we should have some good news from the main debtors before the end of this year. I hope that it comes very soon.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that we are giving a lead to the other countries in the world as regards Bosnia? Will she confirm, for example, that we have more troops on the ground trying to deliver humanitarian aid than any other country? Can she confirm further that the aid which we are giving is significant? Will she reiterate what she said in the broadcast, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, about the amount of additional aid which we are giving at this time?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can confirm that we have 2,300 troops on the ground in Bosnia and around 120 aid workers. In the past 18 months we have spent £131 million there, including the commitment which I gave last week of £18.5 million, £6.5 million of which is for mining and power projects to restore and maintain electricity and the basic infrastructure. That electricity is obviously needed to pump clean water, which is essential.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the main humanitarian aid is food. Are the Government satisfied that after 15 per cent. of the agricultural land in Europe has been taken out of production this year, there will be sufficient food to supply those areas where one sees thousands of children starving?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that there will be sufficient food in Europe. That is not the problem. It is the storage and the transportation of the food to the people who need it which is the problem. When one looks at the wider world, much of the excess production in Europe is food which is unsuitable for the diets of people further afield.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the success or failure of the United Nations in introducing a new world order post-cold war will depend as much as anything on the professionalism and discipline of the armed forces which are used on behalf of the United Nations? Given the particular qualifications which the British Armed Forces have, will the Minister consider making an approach to the United Nations that Britain should have a very real and permanent role so that our Armed Forces are organised to make a substantial and permanent contribution to that aspect of world peace?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, what my noble friend Lord Marlesford says is very interesting. There is certainly no new world order yet; anything but. But it is the very professionalism and discipline of Western troops that is important. It may be that we can make a contribution in training other troops for that role.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Baroness name the three top debtor countries to the United Nations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there are problems for three countries in particular. One is Russia, which has a complex problem as regards paying its arrears. Another is the United States, but it has recently paid substantial amounts to UN peacekeeping. I am hopeful that it will continue to improve that peacekeeping payment record in the months ahead. Japan is considering what to do about its repayments. And the Ukraine, like Russia, has a problem.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the Minister referred to the harrowing cases which arrive on her desk. Will she agree that of the war casualties in the world at present, 90 per cent. are civilian and that there are likely to be 100 million refugees and displaced people by the year 2000? Against that background, is it right that we should be spending 1,000 times as much on preparing for war as we spend on peacekeeping? Do we have our priorities right?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no way in which the United Kingdom alone can right that situation. The UN must discuss it at the General Assembly this autumn. I shall not speculate on the number of refugees. I say only that the numbers are already far too high. Their needs are very great indeed. We must take action to reduce the numbers of refugees.

Invalidity Benefit and Voluntary Work
11.20 a.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider amending the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983 to enable recipients of invalidity benefit to take on voluntary work for citizens advice bureaux and other voluntary organisations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the regulations already permit people receiving invalidity benefit to undertake voluntary work, so long as they continue to satisfy the conditions for receiving the benefit. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has no current plans to amend those regulations.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, although I can hardly say that it adds greatly to my knowledge. There can clearly be no complaint about the proper application of the regulations as regards invalidity benefit, but is the Minister aware that the enforcement has a requirement that recipients of the allowance who want to take on unpaid voluntary work—that is, just like any other workers—have to show that the work is likely to be medically beneficial, and that that is proving to be a very considerable deterrent?
An exception to the requirement has already been made for the recipient sitting one day a week on a disability appeal tribunal. Therefore, in addition, would it not be possible to provide that people can take on, say, up to 10 or 15 hours a week of voluntary work? After all, no money would be involved and those concerned are not people who would be taken on by any employer for paid employment. It seems to me that it would be entirely consistent with the Government's general policy of encouraging voluntary effort.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are certainly very grateful for all the voluntary work that is done. We recognise the importance of the voluntary sector. However, I should make it clear that invalidity benefit is a benefit for those incapable of work. I believe that it would be illogical to allow those who can work—unless, as the noble Lord put it, the work is therapeutic—to receive it. If people are capable of work, there are other benefits available such as unemployment benefit or income support that they can seek in order to gain assistance. To make the change suggested by the noble Lord could make it very difficult indeed to then disallow benefit to someone who was clearly capable of work but who, simply because he was doing voluntary work, could argue that he was not so.
Lord Renton: My Lords, should not the principle be established that it would be wrong for anyone undertaking unpaid work for good causes to be disentitled from benefits to which he contributed when employed and upon which he totally depends when not gainfully employed? Should there be any exception to that at all?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am trying to make it clear that it is illogical that people should receive a benefit designed for those incapable of work when they are capable of work. If they are capable of work, then there are other benefits such as unemployment benefit—which, as my noble friend put it, they have contributed towards—or there is income support.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is not the Minister himself being illogical now? If a person is in receipt of invalidity benefit because he cannot do physical work, that does not prevent him from doing mental work such as, for example, advising in a citizens advice bureau.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if someone is so capable of doing regular, remunerative work he should not be in receipt of a benefit designed for those who are incapable of work. There are other benefits designed to help those people, such as unemployment benefit or income support. If people cannot work at all, obviously they can still receive invalidity benefit or, if the work is therapeutic, then again they can still receive invalidity benefit.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, I fear that he is rather going round the mulberry bush. Is he aware that the essential principle for which my noble friend Lord Renton contended, which is a perfectly simple, fair and proper one, has not been addressed in a logical fashion?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry; I simply cannot accept what my noble friend said. I think that it is perfectly logical when you have a benefit designed for those incapable of work—and I stress that that is not a disability benefit; it is a benefit for those incapable of work—that those incapable of work should receive it. There are exceptions such as allowing them to do a certain amount of therapeutic work. But, if such people are capable of doing work, they should not be receiving that benefit and should in fact he receiving another benefit.
Lord Rix: My Lords, does the Minister accept that local authority councillors are incapable of work because such people are exempt from a disregard in regard to that benefit? Is the Minister aware of the fact that they are able to work unlimited hours?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not make comments on what is permitted to local authority councillors as regards work, especially as I see a former local authority councillor sitting opposite me in the Chamber. I have accepted that there are different rules for both councillors and members of the disability appeal tribunals. A special case was made because there was a very real problem, in that such people received allowances above the therapeutic earnings limit and, therefore, could not have retained their benefit without those special rules. However, we do not see a case for extending the special rules to volunteers.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the growing number of people on invalidity benefit is due less to more people taking up the benefit than to the fact that they are staying on it longer and not coming off it? Does he also agree that, in consequence, disabled people lose touch with the world of work and the confidence and skills that they may need even to move on to claim disability working allowance? Therefore, does the Minister accept the views expressed from all parts of the House that

425
encouraging disabled people rather than discouraging them to do piecemeal voluntary work may help them in due time to re-enter waged work?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall answer the first two questions put by the noble Baroness. She is, of course, correct. That is why we have the therapeutic earnings rule. It allows people to keep in touch with work if it can be beneficial to them.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it seems to me that the Minister has, perhaps, misunderstood some of the representations that has been made. We are not talking about remunerative work. Exceptions have been allowed for service on a disability appeal tribunal, which is remunerated. However, in view of the opinions that have been expressed on all sides of the House, will the Minister take the matter away and reconsider it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot repeat the test. The test is whether such people are capable of doing regular, remunerative work. They are still allowed to do voluntary work and, indeed, they can do as much voluntary work as they like. But if, by doing such voluntary work, it becomes obvious that they are capable of undertaking regular, remunerative work they should not be in receipt of the benefit. If any individual volunteer has doubts about his own case, I can only recommend that he goes to our officers in the local offices to ask for advice. There is no reason why such people should be denied benefit if they are not capable of doing regular, remunerative work. However, if they are capable of doing regular, remunerative work there are other suitable benefits.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but the Minister's reply merely reinforces the view that he has not understood the point that has been made. I implore him to think again.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I quite understand the point that has been made. I have received representations from the bodies that advise noble Lords on various occasions. I have explained the position. I shall certainly consider the matter again. As I explained it, invalidity benefit must be for those who are incapable of regular, remunerative work.

London's Health Services: BMA Resolution
11.27 a.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in response to the resolution on London's health services passed by the British Medical Association on 28th June.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the issues raised in the British Medical Association's resolution are currently being addressed by the London implementation group through existing agencies.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I also acknowledge the fact that the resolution of the BMA is quite comprehensive. However, can the Minister confirm that if and when any corrective difficulties are embarked upon, they will not be at the expense of secondary care in other parts of London? Can the Minister also confirm that if the proposed reductions in staff take place, there will be no fall in the quality of medical undergraduates or in post-graduate education? Further, can she say whether careful arrangement will be made for the redeployment of academic staff should that prove to be necessary?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, those are all issues that were raised in the resolution at the annual general meeting of the British Medical Association. As I said, every single one of them is being addressed.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the Minister give us a progress report on the implementation of one of the recommendations in the original report of Professor Tomlinson; namely, that primary healthcare services—and, I would add, social service support services—should be in place before any hospital beds are closed? Can the noble Baroness say how far that recommendation has been implemented and whether there has been any progress towards it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is very early days yet. However, as noble Lords will he aware, £43.5 million has been set aside to invest in primary care in London in the current year. A number of schemes are being developed. I should be delighted to give the noble Lord a list of them in due course.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of one of the London NHS hospital trusts. Does not my noble friend agree that at least some of the statements which have emerged from the BMA in recent days have not really accurately reflected at all the position on the ground and the readiness, the willingness and the enthusiasm with which many doctors are embracing the changes which the Government have brought forward? Many of us who are closely involved with this matter see that progressive attitude displayed day by day.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. The enthusiasm for these proposals is growing day by day not only within London but especially outside London. However, the BMA is of course a registered trade union.
Lord Jenkins of Putney:My Lords, is it not the case that the BMA is a representative body and that the majority of doctors take the contrary view to the one expressed just now by the Minister's noble friend?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have no evidence that they are taking a contrary view.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is not the Government to be congratulated on taking this difficult problem of London medicine step by step: first, as regards the broad brush of Tomlinson and now as regards the finer brush of many committees which are now sitting to investigate much of the academic side and the

427
research side in London medicine? The special health authorities' research review is an example of this. It shows that highly distinguished doctors and medical practitioners are represented on the panels. The great decisions are not being decided purely by bureaucrats. It is the profession itself which is involved in this problem of the revision of London medical care. Out of this the Government may well hope that there will be agreement not merely from the public as a whole but also from the medical profession.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is right. The issues in London are extremely complex. It is important that those who reach these decisions—in the final analysis, the Secretary of State and her Ministers—are fully informed; and that is why the specialty reviews, the research reviews and other information are being sought and will be taken into account before any decisions are reached.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that to be fair to the British Medical Association, that body agrees with the reduction in the number of hospitals in London, which is hardly surprising because the rest of the country has been asking for this for only 105 years?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend's patience will be rewarded in due course.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that the BMA is always willing to work with the department to try to get the best facilities for the vast area of London? Is she prepared to say that there will be no hasty closures of London hospitals? Will the Government also take into consideration homeless people who are in a hospital which might be closed? I am talking about human matters, and I believe the BMA would wish the department to consider these matters in a civilised manner.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, although the Government welcome the BMA's stance with regard to London and its future, the BMA did not take a positive stance when it came to consider the reforms. The BMA consistently has opposed the reforms. It was interesting that at its last annual general meeting it supported fund holding for the first time. I believe that in due course the BMA will see the error of its ways and understand that the new measures we are taking will improve healthcare for Londoners.

Health Service Commissioners Bill [H.L.]
11.34 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I understand that no amendment has been set down to this Bill nor to the next Bill which stands in my name on the Order Paper and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment nor to speak in Committee on either of these Bills. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I propose to move in each case that the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.
428
Moved, That the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Probation Service Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pension Schemes Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Re-commitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Re-commitment).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Supervision: former appropriate personal pension schemes]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 37, line 36, after ("sections") insert ("9(5) and").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. Clause 54(3) needs to refer to all the matters previously dealt 'with in Schedule 1 to the Social Security Act 1986. Because Clause 9(5) derives from that schedule it should be included in Clause 54(3), which is what the amendment does. Perhaps I should add, for the convenience of the Committee, that these amendments to this Bill and the amendments relating to the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Bill that follows immediately after this Bill are amendments that have been seen by, and have the approval of, the Chairman of the Joint Committee. It will not surprise the Committee to learn that these are all fairly minor drafting amendments; but, nevertheless, they are of some importance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Deduction of contributions equivalent premium from refund of scheme contributions]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 43, line 27, leave out ("Subject to the following provisions").
Page 43, line 37, after ("applies") insert ("then, subject to the following provisions of this section,").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I wish to move Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 en bloc. These two amendments address a drafting point that has resulted from the consolidation exercise. Subsections (1) and (2) of this clause both derive from Section 47(1) of the Social Security

429
Pensions Act 1975 which is expressed to be subject to the following provisions of Section 47. It is, however, the proposition in subsection (2) of Clause 61 rather than that in subsection (1) of the clause which is subject to propositions in the later provisions of Clause 61. Accordingly, the two amendments achieve the result that the phrase,
"subject to the following provisions",
is moved from subsection (1) to subsection (2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 62 to 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 [Supplementary provisions]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 63, line 21, leave out ("termination of employment") and insert ("cessation").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to substitute the term "cessation date" for the term "termination of employment date". Although the existing term is not incorrect, Clause 87(1) (a) introduces the expression "cessation date" as a new defined term to operate in Chapter III of Part IV of the Bill. Accordingly, for consistency, it is preferable if the same term is used throughout this chapter of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 93 to 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 [Further provisions concerning exercise of option under s.95]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 66, line 4, leave out ("(2) or (3)") and insert ("(1)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is necessary to pick up a simple drafting error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 66, line 8, leave out ("(b)").
Page 66, line 36, leave out from ("rights") to end of line 39.
The noble and learned Lord said: The first of these two amendments is consequential on the second. The second amendment deletes words which are otiose because the effect which they seek to achieve is already covered by Clause 96(1) (b). I beg to move Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
[Clauses 97 to 156 agreed to.]
Clause 157 [Power of Secretary of State to obtain information in connection with applications under s.124]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 104, line 40, leave out ("a debt owed, or").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment to remove words that are not appropriate to this clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 157, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 143, line 38, leave out ("and 12 to 31") and insert (", 12 to 31 and 82").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to add to the repeals schedule the repeal of paragraph 82 of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act 1986. Paragraph 82 amended Section 68 of the Social Security Act 1973 which is being repealed by the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11:
Page 149, line 20, after ("has") insert ("or ever had").
Page 149, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert (""paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1990" of the words "this paragraph".").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 en bloc. The amendments are intended to simplify the rather complex drafting of the paragraph. The subject matter requires a degree of complexity, but if we can minimise that it is desirable. The amendments are designed to do just that. They are matters of form rather than substance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Consequential Amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 14:
Page 154, line 33, at end insert:
("(2) In section 128(2C) (b) of that Act after "1986" there shall be substituted the words "or section 126 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993".")
Page 156, line 4, at end insert:
("(2) In section 635(3) (b) of that Act for the words "Social Security Act 1986" there shall be substituted the words "Pension Schemes Act 1993".
(3) In sections 638(6) (c) and 649(1) of that Act for the words "Part I of the Social Security Act 1986" there shall be substituted the words "section 43 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993".
(4) In section 649(2) of that Act for the words from "the percentage" to "1986" there shall be substituted the words "so much of the aggregate amount mentioned in section 45(1) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 as is attributable to the reduction which would fall to be made under section 41(1) (a) of that Act".
(5) In section 649(6) (b) of that Act for the words "Part I and section 3(3) of the Social Security Act 1986" there shall be substituted the words "section 43, section 45(1) and section 41(1) (a) of the Pension Schemes Act I993".").
Page 156, line 8, at end insert:
("The Finance Act 1989 (c.26)
In paragraph 11(2) (b) of Schedule 7 to the Finance Act 1989 for the words "Social Security Act 1986" there shall be substituted the words "Pension Schemes Act 1993".").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to move Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 inclusive en bloc. The amendments are purely consequential on the passing of this Bill. They

431
update references contained in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and the Finance Act 1989 to refer to this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Transitory Modifications]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 162, line 10, leave out ("age") and insert ("and does").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to correct a drafting error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
11.43 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Re-commitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Re-commitment).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Deduction of contributions equivalent premium from refund of scheme contributions]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 1 and 2:
Page 41. line 7. leave out ("Subject to the following provisions,").
Page 41, line 15, after ("applies,") insert ("then, subject to the following provisions of this section,").
The noble and learned Lord said: These two amendments address a drafting point which has resulted from the consolidation. It is exactly the same point as I raised in the Chamber a few moments ago in relation to Clause 61 of the Pension Schemes Bill for Great Britain. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 130, leave out lines 17 to 21.
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 6. The present amendment is consequential upon Amendment No, 6, which replaces paragraph (c) of a definition in Section 170(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. That replacement, which updates the definition to reflect
432
this Bill, makes the repeal of part of that definition unnecessary. Accordingly, the present amendment has the effect of deleting that repeal. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
Page 134, line 42, after ("has") insert ("or ever had").
Page 134, line 43, leave out from ("words") to end of line 46 and insert (" "paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1990" of the words "this paragraph".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 en bloc. The amendments are intended to simplify the rather complex drafting of the paragraph. A few moments ago this Chamber was kind enough to give the benefit of some simplification to the provisions for Great Britain. These amendments do exactly the same for Northern Ireland.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Consequential Amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 143, line 36, at end insert:
("The Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c. 5)
In section 170(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, the following shall be substituted for paragraph (c) of the definition of "the relevant Northern Ireland enactments"—
"(c) section 32(6) of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993;".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Transitory Modifications]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 149, line 20, leave out ("age") and insert ("and does").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to correct a drafting error. It is the same point as I raised in relation to the Bill for Great Britain. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Road Traffic (Driving Instruction by Disabled Persons) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

National Lottery etc. Bill
11.51 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend collects the voices, perhaps I may ask why the Bill is being considered on Report

433
only seven or eight days after the conclusion of the Committee stage. According to the Companion to the Standing Orders, 14 days ought to elapse between the end of the Committee stage and the start of the Report stage with Bills of any length and complexity.
The Bill runs to 55 pages. It has 65 clauses and 10 schedules. Of the clauses only one or two are formal. As for the complication, your Lordships need only consider the Long Title. I put the matter in the form of a question to the Government rather than in the form of a complaint because I know that they are under considerable legislative pressure owing to dilatory proceedings on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Nevertheless, it is yet again an aspect of the overloading of the legislative programme and the consequent frustration of your Lordships' proper consideration of Bills.
Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord always uses his perspicacity on these occasions. I am not surprised that he questions why the usual length of time has not occurred between the Committee and Report stages. The noble and learned Lord will realise that a number of considerations have to be given to the presenting of business in the House. It was considered and discussed through the usual channels that this would be a suitable method of dealing with this part of this Bill on this particular occasion. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord was not party to those discussions or that the procedure may have incommoded him in any way. I apologise for that. However, I am sure that he will understand that the reasons are for the better running of the business of the House.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the courtesy of his reply. There was no reason at all why I should be consulted. I only add that Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers tend to regard the usual channels as a conspiracy against their interests.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Report received.
Clause 4 [Overriding duties of the Secretary of State and Director General]:
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("and") and insert:
("() that nothing in the way that the National Lottery is run, and every lottery that forms part of it is promoted, shall encourage, directly or indirectly, excessive gambling, and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I disagree with the grouping. Amendments Nos. 10 and 29 have been grouped with Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 10 seems to me to raise quite a different point and I shall move it separately. I have a good deal of sympathy with the point made by the noble and learned Lord. This has put me to considerable inconvenience. The expedited passage of the Bill means that I shall be unable to be present next Friday if Third Reading is held on that day as I shall be busy awarding degrees at an academic institution.
I make no apology for raising again an issue which we discussed at no great length in Committee. I am
434
afraid that this time the amendment may take a little longer than those we discussed a few moments ago. In all modesty, I believe that I can claim to have a rather greater knowledge of the ills of excessive gambling than the officials who have been busily preparing the measure. Indeed, the department responsible has no experience of lotteries of any kind. This country certainly has no experience of lotteries with very large prizes. With the roll-over provisions now in mind, some prizes could be very large indeed.
The lottery simply cannot be brushed aside as a piece of harmless entertainment, when experience in other parts of the world in which there has developed a lottery mania suggests that there is a danger of compulsive gambling. Certain forms of gambling or lottery are more addictive than others. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, has in mind some aspects of that problem. I am anxious about the vulnerability of the young and the disproportionate use of lotteries by the lower income groups.
At col. 1712 of Hansard of 17th June when we discussed the issue the noble Earl stated:
"The director general will take a reasonable view, when a type of game is proposed on whether it seems fair and honest for the players".
He later stated:
"The Government and director general will take action to prevent games where there is a possibility of damage to the interest of players, including those games which encourage excessive repeat play".
That sounds very splendid. If that is so, I cannot for the life of me see why that should not be provided in the Bill.
However, what puzzles me is this. When objecting to my proposed amendment the noble Earl later stated:
"There is no way of determining in law what excessive or addictive gambling is or of determining when the Rubicon is crossed between normal and excessive gambling".—[Official Report, 17/6/93; col. 1713.]
We are discussing Clause 4. There is a duty on the Secretary of State and the director general to ensure that the national lottery is run with all due propriety. Can the courts determine when one crosses the Rubicon between propriety and impropriety? I cannot understand why the objection raised to my form of words does not apply equally to the form of words in the Bill. I do not believe that that is a valid objection; I do not understand it.
Perhaps one should not put it beyond the ingenuity of the courts to express their views even on matters of this kind. After all, in the Bentley case the courts recently tried to substitute their judgment for the judgment of a Minister—no longer alive—taken over 30 years ago, with the result that they have come up with a most astonishing proposition. I hope that the Home Secretary will ignore it. But that is by the way.
The phrase in the Bill is just as distant from the normal expectation of legal argument as are the words in the amendment. There is one other point. Clause 4(1) (b) states that it is important to secure that:
"the interests of every participant in a lottery that forms part of the National Lottery are protected".
Is it contemplated that there should be research to see how the interests of every participant are protected?

