Sitting of 19 April 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    National Vocational Qualifications
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what oversight his Department has of the validation policies of organisations that examine and award national vocational qualifications.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The Department sets a framework for the National Council of Vocational Qualifications, which in turn oversees quality assurance arrangements for national vocational qualifications. I shall write to the hon. Member with fuller details of our procedures than can be given in a parliamentary reply.
    Mr. Ainger: The Minister will be aware that a number of large companies, including Ford Motor Co. Ltd. in the UK, have expressed their concern about a fall in standards —in their opinion—of training and vocational qualifications. She will also be aware that the National Council of Vocational Qualifications is currently conducting an investigation into the fraudulent award of national vocational qualifications and general national vocational qualifications. Bearing in mind those serious matters, will the Minister conduct an independent inquiry into those issues, especially into the bonuses paid to colleges and training agencies on a pass basis rather than a quality of training basis?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. Procedures are already in place that require our training and enterprise councils to set in being audit trails which should track and monitor carefully the quality of training that is provided. The hon. Gentleman slightly understates—indeed, he considerably understates—the amount of confidence that employers show in NVQs. Of all employers, 44 per cent. are already users and 96 per cent. say that they are either experiencing benefits or expect to experience benefits as a result of NVQs. I share the hon. Gentleman's wish to get NVQs right, but I believe that we have made great strides towards that goal and I should not like an odd case to detract from that.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is widespread interest in the whole system of NVQs across the world in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and many others? Those countries feel great anxiety that if they go down the same road as Britain, which they are sorely
    724
    tempted to do and which would provide a great export opportunity for this country's skills, there should be a guarantee of consistency of standards.
    Miss Widdecombe: There is a general shared perception that we should ensure that standards are consistent, nationally recognised, continually updated and widely respected.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Doe the Minister agree that the whole credibility of NVQs is on the line when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has revealed in early-day motions 1016 and 1017, we know that there has been systematic abuse of the system of payment? If the Minister were honest she would admit to the House that I have written asking her to look into the question of fraud in output funding and NVQs, but that she has done nothing. Does she accept that the basis of output funding and the lack of credible audit procedures allow that systematic fraud to take place?
    Miss Widdecombe: No, I do not accept that there is systematic or widespread fraud. When allegations of particular frauds are made, they are carefully investigated. I have written to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who has raised some serious issues in early-day motions, and I have asked him to supply me with the evidence behind those issues so that they may be properly investigated.

    Part-time Workers
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the proportion of workers in part-time employment.
    Miss Widdecombe: In December 1993, 28 per cent. of the work force in employment in Great Britain worked part time.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the 1970s the number of part-time workers as a proportion of the overall total increased by 6 per cent. compared with only 5 per cent. in the 1980s? Is she also aware that since 1979 soaring manufacturing productivity has boosted average net weekly take-home pay by no less than £80 a week, compared with stagnant earnings and stagnant productivity between 1974 and 1979? Does that not graphically illustrate that it was the Labour Government who presided over the sweatshop economy and that the only Mickey Mouse jobs were those that they gave to their buddies in local government?
    Miss Widdecombe: It amply demonstrates to the House that it is the Conservative party which has presided over a rise in take-home pay for people on average earnings. What is important to those people is what is left in their pockets for them to exercise choice over. The Government have consistently stood by that, while the Labour party, which has called for expenditure on all and made promises on everything, has never delivered when in office.
    Ms Eagle: When does the Department intend to respond to the Law Lords' judgment which established that the current discrimination against part-time workers in employment law must be ended? When shall we get legislation to bring the discrimination to an end and put things right?
    Miss Widdecombe: Distinctions between part-time and full-time workers and their rights were maintained by Labour Governments, so the Law Lords' ruling applies just as much to what Labour Governments did as to what we do. We shall respond at such time as our deliberations are complete.
    Mr. Dunn: Is not part-time work one of the greatest single benefits to those women who wish to combine economic work with family responsibilities?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is indeed, and I am rather saddened that the Opposition always try to sell part-time work as some sort of second-rate option. We know from the labour force survey that it is the preferred option of those who work part time. Less than 14 per cent. of those who do so would work full time if they had the opportunity to do so. I should like to hear Opposition Members welcome that.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister aware that the proportion of part-time workers is likely to grow if we have any more announcements like the one made this morning by the London International Group about manufacturing job losses in Dundee, London and south Wales, with the switch of production to Malaysia where they will not buy British goods? When will the Government recognise that the deregulated marketplace that they advocate is a one-way street to disinvestment and job losses in this country and to exploitation and slave labour in the third world?
    Miss Widdecombe: The one-way street that appears to be operating is the vastly increased inward investment to the United Kingdom as a result of the Government's policies.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the employment of people with disabilities.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): Many, especially from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the example set by his Department is followed by other Government Departments and by bodies throughout the public sector? Will he put his personal imprint on the code of good practice? Will he appoint an ombudsman to ensure that the civil service code is applied throughout the public sector?
    Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his praise for the code, which I warmly and strongly endorse. I share his wish to see the code extended. I should like to see many other bodies, especially public bodies, endorsing the aims of the code and introducing codes of their own. I shall, of course, consider carefully my hon. Friend's other points.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State recall that it was 50 years ago when legislation was introduced providing that 3 per cent. of all employees should be disabled people? Is he aware that only 0.7 per cent. of private sector employees are disabled and that the situation is not much better in the public sector, where only 0.8 per
    726
    cent. of employees are disabled? What will he do to try to overcome this and ensure that disabled people have their fair share of employment within these islands?
    Mr. Hunt: First, consideration in Committee of the Civil Rights (Disabled People) Bill, which was promoted by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), has just been completed and I am considering carefully the issues that were raised at that stage.
    Secondly, if we consider the placings made by the specialist advisers of the Employment Service, who put people with disabilities into work, we find that last year the total was over 40,000. I have set the special advisers a target of 55,000 placings for this financial year. I hope that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will accept that that is a laudable objective and I am confident that it will be met by the Employment Service.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that the code, which the House endorses, is creating unemployment at something like four times the average level of unemployment in the country at present? Can he tell us whether Government Departments are observing the code? If they are not observing it, does he not think that he should be setting an example and asking them to observe it?
    Mr. Hunt: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would check his facts. He is talking to the Secretary of State of a Government Department which observes and meets the quota requirement.
    Mr. Elletson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problems faced by epileptics in employment? Will he look into the case of my constituent, Helen Barr, who was recently sacked from her job as a hospital cleaner ostensibly on the ground that she had an epileptic fit even though she declared that she was an epileptic when she took on the job? Does he agree that epilepsy is a disability just like any other, but is widely misunderstood by employers, and that epileptics face widespread discrimination and prejudice?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend has highlighted an important case and an important area. I accept that there is a need to guide employers about some disabilities in particular. My recollection is that the Employment Service produces a guide on epilepsy. If it does not, I will make sure that it does, and I shall send a copy to my hon. Friend.

    Part-time Workers
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the implications of the recent House of Lords ruling on part-time workers for United Kingdom employment legislation.
    Miss Widdecombe: The Government are carefully considering the judgment to ascertain its full implications, and will make an announcement as soon as possible.
    Mrs. Jackson: Does the Minister recognise that that is the answer which she gave on 11 March and on 23 March in European Standing Committee B? Is it good enough for the Minister to continue to say that the Government are taking legal advice and that when they have heard it they will make a statement? Is it not time to tell the millions of part-time workers, who want to hear when they are to know

    727
    whether they are to have their rights to sickness benefit, holidays and redundancy pay recognised by the Government?
    Miss Widdecombe: I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises the consistency of my answers. Let me make it clear to the House. We shall respond and make an announcement when—and only when—all our investigations, all our proper consultation, and all our deliberations are complete. The difference between the Government and Labour Members is that we take these things responsibly while they make cheap political points out of them.
    Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend confirm my impression that if we accept the ruling in all its rigour, the effect would be to reduce employment opportunities for a great number of people who are on the margins of the job market? That will increase unemployment, not decrease it, and is exactly the sort of thing that is on offer to us from Europe if that is how the country votes in the European elections.
    Miss Widdecombe: I do not intend to speculate on the effects of the judgment until our deliberations are complete, but it has always been a priority of the Government to limit as far as possible the burdens on business. That is why we have one of the highest levels of employment in Europe, that is why we have falling unemployment, that is why we have good part-time opportunities, that is why we have inward investment, and that is why we are carrying on with the policy.
    Ms Short: Will the Minister explain how she can possibly stand there and say that the Government are not obliged to give part-time women workers equal rights with full-time workers when a House of Lords judgment which interprets European law says that the Government are obliged to do so? She is obliged to say that the Government accept the judgment and will implement it; that is the rule of law. In the debate on sex discrimination, two Tory Members said that the finding of the House of Lords should not be obeyed. The thing that the Minister and no one in her party seems to understand—[Interruption.] Does the Minister appreciate that women who want part-time work do not want second-rate work? They do not want low pay and lack of access to training; they want holiday entitlements and protection from unfair dismissal. Will the Minister accord to women the right to full-time rights for part-time workers?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady is under a complete misapprehension. Some 69 per cent. of all those who work already qualify for full protection rights. Of the remainder, only 3 per cent. fail to qualify solely on the grounds of the hours they work.

    Employment Service, West Midlands
    Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the west midlands have been placed in work by the Employment Service in the past 12 months.
    Mr. David Hunt: A total of 143,600.
    Dame Jill Knight: May I express to my right hon. Friend my great pleasure at hearing that news? Is it a reasonable supposition that the considerable number of
    728
    extra jobs coming on stream from Jaguar, Land-Rover, Flight's Travel, Ansell's and others would not have come about had Britain been a signatory to the social chapter?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend.
    At the Social Affairs Council today, my hon. Friend the Minister of State is fighting to ensure that extra burdens are not imposed on business. One of the reasons why there has been a record level of inward investment—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) rightly paid tribute to the fact that Jaguar has decided site the manufacture of the new E-type in the region, and that Land-Rover and several others have made important announcements—which is so important for jobs is,of course, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister refused to sign up to the social protocol.
    Mr. Grocott: What conclusion does the Secretary of State draw from the simple statistical truth—which can be confirmed by the experience of anyone who has lived in the west midlands for the past 30 years—that employment prospects, particularly for school leavers, were infinitely better under the Labour Governments of the 1960s and 1970s than they have been under the Tory Governments of the 1980s and 1990s?
    Mr. Hunt: I do not accept that. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston highlighted the number of new job opportunities which will arise in the west midlands in the coming year, and it is a fact that unemployment in the west midlands has fallen by just under 30,000 in the past 12 months. Although I gave the figure 143,600 in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, we are setting a target of 148,000 for the Employment Service to place in work during the next 12 months in the west midlands and I am confident that it will meet and beat that target.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one quarter of Japanese investment in this country goes to the west midlands? Is he also aware that the most recent west midlands business survey, by the university of Wolverhampton, showed that industrial confidence in the west midlands was at its best level ever? That is one reason why unemployment in my constituency has dropped by 10 per cent. in the past year alone. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that such a surge in confidence would be endangered by precisely the kind of social engineering on industry in which the Labour party seems to specialise?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right, and there are interesting statistics in that area. Some 70 Japanese companies have sought to base themselves in the west midlands region. That is a fine tribute to the work force in the west midlands. Those companies see this country as a centre of free enterprise, free trade and free markets. That is why we shall continue to win a record level of inward investment, which currently exceeds the levels of inward investment into all the other countries of the European Union put together.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State agree that the level of male unemployment in the west midlands remains alarmingly high? Is he conscious that industry there is being affected by the dumping of very cheap goods —for example, garden tools from the far east—which in the past have been made successfully in, and sold from, the west midlands?
    Mr. Hunt: When one analyses present trends, one sees that although unemployment is unacceptably high in the west midlands and I constantly refer to that fact, it is on a firm downward trend throughout the country and in the west midlands. The downward trend in the country is now between 15,000 and 20,000, notwithstanding occasional monthly rises. I believe that that trend will continue, and that problems of the kind that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned will be more than outweighed by the constant flow of additional inward investment which will provide increasing job opportunities.

    Seamen
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of British seamen in employment in each year since 1978.
    Mr. David Hunt: The statistics show that in 1993 there were 31,000 employees in the sea transport industry in the United Kingdom compared with 77,000 in 1978.
    With permission, Madam Speaker, I will publish in the Official Report the figures for the intervening period.
    Mr. Loyden: I am not surprised that the Secretary of State has failed to give the current figures for employment of seamen. Is it not a disgrace that a nation which built its wealth on maritime trade is sitting back and allowing its merchant fleet constantly to diminish and that our shipyards are empty? Is it not an absolute disgrace that the Government are standing aside and doing nothing about those two job-creating industries? Is it not about time the House started paying back its merchant seamen and shipbuilders by providing the sort of jobs that could be created on Merseyside, Tyneside, Clydeside and the rest?
    Mr. Hunt: First, I am giving in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question the only figures that I can give and the only figures that are available to me. Secondly, I am not, and neither are my Government, standing aside—[Interruption.] My party or my Government—neither I nor my party nor the Government in which I am proud to serve as a member are standing aside. Today, my officials are meeting, the merchant navy training board to finalise the proposal for a prototype of the new modern apprenticeships and the frameworks to be introduced in the shipping industry later this year. I believe that the new modern apprenticeship scheme will give a real opportunity to the shipping industry, which I hope that it will accept.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is it not the case that the British Merchant Navy still wins on grounds of quality, if no longer on grounds of quantity, and is that not due to the high standards of training that we give to our young people for a career at sea—not least at the Denton sea school in my constituency?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend highlights the importance of training, to which I have just referred in stressing the importance of the new modern apprenticeship scheme for the shipping industry. I remind him and my right hon. and hon. Friends that the successful completion of the GATT Uruguay round and the consequent increase in world trade is very good news for the United Kingdom. It will be particularly good news for the shipping industry.
    Mr. Bennett: What good is the apprenticeship scheme if people who are already qualified cannot get jobs? What
    730
    help can the Secretary of State offer to one of my constituents who has just been made redundant from a cross-channel ferry so that people from Poland can be employed in his place?
    Mr. Hunt: The importance of the new modern apprenticeship scheme is that it will give school leavers aged 16 and 17 next year the opportunity to increase their skills to national vocational qualification level 3, which is equivalent to A-level, and to focus those skills on the shipping industry.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's constituent, training for work offers the opportunity to improve and increase training related to qualifications and outputs. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of the particular constituency case to which he referred, I shall of course follow it up.
    Following is the information: Employees in the Sea Transport Industry (Standard Industrial Classification 7400): United Kingdom—1978, 77,000; 1979, 74,000; 1980, 70,000; 1981, 66,000; 1982, 58,000; 1983, 48,000; 1984, 40,000; 1985, 37,000; 1986, 34,000; 1987, 34,000; 1988, 35,000; 1989, 35,000; 1990, 33,000; 1991, 32,000; 1992, 30,000; 1993, 31,000. Information relates to June of each year and is not seasonally adjusted.

    Part-time Workers
    Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates his Department has made of the proportion of those working part time who want to work full time.
    Miss Widdecombe: The labour force survey estimates for autumn 1993 show that under 14 per cent. of those working part time did so because they could not find a full-time job.
    Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that while few part-timers want to work full time, a substantial number of full-timers—about a third—would like to work part time? Does she agree that labour market flexibility is the key not only to lower unemployment but to increased competitiveness and meeting the wishes of working people?
    Miss Widdecombe: I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the great opportunities offered by part-time work. The fact that more part-time opportunities are on offer for those who choose and prefer them, enabling more women to combine economic work with family responsibilities if they want to, can only be welcomed.
    Mr. Frank Field: Does the Minister accept that the national insurance system discriminates against employers who wish to create full-time jobs? Is she aware of the hardship that that causes to many families and the effect on public finances? As the economy slowly recovers, jobs are being taken by people who are not registered as unemployed and there is no saving in dole queue money. The wages paid to those employees are so low that they do not pay much tax. If the Government cannot wipe out discrimination for the right reasons, will they do so for other reasons? There are good, sound economic reasons for putting the public finances into equilibrium again.
    Miss Widdecombe: The best way to encourage employers to employ part-time or full-time workers—as best suits their business needs and the wishes of their

    731
    employees—is to reduce burdens on business. That has been, and will continue to be, the thrust of the Government's employment policy.
    Mr. Dickens: Is not it a fact that many people very much value the opportunity to work part time, whether in catering, nursing homes, rest homes, education, school dinners or whatever? Is not it also serious when a judgment forces on the House of Commons and the establishment restrictions and obligations on employers? Nothing will undermine people's right to work part time more than restrictions placed on employers.
    Miss Widdecombe: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is yes. It is right that people have those choices, which provide tremendous opportunities. The answer to the second part of his question, as I have said several times today, is that we are considering most carefully the implications of the Lords judgment arid how to implement it. The burdens on business will obviously be one of our considerations.
    Mrs. Clwyd: What about people who cannot work full time or part time because the Government deny them that opportunity? Has not the Government's pit closure programme dumped thousands of former miners on the economic scrap heap, like the miners at Tower colliery, who this afternoon were forced to accept closure because yesterday the wages of every miner at the pit were cut? British Coal and the Secretary of State have lied through their teeth.
    Madam Speaker: Order. That statement is unacceptable in this House. I ask the hon. Lady to rephrase it.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I will withdraw that statement. The Secretary of State and British Coal have told blatant untruths.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The English language is very rich. I am sure that the hon. Lady can do even better and I ask her to try.
    Mrs. Clwyd: British Coal and the Secretary of State have been peddling untruths.

    Employment Service, South-East
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the south-eastern region have been placed into work by the Employment Service in the past 12 months.
    Miss Widdecombe: A total of 406,900 seasonally adjusted placings to February 1994, which is an increase of 47,900 over the previous year.
    Mr. Booth: Will my hon. Friend welcome the fact that in the south-east, which includes Finchley, there has been a reduction in unemployment of 5 per cent. in the past year, born of the sensible policies of the Conservative party? Does not that contrast with the parts of the world where the most significant employment is that of the dead-beat policies that are still peddled by the Labour party?
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes, indeed. The increased number of placings, the falling unemployment and the increased number of members of the civilian work force in employment, add up to a huge endorsement of our policies. The only thing to be regretted is that whenever there is a
    732
    good news such as that which my hon. Friend has just brought to the attention of the House, the Opposition simply sit there looking as glum as owls.
    Mr. Gapes: Is the Minister aware that in the past year throughout the south-east of the country and in London thousands of people have lost their jobs and many people are suffering from mortgage pressure, from loss of earnings and from pressure on their lives as a result of the unemployment created by the Government?
    Miss Widdecombe: Why does not the hon. Gentleman welcome the fall in unemployment? Why does not he welcome the fall in interest rates, which reduces that mortgage pressure? Why does not he welcome the increase in numbers in employment? Why is he so concerned to peddle misery and unhappiness to his constituents? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. There was so much noise going on in the House that I did not hear what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said. [Interruption.] Order. If there was less noise, I would have done so. I believe that she used a phrase which last week was unacceptable to me. If that is the case, it is still unacceptable to me now, and I ask the hon. Lady, before we proceed any further, to withdraw it. [Interruption.] Order. I will deal with this matter. I understand that the hon. Lady used—
    Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: There is no point of order. I am on my feet. Am I to understand that the hon. Lady used the phrase, "peddling untruths"?
    Mrs. Clwyd: Yes.
    Madam Speaker: In that case, it was unacceptable to me last week and— [Interruption.] Order. It was rephrased last week. [Interruption.] Order. I am asking the hon. Lady to rephrase the comment she made. It is as simple as that.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I understand that last week the Prime Minister—I was not in my place at the time—actually used the phrase, "peddled an untruth", and I understand that the
    Prime Minister was not asked to withdraw that particular phrase.
    Madam Speaker: The Prime Minister rephrased that. [Interruption.] Order. He rephrased it and I am asking the hon. Lady to do precisely the same.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I repeat, British Coal and the Secretary of State misled the House.
    Madam Speaker: In that case I accept what the hon. Lady said, and we can now proceed.

    Youth Unemployment, East Midlands
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of youth unemployment in the east midlands; and what it was in April 1979.
    Miss Widdecombe: Among 18 to 24-year-olds, 51,271 in January 1994 and 58,627 in October 1983, which is the earliest date for which comparable information is available.
    Mr. Barnes: The labour force survey shows that nearly 20 per cent. of 16 to 24-year-olds are unemployed, and that is on the Government's fiddled figures. That figure is far greater than for any other age group, and twice as high as for some age groups. What is to be done about the scandal of youth unemployment? Our futures depend on employment. Why cannot we have high-quality education, proper training and investment for jobs instead of low-level training schemes?
    Miss Widdecombe: As the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about youth unemployment, a concern that is shared, perhaps he would like to welcome the following: that we have lower than the average EC youth unemployment; that only 138 young people in England have now been waiting for the delivery of the guarantee for more than eight weeks; that in his constituency the figure has fallen from 42 young people to one young person; and the increased training and vocational opportunities.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that youth unemployment has been falling fast throughout Derbyshire, including north-east Derbyshire, and is down by 21 per cent. in Erewash compared with last year? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is businesses that create jobs and increasing business confidence and healthy order books in companies throughout the east midlands are already translating into better prospects for people out of work and for school leavers this summer?
    Miss Widdecombe: I agree with my hon. Friend. If business confidence is the key, no one need look to the Opposition to generate it.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that there is a greater sense of relative deprivation between the poor and the well-off in the east midlands and elsewhere which, to quote from a Home Office document, has produced a class of person for whom
    "a real job or the prospect of a real job has been absent in all the crucial years"
    of their lives, or does she disagree with the view of that leaked Home Office document?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is hard to match falling unemployment with the absence of job prospects. The hon. and learned Gentleman is out of date and his points are extremely selective. His mission in life appears to be to depress rather than cheer the most vulnerable.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend take note that, in a effort to reduce youth unemployment in France, the French Government are dismantling minimum wage legislation in order to create extra jobs?
    Miss Widdecombe: If minimum wage legislation were ever to be introduced in Britain we would probably lose up to 2 million jobs. That is the Opposition's policy.

    Job Divestment
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the outward divestment of jobs from the United Kingdom to (a) other countries in the European Union and (b) the rest of the world.
    Mr. David Hunt: I agree with that part of paragraph 78 of the Employment Select Committee's report published on 10 February which refers to the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Flynn: Does not the Minister feel like someone trying to fill up a bath without noticing that the plug has been pulled out? Again and again, he counts the jobs that are coming into the country, but never does he count the jobs that are being siphoned out. How will he prevent British Telecom and British Gas from scouring the sweatshops of the far east trying to peddle our British jobs to those firms that pay the worst wages in the world? I am not a Prime Minister, so I cannot accuse the Minister of peddling untruths, but is he peddling British jobs abroad?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not read the Select Committee report. If he had, he would see that I have already directly answered the point that he has just made. I shall continue to praise the efforts of the United Kingdom's work force in the past 15 years in bringing to this country nearly 4,000 inward investment projects involving half a million jobs. That is a record of which we have every right to be proud.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend join me in regretting today's announcement by London International of the plant closure in my constituency and urge the company to think again? If its decision remains unchanged, will my right hon. Friend make every effort
    and take every measure to ensure that all those who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs as a result will be found new jobs?
    Mr. Hunt: I will of course talk to the local training and enterprise council and Employment Service branch to make sure that everything possible is done in the direction to which my hon. Friend referred.

    Health and Safety
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the Health and Safety Executive regarding its prosecution policy in cases of death at work; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: My Department is in regular contact with the Health and Safety Executive and I fully endorse its approach to enforcement.
    Mr. Barron: Does the Minister accept that the publication "The Perfect Crime" by the West Midlands Health and Safety Advice Centre clearly shows the absence of active policing of death at work and of prosecution of bad employers who cause death at work? Given the Law Commission's statement last week that it is considering a change in the law on prosecuting bad employers who cause death at work, will the Government stop the cuts in the Health and Safety Executive and prosecute more bad employers, who kill more people than are killed on Britain's roads?
    Mr. Hunt: I have every confidence in the Health and Safety Executive's prosecution policy. Before entering the Chamber, I checked on the matter and understand that in the past 18 months, the executive has referred 17 possible cases of manslaughter to the Crown Prosecution Service.

    735
    We should be proud that the rate of fatal and non-fatal accidents in this country is falling, and that we have one of the best health and safety records in the world.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Garnier: During his many meetings with business leaders, has my right hon. Friend ever been asked by even one of them to introduce a minimum statutory wage?
    The Prime Minister: No, in my many meetings I have not yet been asked to introduce a statutory minimum wage, but a number of employers have expressed concern at the prospect. They believe that it would cost jobs andl harm competitiveness, and I agree.
    Mr. John Smith: Given the threat of fatal catastrophe that now hangs over Gorazde and the undoubted confusion that sadly attends the efforts of the international community in Bosnia, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a clear statement of future policy objectives is urgently needed. I propose that they should include a redoubling of efforts to secure a ceasefire at Gorazde; the reaffirmation by this and other countries of their political, military and humanitarian commitment to the area; and a clear decision by the international community to make safe areas safe, in the knowledge that the United Nations will require to be given sufficient resources to perform that task, but also in the knowledge that those safe areas may offer the only haven to the victims of a brutal civil war.
    The Prime Minister: I have a lot of sympathy with much of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. There is no doubt that our objectives in Bosnia have not changed. Last week's setback in Gorazde—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear to the House yesterday, it was a setback for the United Nations—does not alter the fact that we wish to secure a complete ceasefire in Bosnia. It should not be forgotten by the House or others that we have established a ceasefire between the Croat and Bosnian forces in central Bosnia as well as in Sarajevo. However, as latest events have tragically shown, the negotiators have not yet been able to extend that ceasefire elsewhere in Bosnia. At the moment, we are onsidering both here in the United Kingdom and with our partners precisely what needs to be done next. There will of course be meetings among NATO allies tomorrow.
    Mr. John Smith: May I press the right hon. Gentleman on the question of safe areas? Will he undertake to discuss this fully with our partners? The United Nations, having resolved to create safe areas as havens for the victims of war, should resolve to make them possible by committing itself to that purpose and by using the necessary means to achieve it—Britain's contribution included, of course.
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we are concerned, and have been for a long time, to secure, as far as it is practicable for us to do so, the safety of people in areas of Bosnia, in Gorazde or elsewhere. Before we make any blanket assurance, we have to consider whether the practical will, not just in the United Kingdom but in other countries as well, exists to release the resources to enable us to do that. We have to be careful before we make any practical assurances.
    Clearly, the objectives that the right hon. and learned Gentleman sets out are objectives that any sensible person would want realised; but we have to consider what in practice can be done and whether the resources to deliver the objectives set out are likely to be available.
    Mr. Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the unacceptably high levels of local council debt, particularly among councils controlled by the Opposition parties? I refer to Liverpool and Manchester and to councils in London such as Islington, whose debt amounts to £5,500 per adult in the council's area. That adds unacceptably to the council tax. What will the Government do about it?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend turns to a point that will be much in evidence during the local authority debates and during the whole local election campaign over the next few weeks. Irrespective of the equitable method of funding local authorities, there is no doubt about which local authorities, under what political control, run up substantial debts: we know that those that are in debt are Labour local authorities. We also know that those that do not adequately collect rents are Labour local authorities. I believe that many people will see the connection between the first and the second.
    Sir David Steel: Returning to the question of future policy for Bosnia, may I ask the Prime Minister to take this opportunity to make it clear that sanctions against Serbia will not be lifted and will not be open to negotiation until there is a full and secure peace settlement in Bosnia?
    The Prime Minister: We have no proposals to change the present sanctions regime, which has been in hand for some time. We have consistently said that the sanctions are in place to try to encourage people to act moderately and reasonably in the future. I have no present proposals to change them.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Has my right hon. Friend seen that the reported crime rate for over half the police areas in England and Wales is falling? Is not that evidence that the Government's law and order policy is working? And is not the fact that the courts have been imposing longer sentences evidence that, by taking the worst offenders out of circulation, the Home Secretary was right to say that prison works?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend is right. There is no doubt about the immense public concern about crime and no doubt about the desire of all parties, in the House and elsewhere, that it should decrease. It has been most encouraging recently to note that, in a number of areas, innovative policing ideas—Bumblebee in the Metropolitan area, but operations in other areas, too—seem to have had a material effect on the crime statistics.
    The most encouraging aspect of the statistics released today is the fact that the drop in crime on a quarterly basis

    737
    appears to be accelerating. These are just one year's figures, and we must view them with a degree of caution, but the trend is certainly more attractive than any for some years.
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Turner: In the excitement of last week's Question Time, the Prime Minister completely failed to answer my question. May I therefore ask it again? In the aftermath of his defeat in the local and European elections, will he continue to limp along with his battle-weary Government, or will he take the honourable path and resign?
    The Prime Minister: I look forward to answering the hon. Gentleman's questions for a long time to come.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past few days, some 12 foreign correspondents have had their accreditation withdrawn by President Milosevic, including Sky Television's chief correspondent, Mr. van Lynden? Is not that further evidence of the evil nature of the Serbian dictatorship and does not it show that it would be a very good thing if my right hon. Friend could meet Presidents Clinton, Mitterrand and Yeltsin at the earliest opportunity?
    The Prime Minister: I know of the expulsions that concern my hon. Friend and I deplore that restriction of press freedom. We have made the Belgrade authorities aware of our views. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I see no likelihood of an early meeting; but I assure him that we are in very close touch with each of the Governments and Heads of Government whom he mentioned.
    Mr. Olner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Olner: Why has not the Prime Minister properly consulted and listened to organisations such as the Royal British Legion and other veteran associations when preparing the events in commemoration of D-day?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. There has been a great deal of consultation and discussion; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage met members of the Normandy Veterans Association and the Royal British Legion this morning, and—as the hon. Gentleman may or may not know—Field Marshal Lord Bramall is part of the committee discussing and organising events for D-day.
    Mr. Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the national health service will continue to be available to all, irrespective of age or ability to pay? Will he condemn Opposition Members who are scaremongering, and worrying elderly people in particular? Is not the national health service for everyone in the country who needs health care?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and many millions of patients who are treated each day can attest to that. It is undoubtedly the policy that the
    738
    national health service should in no way discriminate on grounds of age in allocating treatment. It is up to the clinicians concerned, in consultation with colleagues, to decide on the appropriate course of treatment for any patient, whatever that patient's age; but any patient, whatever his or her age, is entitled to the treatment that he or she needs under the national health service.
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Prime Minister join me in deploring the decision of SmithKline Beecham—which made a profit of £1.22 billion last year—to close a factory that has stood in St. Helens for more than 100 years, sack 500 workers and transfer their employment to a non-union, low-pay firm in Devon? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me, and with the people of St Helens, that this is the unacceptable face of multinational capitalism?
    The Prime Minister: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have no detailed knowledge of what has happened with SmithKline Beecham, and I am disinclined to comment on any case of which I have no such knowledge.
    Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest threat to the things that we hold dear in this country—such as social services and the national health service—comes from the growth of highly competitive economies in the Pacific basin? Do not our party and my right hon. Friend's approach to Europe provide the only way of dealing with that competition, both for this country and for Europe in general?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are now operating in an increasingly competitive world. Nowadays, many parts of the world that were once readily prepared to accept British exports are manufacturing the same goods and competing with us in world markets. Unless we become as competitive as possible and keep that competitiveness, we shall lose jobs, income and influence, both economic and political.
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Prime Minister give stronger backing to Britain's manufacturing industries? Will he, for example, give help to the British steel industry in the European Union, where the German, Italian and Spanish Governments are cheating? Does he agree that Britain's steel communities have made their sacrifice in the form of tens of thousands of redundancies and many plant closures and that now is the time for the right hon. Gentleman's Government to back British steel?
    The Prime Minister: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that we have raised a number of cases of suspected illegal subsidies with the Commission—the most recent being that of the bankrupt German company, Saarstahl. The Minister for Industry will raise that case again on Friday in the Industry Council in Luxembourg.
    On the more general point raised by the hon. Gentleman, we will continue to press for the fulfilment of

    739
    existing commitments from the Commission and from member states to end all illegal subsidies in the steel industry. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Commission has a formal obligation to enforce the treaty of Paris and it has undertaken to pursue actively the monitoring commitments of a number of European Community countries.
    Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate SmithKline Beecham on investing £200 million in Harlow, which is good news for this country and which will be the largest project, after the channel tunnel, in Britain?
    The Prime Minister: I see rather earlier than I expected the wisdom of not responding to the question from the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) without having the details of the case in front of me. In view of what has been said by both hon. Gentlemen, I will certainly examine the matter.

BILL PRESENTED
  WATER CHARGES (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Paul Tyler, supported by Mr. Alan Beith, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Don Foster and Mr. Simon Hughes, presented a Bill to amend the Water Act 1989 to prohibit the use by water undertakers of rateable values as a basis for charging from 31st March 1995; to provide for charging by water undertakers in accordance with council tax bands; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

Public Conveniences
3.31 pm
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove any discrimination on grounds of gender in the provision of public conveniences and to place a statutory duty on local authorities to provide a minimum level of public conveniences; and for connected purposes.
In the Bill I propose to make it a duty of local authorities to provide public conveniences at certain minimum levels. To those who would argue that these matters should be left to the discretion of individual councils, I say that the recent record of local authorities suggests that the priority that they give to this public service is very low indeed. Public conveniences have been, and are being, closed right across the country. Due to financial constraints, local authorities are cutting back drastically on this non-statutory service.
The Public Health Act 1936 states that councils "may" provide facilities for the use of the public. There is no legal duty to provide any toilets at all. At the present rate of closure, some authorities are getting near to that nil figure. Indeed, the BBC1 programme "Here and Now", which will be shown tomorrow, carried out a survey which shows that, among the 180 councils which replied to the programme's survey, 771 conveniences have been closed in the last decade.
The number of local authorities which now charge for this important public service has risen sharply. Ten years ago only 12 charged and now 57 do—a 400 per cent. increase. The survey also reveals that, in the councils canvassed, there are still more than 1,000 more sites for men than for women. Worst hit are the towns in the north-west. Manchester closed 79 toilets in the last decade, leaving just 20—which means that it has closed three-quarters of its public toilets. Sheffield has cut the number of toilets by half, causing hardship and discomfort for up to 50,000 people in the city who suffer from incontinence.
I too recently surveyed local council provision. Among the 162 local authorities taking part in my survey, I found that provision varied enormously from a low of one facility per 6,427 men and 11,248 women to a high of one facility per 35 men and 86 women. The Bill proposes a minimum provision of one facility per 550 women and one facility per 1,100 men, with a unisex facility for the disabled per 10,000 of the population. It would also require a minimum provision of nappy-changing facilities which could be used by men and women.
People need public conveniences at "on street" sites. In general, a low fluid intake can increase the likelihood of kidney and bladder infections. Conversely, a high fluid intake helps prevent cystitis, renal tract infections, kidney stones and constipation. These are common disorders of the elderly and, clearly, there is a health argument for the better provision of toilets. Women in particular have an increased need for toilet facilities, especially when they are menstruating or pregnant.
Only last month, the Government facilitated National Continence Week to highlight the problem of incontinence which affects 3 million people. The British Foundation of Health Continence Care has estimated that 14 per cent. of women and 7 per cent. of men are affected. Many of these people can become housebound because of the absence or closure of public toilets. It is clear that women's needs are greater than men's and yet my survey showed that

743
provision is greater for men than for women. Research carried out in the United States shows that women take twice as long to urinate as men. The Bill would make provision for women at twice the level of that for men.
Groups such as the Continence Foundation and All Mod Cons examined the issue of numbers, especially when the All Mod Cons' co-ordinator worked with the British Standards Institution. They produced the figures that I have included in the Bill.
The first public toilet for women was built in London in the 1880s. It was recognised that an increasing number of women were going to work and so needed facilities near their place of work. On a public site, the toilets in Leicester square which were built in 1900 offered 27 urinals and 13 cubicles for men, with three urinettes and seven cubicles for women. The reason given for the imbalance in the provision was that women did not go out as much as men, and the belief was aired at the time that women would be too embarrassed to use a public toilet in any case. We have come a long way from the days of such ridiculous sensibilities and attitudes to women and our natural bodily functions, but it was evident to me when I surveyed local council provision that men had a better overall level of toilets and that the situation was getting worse rather than better.
The Women's Design Service researched what women objected to in current WC provision. First, they objected to the queues which were the result of the lack of facilities. Secondly, they were concerned about access, with particular reference to turnstiles. Turnstiles present particular problems at stations when people are carrying heavy luggage, but they are also a problem for the disabled or for people with pushchairs or young children—usually, of course, women rather than men. They are also dangerous, impede emergency exits and are sometimes prohibitive to entry. They are currently outlawed from council facilities under the turnstiles legislation of 1968, although I notice that Westminster has one or two. The Bill would outlaw turnstiles from all toilets provided for the public.
744
This is the Year of the Family, and anyone who has children will be aware of the difficulties in finding facilities for children and will know that one cannot hang around when one's children want to go to the toilet. I found that 52 of the authorities that took part in my survey—more than a third of them—had no nappy-changing facilities whatever. My Bill would require a unisex facility for every 10,000 head of population.
I am a relatively recent father, with a three-year-old son and an eight-month-old son. As a Member of Parliament I do not often find myself out alone with them, but it has happened occasionally. When they want to go to the toilet, they really want to go, and I know how difficult it is to find somewhere to take them.
Under the Public Health Act 1936 councils are allowed to charge for cubicles but not for urinals. Clearly that is an anachronism today, and the law is sexist. My Bill would revoke that provision.
The slogan "back to basics" has been derided in some quarters, but surely here we have a basic public service developed by Victorian civic leaders, yet all too often now ignored. I hope that my Bill will be supported on both sides of the House, and given Government support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Peter Viggers, Mr. Ian McCartney, Ms Jean Corston, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mr. Andrew Smith, Ms Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Simon Hughes and Ms Liz Lynne.

Public Conveniences
  PUBLIC CONVENIENCES
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones accordingly presented a Bill to remove any discrimination on grounds of gender in the provision of public conveniences and to place a statutory duty on local authorities to provide a minimum level of public conveniences; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 May, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee),
That the Report [13th April] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Patnick.]
Question agreed to.
Resolved, That this House doth agree with the Committee in its resolution.
Following is the Report of the Business Committee:
That—
(1) the order in which proceedings on consideration shall be taken shall be new Clauses standing in the name of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, new Schedules so standing, other new Clauses, other new Schedules, and Amendments to Clause No. 1, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 2 to 5, Schedule No. 2, Clause No. 6, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 7 to 9, Schedule No. 4, Clauses Nos. 10 to 14, Schedule No. 5, Clauses Nos. 15 to 40, Schedule No. 6, Clauses Nos. 41 to 64, Schedule No. 7, Clauses Nos. 65 to 77, Schedule No. 8, Clauses Nos. 78 to 81, Schedule No. 9, Clauses Nos. 82 and 83, Schedule No. 10, Clauses Nos. 84 to 91, Schedule No. 11, Clauses Nos. 92 to 102, Schedule No. 12, Clauses Nos. 103 to 112, Schedule No. 13, Clauses Nos. 113 to 135, Schedule No. 14, Clause No. 136, Schedule No. 15, Clauses Nos. 137 to 144, Schedule No. 16, Clauses Nos. 145 to 167, Schedule No. 17, Clauses Nos. 168 to 194, Schedule No. 18, Clauses Nos. 195 to 216, Schedule No. 19, Clauses Nos. 217 to 226, Schedule No. 20, Clauses Nos. 227 to 229, Schedule No. 21, Clauses Nos. 230 to 234, Schedule No. 22, Clauses Nos. 235 to 250, Schedule No. 23, Clause No. 251, Schedule No. 24, Clauses Nos. 252 to 254, Clause No. 256, Clause No. 255 and Schedule No. 25;
(2) The allotted days which under the Order [1st February] are given to the proceedings on consideration and third reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third colum of that Table.

Table

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

New Clauses standing in the name of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and new Schedules so standing.

6 p.m.

Other new Clauses and other new Schedules.

11 p.m.

Second day

Remaining proceedings on consideration.

7 p.m.

Third reading

10 p.m.

Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill
    1sT ALLOTTED DAY
    Not amended (in the Committee) and as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    New Clause 8

      EMPLOYEES WORKING FOR PERSONS OTHER THAN THEIR EMPLOYERS, ETC.
      '.—(1) After section 203B of the Taxes Act 1988 (which is inserted by section 125 above) there shall be inserted—
      "PAYE: employee of non-UK employer.
      203BB.—(1) This subsection applies where—

      (a) an employee during any period works for a person ("the relevant person") who is not his employer;

      (b) any payment of, or on account of, assessable income of the employee in respect of work done in that period is made by a person who is the employer or an intermediary of the employer;

      (c) PAYE regulations do not apply to the person making the payment or, if he makes the payment as an intermediary of the employer, the employer; and

      (d) income tax is not deducted or accounted for in accordance with the regulations by the person making the payment or, if he makes the payment as an intermediary of the employer, the employer.

      (2) Where subsection (1) above applies, the relevant person shall be treated, for the purposes of PAYE regulations, as making a payment of the assessable income of the employee of an amount equal to the amount determined in accordance with subsection (3) below.
      (3) The amount referred to is—

      (a) if the amount of the payment actually made is an amount to which the recipient is entitled after deduction of any income tax, the aggregate of the amount of that payment and the amount of any income tax due; and

      (b) in any other case, the amount of the payment actually made.

      (4) In this section and sections 203BC and 203BD "work", in relation to an employee, means the performance of any duties of the office or employment of the employee and any reference to his working shall be construed accordingly.
      (5) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 203B apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section.
      "PAYE: employee non-resident, etc.
      203BC.—(1) This section applies in relation to an employee in a year of assessment only if—

      (a) he is not resident or, if resident, not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and

      (b) he works or will work in the United Kingdom and also works or is likely to work outside the United Kingdom.

      (2) Where in relation to any year of assessment it appears to an officer of the Board that—

      (a) some of the income of an employee to whom this section applies is assessable to income tax under Case II of Schedule E, but

      (b) an as yet unascertainable proportion of the income may prove not to be assessable,

      the officer may, on an application made by the appropriate person, give a direction for determining a proportion of any payment made in that year of, or on account of, income of the employee which shall be treated for the purposes of PAYE regulations as a payment of assessable income of the employee.
      (3) In this section "the appropriate person" means—

      (a) the person designated by the employer for the purposes of this section; or

      747

      (b) if no person is so designated, the employer.

      (4) An application for a direction under subsection (2) above shall provide such information as is available and is relevant to the giving of the direction.
      (5) A direction under subsection (2) above—

      (a) shall specify the employee to whom and the year of assessment to which it relates;

      (b) shall be given by notice to the appropriate person; and

      (c) may be withdrawn by notice to the appropriate person from a date specified in the notice.

      (6) The date so specified may not be earlier than thirty days from the date on which the notice of the withdrawal is given.
      (7) Where—

      (a) a direction under subsection (2) above has effect in relation to an employee to whom this section applies, and

      (b) a payment of, or on account of, the income of the employee is made in the year of assessment to which the direction relates,

      the proportion of the payment determined in accordance with the direction shall be treated for the purposes of PAYE regulations as a payment of assessable income of the employee.
      (8) Where in any year of assessment—

      (a) no direction under subsection (2) above has effect in relation to an employee to whom this section applies, and

      (b) any payment is made of, or on account of, the income of the employee,
      the entire payment shall be treated for the purposes of PAYE regulations as a payment of assessable income of the employee.