435
Would not the words which I propose provide one pointer in the direction of what form that research should take?
Over the years, the Government seem to have changed their attitude to gambling. In my day, the policy was to permit gambling activities only to the extent needed to meet unstimulated demand. It then shifted a little under the present administration to a policy that the demand for gambling should not be unduly encouraged. We now seem to have shifted to a third phase, that it is no part of government policy to prevent gambling.
However, I cannot believe that, although the Government are anxious to raise money, they are unaware of the risks of addictive or excessive gambling. I should be most grateful for an explanation —apart from the normal reluctance to accept any amendment from the Back-Benches—as to why Amendment No. I should not be accepted. I beg to move.
Midday
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the speech and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, confirms the significance and validity of the objection which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made to the way in which the Bill has been hurried through with inadequate intervals between the stages. The lottery is a matter on which many of us would have wished to take advice from responsible bodies and certainly to have had discussions. However, because the usual channels found it convenient to bring this stage of the Bill forward as early as they have, there has not been time for that.
The problem with the amendment is that it is a good confirmation of the desirability of avoiding haste, by the normal rules of the House as to the length of intervals between stages of a Bill. If your Lordships' House is to do its job as a revising Chamber, that is just the kind of issue on which it should have time for consideration before bringing forward an amendment.
If one examines the noble Lord's proposal, it shows how difficult it is to propose an amendment. Clause 4 introduces the element of propriety. I suppose that it is possible for a court to judge whether propriety has been followed in the terms in which various projects have been put forward. However, I cannot see how anyone can know whether the promotion of a particular project would,
"encourage, directly or indirectly, excessive gambling".
It is true that the offer of a scheme may be perfectly normal and reasonable in its effect on many people, but there are those with a gambling temperament who will be encouraged to excessive gambling by that scheme. One is dealing here not with the exact terms in which the scheme is put forward but with the personalities of the people who look at it. For that reason, although I very much welcome the intentions of the noble Lord. Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I feel that his proposal is not workable. I do not think that one could possibly say whether a scheme was likely to encourage excessive gambling and, in particular, whether it would encourage excessive gambling
436
among a large number of people, a small number of people, a minority or a majority. It would put upon the authorities the responsibility for the enforcement of an impossible position. Therefore, although it is well meaning—
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. and I much appreciate the remarks which he made at the beginning, with which I entirely agree. However, will he accept that many experts say that there are certain forms of gambling such as the scratch cards which, experience suggests, tend to encourage excessive gambling? One can distinguish between different varieties in their apparent appeal to the populace.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, think that the noble Lord appreciates the difficulty. It is that any particular proposition might encourage excessive gambling in me, but not encourage it in him. It is so much a question of the recipient and his attitude. If one were to take the matter to its logical conclusion and rule out any proposition which could encourage excessive gambling in anyone, then the whole scheme under the Bill would have to be withdrawn.
I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that I say that with every sympathy for his idea in putting the amendment forward, but I suggest that it is not workable. Although it is well intentioned and in a good cause, it would simply add a complication to the Bill which would be insoluble and make it quite impossible for the schemes which are proposed by the Bill to be operated. I therefore very much hope that, having aired the matter and indicated anxiety that there is a risk under the Bill of encouraging excessive gambling, the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I support the amendment, but I too wish to raise some of the issues that have just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I cannot recall that when I was at the Home Office, before I became Home Secretary, the gambling board had taken over any functions in which the office was involved in this country. I believe that the experience of the noble Lord, Lord. Allen of Abbeydale, in the Home Office—which is far greater than mine—gives him an advantage in talking to us and raising the issue in a way that the new heritage department could not possibly do. That is true of many other matters which have been allocated to the department; the Home Office has accumulated wisdom going back 200 years. I am riot saying that it is all encapsulated in the arguments of the former Permanent Secretary.
At the beginning I must confess to a defect in talking about gambling. I was brought up in a home with perhaps a naive religious view—Methodism and non-conformity—against any form of gambling. I cannot claim that I lived up to it in later years, but it existed then. Indeed, until recently in my own party in Leeds, the voluntary agent was a Methodist lay preacher who would not raise money in any way by

437
gambling. He always pointed out to me that my attitude was prevalent in the Labour Party when it was first set up.
However, there it is, gambling exists, as I know from my own experience as a constituency Member visiting large numbers of working men's clubs at most weekends. I do not say that in my former constituency there were more such clubs than anywhere else, but it seemed like it. I used to visit them on rota most weekends. Gambling was a most important part of their existence. On the whole the money was raised not to keep the clubs going—they got their money in other ways, from sales—but for old age pensioners, children's outings and things of that kind. I observed simple gambling at first hand, and indeed participated in it. I have no objection to that. This amendment is about excessive gambling; and it is excessive gambling that I want very briefly to consider.
The subject of instant lotteries was examined in a research document provided in the Library many moons ago, when this Bill first appeared, called Gambling in the Single Market. (We are back to the European Community again.) From all the documentation, it seems that instant lotteries should most concern us. The document says:
"there is some reluctance"—
I presume that that means in Europe, where national lotteries have been going for years—
"to allow this type of lottery as a national game for this very reason"—
namely, that there is an instant result—
"that the winner is immediately tempted to re-invest his winnings in the game, which is seen as encouraging excessive participation".
So, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, there is a particular point to be considered on the nature of the gambling that takes place. The instant lottery, it is argued, is a form of gambling that could lead to excess. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has been concerned about that.
I am not worried about the instant lotteries (the small lotteries) that I have seen in working men's clubs on a very large scale. I noticed that people bought stakes in them in order to make a donation. They would say: "This is a lottery to send the children to Scarborough in a month's time", or, "It is for the old age pensioners". People bought them not so much out of any gambling instinct, but as a means of providing a donation for that purpose. The small lotteries do not concern me. Indeed, I see no harm in them at all. But I come back to the point about the European experience: there is some reluctance in Europe to allow this type of lottery as a national game. In Europe they know what they are talking about because they have had national lotteries for some time. Therefore I suggest that we ought to take that point into account if we are to copy Europe in this respect. It is said that this type of lottery, as a national game, encourages excessive gambling. Therefore, turning again to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, what should we be doing in our legislation and in our practice to take that into account?
438
Taking up the point in the amendment, I believe that we ought to hear from the Minister as to how his department sees the national lottery. Will there be a means of investigating and getting information about the effect of the instant lottery which we are to have? Will the experience in Europe be taken into account? Why is it said in Europe:
"there is some reluctance to allow this type of lottery"?
We have to learn from the experience of those who have been in national lotteries for some time. Will the organisers of the national lottery, by statute, have to concern themselves about excessive gambling? Where will they get their information from? I suggest that they will have to take it from the police. Some information will come from the police and some will come from the social services department. But where else will it come from? Where can the information be obtained? To some degree I support the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. How is the judgment to be made? Is it to be made on the nature of the lottery or on the innate fallibility of the individual who is caught up in gambling? I support this amendment, which says:
"nothing in the way that the National Lottery is run"—
the advertising comes in to some degree—
"and every lottery that forms part of it is promoted, shall encourage, directly or indirectly, excessive gambling".
I realise the difficulty. But this does not spell it out in detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, with his experience on the Gaming Board over many years knows what is involved. How will the advertising be done? Will it appeal to the young? Shall we be able to find out from the schools when it starts that the teachers, discover that youngsters are buying tickets.(because they are so cheap) out of their pocket money, which these days is far greater than most of us knew in our young days? It is information that is required. The national lottery organisers must not be in an ivory tower in London not knowing what goes on elsewhere.
I believe that there is good sense in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and that the discussion has to be taken further, whatever happens to this amendment today. We must look further at the problem of excessive gambling, which one can see at any railway station when one looks at the machines and the numbers of children who are playing hookey from school on a large scale. They will be there. That is where people go and look for them. Excessive gambling is a development in our community. It is much more glamorous, with flashing lights and all that sort of thing. I understand the argument that the instant lottery is not all that glamorous; but it will be cheap and will be, it will be argued, an instant way of making a few bob.
I commend this amendment to the House. I believe that it is on a subject to which we should give far more attention. It is not just a question of the individual caught up in gambling on racing—though as we all know those people exist. That is why 50, 60 or 100 years ago being against drink and gambling was part and parcel of non-conformity. It was because people in the industrial areas saw it on their doorsteps, particularly on a Saturday night. It arose out of their experience. All I hope is that in this Bill we are not

439
creating, not a vast problem, but nevertheless a problem of instant gambling which in Europe, with their experience, they have questioned. We should take their experience into account. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, is to be commended on his amendment, which I support.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I suppose the significance of this amendment is that one could turn the question round and ask: would the Government wish to introduce a Bill that did encourage excessive gambling? Quite clearly they would not wish to do that. I hope that no responsible government would want to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made an extremely cogent point; namely, that people have a different propensity, by personality type, to become addicted to undesirable behaviour. It is impossible to legislate in general for particular problems. That is an important point. I am not persuaded, as is the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, that particular product forms are the problem. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. I believe that it is right that a government taking this step, about which many of us are very dubious, of themselves becoming the promoter of gambling should wish and should do everything that they can to discourage excessive gambling, particularly among young people. There is nothing in the Bill that addresses itself substantially to the problem of the young. I understand that the noble Lord is to speak to Amendment No. 10. which deals with advertising, and support it later. I may come back in support of him then.
Finally, perhaps I may say this on the question of the process. One of the undesirable by-products of what I think the Government have already conceded in what by any standard is the rather accelerated process for this Bill is that they have not been able to put in front of us the regulations under which the director general will operate. To have those would make a great deal of difference. The devil of this matter will be in the fine print. It is important for us to know the way in which the lottery will be administered.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too am concerned about the most vulnerable members of our society in this matter, particularly the young. Some noble Lords may well consider that it is far better for an older teenager to be addicted to the national lottery than to drugs. There may be something in that argument. But I believe that we should put on the face of the Bill a provision that would give protection against excessive gambling, particularly from the point of view of the young, especially the older teenager who will be able to buy tickets either out of his social security, pocket money or earnings. I believe that it will strengthen the issue to have some such clause on the face of the Bill.
Gambling under a national lottery is different from gambling on horses or the pools, in all of which there has to be some thought of what is to be done. One
440
must use some skill and put some effort into it. Simply buying a national lottery ticket is a very different situation. There are many more inducements for people to spend too much of their income on it, particularly the teenager who does not have the maturity of the older member of society. I take on board what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. However, I see the wording as objective rather than subjective and on the face of it being assessed by objective standards rather than the reactions of a particular individual. Perhaps one would look at whether or not a reasonable individual would treat any particular aspect arising under this amendment as excessive gambling. I believe that one can overcome the problem of subjectivity simply by looking at the whole question objectively.
The wording of the amendment may riot be perfect. Such things often happen. But I seriously ask my noble friend the Minister when he comes to reply whether he will consider our pleas on behalf of the vulnerable members of society and take away this issue with a view to some government drafting which will tighten up, on the face of the Bill, what we believe will probably be in the regulations anyway. It would strengthen the issue to have it in the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is with considerable diffidence that I follow in the debate a political head and a permanent head of the first department in which I served so many years ago. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said. The matter does not admit any further development.
I have no objection to the Government, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, looking sympathetically at the matter. as long as they do not agree to inscribe in a statute a provision which is quite unworkable because it cannot be policed and nobody knows whether "excessive" means excessive in extent or excessive in relation to the means of the individual. I hope that when the noble Viscount replies he will evince sympathy but not accept the amendment.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I too understand the worries of several noble Lords about excessive gambling. But is it not true that the human spirit is capable of becoming obsessive about any matter whatsoever? Obsession is not by any means confined to gambling. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that one cannot guard against it by legislation.
It might be worth reflecting that—so I believe—one of the things conducive to obsession or addiction is the atmosphere surrounding the gambling concern. Casinos have a powerful atmosphere; so have racecourses; so even have amusement arcades. I suggest that the national lottery, however efficiently it is run, will have very little atmosphere about it. To that extent it will be more defended against the obsessive and addictive than other forms of gambling.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, perhaps I may add just a few brief words to the discussion. It seems to me that there is a case for not having a

441
lottery. If one objects to gambling so much as that, one should not have a lottery. I do not mind people gambling. I am sorry that some people gamble too much. But if there is to be a lottery, it seems to me absolutely hopeless to try to keep excessive gamblers out of it. It is the first place that they will go to. We all know that. If a lottery exists, gamblers will not refrain from it. Either one has a lottery or one does not.
I want a lottery because I want more money for the arts. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who once said, "I don't care if the money comes from a brothel, if it goes to the arts in the end". I feel that way about gambling. But that is a particular and perhaps rather immoral view. I think it is quite useless to try to limit people's use of a lottery. Either you have a lottery or you do not and you should stick to that. Therefore I am opposed to the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may remind your Lordships at the outset of the White Paper which was published by the then Home Secretary in March last year and which preceded the Bill. The Department of National Heritage took on the lottery in April last year. As a result we have worked very closely with the Home Office. Since the publication of the White Paper we have also had time to consult and consider the views of many interested parties.
To start with, perhaps I could answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who talked about excessive gambling on the lottery. Any serious gambler does not play the lottery. Serious gamblers play a game in which they believe that their skill or ability to beat the odds enables them to win a prize—such as knowing which horse will win a race or deciding perhaps by mathematical formula which number will come up on a roulette table. The excessive gambler is not someone who will be very attracted by the lottery. He will look at the odds to see how large they are.
We discussed this amendment at Committee stage in some detail. My noble friend Lord Ferrers set out the position most eloquently. I hope again that I can assure your Lordships that the amendment is not necessary.
The duties and powers currently drafted for the Secretary of State and the director general are clear. There is a specific power to prevent the operation of games which many of us might consider insidious—for example, games which might encourage people to chase their losses—and a duty to protect the interests of participants. That power is a means of controlling types of game. It is of course never possible to control all the potential effects on individuals of any new product. The director general will take a reasonable view when a type of game is proposed on whether it seems fair and honest for the players. He can monitor the effect of any new product and if necessary take steps to vary the licence conditions.
Let me reiterate government policy on gambling. It is based on the principle that the state should interfere as little as possible with individual liberty to take part in the various forms of gambling, but that controls are necessary to prevent crime, to ensure that players are aware of what they are letting themselves in for and to
442
protect the vulnerable in society, in particular young people. That is achieved by taking a reasonable view, for example, on the places where different types of gambling may go on. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, acknowledged that the duties under Clause 4 make it clear that the interests of the participants must be protected. That is the right place for a matter of this kind to be stated. The director general has to act in accordance with that principle in granting Clause 6 licences. There are many matters that he will need to consider in doing that, not just the need to avoid excessive gambling. To set out one matter would beg the question of setting out more. The Gaming Board regulates most lotteries and of course casinos and other gambling. But it has no statutory duty to prevent excessive gambling. Under Section 10 of the Gaming Act 1968 the statutory duties of the Gaming Board are more vague than those set out for the director general. It only has to keep gaming under review.
On a point raised by the noble Lord in regard to knowing the effects, performance information covering participants' complaints will need to be provided by the operator to the director general of Oflot. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said also that scratchcards may be addictive. I do not believe that is so. Do we really believe that the scratchcards used by various charities in this country—for example the lotteries of the RSPB—are addictive? I have difficulty in accepting that proposition.
The Government and the director general will take action to prevent games where there is a possibility of damage to the interests of players, including those games which encourage excessive repeat play. But the way normal and acceptable games are played by individuals is not a matter for statutory control.
As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, to impose a duty of the type proposed by the amendment is not workable. We want the Bill to be a practical measure. We do not want attached to it measures which, though laudable and well intentioned, do not work. There are measures in the Bill which will ensure that the lottery is promoted responsibly. Part of the director general's powers will be applied through the licence and part through codes of conduct.
I was impressed by the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He expressed the matter clearly. I hope that my reassurance goes some way towards calming the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Allen; that the national lottery will not generate outlandish or undesirable prizes and that it will not have what one may call an hysterical effect on those who play, as happens with lotteries in the United States. Our lottery is very different to those. The national lottery in this country will not encourage excessive play. I hope that having heard my explanations the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. I am grateful to those who have spoken. I cannot say that the noble Viscount removes all my fears; but I shall pick up only one or two points.
I was astonished when he said that the Gaming Board's responsibilities are vague. I thought that they were crystal clear. Its duty is to prevent a stimulated demand for gambling. All the regulations in regard to membership, advertising, and so forth, are directed to that end. When the noble Viscount talks of high gamblers being concerned with skill, he has obviously never played Punto Banco.
I was interested also in the concept conjured up by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in an interesting contribution about courts deciding whether the Secretary of State behaved with propriety. I look forward to that day. There is experience elsewhere to show that large prize lotteries result in excessive gambling. The efforts which the director general must make on the lines suggested by the noble Viscount indicate that he is to do precisely what the amendment tries to achieve. I do not see any point in pursuing the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause: ("Charitable income report
.—(I) As soon as possible after the first anniversary of the sale of tickets or chances in any lottery forming part of the National Lottery, the Secretary of State shall make a report on the impact of the National Lottery upon the income of charities.
(2) The Secretary of State shall make such a report on each of the following four anniversaries.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of every such report made by him under this section before Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I wish to mention also the inadvertent omission of the section referring to the betting levy, which was included in the original amendment at Committee stage.
The amendment is the gentlest of probes. It is also an opportunity to thank the Minister for the Government's flexibility and understanding on the issue. I was regrettably absent abroad for the Committee stage last week, but received the Minister's letter and read Hansard. What is said on this matter is most welcome.
In particular we are extremely pleased that the Minister will establish regular monitoring of the impact of the lottery on the betting levy and charitable incomes, and especially that he will do so in co-operation with all interested parties. Charitable parties and the new British Horseracing Board will welcome that. The Minister also said that he would establish the monitoring in the light of the information available. Perhaps he can explain what that means. Will the Government initiate the collection and analysis of the relevant information of the lottery, or will they rely on others? My preference is that
444
government departments should be involved in the collection and analysis prior to the reporting Ito Parliament.
That is basically all I wish to say. It is an opportunity for the Minister to reaffirm his view. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, if, as I understand from Committee stage, it is the Government's intention to accept the amendment, that is extremely welcome. If that is their intention, will it be the version referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, including not just charities but his beloved "gee-gees"? Will it include the betting levy board as well as charities?
I imagine that for most people observing our deliberations it will be the charities that will be of interest. It will be extremely important for the whole of the charitable and NGO sector in Britain to follow the results of the report every year and to see whether some of the fears expressed during the course of the debates are justified. If it is the Government's intention to move with the feeling of the House on this matter, despite earlier reproofs for the speed with which they are handling it, it will be a welcome sign of flexibility.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. I hope that my noble friend can give an undertaking that the Government will carry out the necessary research to see what is the effect of the national lottery on charities.
As the House is aware, I work for a charity. I fear that among a number of charities there may be a tendency to exaggerate the effect on them of the national lottery once it is in operation, to give an excuse in some instances for their own lack of efficiency in raising funds elsewhere; for not making certain that their lists of supporters are up to date, and that they have not wiped off those who have died.
It is easy to produce an excuse for one's inefficiency. I have done it myself in the past. It is important that the Government, or organisations instructed by them on their behalf, carry out an independent survey so that we can have a proper and accurate report before Parliament of the effect of the national lottery on charities.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the need for a statement on the effect on charities is accepted on both sides of the House. The only question really is whether we need to put it formally into the Bill, as proposed in the amendment. In any event, as I am sure my noble friend the Minister knows, he will be asked to make a statement very regularly by way of parliamentary question, and I have no doubt that the same will be so in the other place. But if it is thought desirable to put it formally into the Bill, I can see no particular objection, although I do not think it would do in precisely this form.
Subsection (2) of the amendment states:
"The Secretary of State shall make such a report on each of the following four anniversaries".
Making it an anniversary statement gives It a rather sentimental atmosphere. In addition, from a purely practical point of view, it is almost certain that one of

445
the first four anniversaries will be a Sunday. It is improbable that putting out the report on a Sunday would be useful. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister says, but I hope he will make it clear, as I think all your Lordships do, that the House, and another place for that matter, will be kept fully informed as to the effect of the Bill on the charities concerned.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, although the noble Lord's amendment does not, as he pointed out, mention the horserace betting levy, originally it was certainly intended to do so. I know that my noble friend the Minister has written to a number of us, copying a letter which he sent to the noble Lord giving an assurance that such a review will take place, not only of the impact on charities but also of the impact on the horserace betting levy. Perhaps I may say on behalf of a number of my noble friends who are interested in horseracing but who are unable to be here that they welcome the assurance and look forward to the reports.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is by no means clear that the introduction of the national lottery will have a detrimental effect on the income of racing or indeed the income of charities. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that the Government do not accept that a statutory requirement to report is an appropriate or practical way forward. However, I considered further, following our Second Reading debate, what could be helpful in terms of an undertaking to report on the matter. I am happy to repeat the undertaking that I alluded to in Committee that once the national lottery is established the Government will regularly monitor the situation in the area of charitable incomes and the level of the horserace betting levy. We shall do that in the light of all the information available and in co-operation with all the interested parties. We shall also place a report containing any relevant information each year in the Libraries of both Houses and consider carefully any conclusions that might be drawn.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I do not want to delay proceedings but my noble friend talked about the available information. Will the Government do any research of their own or instruct an organisation to do research on their behalf rather than just trawl in the charitable and the horseracing world for information?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with horseracing first. I believe that the levy board is best placed to collect information on the level of the levy. That is its function. The board is a Home Office non-departmental public body.
As regards the charitable sector, I believe that it will be very quick to come forward with information that it considers relevant. The Home Office is already having discussions with the NCVO on co-operation and how this might proceed in the future. We will of course study the information that we receive and I am sure that the various worlds that are involved will not be slow in coming forward with all the information that they regard as pertinent.
446
I am grateful for the welcome that my assurance has received both within the racing industry and within the charitable world.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for restating what the Government have conceded. It is of considerable importance, especially to the charitable sector and also to the horseracing industry. It is a major advance and settles some of our concerns about the Bill. The point raised about the collection of information is an important one. What the Minister said is helpful but I hope that he will inform his department of the feeling of the House that it should be systematically co-ordinated within the department, utilising all those bodies which the Minister rightly mentioned. That would make for the best possible exercise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Licensing of a body to run the National Lottery]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
12.45 p.m.
Clause 6 [Licensing of bodies to promote lotteries]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 4, at end insert:
("() A licence under this section shall not be granted in respect of any lottery offering an instant win.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am aware that the question of instant win games has been raised previously while the Bill has been going through the House. However, I believe that the use by the national lottery operators of this form of game will pose a considerable threat to the income raised by a significant number of charities and other voluntary organisations.
At the moment the most common form of instant win game is the scratch card, but as technology develops the form of game may change. It is that principle of the instant win that is important, not the technology. It is that which attracts people to buy a chance for a small sum, and it is the attractive nature of the instant win game that may tempt the national lottery operators to use it as the "lead in" for the national lottery.
According to the Lotteries Council, an organisation which offers support and advice to sports clubs, community groups, and charities that run "small" lotteries, instant win scratch card games are an important source of income for its member organisations. Anecdotal evidence from the Lotteries Council suggests that instant win scratch cards are a vital source of income for many organisations. That income would be severely reduced if the advertising resources of the national lottery set about promoting instant win games.
Two organisations which rely on instant win scratch card income are Tenovus, a charity which funds cancer research and support services for sufferers, and UK Charity Lotteries. Their experience may serve to illustrate that of other organisations. In the last financial year, Tenovus sold scratch card tickets to a total value of £3.6 million. After expenses and prize money were paid, nearly £1.25 million was

447
available to fund cancer research, support services for cancer patients and hardship grants for cancer sufferers.
As well as bringing about a reduction in charity income by sheer promotional capacity, the use of instant win games by the national lottery poses a further threat to instant win charity lotteries. In state lotteries overseas, on-line lotto games produce approximately 75 per cent. of lottery turnover. Instant win scratch cards generate 25 per cent. of sales. That might seem to imply that the national lottery needs scratch card games. However, I understand that it is widely acknowledged that the main motivation of lottery operators in using instant win scratch card games is to secure a monopoly position in the market. Lottery operators are prepared to admit this privately but are obviously less keen to make the same admission in public. In New Zealand, the practice of the lottery operators suggests that they are using instant win tickets to stifle competition. There the lottery operator has introduced, then withdrawn, then re-introduced, instant win tickets, apparently in response to attempts by charities to enter the market.
In debates on this matter in the other place, the Government expressed the view that it would be inappropriate to prevent the national lottery using instant win scratch card games on the grounds that they do not want to tie the hands of the lottery operator. In the view of the Government the lottery operator is best qualified to decide how the lottery may be run in order to secure its success.
The then Minister, Robert Key, acknowledged, however, that there is evidence to suggest that instant-win scratch card games may encourage excessive play. Despite also having given an undertaking that games likely to encourage excessive play would not be licensed, he did not address that apparent contradiction in the Government's position, apart from observing that the prizes in these games are so small that they are unlikely to prove a real danger if licensed. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I support this amendment. My concern is the opportunity for fraud. The great merit of the big lottery —assuming that there is any merit in a lottery at all—is that at least the ticket seller can have no idea whether he is selling a winning or a losing ticket. But with scratch cards there is, to begin with, the process of printing the cards. I do not know how much of the security which goes into the printing of bank notes, for instance, goes into the printing of scratch cards. There is then the question of the distribution of the cards down to the ultimate seller. He is in possession of a collection of winning cards. I do not know what the arrangements are for making sure that the seller cannot identify them.
In Committee I believe I mentioned the case of certain terrorists whose conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal. After that a machine was invented which showed that a policeman's notebook had been altered, which had not been apparent before. That matter led the Court of Appeal to reverse its decision. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, spoke about the technology. With that kind of technology becoming increasingly available, I am not satisfied that sellers
448
are not going to be able to identify the winning cards and, if they are dishonest, distribute them among their friends. If they are popular sellers, at the end of the week they and their friends will have a tidy little sum to share out between them.
I hope that that kind of thing will not happen because if it does it will be a very serious slur on the national lottery movement, which will tend to come into disrepute. Therefore, I have very grave concerns about this. Unless and until a Minister is going to take very careful precautions to see that scratch cards are honestly dealt with, in the meantime it is much better that the noble Lord's amendment should be agreed to.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may first deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. There are many scratch cards in existence at the moment and they are mainly operated by charitable lotteries. I do not believe that they have many problems such as those that the noble Lord has outlined. The printer sells losing as well as winning tickets, and there is already security. One does not know whether one has won with a scratch card until one has scratched it. That is how it works. I do not believe that there is any abuse at the moment. One of the duties of the director general of Oflot will be to ensure that all lotteries are carried out properly. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is concerned that somehow it is easy to cheat with a scratch card. He can be assured that it is not easy to do so.
Turning to my noble friend's amendment, it seeks to stop the national lottery from running any game in which players may win and claim an instant prize. These lotteries are run with so-called scratch cards. The players buy a ticket and then scratch off a panel on the ticket to see whether they can claim a prize. If we accepted this amendment we would not have a national lottery which would produce worthwhile sums of money for good causes. Experience suggests that up to 40 per cent. of lottery sales can come from scratch cards and that scratch cards give an important impetus to the overall marketing of lotteries and therefore increase interest in the on-line Lotto.
If scratch cards were banned, the lottery might then fail to fulfil its expected turnover by perhaps up to or beyond 40 per cent. The reason given for proposing such an assault on the lottery is that charitable lotteries will be hounded out of the market by the national lottery. We do not accept t hat the two types of lottery share a market. People buy charity lottery tickets because they sympathise with the cause on whose behalf the lottery is promoted.
Local political organisations run lotteries. Even if the prize were enormous, I do not think that my noble friends on this side of the House would be tempted to purchase tickets from noble Lords on the opposite side of the House if they were promoting a lottery in favour of their party. Charity lotteries are most often seen as a fun way of giving, like fun runs or perhaps tombola. I remind your Lordships that at Committee stage we substantially increased the proceeds and the prize limit for society lotteries to £1 million and £100,000 respectively. The new limits should ensure that such lotteries can continue to operate successfully side by side with the national lottery.

449
First and foremost, the national lottery is a game with a chance of winning a prize. It is not primarily a way of benefiting good causes. The range of good causes is so wide that it is unlikely that people will buy tickets in the belief that it will benefit one of their favourite local good causes but rather because playing lotteries is fun and there is the chance of winning a large prize. If we wish the turnover from a lottery to produce a substantial amount for good causes we must not fetter the national lottery. I hope that, with the explanation which I have given about scratch cards and the reminder that we have increased the limits for society lotteries, my noble friend Lord Swinfen will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend is very naive if he thinks that the national lottery will not share a market with lotteries run by other organisations. It is similar to saying that there is no share of market between the greengrocer operating in a shop and the greengrocer operating from a barrow 50 yards down the street. If you believe that you stand a better chance of buying good vegetables, you will go to a particular vendor in exactly the same way as you would go to the vendor for the organisation where you feel that you stand a better chance of winning a prize.
However, I wish to reflect further on this matter because there has not been a great deal of time between now and Committee stage, as has been mentioned before. I reserve my right to come back to this issue at Third Reading. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 8, at end insert:
("() information under subsection (3) shall include material demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Director General that tickets or chances for the lottery under consideration will not be sold or otherwise made available on the street, whether from kiosks or otherwise.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my concern here is with the possibility that special kiosks will be set up to sell lottery tickets on street corners or, even worse, that there will emerge itinerant sellers on the streets. I believe that there would be a number of dangers in that. There is the aesthetic question of ugly litter on our already dirty streets. What is probably most important is the social question; namely, that such kiosks, or even itinerant sellers, will be concentrated especially in the poorer urban districts, and often perhaps on urban housing estates lacking shops and other entertainment. So they would become an undesirable focus. We know that that has happened to some extent in the United States, as research quoted in another place during the earlier stages of the Bill's consideration showed.
There is also the question of security. Such kiosks may be subject to crime or vandalism. There is also the impact on the traditional role of the streets in street collections. I refer to flag days and other charitable collections on our streets. Those are all matters of genuine concern.
This is only a probing amendment but it raises an important point. I do not think that street kiosks
450
would be helpful to our national heritage or our urban environment. It is important that the lottery, about which there are a number of reservations, should, where possible, have the maximum quality image. I wonder whether the Government can give us some assurances on this matter. I beg to move.
1 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment for a number of reasons. Kiosks already operate in many cities for local authority lotteries. They are fun stalls. I have frequented the one in Eldon Square where I was quite skilful in winning 50p and £1 coins. As for the point that kiosks will not be pleasing aesthetically, many streets in Paris and Barcelona are actually enlivened by advertisements for the lotteries.
One aspect that has caused anxiety is that as large an amount of money as possible should go to good causes. If the cost of selling the lottery tickets could be reduced by direct selling through kiosks or by any other means, that might be a useful route for the national lottery to take.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's last point on the reduction of administrative costs but, despite that, I support the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, because a number of charities as well as local authorities already sell lottery tickets from kiosks.
I understand that the amendment covers the sale of lottery tickets door to door. In my view, selling lottery tickets door to door would seriously interfere with the door-to-door collection activities of charities, such as Christian Aid. That charity has a very big door-to-door collection annually and, because the charity is well organised, it is extremely difficult not to give to it no matter what one feels about Christian Aid, although I do support its work and aims.
The amendment has a great deal of merit and, if he is not going to accept the amendment, I hope that my noble friend Lord Astor can satisfy the House that the regulations governing the way in which the national lottery is to be run will be such as to protect the activities of charities and other small organisations.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies, having consulted with my noble friend Lord Redesdale, perhaps I may say that we on these Benches would be extremely unhappy at door-to-door selling of lottery tickets. Again we come back to the question of the regulations. This is an area in which governments have conventionally intervened to stop the door-to-door selling of certain products. It is important to know whether the Government envisage that as a possibility in this case.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is concerned to ensure that national lottery tickets are not sold in the street. Clause 12 of this Bill clearly states that the Secretary of State may make regulations, breach of which shall be a criminal offence, regarding the places in which tickets may be sold or persons invited to buy them. Society and local authority lottery tickets may not be sold in the street

451
under a similar type of regulation—Regulation 5 of the Lottery Regulations 1977. This ban is not in the Lotteries and Amusements Act and is not to be found in primary legislation elsewhere but in regulations made by the Home Secretary. I think that it is a good model for regulations of this sort. That is precisely what the Secretary of State intends to do in the case of the national lottery. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that national lottery tickets will not be on sale in the street or door to door.
The noble Lord is also troubled by the prospect of kiosks being employed to sell tickets. Society and local authority lotteries are not prevented from using that type of outlet. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, pointed out, they are often seen in public places, such as in the square that he mentioned, and at busy railway stations. A stand-alone kiosk is considered to he useful for the lottery promoter, and certainly does not seem to cause undue distress to non-playing members of the public.
We do not intend to rule out the sale of national lottery tickets from enclosed kiosks, either in larger shops or shopping centres or anywhere else. That should be a matter for the operator to consider. I hope that your Lordships will agree that there is a large difference between selling lottery tickets in an enclosed kiosk and selling them on the street or door to door. I can assure your Lordships that that will not be the case. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, this has been a brief but useful and clarifying discussion. I take some of the points that were made by noble Lords on the Liberal Bench that there could be circumstances under which enclosed kiosks are appropriate and, provided that the regulations are proper, I think that that would be acceptable. However, we should bear in mind that the fact that such kiosks already sell charitable tickets is not only a plus point. It means that it is an area where the national lottery, with much bigger prizes, might eliminate the market for local lottery tickets.
I am pleased by what the Minister has said about door-to-door or what I call street itinerant sellers. Provided that the department is apprised of the potential problem and that when we finally see the regulations they are appropriate, I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Licences under sections 5 and 6: further provisions]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 31, at end insert:
("() to refer matters to the Director General for approval;
() to ensure that such requirements as the Director General may from time to time determine or approve are complied with;").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment is a simple one which will make it clear that licence conditions can require the licensee to refer matters to the director general for approval and can require the licensee to ensure that requirements approved or determined by the director general are
452
complied with. In particular, it will allow the director general to approve codes of practice prepared by the operator which will cover such matters as advertising and marketing, customer relations and other matters.
It is important that the director general is given the ability to approve such codes of practice, as these will allow him a considerable degree of flexibility in ensuring that the national lottery is properly run in all aspects of its operation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 46, at end insert:
("() to do such things (and, in particular. to effect such transfers of property or rights) as the Director General may require in connection with the licence ceasing to have effect and the grant of a licence to another body.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 9. These amendments will allow provision within the licence requiring the licensee to do things in connection with the licence ceasing to have effect and a new licence being granted. They would cover, for example, the provision of information for the director general after the end of the licence period and the transfer of rights to the national lottery logo or identity. It is important that the identity of the national lottery can continue even if the operator's licence is transferred to another body.
This measure will not be able to be used without the prior knowledge and agreement of the operator. The amendment to Clause 8 provides the safeguard that the licence cannot be varied without the consent of the licensee if the variation would result in a condition requiring the licensee to transfer property and rights. The intention to transfer such property or rights will therefore have to be set out in the initial licence and those who bid for it will be aware of the intention.
It is important that, in the event of a change in operator, there is a degree of continuity in the image of the lottery. In allowing the transfer of the logo to Secretary of State these amendments allow such continuity to take place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert:
("() Conditions in a licence granted under section 5 or 6 may impose requirements to be complied with by the licensee after the licence has ceased to have effect.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 is a technical amendment which will ensure that once a licence has ceased to have effect the Director General will still be able to receive information, which he might require, for example, to ascertain whether the proper sums have been handed over to the National Lottery Distribution Fund or to present his annual report. Indeed, without this provision, it might not be possible for the distribution fund to receive funds which might be owing to it.
Therefore, this is a practical measure which is necessary for the proper running of the lottery. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Clause 8 [Variation of conditions in licences]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 17 and insert ("Subsection (2) does not apply—

(a) where the variation would result in a condition requiring the licensee to transfer any property or rights, or

(b) in the case of a licence granted under section 5,").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Directions to the Director General]:
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 27, at end insert:
("(c) with the drawing up of a code of conduct for advertising the National Lottery and the lotteries that form part of the National Lottery.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage I tabled an amendment relating to advertising in so far as it might affect charities. I was concerned about two issues. The first was that there might be a temptation for those running the advertising campaign for the national lottery to concentrate on charities and that pictures of suffering children or disabled people might be more attractive as a money-raising operation than pictures of a sports stadium. I took the point that advertising for such people was specialised, especially if one is to avoid patronising or offending them by the way in which the advertisements are drawn up. I was also nervous about the fact that the more concentration there was on advertising for charity the more temptation there would be for people to believe that they were doing their bit for charity by contributing to the national lottery rather than directly to the charity.
The noble Viscount's reply was perhaps addressed to a different point. It was delivered at the end of a long and arduous day. He has since been good enough to write to me confessing that he did not quite address the issues that I raised. Perhaps I may read the main part of his letter, as I wish to put it on the record. He stated:
"Initial work which the department has undertaken on the licence has led us to conclude that on matters such as advertising, the best way forward may well be through codes of conduct. I am happy to agree that, if the need arose, such codes of conduct could contain references to the use which might be made of charitable images. This would include, of course, obtaining permission from the charity concerned if images of that charity are to be used in advertising. I have to say I think that the need is unlikely to arise, as the Lottery will not be promoted principally on the basis of good causes but on prizes and the attraction of participation. However, I think you are right to suggest that it is best to be sure that if the need arose, the Director General would be able to cover it. I am happy to give that reassurance".
I am extremely happy, as I know other Lords will be, to have that reassurance firmly written in Hansard. However, I should be even happier if the provision were written on the face of the Bill. If one looks at the statute books one will find ample precedents. That is the purpose of the amendment and I beg to move.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, this amendment may be one of the most important that we are discussing this afternoon. I am grateful to the
454
noble Lord, Lord Allen, for persevering with it. His anxiety that charities should not be abused in the presentation of the national lottery is extremely important. I too welcome the reassurances that the Government have given by letter as regards their intentions on the code of conduct.
There is another aspect to this issue which arose in Committee. Given that the national lottery will involve one of the biggest advertising and marketing launches that this country has seen for some time—bigger than some consumer brands and no doubt advertised heavily on television and in the press—the way in which that is couched in terms of young people is of crucial importance.
We accept that certain products and substances when used in moderation can promote general well-being. Alcohol is one of them. Alcohol used in excess is extremely dangerous. Is that not a direct analogy? Earlier we discussed excessive gambling and the propensity of certain personality types to be attracted by that form of compulsive behaviour. The personalities of young people may not be fully and strongly formed. Young people may have their own problems of growing up and of adjusting to the world and they may be particularly vulnerable to fantasies of instant wealth and success. Therefore, we must consider the way in which the advertising of the lottery is directed towards them much as we are prepared to consider and limit the way in which alcohol is advertised to young people.
It will be well known to your Lordships that advertisements for alcohol are not supposed to show young people having a good time. They are not supposed to indicate that drinking alcohol is' a way in which you, as an 18 year-old, can fulfil yourself and become a success in society. That is a reasonable inhibition to place on the advertising and promotion of the lottery. After all, in talking about "a bit of a flutter" the Government have acknowledged that they are really saying that people can have harmless dreams of affluence at a small price. A few will become very rich but they will be able to have harmless opiate daydreams. They are harmless, perhaps, to mature people but they are potentially dangerous to young people who are trying to find their way in the world.
I hope that in drawing up a code of conduct the Government will be prepared to address themselves frontally to an inhibition and restraint on promoting the lottery directly to young people in the way that is done with other products. I too hope that the Government consider that it will be better to place a code of conduct relating to advertising on the face of the Bill. That is not like other codes of conduct: advertising is central to the lottery.
Lord Rix: My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I wish to ask the Minister a question. If with a code of conduct the lottery is allowed to use a charity in its advertisements will that charity be able to charge a substantial fee for allowing its image to be used?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I shall attempt to give him an answer now; but, if I have to correct it, I shall write to the noble Lord and send

455
a copy to other noble Lords who are interested. We do not want the national lottery to be marketed with any logo other than that of the national lottery. We do not want the national lottery to be marketed with images which relate to a specific charity which would in any way give the impression to people buying a lottery ticket that there is a specific intention to promote or help a particular charity.
The operator, the regulator and the distributing bodies are entirely separate. That is one of the crucial elements of the Bill. Therefore, the operator has nothing to do with the distributing bodies. The distributing bodies will hand out the money as they see fit and as it is proper to do under all the clauses covering that aspect in the Bill. I hope that answers the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
We agree that codes of conduct which cover matters such as advertising are necessary. I have already moved Amendment No. 6, the effect of which was to make clear that licence conditions can require the licensee to refer matters to the director general for approval and require the licensee to ensure that requirements approved or determined by the director general are complied with. That will allow the director general to be able to approve codes of practice prepared by the operator. I said that they may cover, for example, advertising, marketing, customer relations and retail sales. Together with the undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, which he repeated, that in drawing up the codes of conduct the director general will consider how he can address the need to ensure that the national lottery is properly promoted, that will ensure that the noble Lord's anxieties about excessive gambling are taken into account.
I hope I have made it clear that those are the areas —and they are related areas—which the director general will have to consider carefully. I hope that your Lordships will think it is better that those matters are not put on the face of the Bill because that could have a detrimental effect. It may restrict what the director general can and cannot consider. We have given him extremely wide powers in that regard. Our policy is very clear.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, my anxiety in this context is not so much excessive gambling as excessive gambling among young people. It would determine my attitude to the amendment if the noble Viscount were to address himself to the undesirability of advertising directed at young people.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I take the point which the noble Lord makes. I give him an assurance that when the director general is considering the codes, guidance and how the lottery is operated, he will take those matters into account.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I cannot say that I am completely happy with the answer given, although I am glad to have those assurances on the record. Had circumstances been different, I might
456
have been tempted to test the view of the House but I shall have to leave it with the exchanges which have been made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
False representations as to the National Lottery
(".—(1) If a person advertising, or offering the opportunity to participate in, a lottery, competition or game of another description gives, by whatever means, a false indication that it is a lottery forming part of, or is otherwise connected with, the National Lottery, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both.').