      (9) Subsections (7) and (8) above are without prejudice to—

      (a) any assessment in respect of the income of the employee in question; and

      (b) any right to repayment of income tax overpaid and any obligation to pay income tax underpaid.

      "PAYE: mobile UK workforce.
      203BD.—(1) This subsection applies where it appears to the Board that—

      (a) a person ("the relevant person") has entered into or is likely to enter into an agreement that employees of another person ("the contractor") shall in any period work for, but not as employees of, the relevant person;

      (b) payments of, or on account of, assessable income of the employees in respect of work done in that period are likely to be made by or on behalf of the contractor; and

      (c) PAYE regulations would apply on the making of such payments but it is likely that income tax will not be deducted or accounted for in accordance with the regulations.

      (2) Where subsection (1) above applies, the Board may give a direction that, if—

      (a) any employees of the contractor work in any period for, but not as employees of, the relevant person, and

      (b) any payment is made by the relevant person in respect of work done by the employees in that period,

      income tax shall be deducted in accordance with the provisions of this section by the relevant person on making that payment.
      (3) A direction under subsection (2) above—

      (a) shall specify the relevant person and the contractor to whom it relates;

      (b) shall be given by notice to the relevant person; and

      (c) may at any time be withdrawn by notice to the relevant person.

      (4) The Board shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that the contractor is supplied with a copy of any notice given under subsection (3) above which relates to him.
      (5) Where—

      (a) a direction under subsection (2) above has effect, and

      (b) any employees of the contractor specified in the direction work for, but not as employees of, the relevant person so specified,

      income tax shall, subject to and in accordance with PAYE regulations, be deducted by the relevant person on making any payment in respect of that work as if so much of the
      748
      payment as is attributable to work done by each employee were a payment of assessable income of that employee.".' —[Mr. Dorrell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.42 pm
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government new clause 9—PAYE regulations: past cases.
      Government amendments Nos. 3 to 12.
      Mr. Dorrell: The clause creates no new liabilities to tax. It contains provisions that will remove doubts that had arisen about the Inland Revenue's ability to collect tax under PAYE in certain circumstances.
      The objective of new clause 9 is to put beyond any doubt the legal basis of the operation of PAYE in those circumstances in past years, following a recent court decision in the House of Lords.
      New clause 8 has three objectives. First, it has been suggested that employers do not need to operate PAYE on the emoluments of employees or directors who come to work in the United Kingdom from overseas, if the exact proportion of their salaries and other payments that will be taxable is uncertain at the moment at which they are paid. The argument is that, when a payment of salary is made, the taxable proportion of it cannot always be ascertained precisely until later, usually after the end of the tax year, when the overall proportion of overseas and United Kingdom duties can be determined. It has been suggested that in such circumstances PAYE should not be operated on any part of the employee's salary, but that tax should be collected direct from the employee after the end of the tax year.
      Clearly that would have unacceptable cash flow consequences for the Exchequer, possibly running into hundreds of millions of pounds, as well as a potential long-term loss of tax where the individual concerned has returned to his home abroad.
      Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Will the Financial Secretary be explaining to the House the precise circumstances which have caused the new clause to be necessary? Will he be giving an explanation of the implication of the House of Lords decision so that we may all understand why the Government must bring forward the new clause at this stage?
      Mr. Dorrell: As I told the House, the House of Lords, in the case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Herd, ruled that there was doubt about the right of the Inland Revenue to collect tax under PAYE where the proportion of an individual's remuneration taxable under United Kingdom law and the proportion taxable under foreign law was uncertain at the moment at which the payment was made. That state of affairs removed the power of the Inland Revenue to collect tax under PAYE. The House will recognise that that is not a sensible basis on which to proceed, and the purpose of new clause 8 is to remedy that situation and to put the law, in the classic phrase, back in the position in which it was always thought to have been.
      The effect of new clause 8 is therefore to provide in the new section 203BC of the Income and Corporation Taxes

      749
      Act 1988 that PAYE may continue to be applied in future to the emoluments of employees and directors who are either not resident or not ordinarily resident in the UK. New clause 8 also provides two further provisions: the new sections 203BB and 203BD, which replace an anti-avoidance provision currently provided in secondary legislation and which applies where an employee or a director is paid by someone other than the person for whom he or she works on a day-to-day basis. In such circumstances, the current PAYE regulations require the person for whom the employee works, rather than the person who pays them, to account for tax under PAYE.
      The validity of the current regulation has never been formally challenged, but when the operation of PAYE on the emoluments of employees and others coming from overseas to work in the UK was being considered, and in the light of the recent court case to which I referred, we thought that it would be sensible to put beyond doubt the power of the Revenue to collect PAYE in the respect of those individuals. That is the effect of the new sections 203BB and BD provided in the rest of new clause 8.
      New clause 9, as I have already said, confirmed the past year's validity of the regulation and the new sections which replace that regulation and ensure that the tax that has been collected through PAYE for years past was legitimately collected.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Government clearly have a duty to protect the interests of the Inland Revenue and, for our part, Labour Members do not quarrel with that. As I understand the position as the Financial Secretary has stated it to the House, although the new clauses may seem complex, their purpose is to state the law as it was always understood to be.
      It is not unusual in Finance Bills for Labour Members, even on Report, to make either a pre-emptive strike on future decisions of the courts or to clarify for the courts the Government's original intention in legislating. I understand that the threat of loss of revenue could be quite substantial, so I am sure that the Government are right to act in that way.
      As the Financial Secretary has explained to the House, the principal concern seems to be with those who are either foreign nationals or who receive some substantial proportion of their total earnings from sources abroad. Therefore, there is some doubt as to the employers' liability to deduct PAYE from their earnings in Britain. It is certainly my view that there should be no such doubt and that the Government are proceeding in the right way.
      However, I wish to raise a separate concern with the Financial Secretary that has been put to me and some of my hon. and right hon. Friends by the National Farmers Union of Scotland. It is worried that the enactment that we are considering will affect its responsibility to administer payments and remunerations to gang labour employed on estates in Scotland. My understanding of the situation—frankly, I am not a specialist in the area—is that, at the moment, the gang master is responsible for the deduction of tax and national insurance, not the farmer. The NFU's fear is that responsibility is being transferred to it. It does not necessarily follow from the Financial Secretary's explanation that that is the position. I hope that he will be
      750
      able to tell the House what the position is as it pertains to gangs working on agricultural projects, especially as the law applies in Scotland.
      Mr. James Paice: As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) has said, this is not a matter for Scotland alone. The role of gang masters in agriculture, and especially in large-scale horticulture, is well known, particularly in the area of the fens in East Anglia up into Lincolnshire. In my constituency, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), many growers use gang masters as a means of harvesting and packaging their crops. Only three years ago there was a voluntary agreement between the Inland Revenue and the industry to try to overcome the problems that are caused by a few gang masters who have not been presenting the necessary payments to the Revenue.
      The great majority of gang masters are respectable individuals who run their businesses in all the ways in which we would wish them to do so. In so doing they fulfil their obligations. A few of them have been failing to do that and the voluntary agreement was targeted at them.
      It was with considerable concern that growers in my constituency, and the NFU, found the new clause on the amendment paper. They saw it as a sledgehammer to crack a nut—in other words, a large piece of extra legislation to deal with a small problem. No one is pretending that there is not a problem in a few instances, but I am concerned that the Inland Revenue should not now seek to make all farmers and growers who use gang masters responsible for
      the tax and insurance liabilities of the people who happen to work on their premises, carrying out work related to their businesses.
      It must be emphasised that farmers and growers do not employ the people who are brought to their premises by gang masters. They are not in charge of their day-to-day immediate work. They have no control over their terms and conditions. Such matters are decided by the gang master, who enters into a contract with the farmer to have a particular job of work carried out on the farm or the holding.
      My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said that the clause does not contain any new powers. He implied that the provision would not be used extremely rigorously. I note that "may" is used in terms of the proposed powers. I should like my hon. Friend's assurance that the Revenue will not turn to every farmer and grower who uses gang masters and tell them that they must be responsible for all the PAYE paperwork for every person who works on their land.
      We are not talking about two or three people. In my constituency, there are growers who, through gang masters, may have several hundred people working on their land at any one time. To make the individual farmer or grower responsible would be a mammoth imposition, especially at this time of year, which is the beginning of the growing and harvesting season. To introduce such a burden now on farmers and growers would be something that they could well do without, particularly when they are facing immense competition from Spain in respect of several horticultural crops.
      I urge my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to assure me and those of my hon. Friends who have considerable constituency interests in this context that he will not allow the Inland Revenue to use the powers in the clause to bear

      751
      upon the great majority of gang masters who carry out their obligations as we would wish. I trust that the farmers and growers who use gang masters will continue as they have in the past, with a voluntary arrangement whereby the gang master fulfils his obligations and provides the necessary returns to the Revenue.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: There is concern about the part of the new clause to which reference has been made. I have received representations from the National Farmers Union, as has my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). In practical terms, a farmer or grower would be put in a difficult position because not only might a large number of people be brought on to his farm by a gang master during a season when there are crops to be gathered, but they may be there for only one or two days in the week and then they will be on someone else's premises. The farmer or grower may start the week with 30 people working on his farm; after a couple of days, only half of them are still there and half have gone somewhere else. A few more people are brought in again when there is a bit more work to be finished.
      The flexibility of the gang system is the reason why farmers use it. It enables them to get the job done without carrying on their permanent staff a number of employees for which it would be impossible for the farm income to provide. Farmers simply cannot operate in that way. Given the competitive environment to which the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) referred with produce from other countries, growers must find whatever ways they can to harvest their crops efficiently.
      If farmers and growers are faced with having to make pay-as-you-earn returns for all sorts of individuals who are on their farms for only two or three days in the entire year and who are not under their direction or control, whom they do not know, whose home address they do not know and whose previous employment record they do not know, it is an incredible burden to put on them.
      The Government are supposed to be engaged in deregulation and reducing the burdens on small business. The burden which the provision will present to small business is considerable. At present, it is not clear—it may become clearer later—how many farmers and growers will face this daunting problem; it will depend on how many occasions the Revenue decides to make a direction that a particular grower or farmer must fill in a return. It is not clear whether it is intended to be a general practice or whether it is a power that will be brought into play in exceptional circumstances when it is perceived that a particular gang master has not been doing his PAYE returns properly and not accounting for the people whom he is employing. There is a world of difference between those two. At present, farmers and growers simply do not know whether they will be landed with the power or whether it will be an exceptional and rarely used power. I hope that it is the latter, and that the Minister can give us that assurance.
      The gang system is open to abuse not only with regard to taxation but in other ways as well; it can work to the detriment of those who are employed in it. However, it is a necessary part of the way in which harvesting takes place. Every attempt is being made by all those concerned to find a way of resolving the specific tax difficulty satisfactorily.
      It has come as a great shock to those concerned that the
      752
      Government have tabled on Report a new clause on a complex matter while discussions were supposed to be still taking place. So far as I am aware, the provisions in the new clause have not been the subject of consultation with those to whom the Government were talking. I do not see the point of that. The Government rightly engage in discussions with all the organisations. But suddenly, like a rabbit out of a hat, they produce the new clause, and slap it on the amendment paper, and take it at a stage when it cannot be the subject of any further discussion or amendment later. That simply does not make sense. If the Government were that determined to press ahead, why did they not table the new clause in Committee? At least we could have had some reflection on the matter and perhaps come back on Report with any necessary modification.
      It seems that the Government are failing the precepts that they set themselves for the consideration of such tax measures. They are at risk of imposing a serious burden on a great number of small businesses in a sector of agriculture which is not doing well financially and where incomes have fallen seriously recently. I ask the Minister to rethink what the Government are doing with the new provision. They have even included it in a new clause which contains so many other provisions that are necessary —or which the Minister said were necessary. That makes it difficult to vote against the provision because in doing so we will be voting against other anti-avoidance provisions which are probably generally felt to be desirable.
      The Minister has put the farming industry in a most unfair position by asking it to accept the change without proper consultation and with all the detrimental effects that it will have on farmers and growers, who have enough problems without having to account for the PAYE returns of people who may be on their farms for only a couple of days or one week of the year.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) for raising the concerns expressed by the National Farmers Union of Scotland on this issue. I stress that I hold absolutely no brief for the gang masters of this world. I am concerned about the obvious abuses which existed in the agriculture industry in the past, and which may well still exist, where casual employees are
      ruthlessly exploited by gang masters. However, the fruit and vegetable growing industry in the east of Scotland is important, and the only way in which it can function is by taking advantage of casual labour. If the Government are having difficulty collecting PAYE and national insurance contributions from that sector of the economy, they should address themselves to those who are directly responsible for employing the work force. They should not be trying to get other businesses to do that work for them.
      I understand that there is an agricultural compliance unit at the Inland Revenue which is actively seeking information about the way in which gangs operate. I would strongly support any efforts by the Treasury and the Inland Revenue to regulate that rather marginal sector of the rural economy because there is a need for proper protection for people who work in that sector. Seriously, it would not make sense to require individual farmers to become personally liable for paying the national insurance contributions and PAYE in respect of people whom they were not directly employing. It would set a silly precedent and I hope that that is not what the Minister intends to do.
      4 pm
      Mr. Dorrell: I can certainly give the House an assurance that it is not our intention to create in the new clause an obligation which does not already exist within the piece of secondary legislation to which I referred in my opening remarks. I remind the House that I said that the purpose of new sections 203BB and 203BD—we are now talking about 203BD—is to replace the provisions in the secondary legislation. The legitimacy of that legislation is at least questioned by the House of Lords ruling in the Herd case.
      The purpose of the clauses is to replace an existing piece of secondary legislation. I can certainly assure the House that the fact that the powers are now being put into primary legislation has no bearing at all on the assurances which have always been given, or those which are currently in force, by the Inland Revenue about how the powers which hitherto have been provided for by secondary legislation would be used.
      I must tell the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that it is not part of our purpose to provide as a normal state of affairs that a farmer should be required to provide for PAYE for labour employed by a gang master. It is clearly true that the primary responsibility for applying PAYE to members of a gang rests on the gang master, not on the farmer who employs the gang. That is a form of anti-avoidance provision which is already in the secondary legislation and the checks for the farmer are, I suggest to the House, improved by writing it into primary legislation in a number of respects.
      First, I draw the attention of the House to subsection (1)(c) of section 203BD which makes it clear that the power can be used only where
      "it is likely that income tax will not be deducted or accounted for in accordance with the regulations."
      Therefore, the board of the Inland Revenue must first satisfy itself. that there is a serious risk of avoidance activity or of a lack of enforcement activity in the circumstances.
      There are two new safeguards which are not provided in the current secondary legislation. First, the person who is using the workers' services—the farmer—will be required to deduct tax only from payments which he actually makes to the employer of the workers. Secondly, new legislation requires the board of the Inland Revenue to issue a written direction so that the parties involved are clear about their responsibilities.
      I hope that the House will accept that this is a clarification of an existing piece of secondary legislation which is under threat as a result of the Herd case. We have taken the opportunity to write in additional safeguards, and it is an important piece of anti-avoidance legislation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 9

      PAYE REGULATIONS: PAST CASES
      '.—(1) Regulation 4 of the 1993 Regulations (intermediate employers) is hereby revoked; but in relation to any time before its revocation it shall be deemed to have been validly made.
      (2) Regulation 3 of the 1973 Regulations (intermediate employers) shall, in relation to any time before its revocation, be deemed to have been validly made.
      (3) Where, at any time before the passing of this Act—
      754

      (a)a payment has been made of, or on account of, any income of an employee not resident or, if resident, not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom,

      (b) at the time when the payment was made it appeared that some of the income would be assessable to income tax under Case II of Schedule E, but that some of the income might prove not to be assessable to income tax under that Schedule, and

      (c) the payment or any proportion of it was treated for the purposes of the 1993 Regulations or the 1973 Regulations as a payment to which the regulations applied,

      then the treatment of that payment or that proportion of the payment as being a payment to which the regulations applied shall be deemed to have been lawful.
      (4) In this section—

      (a) "employee" means a person holding an office or employment under or with any other person;

      (b) "the 1993 Regulations" means the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1993; and

      (c) "the 1973 Regulations" means the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973.'.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 12

      ASSIGNED MATTERS: MINOR CORRECTIONS
      '.—(1) The provisions mentioned in subsection (2) below (which enable revenue traders and taxable persons to be required to keep records) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (3) and (4) below (which correct minor errors in those provisions so far as they relate to the admissibility in evidence of the recorded information).
      (2) The provisions are—

      (a) in the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, section 118A; and

      (b) in Schedule 7 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983, paragraph 7.

      (3) In subsection (6) and sub-paragraph (5) of those provisions—

      (a) in paragraph (c) for the words "sections 13 and 14 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968" there shall be substituted "sections 5 and 6 of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988"; and

      (b) in paragraph (d), for the words "except in accordance with the said sections 13 and 14" to the end there shall be substituted "except in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993".

      (4) Subsection (7) and sub-paragraph (6) of those provisions shall be omitted.'.—[Sir John Cope.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31 to 35.
      Sir John Cope: The new clause and the amendments refer to extremely technical provisions about the admissibility of documents, and particularly copies of documents, as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings arising under the various taxes administered by the Customs and Excise. The new clause and amendments correct errors not only in the Bill as originally drafted but in the law as it stood. They are extremely minor errors. They arise from changes in Scottish law on the admissibility of evidence. They do not change the substantive law, but they make clear what documents are admissible as evidence.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: As the right hon. Gentleman said, the new clause and amendments appear to be minor changes. However, it would be helpful to the

      755
      House if he could explain what difference it would have made if he had not tabled the amendments. Where exactly have the errors occurred, in respect of both the Bill and the position of the law as it currently stands? Does he anticipate that any claims against the Exchequer will arise out of the errors in the previous law?
      Sir John Cope: No, we do not expect any claims to arise from the errors. I am not aware of any cases which have occurred or are pending at this moment as a result of the confusion that might have arisen from the items being in the law. The Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 allowed computer evidence to be treated like evidence in other business documents in civil proceedings. The Bill as it is currently drafted, and the Acts which are referred to in the new clause and amendments, referred to the old civil provisions of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968, which was originally about civil proceedings but applied later to criminal proceedings. Those proceedings were deleted from statute law some time ago. They are still referred to in bits of the customs law.
      Clearly, if a court was asked to refer back to obsolete provisions which have been deleted from the law, it would create a difficulty in judging whether the documents should be admissible. Therefore, it is wise to do as we suggest in the new clause and amendments to bring the law into line by inserting the consequential amendments that should have been made perhaps a year or two ago and by bringing the Bill up to date.
      The matter turned up only because of the need to make sure that the drafting of the Bill was correct. That brought to light the difference between Scottish law and English law initially in respect of the insurance premium tax that we are introducing. The amendments correct that difference as well as the earlier legislation to which I referred.
      Mr. Andrew SmithI thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. It is good to know that someone is keeping a careful check on the details of these matters. One dreads to think how much other obsolete legislation there might be lurking in the nooks and crannies of the statutes. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's explanation and I cannot see any reason to oppose the new clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Mr. Dorrell: I beg to move amendment No. 45, a new schedule—Indexation losses: transitional relief—

      'Introductory
      1. This Schedule applies in relation to chargeable gains and allowable losses accruing to—

      (a) an individual, or

      (b) the trustees of a settlement made before 30th November 1993;

      (referred to in this Schedule as "the taxpayer").
      2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of this Schedule, and the determinations required by this paragraph to be made shall be made without regard to paragraphs 4 to 7 below.
      (2) If an allowable loss accrues on a disposal made on or after 30th November 1993 and, under the old indexation rules, a greater allowable loss would have accrued, there is an indexation loss in respect of the disposal equal to the amount by which the allowable loss which would have accrued under the old indexation rules exceeds the allowable loss accruing on the disposal.
      (3) If a disposal made on or after 30th November 1993 is one on which neither a gain nor a loss accrues and, under the old indexation rules, an allowable loss would have accrued, there is
      756
      an indexation loss in respect of the disposal equal to the amount of the allowable loss that would have accrued under the old indexation rules.
      (4) If the total amount of chargeable gains accruing to the taxpayer in any year of assessment for which this Schedule has effect exceeds the allowable losses accruing in that year, there is a relevant gain for that year equal to the amount of the excess.
      3.—(1) The cases in which the appropriation of an asset by the taxpayer is treated under section 161(1) of the 1992 Act (appropriations to and from stock) as a disposal of the asset include cases in which, if he had sold the asset for its market value, an allowable loss would have accrued to him under the old indexation rules.
      (2) Where, but for an election under subsection (3) of section 161 of the 1992 Act—

      (a) an asset appropriated by the taxpayer would have been treated as disposed of as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, and

      (b) paragraph 2(2) or (3) above would have applied on the disposal,

      paragraphs 1 and 2 above and 6 and 7 below shall apply, as if the asset had been so treated, to determine for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section any increase to be made in the amount of any allowable loss; and the appropriation of the asset is referred to below as a "relevant appropriation".
      (3) Sections 574 to 576 of the Taxes Act (relief for individual on disposal of shares in qualifying trading company) shall apply if an individual who has subscribed for shares as mentioned in section 574(1) disposes of them in circumstances where paragraph 2(3) above applies as they apply in other cases.
      (4) Where a person makes a claim for relief under subsection(1) of section 574 in the case of a disposal in respect of which there is an indexation loss (referred to below as a "section 574 disposal")—

      (a) paragraphs 6 and 7 below shall apply to determine any increase to be made, for the purposes of that subsection, in the amount of the allowable loss, and

      (b) paragraphs 4 and 5 below shall apply to so much only of the indexation loss as is not relieved under that section.

      (5) References in this paragraph and paragraphs 6 and 7 below to an increase in any loss include, in circumstances where paragraph 2(3) above applies, a reference to the creation of the loss.

      Capital gains tax
      4.—(1) Where in the case of any taxpayer—

      (a) there is a relevant gain for the year 1993–94,

      (b) the relevant gain exceeds the exempt amount for that year, and

      (c) there are indexation losses in respect of any disposals made in that year,

      then, for the purposes of the 1992 Act, the amount by which the total amount of chargeable gains accruing to the taxpayer in that year exceeds the allowable losses accruing in the year shall be reduced by the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below, and shall be so reduced before the deduction of any allowable losses carried forward from any previous year or carried back under section 62 from any subsequent year.
      (2) The amount referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above is so much of the total of indexation losses in respect of disposals made in that year as does not exceed—

      (a) £10,000, or

      (b) the amount by which the relevant gain exceeds the exempt amount for the year,

      whichever is the smaller.
      5.—(1) Where in the case of any taxpayer—

      (a) there is a relevant gain for the year 1994–95,

      (b) the relevant gain exceeds the exempt amount for that year, and

      (c) there are indexation losses in respect of any disposals made in that year or unused indexation losses for the previous year,

      then, for the purposes of the 1992 Act, the amount by which the total amount of chargeable gains accruing to the taxpayer in the year 1994–95 exceeds the allowable losses accruing in that year shall be reduced by the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below, and shall be so reduced before the deduction of any allowable losses carried forward from any previous year or carried back under section 62 from any subsequent year.
      (2) The amount referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above is so much of the total of indexation losses in respect of disposals made in the year 1994–95, plus any unused indexation losses for the previous year, as does not exceed—
      (a) £10,000 less the aggregate of—

      (i) the amount of any reduction made under paragraph 4(1) above for the previous year, and

      (ii) any increase made under paragraph 6(2) below for the previous year, or

      (b) the amount by which the relevant gain exceeds the exempt amount for the year 1994–95,
      whichever is the smaller.
      (3) For the purposes of this paragraph, if the total amount of indexation losses in respect of disposals made by the taxpayer in the year 1993–94 exceeds the aggregate of—

      (a) the amount of any reduction made under paragraph 4(1) above for that year, and

      (b) any increase made under paragraph 6(2) below for that year,

      there are unused indexation losses for that year of an amount equal to the excess.

      Income tax
      6.—(1) This paragraph applies where, at any time in the period beginning with 30th November 1993 and ending with 5th April 1994, the taxpayer makes any relevant appropriation or any section 574 disposal; and for the purposes of this paragraph there shall be determined—

      (a) the amount of any reduction for the year 1993–94 which (disregarding relevant appropriations and section 574 disposals) would be made under paragraph 4(1) above, and

      (b) the amounts of any indexation losses in respect of relevant appropriations or section 574 disposals made in that period.

      (2) If the aggregate of the amounts referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) above does not exceed £10,000, the amount of any allowable loss referable to such an appropriation or disposal shall be increased by any indexation loss in respect of it.
      (3) In any other case, notwithstanding anything in paragraphs 4 and 5 above—
      (a) the aggregate of—

      (i) the amount of any reduction for the year 1993–94 to be made under paragraph 4(1) above, and

      (ii) the amount of any indexation losses in respect of relevant appropriations or section 574 disposals made in the period referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above, shall be equal to £10,000 and shall be allocated as the taxpayer may determine between that reduction and increases in allowable losses referable to such appropriations or disposals, and

      (b) no reduction shall be made under paragraph 5 above or 7 below for the year 1994–95.
      7.—(1) This paragraph applies where, at any time in the year 1994–95, the taxpayer makes any relevant appropriation or any section 574 disposal; and for the purposes of this paragraph there shall be determined—

      (a) the amount of any reduction for that year which (disregarding relevant appropriations and section 574 disposals) would be made under paragraph 5(1) above, and

      (b) the amounts of any indexation losses in respect of relevant appropriations or section 574 disposals made in that year.

      (2) If the aggregate of the amounts referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) above does not exceed the limit for 1994–95, that is—

      (a) £10,000, less

      (b) the aggregate of the amount of any reduction made under paragraph 4(1) above for the year 1993–94 and of any increases made under paragraph 6(2) above for that year,

      the amount of any allowable loss referable to such an appropriation or disposal shall be increased by any indexation loss in respect of it.
      (3) In any other case, notwithstanding anything in paragraph 5 above, the aggregate of the amount of any reduction for the year 1994–95 to be made under paragraph 5(1) above and of the amount of any indexation losses in respect of relevant appropriations or section 574 disposals made in that year—
      758

      (a) shall be equal to the limit for 1994–95, and

      (b) shall be allocated as the taxpayer may determine between that reduction and increases in allowable losses referable to such appropriations or disposals.

      Supplementary
      8.—(1) In this Schedule—
      "the 1992 Act" means the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, and
      "the old indexation rules" means the 1992 Act as it would have effect if—

      (a) the amendments made by subsections (1) to (5) of section 93 of this Act, and

      (b) the repeal of section 103 (collective investment schemes, etc.) and section 111 (building societies) of the 1992 Act by subsection (7) of section 93 of this Act, had not come into force.

      (2) Other expressions not defined in this Schedule but used both in it and in the 1992 Act have the same meaning as in that Act.
      (3) References in this Schedule to the reduction of any amount include its reduction to nil.'.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No.44.
      Mr. Dorrell: Clause 93 ensures that for disposals on or after Budget day last year the capital gains tax indexation allowance cannot increase or create a capital loss. The clause was debated in depth during the Committee stage. I explained that the restriction of indexation allowances for losses was an important anti-avoidance measure. Significant abuse of indexation allowances for losses had been identified. We estimated that, unless we took action to prevent the abuse, by the end of the decade we could lose roughly £3 billion a year of revenue on capital gains through both capital gains tax and capital transfer tax.
      Several representations have been made about the way in which we are tackling this type of tax avoidance. We have heard arguments that legislation dealing with specific types of avoidance based on indexation allowances should have been introduced. We have considered that, but we have concluded that it is not a viable alternative.
      Abuse of indexation allowances for losses is so central to the structure of such allowances that any anti-avoidance legislation would have to be very complex and lengthy and would be unlikely to succeed in the long term.
      We also received some representations making a different point—that investors have been badly hit by the change. The main concern is for investors making relatively modest, chargeable gains, who were not significantly involved in tax avoidance. The vast majority of investors are generally not affected by the change to indexation on losses, since their gains were kept out of capital gains tax, either by the annual exempt amount or the operation of personal equity plans.
      To meet some of the concerns about the impact of the change, we decided to introduce a limited transitional relief for individuals and trusts, which is provided for in the new schedule. Each individual and the trustees of each trust set up before 30 November 1993 will be able to claim indexation on losses realised up to 5 April 1995, but the amount of indexation allowance that can be claimed under the transitional relief is limited to £10,000 and relief may be used only to reduce CGT liabilities in 1993–94 and 1994–95.
      The cap of £10,000 on the indexation allowance on losses for the period 30 November 1993 to 5 April 1995

      759
      will ensure that the majority of individuals and trusts will be able to claim full indexation allowance on their losses for 1993–94 and 1994–95. That will give individuals and trusts a period to rearrange their portfolios before the full restriction of indexation for losses applies from 6 April 1995. The transitional relief will cost about £45 million, spread over the three years, including 1994–95.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: As I understand it, the Government's estimate of the cost of relief is £10 million for the first year, £25 million for the next and £10 million for the final year, giving the figure that the Finance Secretary gave the House. It is important to explain that fact because at an earlier meeting we were told that the relief would cost £25 million in a full year. Stating the figures for the three-year period shows how that figure was arrived at.
      This is a modest, relieving measure given that the debate in Committee turned out to be quite controversial. Many Conservative Members were worried about the Financial Secretary's proposals. Some Conservative Members agreed with the reforms that Lord Lawson made in the mid-1980s and took some persuading that the Government were right to return to those matters, not merely to reform Lord Lawson's arrangements but to change them entirely and withdraw in their entirety the arrangements enabling indexation on capital losses to be carried forward.
      The measure is a modest, relieving measure—a widows and orphans relieving measure—and will be worth £4,000 to a top-rate taxpayer in any one year. It is limited not merely to £10,000 but to the two-year period during which the provision can be used and, in as much as the measure applies only to individuals and trusts, it is tightly drawn. Critics of the Government's reforms would describe it as a modest concession.
      If the Financial Secretary believes that the changes that he is making are right, why is such a concession necessary? If the position, as he explained it to the Finance Bill Committee, was right in principle, why does he not stand by it? Why is he offering this albeit modest relieving measure? It seems to me, as I am sure that it will seem to others, that the Government have lost confidence in the reform that they put before the Committee and are offering this measure as a sop to the many critics of their proposals, not least those from their own side.
      Mr. Beith: The amendment is a fairly limited response to a great of deal of anxiety that was expressed in Committee.
      The Government have abandoned the Lawson reforms, in which they used to take a pride and about which they used to say a great deal. They have abandoned them because they believe that a potential tax loss of about £3 billion could result—a figure which was never satisfactorily explained in Committee, but which no Minister could ignore. My submission in Committee was that it should be possible, if that is the scale of the potential loss, to formulate more specific measures to ensure that the Lawson reforms were not abused in such a way.
      It therefore appears that Lord Lawson, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, set in train a tax change that could have appalling consequences for the Revenue, and that it has taken several years of Conservative government for that awful truth to come home.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: Eight years.
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) reminds me that it has taken eight years of Conservative government for that awful truth to come home. Someone in the Treasury suddenly discovered that £3 billion could go down the tubes as a result of that serious miscalculation. The noble Lord made a number of miscalculations, not least about what the combined effect would be of his measures on mortgage interest when associated with the liberalisation of capital and mortgages and the promise of tax cuts, but that is another big Lawson miscalculation.
      4.15 pm
      I think that in the intervening eight years many people have been persuaded that it was right in principle and logical that there should be indexation relief of that type, and that people who have made losses as a result of the Government's incompetence in allowing too much inflation should not be penalised for the Government's mistakes. That seems to be a reasonable principle, and one which should guide the Government anyway. The Government should not be encouraged in their misdemeanours by the knowledge that if they produce too much inflation they gain through tax measures as a consequence, automatically, without having to come to the House of Commons to raise more tax. The Government remain in the dock for having embarked on the reforms and for abandoning them so totally on the basis of a figure that members of the Committee found slightly hard to believe.
      The measures themselves are limited in time scale. The allowance is lost if it is not used in respect of the period until 5 April 1995. It does not solve the problem of retrospection for those excluded from the relief, including companies, and one wonders whether it is right that companies should be exempt from the benefit of the change.
      The amount of the relief is also a restriction—£10,000 is a relatively small amount in relation to the losses that can be incurred, for example, in farming. In Committee, I mentioned those people who are trying to set milk quota gains against capital depreciation in land values. Large sums of money are involved which have never been seen by the farmer concerned; they are accounting transactions. On one hand, the farmer has something that he cannot even touch—milk quota—which has a value that he never asked it to have; on the other, his land, which he can see, has greatly depreciated in value as a result of the decrease in land values. We are not speaking about a pile of used notes that the farmer can spend; we are speaking about the effect on his viability, and perhaps on his ability to move from one farm to another, or to retire from farming with any provision for retirement. That viability is affected by the inability to set more than the £10,000 limit against gains.
      I have also been told that the schedule is poorly designed and looks as though it was a bit of a rushed job. For example, although individuals and settlements are included, personal representatives are not, with the result that, after a person dies and someone takes on the responsibility of executing the will, they cannot continue to sell the assets of the deceased and set them off with gains against losses. There may prove to be more drawbacks resulting from the way in which the schedule was drawn up.
      Obviously, the schedule was drawn up in a bit of a hurry as a result of the amount of criticism that was received in Committee. I am glad that the Government at least made

      761
      the attempt, but many people, including many small businesses and farmers, will be dealing in sums greater than those that are covered by the proposals and are likely to suffer substantial losses.
      It is hard to "read across the column", if you like, from those problems experienced by people in small business to the possibility of companies creating shell companies and off-the-shelf companies to which they can transfer millions of pounds of losses. It is of the latter material that the fears of the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary are made —the possibility of companies inventing other companies to which they can transfer considerable gains and with which they can make financial manoeuvres of that type; that is what the problem is about. But that is not the experience of those who may suffer from the limited nature of what the Government are now offering.
      We tabled amendments to eliminate the retrospective elements of the Government's original clause 89, now clause 93, which have not been selected, but it will be apparent from those amendments how strongly we feel about the retrospective aspect of this. I remain less than satisfied with the form of the Government's response to the concern expressed in Committee.
      Mr. John Townend: I strongly support the amendment which gives some transitional relief to individual investors and I thank the Government for that concession. However, it does not deal with the important point of principle at issue here. It is very much like an EC derogation for several years in that it dulls the pain in the short term but it hits one in the end.
      The proposal eventually to do away with the indexation of losses is wrong in principle and illogical and I question the motives that made the Government introduce it. As I understnad it, it was introduced at the request of the Inland Revenue in order to stop tax avoidance.
      When capital gains tax was set at the internationally high level of 40 per cent., it was argued that that was acceptable as the taxpayer would not pay tax on inflation. That was achieved by allowing the taxpayer to index the cost price of the asset. That was symmetric. It did not matter what happened in the future; the cost price of the asset was adjusted to cover for inflation.
      The Government are now trying to make that asymmetric in that the cost price will be adjusted only if a profit is made in the future. The cost price will not be adjusted if a loss is made. That means that an individual's portfolio of shares will no longer be protected against the ravages of inflation. We are breeching an important principle there.
      As for the reason given by the Inland Revenue—that the amendment will deal with people who are avoiding tax by complicated means—stopping indexation for everything and everybody is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
      I strongly support the efforts of the Treasury and the Inland Revenue to stop artificial schemes and avoidance, but, with due respect to my colleagues on the Front Bench, on this occasion the Inland Revenue has been idle. It has been too idle to draft the necessary clauses to deal with avoidance, so everyone will suffer.
      I found the estimated cost of the Government not taking such action rather suprising. The total yield of capital gains tax is £1.2 billion a year, yet the Government are talking about a cost of up to £3 billion a year by the year 2000. I understand that that is partly because the capital gains tax figures relate only to individuals, whereas capital gains tax
      762
      applies also to companies, but I am told that indexation of losses is expected to cost £1 billion with regard to individuals.
      If those figures are not grossly exaggerated, it means that the Government consider that, during the next few years, inflation will rise dramatically, otherwise I cannot see how the estimates can be anything like accurate.
      We welcome the concession, but will the Government think seriously by the next Budget and try to bring back some equity? For example, I see no reason why they cannot continue the transitional proposals on a long-term basis and for the individual allow indexation of losses of up to £10,000 a year in perpetuity. That would protect the legitimate small investor. The Government should look at the matter again because there is an important matter of principle here.
      Mr. Dorrell: Of course the Government concede that the proposal included in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget departs from the intellectual symmetry of the Lawson reforms of 1985. That is self-evidently true, as I made clear in Committee. We feel that it is right to depart from that intellectual symmetry because, although we can see the intellectual rigour of the approach taken by my noble Friend Lord Lawson, experience has taught us that the loss indexation provisions introduced by the 1985 legislation open substantial opportunities for tax planning and avoidance in a way that undermines the yield of capital gains tax.
      Although it is easy to see the attraction of the Lawson approach, we cannot be blind to the fact that, although capital gains tax systems applied by many other OECD countries provide indexation, there is no example anywhere in the OECD of a country that has successfully allowed indexation of losses.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for repeating that important point, which he made in Committee with telling effect. Will he explain why it took the Government eight years to discover it?
      Mr. Dorrell: The Government are still attracted to the intellectual rigour of my noble Friend's case. If it had been possible to design rules for operating a symmetrical approach to indexation without undermining the tax yield, we would of course have preferred to go down that road. Experience of the operation of the principle in practice taught us that that is not possible.
      Before the hon. Gentleman leaps to his feet and says that the new schedule is another example of the Government acting too little, too late to close a major loophole, I remind the House that the major impact of the indexation provisions on yield is building all the time.
      Our projections of the long-term effect on yield extend to the end of this decade not because—to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend)—we expect inflation to recur in the interim, but because the tax planning steps taken by some companies almost immediately, as it appears, after my noble Friend sat down after making his Budget speech in 1985 will have that much longer to mature. It is not the effect of inflation between now and 1998 that is the key, but the cumulative effect of provisions put in place and of tax planners and practitioners climbing the learning curve and exploiting new opportunities for relief. In Committee, I gave a couple of examples of new ideas that are being pursued in both the corporate and—this is important—individual sectors.

      763
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington asked why we had not made serious proposals to address abuses directly rather than undermine the principles of the Lawson reforms. As I said, we would have preferred to have made such proposals but concluded that none of the methods that we examined could be made to work. I am encouraged in my view that we have not been idle, to use my hon. Friend's word, because most of the ideas that we considered were put to us by outside bodies wanting to argue the case, and none seemed to us to pass the test of addressing the abuse while not undermining the principle of indexation. It is not just us who have been idle, but the lobbying groups that sought to argue the case to us.
      Mr. John Townend: It seems difficult to believe that the avoidance will be so successful, particularly in respect of individuals, that a tax yielding £1.3 billion would, after several years, yield only about £0.3 billion. That stretches the imagination.
      Would not most of the avoidance be covered if we exempted private investors? Most artificial tax avoidance schemes are carried out by limited companies.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right that some of the best developed examples occur in the corporate sector, but I gave the Committee the example of the capital-certain bonds being developed in the City, the purpose of which would be to fall just the wrong side of the qualifying corporate bond rules so that they figured in capital gains tax. Loss indexation would be available to them, but they would in practice be capital-certain. People would therefore have the interest on the bond and the indexation available on the capital value of the bond, which value would be virtually certain.
      Of course it is true that we could have changed the detail of the qualifying corporate bond rules in order to catch a particular bond issue being marketed by a particular house; but that illustrates the sort of opportunity that exists to develop a product whose purpose would be to offer the individual investor the twin gain of a current interest return and protection against capital gains elsewhere in his portfolio. The list that I gave the Committee was not
      intended to be exhaustive—it was merely indicative of the sort of product that we know is being developed in the City to exploit the rules, not in the corporate sector but in the individual retail sector.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington asked me for an assurance that we would continue to think seriously about the future of CGT, and I am happy to give him it. As I told the Committee, the Government are engaged in a full dress review of the flow of funds through the economy and of how the tax system, among other things, impacts on the availability of finance for industry. One does not need to look far into the system to understand that capital gains tax exerts an important influence on the availability of capital to the wealth-creating sector.
      As I said in Committee, it is no part of the Government's case that CGT is a part of the tax system that cannot be further improved. I offer my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall continue to think seriously about the future of CGT as part of the tax system. In the meantime, I believe that we have little choice but to introduce the abolition of loss indexation relief, as
      764
      provided for by clause 93. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the transitional provision that we have tabled.
      To answer the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, this in no sense undermines our commitment to the abolition of loss indexation relief. There was a certain inconsistency between the hon. Gentleman's argument and the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: We are members of different parties.
      Mr. Dorrell: Indeed, but the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman cannot both be right. The one says that we have lost confidence in our proposals; the other says that we are sweeping away the fundamental reforms introduced by Lord Lawson. On this occasion, I side with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, although not with any enthusiasm because I respect the intellectual symmetry and appeal of Lord Lawson's original proposal. But I have to conclude that we have tried it and it does not work.
      Mr. John Townend: Will my hon. Friend deal with my first point? How does he explain that a tax that yields only £1.3 billion from the personal sector—if nothing is done —will decrease by £1 billion in two or three years' time? That suggests that everyone will have a tax avoidance scheme—such projections stretch the imagination.
      Mr. Dorrell: The figures on which the £3 billion yield were based anticipated the yield from capital gains tax and from corporation tax on capital gains, by the end of the decade, as being about £4.5 billion. We anticipated that virtually all the tax from the corporate sector would by then be at risk, and roughly half the tax from the individual and trust sector would be at risk, as a result of the sort of tax planning devices that I have described. It was the application of those two principles to the underlying anticipated yield of £4.5 billion that left us with £3 billion missing and £1.5 billion still coming in.
      Amendment agreed to.

New clause 1

  PREMISES FOR THE PROVISION OF CHILD CARE
  'The following section shall be inserted after section 14 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990—
  "14A (1) Where a building or structure which is not an industrial building or structure is used by a person carrying on a trade for the provision of care for the children of workers employed in that trade, this Part shall apply to that building or structure as if it were an industrial building or structure.
  (2) The writing down allowances within section 3 which are made to a person by reason of subsection (1) above are not to exceed £10 in aggregate for a chargeable period.
  (3) In this section-'care' means any form of care or supervised activity whether or not provided on a regular basis, but excluding supervised activity provided primarily for educational purposes; 'children' means person under the age of eighteen..'''.—[Ms Harman.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms Harriet Harman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 6—Child care vouchers—
  '.—(1) Where an employer supplies child care vouchers to an employee in qualifying circumstances and up to the qualifying limit such vouchers shall not be treated as emoluments for the purposes of section 131 of the Taxes Act 1988 or as benefits to which section 154 of the Taxes Act 1988 applies.
  (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the vouchers are supplied in qualifying circumstances if

  (a) the vouchers can be used only in paying for care for a child who falls within subsection (3) below and

  (b) the registration requirement is met

  (3) A child falls within this subsection if the child

  (a) is a child for whom the employee has parental responsibility

  (b) is resident with the employee or

  (c) is a child or stepchild of the employee and is maintained at the employee's expense

  (4) The registration requirement is that

  (a) the premises on which the care is provided are registered under section 1 of the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948 or section 11 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 or

  (b) a person providing the care is registered under section 71 of the Children Act 1989 with respect to the premises on which it is provided

  (5) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the qualifying limit is

  (a) in the case of each child who is under the age of six years and is not in full time education, £75 a week

  (b) in the case of each other child under the age of 16 years, £30 a week.