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment will ensure that there are adequate safeguards for the consumer, so that when a customer plays the "national lottery", he can he sure that he is indeed playing the national lottery, and not something which purports to be it.
There will clearly be safeguards. For example, those selling national lottery tickets will have to display the national lottery logo, so that it will be clear that he or she is buying from a reputable outlet for the national lottery. The national lottery will, we hope, be a success. Given that success, it may be tempting for an unscrupulous organiser of a competition to try to mislead consumers that a lottery or other competition he is running is part of the national lottery. These clauses seek to prevent that and provide important safeguards. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I welcome the new clause. I wonder whether the fines may not be insufficient if someone succeeds in making a quick kill. Will the statutory maximum be sufficient to deter? I wonder whether there should be some relationship—I am not sure how that could be achieved—with the amount of money that the individual has made.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are rather straying into a different area. It is important that the amendments enable the national lottery to be protected. I am sure that both the operator of the national lottery and the director general of Oflot will hear very quickly if any other lottery is being operated which purports to be the national lottery. Immediate steps will be taken to prevent that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Apportionment of money in Distribution Fund]:
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 9, line 20, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) Of the balance

(a) 23·75 per cent. shall be allocated for expenditure on or connected with the arts,

(b) 23·75 per cent. shall be allocated for expenditure on or connected with sport,

(c) 23·75 per cent. shall be allocated for expenditure on or connected with the national heritage,

(d) 23·75 per cent. shall be allocated for charitable expenditure,

457

(e) 5 per cent. shall be allocated for expenditure on projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19 which is consequential on it although it is not grouped with it. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I take a few moments to develop my thoughts on this matter because, from my point of view, this is the most important of the remaining amendments.
I promised to read and to study all the exchanges which took place in Committee when a similar amendment was debated and withdrawn. I have done that. I am afraid that has merely confirmed my feeling that the proposals in the Bill are not very satisfactory, and that there is a powerful case for changing them.
Let us look at what is in the Bill as an administrative problem. We begin with a Millennium Commission presided over by a Minister who presumably will have one or two other things to do. As the noble Viscount promised the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, there will be a small staff. There will be no regional organisation. There will be quite a lot of money. Nobody knows how much money there will be but for debating purposes, let us take the figure of £400 million. There is not all that much time available if the year 2000 is to be marked with the kind proposals which have been talked about. I realise that the commission will remain in existence; but it will not, as I understand it, start any new projects after that year.
What does that organisation have to do? We are told that it will be for the commission to decide that for itself and that it will start off with a clean sheet but various ideas have been floated by government spokesmen on various occasions.
I give your Lordships some examples of what has been suggested. We are told that there will he a large variety of small projects, including, for example, making all the clocks work in the village of Grantchester and other villages. My noble friend Lord Annan suggested that there should be street parties. We are told that it will restore the fabric of our nation; that is, our great inheritance of buildings. That was in the party manifesto. There will be bursaries for schemes designed to change the face of the United Kingdom by the year 2000. Further, we may be helping Manchester with its project to house the Olympic Games. There will be help to another large city to organise a trade fair, there may be provision for a large sports complex to international standards and even provision for a multi-media arts centre. There is also the possibility of a new building for an important charitable enterprise. Quite clearly, a great deal of time will have to be taken negotiating with the bodies responsible for the other good causes; as many such projects would naturally fall within their province and it would be desirable to avoid too much duplication and the prospect of some getting in each other's way. I imagine too that, as the year 2000 is, after all, the year AD2000 (Anno Domini, the year of our Lord) some considerable proportion of effort should be diverted to what might loosely be described as "enterprises with some religious connotation".
That is a fairly formidable list, which consists mainly of preliminary ideas that have been suggested. However, if one looks at it a little more closely and takes a large individual project, rather like the new station at Waterloo (which I believe cost about £140 million), there is much to be done. For example, one has to decide first what is to be provided, where it would be provided—obviously, not everything would be concentrated in London—and one has then to work out a scheme and consult the Royal Fine Art Commission. One would have to engage an architect, obtain planning permission and give evidence at the inevitable public inquiry that would be held for such a project. The scheme would then be put out to contract, and so on—or, perhaps, to use the regrettable word in the regrettable Title of this regrettable Bill, "etketera" (etc.). Of course, some of the work may be contracted out, but one would need a very powerful finance organisation to supervise those who were carrying out the work and deal with the audit of the commission's own accounts, the arrangements of which were described to us in some detail on an earlier occasion.
We have heard reference to the success of the Sydney Opera House, which was erected as a result of a lottery. But if noble Lords remember, that took many years to build and staggered on from crisis to crisis; indeed, fresh lotteries were needed to cover each phase of the building works. That is perhaps one reason why it is so spectacular on the outside and such a mess inside. We have even had references to the Barbican. I was involved, I cannot remember how many years ago, with some of the initial projects in that respect. The whole process took many years. If the commission was to start on such a project, it would be in for a very long innings.
I feel bound to conclude from all that that the project has not really been properly thought through. In my view, it would be much better in the interests of the Government to have a much more limited and specific enterprise with a more limited budget and a more limited aim. Even on the reduction proposed in the amendment, there would still be quite a lot of money for various projects. But, as it is, the fund will be open to demands to do everything and anything. I cannot see that that is right. I certainly would not like to be the administrator in charge of the enterprise. I beg to move.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment to which my name is attached. It was striking to note that in Committee those of us who were suspicious about the Millennium Fund were somehow dubbed as being "spoilsports". I remember a marvellous speech from the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in which he said how important it was to have a very good party. Well, those of us who support the amendment are all in favour of a good party. Indeed, I should have thought that the £100 million that would be left under the terms of the amendment would provide, even by the noble Lord's high standards, an extremely good party.

459
The trouble with the Millennium Fund is that it is what. I think psychologists would call a "projective device". In other words, everyone projects on to the Millennium Fund his own favourite project, whether it be a building, a party or whatever. My first suspicion is that the fund is too much dominated by the discretion of the Government. It is a very large sum of money to be dominated and decided by the Government—that is, not just this Government but any government.
Secondly, I should prefer to have projects that are much more down to earth and that are decided by the four very desirable and active bodies that are actually in touch with the needs of the country rather than having large, speculative and grandiose schemes. I hope that the Government, even at this stage, will take the amendment most seriously.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, it will be no surprise to your Lordships to know that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Allen and the noble Lord, Lord Holme. I believe that reducing the amount from 20 per cent. to 5 per cent. will be so parsimonious and so penny-pinching that the millennium will not be marked. With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Annan, the fact is that a party is here today and gone tomorrow. We want to mark the millennium so there will be something for future generations to look back on and see what we actually did at the beginning of the third millennium.
I have an enormous amount of sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Allen said about spending the kind of money involved and also with his catalogue of suggestions—half of which, I believe, were put forward somewhat in jest in an effort to deride the whole concept of the millennium. I should stress that he was merely categorising what other people had suggested. The reality is that if we go for 5 per cent. of the national lottery—and the first full year of operation of the lottery will, I believe, be 1995–96 —at most we shall have received about £400 million in the period up to the millennium. However, £400 million spread over the whole of the United Kingdom to mark the millennium will not actually go very far.
I believe that to spend £100 million per major region of the United Kingdom to mark the millennium is really about the minimum that one could get away with in order to do something really fundamental, bearing in mind the huge increase in building costs (if it is to be a grand projet) or in running costs, and so on, that have taken place since such projects like the South Kensington Museums, the Royal Albert Hall and the Albert Memorial were constructed during Victorian times. In my view it would be very shortsighted, although not necessarily small minded, if we were to adopt the amendment. Frankly, I think that now is the time for a grand gesture. Our country has been so slow in making such grand gestures in the past that we have really been put to shame by other countries.
The other projects that have been listed, or those which people have merely thrown out as ideas, will obviously be considered by the Millennium Commission. But it is for the commission, not us, to specify what those projects should be. I am quite convinced that the Government will be able to appoint
460
people who have the breadth of vision, who are creative and who really want to do something dramatic to mark the beginning of the third millennium. I suggest that we leave it to them.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am, as one might say, between the devil and the deep blue sea because I am sitting between my noble friends Lady O'Cathain and Lord Allen. That is perhaps best illustrated by the seat that I am occupying at present which, I understand, is a matter of some dispute betwixt the Labour Party and the Cross-Benchers.
I wish to support my noble friend Lord Allen in this respect. Speaking on behalf of a major charity and, I am sure, other charities, we should like to see the additional money made available for projects between now and the year 2000. I am sure we are perfectly capable of providing grandiose projects which would have appealed, in the normal course of events, to the Millennium Commission. I also speak as an ex-member of the Arts Council of Great Britain. That body, I know, would view with favour the dispensation of money now towards the maintenance and support of buildings and theatres around the country. That might possibly include the building of a new theatre or a new opera house. I believe that such a project would have the support of the current Arts Council, of which I am no longer a member.
The Millennium Fund is perhaps an ephemeral dream which will be forgotten by the year 2001 or 2002. I believe that money now in the pot for the arts, sports and the other two good causes we are concerned with could be spent to better effect between now and the year 2000.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my name is also linked to this amendment. I need say no more than that I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I hope very much that the House will reject the amendments. I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said. In addition, it seems enormously important that we should do some big things with this lottery and that it should make its mark for the year 2000. The other four segments of the lottery money will not be able to achieve large projects as there are so many claims on them and so many people will feel they have a right to part of the money. The glory of the indefiniteness of the Millennium Fund's objectives is that nobody can say they have a right to any of its money.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I have had reservations about the Millennium Fund which I expressed at Second Reading. It has too much the air of a half-baked idea and it contains within it a danger of political influence in the final spending. I hope that when the Minister replies he will give us reassurance on that. It would be helpful if at this stage, or at Third Reading, the Government could give a more coherent sense of what the money will be spent on rather than the rag-bag of suggestions which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, summarised.
Having said that, I would not be willing to support the amendment for two reasons. The first is the reason

461
cogently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I suspect it is true that only through the Millennium Fund will we achieve a really big, dramatic project and that the pressures from regions, supplicants and their smaller constituencies on the other distributing bodies mean that funds will be spent on smaller projects—those projects would almost certainly be commendable—and that a pool of money will not be available for a dramatic arts or sporting project which I would like to see. I suspect also that the passing of the amendment would constitute something of a small coach and horses, at this stage, through the Bill and would cause difficulties. Therefore it is not my intention to support the amendment.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Baroness. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was speaking with all the experience of a great and renowned civil servant. He sees all the difficulties in the problem: I can picture him advising a Minister of those difficulties. Of course there are difficulties but I must say first that one does not have to have the building, or whatever it is, completed by the year 2000. It takes time to go out to tender and do all the other things that must be done when a great project is being embarked upon. However, one must take a decision to do something before the year 2000.
Secondly, it is true that I said in Committee I hoped some of the money would be spent on a jolly good party. However, I believe I added at the same time that there was something more in my mind than that and that to spend £400 million on a party was perhaps going rather far. I can only echo what the noble Baroness said. This is a chance in our generation to do something of which future generations will say, "Well, that is what they did". That, after all, is what we say when we look at the Albert Hall and indeed at the Albert Memorial.
There have been times when to look at the Albert Memorial and to express horror was fashionable. Now, of course, it is totally different. This dear friend of ours is swathed in scaffolding and is lauded by all sorts of' people in the artistic world. Let us have courage, even though some people may say, whatever choice is made, that the project is a bad idea or is an example of bad architecture. There are so many things that can be done. I had hoped to elicit great support from the Labour Benches by suggesting that a Welsh opera house might be built. However, I see the Welsh have deserted us on this occasion. I hope we shall still retain the imagination which I believe lay behind the idea of appropriately celebrating the year 2000.
Lord Birkett: Hear, hear!
1.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is not an enthusiast of the national lottery. I believe he would rather not have a lottery at all. He shows an even greater lack of enthusiasm for the Millennium Commission that has been established to celebrate the year 2000. At an earlier stage, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of
462
Abbeydale, said that I was treading on dangerous territory when I reminded your Lordships that the British Museum was in part funded by a lottery in 1851. I do not believe that I was treading on dangerous territory in saying that. Our lottery Bill separates the operator, the regulator and the distributor. We should have a national lottery in this country. We do not wish foreign lottery tickets to be sold in this country, the proceeds of which will fund projects in Barcelona or wherever.
At an earlier stage the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked me to give examples of what the Government had in mind. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked for a coherent reply as regards what the Millennium Fund might achieve. I gave some examples which were purely illustrative. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, uses those examples to tease your Lordships. The Millennium Commission will make its own decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, talks about government control of the Millennium Commission. The noble Lord must look at the schedule on page 38 of the Bill which states:
"The Millennium Commission shall consist of nine members appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, of whom two shall be Ministers of the Crown, and one shall be a person nominated by the Leader of the Opposition".
They will be in the minority. There will be six independent members—
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Who will appoint the other members of the commission? Will it be the Government of the day?
Viscount Astor: As I have said; the schedule states:
"The Millennium Commission shall consist of nine members appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Prime Minister".
We have discussed these proposals before, and I have made it clear that we cannot accept such a drastic assault on the potential success of the Millennium Commission. The commission will only receive its 20 per cent. share of the funds generated until the end of the year 2000. That would only be extended in exceptional circumstances—for example, to prevent the prospect of a building remaining half-finished. It would be unrealistic to expect the commission to fund the several major and lasting projects which it is to be set up to do, and to furnish us with a new heritage to pass on to future generations, with only 5 per cent. of the proceeds.
I remind your Lordships that funding for the Millennium Commission will be short-lived. It will be for six years at the most, a very short time out of the long years ahead during which we expect the lottery to operate on behalf of the other sectors and good causes.
Nobody knows how much the national lottery will raise for good causes. If in the event the Millennium Commission has more funds than it can use wisely and sensibly on high quality projects, it will be possible for Parliament to alter the balance at that stage. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said, he intends to put the split of funds to Parliament once every Parliament.

463
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, was quite right to say that the Millennium Commission does not have to finish projects by the end of the year 2000. The point is that the money will stop flowing into the Millennium Commission at that stage. It may take four or five years to complete some of the projects and the commission will keep money in hand in order to be able to finish those projects.
We have thought out the provisions relating to the Millennium Commission. I accept that, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, some of the projects will be expensive and some will be complicated. I believe that we have the ability to deal with that. To deny the Millennium Fund a reasonable amount of money would not be sensible. We want the Millennium Fund to be successful. I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I have never made any secret of the fact that I dislike the lottery, and I have never been very keen on the Millennium Fund, for the one reason that I have never really understood what it was supposed to do. I still do not quite understand that.
I was interested to learn that the views of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, do not entirely coincide with the views which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, expressed at an earlier stage.
The noble Viscount keeps harping on about the British Museum. Perhaps one day he will go on to explain how it came about that it was decided that it was right to abandon the financing of public projects by lotteries in this country. I expect that, long after my time, with a change of public sentiment it will be decided to abandon this lottery. However, I know that that is some years ahead.
I do not mind being accused of being a civil servant and of looking at this matter as an administrator. I still view it with grave anxiety. I am afraid that in five or six years' time—if I live long enough—I shall be able to say "I did tell you so". I do not mind if the scheme works out and we have some admirable large schemes, but I simply do not believe that the machine is geared up to doing that. We shall see.
There is obviously no point in pursuing the matter further. Having placed my views on record, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Payments from Distribution Fund to distributing bodies]:
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 10, line 19, at end insert:
("() A body shall, for the purposes of distributing any money paid to it under section 22, ensure that it has set up a structure to enable it to apply that money on a regional basis.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the distribution by the distributing bodies of moneys raised by the lottery shall as far as possible take into account the fact that it should be spread across the kingdom. It is a cliché that this country is dominated by London to too great an extent. The capital is the financial capital, the
464
commercial capital, the business capital and the cultural and artistic capital. London dominates Great Britain. Yet the moneys which are raised by the lottery will come from people all over the country. Some have even argued that the money will tend to come from people in the less prosperous parts of the country because it will be a small price to pay for buying dreams of affluence. Therefore, the money will come from all over the country, and there must be a danger that even the illustrious distributing bodies will, perhaps without realising it, tend to focus too much of their effort and attention on the capital and that the emphasis will be too metropolitan.
As I understand it, the Government do not wish that. I believe that they, too, wish the proceeds of the lottery to be distributed so that they benefit all parts of Britain. I recognise that that is not susceptible to mathematical calculation, but I believe that it is important that a regional component is built into the structure of distribution. Since the Government are sympathetic to the principle, I hope that they will accept the argument that it should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has proposed an amendment with admirable intent. We are clear that the benefits of the national lottery should be available across the whole of the country.
The noble Lord proposes a statutory requirement that the distributors should establish a structure which enables them to make sure funds are fairly distributed between the regions. We are quite clear that the lottery should benefit the whole nation. We are quite clear that when we speak of England we mean all of England and not just London and the home counties. The Secretary of State will, in those sectors where it is necessary, be able to stipulate the need to ensure national coverage in directions to the distributors, and their performance on this matter can be judged through their annual reports.
We cannot accept any suggestion that funds, once allocated for distribution by a particular body, should then be allocated on a regional basis before applications were considered. A strict geographical allocation would interfere with the distributors' ability to consider projects on the basis of quality and priority. It would be possible for a certain type of project not to receive funding purely because there was no money left in the regional budget, even though it was every bit as good as one for which funds were available in the neighbouring region.
We are in no doubt that under the Bill the distributors will be expected to give fair consideration to applications from everywhere in the country—and in the case of the Charities Board, from overseas as, well. The distributors which already exist do this now with respect to their grant in aid, and we expect them to continue to do so, and those bodies which the Bill will set up will also do so.
Under Clause 25, the Secretary of State can direct the matters which distributive bodies must take into account. If it emerged that a particular body was

465
exercising a consistent and continuous regional bias in approving applications, it would be possible for a direction to be given on the matter.
I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that assurance. I believe that, as we see the effects of the lottery in future years, it will be important to see that severe regional distortions in distribution do not develop. It is certainly true that the Secretary of State would be able to deal with such a problem by instruction, but that is possibly a less satisfactory solution than the distributing bodies being under such an obligation from the beginning. However, the clear terms in which the Government have stated their position on this matter will help to set a pattern. Therefore, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 14:
Leave out Clause 23 and insert the following new clause:
("Secretary of State's power to make payments from the Distribution Fund
The Secretary of State shall make payments out of so much of any money in the Distribution Fund as is held for distribution by a body specified in section 22 of the amounts needed by that body to meet its current distribution requirements.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should point out to your Lordships that there is a typographical error in the third line of the amendment as printed on the Marshalled List. It should read "section 22" and not "section 21".
In the original debate in Committee in the other place on an amendment to this clause the Government suggested that the opaque wording of the clause was a symptom of the Treasury rules which would govern the use of money in the distribution fund. In Committee I referred to the absence of information about those rules. I ask my noble friend again whether he can further explain those rules to us since I am at a loss to understand what they are and since they have been called in aid in justification and therefore may be capable of explaining much of the obscure wording of the clause.
In debate on a similar amendment in Committee the noble Viscount said simply that the rules were complicated and that they were not a matter for primary legislation. I do not ask that they should be included in the legislation. However, I do ask for an explanation as to why the clause needs to be worded in this way. If a cynical person were to consider the Bill, he might say that the Government have drafted it so that there could be political interference with the money in the distribution fund. I do not say that myself. However, I might say that the Bill as currently drafted leaves the way open for future Secretaries of State to use those powers in a political way if they so wish.
The Bill variously contains the power for the Secretary of State to make or withhold payments of whatever amount he pleases from the beneficiary
466
allocations in the distribution fund. It allows the Secretary of State to change the apportionments in the distribution fund for particular beneficiaries at the same time as beneficiary shares are reviewed. That is Clause 27. It allows the Secretary of State to allocate the interest held on the distribution fund investment between beneficiaries in whatever way he likes. That is Clause 31. Yet my noble friend says that the distributing bodies will be able to commit a five-year grant. That was reported in Hansard on 8th July, at col. 1581. That may not be good grant-making practice if the Government have the power to erode the money that a distributing body thought would accumulate or was accumulating in the distribution fund for its use. I beg to move.
2 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): The amendment proposed is:
Leave out Clause 23 and insert the new clause with the manuscript amendment as follows.
("Secretary of State's power to make payments from the Distribution Fund
The Secretary of State shall make payments out of so much of any money in the Distribution Fund as is held for distribution by a body specified in section 22 of the amounts needed by that body to meet its current distribution requirements.").
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I put my name to the amendment and support what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said. The statements of the noble Viscount in Committee as to what the practice was going to be were perfectly satisfactory. The trouble is that they did not seem to fit in with what is in the clause. There is no suggestion by any of us that the clause itself should deal with Treasury rules. The existing clause does not do so; neither does the proposed substitution. However, the proposed substitution sets the matter out more clearly. It is in accordance with the policy which the noble Viscount announced.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, when we discussed the matter in Committee I explained that what my noble friend's amendment states will happen in any case. The reason that Clause 23 is drafted in the way that it is is because the Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament for the stewardship of the National Lottery Distribution Fund. The distributors would be responsible for deciding to draw down funds to cover the applications that they have approved, and the Secretary of State will allow them to draw down the funds to cover them.
The amendment seeks to compel the Secretary of State in statute to pass money from the distribution fund to the distributors. That is precisely what must happen anyway. Several noble Lords asked in Committee why, if that is what will occur, it is not what the Bill states. It is purely a matter of accountability. It is right that for a national lottery run on behalf of the nation, a Minister of the Crown should account to Parliament for the financial probity and correctness of the running of the fund. But the