  (6) In this section, "care" and "parental responsibility" have the same meaning as in section 155A of the Taxes Act 1988.'.
  New clause 7—Child care and the self-employed—
  '.—(1) Notwithstanding section 74 of the Taxes Act 1988, in computing the amount of the profits or gains of an individual to be charged under Case I or Case II of Schedule D a deduction may be made for the cost up to the qualifying limit of care for a child who falls within subsection (2) below if the registration requirement is met
  (2) A child falls within this subsection if the child

  (a) is a child for whom the individual has parental responsibility

  (b) is resident with the individual or

  (c) is a child or stepchild of the individual and is maintained at the individual's expense

  (3) The registration requirement is that

  (a) the premises on which the care is provided are registered under section 1 of the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948 or section 11 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 or

  (b) a person providing the care is registered under section 71 of the Children Act 1989 with respect to the premises on which it is provided

  (4) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the qualifying limit is

  (a) in the case of each child who is under the age of six years and is not in full time education, £75 a week

  (b) in the case of each other child under the age of 16 years, £30 a week.

  (6) In this section, "care" and "parental responsibility" have the same meaning as in section 155A of the Taxes Act 1988.'.
  Ms Harman: New clause 1 raises a genuine anomaly in the tax treatment of employers who provide nurseries for their employees. It highlights the difference between the tax treatment of employers in factories and warehouses who provide such nurseries, and that of employers in shops and offices who do the same. It also highlights the difference between employers in shops and offices who provide their employees with sports facilities and those who provide nurseries: the latter do not receive the same tax concessions as the former. The new clause also deals with the important question of child care, giving us an opportunity to examine the current position and to demand action from the Government.
  766
  Nothing less than a social and economic revolution has taken place in this country over the past couple of decades. The patterns of both family life and work have changed. A typical employee used to be a man working full time, expecting to work full time from the moment when he left school to the moment when he retired at 65, and assuming that, throughout that time, he would be supported by a non-working wife caring for their children at home.
  Now, however, there is no set pattern of family life, and families come in all shapes and sizes. Two specific trends are discernible: more families are headed by lone mothers, and there are fewer extended families. Granny is less likely to be on the scene.
  The revolution has extended to the workplace. Women now constitute half the work force. It cannot be said often enough that public policy must catch up with the revolution in the labour market and the world of work, and its effect on the economy. Women's work is essential to the economy, as women now work in all regions of the country and in all industries; however, it is also essential to the family budget. Women are working not just for themselves, but for their families and the economy as a whole.
  There has also been a revolution in women's educational qualifications. Women now have educational qualifications equal to those of men when they leave school, college or university—not necessarily in the same subjects, but investment in the education of girls and women now equals investment in that of boys and men.
  A new army of women has joined men at work—and most of those women are mothers. The Government, however, have failed even to ask themselves, let alone answer, the question that every working mother must ask herself: who will look after the children? As far as we can see, there is no public policy on child care—no public policy to match the revolution that has taken place at home and at work.
  The Government have simply turned a blind eye to the needs of the children of working mothers; parents have been left to fend for themselves, and for most working parents the care of both pre-school and school-age children is a headache.
  I make it absolutely clear that, although we are talking tonight about children aged under five years, we are talking also about school-age children. It is not as though, once children start school at the age of five, the problems are solved for working parents. We should think about all those in-service training days when working women are tearing out their hair, and think of the school holidays, and of half term. School is not child care, and it does not solve the problems of working parents.
  I hope that, when people worry, as they are right to do, about children being stuck in front of videos, they also ask themselves what the connection is between the debate about children spending too much time watching videos and the debate we are having today about the lack of facilities for school-age and pre-school children.
  With women now entering the labour market and making up half the total work force, the result has been a huge increase in the demand for child care. The southern European countries—the Mediterranean countries—by and large still have a well-developed extended family network. Therefore, child care needs can be met to quite a large extent by aunts, great aunts or grandmothers. That is no longer the case in most communities in this country.

  767
  The northern European countries meet the demand for child care by providing day nurseries, nursery schools and classes, and through out-of-school provision. Many of those countries also have a more stable extended family network than we have.
  In the south of Europe, there are extended families as well as many well-developed child care systems, and in the north there is good child care provision as well as extended families. But what do we have in this country to support the children of working parents when we do not have the extended families or child care?
  The demand for child care is increasingly being met, not by an increase in the number of nurseries—which would be the first choice of many parents—but by an increase in the number of child minders. I have obtained some figures through answers to parliamentary questions. Between 1982 and 1992, the number of places in local authority day nurseries fell. What an indictment that is. There has been an unprecedented increase in the number of women going to work, yet there has been a fall of 4,500 in the number of places in local authority day nurseries.
  The really big increase in child care provision has been in the number of child minders. More than a quarter of a million children are now cared for by child minders—an increase of more than 150,000 in the last 10 years. The lack of child care provision and the increase in the number of women in the work force have resulted in an increase in demand for child minders which has been met by an increase in the number of child minders.
  For many—especially those with very young children —that is the preferred form of child care; but for more it is not. The number of children cared for by child minders has grown by more than 150,000 in the last 10 years. But for most of those parents, child minders are simply the only available option or the cheapest option; they are not necessarily the first choice of the parents or of experts examining the child care situation.
  In the past, the child of a working mother was more likely to be cared for in a nursery. During the war, when the men went off to fight and the women worked in industries such as the armaments industry, the response was to ensure that nurseries were available for the children of working mothers. But there has not been a similar response to the current influx of women entering the work force. A network of nurseries has not been established today as was
  established during the war, when an equal number of women worked.
  4.45 pm
  As women have entered the work force, child care has been privatised and fragmented, with the need met by private nurseries. There has been an increase in the number of private nurseries, although there are still very few places available in private nurseries. Only 91,000 children have places in private nurseries, compared with the quarter of a million children who are cared for by child minders.
  Often, the reason why children are cared for by child minders rather than in a private nursery—the two alternative forms of private child care—is the cost of private nurseries. The Government's own figures show that it can cost up to £150 per week for a private nursery place.
  In our view, it is wholly unsatisfactory that a major public policy shift has taken place with no parliamentary debate or public discussion. I should like to hear the Minister's reaction to these issues. Does he think that it is satisfactory that parents have no choice of child care, and
  768
  that many can only afford a child minder? Does he think that a nursery place should be a viable choice? Does he think that a public policy issue is involved here, or is it simply a matter of parents who work fending for themselves?
  I look forward to the Minister's response to these questions. I hope that he will not say that it is a matter for his colleagues in the Department of Health, the Department for Education or the Department of the Environment. I can tell the Minister that each one is saying that it is a matter for the other. As the Minister is in the Chamber, perhaps we can hear from him the Government's response to this important economic issue.
  Every Minister I have asked for information about the child care strategy has given a different answer. There have been different answers because there is ambivalence about the issue of what child care provision there should be for the children of working mothers. There is a similar ambivalence about nursery provision.
  We have seen the Government going hither and thither in their approach to nursery education. On 14 November, last year The Sunday Times said that the Secretary of State for Education was ruling out universal nursery education and dismissing it as too expensive. He said:
  "We haven't got any money. We are in a difficult public expenditure round."
  Ms Angela Eagle: Would my hon. Friend agree that that kind of argument is very short-sighted, as keeping mothers who wish to work on benefit does not save the taxpayers money? It means that mothers are stuck on benefit and are not making a contribution to the tax revenue, which they would be making if they could afford to work because they had access to affordable child care.
  Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope to return to that issue.
  Without a nursery place, many parents—particularly single parents—are dependent upon benefits and cannot go out to work. That is quite apart from the fact that research shows that nursery education benefits children, and therefore should be seen as a long-term investment in children's futures.
  Although in November the Secretary of State for Education ruled out nursery education for children as too expensive, and said that it was not possible because the Government had a "difficult public expenditure round", a month later, on 23 December, the Prime Minister changed the tune. He said that it was the Government's intention to move to universal nursery education. He added—we have been making the point for years—that the United Kingdom compares poorly with the rest of Europe in terms of child care, with only half our three to four-year-olds in nursery education, compared with 99 per cent. provision in France and 96 per cent. provision in Belgium.
  On the one hand, we can see the ambivalence of different Secretaries of State, Ministers of State and Government Departments about nursery education and women at work, but the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave the game away when he said that the provision of public services sapped parental responsibility. He was saying that any public provision somehow confiscates the responsibility of parents, but he failed to recognise that, with the help of proper public provision of child care services, many parents who want to go out to work but who

  769
  are at the moment stuck on benefit and living on income support could be financially responsible for themselves and their children if child care provision was available.
  The Chief Secretary was in effect saying, "They're your children; you had them, so you look after them. They are absolutely nothing to do with us." We believe that, of course, children are primarily the responsibility of their parents—no one would have it any other way—but the community as a whole has an interest in the well-being of our children and their preparation for adult life.
  We all have an interest in children growing up to be adults who are, in the Prime Minister's words, "at ease" with themselves and able to take on adult responsibilities. The Government's attitude—"They're your children; they are nothing to do with us, so why are you even asking us about child care?"—is short-sighted.
  When the Government have reluctantly taken action on child care, it has always been characterised by two features: it has been short-term—"here today, gone tomorrow" initiatives—and fragmented. We need not pump priming but a long-term strategy. When the Government have been pressed and felt it necessary to issue a press statement on child care, they have set up a pump-priming initiative.
  I do not know whether hon. Members remember the under-fives initiative set up in the 1980s, which was to last for two years. What happened to it? In the 1990s, grants via training and enterprise councils seem to be the fashionable way of affording the Government the opportunity to issue a press release, but there is no long-term strategy to deliver a national child care programme. What is lacking is not pump priming but a long-term strategy.
  Child care should be regarded as part of the economic infrastructure, as important in getting women to work as the roads and railways on which they travel to work. Like other infrastructure projects, child care needs a long-term, strategic approach. Such an approach would match not only the demands of the economy but those of parents. Although the patterns of women's employment may be fragmented and changing, the needs and demands of their children are not. Their children need continuity and certainty.
  If a mother gets a training place for six months, it is not good enough to offer her child care for six months at the local TEC. The child will just be settling in when it will be time for the mother to take him out of the nursery because she is looking for a job. She will have to make temporary arrangements for the child while looking for work and, if she gets a job, she will have to make other arrangements for the child to be cared for while she is at work. If she is on one of the increasing number of short-term contracts, what will happen to her child care when the contract comes to an end?
  There is no set pattern for women's employment. The fact that women now form half of the work force does not mean that they are working according to the pattern to which men used to work. A woman might work full-time or part-time; she might be out of the labour market for a while and then retrain and return to part-time work and then to full-time work. The point is that, although a mother's pattern of employment might be changing and
  770
  fragmented, her child needs continuity and certainty, and child care cannot be fragmented to mirror the fragmentation of the new labour market.
  Does the Minister believe that child care is part of the economic infrastructure and not a matter for individual parents, or does he believe that it is a private matter that can be left to parents alone?
  Mr. David Willetts: The hon. Lady says that she does not want a fragmentation of the labour market, with women moving from one job to another leading to their child care also being fragmented. Why, therefore, is she advocating a change that specifically ties tax relief to the place of employment?
  Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman has not read the new clause carefully enough. It would also provide more favourable tax treatment for employers who undertake joint ventures with local authorities. We have greatly welcomed that growing trend, which Labour councils have pioneered.
  For example, when giving planning permission for a new Sainsbury store to be built, the council and the company embark on a joint venture to build a nursery there. When that happens, we believe that the employer should get the same tax relief on the nursery buildings that it would have received had they been a warehouse or factory.
  We are making two points. First, there is not enough child care. We need more, and we want to encourage it wherever we can. Secondly, we have to ensure that it is of high quality and embodies certainty and continuity.
  Does the Minister believe that child care is an economic issue about which his team is concerned, or does he believe that it is solely a private matter that can be left to parents?
  Mr. Dorrell: I am happy to respond to the hon. Lady. Of course it is true that child care is an economic issue, and I should like the hon. Lady to expand a little on that point. She said that we need a national child care strategy, and her hon. Friends support that proposition. Is she committing her party to a such a strategy? If so, would she be responsible for it, or would the shadow Department for Education? If she were to be responsible for a national child care strategy, what would be its shape?
  Ms Harman: We have made it clear that we believe that working parents with young children should have a choice of child care. We also believe that the Government have a role to play—they must take the lead. I shall deal with the Minister's point a little later.
  We certainly do not think that child care provision is entirely a matter for public finance, although it is a crucial aspect of public policy. It is not only the Government who will foot the bill, although they must play their part. The Government must take a lead in galvanising the willingness of parents to chip in and pay some of the cost and to galvanise the willingness of employers to invest.
  There is a readiness to act, but the Government must take a lead to ensure that we have a national child care strategy. The Minister should examine what Labour councils have been able to do, and I shall deal in a moment with what the Government are saying about council provision.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady has conceded that child care provision is not purely a matter of public finance. I therefore do not understand why she is dismissive of

  771
  developments in the infrastructure of child care in the private sector, such as private registered day nurseries. Why is she so dismissive if she accepts that child care does not have to be wholly publicly funded?
  Ms Harman: I am not dismissive of the increase in child care over the past 10 years, but I am making two points. First, the increase in child care has in no way matched the increase in the number of young children whose mothers are at work, what we call the "child care gap". Secondly, parents do not have a real choice of child care, often having to go for the cheapest option. That is why I believe that there should be a public policy on child care, and a national child care strategy. It is not good enough for the Minister to conclude that there appear to be more child minders, so everything must be fine. "Look," he says, "there appear to be more private day nurseries, so there we are, it is all happening."
  The important fact is that we do not have a proper strategy that ensures choice and high-quality affordable child care.
  Mr. Dorrell indicated dissent.
  5 pm
  Ms Harman: The Minister appears to think that the Government do have a strategy. He clearly does not understand that, all over the country, working mothers, who are doing a good job, contributing to the economy and to their family budgets, are tearing their hair out because of the lack of child care provision, and because of the expense and the variable quality of the care that is available.
  As the Prime Minister hesitatingly acknowledged last December, in other European countries Governments have recognised the importance of child care and nursery provision. But Britain is at the bottom of the European nursery league table. Why should Britain's children be Europe's poor relations? I should like the Minister to respond on that point.
  The Minister said that he believed that there was a strategy, and that the Government recognised that child care is part of the economic infrastructure. I am delighted to know that he thinks that there is a strategy. Perhaps he would discuss it with some of his colleagues in other Departments.
  I have addressed several parliamentary questions to all the Departments, and when we put all the answers together, it becomes clear that there is no coherent strategy. There is inadequate information about how much money is spent on child care and nurseries, and about the number of places. I asked all Departments to make statements both about child care for their own staff and about the contributions they make to other child care and nursery services.
  The Department for Education, which is responsible for nursery education, said nothing about its strategy. The Department of the Environment, which provides resources to local authorities for under-fives provision and out-of-school care, said nothing whatever about child care strategy. The Department of Employment, which provides resources for out-of-school care, could not say anything about a child care strategy, either. The Department of Health, which has overall responsibility for child care, said nothing about the importance of child care for working parents.
  Four of the Departments that provide child care for their own staff—the Departments of Health, of the
  772
  Environment, and of Employment, and the Treasury—said nothing about the strategy behind that provision. Clearly it is tacked on, with no coherence.
  There is also a lack of information about what spending there is, and what it contributes to. The Department for Education does not know how much local education authorities spend in total on the under-fives. That is extraordinary. The Department of Health does not know how much local authorities spend on child care for the under-fives. The Department of the Environment knows how much is given to local authorities but not how much is spent, and the Department of Health does not know how much is spent on nursery provision in the national health service.
  There is also a lack of information about child care places. The Department of Health could not provide overall figures for child care provision, because the figures for day care and for nursery schools and nursery classes are collected on a different basis. The Department of the Environment did not know how many child care places were provided by local authorities.
  The Department for Education provided figures for under-fives in nursery and primary schools, but of course those include the rising-fives, who are already in full-time schooling. The Department does not provide figures for under-fives in nursery schools and classes. The Department of Health does not know how many child care places there are for NHS employees.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that this morning I received a written answer from the Department for Education about the statistics for provision for the under-fives? That answer, which is recorded at column 379 of yesterday's Hansard, admits that, on the due date, there could be double counting of children who may attend both playgroups and nursery classes during the same year. So the statistics that the Secretary of State for Education constantly bandies around are open to question.
  Ms Harman: Yes, I noted my hon. Friend's question, and the information he received in reply to it makes an important contribution to the debate. It proves that there is no determination to find out what is going on, what is working and what is not working, so as to build on best practice and take things forward. The Government seem to be collecting whatever figures they can to show themselves in the best possible light, without any concern about what is really happening on the ground, and whether that represents a proper national child care strategy.
  The situation is a shambles. Working mothers and their children are being let down, and the child care deficit is growing all the time. Since 1984, there has been an increase of more than 600,000 in the number of children under five whose mothers go out to work. Yet during those 10 years, there has been an increase of less than 300,000 in places with nurseries, child minders and playgroups; and, as hon. Members will know, much of the provision counted in with the 300,000 extra places is not provision for working parents.
  Playgroups provide an invaluable service, but most people recognise that many cannot be counted as child care for working parents. The same goes for nursery education. Nursery education is vital, and we want all parents who feel that their child can benefit from it to have a chance of a place in a nursery school or nursery class for that child.

  773
  However, such places often cannot constitute child care for working parents. The official increase of 300,000 over-estimates the increase in provision for working parents.
  Many more mothers, especially lone mothers, would come off benefit and go out to work if child care were available. But the increase in child care nowhere near matches the increase in the number of mothers already going out to work, let alone the number who want to work but are prevented from doing so by the lack of child care.
  The Government's own figures show that 90 per cent. of lone parents currently out of work, who are claiming benefit and bringing up their children on income support, want to go out to work, but lack of child care is a major obstacle for them. If we examine the map of participation of lone parents in the work force and the map of child care provision, we see that, in the countries that have developed child care, there is much more participation of lone parents in the work force.
  Instead of Ministers moaning about single parents claiming benefits, let them listen to the demands of single parents. Single parents want to go out to work and to be able to provide for themselves and their families, but the lack of a Government national child care strategy prevents them from doing so and keeps them in forced dependency, bringing up their children on the breadline.
  It is not only the Labour party and other such organisations that recognise the child care gap, and the importance, both present and future, of child care. Howard Davies, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, speaking at an employers' conference called Working for Child Care, described the position accurately:
  "Clearly, the demand for affordable, good quality childcare is greater today even than it was at the beginning of the 1980s. It is a demand which is not being met by the current supply of child care provision."
  Sometimes, the Government say that there has been a great increase in council provision of nursery education, so everything must be fine. However, we should recognise that, in so far as we ever hear Ministers boasting about nursery schools and classes, they are talking about Labour councils, which provide nursery places not because of the Government but in spite of them. The Government continually claim the credit for the child care and nursery provision that exists, but it is Labour councils that should receive that credit. Conservative councils have followed the Government's lead and lagged far behind.
  According to Government figures, of the 40 best local education authorities in providing places in nursery schools and classes, 34 are Labour, just two are Conservative, one is Liberal and three have no overall control. The message is absolutely clear: on the ground, local Labour councils are working with employers to provide more nursery places, they are providing more nursery education schools and classes, and they are trying to help. Without the Government taking a lead, it is difficult, and is bound to remain patchy.
  Against the background of a growing child care gap, the very least that the Government could do is seriously examine the anomalous treatment of employers who provide workplace nurseries or enter into joint ventures with councils to provide workplace nurseries.
  The system works as follows: the Capital Allowances Act 1990 makes a distinction between capital expenditure
  774
  on plant and equipment and capital expenditure on buildings. All companies are allowed to claim capital allowances on plant and equipment, no matter what sort of employer they are—shop, office, warehouse or factory.
  That means, among other things, that any expenditure they incur for fixed equipment associated with nurseries is allowable against tax. On the other hand, expenditure on buildings is covered by a different set of rules. The industrial buildings allowance is restricted, as the name suggests, to factories and warehouses. Other types of premises, principally offices and shops—where women are largely employed—receive no allowance at all against corporation tax.
  That distinction also applies to premises built to provide workplace nurseries. Therefore, workplace nurseries attached to industrial buildings qualify for the buildings allowances, but those attached to other types of building do not. Capital expenditure falling under the Capital Allowances Act is deemed to include investment not only in wholly owned ventures but in joint projects. The tax rules that I have described therefore also apply to instances when companies enter into agreements to provide workplace nurseries, either with other companies or with local authorities.
  It is clearly anomalous that employers whose businesses are based in offices or shops and who wish to provide workplace nurseries should receive less favourable treatment than industrial employers when providing nurseries for their employees. Obviously, there is a more general argument about the need to discourage excessive office building, but it cannot reasonably be applied to a situation in which either an office building already exists or where the decision to build has already been made and the question is whether a workplace nursery should be included.
  The tax rules already provide one exception—for company sports and recreational clubs which qualify for the industrial buildings allowance even when they are attached to an office or a shop, irrespective of the nature of the employer's business. Women who work in offices and shops will think that it is wrong that, if their employer provided them with a workplace nursery, they could not claim tax relief against the buildings, whereas, if they worked in a warehouse or a factory, they could.
  Certainly, women who work in offices and shops and who realise that the buildings qualify for tax relief if their employer provides sports facilities, but not if their employers provide nursery facilities, will think that it is wrong. It only leaves us all wondering why sports facilities qualify for tax relief and workplace nurseries do not. I hope that it is not because there is more interest among men in sports and more interest among women in child care.
  Our new clause simply extends the industrial buildings allowance to all companies which invest in workplace nurseries, either on their own or jointly with councils. That will provide an incentive to employers to construct their own workplace nurseries, to go in with other companies to provide joint nurseries, or to enter into partnership with local authorities to extend provision for child care.
  The new clause has attracted the support of the employers' organisation Employers for Childcare, which has said that the different treatment in tax relief of sports facilities and workplace nurseries and of shops and offices as opposed to industries and factory premises was
  "another example of the inconsistency which exists in the field of childcare provision … It is a further demonstration of the need

  775
  for the Government to undertake a full review of the situation in Britain today. Employers for Childcare believe that this is an essential first step in developing a coherent national strategy to offer accessible, available, affordable, quality childcare services for all."
  I should like to hear the Minister tell us how the Government justify those anomalies. How can they allow tax relief for sports clubs, but not for nurseries? How can they justify relief for nurseries attached to factories and warehouses, but not for nurseries attached to offices and shops?
  5.15 pm
  The new clause is merely a probing clause, but it probes an important point. The Government have a history of tax treatment in child care. For many years, we argued that taxation should not be in the hands of the employee for the employer's contribution to workplace nurseries. When that issue arose in the House of Commons in 1989, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), said, putting the straightforward, free-market view:
  "if married women want to work and if employers want to employ them, the market will work and employers will pay the necessary wage to encourage married women to return to work."—[Official Report, 11 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 892.]
  However, a year or so later, the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor, slightly changed his mind when he said:
  "I have decided to exempt the value of workplace nurseries and playgroups from taxation as a benefit in kind."—[Official Report, 20 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 1023.]
  He said that it was a small, but important, supply-side measure.
  Although we shall vote on the new clause, unfortunately we do not necessarily expect the Government immediately to see the light, but we are hopeful that as the arguments are put the penny will drop and the Government will recognise it as an important public policy issue.
  Women's entry into the labour market and the new family patterns needs to be recognised in public policy. The demands of the economy and of working mothers are the same. We need a national child care strategy that aims to see that parents have a choice of provision—child minders and nurseries for pre-school age children and provision for school-age children.
  Not all the investment in child care needs to come from the Government. Employers and parents may play their part, as will local councils. Unless the Government take a lead, it simply will not happen.
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) speaks rather more confidently and certainly at greater length on child care than she does on taxation. Her speech concerned a subject with which she appeared to have rather more familiarity than the subjects that she addressed in her performances in Standing Committee.
  The principle of greater choice and diversity in child care is one that, of course, we on the Conservative Benches completely support. I should like to draw the attention of the House to some of the practical problems in the approach set out by the hon. Lady.
  I thought that the Labour party had some concern about the distribution of income and wealth. One of the great difficulties in trying to provide extra tax relief for working women is that, by and large, it would benefit two-earner couples. We cannot speak with enormous confidence about
  776
  patterns of income in the country, but one thing of which we may be sure is that, by and large, two-earner couples are not at the lower end of the income scale.
  Ms Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that new clause 1 deals with capital allowances and that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was talking about the provision of child care, not tax relief for child care?
  Mr. Willetts: The speech of the hon. Member for Peckham covered most aspects of child care. The new clause specifically concerns capital allowances, but the hon. Lady ranged widely in her comments and I do not see why Conservative Members should not range as widely.
  Assistance that is focused especially on working women is likely to be of particular benefit to two-earner families, who, generally, are not at the bottom of the income scale. Poverty among families is concentrated in one-earner or zero-earner couples. They are unlikely to be the families that will benefit from the measures that have been set out by the hon. Member for Peckham.
  That outcome seems not to interest the Labour party, which is supposed to be especially concerned—we are used to its ritual denunciations—about widening gaps in the income scale. Its lack of interest is rather odd.
  The argument of the hon. Member for Peckham seems to rest on the assumption that the only women who have an interest in child care are those who want to go out to work. It is equally important that women who are working but not in paid work—those who are at home with their children in one-earner families—should be entitled to benefit. That argument is even stronger, of course, for zero-earner families. The new clause is remarkably narrowly focused on families that are likely to be at the upper end of the earning scale.
  It is strange that a significant measure which was announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement has not been referred to by the hon. Lady. That, of course, is the extension of family credit to provide a new disregard to help single parents especially, but other low-income working families as well, with their child care costs.
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge what was acknowledged eventually in parliamentary responses from Ministers, which is that the poorest people on family credit will not benefit from the Government's proposals? That is because they already receive the full amount of family credit. People will be able to receive the benefit that he is talking about only if they are currently receiving an extremely small amount of family credit and can therefore reach the maximum by claiming the extra benefit. There will be nothing like the quality of benefit that the Chancellor hinted at when he presented his Budget. As the facts have emerged, it is clear that very few people will benefit, and only those who are at the bottom of family credit.
  Mr. Willetts: I am surprised by that intervention. There will be a disregard for costs incurred in buying child care.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to be surprised by the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) because she is wrong. The fact is that 150,000 families will gain as a result of the

  777
  change announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on Budget day. I cannot believe that even the hon. Lady regards that as an insignificant number.
  Ms Armstrong: The gain will be fragmented.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady might describe it as fragmented, but it will be targeted—that is the word that I would use—at those who need assistance.
  Mr. Willetts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
  There will be a disregard for the costs of child care, which will help many of the families in receipt of family credit. It is particularly well targeted because it will help low-income working families. One of the ironies of family credit is that the beneficiaries generally fall into two categories, which may be at the opposite ends of the spectrum of family life styles. One of the main groups of beneficiaries is single parents who have low incomes but are in work. They will benefit, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made clear in his Budget statement.
  The other significant group of recipients of family credit is one-earner working families where the mother is not in work but is likely to be at home looking after the children. They similarly will benefit from the assistance. It seems to be well targeted in terms of income and tolerant of the diversity of families.
  Ms Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that, even if the Government's target is met and about 50,000 women who are now on income support go out to work and claim family credit, there will be many more low-paid women who as a result of the tax changes set out in the past two Budgets will find themselves out of work and on income support? That will happen because tax increases, by virtue of the freezing of personal allowances and the freezing and cutting of other allowances—and especially increased national insurance contributions—make it more expensive for people to go out to work. That will hit low-paid women, many of whom will find that it is no longer worth their while to go out to work. They will find instead that they are better off on benefits. The hon. Gentleman is talking about those women who will go off benefits and enter the labour market, but will he recognise that probably double their number will go out of work because of tax increases and will return to benefits?
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Lady is assuming that many women go out to work only if their income is entirely exempt from taxation and national insurance contributions. Surely that is not a reasonable basis on which to plan any sensible approach to taxation. She is saying that as soon as they find themselves brought within the income tax net they will find that they no longer have an incentive to go to work.
  One of the difficulties of financing public expenditure with taxation is that tax increases bring more people into the tax net. I accept that that is a consequence of the measures that were announced in the Budget. The alternative—not taking measures to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement—would have been far worse.
  I move on to another approach to the proposals set out in new clause 1 and in the new clauses that have been tabled by Liberal Democrat Members. The hon. Member
  778
  for Peckham said that a large amount of child care is informal: much of it is provided by relatives and friends. The statistics are dramatic. They show that 65 per cent. of mothers in full-time work use as their main provider of child care the husband, the grandparents or other relations. It seems that 87 per cent. of mothers in part-time work choose above all members of the family to provide child care.
  We all know about the painful and difficult negotiations that are involved. We suddenly become remarkably keen on our in-laws. We find ourselves negotiating complicated arrangements to try to get child care help provided. It is not fair to regard it as evidence that everyone would rather have formal, institutionalised child care provided by the employer or in another structured setting, and that we have informal arrangements because of the failure of individuals to obtain the institutional arrangements that they would prefer.
  On the contrary, informal arrangements are often the pattern of child care which people prefer and with which they are comfortable. There is some interesting evidence from America. As part of their programme to help single parents, especially, into work, and as a result of the greater diversity of approach that is now permitted by federal legislation on programmes for single parents, some states have set up large funds that are aimed at helping single parents to purchase child care when they return to work. They have found that the funds are not being drawn on to the extent that they expected. That is because, lo and behold, single parents in America prefer to negotiate informal arrangements with their neighbours or with relatives wherever possible rather than rely on institutional provision.
  The trouble with the new clauses is that they all favour institutionalised and formal rather than non-institutionalised and informal patterns of child care. I do not believe that that approach matches the preference of most parents in this country.
  Ms Eagle: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that those who are lower down the income scale prefer their mothers or grandmothers to look after their children in an informal way. Presumably those who are high up the income scale and use a very institutional form of child care that is known as the public school are allowed to get away with that approach. Indeed, it is seen as a good thing. How can the hon. Gentleman account for the difference in his analysis of the social classes?
  Mr. Willetts: I do not regard that intervention as a serious contribution to the debate; I hoped for something more serious from the hon. Lady.
  I shall turn to another aspect of the debate. The measures proposed by the Opposition parties are entirely concerned with the demand for child care rather than the obstacles to supplying it. They are entirely concerned with trying to lower the cost for employers of providing child care or, in the case of the Liberal Democrats, to assist people to buy child care.
  There is another more important aspect—the regulatory burdens under which the providers of child care find themselves. I shall quote from the experience of one lady who was trying to open a new nursery. This is an account of what she had to go through when she was opening the nursery:
  "When I was setting up my nursery school it took 6 months for the Social Worker to come and see me. She made it quite clear

  779
  that the state should provide. She encouraged the two local play-groups in neighbouring villages to object to planning permission on the grounds that I would take children from them. She said only mothers with cars would be able to come as my village is small and isolated. She insisted that I must have water play and sand inside. I do think they are both important but it is not easy in a house and I have a sand pit outside and I told her that most of my children had … plenty of water play with mothers who played with them. She wanted more dressing up clothes and to stipulate what toys I should have."
  5.30 pm
  Of course, we would love to have ideal child care. We could all sit around in committees—people sat around in committees during preparation of the Children Act 1989 and the regulations that followed—trying to design ideal child care. However, the problem with designing regulations which are intended to set out a picture of the ideal is that it makes it more difficult for new providers to enter the market.
  I hope that, as part of the Government's deregulation initiative, the way in which some overprotective local authorities interpret the regulations made under the Children Act, making it more difficult for new entrants to supply child care, will be examined. I also hope that local authorities—often they are left-wing Labour-controlled local authorities—which seem to be averse to granting planning permission to anyone who applies for a change of use to set up a nursery or child-care facility will be more tolerant. Instead of perpetually debating finance arrangements in the form of tax breaks or subsidies, we should also examine the obstacles that have been erected by successive Governments and local authorities which stand in the way of increasing the supply of child care.
  Finally, I shall consider a few other aspects of help for child care that are focused particularly on the employer and the workplace. The book written by the hon. Member for Peckham, "20th Century Man: 21st Century woman: How both sexes can bridge the century gap"—
  Ms Harman: You are in the 18th century.
  Mr. Willetts: I am sorry that the hon. Lady thinks that I am in the 18th century; that is harsh, especially as I was about to say that the book is interesting. I was not proposing to descend to the same level as the hon. Lady.
  The hon. Lady's analysis is interesting. She makes some valid points about the changes in the role of the sexes. No man can look at the figures that show that 75 per cent. of all divorces are initiated by women and the figures that show the amount of help that men give around the house without feeling a certain amount of guilt. The hon. Lady's analysis is interesting. In her book, she briefly discusses the question of employer-based and employer-financed child care. It is a carefully even-handed discussion. She describes some of the advantages of such child care. I quote:
  "The advantage to the employer is that it creates an incentive for staff to stay. Parents will not want to move their child from the nursery unless absolutely necessary."
  Although that is cited as an advantage, it seems to be an argument that cuts both ways. There are many parents who are worried about putting themselves in a position of greater dependence on their employer, as the hon. Lady appeared to recognise in her speech.
  The hon. Lady goes on to discuss the disadvantages of such child care. I quote:
  "Travelling to and from work in the rush hour with a young child is often difficult particularly in big cities. And children may prefer to be involved in local activities rather than far from home.
  780
  For the parents, the workplace nursery can seriously impair job mobility; some feel that it is more difficult to concentrate on their jobs knowing that their child is close at hand."
  As the hon. Lady has set out those disadvantages so clearly in her book, it is odd that her only practical proposal to encourage child care is one which adds further tax relief to a pattern of child care that already does especially well under the tax system as a result of the concession in the 1990 Budget which ensures that the provision of workplace nurseries is not a benefit in kind for which the employee has any liability to tax. These patterns of provision already do well under the tax system. If workplace nurseries have not sprung up in a large number all around the country, that may tell us something about the preferences and views of parents. However, it should not be taken as evidence that the tax regime needs to be even more favourable.
  Some of the rhetoric that we heard earlier about strategies and national programmes for child care did not seem to take as much account as it should have done of how parents lead their lives and their child care preferences for their children.
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: Decent child care should be a priority for all of us. It is something that we should be thinking about this year—the Year of the Family.
  In this country, we have an extremely poor record with regard to child care, as has already been pointed out in the debate. Indeed, we have one of the worst records in Europe with only Portugal ranking below the United Kingdom in the provision of child care for the crucial pre-school years.
  Obviously, the Liberal Democrats would like to see a wide variety of provision for children, especially those under five. We are concerned that the provision of child care must be increased. In response to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), let me say that we are discussing a Finance Bill, not an Education Bill.
  Today, I shall talk about the new clauses that we have proposed, which extend the principle embodied in the Government's provisions for workplace nurseries. Our new clauses would widen the provision for employers to help with child care. There are some disadvantages to workplace nurseries. They are not always able to meet the needs of mothers at work, especially if they live a long way from their workplace. Regrettably, only a small fraction of child care is provided by workplace nurseries. Indeed, I regret that many workplace nurseries in London have closed down recently.
  Child care vouchers are a method of administering a tax incentive and provide parents with maximum choice and flexibility. I know that during debates on previous Finance Bills there has been much discussion about the costs of the scheme. If our new clauses are passed today, many women will be able to return to work and the tax that they pay will have an effect on the total cost of the scheme. Indeed, increases in tax payments from parents who are able to return to work, together with contributions from employers and reductions associated with home-bound parents, can be shown to cover much of the increased child care costs that we are proposing. I hope that in the Year of the Family the Government will give a more sympathetic response than they have previously done.
  In this country, we waste the talents and training of many women because there is no commitment to child care. Child care is one of the biggest problems for women when they wish to return to work after they have had

  781
  children. Women have often been trained with public money—one thinks particularly of nurses. Women have knowledge and skills which have been gained in previous jobs over a number of years but which are often lost to offices, schools and businesses because women cannot get the child care that they need in order to return to work.
  Money spent on our proposals would reap returns for the public purse through tax, and also for our businesses because they would not lose the skills and knowledge that people have built up. Businesses give many benefits in kind to their employees which are not linked to the quality of work of their employees. Many of them have no general advantage in bringing people back into work. So why are the Government so opposed to an extension of their own scheme?
  In addition, our proposals would enable small businesses in particular to keep the skills of employees who wish to return to work after having children. The current statutes discriminate against small offices and workplaces. We need a more flexible response to help with child care. In recent weeks we have heard a lot from the Government about the importance of nursery education, and I welcome the fact that the Government now believe in nursery education. As I said in the House last week, when I was a councillor in Southampton some years ago I was classed as subversive and left-wing because I thought that we ought to have nursery places at work.
  Ms Eagle: Does the hon. Lady agree that Conservative concern about child care rarely translates into policy? When the former Prime Minister, now Baroness Thatcher, was at the Department of Education she was on record as saying that she would create what would be effectively a nationwide child care facility and nursery education facility. Yet 15 years of Conservative rule have brought us no nearer that desirable goal.
  Mrs. Maddock: I wholeheartedly agree. It is extremely disappointing that we had a woman Prime Minister who we believed was committed to nursery education and yet many years later we are no further forward.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Does the hon. Lady accept that after Baroness Thatcher made that commitment there were five years of a Labour Government, two years of which included the Lib-Lab pact, and nothing seemed to happen then on a national policy?
  Mrs. Maddock: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is right to have gone on doing the same thing, if that was the case, for so many years?
  5.45 pm
  We have heard a lot of talk, but not an extra penny has ever been committed to those words. Today, in the Year of the Family, the Government have a chance to put some finance to those words and I hope that they will do so.
  Mr. Matthew Carrington: I start my few remarks on the subject of child care not by declaring a formal interest, but by declaring a past interest. My wife works and we have a child. Since my wife returned to work, which she did shortly after giving birth, child care has been a continual problem. It is a problem for all families, whatever their level of income, where one or both parents work or where a lone parent works.
  782
  Child care is a continual difficulty, but it is not confined to pre-school time. It is a problem which goes on after school starts to a point well beyond that at which the child would no longer consider himself a child because in this day and age, unfortunately, it is not possible to leave even young adults alone for long periods without some degree of supervision and care. That care does not need to be of the professional level which is needed when the child is younger, but it should certainly ensure security, company and protection.
  I feel strongly about child care, and all families need it. It is not only a problem for families where both parents work, or where a lone parent works. It is also a problem for those for whom work is not the cause of the need for child care. It is important at various times for children to be looked after by other people—if only for the continuing sanity of the parents. Parents must have what is known in the social services and care in community world as respite care. I suppose that it is not politically correct to say that parents need respite care from their children, but if most parents were honest they would admit that they do—if only to allow them to go out occasionally and to re-establish their relationship with each other.
  Child care is very important. I suspect that there is unanimity across the House on that. It is even more important for the country because of the need to enable parents to get back to work and to contribute to the economy. There are obvious benefits in getting parents who are on low incomes off of benefit. It is also important when the parents have had a high level of training and have high skill levels. Those skills need to be used for the benefit of the community and the economy.
  The importance of child care is not in dispute in the House. We all accept that we must ensure a diversity of available child care, which will become more important as our society develops. The need for child care is perhaps more important now than it was when I was young some 30 years ago, and it is getting more important as time goes by. If and when my daughter produces her family in the fullness of time, child care may be even more important for her.
  Mr. Spearing: The whole House will agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should be diversity in child care, particularly for the under-fives, and last week the Secretary of State for Education agreed with me that there is a complementarity between playgroups and nursery education. In view of that, does the hon. Gentleman deplore—as I do—the fact that the Government have objected even to a debate in Standing Committee on the Nursery Education (Assessment of Need) Bill, which would reinsert elements of the Education Act 1944 taken out by the Government the hon. Gentleman supports?
  Mr. Carrington: The hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not go into the details of education because, as he may know, I am involved in the Department for Education and I would not wish to prejudice that. There is a clear commitment on the part of the Government towards nursery education and its provision. The Government have always sought ways of delivering that commitment in ways that parents want.
  Mr. Willetts: While we are on the subject, is my hon. Friend aware of the following interesting historical fact? It was the great reforming Liberal Government of 1906 who raised the school entry age; children had previously started

  783
  school at the age of three, but a Liberal measure raised the age of school entry to five on the argument that schooling for three and four year-olds was of poor quality. Should one therefore welcome the apparent shift in Liberal policy this century?
  Mr. Carrington: I should be more than happy to bandy anecdotes with my hon. Friend about the Liberal Government of 1906, who in many ways were the architects of our misfortunes in the 20th century. However, with all respect to my hon. Friend, it seems to me that 1906 is a long time ago.
  The debate should concentrate on how child care can best be provided and the best way of encouraging the right form of child care. It is apparent that no form of child care is appropriate in every case. That is something which the House has to consider. Some parents work normal working hours from 9am to 5pm in jobs which are fairly well regulated. They can conform to standard patterns of child care in a nursery which opens at a certain time in the morning and they can collect the child at a specific time in the afternoon.
  Unfortunately, more and more patterns of work these days do not conform with the requirements of institutionalised child care. Parents, particularly working mothers, frequently find themselves working in the evenings. Parents who undertake work such as shop work may well find themselves working early in the morning or late in the evening, so one of the characteristics that has to be provided is a high degree of flexibility in the types of child care available to parents to choose from.
  The needs of children, particularly young children, vary enormously from one child to another, and they vary much more in pre-school children than in children over the age of five. The emotional development of children below the age of five is much more varied—much more rapid in some children and much slower in others—than the development of children as they become more mature. The needs of older children are much more uniform. Again, that means that parents have to judge what type of care is needed for their child. Some children are happy to be left in institutions while others will need much more love and attention from someone who is less a teacher but more cuddly.
  Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an important distinction between nursery education and creches or child care? Does he agree that all too often there is a confusion and that "nursery education" is used as an all-embracing term for the provision of child-minding facilities for working mothers when nursery education itself is a different proposition altogether?
  Mr. Carrington: It is indeed a different proposition. My hon. Friend is right that education in that sense is by no means appropriate for all children, particularly at a very young age, when they need qualified and progressive emotional development which is not necessarily provided in an institutional education framework. Children frequently need more a framework of guided supervision or perhaps even child minding. There are many types of arrangement within which such care can be provided. I do not propose to describe all the variants, but I will give one example other than institutionalised child care.
  Parents often get together as a group and provide someone to look after their children in a group in a way that suits them. Ideally, and in many cases, the person
  784
  employed in that way is professionally qualified to look after children. That is very much to be encouraged. Child care by people who have nursery nursing qualifications is to be highly recommended and encouraged, and it is frequently provided outside the institutional framework.
  What worries me about the new clauses is that a bias is being introduced in the tax system in favour of institutionalised child care—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) wishes to intervene, she is welcome to do so. I would rather she did that than that she should shout.
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: I was suggesting that the hon. Gentleman might think about changing his language. Not all collective care is institutionalised. In the English language the word "institutionalised" has a negative aspect. I assure the hon. Gentleman that much nursery education and nursery provision is far from negatively institutionalised, but is good collective child care and nursery education.
  Mr. Carrington: I am sorry that the hon. Lady finds the word "institution" derogatory—
  Ms Armstrong: The word "institutionalised".
  Mr. Carrington: Or "institutionalised". As a Conservative, I strongly believe in the institutions of Britain and the institutionalisation of elements of this country. It is sad that the hon. Lady feels that the word has negative connotations. I believe that we have many fine institutions, and I suspect that many child care institutions are very fine. I would rather encourage institutions, but if the hon. Lady would prefer me not to use that word, in the interests of harmony across the Chamber I will use another word.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: My hon. Friend is too nice to the Opposition.
  Mr. Carrington: My hon. Friend is right. I am sometimes too indulgent to the Opposition.
  Child care organised by people other than the parents has a place and is appropriate, but I doubt whether it should be encouraged over and above child care organised by parents for the benefit of their children. What worries me about the new clauses is that the taxation system would be structured in such as way as to favour one type of child care over another. That seems inherently undesirable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) read out from the book of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) the criticisms of workplace nurseries. Those criticisms are right. Particularly in London, workplace nurseries are often inappropriate, if only because most workers commute some distance to work. Travelling with a small child on the underground or on buses in London in the rush hour is extremely difficult and certainly not to be encouraged. I therefore had reservations when my hon. Friends introduced in the Finance Bill of 1990 provisions on workplace nurseries in preference to support for other types of child care, and I should be reluctant to see that move encouraged still further by new clause 1.
  I was intrigued and somewhat attracted, however, by the possibility of vouchers in new clause 6. Vouchers have been rumbling around in political theory for a great many years and have considerable attractions, but they have always been found to be difficult to implement in practice because of the administrative complexity of such a system.