467
Secretary of State has no power to distribute any of the fund himself. must pass to the bodies named on the statute.
I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not be anxious that, because of the clause, the Secretary of State could hold up funds that need to pass to the bodies. The funds must pass to the bodies named on the statute.
I repeat again that someone has to be responsible for the National Lottery Distribution Fund. It is right that the Secretary of State should be responsible and accountable to Parliament.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down perhaps I may say this. He states that there is nothing in the clause to enable the Secretary of State to hold up a grant. But the clause begins,
"At such times as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate".
He can sit on the money for as long as he likes.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we discussed that point at an earlier stage. A suggestion was made that the money should be paid quarterly. I stated that it should be paid when the bodies needed to cover their applications. There has therefore to be a word in the provision to cover that process.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am not satisfied with my noble friend's answer. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, the Secretary of State can, if he wishes, hold up the distribution. What if the unthinkable happened and I was the Secretary of State? I do not approve of the Millennium Fund. I would not want any money distributed to the Millennium Fund. I would exercise the powers in other clauses of the Bill allowing me to vary the percentage of distribution. My noble friend has not answered that.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may answer my noble friend's point. I believe that he has got it wrong. If he reads carefully, he will see that the Secretary of State can bring before Parliament proposals to alter the amounts that go to the various distributive bodies. Indeed, a minimum 5 per cent. has to go to all the four bodies. The Secretary of State cannot stop money going to one of those bodies. To do so would require primary legislation —a new Act. It is not possible for that factor to occur.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend may say that I am quibbling, but he is quibbling over percentages. I shall not delay the House any more today but I shall consider the matter again. I do not believe that he has given a satisfactory answer. I hope that between now and Third Reading he will consider with his advisers whether the wording of the clause can be improved. I seek to improve the clause, and the Bill as a whole. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Application of money by distributing bodies]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, line 32, at end insert:
("() The Arts Council of Great Britain shall comply with any directions given to it by the Secretary of State to remit a fixed amount annually direct to the film industry for the purpose of establishing a fund to assist British film production, distribution and exhibition.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at Committee stage there was all-party support for an amendment in my name which sought to make an allocation of lottery funds specifically available to the British film industry. A number of noble Lords spoke with feeling about their love of cinema and how it is part of the very fabric of our lives. It provides us not only with entertainment and information but also contributes to how we see, and consequently relate to, the world around us as well as projecting something of ourselves to the rest of the world.
With the centenary of cinema fast approaching, we find ourselves in the apparently paradoxical situation' characterised by, on the one hand, a production sector languishing in the doldrums, while at the same time cinema attendances continue to rise, the popularity of films on television, both terrestrial and satellite, remains firm, the sale of books and magazines on the cinema is buoyant, and the demand for courses on film and other media continues to rise.
But what audiences see are films from another culture. They do not—indeed they cannot—see indigenous British productions. Our film makers have to go to Hollywood to work and the profits from the booming exhibition and distribution sectors are expropriated overseas and lost from the UK economy.
Among the noble Lords who spoke and supported the special case for films were the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton—she works in the industry—my noble friend Lady Mallalieu on the Front Bench, my noble friend Lord Dormand and the noble Lord, Lord. Holme of Cheltenham. He said that we should also consider the contribution that film makes to young people's understanding of the arts. The same point was reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord. Birkett, so we received a wide range of ideas and support.
However, I was not happy with the noble Viscount's assurance that we did not have to be concerned with how much would be made available to film out of the arts segment of the lottery funding. He used the argument that is always used on these occasions that if one makes a special case for one thing, one has to do it for all the others. I submit that that does not apply to film, which is a special case. Great commercial factors are attached to it, and it is not like the other parts of the arts. If we have to rely on the Arts Council—bearing in mind what happened to some of our orchestras last week—that makes my heart sink. I find that I do not have a great deal of confidence in leaving the decision to the Arts Council.
The Minister stated at Committee stage:
"I understand that the [lottery] committee might be supported by a special advisory committee dealing purely with film applications. It will call on the advice of other expert bodies such as the British Film Institute to help it make its decision".—[Official Report, 8/7/93; col. 1574.]
I should like the noble Viscount to assure us today that the "might" has been changed to "will" and the committee will be supported. I find the word "might" not firm enough for us to act upon.
The House has heard the cultural arguments for film to be supported and will be aware that there is considerable support for the film industry. However, supporting distribution needs the resolve to spend huge amounts of money on marketing, prints and advertising. In order to save time, I shall just say that a big investment in the film industry is required which will pay off very well. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me rather more assurance today. Unfortunately, he told me that he did not think he would be able to accept the amendment; perhaps he has been able to change his mind. If he does not accept it, I should like him to acknowledge that there is a difference between film and some of the other arts, and also that there would be an advisory committee attached to the lottery committee. I beg to move.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I supported the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, at Committee stage on the matter of film, and I am delighted to do so again today and to put my name to her amendment. If we had an industrial strategy in the country, film would be one of the things on which we would concentrate. We have an enormous home market; incredibly in an age of television, the number of people going to the cinema doubled between 1984 and 1992: 100 million people go to the cinema every year. Yet, our own industry which, since the Second World War, was the home of so much talent and creativity, is in a relatively feeble state. That is well known to the Government, I know, and here is a chance for them to do something for the British film industry of a practical nature which could improve the prospects for British film makers.
It may be that the Government cannot accept the amendment exactly in that form; but the House would be interested to know what specific comfort the film industry can draw from the way in which the lottery will be distributed and administered, and exactly what the Government have in mind. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, it is a great shame that Sir Richard Attenborough cannot be with us today in the form of Lord Attenborough. No doubt he is regrouping his dinosaurs and putting his Jurassic Park back in order. Although I must not put words into his mouth, I should not be surprised if he thought that it was a shame that it should have needed the national lottery for the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to move the amendment. What she has written as an amendment seems to me to be entirely admirable. It ought to take place, either within or without the lottery. If we read the words quite independently of the lottery Bill, they read well. I believe that Sir Richard would have said the same thing, it is high time that the British film industry was given decent support. It has been decades since any real, serious support was given to the film industry. I urge that on the Government, quite independently of the Bill.
The reason I am hesitant about it as an amendment is because I am frightened of making special cases for anyone within the Bill because everyone else will jump
470
on the bandwagon, and it is a poor principle. Nevertheless, I support the idea that the film industry has long deserved better support than it receives. So I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment, but doubt whether I can quite support it as part of the Bill.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I support everything that has been said, especially by my noble friend Lady Birk. The matter has been raised, I think, at every stage of the Bill and still doubts persist about the Government's assurances. The heart of the matter, the centre of it, has been raised, I know, with the Secretary of State, by BECTU, the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union. The heart of the matter which they raise concerns whether the Arts Council, which will be the distributing body, is the most appropriate body to distribute the relevant funds to the film industry. That is not intended to criticise the Arts Council, especially since many others are currently enjoying that sport. But the fact is that the Arts Council has no historical experience of serving film. It is just not structured that way, it does not think that way and it follows that the new regional arts boards—and I must declare that I am a member of the London Arts Board—immediately hived off film because it was recognised that the Arts Council regional arts boards' structure which exists in this country was not the appropriate one to handle the interests of the film industry.
In future, when the Arts Council is split tribally into the four nations of the kingdom, that fragmentation will make the matter worse. It will be inappropriate for our film industry which must operate nationally and internationally. For those reasons, I support what has been said and look forward to more comfort and reassurance from the Minister than we have so far received.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, would like the Secretary of State to be able to direct the Arts Council to spend a fixed amount on film. The powers granted to the Secretary of State by the clause as it stands do not include any power to tell distributors how much of their money should be spent for any purpose. That is entirely deliberate.
What we are proposing is that through Clause 24 we shall direct the Arts Council to take into account the need to fund film applications. We will also generally direct the Arts Council and other distribution bodies that where they do not have specific expertise in a particular area, then they should take account of the need to seek it from a relevant expert body, unless of course that expert body is the one applying for funding.
However, we cannot accept that the Secretary of State should have the power to decide that, for example, for the purposes of the lottery, film constitutes 15 per cent. of the arts or that the distributors may only distribute money on condition that they use 15 per cent. for a predetermined purpose. The powers to direct distributors are intended to ensure proper management of money, and to ensure that bodies take relevant matters into account. There is no intention of allowing the Secretary of State to set out policy priorities in the arts or any other sector.

471
In considering applications for lottery funding the Arts Council is proposing to use a special lottery committee which will have on it at least one member with expertise on film. I understand that that committee might be supported by a special advisory committee dealing purely with film applications. I note that there is a proposal from BAFTA that there should be a film sub-committee. I must repeat that there is nothing to stop the Arts Council setting up a film sub-committee to advise it on film applications. It will call on the advice of other expert bodies, such as the British Film Institute, to help it make its decisions. We are convinced that this offers a very flexible framework within which film stands to benefit a great deal from lottery proceeds.
In its annual report on how it has distributed the lottery proceeds the Arts Council has to publish the directions and demonstrate achievement against those directions. If film is not being given its fair share, it will be quite clear. On a practical level it is up to the Arts Council and the other interested bodies to work together to find the best way to distribute the film element.
I agree with the noble Baroness that it is clear that film has a particular and important place in our society—and I am sure that the Arts Council agrees with that too. It is a distinct and popular art form with a special appeal to a great many people. It is important that film is able to benefit from the national lottery, and there is no doubt that it will. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will accept, with my assurance—I am trying to make her happy, as she said, and give her the assurance that she requires—that what I have said will allow her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very courteous and helpful reply. But I cannot say that I feel very cheered up by it. In fact, I feel very disappointed.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, made the point that film should not have to rely on lottery funds, and he is right. Nevertheless, as we have tried everything over the years—the noble Lord knows this very well—it seemed the right moment to have another go and use the new fund that is coming along. If one does not put in a very strong plea for film to be supported from those funds, the old system will simply continue. So I believe that there is a very strong reason for talking about it now when we are thinking of it in terms of a lottery.
I am still disappointed that the Minister did not change the "might" to "will" in respect of having an advisory committee. The point has come when, frankly, the Arts Council ought to be told by the National Heritage ministry that it really has got to do something about film. To have one person on the committee—which appears to be the case at the moment—when a great deal of expertise is needed, and not to say, "Yes, there will be an advisory committee on film", is extremely disappointing. Even if the Government did not go as far as I wanted to go in the amendment, that would have been a great help. But I am realistic enough to see that there would not be much point in dividing the House on this matter now. People would just fall in from everywhere and
472
would not even know what we were talking about. They would not know that the amendment was about film, and I should not get very far. In the circumstances, therefore, I am afraid that I have to withdraw the amendment. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister, who is always, I have to say, extremely helpful, will push a bit harder for us, or will go on pushing harder, in aid of the film industry. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 10, line 32, at end insert:
("() Any money paid under section 23 to the Arts Council of Great Britain shall be used solely for purposes relating to the improvement of the fabric or the construction or acquisition of buildings used for the performance, creation, presentation or preservation of works of art and associated purposes, for the endowment of buildings or arts organisations occupying such buildings previously benefitting from money granted from the Distribution Fund, and for new projects not requiring recurring revenue grants from the Arts Council of Great Britain, the Regional Arts Boards, the Welsh Arts Council or the Scottish Arts Council.
() Any money paid under section 23 to the Arts Council of Northern Ireland shall not be used for the recurrent revenue needs of organisations in receipt of grants from that body.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is an attempt to lay down some broad principles to guide the Arts Council and to reinforce the principle of additionality. Ministers now need to be more specific in their guidelines for funding. Otherwise, the danger is that the funds could be dissipated into the general pot. Although the amendment covers buildings relating to a great variety of works of art, I am mainly concerned with theatres, and with the Theatres Trust in particular.
Here I must declare an interest as a trustee of the Theatres Trust. We are the main body concerned with the fabric of theatres and their uses. The Theatres Trust is a very small outlet which exists on a financial shoe-string. But it is of great importance and does a great deal of work. It is the only body doing work of that kind in regard to the theatres.
The amendment also specifically mentions endowments as well as capital expenditure coming from the lottery fund. Although on various occasions the Minister has indicated that revenue funding for lottery buildings should be derived from other sources, there is a need for endowments to ensure the maintenance and upkeep of these capital projects. That would provide a form of security for the future of these buildings which is unobtainable in any other way.
Nearly 40 per cent. of theatres surveyed by the Theatres Trust in its recent report were judged to be in poor or fair condition, with seating, foyers, toilets, heating, ventilation and stage equipment heading the list for badly needed repairs. Fewer than one in four theatres had any planned maintenance programme at all.
A common pattern, and one which should be avoided at all costs for lottery funded buildings, is for large capital expenditure to be followed by a long period of inadequate care. That is what has happened up to now. Unless something is done about it, there is no reason why it would not continue, even with lottery funding. Then panic fund-raising is necessary to repair

473
the damage. Naturally, the amounts needed have increased. Endowments can break that pattern for good and ensure that the standard of a building is maintained. This amendment would allow such endowments for lottery funded buildings, in particular so that the heritage of our theatres can be maintained.
Although the Government have consistently asserted that they do not wish to see the concept of additionality within the Bill, I hope that Ministers will take this opportunity to confirm that lottery funds can be used for endowments to support planned maintenance and that the Theatres Trust itself—which is the only body in the field doing this job —will be consulted on all the issues relating to theatre buildings. I beg to move.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, perhaps I may for a moment echo the tribute paid by the noble Baroness to the Theatres Trust, and say—as perhaps I can and she cannot—that that body does a marvellous job. It is quite the most active, the most scholarly and the most knowledgeable body concerned with the fabric of theatres in this country, and in particular the fabric of historic theatres. The world of theatre would be infinitely poorer without it.
Behind this amendment stands the famous question of additionality. Noble Lords in all parts of the House, including those on the Government Front Bench, have said that this lottery is not supposed to provide funds to replace what is already spent by the Government upon arts funding; or indeed, upon sports funding.
Numerous formulae have been tried out to see whether there is a way of expressing that concept in the Bill. I suspect that this amendment comes closest to expressing the idea of additionality as opposed to replacement. Whether it will quite fit into the Bill, I am still not sure. But certainly I agree with the idea that the majority of the lottery fund should be for capital purposes. I also agree with the idea —in fact, I believe it is essential—that some new projects will absolutely have to have endowment from the lottery funds. Although the amendment says:
"for projects not requiring recurring revenue grants from the Arts Council",
I think it is probably more likely that it should say: "new projects not likely to receive recurring grants from the Arts Council"—not because the projects might not be suitable but because the money would not be enough. I entirely approve of that principle. It comes as close to expressing the idea of additionality as any amendment so far proposed. Therefore, if your Lordships and, in particular, the Government are inclined to feel that something in the Bill should express that intention, that is probably the closest that we can come to it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to clarify one point. The amendment includes "for the endowment of buildings", which covers his point. The amendment may mean some redrafting but I was careful to include that provision because it is so important; otherwise, the planned maintenance will not work.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. I quite accept that.
2.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the effect of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness for the arts sector would be to forbid the distributors spending lottery money in areas at present funded from public expenditure. That could mean that the Arts Council could apply two different sets of criteria for grants; for example, one from its lottery money and one from what it normally receives.
I understand the point about additionality. We discussed it at an earlier stage. It is important to ensure that it is the distributing bodies which will be handing out the money. The Bill will compel every distributor of lottery money to prepare a report on its distribution separate from the use of other money that it receives. Parliament will be able to scrutinise those reports and compare them with the levels of government provision in the same areas.
The Government are firmly committed to the principle of additionality. But it is clear that legislation will not achieve that and we cannot accept the proposed amendment. It is up to the distributors to satisfy themselves that making a grant for a project out of lottery money is not and will not be seen as substitution for mainstream public expenditure. The distributors will have no interest in substituting lottery funds for grant in aid and will wish to consider that point in relation to each application. We ought to trust in their good judgment. We have said that we feel that the use of lottery money should have an emphasis for capital projects but we have not ruled out any other type of funding.
We have to accept that it is not possible to seek freedom from government interference in the individual decisions of those bodies—the arm's length principle—and then complain when those bodies act within their own expertise and independence both of each other and the Government.
The restoration of the fabric of our theatres is at the very heart of the aim behind the Bill. We have said that revenue endowment funding is possible but might not be desirable as a norm because of the effect that it would have on the other funds. I cannot promise on behalf of the Arts Council that it will fund any particular theatre or theatre's trust. But I can say that it will have to take relevant expert advice, which obviously includes advice from the Theatres Trust when it looks at programmes and applications for restoration of theatres.
I hope that the noble Baroness is somewhat reassured by that explanation and by the fact that theatres are indeed part of the Bill and that their applications will be considered by the Arts Council.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In answer to the point about two sets of money, the question of endowment is very important. It applies in a great many fields of art connected with the theatre. I do not find that at all contradictory. Unless there is endowment, one will not be able to have any planned maintenance. That is what has been

475
happening up to now. It is a kind of hand to mouth existence with far too many theatres. Many of them are graded, in some cases as Grade 1. Most of those in London and in a great many other cities are certainly Grade 2 theatre listed buildings.
It is important for us to feel that that is both understood and taken on board. I was glad to hear the Minister refer to consulting the Theatres Trust. The experts working there want to feel assured that they would be considered as the main advisers and consultants in that area. That is not because of any competition but because, as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, very kindly said. they are in that position with that expertise covering the enormous amount of work with a very small staff and very meagre funds. Things go wrong when people who do not know very much about the matter jump in and the trust itself has not been consulted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Directions to distributing bodies]:
Lord Annan Lord Annan moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 10, line 35, leave out ("the matters to be taken into account") and insert ("the propriety").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and I were disturbed by the fact that the Bill as drafted seemed to enable the Secretary of State to interfere and overrule the decisions of the chairmen, boards and trustees of the distributing bodies. Accordingly we drafted an amendment. But with remarkable perspicacity the noble Viscount had also spotted that point. With foresight he realised that someone else would see it, and with courage he took on his department and himself produced an amendment to the clause. It is that amendment which stands as part of the Bill in Clause 25.
We were very grateful. We realised how difficult that had been to achieve. At the same time we still had a residual worry about the matter. That is why I bring forward this amendment today. The noble Viscount explained that the Secretary of State must be in a position to stop a distributing body acting with impropriety. By that he meant giving grants to a person or some cause which was totally outside the remit of that body. Clearly that would be improper.
Perhaps I may give an example. Suppose that a rich man bought a park and decided that he would re-create in it a replica of an 18th century park replete with follies, rotunda, lakes, waterfalls and temples. He then decided that the park should be a cause to which the National Heritage Memorial Fund should contribute, arguing that it was such a splendid creation that it would very soon become part of the national heritage. The Secretary of State might well take the view that if the National Heritage Memorial Fund had been so foolish as to contribute to it, then it was a contribution to an individual and had nothing to do with the heritage at all. Whether in 100 years' time that park might have become part of that heritage would be an entirely different matter. But at the moment it was totally outside the remit of the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
On the other hand, when the National Heritage Memorial Fund made a noble contribution to the rehabilitation and restoration of the temples, rotunda, grottoes, gardens, lakes, vistas and woodlands of Stowe Park, which is one of the most remarkable 18th century parks in the whole of our country, it was totally within its remit and the Secretary of State would have been entirely ultra vires had he tried to interfere with that decision on the grounds that a great school occupied the mansion within that park. That is the kind of worry which persuaded me to insert the word "propriety".
Can the national distributing bodies be trusted to control impropriety within their remit? At Committee stage I argued that they could be so trusted. Perhaps I can give an example. Twenty years ago an exhibition of modern art was put on on the South Bank. One of the exhibits was by an American artist. It consisted of a large water tank in which a catfish was placed. The idea behind that work of art was that every two hours the catfish should be electrocuted and another catfish substituted; in due course that too would be electrocuted.
My noble friend Lord Goodman, who was then chairman of the Arts Council, took the view that that would neither redound to the credit of the Arts Council in putting on an exhibition in which such a merciless activity was carried on, nor was it necessary for the benefit of modern art. He therefore stopped it. He was criticised by people for interfering and censorship but, as we all know, his shoulders are broad enough to bear that kind of criticism.
My point is this. The Secretary of State should not interfere in matters which are entirely within the remit of the distributing body. But of course it is absolutely right for him to interfere if he thinks that the distributing body is about to make an improper allocation of funds from the lottery fund. If the noble Viscount feels that the wording suggested is inappropriate, I implore him to take the amendment away and return at Third Reading with an alternative. I understand that that will require further reflection on his part, particularly as I tabled the amendment relatively late. I beg to move.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I entirely support the amendment. It is mild but symbolic. It takes out the words,
"the matters to be taken into account",
and substitutes the words, "the propriety". Everybody would agree that the powers of the Secretary of State should deal with matters of propriety. If the noble Viscount does not accept the amendment at this stage—I hope that he will—he may like to give an instance of any matters which may be taken into account which would not come under the heading of "propriety". I have a strong suspicion that no other matters should be taken into account and that the powers of the Secretary of State should be limited to the matter of propriety. I welcome the Minister's comments on that point.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, remains concerned that the Secretary of State has too wide a power of direction to distributors. His

477
amendment would restrict directions only to matters of propriety. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment. It reflects the belief, which the Government share, that decisions on grants made on lottery money should not be decided or dictated by the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, asked what other matters could be taken into account. There are matters other than issues of pure propriety that should be taken into account. The power in Clause 25(1) will allow the Secretary of State to ensure that, for example, the Arts Council takes account of the fact that it is expected to fund the whole of the arts sector with its lottery allocation, including crafts and film, even though it does not at present distribute grant-in-aid in those areas.
Perhaps, more importantly, the Secretary of State will be able to direct distributors to consult appropriate expert bodies on grant applications. That clearly is to the benefit of the distribution process, but it is not an issue of propriety. It is a matter that needs to be taken into account. It will also enable the Secretary of State to direct that there should be a fair response to applications across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland where separate bodies for the countries do not exist.
There are regional considerations which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. Again, those are issues not of propriety but of importance to many people. We have to draw a fine line. We do not want the Secretary of State to be able to direct which projects, but we want him to direct what the principals of the different bodies should take into account and what consultations should take place with expert bodies.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, will accept my assurance that the Secretary of State will not, and indeed cannot, impose his shopping list of projects on the distributors. He will not; he cannot —not even the subject of catfish for an exhibition.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. The best thing I can do is to consult my noble friend Lord Gibson who, unfortunately, cannot be present today. We will consider whether or not to raise the matter again at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.45 p.m.
Clause 26 [Power to prohibit distribution in certain cases]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 11, line 26, at end insert:
("(3A) Where subsection (3B) applies, the Secretary of State may give directions to a body—

(a) prohibiting it from distributing money under section 24(1) to a person in Northern Ireland specified in the directions, or

(b) requiring it to secure that any money distributed by it under section 24(1) to such a person is not applied for a purpose specified in the directions.