  785
  My anxiety about new clause 6 is the one which I am afraid also applies to capital allowances for providing nursery care. The measure proposed in new clause 6 is indiscriminate. If we are to support people who cannot otherwise make provision for their children, the money will inevitably come from scarce resources. The money would be better given to people who need it more.
  To take my own case as an example, my wife and I both work and we are capable of making financial provision for child care, so it would be wrong for either or both of us to receive vouchers to pay for child care. I suspect, however, that new clause 6 would provide for both parents to receive vouchers. If any money is to come out of the tax system for child care, it should go to those people who cannot afford to provide for child care themselves.
  Equally, money for child care should not be concentrated on the employer. That is the problem with new clause 1. If money from the tax system is to be given to anyone to provide child care, it should go to parents who need assistance to get themselves back into work or to provide proper care for their children other than straight child minding, which is frequently of a questionable nature.
  Taxation support for child care must be targeted on the people who need it—parents who cannot provide for such care out of their own resources, but who can be encouraged back to work with a little help from the state. That is why the provisions made in the Budget last November were the right way forward, rather than any attempt to extend tax reliefs which, by definition, probably give help to those who need it least. We must get the relief to those people who do not pay tax.
  Ms Eagle: The hon. Gentleman makes the same slip as his hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). New clause 1 deals with capital reliefs, not income tax reliefs, for the use of workplace nurseries.
  6 pm
  Mr. Carrington: The hon. Lady is mistaken. I do not make that mistake. Capital reliefs come off the corporation tax paid by companies providing nursery places, so the relief is targeted on the company rather than the employee. But inevitably all employees may benefit: from the managing director, who may be highly paid, down to the less highly paid—they will all be paid, as they are all employees.
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: Can the hon. Gentleman therefore explain why, when employers give their employees health benefits through a private health scheme, it is deductible from corporation tax? The Government have not closed that loophole, but the hon. Gentleman advances the case against child care being treated according to the same principle.
  Mr. Carrington: The argument is straightforward: if a company gives private medical insurance to an employee, it is not taxed but the employee is taxed.
  Ms Primarolo: That is not true.
  Mr. Carrington: I will give way to the hon. Lady again.
  Ms Primarolo: I am sorry, but I must correct the hon. Gentleman. Companies which give private health insurance to their employees as a fringe benefit are able to offset the cost against corporation tax. It is true that the employee has a tax liability as a result, but the company benefits. The hon. Gentleman is arguing against that happening with child care.
  Mr. Carrington: The hon. Lady is repeating what I told her. Of course the company can offset the cost against corporation tax, but that merely avoids double taxation because the employee pays tax on the benefit—probably at a higher rate than the company would have done. We are talking here about a benefit that would be given to employees without their being taxed on it. Companies would get a deduction, but that is not my objection.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend might like to know that there is no difference between the treatment, for corporation tax purposes, of expenses currently incurred by a company when providing health benefits to employees and those incurred when providing child care facilities for them. They are precisely analogous cases and are dealt with in the same way under the corporation tax regime.
  Ms Primarolo: The Minister should tell his hon. Friend, not me. He is arguing the wrong case.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am telling the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Carrington: The difference comes down to the treatment of the employee, which is what I was saying. Employees are taxed on premiums paid for private health insurance whereas under new clause 1 they would not be taxed on child care costs. That seems wrong as it would benefit people who do not need that help—the more highly paid rather than those on lower wages.
  We need to place the money that we are giving to encourage child care in the hands of those parents who need it, so that they can be encouraged to provide the type of child care from which their children will benefit most, meet their circumstances and needs in terms of the amount and hours required, and encourage people back into the economy. We must not target it on people who would return to work of their own accord because they can afford to do so, but on those who need a little incentive to return to work. That is proper use of the taxation system.
  I am always deeply suspicious of grand strategic plans of any sort, so I am not sure whether we should have one for child care. Parents are the best people to decide what care is right for their children. If we are to have distortions within the taxation system, they should best be used to encourage people back to work who would earn very low wages or who are on benefit. We should probably use the benefit system to get those people back to work, as we did in the Budget.
  Ms Armstrong: I was interested to hear the contributions from the hon. Members for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) but I was most disappointed with that of the former. We were given to understand that he was the intellectual force behind Conservative policies on the family and children, which shows what a desperate state that policy is in.
  Today's debate comes hot on the heels of our debate on family policy last week and it is impossible to separate the two. We are debating child care within the context of the Finance Bill because we are anxious to make the

  787
  Government think seriously, at every possible step, about the way in which policies are undermining our economic future and the future for families.
  Because today's debate is on the Finance Bill, it highlights the fact that a child care strategy is central to the economic future of the country. Everyone talks about a more flexible work force—one that is able to respond to the needs of the next century. Opposition Members would say that that is important, but that we will create enormous problems if we develop such a work force at the expense of children.
  Children live in a much more dangerous and complex world than the world in which we lived when we were growing up. We were simply not aware of many of the challenges, fears and threats that they have to face. We cannot even imagine the complexities of relationships and negotiations that they will have to steer themselves through. That is why their experience—whatever their family and wherever they are based—is a critical aspect of both social and economic policy.
  Whatever the Government may wish, women go out to work. Three years ago many Conservative Members would have told us that that was wrong and that they did not want it to happen.
  Mr. Dorrell indicated dissent.
  Ms Armstrong: The Minister shakes his head but I think that I have sat through every debate on child care since I came to the House in 1987—I accept that that is not a long time—and I could name the Conservative Members who are uncomfortable with, and resisted, women going out to work. They are not all here today, but I suspect that they would still resist it.
  Whatever the Government or any hon. Member want, women are working. Many do so because it is an absolute necessity and what their family requires. In my constituency, many work because there is no work for men—no work that they would he accepted for or that they are taking up. Because women are largely responsible for child care, it is critical that we know what we are going to do about it.
  Some hon. Members have got themselves into a dreadful mess over the difference between nursery education and child care and all the rest. It is clear. Of course children have individual needs, but all children have intellectual, social and emotional needs that must be met in whatever setting they are—whether they are with a child minder, in a day nursery or in full-time care. I hope that in his reply the Minister will not insult the House with the statistics that are usually peddled from the Conservative Benches about the number of children who receive care. We all know that none of us should take those statistics seriously.
  It is true that 90 per cent. of the under-fives may be with a person other than their parent at some stage in the week, but that does not mean that they are in care that lasts for any period. Children who are in a playgroup for one session of an hour are included in the statistics. That is not the child care and nursery education that we are so serious about, and that is not being serious about the needs of those children or the needs of parents.
  Many parents want their children to be with child minders when they are very young. The important thing is that those child minders are supported and that they have the opportunity to speak to other child minders. They
  788
  should have the opportunity, perhaps, to go to a local nursery, where the children can be with other children for an hour or so while the child minders think their way through the ways in which they can improve themselves as child minders and the ways in which they can give a better service. That is happening, but only in small areas of the country. In many rural areas, opportunities for women and for child care are minimal, as the recent report of the Development Commission clearly showed.
  When I was working, before the general election, on the shape of a potential child care strategy, I was taken by the number of employers' organisations that were springing up and coming to me saying, "For goodness' sake, let us work in partnership. We want to do things, but our expertise is not child care and we do not want to set up, or become involved with, ventures that will not provide the highest quality care for children. We do not want to get the blame if something goes wrong."
  Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as a result of the recession, often some of the good teams to provide child care that have been set up by companies to help women advance in their structures are cut if the firm gets into financial difficulty, so that the services that those firms provide are unstable and likely to disappear if the firm experiences difficulties?
  Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend tries to take me too far ahead.
  Those employers were mainly saying that, rather than setting up their own facilities, they wanted to enter into partnership with the public sector in their locality so that they could offer choice and opportunity to parents. There are some very good schemes of that nature.
  I bring to the attention of the Minister again the scheme in north Tyneside, which has been established in full co-operation with local employers and with the Government. The Government have used the north Tyneside scheme for, I think, eight workplace nurseries in their own facilities. That scheme has enabled employers to consider the parents' needs. They have spoken to their employees and found out the different types of child care that they would like.
  The north Tyneside scheme has supported the whole range of child care—all-day child care, nursery education, child minders and child minders in the parent's home, who are called nannies in the south of England. It provides, first and foremost, quality care wherever the child is placed and, secondly, the real opportunity of choice. That has not placed additional cost on the public purse because it has linked the public commitment and the public child care strategy for that borough to the needs of employers and their employees in a way that has increased opportunity throughout.
  I say to the hon. Member for Havant that, far from simply providing for those women who are in highly placed jobs, the north Tyneside scheme has so improved the opportunities for, and the experience of, child care in the day nursery that now working parents and middle-class parents bring their children to it as well, and that has uplifted the experience of those parents who thought that their children were there only because they qualified because they were deprived. Bringing all of that together with a strategy, knowing what is wanted for the whole borough and offering the opportunity for all parents to be involved in discussing what they wanted and the quality

  789
  that they expected, has uplifted the experience, not simply of the parents, but of the children and those people who work with them.
  6.15 pm
  The new clause does not tackle all the child care issues that we want to tackle, but it gives us the opportunity to say to the Government once again that this issue, which is critical for our future, ought not to be bandied about across the Benches. Unless we are prepared to invest in the best quality care for our children, they will not grow up with the confidence and commitment to be the active and participating citizens that we know that they will need to be in the next century. Unless we are prepared to invest in child care partnerships with employers, they will be unable to train and support the type of work force that they need, and that the country needs, to develop and improve. That is an economic issue, but it will also affect the patterns of community and of our society.
  I hope that the Government, far from treating that issue as something that they can throw back at us, saying, "This is silly. If you do not like the exact nature of the clause, suggest something else", will recognise that unless we develop a child care strategy that centres on the economy, the future will be bleak for us all.
  Ms Jean Corston: The debate is timely because it is reported that, by the end of 1994, women will outnumber men in the labour market. That especially challenges women with young children.
  In the mid-1980s, 24 per cent. of women with children aged under five were working. By 1991, that figure was 45 per cent. As my hon. Friends have said, those mothers work through necessity as well as choice, because the Government's policy of low wages and deregulation means that women need to work to pay the mortgage, to support the family and to provide extras that they consider important for their children. That explosion in women's employment, especially when the children are under the age of five, has led to a child care gap that, in the past 10 years, has grown to number about 400,000 children.
  The Pre-School Playgroups Association set up a telephone help line in October 1993, which was soon inundated with telephone calls from parents, especially lone parents, who were desperate to find child care.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I am listening to what the hon. Lady says. Does she know what proportion of the 45 per cent. of women with children aged under five to whom she referred who are in work are in very much part-time work rather than full-time work, according to the conventional definition? Obviously, if they were in part-time work, as I suspect that many of them are, that is more compatible with children going to pre-school playgroups and so on.
  Ms Corston: Whether they are in full-time or part-time work is irrelevant if there are 400,000 children with unmet need. I shall talk about the various kinds of child care, but that is what I am concerned about, as all hon. Members should be. We all agree that women should be allowed to go out to work for whatever reason.
  In February 1994, the Government published their first report to the United Nations committee on the rights of the child. It is revealing as much for what it does not say as for
  790
  what it does say. The Government claimed that the number of day nurseries and child minders had increased "quite significantly".
  In 1992, England had 91,600 places in day nurseries, 108,000 registered child minders with more than 252,000 places and 409,000 playgroup places for three and four-year-olds. There are nearly 2 million children aged two to four and the growth in the number of working mothers with children of that age has outstripped the growth in places, as I have said.
  There were 24,000 children in local authority day nurseries and 330,000 places in local authority schools and classes, but they have been unable to expand to fill the gap because of the Government's squeeze on local authority resources. Yet the Government, in their report to the United Nations, had the cheek to say that they
  "would like to see a widening of nursery and other pre-school education as resources become available."
  They went on to say:
  "The longer-term ambition is universal availability for those who want it."
  That is a welcome commitment by the Government to universality, but I hope that the same commitment can be made today, because it demands a rational plan and a timetable.
  Article 18 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child specifies the objective:
  "States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child-care services and facilities for which they are eligible."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has pointed out in her recent book, the United Kingdom brings up the rear of the member states of the European Union. It shares with Portugal the lowest provision for the under-fives. In France, Italy, Belgium and Denmark between 85 and 100 per cent. of three and four-year-olds are in publicly funded nursery schools and classes. What is at stake is investment in children.
  Families with children have suffered a great deal from the Government's policies of cuts in public expenditure, deregulation, privatisation and failure to promote employment. Let me spell out a small part of that sorry story. On 28 February 1994, in response to a parliamentary question, I was told that the percentage of households with less than half the average national household income was 10 per cent. in 1979 but as high as 27 per cent. in 1990–91. That deterioration is unparalleled in the rest of Europe. If the richest and poorest are compared, the scale of the growing divide in the 1980s in the United Kingdom is without precedent in the history of the collection of statistics.
  Figures from the "Social Trends" survey show that since 1979 the disposable incomes of the poorest 10th have decreased by 3 per cent. while those of the richest 10th have increased by 155 per cent. Families with children are particularly at risk. On 22 February the Prime Minister told me that the incomes of people
  "at all ranges of income has increased".—[Official Report, 22 February 1994; Vol. 238, c. 146.]
  According to Government statistics, that is untrue for the poorest 10th, whether their incomes are measured before or after housing costs, and that also applies to some of the next poorest 10th of the population.
  In answer to parliamentary questions tabled by me in 1993 I was given figures showing that there were altogether 5.7 million people in families with children who had a smaller disposable income in 1990–91 than similar

  791
  families in 1979. That information was confirmed to me as recently as 13 April 1994. After undertaking various forms of standardisation, the Treasury produced figures which, after taking account of inflation, show that for families with children, the poorest 10th and the next poorest 10th had a lower real disposable income than such families had in 1979. The poorest 10th had lost £438 per household per year, a 10 per cent. cut, compared with 1979. The next poorest 10th had lost £281, a 5 per cent. cut. Those two sets of families include more than 3 million children. How can those parents provide decent child care in what we are told is a child care market?
  A huge number of reports by organisations in Britain and overseas help to explain those statistical results. They include reports from UNICEF, the Child Poverty Action Group, Barnardo's, the National Children's Home, the Rowntree Trust and the Family Policies Study Centre. For example, a 1993 report by UNICEF entitled "Child Neglect in Rich Nations" describes why some of the wealthiest nations on earth "have short-changed children." The United Kingdom and the United States were found to have the highest child poverty rates among eight industrialised countries including Germany, France, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Sweden.
  There were such wide differences that a European model of child welfare was contrasted with what UNICEF described as a "neglect-filled" Anglo-American model. Thus France was quoted as having
  "The most comprehensive child-care system in Western Europe"
  and
  "recent governments have all recognised that proper pre-school care and education are an investment in the nation's future citizens."
  That statement from UNICEF is one with which all hon. Members should agree and to which any Government should commit themselves.
  UNICEF went on to point out that in the United Kingdom the Children Act 1989 set high standards, but said:
  "and yet at present the Government seems unwilling to provide the resources necessary to meet those standards."
  According to the same report, the
  "swelling tide of child neglect has potentially disastrous consequences."
  It said that there were problems of raising a generation of uneducated and unskilled adults and went on to say:
  "Unless countries such as the US and the UK invest in their children on a new and a massive scale, a burgeoning human capital deficit will trigger an economic tailspin".
  Women are criticised by the Government for being on income support and some of us suspect that the number of women on income support has been more of a trigger to the creation of the Child Support Agency than the so-called responsibility of fathers. Despite that, the Government have made no effort to will the means to enable women to go to work by providing affordable child care.
  In the debate on sex discrimination initiated by the Opposition in the House last month, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) gave us the benefit of her wisdom and told us that she had managed to go to work because she had had a nanny. I remember an article in The Guardian some years ago which reproduced an interview with the then Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, a newly elected Member of Parliament, now Baroness Thatcher, who said that she had managed to keep working after she had had her twins because she had had her nanny.
  792
  That is very nice for them, but in my constituency on Friday I made two visits. The first was to a playgroup in Brislington which has a huge waiting list and where a dedicated group of parents and playgroup leaders provide a wonderful service for children. They are doing their best to keep the charges to parents as low as possible because they realise that most parents cannot afford to pay the real economic cost and they are reduced to fund-raising in their spare time to keep the playgroup going, recognising how important it is to raise money in order to provide proper equipment for the children. They do not think that providing for messy play indoors, which some Conservative Members seem to think is a waste of time, is anything other than a good thing for children.
  I then went to a nursery school in the St Phillip's area of my constituency where I met parents who were concerned that the wonderful services provided by Avon county council through the high scope nursery education system are under threat because, once again, the Government have targeted Avon county council and even bigger cuts in the local authority's budget have to be considered. That means that many parents whose children were receiving full-time nursery education are having to contemplate part-time education. That is against the background of the Conservative leader of Avon county council speaking about the possibility of closing the St. Phillip Marsh nursery school. She was astonished by the hostility that engendered among parents, and it was interesting how quickly she backed off.
  People in my constituency and throughout the country depend on such services day after day. They have a right to expect decent child care. Responsible parents want to ensure that their children have play and care facilities that stimulate them. I have seen that with my own baby grandson—my daughter-in-law has been seeking child care for him. There must be a strategy. Conservative Members know that and we know that, so when will the Government know?
  6.30 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on initiating this debate, which concerns probably the single most important issue for mothers of young children in my constituency.
  I have received interesting correspondence about the lack of suitable child care facilities and of accessibility to them. One woman has written to me a number of times. Her latest letter is long, but I want to read it because it illustrates many of the problems confronting single parents in particular, who find life extremely difficult—not least under a Conservative Government.
  My constituent wrote:
  "I thought I'd write you the next chapter in 'The life of a single parent longing to return to work'.
  I've been offered a job! The perfect job for a parent—16 hours a week, when it suits me, some at home, some in the office, some out and about. Only problem is, I lose more benefit than I gain in wages, especially after paying for child care. I rang the free social security telephone line and spoke to a very helpful gentleman, whose advice was not to work any longer than two hours a week (the time it would take to earn the £15 I'm allowed to earn before benefit reduction).
  This situation made me mad enough, but today I have received notice of income tax payable for the coming year—£490 down compared with last year, so I'll pay another £10 tax, plus VAT on fuel, which will cost me £10 a month also.

  793
  Existing on income support is getting harder and harder—both my daughters need new clothes (my eldest goes to school wearing trousers that stop nearly 3 inches above her shoes) but I have difficulty even buying secondhand for them.
  And now, going back to work seems even harder too. So today I made a resolution to find a job overseas. Somewhere"—
  this sentence is significant—
  "where my honours degree in molecular biology is valued, and where child care is considered a social necessity and not a private luxury.
  My father, an ex-staunch Tory, has been telling me since I graduated to go abroad but I resisted through fear of the unknown, and the belief that a British education would be the right thing for my children.
  The latter is now highly questionable, and my fear of the unknown has diminished in respect of my disgust of the known—this government does not value its educated citizens nor provide for its future—its children. Very soon, education will have returned to Victorian days—only for the rich.
  Anyway, that is it. I can't afford to take the job that was offered, I can't afford a full-time job that pays enough, and I can't manage on the pittance that the government says is my right. I don't want to be rich, I just want to buy my children clothes, shoes, chocolate biscuits. For myself, I'd like to be able to buy my own copy of New Scientist each week, instead of walking to the library! Stupid, little things."
  That letter says a great deal about the lives of the many women in this country who find it extremely difficult to survive on income support, and who find life even harder when they try to get jobs.
  We heard a disgraceful attack on single parents last year, particularly in the build-up to the Tory party conference. We should support single parents by providing subsidised child care and doing what we can to increase its accessibility.
  When the Secretary of State for Wales visited St. Mellon housing estate in Cardiff, he was told that half the families there were single parent families. His reaction was not to ask what could be done to help them out of poverty but to attack the unmarried single-parent culture and to suggest that benefits might be withheld until absentee fathers are tracked down. One Treasury Minister claimed that teenage girls could be lured into a life of poverty and state dependency by over-generous benefits.
  That is not borne out by the evidence. One single parent interviewed on Radio 4 said:
  "There's no question that some of the poorest people in the country are single mothers, so any reduction in benefits would hit an already desperate group—it's an appalling idea. There is no snap solution. People have less faith in marriage and we now have a whole culture who don't believe that marriage necessarily leads to happiness. You can't legislate on people's mental attitudes and morality by threatening them financially."
  That was not someone from a left-wing Labour authority speaking, but Harriet Crawley, a single mother who stood as a Tory candidate in the last general election.
  A report from the Joseph Rowntree Trust stated:
  "Hundreds of thousands of lone parents are trapped on a 'poverty plateau', where it makes little difference whether they earn £70 or £170 a week. By the time child care and travel costs are taken into account, any incentive to work may have disappeared."
  Contrast that with the French approach to single mothers. The Caisses Nationale des Allocations Familiales in Paris organises the French family benefits system and commissions research on family policy. One of its researchers, also speaking on Radio 4, said:
  "In France, because the value system is different, a majority of women want to be both mothers and work, and the state, unlike the UK, will offer them the necessary support."
  That is borne out by the two countries' employment figures
  794
  for single mothers. In France, the figure is 85 per cent., but in the UK—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) said—it is less than 50 per cent. France, like Belgium and Denmark, is among the European countries that make the most generous provision for child care. That country considers it much more important to provide creches and kindergartens. As soon as children are two years old, they can attend pre-school all day long, with a hot lunch. Some 173,000 places are available in subsidised creches, and there are numerous approved mothers' helpers.
  Lone mothers have priority on the day care and pre-school lists, which partly explains why such a high proportion of French lone mothers are in work, and more frequently have a full-time job than their UK counterparts. As a result, they are far less likely to rely on social assistance. French benefits to lone parent families are more generous than in the UK, especially where there is a child under the age of three, or there are three or more children, and the lone parent has a low income.
  Family benefits in France are structured to favour larger numbers of children, and there are various training programmes that are relevant to lone mothers. Low-income lone mothers are also eligible for housing allowances. The great difference is that, in France, single mothers are not seen as a drain on taxpayers' money, as their benefits are paid from employers' contributions and because many of them are able to find full-time jobs with the help of the much better child care that is available.
  In my local community recently, a survey was carried out by the training and enterprise council in south Cambridgeshire. It was done as a result of a Government pump-priming initiative, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) described it, in an attempt to get more child care schemes under way. The great problem with these schemes is that, although they have been valuable in showing up the deficiencies in child care, many of them will flounder later on because of a lack of money. Far too many people find child care too expensive when they have to pay the full cost out of what they earn.
  The Cambridgeshire TEC carried out the survey last October. More than 1,000 questionnaires were distributed to the parents of children aged between five and 16. What emerged showed up the differences between my constituency and that of the Prime Minister.
  The survey found that 23 per cent. of children in Cambridge had one parent working full time and the other part time; the corresponding figure for Huntingdon was 44 per cent. There was also a difference in the proportions of parents who both worked full time: 30 per cent. in Cambridge and only 19 per cent. in Huntingdon. There was a great difference in the numbers of single parents: 20 per cent. in Cambridge and 13 per cent. in Huntingdon. Those two places are only 20 miles apart, so the differences are rather surprising.
  The survey also looked into how most children are looked after. It found that, in Huntingdon, 91 per cent. of child care took place in the family, whereas only 83 per cent. did in Cambridge. In other words, these families have no external help with their child care at all, so grandparents, brothers and sisters, and parents are caring for the children.
  When asked, parents said that they were well satisfied with this arrangement. When they were asked, however, whether they would use an out-of-school care scheme, 70 per cent. of them said that they would in Cambridge, and

  795
  82 per cent. in Huntingdon said that they would. That goes to show the unmet need. A great many people who work part time during the school term need full-time care during the holidays.
  I have had the pleasure of visiting a number of organisations and firms around my constituency in the past two years. I was, for instance, extremely impressed by the child care provision at the Babraham Institute, a Government research laboratory formerly under the Agricultural and Food Research Council and now under the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. It is a research council institute, and it provides a nursery and an out-of-school care scheme for up to 10 children. It is always well used, and is considered of enormous benefit to the parents who work at the institute. I congratulate the director, Richard Dyer, on being innovative and forward-looking enough to start the nursery.
  The institute's facility contrasts starkly with a bank in central Cambridge—it might not be fair to mention its name. I asked the bank about its child care policy and was told that there was a working party looking into child care and nursery provision in the organisation.
  I asked the bank why it did not have a nursery attached to its central Cambridge branch, only to be told that it had considered the idea but decided against it, on the extraordinary ground that, if it did run such a nursery, it would not be able to stop fathers using it as well as mothers. Looking a little taken aback, I asked why that mattered. I was told that, if fathers were allowed to use the facility, their wives would then be free to work for the bank's competitors. I am still reeling from this information. It shows that we have to do a great deal to change this sort of sexist attitude to parents, families and children.
  6.45 pm
  Owing to the pressure from many single parents, married parents and parents in stable relationships, I decided that I would try to set up a child care project in Cambridge to help people gain access to child care facilities and to give them information about benefits and training. We held an interesting meeting, which I was pleased to note was supported by the Benefits Agency, the Child Support Agency, the county council, the Daycare Trust—it was extremely helpful—the Cambridge job centre, the city council, the Employment Service and the local training and enterprise council.
  I explained that I wanted to help a group of single parents back into full or part-time work, with the aim of showing that investing in child care could in the long term prove cheaper than leaving single parents on benefits, without care for their children. This is a social as well as an economic issue. The Daycare Trust said that it believed that the major problem was the lack of adequately subsidised child care. There is a lack of places even in non-subsidised child care.
  It also emerged from the meeting that we need a major information drive to reassure parents about coming off income support and on to family credit. Living on income support, at least people know that they are secure, but once they come off it and go into short-term or short-contract jobs, with the attendant insecurity of going on to family credit—they may not be sure that the Benefits Agency will get its sums right—they may worry a great deal about what
  796
  will happen when a job comes to an end. We need to do much more to reassure parents that the process is feasible, and to offer them a little more security.
  Although the Government introduced measures in the last Budget to try to deal with the cost of child care, in Cambridge the cost of full-time child care averages £60 to £70 a week. Many people pay much more than that, and presumably some pay less. The manager of the Benefits Agency in Cambridge said that he would like a business plan to be put together showing the long-term benefits of child care—a reduction in staff losses, lower net costs to the Exchequer, support for training places and so on.
  The Government are not doing any of this. They are not examining the cost of not providing child care; they are looking only at the cost of providing it. That attitude is wrong.
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Although child care is a massive issue for thousands of our constituents, that is often not reflected in either our procedures or media coverage. The reason is obvious: the institutions involved are still dominated by men, whereas in the present state of society child care is still predominantly a women's issue—although the responsibility should be shared equally between the sexes.
  There are several reasons why child care is a massive issue. First, there is the objective reality of increasing female participation in the labour market. The male and female participation rates are now converging: indeed, in parts of the country—such as Lothian region, where I come from—women are in the majority in the labour force. That, however, masks the existence of a good many problems; it does not mean that adequate child care facilities are available to all those women.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) mentioned the problem of cost, but there are other problems. For instance, many women returning to the labour market after having children may take up jobs that they do not really want to do: they would prefer to be doing other jobs that it is not possible for them to do. They may also have to work fewer hours than they would like.
  Notwithstanding the high rate of female participation in the labour market, only 18 per cent. of lone mothers with children under five are working in this country: that is the lowest rate in Europe. Moreover, the figure for all mothers with children under five is the second lowest.
  This is, among other things, an equal opportunities issue, and the Equal Opportunities Commission has said as much. We cannot have a proper equal opportunities policy that does not take child care into account. That is the second reason why this is a massive issue; the third is that it also has economic implications, as many hon. Members have already pointed out. It can be viewed in many ways, but a fundamental point is that the skills of many women are being lost to the economy. That is why many employers are very interested in child care.
  Only today, in the Lobby, I spoke to a representative of Employers for Childcare, who told me that, for that very reason, many employers are keen for the Government to adopt a co-ordinated strategy for child care, in which a number of them wish to be involved. Many studies have shown that the economy would benefit from a massive expansion of child care facilities; I hope to say more about that later.

  797
  The fourth reason why this is a massive issue relates to poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) covered that very thoroughly.
  My own involvement in child care resulted from my membership of the Greater Pilton Childcare Action Group, which operates in my constituency. A fundamental reason for its formation was the area's participation in the European Poverty 3 programme, and the fact that, at an early stage, child care was identified as a key issue in the attack on poverty. Incidentally, I should like to know why the Government are showing no interest in European Poverty 4 programme; people in my area certainly hope that the project will continue.
  The ability of women to go out to work is a basic element of the attack on family poverty. That is why so many women in my constituency are keen to have the child care facilities that they need.
  The fifth reason why this is a massive issue is the appalling state of child care in this country, in comparison with provision in other European countries. Many statistics show that to be true. For instance, 2 per cent. of care for children under three is publicly funded in this country; in Denmark, the figure is 48 per cent. In this country, the figure for children between three and five is 37 per cent.; it is 85 per cent. in Italy and 95 per cent. in France and Belgium.
  I should add that there are considerable variations within our 37 per cent. figure. As other hon. Members have pointed out, the percentage is often far higher in areas with Labour-controlled authorities than in Conservative areas. For instance, the figure for nursery education for three and four-year-olds in Lothian region is running at 68 per cent. That is a major factor—and, of course, there are many other arguments for nursery education, in terms of the benefits for children.
  There are many reasons, then, why child care is a major issue, and why the House should treat it as such. We want the Government to adopt a co-ordinated strategy; at present, their policy is very unco-ordinated. The fundamental principle is choice: people should be able to choose the type of child care they want.
  The new clauses are concerned specifically with workplace nurseries. Although some Conservative Members have tried to misrepresent us and suggest that that is all we are interested in, they are entirely wrong; it is only one aspect of the general issue of child care. According to a study carried out by the British Social Attitudes survey, however, 20 per cent. of women with children under five would like workplace nurseries to be available. That is one strand of the policy that we need to formulate.
  The new clause deals with the fact that the industrial building allowance is available only to workplace nurseries in industrial buildings and certain types of hotel. It seeks to end that anomaly, and to extend the allowance to all work places. The present position is particularly anomalous in the context of section 14 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990, under which sports pavilions and buildings in all workplaces can receive the allowance while nurseries can receive it only in specific buildings. I shall be interested to hear how the Financial Secretary seeks to justify that anomaly, if he does.
  798
  New clause 1 covers not only nurseries but child care for those of school age. The existing allowances apply only to children under five, but it should be recognised that children often need care after going to school as well as before. Conservative Members have drawn attention to the child care allowance in the Budget. That Government initiative—along with the after-school care initiative—is all right as far as it goes, and Opposition Members welcome both in principle; but there are many problems with the way in which they have worked in practice. We should like those schemes to be improved and extended.
  An interesting feature of the child care allowance provided in the Budget is the fact that, only a few months earlier, the Prime Minister dismissed it out of hand. I know that, because I asked him a question about it, and when—as usual—he did not answer, I wrote him a letter. I kept his reply: I keep all his letters. In fact, when I wrote to him about nursery education, pointing out that he was saying something quite different from what his Secretary of State was saying, he did not reply—but the reason for that was obvious.
  I found the Prime Minister's letter very interesting. As well as saying that disregards for parents in receipt of family credit were a ridiculous idea, he came up with the staggering assertion:
  "research has shown that the majority of low income working lone parents do not pay for childcare."
  I do not think that research is needed to discover that. The simple truth is that low-income lone parents cannot afford to pay for child care, but that is not adequately addressed by the child care disregard in the Budget.
  We have heard about the costs of child care. The maximum allowance available is £28; according to an answer that I was given, 90 per cent. of families on family credit cannot receive even £28—and it should be remembered that that is for the whole family. That does not deal with the problem of affordability, which lies at the heart of the debate about child care.
  The after-school care initiative is also good in principle, but particular problems are involved, certainly in Scotland. I have tried to find out how much each local enterprise company in Scotland is spending. This week, I received another letter—this time, from a Scottish Office Minister. It said, basically, that I had no right to know the answer: it was for Scottish Enterprise
  "to determine whether and to what extent they will provide details of the financial allocations they make to the LECs and it would be inappropriate for Ministers to intervene."
  Many enterprise companies in Scotland—including those in Lothian—spent nothing on that initiative last year, but the Scottish Office does not want to admit that publicly. Things seem to be slightly better this year; we shall wait and see.
  The problem with the initiative is that, although it helps with start-up costs, many parents will be unable to afford the cost of after-school care. As I have said, affordability is at the heart of the matter. It was also at the heart of the European child care recommendation, which constitutes a very good guideline, although it was watered down slightly before being adopted just before the general election.
  The Government have accepted the European child care recommendation, and at the heart of that recommendation is the idea that public funds should contribute to the provision of affordable child care. In reality, at the moment most people do not have access to affordable child care.

  799
  The Government have to introduce many measures to increase the supply of affordable child care. We have again been misrepresented by Conservative Members as just talking about demand subsidies. Some demand subsidies are necessary, but in fact it is the Tory argument that only demand subsidies will do, because it assumes that the market will provide. We believe that there has to be intervention in the market in order to increase the supply of child care. That is the thrust of our demand for a national child care strategy to look at the supply of child care.
  7 pm
  We have said that the Government should look at many schemes that are operated already by local authorities—as it happens, most of them Labour-controlled authorities—which have done something to deal with the problem. We have asked the Government to evaluate the schemes and to come up with a co-ordinated strategy instead of the current totally chaotic child care "policy"—if I can call it that—whereby some Government Departments do not know what other Departments are doing.
  Partnership arrangements have been mentioned. I am told that these work in north Tyneside, for example. I know from personal experience that they also work in Fife in Scotland, where employers buy places in schemes run in partnership with local authorities. That is one way forward, because many employers recognise that it is in their own interests to make child care places available for their workers. That is part of the economic argument for child care to which I referred earlier.
  Beyond that, I think that we need to put more money into the provision of child care. At the heart of the argument are the studies to which I referred earlier in general terms. The studies by the National Children's Bureau, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and the Institute for Public Policy Research have shown that, in the long run, the provision of child care will benefit the economy.
  I think that the Government recognised this fact in a very small way with their child care disregard in the Budget. That is the way forward, but we should act in conjunction with other policies. For example, the parental leave directive from the European Community, which has not been accepted by the Government, would help in the early stages of children's lives. More generally, the Government should recognise that society is changing and that increasingly men and women will have the same role in the family and in the workplace. The Government have to accept the subsequent changing patterns of work.
  A policy from another country that appeals to me is the right of parents in Sweden to work a six-hour day for the first eight years of their children's lives. I think that the Government should look in that direction as well.
  Child care is on the agenda now because society has changed. In last week's debate on the family, it appeared that many Conservative Members wanted to go back to the 1950s. They said that everything went wrong in the 1960s—the implication being that we should go back to the 1950s. I accept that argument to the extent that in the 1950s more people were in work, but the proviso is that it was only full male employment.
  Nobody on this side wants to go back to the 1950s. We have to go forward into the 21st century, and prepare for a society in which the roles of men and women in the family and in the workplace will be identical. That is the issue that should be addressed.
  800
  I do not see how the Government can have any justification for arguing against this new clause. It is only one strand in the child care policy which we on this side are proposing. It is time that the Government came up with a policy, instead of introducing the occasional inadequate measure.
  Ms Eagle: I support new clause 1. As we have all heard in the debate so far, it would allow the provision of workplace nurseries to attract more extensive capital relief, and would encourage joint ventures—which are already beginning to occur in some areas—between local authorities and firms to buy places in workplace nurseries.
  As we consider the Budget, we are in the middle of a social and economic revolution which is changing the face of advanced western societies more rapidly than we ever thought possible. As legislators, we have to look at what is going on around us to see how we can change institutions and structures and how best we can legislate to take account of the changes that are occurring.
  In the past 50 years, there has been a revolution in the patterns of family life and employment. The changes, particularly in the labour market and in the structure of jobs—who is working, for how long, for how much and where—have occurred more rapidly in the past 15 years with the deregulation of labour markets. One of the most obvious social revolutions is the massive increase in the number of women who are working or who want to work.
  Between now and the end of the century, nine out of 10 new jobs created will be taken by women. Women will probably outnumber men as a proportion of the work force sooner rather than later—certainly by the end of the century. No Government who hope to create a society at ease with itself can possibly contemplate such massive change without seeking to alter societal structures and so accommodate and facilitate a planned, civilised change rather than the chaotic one which will occur if it is left to the market. So far, the Government have failed to respond adequately to the very great challenges that are being laid before them.
  Historically, it has always been recognised that child care has to be provided if women are to be able to work effectively. We need only look at what happened during the world wars when women were required to work to sustain the war effort. Suddenly it became possible for women to do heavy engineering work—work that they had never been considered fit to do in the past—and it was quickly realised that women had to go on to the land to produce food. It was quickly recognised that women could perform every role asked of them to sustain the country in some of its darkest hours this century.
  The Whitehall civil servants and Government Ministers who planned the economies during both world wars realised very quickly—particularly during the second world war—that in order to mobilise the capacity of 51 per cent. of the population they had to provide child care. Lo and behold, it was provided. But afterwards it was decided that women should be treated like the Turkish guest workers in Germany: once they had served their useful purpose in dire times they were meant to be bundled back into the home where they belonged and left there. So child care was withdrawn, as were jobs and wages that women had begun to take for granted, and women's employment was curtailed.
  As I said earlier, at the moment there is a massive increase in participation in part-time work by women. It

  801
  appears that women are more able to be flexible in their employment and want to combine their duties of looking after children and providing a home with work. The social attitudes towards trying to balance a career and look after children are changing, and changing quite rapidly. But the institutions in our society are not changing to enable women to do that.
  It is remarkable that so many women have managed, by hook or by crook, to circumvent institutions which do not encourage them to be where they are. I speak from some personal experience, as I believe that many of the women in this place have circumvented structures which were not designed to permit them to be where they are now. I believe that all women empathise with other women who are attempting to do two impossible things when the Government are offering no significant help.
  The new clause attempts to help women in one very narrow respect, but it is a travesty for Conservative Members to criticise us for not dealing with some of the other important aspects of child care at a national level and with the strategic provision of child care. We are debating the Finance Bill and the new clause is quite appropriate because it gives us the opportunity to consider some of the economic implications of what is happening with regard to child care provision.
  There has been a social and economic revolution and we are in a period of transition. The Government must facilitate a change to do away with some of the contradictions and madnesses with which untrammelled free market forces have left us. Some of those changes have already been alluded to. Millions of women—single parents—are unable to work because the jobs that we have created to date are often low paid and part time. On the money that they earn in the deregulated labour market, women cannot afford to pay for child care, so they are trapped on benefit. That is frustrating for the vast majority of those women who want to go out to work, to be independent and to be able to raise the next generation. All children, whether raised in poverty or otherwise, will be the new generation and, if we do not tackle the problems now, we shall eventually have to deal with the consequences of their being deprived in childhood.
  The vast majority of female single parents want to work, to be able to provide more for their children and to have the independence and pride of going out to work. They do not want to be stuck on benefit, but it is practically impossible for them to work because of the lack of child care provision combined with their low earning potential. In the meantime, our benefit bills are soaring while many jobs remain undone, and not only in the caring professions. Children are living in poverty and women are frustrated because they cannot go out to work. One does not need to be a genius to realise that the provision of child care would allow those women to go out to work and come off benefit, thereby making a saving to the Exchequer; it would mean that they would pay taxes, thereby increasing the tax yield; it would create additional jobs because people would be needed to provide the child care that allows those women the freedom to go out to work in the first place; and it would increase spending power, which would also help the recovery.
  The provision of adequate child care would also benefit children. All the experts say that it is no good for children
  802
  to be brought up in poverty by frustrated and demoralised parents who cannot go out to work but are stuck on benefit. Those children often cannot mix with their peers because of the restrictions that living in poverty places on families. Children develop much better and more quickly if they can mix with their peers—they grow up more confident and better adapted to the world. Therefore, child care helps mothers and children, the Exchequer and our economy—so why on earth are we not providing it? I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
  Mr. Forman: The hon. Lady and a number of her colleagues have made a powerful case for investment in child care. I have listened carefully to what they have said and especially to the impressive speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) who spoke without notes, other than those from the Prime Minister which he kept in his pocket. Since Labour Members have broadened the debate and are not focusing solely on the new clause, they should be considering what, in a modern society, should be the appropriate balance of the financial contributions made towards the desirable objective of child care by the individual involved, by employers and by the generality of taxpayers. If I were to hear more from them about the appropriate balance to be struck in the Bill, I might be more persuaded.
  7.15 pm
  Ms Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I do not believe that the Government have yet accepted the case for a structured, strategic provision of child care—had they done so, it would have been in place. So far, private provision has been left to develop without intervention from the Government, which is what we would expect given the iron grip of neo-classical ideologies.
  Mr. Dorrell: If the hon. Lady does not believe that the Government accept the case for targeted assistance to low-income families for child care so that people can get back to work, will she speculate on why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget that we were to spend £30 million net of Government money on the child care disregard in family credit? Why does she think that we have done that if it is not because we accept the need to help people back to work? When she has answered that question, perhaps she would like to answer that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and say what she thinks a national child care strategy would look like. Who would pay for it and what would be the result?
  Ms Eagle: I should be the first to concede that a Government who did something about child care provision had finally recognised its importance, but this Government have not given it adequate priority. They have been in power for 15 years and we now have a £50 billion deficit and £20 billion of North sea oil money has been wasted on tax cuts for the very rich. It is therefore a bit rich for the Government to boast about spending £30 million. They have proved their interest in the issue—let us face the fact that their activity in this sphere does not amount to much, although I recognise that £30 million has been earmarked. My hon. Friends have commented on the inadequacy of that sum and I shall not repeat the arguments, but, when people look back at the Government's record, they will realise that child care has not been a very high priority. It

  803
  is only recently that the Prime Minister has mentioned it as something that is desirable, but the Government have not proved its desirability by committing money to it in anything like the sums needed to make a difference.
  Child care should be regarded as part of the economic infrastructure and as an investment in the future. The Government do not yet understand how significant that is. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) came up with the interesting theory that informal child care is the most desirable. That means that the woman around the corner, granny if she is still alive, or anyone who happens to be around, should look after the children.
  This country will not be able to compete seriously with the rapidly changing and advancing economies that will emerge in the new world, with their flexible employment patterns, high-tech industries and high levels of education, if we expect 51 per cent. of the population to rely on the woman next door to look after their children. The Government have to be systematic, but I do not believe that they have yet grasped the seriousness or the strategic implications of child care provision. After 15 years in power, it is about time that they did.
  Another suggestion from Conservative Members was that we should deregulate the market in child care. They said that there were too many regulations facing anyone who wanted to set up child care provision, but people who go out to work must be confident that their children are in safe hands. There must be an appropriate level of regulation to ensure the quality of care. I cannot think of anything more important to ensure than that.
  Leaving it all to the woman next door, or lowering the quality of care to such an extent that nobody knows whether it is good or not, is playing fast and loose with the future of our children and of our economy. After all those years, that is not worthy to be called a Government policy, yet it is all that we have heard from the Conservative party.
  Conservatives are quick enough to deregulate the labour market and to help to accelerate changes such as the increase in part-time work. They are quick to celebrate a decline in earning power and the arrival of low wages, and then they wonder why so many people cannot afford to go out to work. They lament the consequences of their own policies, as if they had descended upon them from above. Yet often their economic policies and the ideology that they have pursued have caused some of the problems.
  It is time that we took a strategic look at what we can do to deal with the issue nationally. We should not leave it all to patchy and fragmented practice in different parts of the country, some of which is good and some of which is bad. At present, because of the local authority provision, one is three times more likely to have access to child care if one lives in a Labour area than if one lives in a Conservative area. In Labour-controlled areas 40 per cent of all three and four-year-olds are in child care or nursery education, but in Tory areas the proportion is only 13 per cent. It is not fair that those who have the misfortune to grow up in Tory areas should not have access to something so vital.
  No serious Government should consider how we can face the future and pay our way in the new economy, without realising that we must invest in child care here and now, or we shall pay for the consequences in the future.
  Mr. Forman: I was reluctant to speak, but I feel bound to do so because of the nature of the Opposition speeches that I have heard on this important subject. Nobody on
  804
  either side of the House would disagree with the general propositions that Opposition Members have advanced about the importance of child care, especially for very young children. All the studies show that the influences on young children are critical in determining how they grow up and lead their later lives.
  As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, we do not dispute the simple proposition that it is important to get mothers back to work after having a child, if they wish to work, because that is good for families and psychologically good for mothers, and it helps with the material circumstances of the families concerned. That is all to the good. And, as we all know, one of the smaller measures in the Budget was directed towards that end. So far, so good.
  The real question was contained in my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle)—an intervention that I had been tempted to make during earlier speeches, too. Taxpayers, and other people listening to the debate, will want the Labour and Liberal parties to tell them how the necessary cost of the desirable measures that they advocate would be apportioned, and how that will fit into the overall strategy on which Opposition Members say that they are so keen—although I have not heard a great deal of substance to it so far.
  In view of the contrast between what happens here and what happens on the continent of Europe, the Opposition must answer the question: what is the appropriate balance for meeting those costs in modern society? First, to what extent should we put the costs for those desirable extra measures on to individuals? What contribution should the families themselves make? Secondly, what contribution should employers make, in their own interests as much as for any other reason, so that they can recruit and retain the well-qualified women employees whom they need? Thirdly, what proportion should be borne by the generality of taxpayers?
  We sometimes talk glibly of Government money—but there ain't such a thing as Government money, only taxpayers' money. There is an opportunity cost, and all those other things. I can think of other forms of desirable family financial support which could be made a charge on the taxpayer—for example, financial help for those looking after elderly people. Many women in families these days have to pick up the burden, both financial and human, of caring for an elderly relative. That will happen more and more in the future because of the changing demographic profile.
  Mr. George Stevenson: Given our appalling child care record in comparison with that of any European country that the hon. Gentleman cares to mention, does he accept the proposition that, whatever balance the Government have constructed over the past 15 years, it is self-evident that it is not working? Secondly, does he accept that the new clause represents but a small step in the direction of attempting to shift that balance more in favour of fostering child care, which, in view of our appalling record, is obviously not happening now?
  Mr. Forman: If the hon. Gentleman's argument were correct, it would be surprising that our rate of female participation in the labour force has climbed so rapidly to such a high level in recent years, so that we are now second only to Denmark in the European Union.

  805
  In an ideal world where there was plenty of money available for such things, whether from individuals, companies or the generality of taxpayers, it might indeed be desirable to increase the financial contributions from all those groups. But before the debate finishes I want to hear some authoritative guidance from the Opposition. I do not know whether we shall hear another speech from the Opposition Front Bench; I apologise for not having heard the opening speeches, but I could not be in the Chamber at that time. I should like to hear an authoritative statement on how the Opposition would go about implementing the strategy about which they talk so airily. That is the key question with which we must concern ourselves during the Report stage of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Spearing: This debate should not be necessary. Indeed, if there were a properly co-ordinated and integrated Government policy on child care the debate would be unnecessary, and so would the new clause, and the speech by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman). The hon. Gentleman may have a point about the mechanics of putting the effects of the amendment into practice, but he and the Financial Secretary have to answer for the lack of integrity in the Government's present approach to child care.
  I use the word "integrity" advisedly. We often use it in a pejorative sense when we say, "That person has no integrity." But I am using the word in a collective sense to describe the Government, because their policy is not integrated. It is not a whole; therefore it has no integrity in itself, and I shall prove that. In an earlier intervention the Financial Secretary claimed that the Government had a strategy. He nods, but I hope to prove to him, to the House and to the public that they have not.
  The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) castigated the 1906 Administration of Lloyd George—or rather of Campbell-Bannerman, and subsequently of Asquith and then, during the war, of Lloyd George. The hon. Gentleman said that the root of most of our troubles in the rest of the century could be laid at the door of that Government, and what it started. That remark illustrates the differences between Conservative Members.
  Some Conservatives believe that we must have a collective form of public service whereby, together as a whole, we fund the professionals who provide care, whether that be in health or in education—
  Mr. Carrington rose—
  Mr. Spearing: I shall give way in a minute, when I have finished what I am saying.
  Surely, by definition, care is not a marketable commodity. We have been talking about child care today, and the hon. Member for Fulham is really saying that the tradition of public service that the 1906 Administration started, and that my hon. Friends have attempted to continue since 1945, is all wrong. But I maintain that it is essential to meet the challenges of the next generation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) properly and eloquently explained.
  Mr. Carrington: I do not to wish to go into long disputations about the pros and cons of the record of the Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith Governments, although I point out that Lloyd George was not a Liberal Prime
  806
  Minister, but a coalition Prime Minister. The two principal achievements of that Government were the highest number of days lost in strikes at any time in the country until 1978, which occurred in about 1911, I believe, and the start of the first world war. Those two factors meant that most of our problems came from that Government.
  Mr. Spearing: We may make a judgment about the causes of that terrible conflict, but if the hon. Gentleman considers the public institutions in what was the borough of Fulham or looks round any city or town at the public institutions and public buildings which were erected between 1906 and 1913, he will see that there is a great deal of good. The problem with Conservative Members is that some of them believe in public service, even if it is over a narrow range, and the rest of them do not. I rather suspect that the hon. Gentleman is one of those who does not.
  7.30 pm
  The Prime Minister believes in public service. He has written a great deal in the newspapers about child care. It is he who said in an interview in The Daily Telegraph that we were to have an expansion of nursery education. Articles in the Daily Express further trailed the Prime Minister' dedication to that, even though the Secretary of State for Education appeared to have a different sort of view as to how it should be discharged. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) pointed out that, in their official report to the United Nations, the Government said:
  "It would like to see a widening of nursery and other pre-school education as resources become available … The longer-term ambition is universal availability for those who want it."
  We may ask "universal availability" of what? It is clear that, as the Government have said, such availability relates to the widening of nursery and other pre-school education. Nursery education, playgroups and some form of minding all have a part to play. We must ask ourselves what are the best arrangements to create a balance and who should supply each of those commodities, as the hon. Member for Fulham calls them. I prefer to call it care.
  That is the area in which the Government have not got the integrity of which I spoke. When I use the word "integrity", I do not mean it in a personal capacity. However, it is perfectly clear that, corporately, integrity does not exist and I shall show why.
  The Education Act 1944 laid a duty on every education authority to have regard to the need for nursery education for children under the age of five. Every local education authority had a duty to assess that need. They did not have to provide it, they could argue one way or the other and they did not have to provide for the full need. Indeed, in 1979, Oxfordshire council decided that it was going to disband nursery education. As a result, legislation passed through the House in 1980 which removed that requirement of the 1944 Act. However, it was passed in a way which did not make it clear to the House that that obligation and duty to provide care—at least the duty to see how much care was necessary or desirable—was being removed.
  It is interesting that that principle of providing nursery education was endorsed by R. A. Butler in his speeches on the 1944 Act. He said that the concept of nursery education was to support home life and was not an attempt to

  807
  supplant it. That is why, earlier this Session, I introduced the Nursery Education (Assessment of Need) Bill to put that duty back on the statute book.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I remember the hon. Gentleman's Bill, but the three new clauses are not about nursery education, but specifically concern capital allowances, child care vouchers and the self-employed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least address one of those three dimensions.
  Mr. Spearing: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, you will recall that, in the course of the debate, the Government claimed—this relates to the need for the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)—that their policy was integrated and met the needs of the hour.
  I shall rapidly conclude my speech and address my remarks to the Minister, who claimed that that integrated policy was present. All that I shall say is that that Bill was talked out by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). It was blocked by Ministers subsequently and on Friday 15 April I moved, as was my privilege under the Standing Orders, that the Bill be sent to a Second Reading Committee for consideration of its merits. But the Treasury did not want the Bill, not because it could not be passed on the nod—at 2.30 pm on a Friday, which everybody understands—but because it objected to the principle of debating it in Committee. If Treasury Ministers are objecting to debating the principle which was enshrined in an Act in 1944 by a Government with a huge Conservative majority who were elected in 1935 and will not apply it to the needs of today, they have no integrity. That is why my hon. Friend finds it necessary to move her amendment.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: One of the reasons why I am grateful for this debate is that it moves us beyond the platitudes that presume that there is a shared and common interest existing on both sides of the Chamber about meeting the rights and needs of the child to pre-school nursery care and education. It seems that if we are to have a serious debate on those issues, we must at some stage address three of the key elements that must underpin any such commitment. Those elements are: what form the care and provision should take, where it should be located, and how it should be paid for.
  May I simply outline the starting point? I am grateful to a number of my hon. Friends who have pointed out that, in the European league of comparisons, our starting point for three to five-year-olds is as follows. While in France and Belgium 95 per cent. of children have access to nursery education, in Italy and Denmark the figure is 85 per cent., and in Germany, Greece and Spain up to 70 per cent. of children receive nursery education, in the United Kingdom only 35 per cent. of children have such access. We are second to bottom of the European league. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I should be most grateful if the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) would recognise that her hon. Friend is addressing the Chair.
  Mr. Simpson: Our best is less than half the best of the rest of Europe. Therefore, we ought to place our debate in a somewhat humble context. We perform no better if we stretch the age range and consider the provision for the under-threes. In Denmark, 48 per cent. of its children have
  808
  access to nursery education and nursery care. The figure for France and Belgium is 20 per cent., but for the United Kingdom the figure is 2 per cent.
  Against that relatively humble background, the House must ask what the starting point should be for a coherent and strategic policy that delivers to children their rights of access to pre-school nursery care. I take as my starting point the report of the Education, Science and Arts Committee in 1988. It reported:
  "We recommend those LEAs which have not already done so should review their existing plans to ensure that under fives provision is not adversely affected by the rise in pupil numbers."
  The report went on to say:
  "It is unlikely therefore that any significant expansion could take place in provision for the under fives without provision of additional resources by central government."
  Sadly, the Committee had to recognise that the Government had stated that it was their aim
  "broadly to maintain the present level of expenditure on under fives in real terms."
  When the Committee questioned the Government further, they said that the
  "maintenance of the current participation rate seemed incompatible with level funding given the increasing number of under fives."
  The Committee asked the Government to clarify whether that would guarantee increased funding in absolute terms. The Government's response was that they would not at present
  "envisage providing resources on the scale necessary to expand provision"
  in the way that the Committee was recommending. The Committee concluded that the gap between public policy and public provision was a stark one that had to be addressed in unambiguous terms and commitments. It stated:
  "in the long run, we are brought, by the evidence on the value of nursery education, by the picture of the child situation in the eighties, and by the evidence of parental demand to our second major conclusion, that the way forward is the provision of a place in a nursery classroom for all children whose parents wish it."
  Those conclusions, which were set out in 1988, have not been honoured. We have made no significant progress towards meeting those observations or commitments.
  If we are to identify any pathways of hope, they are to be found not in Government policy but in the policies pursued by local authorities; virtually in defiance of the successive and swingeing cuts that central Government have imposed on local authority spending.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) for saying that the local authorities' record of provision for the under-fives is exemplary when compared with central Government provision. In the main, the record is exemplary for Labour authorities rather than for those that are controlled by the Conservative party. As my hon. Friend said, a child is three times more likely to have access to a nursery place if it lives in a Labour authority than in a Conservative area. Of the best 40 providers of nursery places, 34 are Labour authorities. Of the worst 25 providers, not one is Labour controlled.
  I am even prouder to say that in Nottinghamshire the record of the Labour education authority since it came into power in 1981 has been outstanding. Nottinghamshire is now the leading shire county in the provision of child care. Every year since 1981 the authority has increased the number of places for children under five in local authority nurseries. The numbers increased from 4,700 places in

  809
  1981 to 6,900 last year. It meant, last year, that there were 13,500 children throughout the county in full-time or part-time nursery places.
  The authority has been struggling to hit a target that it set itself. It wishes 50 per cent. of the under-fives to have access to nursery places. It has reached 49.68 per cent. and sadly failed to reach its target. There has been a shortfall each year simply because the numbers of under five-year-olds outstrips the number of places that the authority is able to provide, in defiance, as I have said, of Government policy.
  Within that commitment I am even prouder to recognise that 65 per cent. of children in Nottingham city have access to nursery places. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) for saying earlier that it is not sufficient to talk about the generality of provision. We must ascertain whether provision is being made available, first, to those who are in greatest need.
  I invite the hon. Member for Havant to examine the record of Nottinghamshire's education authority. It is against the criterion that the hon. Gentleman outlined that it has decided where to make provision for nursery places. Unless that quality criterion is built into any general policy, there is a risk that those who are most able to demand will be first in the queue and those who may have the greatest claim on a needs basis will be at the end of the queue. The hon. Member for Havant made this an important point that we should all bear in mind in any strategy that we claim to put before the House that reflects favourably on the extension of the rights of children under five in terms of access to nursery care.
  7.45pm
  Every child in Nottinghamshire with a place in nursery education must, though, understand that the vote of thanks that he, she and his parents need to make should be addressed to the Labour local authority that has obtained, maintained and sustained those places.
  Several Conservative Members have talked about parental choice. I spent a number of years before entering the House as an inner-city community worker. For much of that time the level of child care provision was well below the needs of the local communities with which I was working. In many instances some of the best initiatives were taken by groups of parents who gathered together and said that, despite the rigours of central Government finance, which were restricting the expansion of nursery provision, they would do their own thing. In effect, they said, "It is better that we make common provision to offer some stimulation for our children than to make no provision at all." I can only praise the parents who made that sort of commitment.
  At the same time, I would not want anyone to be under the illusion that the approach that I have outlined constituted a free and positive choice that was being offered against the widest of all possibilities. Even the widest of the possibilities that stretched across these parents' horizons denied them the choice of a nursery place for their children. It was the denial of that choice that forced them into making other provision.
  There may be some people who, given the widest range of choices, would still wish to say, "I would like to have a hands-on involvement, along with other people in my community, for the pre-school care and education of my
  810
  children." That is fine. There may be others who say, "I would rather that my children were with members of my family." Again, that is fine, but I want people to be able to exercise such choices in the knowledge that they also have rights of access to free and comprehensive child care provision of the highest quality that the country can provide.
  If people make personal choices to invest their own time and effort in education within extended family networks, that is fine. Unfortunately, we are a long way from having that range of options as a positive choice.
  I am grateful again to the hon. Member for Havant for trying in an intervention to question whether the House should be concerned about the general provision of child care as opposed to questioning or examining the prospects of children in households where there is low income, one income or no income. It is an extremely important question which needs an answer if we are to address the rights of all children in our society.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have been asked a question in an intervention, but I ask him to relate his remarks to the three new clauses; he must weave his speech around them.
  Mr. Simpson: I shall do that specifically.
  In addressing the new clauses, we must look at the nature of the recent changes in the employment market so that we can ask ourselves some fairly serious and searching questions about whether employer-based provision will work and whether it is desirable.
  I draw the attention of hon. Members to a recent survey conducted by the Low Pay Network, which was referred to in an article in The Observer on Sunday. Some fairly stark evidence was provided in that article which must raise the most serious question about women in part-time work being able to buy places for their children in either employer-based nurseries or private or community-based schemes. The study related to part-time jobs which had been generated in the Stirling area, and examined 91 part-time retailing jobs and the incomes of those who took up the jobs. Virtually all of the jobs were taken up by women.
  The consequences for those women, and for the House, must be understood and considered. One consequence is that the earnings of those women were equivalent to 28 full-time jobs. The tax contributions they paid fell by a staggering 96.5 per cent. They fell from some £42,000 in tax and national insurance contributions to a total of £1,470. What we have is an increase in the activity rates in the work force of people who will not be able to pay for access to private nursery care or full-cost nursery provision by an employer. They will certainly not have the money to pay for child minding on any responsible and reputable basis.
  The question is: how do those working mothers then gain access to decent nursery care for their children which meets the highest standards which their children have a right to expect? That question is important not only for the employer but for the Government. As the Government widen the base between the tax take that they get from the shuffling of the employment market, and as they retreat from their commitment to direct nursery provision, a massive and serious shortfall is being loaded on to society

  811
  which it will have to pick up in the future. Any party that has a serious commitment to a comprehensive policy on access to child care must address that issue.
  It must be understood that those who are caught in the employment revolution, which the Government frequently laud in the House, are faced with a choice whereby they are pauperised in employment or stigmatised out of employment. Access to child care through the employer then takes on a different notion. The most sinister and disturbing context in which it could be construed is that the most cynical employers—if they were drawn into provision because they could make tax gains from it—would use it in precisely the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) pointed out, in terms not of extending access to children but of restricting the rights of parents. Employers would not allow access to the caring father in case the mother sought employment elsewhere, especially with a competitor. That would make access to nursery care not a child's right or a parent's right but an employer's right.
  There is something deeply disturbing about seeing a solution to the rights of child care provision for children mainly in the hands of employers. Given the Government's ideological commitment to free market forces, the logic of the argument is that we will see child care inexorably tied to permanently low pay, to the maintenance of poor conditions and to the continuation of discriminatory practices in the workplace.
  Mr. Willetts: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what seems to be a significant attack on the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). It is absolutely devastating.
  Mr. Simpson: I am trying to address the rights of children in the whole and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has become plain, but I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to recognise that this is a specific debate on three new clauses. He has not mentioned one of the new clauses for one moment of his speech.
  Mr. Simpson: I think that that is a trifle unfair, having just been congratulated by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on addressing precisely that key issue.
  I am aware that employer-based nursery provision is an important but second-best option in a comprehensive strategic policy that delivers child care opportunities to all of our children. I do not discount employer-based child care as an option. However, in order to place it properly in a strategic policy, we should not deceive ourselves that what may be an answer in part is in fact an answer in the whole. We need to place its provision in that context.
  If we are considering moving along that path, we must be willing to open up a debate about partnership which moves beyond the terms by which the Government have structured this debate. I am not averse to a partnership between the public and private sectors. However, the benchmark of that partnership must be judged not by whether we can come to an agreement between ourselves but whether we can devise provision by the public and private sectors that meets the desires and demands of parents and their children.
  All provision must eventually be measured and judged against the rights of children. That does not get in the way of a diverse and pluralistic approach to such provision, but
  812
  it sets down clear, common standards against which the provision must be judged. It is not a question whether the provision should be tax deductible; it is a question whether it is based on shared obligations which the public and private sectors take on board with regard to meeting the needs of children.
  In constructing whatever debates we have, we must be clear that the issue is not about a parent's desire for a job but about a child's right to a nursery place. We must understand that we have a common interest in making access to child care a universal right for all under-fives in this country. We have that common interest for two simple reasons. First, a study which was done in the United States a couple of years ago asked the question: what can we best do to deflect young people from crime? The answer that resulted from extensive research throughout the United States was that public and private initiatives needed to invest in provision for under-fives. If society wants the best "bang for its buck" in terms of anti-crime initiatives, it should invest in the under-fives. It is in the interests of industry and employers as much as it is in the state's interest.
  We also need to know that employers, as much as anyone, have an interest in producing a generation of children who are highly literate and numerate, and who are capable of finding a place in a high-wage economy. If we do not invest in that for the century ahead, then the gap between those who are retired non-earners and who are dependent upon tomorrow's earners and pension contributors will be increasingly unbridgeable.
  8 pm
  We need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) mentioned, a strategic and co-ordinated national policy about child care provision. That must take on board the issues of staff training and take-up rights. It must extend from the question of funding buildings to books and also toys. It must recognise that if we do not develop a comprehensive and strategic approach which delivers access to child care and nursery care for all under-fives who wish it—as of right—we will be doing little other than stealing from our own future.
  Mr. Dorrell: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). Those who have sat through the debate have heard many calls for a national child care strategy, but he is only the hon. Member who has not merely spoken in favour of the idea but has sketched out some idea of what a national child care strategy would look like.
  The only problem is that there appears to be a difference of nuance between the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he is not in favour of employer-provided child care. I look forward to welcoming him in the Lobby if the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) chooses to force a Division, because the purpose of the hon. Lady's amendment is to provide a tax concession for employer-provided child care.
  Mr. Simpson rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: There is another difference in nuance between the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition Front Bench. He might like to reply for both of them at once, as I shall give way in a moment.

  813
  The hon. Member for Peckham responded to more than one intervention this afternoon by avoiding answering the question of what a national child care strategy would look like. A large number of speeches have called for a national child care strategy, but all of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues neatly avoided setting out what that meant. The hon. Gentleman was clear that what he means by a national child care strategy is free access to child care and nursery education for all under-fives at the choice of the parent. That is his view, and it is perfectly clear, but I fear that he has yet to persuade the Opposition Front Bench that that is either affordable or desirable.
  Mr. Simpson: I hope that the Minister will recognise, given the difficulties that I had in making my way through the interventions from the Chair, that the terms of the debate are specifically limited. There is not a great deal of scope for setting out a national strategy and there have been other occasions when those on the Opposition Front Bench were more than forthright about what the framework of that should be.
  May I simply clarify a point that I made about employer-based provision? I am not opposed to it and I said clearly that it is an important strand of a second string to the provision of child care rights. It must be judged against what is in the best interests of the child, rather than the employer, and it must deliver universal access to all those children who are under five who wish access to such provision.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. That was a long intervention after a fairly long speech.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman said that it was difficult, in this debate, to have the opportunity to sketch out a full strategy for child care. I congratulate him on finding a way to do so that his hon. Friends were not sufficiently ingenious to find.
  The hon. Member for Peckham was quite right to say that the debate about child care takes place against the background of a major change in the labour market over the past couple of decades. There has been a large increase in the number of women at work and that has led to a substantial increase in the number of two-earner households. For a number of other social reasons, there has also been a substantial growth in the number of single-parent families.
  Those are all important factors, which demand an increase in the level of provision of child care. That is not in dispute. The problem is that Opposition Members appear to be dismissive of the fact that that demand for increased child care has been met. There is clear evidence in the figures of a substantial increase in the number of places in nurseries and in child minding. That is responding to precisely the kind of social phenomena that the hon. Lady identifies.
  It became clear in the debate that the attitudes of the Opposition were accurately summed up by the hon. Lady's article in this morning's edition of The Independent. She wrote:
  "The number of children in private day nurseries … is 90,000 and increasing."
  That is a fourfold increase on the figure of 10 years ago. She goes on:
  814
  "But the demand for child care for working mothers has been met above all by a huge increase in child-minding. More than 250,000 children are being cared for by child-minders".
  That is a rise, as the hon. Lady accurately says, of 155,000 or 150 per cent. in the past 10 years.
  The attitudes of the hon. Lady become clear when she goes on to say:
  "For many parents, child-minding is their preferred option."
  One could say that there is clear evidence that they are taking up opportunities which are there. She continues:
  "But for many more, it is not. It is unsatisfactory that the increase in women at work is being underpinned by a major expansion in a type of child care which is not the first choice of parents or experts."
  The last word is the giveaway. The truth is that the Opposition are more interested in the views of experts on collective provision than they are in the views of parents about how their children should best be cared for.
  Before I pursue the argument any further, I should declare an interest. I am the father of an 18-year-old son—[Interruption.] An 18-month-old son. My wife works and I must declare to the House that, despite the opinion of experts, my son Philip was taken on Monday of this week from a nursery and given to a child minder because that met the needs of my family more directly. I am sorry if that contradicted the opinion of the hon. Lady about what we should have done as parents. However, the choice of parents should determine our child care policy.
  Mr. Spearing: The Minister has claimed that the Government are responding to the various needs, whether in child minding, nursery education or playgroups. Why do the Government persist in rejecting what the House accepted in 1944—that local authorities should assess the need, even if they are not to supply it?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Act to which he refers related to nursery education, not child care.
  The hon. Member for Peckham called for a national strategy for child care. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) was absolutely right to point out that—with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South—no Opposition Member sketched out in any degree what he meant. The new clause does not constitute a strategy. It provides an industrial buildings allowance for child care facilities in commercial buildings. It is based on the proposition that that is available for sports facilities in commercial buildings. That is not correct.
  There is a specific industrial buildings allowance provision for sports pavilions, but sports facilities in commercial buildings would be treated in precisely the same way as child care provision in commercial buildings. That is, their access to capital allowances would be determined by the status of the building and, if it is a commercial building, no capital allowance would be available. So on her own logic, the hon. Lady's argument falls.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, the hon. Member for Peckham's argument was in direct contradiction to the concerns that she expressed about employer-provided nurseries in the book that she wrote on all those subjects, and from which my hon. Friend quoted. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends called for a strategy and, with one honourable exception, made no attempt to set one out.
  The Liberal Democrats on the other hand offered us something that at least cost a substantial amount of money,

  815
  even if it did not constitute a strategy. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) argued that we should introduce tax relief for child care vouchers. That in itself is a relatively low-cost proposal, but I have to ask the hon. Lady and anyone else who may be attracted to child care vouchers as the way forward what we would do when employers and employees agreed that, as child care vouchers were tax deductible, it was in the interests of both to provide vouchers, if necessary at the cost of a reduction in pay, in order that employers could meet directly the child care that was previously met by employees out of their own pocket. It would clearly be in the tax interests of both employers and employees to do that.
  Such an arrangement would substantially increase the cost of the hon. Lady's proposal. She would then have to explain why it applied to employees but not to the self-employed. When she had done that, she would have to explain why child care was tax deductible when all those convolutions were gone through, but not when employees paid for it out of their own pocket. Once that concession was made—the lobby groups make it clear that that is their objective—the cost to the Exchequer would be £300 million a year. Not a single extra child care place would be provided as a consequence. I do not regard the hon. Member for Christchurch's proposal as a strategy or a sensible use of £300 million when it would not lead to the provision of a single extra child care place.
  Ms Diane Abbott: What about single parents?
  Mr. Dorrell: I am coming to precisely that point in response to the hon. Lady. I am always happy to go where she leads.
  The proposition that the Government put to the House is that the wrong way to go about child care is to introduce blanket subsidies of the kind that were accurately described by my hon. Friends the Members for Havant and for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) as ill-targeted assistance going to the wrong people. The Government believe that we should recognise that there is a real problem for those on low incomes, particularly single-parent families, and that it is in the interests of such families, wider social policy and wider economic policy objectives to help those people out of the single-parent employment trap. That is why in the Budget last year my right and hon. learned Friend the Chancellor introduced the child care disregard in family credit. That is why, in addition, we are assisting the development of 50,000 places for children of school age through the out-of-school child care initiative.
  The Government's approach to the problem is to target assistance where there is a real problem, where there are real anti-work incentives and real difficulties for people in finding their way off benefit and into work. By using money in that way we shall be able to achieve a substantial social advance rather than a blanket subsidy which is ill targeted and delivers the lion's share of the benefit to people who do not need it and are comfortably off with their present arrangements. On that basis, I commend the Government's approach—
  Mr. Chisholm: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: No. I think that the House wishes to come to a decision on the matter. I commend the Government's approach and recommend to the House that all three of the new clauses should be rejected.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 291.

  Division No. 213]

  [8.13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Ainger, Nick

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Fisher, Mark

  Allen, Graham

  Flynn, Paul

  Alton, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Foulkes, George

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fraser, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Fyfe, Maria

  Austin-Walker, John

  Galloway, George

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Garrett, John

  Barnes, Harry

  George, Bruce

  Barron, Kevin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Battle, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Godsiff, Roger

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bell, Stuart

  Gordon, Mildred

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Graham, Thomas

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Benton, Joe

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grocott, Bruce

  Berry, Roger

  Gunnell, John

  Blair, Tony

  Hain, Peter

  Blunkett, David

  Hall, Mike

  Boateng, Paul

  Hardy, Peter

  Boyes, Roland

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bradley, Keith

  Harvey, Nick

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Henderson, Doug

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Heppell, John

  Burden, Richard

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Byers, Stephen

  Hinchliffe, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Hoey, Kate

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hutton, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Cohen, Harry

  Ingram, Adam

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jamieson, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Janner, Greville

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Keen, Alan

  Darling, Alistair

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Davidson, Ian

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Denham, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dixon, Don

  Lewis, Terry

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Etherington, Bill

  Loyden, Eddie

  817

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Redmond, Martin

  McAllion, John

  Reid, Dr John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McCartney, Ian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  McFall, John

  Rogers, Allan

  McKelvey, William

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McLeish, Henry

  Rowlands, Ted

  McMaster, Gordon

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Madden, Max

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Alice

  Short, Clare

  Mandelson, Peter

  Simpson, Alan

  Marek, Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Meacher, Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Speller, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stevenson, George

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Stott, Roger

  Morley, Elliot

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mudie, George

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mullin, Chris

  Turner, Dennis

  Murphy, Paul

  Tyler, Paul

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wallace, James

  Olner, William

  Walley, Joan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Watson, Mike

  Parry, Robert

  Welsh, Andrew

  Patchett, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pendry, Tom

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Pickthall, Colin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Pope, Greg

  Wilson, Brian

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Winnick, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wise, Audrey

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Worthington, Tony

  Prescott, John

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Purchase, Ken

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. John Cummings and

  Randall, Stuart

  Mr. Alan Meale.

  Raynsford, Nick

  NOSE

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bendell, Vivian

  Alexander, Richard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Amess, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Booth, Hartley

  Ashby, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Atkins, Robert

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bowis, John

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Baldry, Tony

  Brazier, Julian

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Bright, Graham

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Bates, Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  818

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hawksley, Warren

  Burns, Simon

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butler, Peter

  Hendry, Charles

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hicks, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cash, William

  Horam, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Churchill, Mr

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Congdon, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jessel, Toby

  Couchman, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Key, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Devlin, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knapman, Roger

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Dover, Den

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Duncan, Alan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Dunn, Bob

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Legg, Barry

  Elletson, Harold

  Leigh, Edward

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evennett, David

  Lord, Michael

  Faber, David

  Luff, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Maclean, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fishburn, Dudley

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  Madel, Sir David

  Forth, Eric

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Malone, Gerald

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Mans, Keith

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Marland, Paul

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  French, Douglas

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gale, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gallie, Phil

  Mates, Michael

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Merchant, Piers

  Garnier, Edward

  Mills, Iain

  Gill, Christopher

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gorst, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Needham, Richard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hague, William

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Norris, Steve

  Hannam, Sir John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  819

  Page, Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Paice, James

  Sykes, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Pickles, Eric

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Richards, Rod

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Tracey, Richard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Trend, Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Viggers, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Walden, George

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sackville, Tom

  Waller, Gary

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Ward, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Watts, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wells, Bowen

  Shersby, Michael

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Sims, Roger

  Whitney, Ray

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Whittingdale, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Willetts, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wilshire, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spring, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Sproat, Iain

  Yeo, Tim

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Steen, Anthony

  Stephen, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stern, Michael

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Stewart, Allan

  Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  Streeter, Gary

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6

  CHILD CARE VOUCHERS
  `.—(1) Where an employer supplies child care vouchers to an employee in qualifying circumstances and up to the qualifying limit such vouchers shall not be treated as emoluments for the purposes of section 131 of the Taxes Act 1988 or as benefits to which section 154 of the Taxes Act 1988 applies.
  (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the vouchers are supplied in qualifying circumstances if

  (a) the vouchers can be used only in paying for care for a child who falls within subsection (3) below and

  (b) the registration requirement is met

  (3) A child falls within this subsection if the child

  (a) is a child for whom the employee has parental responsibility

  (b) is resident with the employee or

  (c) is a child or stepchild of the employee and is maintained at the employee's expense

  (4) The registration requirement is that

  (a) the premises on which the care is provided are registered under section 1 of the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948 or section 11 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 or

  (b) a person providing the care is registered under section 71 of the Children Act 1989 with respect to the premises on which it is provided

  (5) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the qualifying limit is

  (a) in the case of each child who is under the age of six years and is not in full time education, £75 a week

  (b) in the case of each other child under the age of 16 years, £30 a week.

  (6) In this section, "care" and "parental responsibility" have the same meaning as in section 155A of the Taxes Act 1988.'.—[Mr. Beith.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 293.

  Division No. 214]

  [8.29 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Connarty, Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Tyler, Paul

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Wallace, James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Mr. Simon Hughes.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cash, William

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Alexander, Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clappison, James

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Amess, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Congdon, David

  Ashby, David

  Conway, Derek

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Atkins, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Couchman, James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Baldry, Tony

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bates, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Batiste, Spencer

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bellingham, Henry

  Devlin, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dicks, Terry

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dover, Den

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Duncan, Alan

  Booth, Hartley

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Boswell, Tim

  Dunn, Bob

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowden, Andrew

  Elletson, Harold

  Bowis, John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bright, Graham

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evennett, David

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Faber, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Burns, Simon

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Butler, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Forman, Nigel

  Carrington, Matthew

  Forth, Eric

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  821

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Malone, Gerald

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Mans, Keith

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Marland, Paul

  French, Douglas

  Marlow, Tony

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gale, Roger

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gallie, Phil

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mates, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Garnier, Edward

  Merchant, Piers

  Gill, Christopher

  Mills, Iain

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Gorst, John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Needham, Richard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hague, William

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Norris, Steve

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Page, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Paice, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hendry, Charles

  Pawsey, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Pickles, Eric

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Horam, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Richards, Rod

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jack, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Legg, Barry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Sproat, Iain

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lidington, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Lightbown, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Stewart, Allan

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Streeter, Gary

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maclean, David

  Sykes, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Madel, Sir David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  822

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Thomason, Roy

  Watts, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Whitney, Ray

  Thurnham, Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tracey, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilshire, David

  Trend, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Trotter, Neville

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wood, Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Walden, George

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Ward, John

  Mr. Michael Brown.

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 13

  JOINT VENTURES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS
  The following subsection shall be inserted after section 6(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988—
  "(1A) Where—

  (a) a company has been formed for the purpose of the construction, design and operation of roads, rail or other transportation projects, the provision of training or child care, or such other purposes as the Treasury may by regulation deem appropriate, and

  (b) not less than 10 per cent. of the issued share capital of that company is owned by the Government or other public sector body at the end of an accounting period, and

  (c) not less than 30 per cent. of the issued share capital of that company is owned by private

  bodies at the end of the same accounting period. then the liability of that company to corporate tax under this section for each accounting period shall be reduced by £100.".'.—[Mr. Darling.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 18—Joint Ventures for Infrastructure Investment between Public and Private Sectors (No.2)—
  'The following section shall be inserted after section 6(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988—
  "Where—

  (a) a company has been formed for the purpose of the design, construction and operation of roads, rail or other transportation projects, the provision of training or child care, or such other purposes as the Treasury may by regulation deem appropriate, and

  (b) at the end of the period of concesssion the assets and activities of the company are to pass to the public sector,

  then the liability of that company to corporation tax under this section for each accounting period shall be reduced by £100.".'.
  Mr. Darling: The new clauses are technical in nature but they allow us to debate an important matter that is crucial to the future of the United Kingdom and the world economy. Both concern the need for more initiatives involving public and private sector capital.

  823
  The need to invest in Britain's infrastructure is obvious to most people, if not to the Government. At the last election, the Labour party was anxious to ensure that the public sector had private sector money available to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the shadow employment spokesman, spent much of the general election campaign emphasising the fact that we believed that it was necessary for British Rail to attract private sector money. At that time, he was roundly criticised by the Government, who suggested that such a solution to the problem was not acceptable and should be rejected. Yet immediately following the general election the Government adopted exactly the same policy, showing that yet again they followed Labour party policy in this area of industrial development.
  The bankrupt nature of the Government's approach during the past 15 years is best illustrated by what has happened with the channel tunnel link between London and the Kent coast. This summer, trains will travel through France at 185 mph. They will then travel through the tunnel at 85 mph. Then, and for the next 10 years, they will limp through Kent—a 75-mile bottleneck—at just 47 mph. The decision to build the channel tunnel was taken in 1986 and work began in December 1987. Yet Britain will probably not have a fast link between London and the Kent coast until 2004. Until we have that fast link there will not be the through link to many parts of England and to Scotland, all of which should benefit from the opening of the channel tunnel. I believe that that has happened because of the Government dogma which prevailed throughout the 1980s, and which we still see today, which says that only private sector money is appropriate for large infrastructure projects of this kind.
  We know that parts of the London underground system are more than 120 years old. Anyone who travels on any part of the London underground system—which, as a general rule, Ministers do not—will know that it is in desperate need of overhaul. Even when the Government recognise that action is necessary, there is delay. The Northern line is an example of that, to which I shall return shortly.
  The Heathrow express line, now a public-private sector partnership initiative, was planned 10 years ago. We have one of the world's major airports, if not the world's major airport; yet there is no efficient public transport link between it and London city centre. The Piccadilly line, which currently links the two, is an appalling service. I can bear personal testament to that, and it is no way to link a modern airport with a city centre. Yet after years of delay and argument the Heathrow express line will not be ready until 1997—and even when it is completed it will dump passengers at Paddington station with no direct link anywhere else.
  The crossrail project, which will link east and west London, has still to complete its parliamentary passage and we do not know when, if ever, the line will be completed.
  Leaving aside the argument whether the London docklands development was a good scheme, we had the absurd situation where it was completed but there was no infrastructure to enable people to get in or out of it. Until recently, the London river bus—another casualty of the recession—was by far the best way to docklands and other parts of London because the road and rail links were not efficient.
  We also know that one in six sewerage pipes in Britain is more than 100 years old.
  824
  Alongside all those projects which desperately need investment we have between 3 million and 4 million people who are unemployed and condemned to a second class existence. They are people who want to work. There is work to be done and there are people ready to do it. What we need to find—and what the Government should find—is a solution which brings the work that is needed to those who want to work. The kind of initiative highlighted by new clauses 13 and 18 would provide one possible solution. I emphasise that it is one solution because there are other possibilities.
  Clearly, projects totally financed by the public purse and those totally financed by the private purse are ways of tackling these problems, but I wish to concentrate on the solution that would be enabled by the new clauses—matching the need to invest with the available private sector finance if such finance is available. That is one reason why we published a consultative document entitled "Financing Infrastructure Investment" in February this year. We subsequently held a conference which was heavily over-subscribed and attended by industrialists and financiers, confirming our belief that the private sector wants to contribute and that the biggest single barrier to progress is Government dogma, on the one hand, and simple paralysis on the part of the Government on the other.
  8.45 pm
  I do not believe that there should be any ideological difficulty over the funding of such projects. For far too long, political ideology has been dominated, certainly on the Government side, by the issue of public financing. Throughout the 1980s, the Government held that the only spending worth undertaking was that undertaken by the private sector. If the private sector could not or would not do it, it was not worth doing. That is as daft as saying that the only way to finance public works is through the public sector.
  Partnerships between the public and private sectors are essential. They are used in many different parts of the world. Local authorities throughout Britain have been pioneering such developments. The Government should now embrace the concept in order to tackle the woeful lack of investment in public infrastructure. The negative, polarised attitude has to change. We need to bring about the structural changes which are needed if partnerships are to develop. Public money should be used in a way which maximises the benefit to the community, which includes public infrastructure. If public funds are applied and they in turn attract public funding, aggregate spending is increased, bringing both direct and indirect benefits.
  Our concept of public-private partnership is ambitious and expensive—[Interruption.] That was a mere slip of the tongue. Those who have been observing the debate so far will have noticed that our amendments are far from expensive, as the Financial Secretary has already seen. Our partnerships are ambitious and expansive. We see the scope for new partnerships not just in the provision of rail and infrastructure, but in inner-city and regional developments, training, housing and child care, as we discussed at some length in the previous debate.
  As a first step, the Government should draw up a list of their priority projects. That is what seems to me to separate the Labour and Conservative parties. The Conservative party has never yet drawn up a list of those projects that it considers to be major priorities. It is for the Government to