(3B) This subsection applies if at the time the directions are given the Secretary of State considers that—
478

(a) a proscribed organisation for the purposes of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, or

(b) any other organisation that appears to him to be concerned in terrorism in Northern Ireland or in promoting or encouraging it,

might directly or indirectly derive benefit from the distribution of money to the person specified.
(3C) In subsection (3B) "benefit" includes benefit of a non-financial nature and, in particular, an enhancement of reputation.
(3D) A body may not disclose to any other person either the identity of any person specified in directions given to it under subsection (3A) or any information that might lead to the identification of such a person.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment concerns Northern Ireland matters and would have the following effect. When the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland considers that if a distributing body were to fund a particular application a terrorist organisation could benefit, he would be able to seek information from the distributing body and, if appropriate, direct the body to refuse the application. The distributing body could tell the applicant why its application was refused but could not disclose publicly the name of the applicant. The powers could also be exercised to prohibit the funding of a particular project by what might be an otherwise acceptable applicant.
We have chosen to confer on the Secretary of State a power to direct the distributing bodies in Northern Ireland. That will make it clear to terrorists in Northern Ireland that, if they are deprived of access to funds and influence, it is by a decision of the Government, not because of any initiative by a distributing body itself. By doing so, we intend to safeguard Northern Ireland distributing bodies from any unfortunate consequences of a decision to withhold funding in a particular case. Similarly, we are prohibiting the bodies identifying to the general public those subject to direction, as such a direction might be taken as implying that the applicants are themselves terrorists and thus make them targets for unlawful threats. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the intention of the amendment must be right. It would be deplorable if moneys raised through individual donations throughout the country ended up in any way supporting the activities of terrorists in Northern Ireland. However, speaking as someone who, from these Benches, also has responsibility for Northern Ireland, I should like to raise two points on which the noble Viscount may be able to reassure me. Obviously, all cultural activity in Northern Ireland is disproportionately important. It is a way of encouraging normal life there instead of the terrible half-life that people have to live in the Province.
When looking at subsection (3C), I am slightly worried that the,
"benefit of a non-financial nature",
may be taken as merely passive participation; for example, someone who is present as a spectator or viewing an arts exhibition. The term "benefit" could taint the occasion and therefore the donation of the grant. Noble Lords with experience of Northern Ireland will bear out that there is a spectrum of

479
opinion which leads ultimately through nationalism and loyalism to people who become enemies of society. There are many people who, in the course of normal events, will be present at occasions with those people, as we saw on the recent occasion of the visit of President Mary Robinson to Northern Ireland.
Perhaps the noble Viscount can therefore reassure me that indirect non-financial benefit will not include merely passive participation at an occasion. If he were able to reassure me on that score, I would wholeheartedly support the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is there any right of appeal for applicants for funding who are turned down? If they can prove that the information alleging that they are somehow mixed up with a terrorist organisation may be wrong, is there any form of appeal against a decision?
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies, I recall the other point that I wanted to raise. There is a danger that this legislation, which is meant to stand for some period of years, may still be in existence after the North Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act has fallen. We must all devoutly hope that the time will come when there are not emergency provisions and Northern Ireland is not run, as it is at the moment, under fairly draconian legislation. If the EPA ceases to be in application, will this clause continue to apply?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, perhaps I may express reservations about the clause merely on civil liberties grounds. Naturally we bow to no one in wishing that proscribed organisations should not in any way get in on this Act or benefit in any way from it. Is the Minister convinced that the draft clause adheres properly to the principles of natural justice? It appears that there is no need for evidence to be provided. There is no provision for appeal on the part of a body so excluded. There is an air of secrecy about it that leads to a certain concern on our part.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, subsection (3B) sets out the circumstances in which the power of discretion may be exercised. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that a proposed distribution of funds to any person or group would directly or indirectly confer a benefit, including enhancement of reputation, on a proscribed organisation or on any organisation which in his opinion is concerned in terrorism in Northern Ireland or in promoting or encouraging it—the criteria for prosecution under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that this does not catch the spectator at the exhibition but the organisation behind it. My noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked me why there is no right of appeal. The information upon which the Secretary of State will base most of his decisions cannot be disclosed —and I think for the very obvious reasons that your Lordships will realise. An appeal would therefore have to he considered in a void. Provision of such a mechanism is not considered to be of any value. Bodies and persons have the normal right of a citizen
480
to make representations to government about the operation of their policies. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will give full consideration to any representations made to him, and there is always, scope for judicial review.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, raised some technical points in the second part of his question. If I may, I should like to write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Power to amend section 21]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Investment of Distribution Fund]:
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 14, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I should like to explain that its purpose is to find out what this subsection means. On 8th July the noble Viscount said:
"The funds will also be invested, with the interest on investments being returned as appropriate to the account for each distributive body".—[Official Report, 8/7/93; col. 1581.]
That is precisely what one would expect. But subsection (5), in so far as it is possible to understand it, does not seem to say that at all. What it seems to say is that the Secretary of State will have discretion to decide how the interest on the money invested on behalf of lottery beneficiaries is apportioned. It is rather similar to the point we discussed earlier on Clause 23 that the provision in the Bill does not correspond with the intention. I should be most grateful for an explanation.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord is concerned that too much power over the apportionment of funds is to be given to the Secretary of State. I hope I can assure him that this is not an excessive power over lottery funds. It is there rather in recognition of the fact that, in order for the distributors to benefit from the interest earned by amounts held for distribution, someone has to say how this is worked out. And the Secretary of State is the proper person for this role.
Clause 31 puts beyond doubt that interest or sums received on the realisation of investments can be retained and reinvested by the National Debt Commissioners. Under the original drafting of this provision it might have been impossible for the National Debt Commissioners to reinvest the interest earned on an investment without first passing it back to the distribution fund. That would clearly have been an accounting nonsense.
The National Debt Commissioners will make the best return for the distributors by investing funds in large blocks. But someone has to determine, or determine the principles which will govern, the extent to which the proceeds of that investment are attributable to sums invested out of money held for distribution by a particular body. When the proceeds are paid back into the investment fund of the National Debt Commissioners there may be several methods of apportioning them between distributing bodies. It will be a complex matter. For example, the valuation will need to take account of payments in; sums drawn

481
down; investments made; interest earned; investments realised—all of which may of course alter from day to day and for each body.
It is the intention that these sums should be allocated in line with monthly valuations of each distributing body's account. To set this in statute, however, would not allow the flexibility to change arrangements if this became appropriate; for example, if it were more efficient to do this in line with weekly valuations. While the National Debt Commissioners will undertake the work, the principles to which they work must be a matter for the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for the fund. This allocation of sums will then form the basis on which amounts paid back into the distribution fund are attributable to sums invested out of money held for distribution by a particular body.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, will be satisfied with that rather complicated explanation of what is a comparatively simple point, and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I cannot profess to have understood that. It is certainly extremely complicated. Perhaps I may ask a simple question. Does it mean in practice that the interest will be added to the appropriate account for each distributive body?
Viscount Astor: Yes, my Lords, it will be, and the interest earned on it will not be subject to taxation.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it seems an extraordinarily complicated way of arriving at a simple solution. But if it is the right solution, and it is on record in Hansard, I must be content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Accounts of the Secretary of State and National Debt Commissioners]:
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 14, line 14, at end insert:
("() Each account prepared under subsections (1) and (2) and each report prepared under subsection (3) shall be referred for scrutiny to a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that Parliament makes the maximum use of the report or the account that is to be produced annually for it to look at. It is to that end that we are suggesting that there should be a joint committee of both Houses to scrutinise the report when it arrives.
I was struck by the Government's new White Paper, which states:
"The aims of the new code of government information are to improve policy making and the democratic process by extending publication of facts and analyses which provide the basis for consideration of the proposed policy".
In other words, it is not simply the information but it is the analysis which makes the information useful. On these Benches we believe that scrutiny by a Select
482
Committee would achieve all those objectives. We must recognise that there are large sums involved, so thorough scrutiny is required.
When a similar amendment, which we subsequently withdrew, was discussed in Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that what was proposed would duplicate the work of the Public Accounts Committee and the Heritage Select Committee.
However, although, as we know, the Public Accounts Select Committee does sterling work, it finds out in retrospect what went wrong. What we are all concerned with here is a forward look to ensure that the national lottery is working as we would hope. It is not there to act as a safety net for disasters so much as to improve policy making. I can understand that the Government would prefer not to take that course, but I ask them to consider very carefully whether Parliament would not do better in its deliberations on the national lottery—a great enterprise on a massive scale—if there were such a committee. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Bill already contains a high degree of parliamentary scrutiny of the activities of the Secretary of State and all the distributive bodies, and indeed the regulator. This amendment calls for the report of the Secretary of State on the National Lottery Distribution Fund, and the report on the investments of the fund by the National Debt Commissioners to be scrutinised by a committee of both Houses.
That would duplicate the work of the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, which will already be able to scrutinise these essentially factual sets of accounts, as well as the Heritage Select Committee, which will have a proper role in examining all matters to do with the national lottery. If these bodies come up with any matters for concern in their deliberations, then the concerns will be able to be taken up in the usual way in both Houses. I may add that the reports are to be laid before both Houses, and I believe that that represents the right degree of scrutiny. It is far better to give Parliament the opportunity to act if it seems necessary rather than forcing Parliament to act whether or not it is necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asks that we look forward. That will be very difficult when I am not sure that his proposal would enable that in any event. The machinery for proper and effective parliamentary scrutiny already exists. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister think about this again? We are discussing something which is new and about which many of us have had a great many reservations and anxieties. There are policy issues to be taken into account. It is also a matter on which your Lordships' House has spent a great deal of time and acquired a great deal of knowledge. Scrutiny —preferably by a Select Committee of both Houses —would enable this very new kind of activity to be under a different type of supervision from simple control of accountancy and finance. Examining how

483
the whole scheme has been working out over a period of time is a different matter. It will call for a different kind of scrutiny from that which we normally get through the existing procedures.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the scrutiny which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, speaks about is there because the Heritage Select Committee of another place rightly scrutinises the national lottery and its effects. The noble Baroness is quite right when she speaks about the Public Accounts Committee, which examines factual sheets of accounts. If the noble Baroness is concerned about the overall scrutiny of the operation of the lottery, although I cannot speak for the Heritage Select Committee, I am absolutely sure that this is an area which it will look at in future. There is the opportunity for Parliament to act where it seems necessary and Parliament wishes to do so.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, it is fair to say that, although the noble Viscount has replied thoroughly, as he did at Committee stage, and according to his brief, it is a slightly disappointing reply. This Bill confers very extensive powers on the Secretary of State. At this stage it is a great national pig in a poke because one does not know quite how it is going to work. It is right that Parliament should have every opportunity in every way to look at the outcome of the first year or two of the lottery, and in particular to see what changes need to be made for the future. I do not believe that this is a matter which we wish to press this afternoon, but it may be something to which we shall need to return at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Importation and exportation restrictions]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 17, line 28, at end insert:
("() That section so far as it applies in the British Islands outside the United Kingdom shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 42. These amendments are consequential upon new Clause 45, which was inserted in the Bill in Committee. They repeal Section I of the Revenue Act 1898, which prohibits the importation of advertisements and notices relating to lotteries, so far as it applies to the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. The islands now rely on their own legislation to prohibit the promotion of foreign lotteries in their islands. The provisions of the 1898 Act are, therefore, no longer needed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Rules for lotteries]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 21, line 3, leave out ("10") and insert ("20").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to increase the maximum single prize allowed in a society lottery from £25,000 or 10 per cent. of potential ticket sales, whichever figure is the greater, to £25,000 or 20 per cent. of potential ticket sales—again, whichever figure is the greater. In another place the Government introduced an amendment which
484
increased the limit on the size of a single lottery from £250,000 to £500,000. At the same time they produced an amendment which changed the maximum single prize limit from £25,000 to £25,000, or 10 per cent. of potential ticket sales, whichever was the greater. Subsequently, in this House an amendment raising to £1 million the maximum ticket sales in a society was introduced by my noble friend.
These changes are most welcome not only by me but throughout the charity world. I trust that it will not seem ungracious of me to argue that there is one further change to be desired which would round off the whole small lottery package in a logical and coherent way. That would be achieved by this amendment.
We have heard it argued in this House that the size of the top prize in the national lottery will be a crucial factor in determining sales. If that is so for the national lottery, surely the same argument holds for the smaller lotteries run by charities, sports clubs, community groups, etc. If the alternative to the maximum top prize in a society lottery were increased from £25,000 or 10 per cent. to £25,000 or 20 per cent. of potential ticket sales, now that the Government have sensibly amended the Bill to allow maximum ticket sales of £1 million, that would result in a lop prize of £200,000 in a society lottery and would ensure that such lotteries remained attractive in the face of competition from the national lottery.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Ferrers said that the Government were not prepared to allow small lotteries which would compete and poach sales from a national lottery. It is fanciful to suggest that a charity lottery with a turnover of £l million and a 20 per cent. maximum prize, could really be regarded as being in competition with a national lottery with jackpots which could reach, with a rollover of three games, a figure which I understand to be £44 million.
The purpose of this amendment is to follow the logic of the Government's amendment in raising the maximum size of a society lottery by increasing the limit on the maximum single prize in order to ensure that charitable and other society lotteries are able to survive and prosper, given competition from a heavily promoted, multi-million-pound prize national lottery. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Swinfen said that in tabling this amendment he hoped he would not seem ungrateful for what has already been done. I do not think that he is ungrateful at all. He is rather like a little boy with sweets. He has had some sweets and would now like another one. That is understandable.
The amendment would allow a maximum prize of £200,000. That seems to me to go way beyond reasonable bounds for these lotteries. We have to remember that, under the present law, the maximum prize is just £12,000. For the maximum prize to go from £12,000 to £200,000 is, by any standards, a massive jump.
The charitable sector, about which my noble friend is rightly concerned, has shown itself to be very good horse traders. Under the present law, the maximum prize is £12,000. When this Bill was first introduced in

485
another place, the maximum prize was set at £25,000. In Committee in another place, we increased the maximum limit to £50,000. But that was not enough. No, we had to do a little more. In Committee last week we put the maximum up to £100,000. I suggest that that is a huge jump, and I really think that my noble friend has not much about which to complain when the maximum prize goes up from £12,000 to £100,000. But being a good horse-coper, he wants to try for a bit more. I suggest that there is a limit, and that we have reached it. I suggest to my noble friend Lord Swinfen that it is time to accept the figure of £100,000 as being sufficiently attractive to enable societies' lotteries to be marketed effectively.
Having listened to my noble friend's remarks last week, it could be—I make this observation only in case there is some anxiety or misapprehension in my noble friend's mind—that there is concern not only about the maximum prize, but about the size of the total prize fund. The Lotteries and Amusements Act already allows societies to use up to 50 per cent. of the proceeds of a lottery in prizes. That figure is on a par with what will happen with the national lottery. This Bill does not change the figure of 50 per cent. The figure of 10 per cent., which was introduced by Clause 51, limits only the size of the top prize. Therefore, in the case of a £1,000,000 lottery, the promoter may offer a top prize of £100,000 and many smaller prizes totalling £400,000. In total therefore £500,000 may be given away in prizes.
I hope that that clarifies the position for my noble friend if he remains in any doubt at all. I hope also that the explanation that I have given will lead him to believe that the figure of £100,000 is the correct one.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's comments about 50 per cent. I think that I got rather muddled and misled the Committee. I was concerned purely about the size of the top prize, not about the total amount available for prizes.
I must admit that I would prefer my noble friend to describe me as a "horse-trader" rather than a "horse-coper" because the latter gives the impression that one is trying to disguise a fault in a horse when selling it. I hope that I am an honest trader, not a coper. However, I shall take it that my noble friend was simply trying to vary his phraseology.
My noble friend will appreciate that, in a bargaining situation, one keeps trying to get the best deal that one can. I recognise that this afternoon I am not going to be able to persuade my noble friend to go any further irrespective of whether I am a coper or a trader. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Clause 55 [Removal of prohibition on the use of premises for the delivery of football pools coupons and stakes]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 23, line 40, after ("forecasts") insert ("(i)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 24, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. Again, we return to Part IV of the Bill which concerns the football pools. I made clear during consideration of the amendments in Committee that I very much welcomed the Government's decision to legalise the sale of pools coupons in shops. It is a significant step towards securing a fair and equal competitive framework between the pools and the lottery. Coupons have been sold from shops for many years, and an amendment to the law to recognise that fact is already well overdue. I hope therefore that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will see fit to use his powers of commencement to introduce the provisions of Clause 55 as soon as possible after Royal Assent, but we shall be coming to that issue shortly.
My amendments to Clause 55 are of considerable importance to the pools industry. As it stands, the clause limits the competitions that may be included on the pools coupons that are sold in shops to football matches played on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank holidays. However, the pools also run a limited number of competitions which are based on other sporting events, such as major horse races and cricket matches. Under the current provisions of the Bill, those competitions would be excluded from appearing on pools coupons sold in shops, but would be allowed to be used on pools coupons sold door-to-door. Such an absurd situation would mean that pools companies would be forced to bear the expense and inconvenience of having to produce two types of pools coupons, one to be sold in shops and another to cover the rest of the business.
That would be a particular problem for the smallest of the pools promoters, Zetters Pools, which counts on cricket pools for an important part of its summer business. It would be quite unfair to penalise that company by limiting the qualifying competition in the way that Clause 55 limits it at present. My amendment is tightly drawn and covers the sorts of competitions which the three main promoters have been running harmlessly for years. There is no risk of it being used by others to open up betting in unlicensed premises. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept this modest improvement to what is already a most helpful clause. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brabazon for having been good enough to come to see me to discuss with me his anxieties about the Bill. It made me understand them better, and I have now had time to consider them. He returns to the same amendments that we considered in Committee last week. I explained then why the Government did not feel able to accept them.
We have deliberately limited the change in the law so that it should allow only coupons for football competitions to be collected in newsagents and shops. As I explained last week, if we were to allow pools betting on other sports to take place in newsagents and other shops, it could potentially turn these shops into unlicensed and unregulated betting offices.
My noble friend referred to the fact that some people would be disadvantaged. If we were to allow

487
coupons for cricket competitions, for instance, to be collected in shops, it would be difficult to argue against snooker competitions, horseracing competitions or any other kind of competition. My noble friend referred to one company in particular, Zetters Pools. I can understand that company's difficulty, and I have sympathy with it; but my noble friend will realise that this is a public Bill. It is not a Bill in which it would be right to aid one particular pools company over another—and one which happens to run a cricket pool. Clause 55 is of course concerned with football pools coupons, and we feel that it ought to be left like that.
The Government have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view which my noble friend has put forward, but I am bound to say that we find it difficult to share his confidence. If one were to allow the collection of any pools coupons through ordinary retail outlets, that would create a new situation and could well lead to an expanded market for pools betting. I do not think that we can rely on the history of the past 70 years or say that what will happen in the future will be exactly the same as happened in the past. What happens in the future is a matter for the future and we must pass legislation to allow for that.
Even if my noble friend were right and there is nothing to fear from his amendments, the pools companies are not losing much by Clause 55 as it is at present drafted. They will, of course, on occasions have to print two different pools coupons; that is, one for use in shops and one for use elsewhere. I recognise that and that inconvenience and expense are involved. But the pools companies are gaining something. Clause 55 legalises a practice which is at present being conducted by a number of people but which is in fact illegal. What is being done now—harmless as some of your Lordships may feel, even socially beneficial as some of the broader minded of your Lordships may feel—is actually against the law.
What we are doing by Clause 55 is to legalise—to permit—pool betting to take place in shops; but for football pools only. The football pools account for some 98 per cent. or even more of the turnover of pools companies. Despite my noble friend's arguments I find it hard to believe that Clause 55 as drafted will cause them any real difficulties. However, I accept that it will cause the shoe to pinch in certain places.
In the circumstances, I think that it would be prudent for us to work with the existing definition of a qualifying competition.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the consideration which my noble friend has given to the amendment. I should have said in my opening remarks that I am grateful to him for seeing me on Wednesday to discuss these matters.
I am of course disappointed with his reply. He said that we cannot rely on the history of the past 70 years. I believe that one can do so. During those years a number of pools companies attempted to make competition in a number of different areas. Most of them were unsuccessful. There is only the example that I gave relating to cricket and a pools company which runs a competition on the Grand National. If it
488
were possible to run successful pools on other competitions I am sure that the pools companies would have done so.
We are left with the curious anomaly that pools companies will be able to continue to make competitions on cricket and horseracing if they wish and to sell the coupons door to door. However, they will not be allowed to sell them in shops. The danger that that might open up all kinds of other types of unlicensed betting in shops is not borne out by the facts. The pools companies are of course subject to tax at 37.5 per cent. That is considerably higher than the rate paid by the owners of betting shops taking bets on horse races. Therefore, they are unlikely to be able to compete in terms of tax.
I do not believe that there is any future in trying to take my amendment further, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
("Disapplication of s.1 of Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976
. Section 1 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (Illegality of Lotteries) shall cease to apply to the conduct of a football pool.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has been tabled again after discussion in Committee in the hope of seeking enlightenment. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, whose name also appears to the amendment, explained the problem clearly. For once, and it was unusual, the noble Earl, in reply, did not take the point that had been made. He suggested that the amendment involved altering the whole character of football pools. That was not the intention: the intention of the amendment was to be helpful.
The point is simple. I understand that a small minority of the people who take part in the pools attempt each week to exercise skill and judgment in working out whether Blackburn Rovers will defeat Sheffield United and whether Arsenal are likely to draw with Manchester United. They fill out their pools coupon accordingly. However, the vast majority—I understand that it is about 90 per cent.—simply put down the same numbers week after week. The question is whether that still means that the pools are a game of skill.
The doubt raised in one's mind stems from the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Singette Ltd. and others v. Martin in 1970, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. That was not a pools competition run by one of the big companies but it was a small affair. Lord Pearson said:
"For the 99 per cent in any week, who make no forecast but win prizes if their numbers happen to be lucky numbers for that week, the competition has the character of a lottery … Is the competition saved from being a lottery by the fact that the participants have in each week an option to substitute chosen numbers, involving a choice of teams, and on the average 1 per cent of them exercise the option in any week? In my opinion it is not saved from being a lottery by that fact'.
If there is a point—and I await the Government's explanation—it is not surprising that it was not