  825
  determine their infrastructure priorities and then to invite the private sector to participate—not the other way round. That simply has not happened. No doubt the Financial Secretary will tell us why.
  That is also the view of the private sector. It is not just the Labour party which is saying that the public sector should do this. The Royal Bank of Scotland has said:
  "The public sector takes an active role in identifying and promoting priority projects."
  John Laing—no particular friend of the Labour party—has said that it is essential for the Government to ensure that projects are drawn up so that
  "the private sector pursues projects at the top of the Government's shopping list."
  That has not happened so far and it should happen as a matter of urgency. Instead, in the past 15 years we have had a Government ideology which has maintained that only the private sector knows best. That view has been rejected by the private sector itself. Yet every Conservative Member in the House today has been a bag carrier of that failed Tory dogma in the past.
  Last September, the Chancellor decided that a new initiative was required. Having announced that because he was born in the midlands he had an eye to industrial strategy, he produced a list of 78 projects that he claimed demonstrated the Government's commitment to public-private sector projects. They ranged from the channel tunnel link at one extreme to the car park behind Eastbourne hospital at the other. When he addressed the Confederation of British Industry last November, he said in his typical style:
  "You could say it is about privatising the process of capital investment in our key public services."
  As usual, he missed the point. The Government must determine priorities.
  With other projects, the risks are too great to be borne by the private sector alone. Where such projects are to be encouraged, it must be the Government's responsibility to take a lead and to share the risk appropriately. Many projects, such as the west coast railway, have a strategic importance but are not necessarily seen by the private sector as an attractive commercial proposition, or at least not in their entirety. In that instance, no private firm would contemplate the line's wholesale upgrading; but in partnership with the public sector, certain parts of the project might be attractive to a private firm and it might be willing to help fund them.
  Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but surely his earlier slip of the tongue was right. Some projects are expensive, but they are justified and cost-effective. The crunch is whether the Government are prepared either to put up the money or to underwrite the risk of some of the projects that he described. We shall not get away with £100 concessions to companies, as the hon. Gentleman's amendment proposes. It will require some commitment of public money to achieve the hon. Gentleman's objectives.
  Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Of course the sums at stake are substantial, particularly in respect of the channel tunnel link and the upgrading of the west coast main line. Ultimately, the public will fund those projects with the public purse through taxation, to service the loan. If they are funded jointly by the private and public sectors, the money will come partly from taxation and partly from fees, pricing or some other means of paying for them.
  826
  Earlier, before I was diverted by the Financial Secretary, I made the point that if public money is applied in that way and brings in private money, the aggregate investment is increased. I wholeheartedly accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposition that if the British economy is ever to get out of the rut that it is in, infrastructure investment in key projects will be needed. The Singapore Government, for example, are building both a physical highway and a telecommunications superhighway through the spine of that country. That is one example of a country prepared to embark on a major investment led by the public sector but subject to a substantial private sector commitment. That will bring economic spin-off developments which will provide employment for people who will then contribute taxes and national insurance or whatever is the appropriate system in that country.
  I fully accept that such developments do not short-circuit the fact that if the public sector is involved it creates a public sector borrowing requirement commitment. We are debating ways of introducing private and public sector money to allow investment in infrastructure projects which have been neglected for many years.
  Precisely that argument led me to emphasise the need for a channel tunnel link. It is not a narrow matter of a link between London and the Kent coast. The entire railway infrastructure to allow British companies to export to the rest of the European Union depends on a link between all parts of Britain, the tunnel and mainland Europe. That will not be possible in the absence of a fast link between London and the Kent coast, which is unlikely to exist for another 10 years
  The west coast main line was one of the most modern railways when the Government came to power in 1979, but it is now desperately in need of investment and its managers warn that it is at risk of catastrophic failure. All that the Government have done is to put obstacles in the way. Instead of the private sector or the Government dealing with one operator—British Rail—the network is run by more than 20 operators, all with their own goals and priorities. We know the difficulties that that has caused. Strathclyde passenger transport executive, which operates a major commuter network in the west of Scotland which is vital to communications there, is finding it difficult to maintain its commitment with ScotRail, which operates the Scottish rail network, because of uncertainty about the effects of privatisation. It is tragic when an integrated transport system is put at peril because of Government dogma.
  Earlier I mentioned the Northern line of the London underground—a classic case of the inflexibility of Government rules. Their policy has repeatedly delayed the investment that anyone who uses that line knows is desperately needed. The manufacturers of the new trains are happy to enter into an agreement to lease and to maintain them, which is important, because problems will inevitably arise with new rolling stock and they will have to be overcome. The Government want the manufacturers to go one step further and share the revenue risk. The people who build the trains freely admit that they do not have operational expertise. They cannot control the revenue, as they have no control over fare structure or marketing.
  I do not argue that leasing and maintenance is the solution that we would go for in every case—there may be occasions when revenue risk is entirely appropriate—but the Government must devise some mechanism which

  827
  offers the flexibility required. If the Government want a project badly enough, they should accept a greater degree of risk—perhaps ultimately by undertaking the entire project themselves, but perhaps something less than that. If the Government do not give a project particularly high priority, they would be right to ask the private sector to take a far greater share of the risk. At present, we have an extremely inflexible system, the result of which is that hundreds of thousands of Northern line users will be inconvenienced for a long time to come. That does not seem to make any sense. Does the Minister wish to intervene?
  Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady—[Laughter.] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He alleged that there is a blockage because the Government require the operators to take a risk on revenues, but that is not the position. The Government published in the Official Journal the terms of a competition to determine which supplier would make the best offer in terms of replacing Northern line rolling stock. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that that step is otiose?
  Mr. Darling: Earlier the Financial Secretary was confused about the age of his son. Now he appears confused about my sex. I wonder if he is also confused about Government policy on the public and private sectors.
  I have no objection to competitions or to tendering. The Government have said that they want the operators of the trains to accept a revenue risk, but I entirely see the operators' point of view: they do not know about the business of running trains. If they have an interest in only one particular line and not in others, it is difficult to see how they can reasonably be expected to take such a risk unless they are given some say in the fare structure and in marketing, so as to protect the risk that they are running.
  Clearly, the Government must be flexible about any strategy for attracting public-private sector initiatives. If a bridge is to be built across a river, the Government may adopt a view different from the one that they would take if it was just a case of providing rolling stock for one section of one line. The Government must be open about these matters and must be prepared to show flexibility.
  I would never argue that the Government should not press the private sector to make as much of a contribution to the risks as it possibly can. I know that those behind the Jubilee line extension wanted the Government to take the lion's share of the risks. I accept that the Government were right in that case to stick to their guns and ensure that the private sector took its fair share of the risk. No one should be dogmatic about these issues; it is just a case of what is right for the circumstances.
  Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for flexibility—it is an important point. He was arguing earlier that an unnecessary delay was being built into the Northern line acquisition by the Government's stance. The delay, if it be delay, is caused by the Government's insistence that potential suppliers enter into a competition. I want to establish whether the hon. Gentleman accepts that competition should be the next stage. If he does, he cannot argue that there is a delay.
  9 pm
  Mr. Darling: There is a delay by definition-because the Government have decided to hold a competition. I am glad to see that that is common ground. This is not just my
  828
  complaint: many Members representing London constituencies, together with the Evening Standard and numerous members of the public, all know about the misery of using the Northern line every day—and they consider that the Government have caused the delay.
  To say that the Government must be prepared to show flexibility is not to say that the private sector should not be pressed as hard as possible when it is right that it should assume a far greater risk. In certain other projects, such as the Northern line, it is important that the Government strike a realistic balance.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the Minister says, there has been an inordinate delay in getting to the point of holding the competition? The reason for that has been the Treasury's obsession with the idea that risk must take the form of operating risk—as well as maintenance risk, to which the operators are prepared to agree. Does my hon. Friend further agree that if the Minister is saying categorically that the Treasury is no longer insisting on operating risk as an element of the contract, that will be good news for everyone?
  Mr. Darling: I do not believe that the Minister was saying that—indeed, he seems to be shaking his head. I think that we can take it that the Government are indeed insisting that operating risk should be part of the package.
  Mr. Dorrell: It is one of the issues that will determine the result of the competition.
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) makes his own point, and now the Minister appears to accept it. There has been an inordinate delay, but this is only one of many projects in which there has been delay, caused partly by the fact that the Government are not clear in their collective mind about what their approach should be.
  There seems to be some confusion about where the Government stand. I appreciate that they have travelled a long philosophical road. Five years ago, under the previous regime, such talk would not have been allowed. At that time, the idea of a public-private sector partnership was not to be tolerated: the private sector knew best—that was all there was to it. We have had this list of 78 projects, of which 43 are mere proposals and, as such, cannot be relied on as part of a comprehensive Government strategy.
  We should recall that these projects were announced by the Chancellor on a wet night in Glasgow last September. Perhaps they have the same status as the Chancellor says the Tory promises of tax reductions had when it came to the last Budget—it is just that one list was delivered on a wet night in Glasgow and the other in Dudley. They cannot be relied on. Two of the projects are, in any event, for car parks—highly desirable, no doubt, but scarcely the stuff of economic regeneration. They cannot be said to be priorities, but perhaps we shall hear more about them this evening.
  The Government will say that it is unfair of me to blame them for everything that has gone wrong, and that the private sector has also made mistakes in the past. Others would argue that this business ought to be left to the private sector and that the public sector has no role to play. I recognise that there have been failures on the part of the private sector to invest in areas which fall within its own domain.

  829
  These matters are perhaps outwith the scope of this debate, but the Government can take a lead. They set the tone and the economic framework. For example, they determine the takeover policy which has led to companies being forced to pay out heavy dividends to fight off takeovers—dividends which could have been deployed for investment. The Government should have a view on corporate governance, which can have a heavy influence on the culture of investment.
  Institutional investors also have a lot to answer for. Those who saw last night's BBC "Panorama" programme must have despaired on hearing reports that banks, pension funds and other institutions are again investing heavily in property, despite two spectacular collapses in the past 20 years. It is not just a private matter: money invested in property is, by definition, not available for other investment, and property collapses which leave banks badly burnt are paid for by the public through increasing bank charges. It is high time the whole culture of investment in this country and the behaviour of some people in the City was questioned—not just by members of the public, but by the Government. Perhaps the Financial Secretary, who has hinted in a series of speeches that he is concerned about such matters, will say something about them today.
  We need projects which can be implemented quickly, as well as projects which can enhance long-term efficiency and competitiveness. Projects should provide an acceptable rate of return, taking account of employment effects as well as straight cash terms. The Government have encouraged a culture in which high dividend payouts have taken priority over research and capital investment, which has seriously damaged our competitiveness. For that reason, it is for the Government now to show a lead in promoting public-private sector initiatives that will begin to redress some of the balance. We understand that only now, after 15 years, are the Government examining companies' behaviour with regard to dividends; only now has the Financial Secretary started to take an interest in the matter from the Government's point of view.
  What about privatisation? No doubt we shall be hearing something about that. On average, about 20 per cent. of after-tax profits are paid out in dividends, but nearly 45 per cent. of the after-tax profits of the privatised utilities—water, electricity and gas—have been paid out in dividends. That is more than twice the figure for other companies. Yet we are asked to believe that privatisation leads to the best investment decisions. We know that that is not the case. We cannot leave such important matters, particularly matters of infrastructure, to private sector judgment alone. There are areas in which the private sector can operate best, but in many others there is a public interest—a public interest that has been neglected over the past 15 years. So far, we have seen no evidence that the Government are prepared to tackle seriously and reverse the problems that have occurred in the 15 years during which they have been in power.
  There are other problems to be addressed. There is, for instance, the question of risk. As I have said, a flexible approach is needed. Risk does not come only in cash terms; there is the question of the Government's acceptance of planning and legislative risks, for instance. There is also the question of the public sector borrowing requirement, as
  830
  I pointed out in response to an intervention from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The PSBR will not go away, but I believe that we need more transparency. The Government should separate their accounts to show their trading activities and investment borrowing as opposed to the borrowing that they undertake to maintain their core activities. We should bear in mind Sir Leo Pliatzky's observation that the PSBR is merely what the Treasury says it is. A far wider debate is needed about the definition of the PSBR. We accept that it will not go away, but people should be able to see what the Government are borrowing for.
  The cost of borrowing itself must also be considered. The rate of return demanded by the Government has been unreasonably high in some cases—higher even than that in the private sector. That has stopped much rail investment, for example. Then there is the question of the status of public bodies such as the Post Office which find it very difficult to operate in the market because the Government will not let them do so—although many believe that the Post Office could compete very adequately if it were freed of the plundering by the Treasury each and every year.
  It is significant that many local authorities—particularly Labour authorities, I am glad to say—have been at the forefront of imaginative development in metro schemes and various public sector developments. That should be encouraged. The whole issue of the public-private sector initiative must be part of an overall strategy for manufacturing investment and economic development. Yet we hear nothing from the Government. Such developments
  are happening all over the world—in the far east, in Europe and in the United States—yet in this country we have seen very little. We see merely continuing decay and decline.
  The Government say that there is no alternative to their policies—just as they said that there was no alternative in the last 15 years which saw Britain's gradual decline in economic performance. I accept that there are problems, but these problems are there to be tackled and not used as an excuse for doing nothing. The Government need to broker agreements where agreements need to be reached. There is a willing private sector, there are people who want work and there is work that needs to be done. Britain should not be condemned to a second-class economic existence because of the triumph of Government dogma over common sense.
  Mr. Beith: During the period of grim recession that we have just experienced the Government, along with the private sector, could have productively engaged in promoting infrastructure investment. In doing so, they would have allowed contracts to be placed at a time when the private sector was in a particularly weak position and when excellent prices could have been obtained. That would have created employment, thereby increasing the return from tax revenue and decreasing expenditure on social security benefits. At the end of the day, there would have been assets that we need desperately an improved transport system and improvements in housing and other aspects of public investment.
  The fact that this has not occurred will count very heavily against us. If there is an economic recovery, there will come a point when it will be difficult for the Government to promote more investment and activity in this area because the private sector may be quite active elsewhere and engaging in such investment could generate more inflation.

  831
  But the gaps will still be there. The deficiencies in the transport system will remain. They will produce bottlenecks which will create further problems, such as inflation, in particular, because of scarce capacity. People will have difficulty getting to work—a problem which is particularly evident in London where the transport system is not equal to the task of getting people to work. Business faces huge losses because of that inefficiency.
  There will be problems not just in London, but in other parts of the country as well. The Government have missed a great opportunity and, in so doing, have made it a great deal more difficult for us to succeed and to be competitive in the future.
  The opportunity has been missed partly for the reasons of dogma which have been mentioned already in the course of the debate. But let us get one thing clear: there is no free lunch; the kind of investment that we are talking about will cost the public sector some money. Partnership with the private sector can reduce the total amount of public sector commitment as well as bring other advantages. Private sector project management and private sector operation of activities can, in many cases, bring benefits and qualities which are sometimes absent from the public sector.
  But the public purse will have to provide certain elements, or the projects would have gone ahead long ago. As a speculative investment, the private sector would have built railways and done other work for which there was a prospect of a reasonable return—particularly if economic conditions had been better managed than they have been in the past few years. But we are talking about areas where the risk is too great, where the return is too uncertain, or where, by the very nature of the scheme, there is not the means of securing the return which the private sector requires.
  So we need a contribution by the public sector in the form of money up front or in the bearing of risk. Either way, the Treasury believes that it should appear on the public sector borrowing requirement. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Darling) accept that as a fact of life; it is no use pretending otherwise The logical conclusion is to say, "Right, we may well be justified in adding to the public sector borrowing requirement in that way because by doing so we improve public investment, we improve our competitiveness for the future and we ensure that, in some respect, we can lower future public borrowing because we have an efficient and competitive economy".
  It is extraordinary that, as a result of our not having a public sector balance sheet, we have this curious ideological argument. Just like any company, we should make a regular assessment of our community assets. The lack of a public sector balance sheet puts all the emphasis on revenue accounting. A public sector balance sheet would show where our assets were declining and where we were not renewing them and would set in context the debate about the PSBR.
  9.15 pm
  As I said, we must recognise that there has to be a contribution from the public sector to get some of these projects under way. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said that the new clause was technical, and indeed it is—to any eligible company, it would mean only £100 relief from corporation tax. The Labour party's care not to make any public spending pledges could scarcely be clearer. I take it that the new clause was a device to secure a debate, but there is an important point underlying it.
  832
  Labour and Government Front Benchers are trying to escape the reality. The Government are trying to pretend that a great many public and private sector co-operative ventures are about to appear. The fact that they have not done so year after year, despite successive changes of policy by Chancellors, supposedly to make it easier, makes it clear that the Government are not facing reality. As for the Labour party, it refuses to admit that such projects cost money and that we shall have to fork out some public money to get them under way. I should expect the Labour party to argue that not only do they cost money but that it is money well spent and a reasonable expenditure. I agree with all that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said about the desirability of the projects in question and their long-term cost-effectiveness.
  The Government should come clean and admit that their efforts thus far to achieve public-private sector partnership have been woefully unsuccessful. If that were not so, there would not, in almost every Budget and in almost every autumn statement, have been another Government commitment to make new changes to move the culture so that the projects were easier to mount. Every year, we have questioned Ministers and civil servants in Committee about what they were going to do next and what other changes they were going to make, but we get nowhere because the Government will not face the fact that there has to be a significant contribution in the form of funds up front or guarantees to enable some of the projects to go ahead. For their part, the Opposition need to recognise that the projects involve justified commitment of public resources because they will make our economy much more efficient in the future.
  There is so much agreement on the general desirability of some of these projects and such wide acceptance of the principle of partnership between the public and private sectors that it is extraordinary that we should still have to argue about it and that we should be making so little progress. I therefore call on the Government to make it clear that the projects that we are debating are necessary and important and will justify a commitment of public resources.
  Public sector borrowing is not all bad. Public sector borrowing that is designed to create assets for the future can be fully justified if we can show a return on it in the future. In their understandable attempt to cope with the borrowing that has resulted from recession and from what I would describe as the mismanagement of recent years, the Government should not throw out the baby with the bath water. They must not convince their supporters, let alone the public in general, that it is always wrong for the public sector to borrow. It is not wrong if we are creating assets that will make our economy more efficient in the future.
  There is a long list of such projects and there is considerable private sector interest in getting involved in them, but we cannot escape the need for a degree of public sector commitment if they are to go ahead. So far, the Government's attempts to promote public and private sector co-operation have not been equal to the task. The Ryrie rules, which originally covered this matter, have been relaxed at least three times in my recollection without any noticeable effect on projects coming to fruition. Successive Chancellors have said what they were going to do, but still too little has been done. Let us proceed—these projects are needed and they will make our economy more successful in the future.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I rise to speak because I have been fascinated by the contributions to the debate so far. I have immense sympathy with the views expressed by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—except for his reference to what he called the Government's "mismanagement" over the past 15 years. I suspect that in a quiet moment, and perhaps only privately to me and not on the Floor of the House, the right hon. Gentleman would confess that what has happened over the past 15 years would probably have happened whatever Government had been in power. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that they have only to look back at what has happened in the past 50 years, since the war. Because of the damp hand of the Treasury, which is the real problem, Governments have not made the investment either in public infrastructure or in private industry which the country required. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne knows only too well, such investment has been made in the countries that are our major competitors—in Japan, Germany and even France.
  We should look just across the channel at the huge infrastructure that has been put into the channel tunnel project. We should consider the huge investment that the French, including their Government, have made on the other side of the tunnel at Calais and Sangatte, and in the rail infrastructure right the way through to Paris and elsewhere. I believe that this country should follow that example.
  It is a pity that debates of this nature are not held more frequently, and on occasions other than debates on amendments or new clauses when the Finance Bill is on Report. If the House debated more seriously and legislated less frequently we should get a better answer at the end of the day. I am sure that the right hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed and for Ashton-under-Lyne share my view that if all-party committees of the House considered proposed legislation—not least on joint ventures between the public and private sectors for infrastructure investment—the legislation that ultimately came before the House would have considerable cross-party support, and we should be able to counter the damp hand of the Treasury, which seems to bring to a halt in one way or another investment in both the public and the private sectors.
  There is no doubt that the Government will never be able to find purely from public resources the means to fund, finance and resource the infrastructure projects. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who led for the Opposition, and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed both said, we need those infrastructure projects because they are an investment for the future which will provide medium and long-term returns for the country.
  We shall never be in a position to compete, especially in manufacturing, unless we have the infrastructure in the United Kingdom that will provide the best way for British industry to connect with the continent. Is it not crazy that the tunnel is about to open, yet British Rail does not have the infrastructure to enable the north-west—and, indeed, the north-east, but I am especially concerned with the north-west, because it is my region—to link up with the tunnel? That would enable us to channel immense investment and immense amounts of goods and manufacturing production towards the continent.
  834
  I hope that the Minister who responds to the debate will say that proposals such as those of the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrat party will not fall on deaf ears. I hope that he will realise that there are Conservative Members who are sick and tired of the Government's finding excuses not to advance resources for vital infrastructure projects. If they do not provide the actual resources for those projects, they should provide guarantees which would make it attractive and possible for the private sector to come forward with its expertise and its funds to make those projects possible.
  The Government are currently toying with the idea of privatising the Post Office. What they do not say very often is that the Post Office in Britain is the most profitable, effective and efficient post office in the world. All that the Post Office needs is to be released from the restrictions under which it is operating at the present time. We will have to let the Post Office loose from those restrictions, or the Dutch or the Germans, for instance, will come into the country and cream off the corporate business of our Post Office to the detriment of the Post Office, to the detriment of employment in the country and to the detriment of the country as a whole. With the relaxation of restrictions on our Post Office, I believe that it will be able not only to continue to provide a universal service to all parts of the country, but will be able to make technological advances in Britain and look abroad for additional business. It requires action from Government and action from the Treasury.
  The Government are concerned about public expenditure, but, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said, we must separate the types of public expenditure. For instance, we must separate the core activities of government, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, from that expenditure which would be an investment in the future, which could include investment in some of the public infrastructure projects to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred. It is stupid for the Government to pile up huge, additional expenditure for themselves by way of social security and other benefits when, by some modest investment, we could get people back to work, thereby reducing unemployment and reducing the pressure on the social security benefit budget.
  I say that to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary because I know that he has a very successful business background. I am sad because he has so far failed to manage to persuade the Treasury mandarins to do things that he would practise as a private business man. It is to my mind crazy that the present Government, who are supposed to represent business and private enterprise, so clearly fail to do just that through their policies. How would it be wrong for the Government to create the right environment in which those major projects could go ahead, either by providing a guarantee or by providing some climate in which it would be worth the private sector taking the risk and making the investment?
  My hon. Friend knows, as do Labour Members, that in the House I have sought to speak for manufacturing industry for all the 23 years that I have represented my constituency. Just over a year ago, we formed the all-party manufacturing and construction industries alliance, which has had a little influence, not only in the House, but, dare I say it, on organisations outside the House such as the CBI. Sadly, from time to time, the CBI does not positively

  835
  enough encourage the Government to take the right decision in the area of joint ventures by the public and private sector. That is the way in which to proceed.
  I share some of the views that I think will be expressed by Opposition Members. I do not think that privatisation in itself is the solution to all the problems of the country. We are able to have highly efficient public organisations. I think that I was one of only two Conservatives who voted against water privatisation. I do not regret that decision and I believe that I have been proved right. What is the point of exchanging a public monopoly for a private monopoly, especially when it trebles the salaries of top executives and screws industry and the private house owner when everyone is going through a deep recession, because it is able to do so from its position of monopoly?
  9.30 pm
  I am not in favour of privatising the Post Office, but I am in favour of putting in, as we have, the best management and releasing it from the Treasury shackles within which it now operates. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will confess that the Post Office is making a substantial contribution to the Government's budget each and every year. Indeed, that contribution will increase this year over last year. Yet the Post Office is unable to compete in the free market.
  I accept that there are not many Conservative Members in their places. I am ashamed that so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are not present because this is a critical debate about our country's future.
  The involvement of the private sector with the public sector in major construction projects could do much for the advantage of industry and for employment. It could do a great deal also to reduce the huge social security and benefit budget, which has caused many of the problems that the Government are now facing. If only—dare I say this where the Government and the Treasury are concerned—it were realised that we should take a gamble. The Government and the Treasury should, with the expert advice that is available to them, be able to identify many infrastructure projects upon which public money should be spent, and spent now. With the provision of guarantees we could make even more private money available to fund infrastructure projects.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary why the north Birmingham relief motorway has not already been constructed. It is vital. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) knows the M6 well as she uses it to travel down from her constituency to London. I know it, too, because I use it when I travel down to London from Macclesfield. It is crazy that the relief road, which could have been partially funded by the private sector, has not been constructed and put into operation, thereby reducing the tremendous road and other problems that are faced on the M6.
  Ridiculous excuses have been trotted out by the Department of Transport and Treasury Ministers. I am sick and tired of them. We want action from the Government. I say to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and through him to some of the highly paid and well-pensioned mandarins who sit in the Treasury, that it is about time they got out of London and started to use some of our infrastructure so that they come to realise how inadequate it is.
  It would not cause a run on the pound if we were to invest in solid, sensible and well-assessed infrastructure
  836
  projects involving both the public and private sectors. The Government would get cross-party support. Indeed, there would be support in the City. The trouble is that the City pays itself too much money and does not realise what is happening at the grass roots.
  As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South said from the Opposition Front Bench, too much money is being invested again in property. Why is it that people are investing in property? The answer is that in the past it has provided a much better return than investment in other sectors. But it has not created any real jobs in the long term. As a result, manufacturing industry has not been able to provide a return by way of dividends to its shareholders and has suffered a reduction in its investment.
  We must invest in jobs. What is the most competent area of our economic activity in which we shall get that process going? The answer is the construction industry. What does the construction industry do? It carries out vital infrastructure projects. If we were to give the construction industry a fillip, it would undertake more work, provide more jobs in the United Kingdom and provide itself with a good base for undertaking the fantastic projects that are available to construction companies throughout the world. We have a fine history of carrying out some of the most successful infrastructure and civil engineering projects overseas.
  Sadly, I shall be voting with the Government—[Interruption.] To be fair, the failings of new clause 13 have already been pointed out admirably by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central realises that the new clause was tabled to achieve a debate on Report of the Finance Bill. It has enabled me—I thank the hon. Gentleman for this—to say to my party in the House and publicly what I often say privately: let us get on with it, Minister. There is a hell of a lot to be gained. You can take a lead here. You have a business background, unlike many of your colleagues in the Treasury.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that he should be addressing the Chair.
  Mr. Winterton: Madam Deputy Speaker, I could never forget that. We have seldom had a more colourful Deputy Speaker. You are always in my eye, especially today because of the bright colours that you are wearing. [Interruption.] Madam Speaker, will I have to repeat the compliments that I have passed to Madam Deputy Speaker, who is just vacating the Chair?
  My final comments are directed at my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. I ask him whether the Treasury can give much more serious consideration to the sort of concept that is highlighted in new clause 13. I pray that he will understand the sincerity with which I have spoken. I come from a business background. There are many Tory Members who would like to see a better understanding by the Treasury of the important role that such infrastructure projects can play. They understand that the Government cannot do it on their own and it is vital to involve the private sector. That is what is behind the new clauses. I hope that my hon. Friend will do more than simply respond to them; I hope that he will give a commitment that the Government will take them seriously.
  Mr. Hoon: We have heard three different speeches in the debate representing three different political parties. It is fair to say that, apart from slight differences in detail, there

  837
  has been no difference in substance between any of the speeches. Perhaps it will be left to the Financial Secretary to inject a note of controversy in our debate on the new clauses.
  That is typical of the problems that the country faces when the majority of public opinion is united in calling for new public investment but, sadly, is unable to persuade Ministers of the necessity for it. Indeed, the new clauses were designed to open up debate as to how we can best promote partnership in the provision of investment finance from the public and private sectors working together, as the new clauses emphasise, to improve the infrastructure in our society.
  There is little doubt—the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) put the point forcefully, and perhaps even more radically than some Labour Members would do on occasions—about the chronic need for new capital investment in our infrastructure if we are to compete effectively with other advanced economies in Europe and, indeed, throughout the world.
  Sadly, one comment that is made by people returning from visits abroad is how disappointed they are in the state of our public buildings—they seem to be run down and tired, and in need of new investment and new developments. People are also disappointed in how poor many of our public services have become in comparison with our immediate continental neighbours, and how low is the quality of our public environment. The vast majority of the population recognise that we need urgently new investment to restore our public facilities. However, to bring that about we need a Government who are prepared to take the lead. The present Government—although apparently committed in principle to the idea of attracting new private investment to public projects—appear incapable of getting involved, again for ideological reasons.
  Management consultants Ernst and Young put it in this way in a pamphlet called "Project Finance in the 1990s":
  "One of the chief deterrents to the private sector is Government's 'hands off' policy with regard to privately financed projects".
  The pamphlet continued:
  "Government should act as the primary promoter of projects rather than as the arbitrator between different consortium bids."
  The limited role which the Government have set for themselves goes a long way to explaining why their own private finance initiative has enjoyed such modest success—if success is the right word to use in that context. Some 96 projects were apparently identified, only 12 of which are under construction. Eleven have been completed, but each of those was started long before the initiative was announced. A further 43 apparently are no more than paper proposals which have not reached any stage of activity.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has argued that the Government should set out clearly the projects which are available to be developed on a joint basis. I agree, and he has quoted from the list which was published by the Chancellor in September. Some of those projects have been completed, some are under construction and some are precisely what he is asking for—projects which the Government want delivered and where we are looking for private sector partners.
  The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either the list is suspect because some of the things on it have not
  838
  been done yet, or he wants a list of projects for which the private sector can bid. I agree with the latter proposition: some of the projects have been included in the list about which he is talking.
  Mr. Hoon: I intended my points to be taken together, and not chopped quite so logically as the Financial Secretary sought to do.
  Many more than 96 projects around the country could be identified by a Government who were prepared to lead the way. That is precisely the criticism which was made by Ernst and Young, and that firm is hardly likely to be advancing propositions such as those made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield or by the Opposition.
  It is said that many more projects would be possible than the 96 that have so far been identified. I hope that the Financial Secretary will address his remarks to that and explain why more has not been done by the Government. We must identify projects because, without them, we will not be able to compete effectively.
  I want to consider one area—my hon. Friends will want to look at other areas—in which I believe that we must bring together public and private finance to take advantage of the technological advances which are available to us. We have talked a lot lately in this country and in the United States about information super-highways. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) touched on that.
  We know about the possibility of the technology which is available to establish networks which would allow information to be exchanged around this country, Europe and the rest of the world. Eventually, those networks will be based on systems of comprehensive fibre-optic cabling, not only throughout this country but in a way which will enable us to transfer information instantly around the world.
  It is recognised that fibre-optic cabling will be used to improve our information exchange systems, and projects for our main trunk routes are to be cabled fibre-optically. As for taking the benefits of that technology along every street, we are engaged in cabling our streets with some of the oldest technology available in the field.
  We are not even contemplating the way in which the technology will reach every home. If we are to take full advantage of the interactivity which will be available from the new technology for work and education, we must look at ways in which the full benefits of the technology which is well established can reach every house, every workplace and every public institution. Consider the benefits that that would bring to our society. Every place of work, every home, every public institution and every educational facility could have access to such sophisticated computer links. Working from home would become an entirely practical proposition, not only for the self-employed in particular types of job but for many employees who currently travel to and from work every day at roughly the same time in the morning and in the evening. Eventually it would be possible to extend the use of such facilities to the generality of employees. That would ease congestion on our roads, reduce the stress on public transport and eliminate the cost to businesses of providing expensive office accommodation in prime sites in big cities.

  839
  9.45 pm
  Similar arguments can be applied to educational provision. People could enjoy educational courses at home at a time of their choosing, but with access to teaching on line that would allow them to ask questions. At present remote teaching does not always provide for that. Many people have concentrated on the benefits to entertainment of such a system. It could provide every home with access to the latest films, television and music. Indeed, the provision of that entertainment is seen by many as the key to providing the capital investment that will be required for the network.
  For the moment, the along-the-street cabling that we are considering as a society is based on comparatively limited and rather old-fashioned technology. We need a financial structure that will allow us to take advantage of the latest in technology. In a sense, that problem is typical of the difficulties faced by Government in keeping pace with technological changes and harnessing those changes for the benefit of their citizens. Given the parlous state of Government finances, indeed the state that any new Government will inherit, no Government is likely to commit itself to the massive public expenditure involved in fibre-optic cabling every home, public building and workplace.
  Moreover, despite the attractions of supplying paid-for entertainment and services down such fibre-optic cables, no private company will be in a position to take the enormous long-term risk involved in providing the large-scale fibre-optic linking, even if it was allowed to provide and charge for the comprehensive range of services.
  The constraints placed on British Telecom are a good illustration of the difficulties under which private companies have to operate. Privatised by a Conservative Government who trumpeted the virtues of free market forces, the company is nevertheless prevented by law from competing with cable companies in the provision of entertainment down the line, even though the same cable companies provide telephone services in direct competition with British Telecom.
  Moreover, in developing and using the technology, companies such as British Telecom are forced to do so subject to the constraints imposed on them by our existing relatively limited telephone network based, as I have said, on relatively old technology. Surely it ought to be possible to imagine a project agreed jointly between the public and private sectors in which the Government would lead the way in the provision of fibre-optic cabling subject to a significant private sector involvement in the provision of services paid for perhaps by long-term leases on the use of the basic equipment. The price of those leases would assume a significant return on the capital injected by the Government.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He argues that the cabling that is currently being done by the private sector is an obsolete technology and that it would be a better business decision for those companies to invest in a different technology that allowed all the benefits that he describes. He will recognise that that is essentially a business decision. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that I—my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) kindly referred to my expertise in business from the textile industry, perhaps not the obvious background to make a judgment—or indeed
  840
  anyone else in Whitehall, am better placed to make the type of judgment that he describes than the companies currently putting their shareholders' shirts on investing in the technology that the hon. Gentleman describes as obsolete?
  Mr. Hoon: With the greatest respect, the Financial Secretary has demonstrated the Government's limited horizons on such projects. He has shown that he is considering the matter in the terms in which the Government established the system.
  The Government are saying that small-scale cable companies will have a monopoly to provide such facilities, free from competition from British Telecom—free market forces only go so far where Government philosophy is concerned. Small companies cannot compete to provide the investment that will be necessary to bring fibre-optic cabling to our doors. That is what I was saying when the Financial Secretary interrupted me.
  The Government are big enough to lead the way, and with private finance it could be done. Small-scale private operators are constrained to use older technology to provide cable systems and essentially that is what we have. Market forces mean that small companies can cable a relatively limited area using limited technology. That is the result when the Government opt out of their responsibility for leading the way.
  That is not the reaction in other countries, where Governments recognise that they have a responsibility to establish those projects and create the conditions in which the private sector can participate. If the Financial Secretary considers the problem in that detail, he may reach some different conclusions.
  I see no reason why the Government cannot take the lead. Providing leadership for a project and finding ways in which the private sector might become involved would be a perfectly proper role for the Government to play. I can imagine equally ingenious ways in which the private sector could pay for access to such computer networks.
  The Government's scheme for computerising the Inland Revenue seems to have dragged on for an inordinate time. I understand the difficulties involved. The system will leave many people who are claiming state benefits still subject to the existing haphazard and rather abitrary system which, sadly, tends to dehumanise those involved on both sides of the exchange.
  One only has to compare the scene in a typical social services department office, where a queue of claimants are trying to establish their rights and dealing with hard-pressed and often overworked officers, with that in a typical high street retail store where someone is paying with a charge card. The store has the technology to show that the card has been used on a certain number of occasions, subject to a credit limit. The card can facilitate shopping in all manner of ways.
  It can also facilitate borrowing, with no social stigma involved. When people claim social security, they are subject to significant social stigma, notwithstanding the fact that they are exercising their legal right to funds to which they are clearly entitled. People who borrow money can do so in a socially acceptable way, but people who are exercising their rights to benefits are treated as second-class citizens.
  Computerisation of the benefits process could make a significant difference, especially if private sector companies were involved in designing software packages.

  841
  Such packages could, for example, show the best package available and how claimants could maximise their entitlement.
  The Government need to use only a little imagination to envisage the possible revolution in the use of technology. I have given only one illustration of the way in which they could promote contact between the public sector and private finance. They might then recognise that such an exchange would have benefits for society.
  I hope that the new clauses will force the Government to think more clearly about the ways in which private sector finance can be involved in large-scale capital projects which require their leadership. I hope that we can thus encourage the Government to think more carefully about the link between their initiatives and private sector finance and to take a lead in that respect.
  Mr. Peter Snape: I have listened with interest to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the road that he has taken.
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) referred to his 23-year career in this place. He will probably be aware that I spent some time, in a minor capacity, doing my best, 23 years ago, to prevent him getting here. Indeed, one of the narrowest escapes of my political life was not being selected as his opponent in the subsequent general election. He has mellowed considerably in the 23 years that he has been here. [Interruption.] Those Conservative Members who scoff should have seen him in those days.
  Few of us would argue with the very relevant arguments that the hon. Member for Macclesfield made, especially about what he called the "damp hand" of the Treasury—what many of us would term the "dead hand" of the Treasury—which always seems to fall across any infrastructure project. Of course the circumstances—the economic situation—are never right for the expenditure of public moneys on major infrastructure projects.
  Had the Ryrie rules been in Germany, the rubble of world war two would still disfigure most German cities. The German Government are a little more intelligent in their approach to public transport and infrastructure projects generally, and much more intelligent than successive Governments have been in the United Kingdom. I shall refer specifically to a project dear to my own heart in the west midlands, a light rail project—the midland metro.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) referred to some of the work that was done before the last election by the Labour party transport team in considering ways in which private sector capital could be attracted to some infrastructure projects. That initiative, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), was widely rubbished by some Conservative Members—not by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, I am glad to say, but especially by one of the many Transport Secretaries who occupied, for a fleeting few moments, it seemed, that post in the previous Conservative Government.
  It is perhaps a poignant commentary on present-day politics that one of those Transport Secretaries, now Lord Parkinson, finds himself leading a consortium that is anxious to bid and to involve private sector money in work
  842
  of the type that has been mentioned in the debate. He will have one great advantage that some of his colleagues might not possess—he will be able to refute all the arguments that he used to make against such projects when he was Secretary of State for Transport.
  It appears that the lessons have not been learnt by the present Administration, and especially by the Treasury. One would have thought that the midland metro was the type of project that would appeal 100 per cent. to the Conservative party. The private sector is accepting a great deal of the risk. I will make comparisons later between the risk that has been accepted by the private sector in the midland metro and in other light rail schemes—in Manchester and Sheffield, for example.
  When one considers projects such as the channel tunnel rail link, the west coast main line, the Heathrow express and the Northern line of the London underground, one is scarcely filled with optimism about the likely detail of the response of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  It seems to many of us that the Government's only idea about private sector involvement is to cloud and confuse the issue with a series of supposed competitions between supposedly interested companies at such length that interest in the matter dies away and the decision-making processes are postponed year after year. Line 1 of the midland metro, which runs through your constituency, Madam Speaker, as it does through mine, has had the toughest appraisal ever given to any transport project by the Department of Transport. It is the No. 1 transport priority for the west midlands, supported by all seven metropolitan councils, two of which, at least for another couple of weeks, are in the hands of the Conservative party.
  I think that all Members of Parliament from the west midlands, Labour and Conservative, have supported that project, as have the chambers of commerce and industry, business groups such as Birmingham City 2000, and many others. Yet the net cost to the public purse of line 1 is just over £100 million. Government approval is needed right now to spend that, and Government grants of around £50 million are needed towards the total cost.
  I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central. We in the Labour party are being a little timid at the moment about how we propose any public sector involvement in projects such as this. We shall never satisfy the Conservative party about our fiscal abilities, and it is pretty pointless trying to do so. But if we have a public debate about how much public money goes into projects such as the midland metro, our arguments will stand the test when set against the lack of progress in such projects by the Conservative party.
  Despite the fact that the awful negative campaigning in which the present-day Conservative party indulges the whole time will enable it to go round accusing us of all sorts of fiscal sins, it is well worth while that a project such as the midland metro, and some of the others that I have already mentioned in which public and private sector finance is involved, should go ahead.
  I referred to the other light rail projects for which the Government have given the go-ahead—the Manchester metrolink and the Sheffield supertram. Neither has been subject to the same fiscal appraisal as the midland metro. None of the private sector people involved in those projects has given the sort of guarantees that the John Laing/Ansaldo joint venture companies have given to the financial initiatives involved in the midland metro. Yet they have been given the go-ahead.

  843
  The Manchester metrolink has been up and running for some years, and the Sheffield supertram started a few weeks ago. We all know that the Treasury has the weird view that somehow public sector projects are less worthy than, for example, road building.
  Mr. Dorrell indicated dissent.
  Mr. Snape: The Financial Secretary shakes his head, but he should listen to the speeches of some of his colleagues in the Department of Transport. They talk of massive rates of return on road building projects, but they refer to the midland metro as an expensive project.
  The Prime Minister came to the west midlands a couple of weeks ago. Between infuriating the city of Birmingham with some of his more inflammatory comments, he talked about the specific project. Unfortunately, he gave us no great hope that we would get the go-ahead before the next financial year. But what more can the city of Birmingham, the west midlands, the constituency authorities and Members of Parliament do collectively to convince the Treasury of the worthwhile nature of the project?
  If we cannot get the Prime Minister to give the go-ahead two or three weeks before local elections when the Conservative party chairman has promised to win the city of Birmingham—that is another promise that looks as though it is being junked the nearer we get to the day of the election—what can we do to convince the Financial Secretary of the necessity for the project in order to prevent the west midlands conurbation from seizing up altogether?
  The Financial Secretary might consult his fellow Ministers in the Department of Transport, and they might say that there already exists some public transport along the Wolverhampton/West Bromwich/Birmingham corridor. It is true that there is an existing heavy rail line along part of that corridor, but since the closure of the former Great Western Railway line in 1972, constituencies such as ours, Madam Speaker, have been poorly served by public transport. The congestion along that corridor grew worse throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The alternative to the A41 Holyhead road are the M5 and M6 motorways. No hon. Member who uses that alternative—particularly those of my hon. Friends who advocate the swift completion of the Birmingham northern relief road—is under any illusion about the congestion it produces.
  10 pm
  I am at a loss to know how best we can convince the Financial Secretary of the worth of that project, particularly after the rigorous selection process to which it was subject. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government not only pledge their continued support and commitment to the project but will give it the go-ahead sooner rather than later. Unless that is done, all the talk from the Treasury Benches about commitment to public and private sector projects is so much hot air. That project is a priority for the west midlands.
  We heard a great deal tonight about the Financial Secretary's business expertise, although we discovered subsequently that it was gained in the textile industry rather than in the people-moving industry. The hon. Gentleman is none the worse for that. It makes a pleasant and refreshing change for a Treasury Minister to have any sort of business experience. If the Financial Secretary is to live up to the blandishments heaped on him by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, he will put us out of our misery and give the go-ahead for the midland metro.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: The new clauses do not pretend to offer a panacea for the overall problems of investment, but suggest changes to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, to allow joint funding of projects of the sort mentioned tonight to be placed on the agenda. They are not at present, because the fiscal regime does not encourage it.
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned our shared sorrow at regularly having to use the M6 motorway. Another consequence for me of entering Parliament to represent a Liverpool constituency is that I must closely study changes in employment patterns in my own constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends, as well as throughout the world.
  A recent study of Pacific rim countries revealed that they are investing heavily in labour-intensive manufacturing industries to compete with this country in attracting capital investment and custom. We no longer have to compete in the world market for capital—that is freely available.
  We can beat other countries on the skills of our work forces. When we on these Benches talk about the need to invest in skills, we are not trotting out tired old phrases but advocating real investment, to give Britain a competitive edge in the world.
  We can also beat our competitors in the developing world through our infrastructure. Tonight's debate has concentrated on large-scale projects of the kind that Pacific rim countries are taking seriously. They are investing a great deal of public and private money in developing their road and rail systems, to enable them to compete with us even at that level.
  Unless we recognise that our competitors are achieving the same levels of skill and investment that we achieved in the past but are failing to achieve now, we shall fall behind. It will not matter that we are a member of the European Union. That issue needs to be taken seriously by the Government and, so far, they have not done so. My hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Macclesfield have made that point forcefully.
  I want to talk briefly about one small area in which the public and private sectors could invest together. I also want to challenge some of the arguments advanced by the Financial Secretary during the previous debate.
  Last week, I had the honour of opening the Rocking Horse day nursery in my constituency. It provides 40 places, largely for the children of the employees of Alder Hey children's hospital. It represents a public sector investment by an NHS trust. A beautiful building, it has been built right next door to Ronald McDonald house, so named because McDonald's food chain invested £1 million in a charitable project to provide accommodation for families visiting their children while they are in hospital.
  Why did not the public and private sectors together consider investing in the nursery itself? Could not McDonald's or Burger King have been persuaded on to the site to invest alongside the health authority so that 80, not 40, places could have been provided?
  The Financial Secretary has said that there is no problem with child care, because the need for it is being met by child minders. I know from personal experience that child minders offer an invaluable service. Not only do they provide a flexible service for working mums and dads; they also offer an easy way for women to return to the labour market, so they serve two purposes. But I challenge

  845
  the Minister's assumption—that just, because child minders represent the growth area in child care provision, they are what most people would choose. That is not necessarily true.
  The Financial Secretary said that he himself had chosen to use a child minder instead of a nursery. I made the opposite choice: having used a child minder, I opted for a private day nursery. But many people in my constituency do not have that choice. They have to use child minders because there are no nursery places.
  There should be a fiscal regime that encourages the public and private sectors to consider ways in which money can be invested in this sort of project. Perhaps one sector could provide the capital and the other pay for the running costs of a nursery. Perhaps one or other could pay for certain staff—there are a range of ways in which, given the will, joint funding arrangements can be made.
  We are losing because the private sector is discouraged from considering these options by our current tax regime.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does the hon. Lady agree that, if we could persuade the Treasury to allow the cost of child care provision to be offset against earnings—tax relief on the cost of child care, in other words—that would be enormously helpful to women? It would also encourage the growth of new jobs—a whole new type of occupation for people who are out of work at the moment.
  Mrs. Kennedy: We certainly need to consider every conceivable suggestion that might encourage child care provision to meet the growing needs of working mums and dads. The hon. Lady's option is one that should be considered—and would be, if we were developing the strategy whose details the Financial Secretary requested earlier.
  Mr. Beith: May I remind the hon. Lady that that option was considered a little earlier this evening, when the House voted on new clause 6? As far as I can recall, neither she nor the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) spoke about or voted for the new clause, which would have achieved precisely what they have asked for.
  Mrs. Kennedy: I did not vote for the new clause because I do not agree with the idea of tax vouchers—but they should certainly be debated. It was the right hon. Gentleman's right to table the new clause, and mine not to vote for it: and I did not.
  Ms Abbott: Is not nursery provision an excellent candidate for private/public sector partnership? It is easy enough for the Financial Secretary to say that child minders are meeting the need, and there are many excellent child minders about; but in inner-city areas such as my own—Hackney—and, for instance, Liverpool, child minders are struggling to look after children in inadequate living conditions and with insufficient training and support. Tomorrow morning, many a woman will take her child to a child minder with a heavy heart: she would be much happier if she had the option of taking her child to a high-quality nursery.
  Mrs. Kennedy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although the child minders whom I have used throughout my working life have, after months and years of acquaintance, become close personal friends whose help I
  846
  have always appreciated, I am aware that some of my friends have not had the same experience. Child minders are not the answer to most people's problems, as the Financial Secretary suggested.
  10.15 pm
  Finally, let me say a word about the cost of nursery education. The Rocking Horse day nursery, which provides a marvellous service for the staff of Alder Hey hospital, charges £15 per whole day. In small projects like that, public/private sector partnerships would allow the public sector to provide more subsidies to help with child care costs.
  I hope that the Financial Secretary will consider all the issues that I have mentioned. I feel that he replied too quickly to points made earlier, and I trust that he will deal with the serious matter raised by the new clause.
  Mr. Keith Hill: All the speeches that we have heard—not least the impassioned contribution of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—have suggested that joint private and public sector projects could provide a useful way of supplementing infrastructure development, and that there is growing interest in the subject, as well as growing consensus between the parties.
  As some Opposition Members have already pointed out, the concept has long been expounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), whose proposals for leaseback arrangements for certain railway projects on the French model were included in Labour's manifesto at the time of the last general election.
  It goes without saying that my hon. Friend's eminently sensible proposals were consistently rejected, derided, condemned and shrugged off by a succession of transport and finance Ministers. They must now find themselves rather shamefacedly having to eat their words, following the Chancellor's welcome and important commitment to the private finance initiative in his Budget statement of 30 November 1993, in which he announced a number of new projects under the initiative, confirmed the establishment of a new working group chaired by Sir Alastair Morton and concluded that the Government had
  "injected a new momentum into the private finance initiative."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 933.]
  I am bound to say, however—given that the Conservative Benches have been singularly barren throughout most of our proceedings—that that momentum has not exactly set the Conservative party in Parliament alight.
  Hard on the heels of the Budget statement, Labour published its own report on the issue, entitled "Financing Infrastructure Investment" and subtitled "Promoting a Partnership Between Public and Private Finance". That detailed consultation document set out a number of areas in which public and private initiatives could be undertaken through the creation of public interest companies, new relationships between Government and public trading bodies, the possibility of regional development banks' mobilising private finance into small and medium-sized firms and—critically—a review of the current distinction between operating and finance leases, a subject to which I wish to return.
  The report makes clear Labour's commitment to private and public initiatives across a range of policy areas and beyond transport infrastructure alone. It says that Labour's concept of public-private partnership is "ambitious and expansive"—as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) precisely enunciated.

  847
  We on this side of the House know, and the country knows, where Labour stands on this issue, which is the subject of new clause 13. Notwithstanding the Chancellor's fine words in his Budget statement, are we entirely sure where the Government stand on this issue? Has it finally been resolved in the Chancellor's favour inside the Treasury?
  In his Budget statement, the Chancellor said that making a success of the private finance initiative would require "a complete change of culture within Government". Certainly the Treasury's grudging response to the recent London Underground Northern line offer by ABB Transport seems to suggest that this cultural change still has a long way to go.
  It is rather tempting to believe that the Treasury was wrong-footed on this issue precisely because it was a private rather than a Government initiative. But despite the very clear benefits of the deal—a totally new fleet of trains on London's misery line for the first time since world war two; a 20-year operating lease financed by the private sector; the total value of the scheme amounting to in excess of £700 million, which could certainly not be funded in present circumstances by London Underground; and most of the new fleet in place by 1997—the Treasury dragged its feet for three or four months before it announced that it consented to the commencement of the tender process.
  One is also tempted to think that its consent was influenced more by the political pressures generated by the highly effective campaign of the Evening Standard, as well as the imminence of the London local elections, than necessarily by a change of heart—a new conviction—on the part of the Treasury.
  Nevertheless, the contract has now gone out to tender. I think that most of us who were involved in the campaign accept that making the announcement through the Official Journal was inevitable, and probably the correct procedure. But if the deal goes ahead, whichever company wins it, it will doubtless reflect the main features of the ABB offer.
  So far, so good. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, and all Londoners, were delighted with the progress achieved in the Secretary of State's announcement of 29 March. Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's announcement, some nagging doubts are emerging about the fine print in the Government's response.
  These nagging doubts raise the question: was this merely a tactical concession on the part of the Treasury to avoid a short-term political embarrassment, or, at the heart of the Treasury, does there remain a fundamental resistance to this kind of scheme which jeopardises the whole approach to public and private finance initiatives—the subject of the present debate?
  The Treasury has laid down two tests which such initiatives must pass: the value for money test and the risk transfer test. The essential element of the value for money test is whether it is apparently cheaper to fund within public sector borrowing requirement rules or through a private finance initiative.
  Under the test, if it is apparently cheaper in total value for money terms to purchase through the public sector route, the private finance proposal is deemed to have failed. I emphasise that, under the test, a proposal is deemed to have failed, irrespective of whether Government moneys can ever have been made available for the project. That is clearly ludicrous.
  848
  Following the 1993 Budget, London Underground deferred indefinitely its Northern line modernisation scheme, and further cuts in public support may be in the offing. If it is left to public sector financing, there is no prospect in the foreseeable future of the investment like that offered by ABB, and possibly other sources, being made available to London Underground.
  There is no acceptable alternative to the scheme. The refurbishment project, which we understand has been touted in the Treasury as an alternative, has few benefits and perpetuates many of the disadvantages already experienced by Londoners travelling on the misery line. A failure to acquire new Northern line trains through the private finance initiative would be an absolute loss to the London travelling public. I hope that the Financial Secretary will offer a firm assurance that there is no question of this absurd and irrelevant yardstick being applied in the final assessment of the bids under the tendering process.
  The second test applied by the Treasury to the private finance proposals that we are debating is the risk transfer test. The essential measure is whether most liability for asset ownership over the life of a project transfers to the private sector. The questions are how much risk, and what kind of risk? This is perhaps where we find the source of the main anxieties about the Treasury's approach.
  The Secretary of State for Transport's announcement of 29 March, the contractual details of which have now appeared in the Official Journal, set out two aspects of risk-taking by potential bidders. First, the private sector would be required to finance the cost of trains and to provide a complete maintenance and support system. Secondly, any deal would
  "have to transfer a substantial degree of risk to the private sector in order to meet the Government's criteria under the private finance initiative".
  The first requirement seems entirely reasonable in any such joint private-public venture. It seems reasonable that a manufacturer in this case—or any manufacturer, for that matter—should undertake responsibility for meeting the risk of performance of the rolling stock that he is producing as well as for possible cost overruns and delays. Indeed, such an undertaking, together with a maintenance deal, was already on offer from ABB Transport.
  What seems by contrast quite unreasonable is the fact that the manufacturing company should assume responsibility for the many variables on which revenue returns are dependent and which lie entirely outside its control. For the Government, that means the level of public subsidy for transport services, and for London Underground management, it means factors such as staff costs, fare levels and even marketing.
  However, that apportionment of risk now seems to lie at the nub of the argument and may be the obstacle that the Treasury is laying in the path of this new and exciting private financing initiative. The fact is that it is a matter of subjective decision-making. No fixed scale of risk transfer is laid down on projects of more than £10 million.
  London Underground has estimated the percentage risk transferred with the ABB Transport project at 70 per cent., and it is satisfied that the project is merit worthy with a 6:1 benefit-to-cost ratio. Is it really the case, as some commentators suspect, that the Treasury wants to transfer the totality of risk to the private sector? Surely—this point

  849
  has been made by many other hon. Members—the heart of the public-private sector joint project concept lies in the sharing of risk.
  It is eminently acceptable that the public sector should bear a part of the risk because the gains from a decent public transport system, or decent public services in general, cannot be captured in higher fares and higher charges—higher charges if one wishes to impose them. Decent transport and decent public services are a public good and private and public deals should reflect that fact. If it is not recognised, such deals will not happen because there is nothing in it for the private sector. That may, of course, be precisely what the Treasury is looking for.
  We are entirely clear that we are talking about risk sharing and sweeping away the cobwebs of obsolete thinking. However, we need answers from the Financial Secretary. Is the requirement for revenue risk in the Northern line project an absolute stipulation or, as the Secretary of State for Transport implied in evidence to the Select Committee on Transport, a general requirement that would be of interest, but would not be a make-or-break criterion for going ahead with the project? We need to know the status of that requirement. Much depends on the Financial Secretary's response.
  10.30 pm
  If the Government do not sort out the issue, if they intend entirely to privatise risk in such projects, that will sink the chances of the entire private finance initiative. That would be bad news for the Government, but—it is rather more important—it would be bad news for London Underground passengers and passengers elsewhere in the country, who would have to wait another two or three years until the next general election, after which a start will made on the modernisation of Britain's transport infrastructure, with a Labour Government genuinely committed to a partnership between public and private finance.
  Mr. Dorrell: Anyone listening to the debate, if he had no reason to know better, could be forgiven for thinking that during the past 15 years the country had been run by a Government motivated solely by the aim of keeping the private sector out of the delivery of public services. From the speeches that we have heard it would have been reasonable to draw the conclusion that the idea that the private sector has a role to play in the delivery of public services was a new idea launched by the Opposition.
  That is the exact opposite of the truth. For 15 years the Government have been involving the private sector in the delivery of services that in 1979 were regarded as the exclusive preserve of the state. British Telecom, water, electricity and gas are parts of the infrastructure now vested in the private sector, free from the public sector constraints that Opposition Members profess to find objectionable.
  If the Labour party is serious about wanting to involve the private sector in the delivery of public services, surely to goodness that is a Damascene conversion on a truly biblical scale. It involves eating the words that have been spoken from the Opposition Benches for the past 15 years.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: No, I will not.
  850
  The use of the private sector in the delivery of public services goes to the core of what the Government have sought to do for 15 years. That is why over that period, in addition to the privatisation programme, we have used the private sector to deliver the Dartford crossing and to build the second Severn bridge, and to engage in the largest civil engineering project of our age—the channel tunnel. It is absurd for the Opposition to talk about their interest in the private sector as the deliverer of public services.
  In the 1992 autumn statement—
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Darrell: No, I shall not give way.
  In the 1992 autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) made it clear that he wanted the private finance initiative to be used to extend further the role of the private sector in the delivery of public services. The Opposition's argument this evening has been that the results of that initiative have been sparse. That is hard to square with the facts.
  Since the 1992 autumn statement, private sector operators have been able to compete for the building of two new prisons. We have made it clear that we are extending to the private sector the opportunity to replace the Scottish air traffic control system. There has been a substantial investment in a myriad small projects in the national health service, involving private capital and management. The private sector has invested in student accommodation, as part of the expansion of our university system.
  It has been involved in the future planning of the road system, through the development of road charging and the opportunity for shadow tolling, which was foreshadowed in a statement made by the Secretary of State for Transport only last week.
  The principle of the Government's position is absolutely clear. The private sector has made it clear that it wants to be involved, and believes that it can contribute to the better delivery of public services. We, on behalf of the public sector, want to see its expertise and its resources recruited to the better delivery of public services. Changes on that subject are not required on this side of the House. It is on the Opposition Benches where the truly difficult questions remain to be faced. The hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that it is within the rules of a debate for a competent and confident Minister to give way during that debate, rather than simply to read from a prepared—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough not to need that sort of ruling.
  Mr. Dorrell: The best that the Labour party has been able to do to substantiate its proposition that private finance is an issue that it may call its own has been to quote the speeches of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on leasing to British Rail before the last election. Frankly, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is condemned from his own mouth. He described his own idea as one concerned with accountancy not socialism. That is precisely the problem for the Labour party on the subject.
  The problem has been grasped by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). She wrote to The Independent soon after the document about which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr.

  851
  Darling) waxed so lyrical, drawing attention to the difficulties of the document published by Labour Front-Bench spokesmen. It is interesting to quote to the House the writings of the hon. Lady. She argued that:
  "private sector involvement in public sector investment has all kinds of problems that neither Gordon Brown nor The Independent seem to appreciate. It is a more expensive way of raising money and the private sector invariably wants to take all of the profit and none of the risk."
  She went on:
  "the involvement of private sector personnel and practices in the public sector seems to bring with it a risk of sleaze and corruption."
  In the hon. Lady's eyes, the private sector is identified directly, apparently, with sleaze and corruption.
  The key point came in the next sentence of the hon. Lady's writings. She said:
  "Above all there is a danger that the private sector will by degrees affect the priorities and the policies of a Labour Government in relation to public expenditure."
  She is, of course, exactly right. That is what involving the private sector means. It means bringing in not only capital, but management and accepting that people other than the Government have a perspective on improving the delivery of public services.
  For 15 years, the Government have been opening the public sector to private sector skills and disciplines. During the whole of that time, Labour has resisted the process and identified public service with public provision. At last, we have seen the first signs that the dinosaur may be blinking. Labour has finally noticed that, while Government reforms have been giving customers better quality service and taxpayers better value for money, Labour policy has been stranded in a cul-de-sac. Fifteen years after the Government stamped on its tail, apparently the message has finally reached the dinosaur's brain. For that, there is much mercy, but little celebration.
  Mr. Darling: The Financial Secretary's reply must surprise many people who thought that he was the coming man of the moment for the Conservative party. Instead of dealing with the arguments advanced, not only by Labour Members but by two of his hon. Friends, he has engaged in a rant which, frankly, does not do the subject any justice at all. We are entitled to ask where the Government stand on the question of public-private sector partnerships. The Financial Secretary seemed to be attacking its very principle, yet the Government say that they are in favour of developing further partnerships.
  All that we have seen from the Government is a list—cobbled together, I suspect, 24 hours before the Chancellor gave a speech in Glasgow in September—of projects. Many of those will never see the light of day, but are simply glints in the planners' eyes. Others have been completed.
  However, there was no evidence that the Government have any idea of a clear strategy on how to approach the problem. It is a piecemeal approach. The Government say that they are building two new prisons, and that they are building a Scottish air traffic control centre. I remember when the Chancellor announced that Scottish scheme, because it took many people in the air traffic control industry in Scotland completely by surprise. They had never heard of the project before. Yet the Government were saying that it was one of the centrepieces of the then autumn statement.
  We have known for a long time that the Government have no strategy for economic investment. It is now
  852
  abundantly clear, however, from what the Financial Secretary has said that they do not even have a strategy for promoting public-private partnerships.
  The Financial Secretary complains about what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said before the last general election. He still condemns what my hon. Friend said. Yet the Government, having condemned what Labour candidates said during the election, went on to adopt the very same policy only a few months later.
  It is not surprising that people do not have confidence in what the Government say. It is clear from what the Financial Secretary says that the Government do not know what they are doing from one moment to the next. They say that they are in favour of public-private sector partnerships, and the next day they say that they are not.
  The Financial Secretary made no attempt to deal with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who made an excellent speech; I would not disagree with one word of it. I might suggest to him, however, that he should be complaining about the dead hand of Treasury Ministers, not that of the Treasury. It is Ministers who decide, and it is Ministers who should be held to account for the bankruptcy of policy in this area.
  Many of my hon. Friends have said that it must make sense to invest in the infrastructure that the United Kingdom desperately needs if it is to compete with the rest of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) referred to the Government's appalling policy and lack of foresight in respect of telecommunications super highways. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) talked about desperately needed infrastructure, including a specific metro scheme. In the area which I represent in part, Lothian regional council's metro scheme has been sidelined by Government policy.
  As for timidity, I make no apology for the Opposition not being timid about the Government's policy. We believe that public-private initiatives are one way in which our country can begin to regenerate and rebuild its infrastructure, which has been neglected for the past 15 years.
  If we are serious about maintaining and sustaining a high level of employment, surely rebuilding our infrastructure will enable people to go back to work to undertake that task. That must be a project that is well worth supporting. Yet what do we get from the Government? The answer is absolutely nothing. They heap scorn on anyone who comes up with any new ideas. They are hidebound by the dogma that has caused so much decline and misery for the past 15 years.
  The Financial Secretary has made several speeches and written several articles. He has let it be known among the press that he is a new thinker, and that he is prepared to consider proposals that hitherto the right-wing members of his party were not prepared to contemplate. He has even hinted that there is something to be said for a consensus between the parties on economic matters where that makes sense. We have heard nothing about that tonight.
  The Financial Secretary is supposed to be examining British industry's policies and problems on and with dividend payouts. We have heard nothing about that. He says that we should rely on the Government's privatisation proposals. He did not respond to our complaint that the dividend payments of the privatised utilities are double that

  853
  of most other companies. That is money that should be available—we were told that it would be available—for rebuilding the privatised utilities' infrastructures. The Financial Secretary said nothing about that.
  It is not surprising that, when the Labour party published "Financing Infrastructure Investment" earlier in the year, it was welcomed both inside and outside the House. It is not surprising also that, when the party held a conference to discuss the matter, it was heavily over-subscribed.
  People said to us repeatedly, "Is it not surprising that the Government have no idea how to conduct an economic policy?" The Government live from day to day and minute to minute. They have nothing to say to those who believe that Britain must compete with the rest of Europe and, indeed, the whole world. To do that we must rebuild our infrastructure, which has been neglected because of the free market dogma that has dogged the political system for the past 15 years.
  If the Financial Secretary is supposed to be the man of the future, it is not surprising that more and more people are coming to the conclusion that the Conservative party is the party of the past, and that it will be thrown out of office at the next election.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 297.

  Division No. 215]

  [10.44 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clelland, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Coffey, Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cox, Tom

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cummings, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bell, Stuart

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dafis, Cynog

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Benton, Joe

  Darling, Alistair

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Blair, Tony

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blunkett, David

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Boateng, Paul

  Denham, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Dewar, Donald

  Bradley, Keith

  Dixon, Don

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dobson, Frank

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Dowd, Jim

  Burden, Richard

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Byers, Stephen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Caborn, Richard

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Callaghan, Jim

  Eastham, Ken

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Enright, Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Clapham, Michael

  Fisher, Mark

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Flynn, Paul

  854

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Foulkes, George

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fraser, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maxton, John

  Galloway, George

  Meacher, Michael

  Garrett, John

  Meale, Alan

  George, Bruce

  Michael, Alun

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Milburn, Alan

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Miller, Andrew

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Graham, Thomas

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morley, Elliot

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hain, Peter

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hall, Mike

  Mudie, George

  Hardy, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Murphy, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Hara, Edward

  Heppell, John

  Olner, William

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoey, Kate

  Parry, Robert

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Patchett, Terry

  Home Robertson, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pike, Peter L.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pope, Greg

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hutton, John

  Purchase, Ken

  Illsley, Eric

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ingram, Adam

  Radice, Giles

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jamieson, David

  Redmond, Martin

  Janner, Greville

  Reid, Dr John

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rogers, Allan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooker, Jeff

  Keen, Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Short, Clare

  Lewis, Terry

  Simpson, Alan

  Litherland, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Snape, Peter

  McAllion, John

  Soley, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Spearing, Nigel

  McCartney, Ian

  Spellar, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McFall, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McKelvey, William

  Stevenson, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stott, Roger

  McLeish, Henry

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McMaster, Gordon

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Madden, Max

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Turner, Dennis

  Mahon, Alice

  Tyler, Paul

  Mandelson, Peter

  Vaz, Keith

  855

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wilson, Brian

  Wallace, James

  Winnick, David

  Walley, Joan

  Wise, Audrey

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Worthington, Tony

  Watson, Mike

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Welsh, Andrew

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dicks, Terry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dover, Den

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Duncan, Alan

  Amess, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dunn, Bob

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Ashby, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Atkins, Robert

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evennett, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Faber, David

  Bates, Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bendall, Vivian

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Forth, Eric

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Booth, Hartley

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  French, Douglas

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bowis, John

  Gale, Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gallie, Phil

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brazier, Julian

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bright, Graham

  Garnier, Edward

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Burns, Simon

  Gorst, John

  Burt, Alistair

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Butler, Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Cash, William

  Hague, William

  Clappison, James

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Colvin, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Congdon, David

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Couchman, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hendry, Charles

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hicks, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Day, Stephen

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Horam, John

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  856

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Richards, Rod

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jack, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knapman, Roger

  Shersby, Michael

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spring, Richard

  Lidington, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lord, Michael

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Luff, Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stephen, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stewart, Allan

  Maclean, David

  Streeter, Gary

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sweeney, Walter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marland, Paul

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Thomason, Roy

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mates, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Merchant, Piers

  Tracey, Richard

  Mills, Iain

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Trend, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Trotter, Neville

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walden, George

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Ward, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Norris, Steve

  Watts, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Wells, Bowen

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Page, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Paice, James

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Pawsey, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Willetts, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Wilshire, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  857

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Eleven o' clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned, pursuant to Order [1 February] and Resolution [this day].
  Bill, not amended (in the Committee) and as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

EMPLOYMENT
Ordered,
That Mr. Andrew Robathan be discharged from the Employment Committee and Mr. David Nicholson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Andrew MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

AGRICULTURE
Ordered,
That Mr. Martyn Jones be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Andrew MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Rail Sleeper Service (West Country)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
11.1 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: Just over 11 years ago, on 9 March 1983 at 10.16 pm, when I was the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, I introduced an Adjournment debate on the British Rail sleeper service to the north-west. I initiated the debate because a little mole on the night train had told me that British Rail was going to cut and run and savage that sleeper service, leaving the public high and dry. British Rail wheeled out the hoary old chestnuts that the route did not justify the investment, that each new night sleeper cost £250,000, that the service was not producing a 7.5 per cent. return on its capital and so forth.
I was strongly supported by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and, sadly, by the late Mr. Bob Cryer, who was then the Member for Keighley, by the former Member for Manchester, Openshaw, Mr. Charles Morris, and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—then the hon. Member for Stockport, North. The former hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, Mr. Fred Silvester, made a good contribution and the former Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Albert Booth, who represented Barrow-in-Furness, added his weight. My friend and colleague the Under Secretary of State for Transport, now Sir Reginald Eyre, responded in his normal avuncular, cogent and helpful way.
As a result, after heavy lobbying and the strongest of representations, the sleeper service to the north-west was saved and everyone breathed a sigh of relief. British Rail did not dare to run the gauntlet again until after the Boundary Commission got rid of my Liverpool seat. Within months of my adoption for the Devon seat of South Hams, British Rail whisked the night sleeper off. I saw the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) earlier and he said that the region was the poorer for losing the night train. Obviously, the battle between what some people have described as David and Goliath did not percolate down to the south-west, or British Rail might have had second thoughts before taking on someone who, if I may say so, is a seasoned warrior.
The Government are committed to the west country. The Prime Minister said that the Cabinet was now thinking west country, and he has been as good as his word, delivering the nuclear refit to Devonport, guaranteeing jobs well into the next century. The President of the Board of Trade was as good as his word in ensuring that large swathes of the south-west are now eligible for European money through assisted area status and 5b status. It is good to see on the Front Bench, among other distinguished Ministers, the Minister with responsibility for deregulation, the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. It is nice to see that he is keeping an eye on such subjects.
Much of my constituency is now covered with layers of grant opportunity, as has never happened before in our history. More Cabinet Ministers have descended on the west country than have done for generations. I am told that some Ministers are now thinking of applying for season tickets to save the taxpayers money. The fact that the west country is an important area, which, unlike Scotland and Wales, does not have its own Government Department, has

859
meant that it has to receive top priority in Government thinking and there are plans for its future development throughout the region.
The Devon structure plan forecasts an increase of 66,000 houses by the turn of the century. We must have a better transport system to cope. The Department of Transport is reviewing whether the Exeter to Plymouth A38 should be upgraded to motorway standard. Brymon Airways continues to run, through British Airways, a service from Heathrow to Devon and Cornwall throughout the day. It is not a cheap service to fly west and it is not surprising that the airplanes are not as full as British Airways would like.
That goes also for the Cornish Riviera sleeper train. It used to stop at Reading, Swindon, Bristol, Taunton, Exeter, Newton Abbot and Plymouth and continue to Cornwall. Now it stops only at Reading, Exeter and Plymouth and, not surprisingly, there are fewer people as there are fewer stops. None the less, the sleeper train provides an essential communication link with the west country's principal towns and cities.
If the sleeper ceased to exist, the first weekday train from Paddington would not reach Penzance until 1.30 pm—a whole morning has gone—and one would not reach Plymouth much before 11.30 am, if the train arrived on time. By the time that one got into Plymouth proper, it would be midday. Those would be the first available times that one would arrive at those towns' railway stations.
If you were an investor or an industrialist, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you choose to put your inward investment in a town that you could not reach until midday on public transport? If you were coming from Japan or Europe, there are many other parts of Britain that you would favour, nearer the channel tunnel, with excellent infrastructure and good public transportation systems. You would not invest in Plymouth or Cornwall if you could not get there. If the public transport is bad, new industry and new employment prospects will not come there. It is too much bother to go somewhere when one has to drive the whole time.
One of the reasons why the inner cities have not revived as fast as we would like, in the way that the Government would like, is not only violence on the streets and high rates, but the absence of proper infrastructure that allows big articulated lorries in and out, or good railway connections that help industrialists to travel between places. One cannot get into many of the inner cities and one cannot get out of them.
The rail and airplane network has to be top class, or people take the roads, because it is more convenient, even though the roads are heavily congested. With the £3 billion reduction in the road-building programme this year, it is essential that we use other channels of communication and do not overburden even more the roads that we have built.
British Rail's west of England service has greatly improved in the past 10 years. It is odd, though, that in spite of the multi-million pound new signalling equipment, that has not resulted in faster or more frequent trains. However, the fact that the night train continues to plough its way across the country both ways, every evening, six days a week, arriving virtually on time in every case, so that the business man can arrive fresh for a day's work and tourists arrive with buckets and spades at the ready, makes it an essential part of the rail infrastructure.
The Great Western management, to whom I shall pay tribute later, seem a little less enthusiastic about the continuation of the Cornish Riviera night sleeper, as it is
860
known, perhaps because they do not see it as an essential part of the west country fabric. Financially, apparently, it is precariously balanced, but that is not too surprising because the charges are high, the continental breakfast is quite dreadful, the facility is not well enough marketed and the train does not stop at enough stations.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), whose interest in the railway is well known, for coming up to Paddington and touring the sleeper. I have never seen so many people in a single first-class cabin. There were two television companies, each with their floodlights, and my right hon. Friend the Minister shaking the hand of a poor man in pyjamas. It was quite an amazing sight.
My right hon. Friend the Minister was left in no doubt when he heard all those who were travelling on the night sleeper—I think that it is fair to say that no one put British Rail up to it; they were all diehard travellers on the night sleeper—say how tremendously important it was to their industry and business. I am only sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame Janet Fookes) is unable to speak because of her elevated position. Like me, she used to use the night sleeper. In particular, she and I were regular travellers on the Saturday night sleeper, but that has been withdrawn.
The Devon and Cornish Riviera night service has become a symbol of the Government's commitment to the west country. If it is withdrawn, it would appear that the Government are not prepared to stand up for an essential service, especially as the franchise bid is but a year away. Just at the point when the west country is witnessing the beginning of the economic upturn with business and commerce showing real signs of revival, an essential public transport service is about to come off the rails. Will the Minister, therefore, give me the opportunity of being the first hon. Member to save two sleeper services, the Liverpool one and now the west country one?
Before I close, I pay a special tribute to Brian Scott, the managing director of InterCity, Great Western Railways. He has managed to build around him a first-class team at the management level and has inspired loyalty and commitment from those working the service on the stations and in the trains. The restaurant cars are run to a high standard but I wish that there were not so many ticket collectors constantly disturbing one's journey, not to mention the incessant announcements telling one not to open the doors, to close the doors, not to leave any personal luggage, where to find the buffet, what the buffet is selling—hot and cold snacks; I know it by heart. A little peace and quiet would be much appreciated.
What we have in the House tonight is the strength of the west country Conservative Members, who are committed to a first-class franchise service but who do not want to damage the west country's prospects by an early and unnecessary withdrawal of a crucial rail facility. I have been trying for three and a half months to get this slot in the parliamentary timetable and I am most grateful to whoever arranged for me to speak tonight. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister, knowing that I have waited three and a half months, will not let us down. Whatever he says, I thank him for his extended courtesy for spending a couple of hours at Paddington station last night seeing for himself what we on the Conservative Benches believe is of great importance to the west.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Steen: No, but I shall give way after the debate has finished!
I thank all my hon. Friends for helping me during the past three months in ensuring that the sleeper service continues and that we have a helpful and productive debate. Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should say that, as my hon. Friend the Minister has sorted out with us, my hon. Friends have my consent to speak for as long as they like.
11.13 pm
Mr. Robert Hicks: I support my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) in what he said about the need to continue the Paddington—to—Penzance sleeper service, although I am not sure that I would necessarily support his remarks about other areas during the course of his 12-minute speech, particularly in relation to Liverpool.
Of those present in the Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and I are probably the longest standing users of the service. When we were first elected in 1970, there were two night sleeper services between Paddington and Penzance. One reason why British Rail withdrew one of them was lack of support. It is incumbent upon all of us in the west country to play our part in making sure that the service continues. I make the point to my right hon. Friend the Minister that we are approaching a crucial period.
Mr. Tyler: An election.
Mr. Hicks: I do not need flippant remarks from Liberal Members.
It is important that we ensure that the service continues into 1995 so that it forms part of any franchise offer made to Great Western or anyone else who may be interested post-1995. If the service were to be discontinued this year, it could not be included in the franchise package. That makes it absolutely crucial that my right hon. Friend the Minister leans on British Rail management, or uses whatever influence he has at his disposal, to ensure that the service stays in the British Rail timetable post-October and remains in the package for the franchise or whatever future arrangements are made next year.
If we lose the service this year, there would be no guarantee that it would re-run at some future date. I look to my right hon. Friend for an assurance that he has done what he can with British Rail and Great Western management to ensure that the service will not be discontinued from October.
11.16 pm
Mr. David Nicholson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on securing this Adjournment debate, which has attracted widespread support from Conservative Members representing west country constituencies.
I accompanied my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister to Paddington station last night to see the sleeper and to talk to people using it. I shall not add to my hon. Friend's unparalleled description of the scene at the station at midnight, except to say that we spoke to a number of passengers who use the sleeper service regularly—at least once a month. They much appreciated the
862
assistance being given, and we appreciate the contribution that they—as business men, industrialists or investors—make to the west country. It would much diminish economic recovery in Devon and Cornwall in particular if the sleeper service were withdrawn.
There is a slight snag, of which my right hon. Friend the Minister is aware. Three years ago, the sleeper service ceased to stop at Taunton. We saw a train at Paddington station that was about to depart, at 11.30 pm, for Bristol—so that area is served by a late-night train. Exeter, Plymouth and Cornwall are served by the late-night sleeper service. Taunton and the hinterland of Somerset, north and east Devon could much benefit from a service that departed about midnight and stopped at Taunton at 2 o'clock in the morning. A sleeper would not be required, because few passengers would want to use one for such a journey. They would require only the seating accommodation that we saw on the train last night.
Such a service would enable my constituents and those of neighbouring constituencies who are in London for evening meetings, dinner, theatre or whatever to return home the same night. The lack of such a service has caused considerable concern and aggravation in my constituency over the past three years. I make the point to my right hon. Friend the Minister but also to British Rail and the successor companies that such a service would make good common and commercial sense. It is a financial equation and—
Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Nicholson: I cannot give way because the Minister will want to speak. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will catch the Chair's eye later.
It makes good commercial sense to entice more passengers on to the late-night service—people who want to return to Somerset or thereabouts. With the opening of the channel tunnel, over the next few years more people will want to use the railways. As they come to see the environmental problems and the huge costs of road transport, more of them will want to travel by rail. I hope that the Government and those responsible for operating the rail service will take the opportunity not only to make the service stop at Taunton but to ensure that it survives.
11.20 pm
Mr. Sebastian Coe: Members who represent Cornwall all recognise that Cornwall's ability to sustain full-time meaningful employment is inextricably linked to the ability of its business people to go out and conquer fresh markets, and to chase markets hitherto closed to them simply because they could not get in and out of the county within one full working day and get back to shepherding their businesses the following day.
We recognise that the future of the sleeper service is closely linked to all this. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) pointed out, we must impress on the Minister the need for any future structure running the railways to market the service properly. The future of any public service depends—this is almost a truism—on the number of people who use it, and that is particularly true of a sleeper service. The service must be marketed as a stand-alone service that can compete with all the other burgeoning services in the county.

863
This is an important facility—
Mr. Matthew Taylor rose—
Mr. Coe: —and I hope that the Minister will make a positive response to our requests.
11.21 pm
Sir John Hannam: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on his initiative, not only in securing the debate but in arranging for the Minister's visit to Paddington station to see the extent of the support for the continuation of this important service to the west country.
I represent the constituency with the first stop in the west country. Business men and women in Exeter, Dorset and east Devon would tell the Minister that they rely very much on this service. They like to leave their cars at Exeter, come up to do their business in London, then journey back late at night, arrive in the morning, pick up their cars and get home for a couple of hours before starting a normal day's work.
The same applies further west in Cornwall, where, unless people have a sleeper service, they cannot pursue a normal day's business when they get back to Truro and points west.
British Rail needs reminding again and again that great opportunities are unfolding with the new system that we are setting up, and that its success will depend on attracting more customers and new business; and the only way to do that is to open up the system and provide ever more facilities—unlike what has been done with freight services which have in the past been shut down. Not only should this important service be maintained but stations like Taunton should be reopened so as to offer access to a wider clientele.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams reminds me of one of those wonderful steam engines of the past: when the going gets tough and the track starts going uphill, he makes a lot more noise and exerts even more determination. That is how he secured victory in Liverpool. I am sure that in this endeavour he will have the support of my right hon. Friend and of us all as our businesses and industries enter a period of expansion.
Our aim is to move regional offices from Bristol down towards the south-west. The civil servants and others working in those offices will need a night service to get home after, say, late-night debates in the House.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen very carefully to the views represented tonight, and will ensure that the service continues, so that when the franchise is offered it will be included as an important part of the service to the west country.
11.24 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on initiating a debate on this important subject. I also congratulate my other hon. Friends who have participated, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe)—who came to see me yesterday with my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams—and my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam),
864
who also came, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and for Plymouth, Drake (Dame Janet Fookes).
Representations have also been made over recent weeks by, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Mr. Harris), and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and for Westbury (Mr. Faber). It is a formidable list.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams implied, we had a very interesting discussion yesterday afternoon to discuss the continuation of the Paddington-to-Penzance sleeper after the end of the current timetable. We covered the issue in some detail, and I felt that the meeting had enabled me to understand much more fully the concerns of my hon. Friends representing the south-west. That contrasts sharply with the behaviour of members of the Liberal Democrat party, who have neither sought a meeting with me nor tried to secure an Adjournment debate; nor have they raised the issue in the same direct way as my hon. Friends.
Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Freeman: No. Indeed, what they have been doing—
Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister specifically to attack hon. Members and then refuse them the opportunity to intervene?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): It is entirely in order, as far as the Chair is concerned. The Chair has no role to play, and no comment to make.
Mr. Freeman: I pay tribute to Brian Scott and the management of British Rail, who have succeeded in improving services on the Great Western railway. That includes the sleeper, which has received significant and welcome patronage in recent months.
Let me give my hon. Friends the firmest possible indication of Ministers' views on the continuation of the Paddington-to-Penzance sleeper, known as the night riviera. Ministers believe that the service should be part of the franchising process in 1995. We want to see what ideas the private sector can bring to the future operation of services—for example, in terms of improved marketing of the night riviera service.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Freeman: No.
Until franchising takes place, the future of the service is a matter for British Rail; but I do not wish to see any precipitous change. I assure my hon. Friend that Ministers wish the service to continue throughout this year and up to and including the franchising process. The service is in the current timetable, which runs up to October. I therefore expect it to be included in the October timetable, which is the winter timetable, so that it will be open to the Franchising Director to consider it in the context of franchising the Great Western main line services. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friends who have interests in that important part of the country.

865
The Government accept that important rail services such as the Great Western main line and sleeper services are perceived as being very important to the economy of the west country—important not only to the business community, but to those who travel to the area for leisure purposes. It must be recognised, however, that the economic viability of the night riviera service is a crucial factor in the determination of its future. I understand that currently the service is marginal. However, I also hear that Great Western hopes that passenger ridership will increase as the economy comes out of recession, and there is already evidence of an increase in patronage.
I believe that the debate tonight—I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams on his contribution—will serve to raise the profile of this important service. But a railway, as with any other business, has to be responsive to passenger demands. It is therefore vital that, in order to ensure the long term future of the night riviera service, there be increased usage of the sleeper. It really is a case of use it, or lose it. People cannot come to British Rail, Great Western and the Franchising Director and ask for a service to be retained if they are unwilling to make use of it.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne for helpfully and clearly spelling out that point. I also confirm that we expect to see channel tunnel night services running on the Great Western main line. I hope that the night stock, which is currently under construction, will be running on that line from Christmas 1995. That will bring a very welcome boost to the economy of the west country because it will bring tourists directly from the
866
continent of Europe and through the channel tunnel, all the way along the Great Western main line, and certainly as far as Plymouth. We do not rule out a continuation and extension of that service in the future.
It is very important for the economy of the south-west that we continue to develop rail services. I can tell the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who has had ample opportunity to criticise our reforms in other debates, that the reforms which will follow in the wake of the Railways Act 1993 will improve rail services in this country. He will find that the private sector will introduce into the railways not only fresh capital but innovation—new ideas.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams that one of the great advantages of franchising is that the marketing of the service is improved. I make no criticism of Brian Scott and his management team or of British Rail—they have done an excellent job within the constraints of a public sector service.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have no imaginative or positive ideas to offer to improve rail services. The Government have a monopoly on good ideas to improve rail services. We will bring additional capital to the railway industry, we will let the private sector market the services better, and we will see more patronage not only on the day services and night services but on the sleeper services.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve midnight.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Witnesses
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which courts in Staffordshire have child liaison officers to protect child witnesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is a designated child liaison officer for every Crown court centre, including the combined court centres at Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent.

  Judges
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the expenditure on salaries of all(a) full-time district judges and (b) part-time district judges in the 1993–94 financial year.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  During the 1993–94 financial year, the total amount paid to full-time district judges was £18,427,591. The figure for part-time district judges is not yet available for the whole financial year, but for the 11-month period from April 1993 to February 1994, the fees amounted to £4,870,627.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the planned increase for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 in(a) full-time district judges and (b) part-time district judges.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of full-time district judges in post on 1 March 1994 was 289. The planned number of full-time district judges for the three forthcoming financial years is:

  Number

  1994–95

  305

  1995–96

  309

  1996–97

  314

  There are no plans to increase the number of deputy district judges from the present level of 750.

  Small Claims Court
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many leaflets his Department distributed in 1993 explaining the processes of the small claims courts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A series of seven leaflets explains the small claims procedure in county courts. The total number distributed in 1993 was approximately 1·5 million. The leaflets are distributed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office to court offices, trading standards offices, citizens advice bureaux and other advice agencies.
  422
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many actions were commenced through the small claims court in each year from 1990.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The term "small claims court" refers to the arbitration procedure in the county court. The number of arbitrations heard—which mainly, but not exclusively, consist of cases below the small claims limit—in England and Wales since 1990 were:

  Number

  1990

  52,360

  1991

  161,919

  1992

  80,341

  1993

  105,843

  1 On 1 July 1991 the maximum sum claimable through the small claims procedure increased from £500 to £1,000.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 275, if he will list the firms of consultants employed by his Department in each of the last five years and the number of contracts they have undertaken.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Firms of consultants employed in 1992–93 on projects costing more than £20,000 and the number of contracts that they undertook were as follows:

  Consultants

  Number of Contracts

  Price Waterhouse

  6

  Grasshopper Computers Ltd.

  3

  TRIAD Special Systems Ltd.

  1

  WS Atkins

  2

  KPMG

  2

  Coopers & Lybrand

  2

  Ernst & Young

  2

  University of Westminster

  1

  PE International

  1

  Compucare

  1

  Baz Services Ltd.

  1

  LBMS

  1

  Comshare

  1

  CSC

  1

  Aims Systems

  1

  Sapphire Consultancy Services

  1

  Clark Whitehill

  1

  Enviroplan

  1

  Benford Associates

  1

  Clarkson Goff Management

  1

  John Garnett

  1

  There were also some 70 projects each costing less than ·20,000 in 1992–93. As I said in my answer of 23 March, comparable information for earlier years is not available.

  Lawyers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current number of(a) Queen's Counsel and (b) barristers; and how many of each are (i) women and (ii) members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not have statistics on practitioners in the
  423
  legal profession. However, I am informed by the Bar Council that as at 1 October 1993 there were 7,735 practising barristers, of whom 1,593 were women. At the same date there were 797 practising Queen's Counsel, of whom 41 were women. I am also informed by the Bar Council that of a total of 7,660 practising banisters on 6 September 1993, 347 had declared a non-white ethnic origin. Of these, nine were Queen's Counsel. Seventy-seven new practising Queen's Counsel have been appointed this year. Of these, nine were women and one was of non-white ethnic origin.