489
covered by the 1976 Act which made illegal lotteries other than those for which specific provision was made. That Act was introduced at short notice, despite the guns of a Private Member who had a Bill well on the way. It was a very rushed affair.
I know that the present pools operators are in no doubt that they are perfectly well within the law. No doubt they have taken good legal advice and I understand that the Home Office is satisfied that they are within the law. But the question remains: in view of the way that they are run, are they games of skill? If they are not, the matter can easily be put right. If they are, will the Minster explain what we have missed out in the chain of argument in leading us to doubt whether the pools as at present organised are not lotteries but games of skill? I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I support the amendment. We must go back in time and reflect upon the days when the football pools were growing up. In those days the Government's attitude towards lotteries was different beyond recognition from their attitude today. In those days lotteries were confined to village garden fêtes and the like. In those days the football pools companies, in order to escape from being regarded as lotteries, got themselves accepted as promoting games of skill. The competition was accepted as an exercise of skill whereby each week entrants would examine the matches to be played on the following Saturday, examine the form and reach their decision about the likely outcome.
Just as the Government's attitude to lotteries has changed out of all recognition, so has the conduct of the football pools companies. When I moved the amendment in Committee I had no means of knowing what percentage of punters were using the pools as a lottery, not sending in identical coupons each week, but, at the beginning of the season, sending in one coupon and stating, "Repeat this coupon every week of the season. I enclose my cheque for the total amount due". There is a difference there. In consequence of my efforts in Committee I received a letter from the managing director of Littlewoods Pools. I nearly fell down when I read:
"indeed 90 per cent. of them [his clients] tend to use the same numbers on the coupon week after week".
I believe that that is an increasing figure. Of course, it is very much in the interests of the pools to encourage those standing entries because the punter pays his money in advance, nothing has to be paid out for many weeks ahead and there is a tidy sum to be placed on deposit by the promoter in the interval.
It is like the betting shops. Every transaction is in cash. You can bet months ahead on the results of the big horse-races. Even today the bookmakers are advertising the odds on the results of next year's football championships. Therefore, all the money which is being paid over in the betting shops is available to be placed on deposit by the promoters for months until at some future date some of the money has to be returned to the lucky winners. Therefore, it is very much in the interests of the promoters to boost that 90 per cent. lottery aspect of the pools.
490
The only other reference that I shall make to the managing director's letter is that his second paragraph begins:
"Whilst understanding your wish to be helpful to the pools industry";
and his last paragraph reads:
"In view of the fact that you have made such a serious—and untrue—allegation against our company, I should be grateful if you would please place a correction on the record in the House of Lords at the first opportunity".
That is rather hard because I never mentioned his company from beginning to end. I take that rebuke with as much fortitude as I can command.
The argument of the pools promoters is that the pools are lawful because an opportunity is provided for the exercise of skill if the punters wish to use it, even though none of them, or hardly any of them, exercises that skill, taking advantage of the opportunity.
Lord Pearson's judgment in the House of Lords' case which disposes of that argument has been cited to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, knows a good deal about this matter, as one would expect. In Committee he stated that the pools companies:
"say that the character of the pools as a skill-based competition is an inconvenience. What they want is to market the pools not as a form of long-odds betting but as a lucky numbers game—a lottery. It is that proposition which we find difficult to accept".—[Official Report, 8/7/93; col. 1627.]
That is not a proposition; it is a fact. The football pools are now being used overwhelmingly as a lottery. Would it not be helpful, therefore, for the noble Earl to accept the amendment?
The amendment does not change anybody's life. It merely clothes with legality the unlawful procedures being adopted by the football pools by acknowledging that it does not matter that they are using the football pools as a lottery. That is all there is to it.
Of course, the Government could jump the other way if they chose. They could say, "Very well, let us go back to square one. Let the football pools be regarded as they originally were, only as a game of skill. Let there be no lottery element in it. Let the punters who wish to engage in a lottery go over to the national lottery. Never mind if a lot of people in Liverpool will be thrown out of work. That does not matter at all". I do not suppose that that would win the Government many votes and I do not believe that that would be the line that they would take. But why do they not take this line and accept the amendment, which merely legalises the unlawful practices which are being used at present by the football pools companies to everybody's satisfaction?
3.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will resist the amendment. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, tabled the amendment with the best of intentions but I do not believe that there is any need whatever for it.
The pools are indeed a game of skill. But the companies are obliged to offer their clients the

491
opportunity—and I emphasise the word "opportunity"—to use skill and judgment. Singette Ltd. and others v. Martin, to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred, makes that point.
However, that does not mean that pools clients must use skill. Indeed, as has been said, 90 per cent. tend to use the same numbers on the coupons week after week. That in no way challenges the legality of the competition or invalidates their entry into it. That is the principal reason why the pools and a numbers-based national lottery are such similar products, appealing overwhelmingly to the same market.
With regard to the pools standing forecast promotional literature, it is made clear to clients that they are free to change their forecasts at any time. They do not have to keep to the same numbers from the beginning of the season to the end of it. If they wish to make a different selection on different weeks, they can do just that.
I am advised, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, that those matters have been the subject of counsel's opinion and have been closely scrutinised by the Home Office. They passed the legality test in every respect and it is unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, sought to argue, as he did in Committee, that the pools companies have been flouting the law for years. Indeed, the reverse is the case. The companies have repeatedly sought to abide not only by the spirit but also by the letter of the law, especially as regards those aspects designed to encourage the stimulation of gambling or its proliferation and the need to protect the young and the vulnerable.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, of course the punters are given the opportunity to exercise their skill, but over 90 per cent. of them do not take up that opportunity. That led Lord Pearson, when expounding the House of Lords' decision, to say that that does not save the pools from becoming a lottery.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the fact is that the punters have an opportunity to make a selection. Whether or not they make it is up to them. But the opportunity is there.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, there was a time when I did the pools. I sent off a cheque for a complete season. I may have known at the time the name of the teams who were playing in the first four weeks of the season but certainly not beyond that. I do not recall being given the opportunity to change the forecast for draws, wins or whatever my forecast was. In my view it was a set of numbers put down with the hope that something would come up at the end of it.
It may be that this is a very fine point. I am sure that the pools promoters have taken legal advice and that they are making certain that they are lawful because they would not want to lose their income which must he fairly large. However, I think it would be wise to put the amendment in the Bill to ensure that the matter is clear, beyond doubt and settled once and for all. I support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that he sought enlightenment by way of the amendment. He looked to me to give him that enlightenment as he said that I had become confused—though they were not his exact words; he merely insinuated—when the amendment was moved in Committee. The amendment has caused a great deal of trouble. However, I shall try to enlighten the noble Lord.
I can enlighten him first by saying that the amendment would not change anything because Section 1 of the Lotteries and Amusement Act 1976 does not apply to the pools. Therefore, the amendment would achieve nothing. I turn now to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who was very dismayed because he had received a fairly pungent letter from the Managing Director of Littlewoods Pools who suggested that he had got it wrong. However, if it comforts the noble Lord, I can tell him that I also received a letter from the Managing Director stating that I, too, had the matter wrong. Of course, he was in fact correct.
The onus of the complaint that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made in moving his amendment was that the law is constantly flouted. He then proceeded. to make his case. My reply to him in Committee, which he quoted this afternoon, was as follows:
"The pools companies have argued that they have no intention of denying those who want to exercise skill the opportunity to do so … What they want is to market the pools, not as a form of long-odds betting but as a lucky numbers game—a lottery".—[Official Report, 8/7/93; col. 1627.]
Those are the words that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, quoted. My mistake was to say that that was. what the pools were saying, whereas I should have said that that was what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was saying. I wrongly thought that the amendment he tabled was on behalf of the pools company. Therefore, I was translating his remarks as being those of the pools company. I apologise unreservedly to the Managing Director of Littlewoods Pools for having got it wrong. I relate the remarks that I then made not to the pools company but to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
I turn now to the concern of the noble Lords, Lord Airedale, and Lord Allen of Abbeydale; namely, that people who habitually put down the same numbers week after week are not in fact operating any form of skill and are merely using the pools as a lottery. The football pools is a game in which skill and judgment can be exercised to improve the chance of winning. It depends on events which can be forecast with a greater or lesser degree of accuracy. To argue that many people do not exercise that skill does not alter the basis of the game. I could—no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, could if he was so brave—place a bet in horseracing that the No. 3 would win at four races during the coming week. The noble Lord might think that number three was a lucky number. If he did so, it would not alter the fact that, if he were to study form to help his judgment, he may well improve his chance of winning. That does not turn on-course or off-course betting into a game of pure chance.
My noble friend behind me—as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, did last week and the noble

493
Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, did this week—referred to the House of Lords' case of Singette Ltd v. Martin. It was held that there was an element of skill in the making of
"forecasts as to sporting or other events".
In his judgment, Lord Pearson pointed out that,
"a person who has no knowledge or experience in the relevant field of sporting or other events cannot use any skill in his forecasting, and even a person who has such knowledge or experience may choose not to make use of it on a particular occasion".
Therefore, we must look at the overall character of the competition and not at how it is played by any particular entrant. It is for the pools companies to satisfy themselves of the legality of their competitions. I understand that they have done so. I imagine that the advice that they have received rests on the fact that the football pool competitions which they promote are run on different lines to the competition which was conducted by Singette Limited and which was held to be unlawful. In that case, the pool promoter allocated numbers to those people who were taking part in the competition.
Of course, the reverse is the case with the football pools which are conducted today. It is the participant that chooses his or her own numbers. In making the selection, the opportunity is there to exercise skill. Even if the entrant chooses not to exercise skill, the pools promoter can hardly compel him or her to do so. With the pools, the opportunity is there to use the skill. Whether or not a person wishes to use it is a matter for him or her.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, what the noble Earl has omitted to refer to is that in the judgment of Lord Pearson he said that, even if 99 per cent. of the punters do not avail themselves of the opportunity to use the skill, it does not save the competition from being a lottery.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. However, I should point out that, although the noble Lord is a stickler for rules and procedure, he has now made three speeches on the amendment, whereas he should only have made one. However, we shall pass over that fact. The content of his amendment last week and that of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Allen, moved this week, together with the observations that he has just made, which are a repeat of those made in Committee, all go to insinuate that the noble Lord is saying that the football pools are a lottery and not a game of skill. I do not agree with him.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, that, in the light of what Lord Pearson said, is the crux of the matter. When 90 per cent. of those who take part exercise no degree of skill, I still find it difficult to follow the argument that the fact that there is an opportunity for those who wish to do so is enough to ensure that the whole thing is regarded as a game of skill. But, having made that point, I do not think that we can pursue it further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara: moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
("Control of broadcast advertisements as respects lotteries and pool betting competitions
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the codes drawn up under sections 9 and 93 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (which provide for the control of advertisements broadcast on television and on radio) shall not discriminate between advertisements promoting activities falling within different paragraphs of subsection (3).
(2) The code may impose different conditions in relation to such advertisements if—

(a) the conditions imposed in relation to an advertisement for an activity falling within one of those paragraphs would be inappropriate in relation to an activity falling within another of those paragraphs; and

(b) conditions are also imposed in relation to advertisements for that other activity which are of a broadly similar commercial effect.

(3) The activities referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) a lottery forming part of the National Lottery for the purposes of Part I of this Act;

(b) a lottery which is declared by section 3, 4 or 25(6) of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 not to be unlawful;

(c) a society's lottery or local lottery within the meaning of section 5 or 6 of that Act; and

(d) a competition conducted as part of the pool betting business carried on by a registered pool promoter (within the meaning of section 4 of the Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963) or by way of sponsored pool betting.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the above amendment also stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Holme of Cheltenham—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, whose contributions are much appreciated. However, before he proceeds with his speech, perhaps he can clarify one point.
I understand that on Second Reading the noble Lord declared an interest in that he is Deputy Chairman of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts which receives money from the pools. He very properly declared that interest. Are we to assume —it is to be hoped that we can—that that interest is an honorary one and that there is no pecuniary interest involved?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords; I did not say whether or not it was a pecuniary interest. I do receive a payment for being Deputy Chairman of the foundation. The reason that I am moving the amendment is because the income for the foundation (which is some £60 million a year, to which I referred on Second Reading and, again, in Committee) comes wholly from the pools companies. Therefore, it is in the interest of all the beneficiaries of the foundation that the pools should continue to have the income to give to the foundation. That is the reason why I support the amendments which are aimed to help the pools companies.
I can assure the noble Lord that I do not have any direct financial interest in the pools companies. My

495
interest is merely as Deputy Chairman for the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. I hope that that clarifies the position.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for those comments. I do not wish to pick on the noble Lord, as we all appreciate his contribution to this House. I just feel that if someone has a pecuniary interest it should be declared, as stated clearly in the Companion. I understand —as the noble Lord says—that he has an indirect pecuniary interest in this matter but I shall not pursue the matter further.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in so far as it is an indirect pecuniary interest, I declare it. As I have said, I am not paid directly by the football pool companies and, if I had been, I would have made that clear at a very early stage. However, I am deputy chairman of the foundation, which does good work in handing out £60 million a year, and my interest here is to try to maintain that income so that the football pool companies can continue to pay out that money to sport and the arts.
I return to the purpose of this proposed new clause. It seeks to allow the pools industry the same access to advertising on television and radio as will be allowed to the lottery. As many of your Lordships will know, I tabled this same new clause for consideration in Committee but, owing to the pressure of time, there was insufficient debate on what I consider to be a very important subject. I have therefore brought it back for further discussion.
As I indicated in Committee, the pools and the lottery are considered by the Government, by the National Heritage Select Committee and by the great majority of MPs in another place as directly equivalent forms of long odds, low stake gambling at the very softest end of the spectrum. Ministers have recognised the fact by introducing a number of amendments to the Bill which will give the pools the opportunity to compete more effectively and fairly with the lottery for their existing market.
The rolling over of prize money from one week to the next is one of those areas where the Government have seen fit to allow parity between pools and the lottery, and the legalisation of the sale of pools coupons in shops and the equalisation of the minimum age for the pools and the lottery are two more. What puzzles me, however—this is the primary motivation for my new clause—is why the Government have stopped at these three particular changes. If they recognise that the pools are equivalent forms of gambling, as they clearly have done, surely it is only right and proper that the industry is allowed to compete in the one area—television and radio advertising—where the market can so strongly be influenced in favour of one product at the expense of another.
During the very brief debate on this new clause in Committee, my noble friend gave two reasons for allowing the lottery to advertise on the broadcast media while denying the same facility to the pools. The first was that the pools are run for profit while the lottery is not. The second was that the lottery will be
496
run for good causes. My noble friend appeared to base these arguments on conclusions contained in the report of the Royal Commission on gambling. But that report is now 15 years old. A great deal has changed since then. Let us just look at the pools industry and the contribution it makes to good causes and the amount of tax it pays. In 1978 the Football Trust or, to be precise, its predecessor the Football Grounds Improvement Trust was in its infancy, the payments made to the game from the pools' Spot the Ball competition were running at under £1 million a year and pool betting duty was generating £103 million a year for the Chancellor.
The contribution this year from the pools to good causes—to football, other sport and the arts—which I have just referred to in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will exceed £100 million. The amount raised from pool betting duty will be more than £320 million. These contributions amount to almost half the turnover of the pools. The likely equivalent figure for the lottery, as we have heard on many occasions, will be no more than 35 per cent.; that is 12 per cent. tax and 23 per cent. for the five designated good causes. To talk of the pools being run for commercial gain is to ignore the fact that their profits are limited—in the case of Littlewoods, for example, to less than 3 per cent. on its turnover. That is a very modest amount by any standards.
The lottery will also, of course, be a source of profit for its operator. It will be interesting to see whether the successful company is content with as little as 3 per cent. Given the fact that the pools and the lottery occupy similar positions in the soft, long odds, low stake gambling market, and that they both possess great potential to contribute to good causes and in payments to the Treasury, there can be no case for discriminating against the pools on advertising. I feel it is necessary for your Lordships to recognise the importance of advertising on the broadcast media. If the lottery is allowed to advertise itself across the UK to millions of people, while the pools are not, that is giving an enormous competitive advantage to one at the expense of the other. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment, to which I have added my name. I must confess there has been a certain awkwardness as regards the pools in the past 10 minutes. We have heard about the animated correspondence to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, from the managing director of Littlewoods, and there has been a slight awkwardness over the auspices of this amendment. Therefore I believe a word ought to be said for the football pools. The football pools, above all, have the great merit that they are not run by the government of this country. They are a genuine entrepreneurial activity which was started, as we know, many decades ago. They have a great grip on the affections of many people in this country and are run in a fairly decent, ethical manner. The pools give harmless pleasure to many people and they remit a substantial part of their proceeds to charities, the arts and sport, which provide employment and provide money for the Exchequer. What is more, they are an existing institution in this country. I think it is right

497
that the Government should provide something which in other contexts is dear to their heart, and that is a level playing field.
I have already made it clear that I would much prefer it if the Government had not decided to go in for gambling but, as they have done so, I think it is quite wrong they should give themselves an advantage over those already established in the field. I hope that when the noble Earl replies he will bear in mind the merits of that level playing field the Government so often commend to us.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, successive governments have always drawn the line between gambling which is promoted for the explicit purpose of raising money to benefit good causes and gambling which is promoted fundamentally as a commercial exercise for commercial profit. I know that my noble friend Lord Brabazon jibs at that but it is a fact. That is the reason why the pools were set up in the first instance. As my noble friend has pointed out, the pools may give to different causes, but the fundamental reason for their establishment is commercial profit. That is distinct from the national lottery, which is being set up specifically to raise money for good causes.
Once that distinction is blurred and the line is crossed it would be very difficult to limit the change to the football pools alone. Last week we heard the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, put the case for the bingo industry being allowed to advertise and my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish put the case for the bookmaking and horse racing industries being allowed to advertise, too.
To allow all these different sectors of the gambling industry to have access to the broadcast media would, I think, be undesirable and it would be likely to lead to a considerable increase in the volume of gambling which takes place, with all the consequences which that may have for the incidence of excessive gambling. I would find it hard to advise your Lordships that that is a road down which we ought to travel.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon has sought to argue that the pools also raise considerable sums for good causes. That is perfectly true. For that matter the bingo industry raises considerable sums of money for charity, and the bookmaking industry supports both horse racing and greyhound racing to the tune of some £50 million. The essential point is that pool promoters are in the business in which they are in principally in order to make profits for their shareholders, whereas, with the national lottery and other lotteries, the overriding objective is to support good causes. I suggest that the distinction is clear and it ought to be maintained.
As I mentioned in Committee—my noble friend has referred to this today—the Royal Commission on gambling drew this distinction and suggested that it should be adhered to. My noble friend Lord Brabazon said that was 15 years ago. Fifteen years is not such a long period of time in life and in the pattern of gambling. We think that that argument is just as valid now as it was then and we feel that this distinction ought to be maintained.
4 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for the support which he was able to give to the amendment.
I should like to pick up a couple of points which my noble friend Lord Ferrers made in his reply. He spoke about the amount of money which benefits good causes. I assume that my noble friend, as a Minister, would regard the Treasury as a good cause. The amount of money which the pools presently give to good causes is approximately 47.5 per cent. whereas, as I said in my opening remarks, only 35 per cent. of the proceeds of the national lottery will go to the same good causes.
Secondly, I am not suggesting that it should be permitted to advertise horse-race betting or grey-hound racing. My argument is that the pools are the same type of long odds, low stake gambling as the national lottery will be. That is the parallel I tried to draw. I am not seeking to allow other forms of betting to be advertised.
My noble friend said that while it was 15 years since the Royal Commission reported, that was not such a long time ago. I did not seek to argue that it was a particularly long time ago. My point is that a great deal has changed in those 15 years in that the pools companies have supported, first, the Football Trust and, secondly, the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, of which I am deputy chairman. What has changed in the interim since the Royal Commission reported is that the football pools companies support those two good causes.
I can only take note of what my noble friend said in his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:>
("Announcement of game of skill or competition
. The codes drawn up under sections 9, 93 and 152 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (which provide for the control of advertisements broadcast on television and on radio and for broadcasting standards) shall set out appropriate standards for the information to be contained in any announcement of advertisement for, or programme concerning any competition, including inter alia lotteries and games of skill.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to two printing errors on the Marshalled List. The word "code" on the first line should clearly be "codes", and the amendment belongs after Clause 54 of the Bill.
The amendment has its genesis in an amendment which I put down at Committee stage but which I did not speak to because of the late hour at which it came up. It was a long, complicated and technical amendment seeking to rectify a limited and specific problem. My noble friend Lord Astor was kind enough to write to me after the Committee stage pointing out that the amendment was too narrow to achieve the effect that I wanted and too long and complicated to be operable. Therefore, I have replaced it with this much wider and, I hope, less complicated amendment.
The amendment covers quite a wide spread. It invites the existing bodies for the control of advertising and broadcasting standards to set up regulations which will govern the advertising of the lottery and all other competitions. In addressing the amendment I shall confine myself to the particular problem that I wish to remedy, because I would be entirely easy if the Government, accepting my argument, chose to remedy the problem in a different fashion.
I seek to address the abuse of reputable media to promote facile games of skill using premium rate telephone lines for the benefit of commercial concerns and offering a derisory return to punters. The running of such competitions has become widespread. I have personally seen or heard them on ITV, the BBC and Classic FM. My objection to them is that they abuse the public's trust in the regulated broadcast media in order to make excessive profits at the expense of the public.
A typical game might run as follows: "Now here is a bit of fun for those of you who think they know their geography. We are offering a prize of a holiday for two in the South of France worth £500 for the winning entry. You can enter as many times as you like to increase your chances of winning. We will choose a winner from those entrants who can correctly tell us the name of the river which flows through Liverpool. Is it (a) the Mersey, (b) the Thames or (c) the Severn? Ring now on 0891 etc." That is a real example, although the exact words are mine.
When the punter rings up the question may be repeated, slowly, to ensure that the call runs into the second or third minute. If we assume that 4,000 punters ring—a fairly usual response—at a cost of £1 a time, the return to the average punter is 12.5 per cent. Noble Lords will be aware that if the punter knew that he would not enter, but he trusts the BBC not to trick him in this way.
The formula is, of course, an old-established one. A typical national Conservative Party raffle with a prize of £1,000 is just such an example. But when competitions are for a good cause, low rates of return are expected and accepted. It is just a bit of fun for the giving. But telephone lotteries now being run are for commercial gain—a quite different thing.
All forms of gambling that I can think of enable the punter, either immediately or easily, to find out what his likely rate of return is. There are various laws which make sure that he can do so. I am unaware of any other form of public gambling where the participant can have no idea of his likely rate of return.
Simply stated, my case is that we should be able to trust the broadcasters, within reason—and many of us do—that in promoting these games they are abusing that trust, and that they should be discouraged from doing so. I hope that my noble friend agrees and that a suitable clause may sit easily in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, on reading the amendment I did not realise the point which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, intended to make. I am so glad that he made the point. My small son is for ever trying to win
500
me holidays in the South of France by phoning up and saying what river runs through Liverpool. I had not realised the abuse to which my family was subject until the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed it out.
There has been a great deal of talk today about the advertising of the lottery. I hope that the advertising agency which gets this contract—and a whopping great contract it will be—will represent it simply and fairly and will say that people have a reasonable chance of winning a small prize and an almost inconceivable chance of winning a big one, and will then mention the five good causes which will receive the money which we put in but with which we do not win, without being particular about it. If it does that and succeeds in doing it both cheerfully and stylishly. I for one shall be very happy.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that any of your Lordships would wish to promote an amendment which would in any way prevent the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, from winning a holiday in the South of France. I am sure that we would all wish him a very nice holiday this summer, even if he does not win one and has to pay for it.
I understand that my noble friend is eager to see the rate of return stated in any advertisement for such games of skill and other competitions. However, I doubt whether that particular information is of much relevance to the participants. The information which is relevant is the cost of entry and the prize on offer. It is the latter which provides the inducement to take part. To my knowledge the cost of entry is no more than the cost of a letter or telephone call. Where a premium rate telephone number is used, the television or radio station is already obliged to state the cost of the call per minute. As for the prize, again to my knowledge it is clearly stated. In those circumstances, I would have to be persuaded that television viewers and radio listeners are being seriously misled.
I have to point out again to my noble friend that his amendment would not achieve his objectives. It would apply to very few competitions. The amendment covers only those competitions which are featured in paid advertisements and therefore covered by the advertising codes of the broadcasting authorities. Those competitions staged by television and radio stations would be excluded.
The advertising codes of both the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority already contain rules relating to advertisements for competitions. In each case the codes require that advertisements may be accepted only if arrangements have been made for prospective entrants to obtain printed details of the conditions governing the competitions, the announcement of the result and the distribution of prizes. The ITC code also requires that any special conditions governing entry to the competition must be given in the advertisement. The punter knows the cost of entry and the prize on offer. Furthermore, the Radio Authority codes already require printed details of a competition to be available to participants. With that explanation, I do not believe that my noble friend's amendment is necessary.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving my arguments consideration. I am sorry that he does not agree with them. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 27, line 13, after ("27") insert (",28").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, because the hour was so late, at Committee stage I did not move Amendment No. 130. However, I asked that my noble friend would reflect upon the powers of the Secretary of State under what is now Clause 28 of the Bill. I hope that in the intervening week he has found time so to reflect.
The power provided to the Secretary of State in Clause 28 is considerable. He may substitute another body for one of the distributing bodies specified in Clause 22. He may add another body to the list set out there. He may remove any one of those bodies from the list. He may change the relative share of the proceeds which they are able to distribute from that set out in Clause 22.
Those are significant powers. They can be exercised without the Secretary of State necessarily having to explain his use of them either to this House or to the other place. It would depend on the matter being raised by a Member of either place so that the Secretary of State was obliged to respond. I contend that those powers are such that the Secretary of State ought not to be able to exercise them without the express approval of Parliament.
When an amendment providing for Clause 25 to be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure was debated in Committee in another place, the then Minister, Mr. Key, argued that the two clauses in the Bill which are subject to that procedure—they are now Clauses 27 and 29—go to the heart of the Bill and its purpose; that is, to raise money for good causes. Clause 27 gives the Secretary of State power to change the percentages allocated to the different sectors. Clause 29 makes it possible for the Secretary of State to extend the life of the Millennium Fund.
Those are indeed vital powers for the exercise of which the approval of Parliament ought to be sought. However, I argue that the powers in Clause 28 go quite as close to the heart of the Bill as do those in Clauses 27 and 29. They are not merely operational powers—a distinction made by Mr. Key in the debate in another place. In passing the legislation, we know exactly which are the bodies we have approved as being responsible for the distribution of the proceeds of the national lottery.
The approval of Parliament should be sought before changes affecting those bodies and the percentages are made. If the Secretary of State's case is good, he will have no difficulty in securing that approval. However, his powers under the clause should be subject to the safeguard of a guaranteed examination by Parliament. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the effect of Clause 28 is to allow the Secretary of State by order to change the proportions going to the bodies listed in Clause 22.
502
The provision would be used only where absolutely necessary—for example, where it was patently necessary for the good of the sector concerned, or, for example, if the Scottish or Welsh arts councils were set up and therefore it was necessary to change the Arts Council so that those parts could be included. At present, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, the Arts Council covers the whole country.
The House of Lords Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee considered the provisions of the Bill and noted the Minister's undertakings on the use of the power in the clause. The committee pointed out that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments will be able to refer to those assurances and will be able to judge whether an order proposed to be made is unusual or unexpected use of the powers in the clause and will be able to compare them. In the light of that, the Lords committee made no objection.
If any action were taken under this clause, there would be an opportunity for the measures to be debated. I should remind my noble friend that even if the Secretary of State uses Clause 28 to alter the proportions set out in Clause 22, under Clause 27 (2) (a) no proportion going to any of the five good causes, or four, after the Millennium Commission ceases to receive funding at the end of the year 2000, can fall below 5 per cent. To reduce the 5 per cent. further or, for example, to introduce a totally new category would require primary legislation; that is, a new Bill. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thought, when my noble friend started responding to the amendment, that he was putting the argument for it. I still think that the amendment would give the Secretary of State an opportunity to come forward and explain himself and that he would be delighted to do so because it would probably be good news that he was giving to Parliament. However, as it is fairly late, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 62 [Northern Ireland]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 27, line 35, after ("Lottery") insert ("that are not excepted matters for the purposes of that Act").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are technical amendments related to Amendment No. 18 to which I have already spoken. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 27, line 35, leave out ("the purposes of that Act") and insert ("those purposes").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 64 [Commencement]:
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 27, line 40, at beginning insert:
("(1) Subject to subsection (2) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment and, with the leave of the House, to discuss with it Amendment No. 35. I begin by

503
congratulating the Minister on taking this opportunity for raising the limits on individual lotteries. That has been much welcomed and appreciated throughout the charitable field.
The purpose of the two amendments is to bring into operation at Royal Assent to the Bill those provisions which amend the legislation relating to existing lotteries governed by the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. If achieved, that would enable many charities already registered with the Gaming Board to raise revenues from lotteries at the earliest possible moment.
I can see the Government's problem in that at present, as I understand it, it is the scheme which is registered with the Gaming Board and time will be needed to register the society. There must be a period of consultation covering the changes to the regulations; so I understand the Government's dilemma.
However, even accepting that, there is a problem for certain societies. I have in mind the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which is the largest conservation charity in Europe. Large societies already registered with the Gaming Board are ready to participate in the lottery under the new limits at the earliest possible time, but they will be delayed, as I understand it, by waiting for hundreds of others to register. So they will lose the opportunity to run early lotteries and potentially lose several million pounds.
I said that I recognise the Government's difficulties in the area, but I wonder whether the Minister can help us. Is he able to say something favourable about how the process could be speeded up; in other words, that the new limits apply to societies as soon as they register, without waiting for every other charity to be registered? This is a probing amendment to see whether the Minister can help in any way. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 34 and 36 have been grouped with this amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue has moved, although they address a completely different issue. Nevertheless, both relate to the issue of the commencement date. We have already had an opportunity to consider my amendments in Committee, but time was pressing hard on us at that late hour on the Thursday evening, as it presses on us at twenty-past four on a Friday afternoon. I shall be brief, and return to the issue.
First, it is worth reminding noble Lords of the words of my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office during the consideration of the Bill in another place. He said:
"By authorising the delivery of completed coupons and stake money only, but not the paying out of prize money, the new clause does no more than legalise existing practice".
These words could not be clearer. The new clause does no more than legalise existing practice. The Minister accepts that the provisions of Clause 55 have no purpose other than to give legal recognition to a practice that has been going on for years. There are no other hidden nuances. It is simply a case of allowing common sense to prevail.
504
As that is the case, why can we not have what is an existing practice legalised as soon as possible, rather than having to wait until the lottery is—in the words of my noble friend the Minister of State—up and running. After all, this is not an issue which has anything to do with the lottery. It is all about bringing the letter of the law into line with current practice.
Many thousands of shopkeepers across the country will still continue to sell pools coupons in shops between now and the start of the lottery. Indeed, I suspect that it is quite possible that a number of noble Lords may take advantage of that facility between now and then. Technically, of course, that would be breaking the law. But in reality one would simply be indulging in a highly popular pastime that has formed part of the British way of life for many years. It is a quite absurd situation which my amendment would easily resolve.
In Committee, my noble friend resisted this amendment on the grounds that to allow an early commencement of the shops provision would give the pools an unfair competitive advantage over the national lottery. I have some sympathy with my noble friend's view. But I believe that there is a way round this problem.
As my aim is simply to legalise the existing arrangements in the 20,000 or so shops where pools coupons are distributed and collected, the answer is for my noble friend to obtain an undertaking from the pools companies that they will not seek to extend their market into types of shops or other premises other than the confectioners, tobacconists and newsagents sector where the coupons are predominantly found. I know, for example, that the managing director of Littlewoods Pools has already offered such an undertaking in writing to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in respect of licensed betting offices. I believe that he and representatives of the other two main pools companies would be prepared to come to an agreement with the Government on a somewhat wider basis. I am looking for a sensible way forward here. I hope that my noble friend will be able to respond helpfully and constructively.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I put down two amendments on this subject at Committee stage. But it was then so late that I managed not to move them in one sentence. However, I return to the matter very briefly today simply because these amendments and the timing of this Act worry me considerably. I am all in favour of a level playing field. But one cannot have a level playing field on to which one invites one of the teams before the other. It seems to me that there is a serious danger that the national lottery might be overwhelmed by clever and ingenious people in gambling or other forms of commerce before it gets up and running and has a proper start. Not only should the playing field be level, but the start should be like any good horse-race, with everybody in line at the same moment. I hope that the Government will reassure me that that is their intention as well.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brabazon and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, have quite reasonably and properly returned to the subject

505
that was discussed for a very short period of time late at night last week. I had the advantage of speaking to my noble friend Lord Brabazon about these matters. We have therefore been able to give some further consideration to them. I do not know that I can be too helpful to my noble friend, although I always long to be.
It is the Government's intention to bring all the provisions of Part IV of the Bill, including Clause 55, into force as soon as, but not before, the national lottery is set up and is operational. Perhaps I may deal with my noble friend's amendment first and then come to that of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, even though he spoke first.
By deferring the commencement of Part IV, we will ensure that football pools do not have a head start on the national lottery. We shall be letting, as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said, all the horses, as it were, out of the starting gate at the same time. That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. My noble friend Lord Brabazon suggested that there is no danger of unfair competition and that this just makes legal that which is already happening, whereby newsagents and other small shops collect completed pools coupons as stakes for forwarding to the pools promoter. I find it difficult to accept the argument that because the Government try to legalise a practice which is at present carried out but which is illegal, the people benefiting from the changes should have the advantage of a double benefit by permitting their legality to come into force in advance of that of their competitors.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon, in a most charming way, almost as an aside, said that all we are doing is putting the letter of the law into current practice. That is a most astonishing argument. If he pursued that argument, he would say, "Let us change the speed limit of motorways to 90 miles per hour because that is the speed at which most people seem to drive". The fact that the law is being broken apparently would have no effect.
What is clear is that Clause 55 offers the pools companies new opportunities. That is what they campaigned for. We recognised the strength of their arguments and acceded to them. They have had their slice of cake. Now it seems they want the icing and the candles as well. I do not blame them for that. We all have heady aspirations. But I remind the House of what Vernons and Zetters said in a report published as recently as 1991. My noble friend Lord Brabazon will agree that that is not ages ago and not like the Royal Commission which took place 15 years ago; it was only the other day. The report said:
"By legalising collection of pools coupons within shops, we believe this would create a level playing field"—
that charming word which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, dislikes and which the noble Baroness, Lady David, dislikes and so too do I—
"on which Vernons and Zetters can compete with Littlewoods through creative use of point-of-sale materials, local advertising and a range of sales promotion ideas".
So that is what they want to do.
If Clause 55 were brought into force one month after Royal Assent, the pools companies could proceed to adopt the creative use of point-of-sale
506
materials, local advertising and a range of sales promotion ideas. They would then have a number of months' headstart over the national lottery. During that time they could organise and greatly expand their retail network before the lottery was even in existence, let alone being in a position to compete. In schoolboy's language: that is not fair.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said that if we are to have a level playing field, for goodness' sake let us be sure that all the people playing on it get on to the field at the same time. I agree with him.
We now come to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. He asked whether I could help him. I shall do my best. But sometimes when I try to help noble Lords they do not always realise what I am doing. I sympathise and understand the thinking behind his amendments. We have every intention of bringing the provisions of Part III of the Bill into force as soon as possible so that charities and others can benefit from the new monetary limits on prizes and proceeds. But there are practical reasons why that cannot be done as quickly as the noble Lord and others would like.
There are essentially two reasons why there has to be a delay in bringing into force the provisions of Part III relating to societies' and local authorities' lotteries. The first is that there are essential consequential changes which have to be made to the Lotteries Regulation 1977. The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 requires us to consult the Gaming Board and local authority associations before any fresh regulations are made. Those consultations are bound to take a little time. They cannot be rushed.
The second reason is that the Gaming Board will need time to register societies under the new Schedule lA to the 1976 Act. One of the changes made by Part III of the Bill is to simplify the registration arrangements for societies which promote larger lotteries. At present those societies must register themselves with a local authority and also they must register their lottery schemes with the Gaming Board. That dual registration system is cumbersome and unnecessary.
The Bill therefore provides that societies which are promoting larger lotteries will register solely with the Gaming Board. It will be necessary, as part of the transition from the old to the new system, for those societies which already have lottery schemes registered with the board to re-register under the new schedule. That will be a relatively quick and straightforward process for the societies concerned. But there are possibly up to 1,000 societies which might need to re-register, and the whole exercise therefore will necessarily take some time. It would be fairest for all the societies to benefit from the new limits at the same time and therefore arrive on the same playing field together. We believe therefore that all societies should be registered before bringing the provisions of Part III into force.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked whether or not I could give an idea of the timescale. I cannot. I can, however, assure him that both the Home Office

507
and the gaming board will do their best to keep any delay in bringing Part III into force to a minimum. However, there is bound to be some delay.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Obviously there will be delays. I hope that the department will do everything to minimise them. It will be unfortunate for those lotteries which are up and ready to go if they have to sit around clicking their heels while hundreds of others are processed. I thank the Minister for his affirmation of good faith and we look forward to seeing how long it takes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [The National Lottery Charities Board]:
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 35, line 36, leave out ("four") and insert ("five").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 38 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39. The purpose of the amendments is to secure confirmation that UK charities which work overseas will be able to benefit from the national lottery, and specifically that the National Lottery Charities Board should be restructured in such a way as to ensure that overseas charities are rewarded.
I do not wish to delay the House at this late hour. I know that the Minister wrote a letter dated 13th July. I wish to ask him to state to the House the contents of that letter. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, due to time we were not able to debate this amendment at Committee stage. I am grateful therefore for the opportunity to speak to it. We are absolutely clear that the National Lottery Charities Board will have the power to make grants available to bodies working overseas. We have every expectation that it will wish to do so. The board will also have the power to set up one or more committees to deal with overseas applications; perhaps a specific one to consider emergency aid and another to appraise proposals for development or educational work. How the board organises its structure to deal with different types of charity work will be for it to decide.
I am sure that the charities board will wish to concern itself not only with charities in countries with which we have close links such as those of the Commonwealth, but also other parts of the world where it feels there is an apparent need. There is no need for that to be explicit in primary legislation. There is no doubt about the powers or the policy. With that assurance I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's statement in his letter that there is no doubt about the purpose, the policy or the powers, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39 to 41 not moved.]
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 55, line 10, at end insert:

("61 & 62 Vict. c. 46.

The Revenue Act 1898

Section I so far as it applies in the British Islands outside the United Kingdom and section 6(2).")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) (Amendment) Measure
4.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans The Lord Bishop of St. Albans rose to move, That this House do direct that in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this legislation, in the form in which it is before the House today, was something which the General Synod was able to accept as entirely non-controversial—unlike some other legislation which has been going through—so much so that, in the final stage of its progress through the Synod, there was not a single vote against it. It is also a significant and much needed piece of legislation from the Church's point of view, and your Lordships might therefore find it rather surprising if I go on to say that it will need to be used only in rare cases—indeed, the fewer cases where it as needed, the better pleased we will be.
Despite the hour, I feel I owe it to your Lordships to explain briefly the nature of the Measure and the amendments it contains. It deals with situations where a major problem arises in a parish, not because of grave misconduct on the part of the rector or vicar—because the Church has its own disciplinary procedures for dealing with those—but because either the rector or vicar has a serious health problem and may need to be removed from office, or there is a serious breakdown in the relationship between him and the parishioners. In that type of case, where it is clear that the work of the Church cannot go forward effectively, the Church needs to be able to take some action to solve the problem, and the Synod attempted to set up a mechanism for doing so by a Measure in 1977. That laid down a carefully worked-out procedure and provided for a judicial body to investigate the situation and to recommend to the bishop what should be done to resolve it, with the possibility, as a very last resort, of recommending that the rector or vicar should be required to leave the parish, even though he held the freehold of the living, though with generous compensation.
Unfortunately, that 1977 Measure, like many new attempts to tackle problems which have not been dealt with before, was found to have some drawbacks. Some of the procedures It laid down were not entirely satisfactory, and the whole question of compensation also created serious difliculties. Above all, the 1977 Measure did not lay sufficient emphasis on trying to

509
achieve a reconciliation between the rector or vicar and his parishioners in cases where the relationship between them had broken down, and that is the first thing the Measure now before your Lordships sets out to do.
In particular, it provides that before the legal process is set in motion there should be a carefully structured reconciliation process, following a code of practice laid down by the House of Bishops. The bishops have already published a draft of the code, which is set out in the Ecclesiastical Committee's report but which the bishops have now expanded a little to take on board some suggestions from the Ecclesiastical Committee itself; among other things the code provides for a third party who is acceptable to both "sides" to act as a conciliator, and for the parties to have a trial period of working together again where that seems desirable.
The Measure also improves the procedure under the original 1977 legislation in a number of important ways. I will not weary your Lordships with describing all of them; but one example is that in ill-health cases the tribunal will now have power to direct that the rector or vicar concerned should have a proper medical examination, and can draw the appropriate inferences if he refuses to have one. Another example is that in cases of the breakdown of the relationship between the rector or vicar and the parishioners it will now be possible to withdraw the proceedings even after they have started, and we will no longer have the problem which exists under the 1977 Measure that once the procedure has reached a certain stage the only thing which can stop it is the rector or vicar resigning.
These are all very helpful and positive changes. However, I think it is only right that I should deal briefly with three points which concerned a small minority of the members of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The first is that a few members of the committee thought we should change to a system more like the law on unfair dismissal which applies in secular employment, and that the clergy should have clear performance criteria, with dismissal as the penalty if they failed to meet up to those requirements. It is most important that the Church should do everything it can to help and encourage the clergy to work effectively, and that we should not hesitate to adopt ways of doing that which are used in the secular world where they would be helpful. We are already making progress on that front—for example, a group has already been set up to begin considering the terms and conditions of service which apply to the clergy.
But the work of a clergyman in a parish is a special kind of calling which takes special qualities and needs the active co-operation and support of parishioners. The parishioners themselves are not employees of the Church but partners with the clergy in carrying forward the Church's mission. Cases where the relationship breaks down are not on all fours with cases where an employee is deserving of dismissal. What we are talking about in the Church is human relationships, and what is needed is a procedure for
510
putting the relationship back on its feet and only as a very last resort putting it to an end and requiring that the clergyman concerned leave the parish.
A few members of the Ecclesiastical Committee were also concerned about the compensation provisions in the Measure. In cases of ill-health where a rector or vicar has to resign, he receives the same pension and other benefits as any other member of the clergy who retires because of ill health. This Measure does not change that. But the original Measure also provided for very generous compensation in cases of a serious breakdown of relationships—so generous in fact that many dioceses could not afford it and the clergy who received it had no incentive to try to find any other work. That was clearly not a satisfactory situation, because it is inconceivable that a clergyman would be removed from office under the 1977 Measure on the grounds of a breakdown of the relationship between him and his parishioners unless there was some degree of fault or failure on his part.
What the new Measure and the amendment proposed today set out to do is to strike a balance between treating the rector or vicar concerned justly and fairly and doing what is reasonable in the interests of the Church and of the lay people who have to contribute to the Church's finances. It has done that by providing that the rector or vicar and the diocese are free to agree whatever compensation terms they wish—and we would certainly wish to encourage dioceses to be generous where the clergyman concerned has special needs, for example, for retraining—but that if they fail to agree he should receive compensation in the form of reasonable financial support and help with housing costs for a reasonable period. The details of that are spelt out in Schedule 2 to the Measure. The clergy in the Synod, as well as all the other members, accepted that that did provide a reasonable level of compensation and struck a proper balance between the interests of all concerned, and a large majority of the members of the Ecclesiastical Committee agreed with them.
Finally, a few members of the Ecclesiastical Committee felt that the new definition of a serious breakdown of a pastoral relationship which appears in the new Measure was too wide and would leave almost any rector or vicar open to attack. In point of fact, the original 1977 legislation contained no definition at all, but simply spoke about "serious breakdown", which made it very difficult to interpret. What the Synod has done now is to tighten that up considerably by providing that the breakdown of relationship provisions are to apply only,
"where the situation is impeding the whole mission of the Church of England in the parish".
That means, for example, that the legislation cannot be invoked for a trivial dispute or for a disagreement between the rector or vicar and a small minority of the parishioners.
The new definition also highlights the real purpose of the Measure, which is to further the mission of the Church of England in the parishes. As I have already explained, the Synod wholeheartedly accepted it as something which would help to achieve that aim, and I would invite your Lordships to do the same.
Moved, That this House do direct that in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of St. Albans.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel at a quarter-to-five in the afternoon, I apologise on his behalf. I believe that he has also made this known. As noble Lords are aware, he takes a deep interest in these matters and has authorised me to say that he has not only no objection to the Measure but warmly supports it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I was strongly in support of the majority view of the changes suggested by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of St Albans. I hope that they will be accepted without any further quibble.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Welsh Language Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter before five o'clock.

  SECURITY SERVICE
  SECURITY SERVICE
  NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM: PROCEEDS OF SALE OF WORKS
  NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM: PROCEEDS OF SALE OF WORKS
  STUDENT UNION REFORM: CONSULTATION PERIOD
  STUDENT UNION REFORM: CONSULTATION PERIOD