  Advice Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the Government's policy towards the provision of a network of independent advice and law centres throughout the country; and what response he has made to the Advice 2000 initiative launched by the Advice Services Alliance.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's objectives for legal aid and the Legal Aid Board make it clear that he wishes to encourage law centres, citizens advice bureaux and others to take on an increasing proportion of work which it is appropriate for them to handle. The Legal Aid Board is currently undertaking two projects: the first is designed to ascertain whether methods of delivering legal services other than on a case-by-case basis would have benefits and the second to enable the board to set standards applicable to non-solicitor agencies. Information from these projects should assist consideration of how to achieve the above objective.

TREASURY

  Taxes Management Act 1970
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to consult interested parties regarding any future amendment of section 20A of the Taxes Management Act 1970; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue is at present consulting the accountancy and legal professions over its draft guidance notes on the use of section 20A. The Government will be considering how to take the matter forward in the light of any responses to the draft guidance notes and the points made in Committee.

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultation and preparation work is being carried on by which European Union institutions, committees and organisations about monetary union, the reconstruction of the exchange rate mechanism, the restoration of the coinage clearing systems and the institutional arrangements for monetary union; what part Britain is playing in both of these processes and organisations; how many British officials and committees are working on this issue(a) in the EU structures and (b) domestically; and what consultations are being held with British banks and financial institutions by EU officials and his own officials about monetary union.

  Mr. Nelson
  Monetary co-operation in the European Union is regularly discussed by the Council of the 424
  European Monetary Institute, the Monetary Committee and the Council of Finance Ministers. In all those forums, the United Kingdom plays a full and constructive part.

  The Commission has announced its intention of setting up a study group of independent experts to advise on some of the practical issues which would arise on implementation of a single currency.

  A number of United Kingdom and Bank of England officials are concerned with European monetary issues. The Government and the bank are represented on the Monetary Committee; the bank is represented on the EMI council.

  British banks and financial institutions are also consulted as necessary by both British and Commission officials.

  There have never been EC coinage clearing systems, so the question of their restoration does not arise.

  Customs and Excise (Cheques)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the practice of Customs and Excise in respect of sending large denomination cheques through the post;

  (2) what security procedures are adopted to protect cheques sent by post by Customs and Excise.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs continually encourages businesses to provide it with bank account details so that repayments can be electronically transferred. However, not all traders yet take advantage of that facility and almost 1 million payable orders, with a total value in excess of £7 billion, are issued each year by first-class post.

  In conjunction with Her Majesty's Treasury, customs has been taking steps to increase even further the security measures for payable orders. These include higher levels of security printing so as to make alteration of the payee's name more difficult.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement regarding the repayment of £1 million to the London borough of Haringey by Customs and Excise;

  (2) what steps are being taken by Customs and Excise to recover £1 million misappropriated en route to the London borough of Haringey.

  Sir John Cope
  The payment of £1 million to Haringey borough council was in respect of a claim by it for a lost payable order of £1,156,806·10, plus interest and repayment supplement. Settlement of the claim was made on the basis of advice from counsel and the full agreement of the parties involved.

  Inquiries into the case, by the police and customs, are still continuing.

  Petrol
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total excise and revenue raised from petrol sales in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93.

  Sir John Cope
  Information on the excise duty and VAT revenue raised from petrol sales in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93 is provided in the table:

  425

  £ billion

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Excise duty

  7·0

  8·0

  8·2

  VAT (estimated)

  1·3

  1·5

  1·6

  Total tax revenue

  8·3

  9·6

  9·7

  Note: Components do not necessarilyt sum to the total due to rounding.

  No direct figures are available for the VAT raised on petrol. An estimate has been made using national accounts data; it covers only consumers' expenditure—the yield from business is highly uncertain because the majority of businesses can reclaim the VAT paid as in-put tax.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total income to the Treasury from value added tax on petrol in 1992–93.

  Sir John Cope
  The total income to the Treasury from value added tax on petrol in 1992–93 is estimated at £1·6 billion.

  No direct figures are available for the VAT raised on petrol. An estimate has been made using national accounts data; it covers only consumers' expenditure—the yield from business is highly uncertain because the majority of businesses can reclaim the VAT paid as in-put tax.

  Fuel (VAT)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the effect of pre-payment by large-scale gas and electricity users to avoid value added tax on domestic fuel from 1 April; and what assessment he has made of the scheme of pre-payment and its effect on(a) the revenue expected from the tax and (b) the level of savings held in building societies.

  Sir John Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 13 April,Official Report, column 171.

  Child Maintenance
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact the recent tax changes will have on the Child Support Agency assessments for child maintenance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  To the extent that they affect the net incomes of absent parents, the recent direct tax changes will alter the assessments.

  Pensioner Certificates
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he will take to ensure that the age limit is reduced from 65 years to 60 years for women to be able to invest in pensioner certificates.

  Mr. Nelson
  There are no plans to change the present age limit for purchase of the National Savings pensioners guaranteed income bond.

  Central Statistical Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what key targets have been set for the Central Statistical Office for 1994–95.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Central Statistical Office's key targets for 1994–95 are set out in the "CSO Programme Strategies 426
  1994–97", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. As before, the targets cover the timeliness of published statistics, the size of revisions, the coherence of key economic statistics, the response rates for statistical inquiries, action to minimise the load on respondents, response times to public requests for information and the CSO's running costs, efficiency improvements and receipts. A number of the targets have been tightened for 1994–95 in recognition of the continuing improvements in the CSO's performance.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many domestic properties in England and Wales have been re-banded on sale and repurchase; and, of these, how many have had their banding increased and how many decreased.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Valuation Office Agency does not keep a record of how many bandings are increased or decreased in England and Wales as a result of a sale.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what criteria are used to decide the rebanding of domestic properties on sale and repurchase;

  (2) what steps are taken by the Inland Revenue to review the banding for council tax purposes on the sale and repurchase of domestic properties.

  Mr. Nelson
  A listing officer is required to alter the banding of a property following the sale or other relevant transaction if the banding does not reflect the value added by improvements carried out by the previous taxpayer. Otherwise, the listing officer will review a banding following sale of the property only if the sale price is significantly different from the figure that would reasonably have been expected at that date for a property with that banding. In such cases, he will consider all the evidence available to him of the value of the property as at the valuation date of 1 April 1991, including any relevant sale prices at or around that date, in order to establish whether there is any inaccuracy that requires to be remedied.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to reband other similar properties in the same area where a property is rebanded for council tax purposes on sale and repurchase.

  Mr. Nelson
  Where a property is reviewed and rebanded following a sale or other relevant transaction because the band does not reflect the value of the improvements carried out by the previous taxpayer, the banding of other similar properties in the locality is not reviewed. Where a property is reviewed and rebanded following a sale which indicates that the original entry in the compiled valuation list was incorrect and the listing officer is aware that similar properties in the locality may be incorrect, the banding of those properties is reviewed.

  Tiger Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 640, if he will give details of the countries of origin of the tiger products seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; and in each case what was the ultimate destination of the products.
  427
  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: It is not always possible to determine the origin—as opposed to country of consignment—of goods, but the following additional information may be of help in connection with the seized tiger derivatives listed in my previous answer:

  Item

  Country of consignment

  Handbag

  Australia

  Skin (whole and piece); two claws

  India

  Pair of shoes

  Saudi Arabia

  50 boxes pills; 12 packets plasters

  Hong Kong

  20 packets plasters

  USA

  Item

  Country of origin

  All other goods

  China

  In all cases customs seized the goods; there is no information on their intended ultimate destination other than the declared United Kingdom address of the importer.

  Trading Profits (Midlands)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what level of change in profit margins has been reported in(a) the west midlands and (b) Coventry in each quarter since April 1991.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 13 April 1994]: Information on profit margins is not available but gross trading profits in the west midlands standard region are estimated at £4,903 million in 1991 and £5,266 million in 1992. No estimates have yet been made for 1993. There are no quarterly estimates and none for Coventry separately.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tobacco (Sponsorship)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the amount spent in each year since 1985, by tobacco manufacturing companies on sponsorship of each sport, under the terms of the voluntary agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Records are not kept of the amount of sponsorship money spent on each individual sport. The voluntary agreement on sponsorship requires tobacco manufacturers represented on the Tobacco Advisory Council to inform the Government of the expenditure incurred each year on sports sponsorship in the United Kingdom. These amounts are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1985–86

  8,252,000

  1986–87

  7,699,000

  1987–88

  5,911,000

  1988–89

  5,329,000

  1989–90

  7,253,000

  1990–91

  7,630,000

  1991–92

  8,981,000

  Broadcasting Directive
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he was notified by the European Community Commission of its intention to take the United Kingdom to court over the broadcasting directive; and what particular issue is being pursued.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: I refer to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 13 April, Official Report, column 190. I was informed on 23 March by the United Kingdom's representative in Brussels, though I have yet to receive a formal communication from the Commission.

  All-seater Stadiums
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to announce changes in the proposals for all-seater stadiums to be installed at premier league and first division football clubs before the end of 1994.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 15 April 1994]: I have no such plans. The 1 August deadline for all-seating at premier league and first division clubs remains unchanged.

EDUCATION

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many parliamentary questions to his Department have not been answered because of disproportionate costs or because the information requested was not held centrally over the last five years; how many could be answered now due to computerisation and/or more effective operational systems; and if he will list each such question along with the name and constituency of the hon. Member who tabled it.

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of answers given to parliamentary questions by the Department for Education—and the Department of Education and Science prior to April 1992—between January 1987 and December 1993 recorded in the POLIS database as including a reference to part or all of the information being available only at disproportionate cost was 260. Details of each of these questions can be obtained from the POLIS database, access to which is available in the Library. The further information requested is not currently available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Grant-maintained Status
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many copies of the GM pack, "Going GM", including, "How to become a GM School", "Experiences During the First Year", "Questions Parents Ask", "Questions Staff Ask" and "Funding Worksheet", have been sent to school heads and governors; and what is the total cost of the information sent, including postage costs.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A composite Department for Education information pack on grant-maintained status was first issued in September 1992. Its contents have varied a little for particular purposes over time. Numbers issued fall into the following categories:
  429
  a. circulation of updated publications following the Education Act 1993, to chairmen of governors of all maintained schools in December 1993 (22,531 copies at a total cost of some £63,000, including also DFE Circular 18/93 "Grant-Maintained Schools: Acquisition, Transfer and Governance");
  b. accompanying invitations to attend the Department's regional "Going GM" conferences, sent to headteachers and chairmen of governors in batches between September 1992 and December 1993 (57,092 copies at an estimated total cost of some £127,000). A further mailing has taken place within the last week of 10,118 invitations with packs; figures on the cost of this mailing are not available yet;
  c. in response to requests, some of which were from headteachers and governors, between September 1992 and December 1993 (approximately 78,000 copies at an estimated cost of £110,000, exclusive of postage). Since January 1994 the contents of the individual packs have been specifically tailored to the needs of individual enquirers.

  Cost estimates reflect the variation in pack contents over time.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total cost of each of the "Going GM" conferences held in Darlington on 3 February, Manchester on 18 February, Newcastle on 4 March and Huddersfield on 14 March; how many school heads and how many governors attended each conference; how many speakers were paid by the Department; and how many civil servants attended in each case.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The numbers attending and the costs of the Darlington, Manchester, Newcastle and Huddersfield "Going GM" conferences are set out in the table:

  Conference

  Cost12 £

  Delegates3

  Civil Servants4

  Darlington

  13,335

  94

  25

  Manchester

  15,697

  114

  10

  Newcastle

  14,131

  77

  13

  Huddersfield

  15,151

  102

  10

  1 Includes venue hire and catering, equipment costs, and pro rata conference support costs (secretariat, production, and conference management), and expenses payments to GM headteachers who spoke at the conferences and who have submitted an expenses claim.

  2 Does not include the cost of mailing invitations for these conferences, or related travel and subsistence costs for civil servants.

  3 The Department's records do not identify separately headteachers and governors attending "Going GM" conferences.

  4 Attendance at a "Going GM" conference is often part of the

  Participation in Pre-primary Education(Full and Part-time)by age group,1991

  Percentage of age group

  Age at which Compulsory schooling starts

  Education

  Percentage of preprimary provision which is within the
  private sector 11991

  3 to 5

  3 to 4

  France

  6

  100

  100

  12

  Germany

  6

  63

  53

  1267

  United Kingdom34

  5

  68

  52

  6

  568

  553

  United States of America

  66-8

  60

  45

  137

  1 1990 for Germany and 1989 for United States of America.

  2 In Germany, some providers of private sector provision receive some public subsidy.

  3 Participation rates of those in school at start of calendar year with ages at that point.

  4 Age 3 includes some children age 2.

  5 1992 data.

  6 Varies between states

  Sources: Table AA: Education Statistics for the United Kingdom, 1993 edition; UNESCO Statistical Year Book 1993.
  430
  induction process for Department officials new to grant-maintained schools policy. In particular, most of the civil servants at the Darlington conference were observers.

  Each conference was also attended by six head teachers from grant-maintained schools who spoke about their experiences in the GM sector. The Department reimburses head teachers for expenses incurred in speaking at "Going GM" conferences, but does not pay them a fee. To date, the Department has made payments totalling £857 in response to expenses claims from GM head teachers for the four conferences listed. These payments are included in the table.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his estimate of the cost of the freephone calls in response to the recent advertisements in the national press on GM status and his most recent figure of the number of calls received.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  To date, more than 1,100 of the responses to the advertising campaign were calls to the freephone number. To disaggregate the cost of these calls from that of other calls received by the Department's GM publications centre would involve disproportionate expense.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of children in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany, (c) France and (d) the USA have nursery places provided by (i) the Government sector and (ii) the non profit-making private sector.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information is not centrally available in the form requested. The table below shows the latest available information on combined public and private participation rates in pre-compulsory schooling. Separate participation rates are not available. There are also some differences between countries in the distinction drawn between education and day care. If the United Kingdom figures are defined to include nursery schools, nursery classes, infant classes, pre-school play groups and group day care, the participation rates for both three to four and three to five-year-olds increase to over 90 per cent.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his latest estimate of the average cost per surplus pupil place in respect of(a) a secondary pupil and (b) a primary pupil.

  Mr. Forth
  The average premises-related cost of maintaining a school place is estimated at £179 a year for a primary school place and £298 a year for a secondary school place at 1994–95 prices. The actual cost and the scope for realising savings from removal of surplus places in practice will depend on local circumstances.

  Parental Choice
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the figures, in total and for each local education authority, on the number of parents who secured the primary or secondary school of their first choice for their child for 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Data on the number of parents securing their first choice of school are not collected centrally. However, the most recent evidence—from surveys commissioned by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in 1992 and The Times in 1993—shows that some 90 per cent. of parents gain a place at their first choice of secondary school.

  Hanover Insurance Brokers
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what payments his Department has made, either directly or indirectly, to Hanover Insurance Brokers for their work in advising grant-maintained schools on issues concerning insurance.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Hanover Insurance Brokers is one of a number of companies that advise grant-maintained schools on their insurance requirements. The Department has made no direct payment to Hanover Insurance Brokers in respect of this work. Arrangements for paying brokers in respect of advice on insurance is a matter for individual grant-maintained schools.

  Grant-maintained Schools Foundation
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education who are the directors of the Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation Ltd; who has been appointed as chief executive; and what was the Department's involvement in the appointments.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The directors of the Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation Ltd. are Sir Robert Balchin, chairman, Mr. John Spiers, Sir Christopher Lawson, Mr. David Allan, OBE, Mr. Lawrence Norcross, OBE and Mr. Thomas Savage. The company's chief executive is Mr. Andrew Turner. The Department was not involved in the appointment of the directors or the chief executive.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much grant aid the new Grant-maintained Schools Foundation Ltd. has applied for in 1994–95; and what level of grant has been granted.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation Ltd. is currently in discussion with the Department about grant aid for 1994–95. Decisions on the total level of grant have yet to be taken.

  Funding Agency for Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to investigate the potential conflict of interests arising from other chairmanships held by the chairman of the Funding Agency for Schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. I do not accept that any conflicts arise. It will be for the funding agency to keep a register of chairman's and members' interests and for individual members to disclose any private interest in a matter to be considered by the board in the normal way.

ENVIRONMENT

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions in the last 10 years he has used powers to call in planning applications after they have been approved by local authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Water Quality Objectives
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to introduce the system of statutory water quality objectives under the Water Resources Act 1991.

  Mr. Atkins
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I have today laid before Parliament the Surface Waters (River Ecosystem) (Classification) Regulations 1994. These regulations, together with an accompanying document specifying procedures to be used by the National Rivers Authority, prescribe for the first time a statutory system for classifying the overall quality of rivers in England and Wales. This builds on the previous informal river classification system, and follows extensive consultations. The regulations will allow the process of introductory statutory water quality objectives to begin.

  Water quality objectives will provide a stable framework for the NRA to maintain and, where appropriate, improve river quality; they will build on the major programmes of investment that are already planned or under way. My hon. Friend and I will, after advice from the NRA, consult on proposals for the first water quality objectives to be set on the basis on these regulations.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Advisory Committee on Human Genome Research
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the Advisory Committee on Human Genome Research.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I established an Advisory Committee on Human Genome Research, early last year, to advise me on how best to build on the existing strengths of United Kingdom human genome research and secure the benefits it promises for human welfare, health care and United Kingdom industry.

  The committee convened an independent expert working group of leading geneticists, to review the area

  433
  and identify priorities for investment in the United Kingdom to benefit both basic science and commercial opportunities. Its report, "The Human Genome Mapping Project—Priorities and Opportunities in Genome Research", was published this morning. I believe that it will be of interest to all those concerned with genome research in the United Kingdom. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, column 1018, if he will list the firms of consultants employed by his Department and the number of contracts they have undertaken.

  Mr. David Davis
  The information requested is not held centrally and is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total amount of spending in 1993 in Wales by the Natural Environment Research Council in pounds million at 1994–95 prices net of spending on the research vessels services in Barry and the British geological survey, Aberystwyth, together with the corresponding percentage spending by the Natural Environment Research Council in Wales as a proportion of spending the United Kingdom net of spending on the above two establishments.

  Mr. David Davis
  The estimated expenditure by the Natural Environment Research Council in Wales in 1993–94 was £3·4 million at 1994–95 prices, net of the research vessel services at Barry, and the British geological survey's district office at Aberystwyth. This amounts to approximately 2 per cent. of the NERC's total United Kingdom spend.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Union (Qualified Majority Voting)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now seek written confirmation, by means of an exchange of letters, of the undertakings he announced in his oral statement of 29 March, Official Report, columns 797-98, and place copies in the Library.

  The Prime Minister
  I see no need for this, in the light of the undertakings given.

  Parliamentary Counsel Office Staff
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how many people, of what grade, are employed by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

  The Prime Minister
  The number of staff and their grades currently employed in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, excluding those on loan to the Law Commission and the Home Office, is:

  Number

  First Parliamentary Counsel (grade 1)

  1

  Second Parliamentary Counsel (grade 2)

  1

  Parliamentary Counsel (grade 2)

  8

  434

  Number

  Deputy Parliamentary Counsel (grade 3)

  3

  Senior Assistant Parliamentary Counsel (grade 5)

  3

  Assistant Parliamentary Counsel (grade 7)

  12

  Grade 7

  1

  Executive Officer

  1

  Senior Personal Secretary

  7

  Administrative Officer

  5

  Support grade band 2

  2

  Total

  44

  The following Parliamentary Counsel Office staff are on loan to the Law Commission:

  Number

  Parliamentary Counsel (grade 2)

  1

  Deputy Parliamentary Counsel (grade 3)

  1

  Principal Assistant Parliamentary Counsel (grade 4)

  1

  Senior Assistant Parliamentary Counsel (grade 5)

  1

  Assistant Parliamentary Counsel (grade 7)

  1

  Total

  5

  The following Parliamentary Counsel Office staff are on loan to the Home Office:

  Number

  Assistant Parliamentary Counsel (grade 7)

  1

  Total

  1

  Stephan Adolphus Kock (Duties)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister what official duties have been carried out by Stephan Adolphus Kock since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fire Safety Scrutiny Initiative
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the organisations and individuals who have submitted evidence to the interdepartmental fire safety scrutiny initiative; and if he will make a statement on the timetable for the review.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The team conducting the review of fire safety legislation and enforcement has consulted widely among more than 100 organisations with a known interest in the subject. These have included, inter alia,
  435
  representatives of fire service bodies, the insurance industry, fire and other safety organisations, the Confederation of British Industry and groups representing small businesses, organisations representing retail, manufacturing and other business interests, consumer bodies, organisations representing property interests, fire equipment manufacturers, groups representing the disabled, local authorities, unions, the construction industry, surveyors, building control officers, architects and planners.

  Many such organisations have responded by supplying written evidence and some have also met the review team. Evidence has also been received from a number of individuals interested in this important matter.

  The review team are still receiving representations. They will include the final list of all those who submitted evidence in their report to Ministers which is due before the end of May. We will then need to consider their recommendations and any changes that they may propose. The Government are committed to consulting all interested parties before making any legislative changes.

  Deregulation Task Forces
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the reports of the eight deregulation task forces will be deposited in the Library.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on 30 March 1994,Official Report, column 766, which stated that the working papers of the seven business task forces were placed in the Library of the House on 30 March.

  The eighth task force, which is looking at legislation affecting charities and voluntary organisations, has now completed its work and is due to report shortly.

  Aluminium
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding dumping of aluminium from the former Soviet Union.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the imports of aluminium have been from the former Soviet Union in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is provided in the table:

  Imports of Aluminium from the former Soviet Union

  Year

  Volume (Metric Tonnes)

  Value (£000's)

  1989

  0

  0

  1990

  4,552

  4,297

  1991

  22,387

  16,981

  1992

  17,355

  11,291

  1993

  229,305

  180,432

  Notes:

  Aluminium is classified as heading 684 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  The former Soviet Union comprises Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.

  Source: HM Customs and Excise.

  Regional Challenge
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, columns 647-49, if he will consider making it a duty for authorities to consult local communities for the purposes of regional challenge; if he will publish rules indicating that the consultation should enable local communities to have an impact on decisions; and if he will ensure that the rules of this new competition do not allow for unnecessary competition between deprived communities.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to my reply of 29 March.

  Coal Industry Privatisation
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who will be responsible for consumer protection and safety in respect of domestic coal consumers when the Domestic Coal Consumers Council ceases to exist after Royal Assent is given to the Coal Industry Bill.

  Mr. Eggar
  A substantial body of general consumer protection legislation will continue to apply to coal as well as to other products. Discussions are taking place in the coal trade on voluntary complementary arrangements following the privatisation of British Coal. The Domestic Coal Consumers Council is an advisory body. No date has been set for its abolition, although the Coal Industry Bill provides for that in due course.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has in respect of(a) "Complete Heat" and (b) British Coal domestic consumers database after the Coal Industry Bill receives Royal Assent.

  Mr. Eggar
  Decisions on the future of "Complete Heat" and British Coal's database of domestic consumers are a matter for the Corporation.

TRANSPORT

  Sea (Safety)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the ratification of the 1988 protocol to the 1974 international convention on the safety of life at sea.

  Mr. Norris
  The 1988 protocol to the 1974 international convention on the safety of life at sea will be ratified upon completion of the work in consolidating the Merchant Shipping Acts. This is scheduled for later this year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many holders of his office have had advice from the Landscape Advisory Committee since 1964.

  Mr. Key
  All.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why he no longer needs advice from the Landscape Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Key
  The reasons are given in paragraph 8.11 of "Trunk Roads in England: 1994 Review", copies of which are in the Library of the House.
  437
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the advice and publications from the Landscape Advisory Committee in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Key
  Copies of each of the committee's annual reports were placed in the Library. The reports list the schemes on which the committee has advised.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he decided to abolish the Landscape Advisory Committee;

  (2) when he first (a) considered abolition of and (b) made known his intention to abolish the Landscape Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend and I considered the future of the Landscape Advisory Committee as part of the Government's review of the road programme, announced in August 1993. My right hon. Friend announced the results of the review on 30 March 1994.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he advised the Select Committee for Transport on his proposal to abolish the Landscape Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Key
  The decision to disband the Landscape Advisory Committee was announced in "Trunk Roads in England: 1994 Review", published on 30 March 1994. My right hon. Friend wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport drawing his attention to that document on the day of publication.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who have been the members of the Landscape Advisory Committee since 1964.

  Mr. Key
  A list of members since 1970 is set out in alphabetical order. Information on members between 1964 and 1969, if available, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Members of Landscape Advisory Committee since 1970

  Sir Henry Aubrey-Fletcher

  Prof. M. Benwell

  Dr. J. A. Bergg

  Prof. G. E. Cherry

  Miss E. Chipchase

  Mr. L. J. Clark

  Prof. M. M. Cole

  Mr. G. P. Crow

  Mr. C. S. Darvill

  Mr. B. de Hamel

  The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Rosse

  Sir Basil Engholm

  Mr. J. V. S. Evans

  Ms E. A. O. Evans

  Mr. C. R. Ferens

  Prof. P. J. Fowler

  Mrs. E. J. Garland

  Mr. H. J. R. Geddes

  Mr. A. D. Gill

  Mr. D. R. Greig

  Prof. J. L. Harper

  Col. F. M. Hill

  Mr. E. Hodgkin

  Mrs. J. Jack

  Prof. D. K. C. Jones

  Sir Laurence Kirwan

  The Hon. Trevor Lewis

  Sir Giles Loder

  Mr. D. Lovejoy

  Mrs. P. E. Lunn

  Dr. S. MacGregor

  438

  Prof. M. MacKeith

  Mr. J. M. McCluskey

  Mr. M. R. Porter

  Miss W. E. Powell

  Miss K. M. Powell

  Mr. J. F. W. Rathbone

  Ms V. J. Russell

  Mr. M. O. Slocock

  Sir Henry Abel Smith

  Mr. J. St. Bodfan-Gruffydd

  Mr. M. E. G. Taylor

  Sir George Taylor

  Mrs. V. Wakefield

  Mr. F. R. Waley

  Prof. A. E. Weddle

  Mr. E. R. Wheatley-Hubbard

  Mr. N. Whittaker

  Mr. R. Winter

  Prof. M. J. Wise

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost of the Landscape Advisory Committee in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Key
  Over the last 10 years, expenditure incurred by Landscape Advisory Committee members on travel, subsistence and accommodation in connection with Committee meetings and site visits has been as follows:

  Year

  Cost (£)

  1984–85

  17,532

  1985–86

  21,520

  1986–87

  19,475

  1987–88

  19,810

  1988–89

  18,555

  1989–90

  28,974

  1990–91

  52,062

  1991–92

  47,155

  1992–93

  53,898

  1993–94

  48,593

  In addition, the Committee was supported throughout this period by a secretariat consisting of two full-time staff whose costs including salaries and accommodation amounted to around £60,000 in 1993–94. Substantial costs were also incurred by officials and consultants attending meetings and site visits and preparing briefing material. These costs are not held centrally.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the three rolling stock companies will tell passenger railway service operators how much they will be charged for using their rolling stock in the current financial year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The timing of this is a matter for the British Rail board. I understand from British Rail that the rolling stock companies intend to issue indicative prices within the next two or three weeks.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the terms of the shadow franchise agreements for the six railway shadow franchises which came into operation on 1 April will be finalised; and whether the terms of the agreements including the minimum service specification and the performance standards will be made public.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is the franchising director's intention to finalise the details of the shadow franchise agreements for the first six franchises within the next few months. These will be made public except in so far as that might damage the commercial interest of the businesses concerned.

  Cyclists (Protective Headgear)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the possibility of requiring all cyclists to wear protective headgear on public roads.

  Mr. Key
  The benefits of cycle helmets are well established, particularly for children and young adults who are most at risk of injury when cycling. Research shows that good standard cycle helmets reduce the chance of head injury by 85 per cent. and brain injury by 88 per cent. We actively promote helmet wearing but are not minded to regulate to make it a criminal offence to ride a bicycle without a helmet.

  Road Bridge Repairs
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of(a) his Department's annual spending on and (b) the annual grant to local authorities for repairs to road bridges for each year since 1985 and in each of the years of the current public expenditure White Paper.

  Mr. Key
  The figures are:

  Year

  Department of transport Capital expenditure on trunk road structures

  Local authority expenditure accepted for transport supplementary grant(TSG)

  £ million

  £ million

  1985–86

  7

  —

  1986–87

  37

  —

  1987–88

  51

  —

  1988–89

  31

  —

  1989–90

  66

  —

  1990–91

  87

  —

  1991–92

  120

  91

  1992–93

  116

  111

  1993–94

  129

  137

  1994–95

  150

  137

  1995–96

  155

  —

  1996–97

  155

  —

  Notes:
  1. Department of Transport Expenditure on Trunk Road Structures:

  a. figures up to and including 1992–93 are actual outturn expenditure;

  b. the figure for 1993–94 is estimated outturn expenditure;

  c. figures for 1994–95 onwards are planned expenditure by the Highways Agency.

  2. Local Authority expenditure accepted for TSG:

  a. grant is paid at a rate of 50% of accepted expenditure;

  b. resources for local authority bridge maintenance were transferred from Revenue Support Grant (RSG—paid by DOE) to TSG in 1991–92. The Department of Transport has no details of allocations to local authorities for this purpose in earlier years;

  c. levels of support for bridges for 1995–96 onwards have not yet been determined.

  Bus Companies
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to require local authorities to divest their interests in bus companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is our policy that all the remaining local authority-owned bus companies should be transferred to the private sector. We have been encouraging their voluntary sale. I am pleased that 28, including most 440
  recently Greater Manchester Buses, have already been sold. Measures to require the sale of local authority bus companies will be introduced when a suitable legislative opportunity occurs.

  Airspace
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many unauthorised penetrations of controlled or regulated airspace were reported in each year since 1988; and what proportion of the number in each year were by military aircraft.

  Mr. Norris
  As this is a matter within the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority, I am asking the chairman of the CAA to write to the hon. Member.

  School Minibuses (Accidents)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many children have been killed or injured in accidents involving school minibuses in each region in each of the last five years.

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

  Minibus1 casualties: Number of school pupils2 killed or injured: Great Britain 1988–92

  Departmental regions

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Northern

  10

  9

  10

  9

  16

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  18

  10

  25

  22

  20

  East Midlands

  9

  16

  37

  36

  34

  Eastern

  49

  38

  41

  47

  41

  South-East

  34

  35

  50

  26

  38

  Greater London

  10

  9

  18

  0

  32

  South West

  24

  31

  28

  7

  29

  West Midlands

  24

  26

  12

  21

  10

  North West

  56

  28

  54

  21

  13

  England

  234

  202

  275

  189

  233

  Wales

  24

  33

  14

  40

  45

  Scotland

  51

  36

  48

  23

  42

  Total

  309

  271

  337

  252

  320

  1 Includes motor caravans.

  2 Aged 0-15.

  London Heliport Study Group
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current membership of the London heliport study group; and when it is expected to report.

  Mr. Norris
  The membership of the London heliport study working group comprises representatives of the Department of Transport, Department of the Environment, Department of Trade and Industry, Civil Aviation Authority, British Helicopter Advisory Board, London Planning Advisory Committee, and Westland London heliport. The group expects to report by summer 1994.

  River Thames Working Group
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the objectives of the River Thames working group; and when the group will report to him.

  Mr. Norris
  The River Thames working group, which I chair, is reviewing current transport uses of the River Thames and possible constraints on those uses. It will
  441
  establish the potential for the development of the river for transport, particularly freight, alongside other river interests, and identify and encourage private sector-led initiatives. My Department has recently engaged Wootton Jeffreys Consultants Ltd. to assist it in analysing the information that the group has received following a wide-ranging consultation exercise which I launched last year. The working group is aiming to complete its report in July.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many heavy goods vehicles have suffered shattered windscreens during trial runs through the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Commissioning of the tunnel system is a matter for Eurotunnel. I understand that no vehicle windscreens have been shattered.

  Motorcycles (Leg Protectors)
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department is planning into leg protectors for motor cycles.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 March to a question tabled by the late hon. Member for Bradford, South,Official Report, column 107.

  Marine Safety Agency
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of setting up the new Marine Safety Agency.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: The additional cost for setting up the Marine Safety Agency was approximately £253,000.

  Coastguard Service
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of setting up the new Coastguard Agency and replacing the National Coastguard Service.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: The cost of setting up the Coastguard Agency, comprising Her Majesty's Coastguard and the marine pollution control unit was £231,000.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether the recently published joint National Air Traffic Service and International Air Transport Association recommendation leaflet concerning runway occupancy times and the need for pilots of landing aircraft to ensure expeditious clearance of the runway has been approved by the safety regulation group of the regulatory authority; and whether the associated air traffic procedures have been approved by the Civil Aviation Authority's air traffic control standards department;

  (2) what are the reasons for establishing a runway hourly movement monitor to compare actual movement rates achieved with the declared runway capacity and for the requirement of air traffic controllers at Manchester to submit to an internal management investigation if they fail to achieve the declared hourly movement rate.
  442
  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: As these two questions concern matters that are within the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority, I am asking the chairman of the CAA to write to the hon. Member.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to meet the chairman of Railtrack to discuss the tendering timetable for retail developments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the chairman of Railtrack to discuss a range of issues, including opportunities for retail developments on Railtrack property. We expect Railtrack to report during the summer on the prospects for retail and development opportunities at certain major stations.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Welfare
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if all sheep exported from the United Kingdom to Spain for slaughter and for further fattening(a) have been and (b) will be slaughtered in abattoirs which are guaranteed by the Spanish Government as complying with directive 74/577/EEC requiring the stunning of animals before slaughter.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The answer given to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 16 February,Official Report, column 847, set out the arrangements for ensuring that animals for immediate slaughter in Spain would be sent only to slaughterhouses that the Spanish authorities had confirmed as meeting Community welfare rules. These arrangements do not apply to animals for further fattening. The Government have, however, agreed further safeguards with the Spanish authorities under which they will carry out checks to ensure that consignments for slaughter or further fattening are correctly described.

  Norwegian Fisheries Regime
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will outline the conservation and control regime for fisheries allowed to Norway under the entry agreement with the EEC in(a) northern waters and (b) the rest of Norwegian fishing grounds; and in which ways this departs from the common fisheries policy as applied in British waters;

  (2) what proposals she has for extending the Norwegian management and control regime for fisheries permitted under the entry agreement with the EU to British waters; and what plans she has to urge that such a regime be extended to other national waters.

  Mr. Jack
  In waters north of 62 deg. north, for a transitional period of three years from accession, Norway is authorised to maintain:

  (a) national control measures which involve, for example, making rendezvous with inspectors at sea, and

  (b) the ban on discarding fish at sea and the system for opening and closing fisheries in biologically sensitive zones, neither of which policies is applied by the CFP.

  443
  Norway is also authorised to maintain the existing technical conservation measures—national mesh size rules, for example—applicable north of 62 deg. north for one year.

  South of 62 deg. north, for a transitional period of one year from accession, Norway is authorised to maintain national control measures, the discard ban and the existing technical conservation measures applying in these waters.

  Before the end of these transitional periods the Council will decide on future arrangements with the objective of incorporating Norwegian practices into the CFP where appropriate. The discussions in the Council will provide an opportunity to consider the applicability of these measures outside existing Norwegian waters.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she last met members of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss the Norwegian accession.

  European Community Foodstuffs held in Public Intervention Storage ('000 tonnes)

  Commodity

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  Butter

  271

  128

  9

  100

  692

  841

  Skimmed Milk Powder

  227

  230

  286

  567

  990

  617

  Wheat

  1,821

  4,914

  2,978

  6,300

  6,857

  8,782

  Barley

  69

  1,086

  740

  1,625

  1,102

  1,845

  Rye

  549

  513

  321

  293

  249

  426

  Durum

  143

  157

  307

  771

  714

  858

  Total Cereals

  2,582

  6,670

  4,346

  8,989

  8,922

  11,911

  Beef

  275

  302

  181

  203

  372

  610

  Wine Alcohol (million litres)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2

  Note:
  n/a = not applicable (no Public Intervention Storage arrangements).

  Animals (Transport)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action she has taken to raise awareness of issues of welfare in the transportation of live animals with the Governments of other member states.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government take every opportunity in the Council of Agriculture Ministers and elsewhere to press for our high standards of animal welfare during transport to be applied throughout the European Community.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what animal identification methods will be acceptable under the EU directive 92/65/EEC on the import and export of animals.

  Mr. Soames
  The current arrangements for identifying animals for import and export are not altered by directive 92/65 except in the case of cats and dogs imported into the United Kingdom. From 1 July 1994 traded cats and dogs imported under the directive will have to be identified with an implanted microchip.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether Ministers of her Department have supported in meetings of the Council of Ministers a maximum journey time of eight hours for livestock.

  Mr. Soames
  In Community negotiations the United Kingdom is taking full account of the case for journey limits and how they could be enforced.
  444
  Mr. Jack
  I briefed representatives of the NFFO and of other fishermen's organisations fully on the outcome of the Norwegian accession negotiations on 22 March.

  Reserve Stocks
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current size in terms of(a) weight and (b) volume of the European Communities' reserve stocks of (a) cereals, (b) beef, (c) grain, (d) butter, (e) milk and (f) wine; and how these have varied since 1979.

  Mr. Jack
  Tables showing current levels of all produce held in intervention within the European Community are deposited in the Library of the House at monthly intervals, most recently on 8 April. The information currently held in the House Library goes back to January 1985; figures for earlier years were not prepared on the same basis, but the table gives intervention stocks as at 31 December for the years 1979–84.

  European Directives
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what actions(a) the European Commission and (b) other member states can take against member states that do not enforce implementation of European directives.

  Mr. Jack
  Where the European Commission considers that a member state has failed to fulfil a Community obligation it may, in accordance with article 169 of the treaty of Rome, deliver a reasoned opinion, after giving the member state the opportunity to submit its observations. If the member state does not comply with the opinion, the Commission may bring the matter before the European Court of Justice. Similarly, if a member state considers that another member state has failed to fulfil a Community obligation it may, under article 170 of the treaty of Rome, bring the matter before the European Court of Justice. Before it does so, however, it must give the Commission an opportunity to consider the dispute.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the outcome of the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 12 April.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 13 April 1994,Official Report, columns 183-84.

  Premium Payments
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the budget, in real and nominal terms, for England in (i) 1991, (ii) 1992, (iii) 1993

  £ million

  Scheme

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94 forecast

  1994–95 estimate

  Sheep annual premium

  Nominal

  117

  139

  208

  183

  At 1991–92 prices

  117

  135

  198

  n/a

  Suckler cow premium

  Nominal

  34

  34

  31

  56

  At 1991–92 prices

  34

  33

  29

  n/a

  Beef special premium

  Nominal

  26

  20

  49

  69

  At 1991–92 prices

  26

  20

  47

  n/a

  Fruit and Vegetables
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the total amounts of fruit and vegetables destroyed by the European Community in 1991–92; what was the purpose of such destruction; and when comparable figures will be produced for 1992–93.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: The information, produced by the Commission, on the destruction of fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market in 1991–92 is as follows:

  Product

  Quantity destroyed (tonnes)

  Cauliflowers

  40,503

  Apricots

  93,653

  Tomatoes

  49,370

  Aubergines

  543

  Nectarines

  36,362

  Peaches

  336,992

  Lemons

  13,445

  Pears

  634

  Grapes

  291

  Apples

  26,134

  Satsumas

  1—

  Mandarins

  2,723

  Clementines

  1,654

  Oranges

  154,943

  1—No withdrawals.

  The EC fruit and vegetable regime provides growers with compensation for withdrawing produce from the market when prices fall below a certain level. This produce may be disposed of by several means with destruction being a last resort once all other alternative uses have been exhausted. The Government consider that the system sustains overproduction and are therefore pressing the Commission for a radical reform of the arrangements.

  We expect the Commission to produce comparable figures for 1992–93 shortly.
  446
  and (iv) her estimate for 1994 for (a) the sheep annual premium, (b) the suckler cow premium and (c) the beef special premium.

  Mr. Jack
  The table shows expenditure by financial year under the sheep annual premium, the suckler cow premium and the beef special premium schemes in nominal terms and at constant 1991–92 prices.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Accommodation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated total cost of the refurbishment of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office accommodation at 11 Belgrave road, London SW1.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not responsible for 11 Belgrave road, London SW1.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated total cost of the refurbishment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office building, Marlborough house.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not responsible for Marlborough house.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated total cost of the refurbishment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office building, Depot, Chadwick street, London SW1.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not responsible for Depot, Chadwick street, London SW1.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated total cost of the refurbishment of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office building, Thames house, Millbank, London SW1.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not responsible for Thames house, Millbank, London SW1.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated total cost of the refurbishment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office building, 1 to 19 Victoria street, London SW1.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not responsible for 1 to 19 Victoria street, London SW1.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what administrative framework the IGADD nations have set up to ensure the implementation of the recent agreement in Nairobi between the participants in the Sudanese civil war.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to his written question on 13 April at column 206.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to appointing a full-time Nairobi-based diplomat to monitor both political and aid issues particularly in southern Sudan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Staffing requirements at all overseas posts are kept under regular review. We are currently satisfied with the coverage of southern Sudan which we receive from our missions in Khartoum and Nairobi.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in Sudan to introduce zones of tranquility in line with the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development agreement in Nairobi.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A sub-committee has been set up to implement the agreements reached at the recent IGADD talks. It is still too early to establish what progress this sub-committee can make.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is being done by Britain and the European Union to give practical support to the IGADD talks on Sudan in Nairobi; and what action is now planned by(a) the international community and (b) the United Kingdom to assist the special rapporteur to be effective following the extension of his appointment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Discussions are taking place with EU partners and the United Kingdom will be making a bilateral contribution.

  Britain co-sponsored the resolution for the extension of the United Nations special rapporteur's mandate, and we will consider any request for assistance which he might make.

  European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral answer of 30 March,Official Report, column 922, and his written answer of 12 April, Official Report, column 20, if he will now seek by letter to obtain a written confirmation of the assurances he received during the contacts between his office and that of Mr. Delors and place copies of the correspondence in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No, the undertakings in the social field to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State referred in his answer of 30 March were oral assurances.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British nationals have recently been living in Rwanda; and what has been done to ensure their safety.
  448
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Seventy-eight nationals were registered with our honorary consul in Rwanda.

  From early morning on Sunday 10 April, through the BBC World Service and our honorary consul in Kigali, British nationals were advised to leave the country. By the evening of Wednesday 13 April all those who wished to leave had done so. We liaised closely with the Belgian and French authorities who co-ordinated the evacuation of British nationals from Rwanda. Most travelled by air to Belgium, France and Kenya. British missions in those countries met the evacuees and, when necessary, helped with onward travel.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Russian Government about the adequacy of its plans to counter the consequences of radioactive infection after Chernobyl and to prevent any future radioactive accident.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since the break-up of the former Soviet Union, responsibility for Chernobyl has fallen to the Ukrainian Government. A number of representations have been made in particular to the Russian and Ukrainian Governments by western Governments on the need to avoid a recurrence of the Chernobyl accident and to improve the levels of safety in Soviet-designed nuclear power reactors. The United Kingdom is engaged both bilaterally and multilaterally in providing both countries with substantial technical and other assistance to that end.

  Russia-European Union Agreement
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the major contents of the proposed agreement between Russia and the European Union.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The main features of the draft partnership and co-operation agreement under negotiation between Russia and the European Union are:

  (a) Regular political dialogue (including at Head of Government level).

  (b) Limited trade concessions. These consist of the granting of most favoured nation treatment and the abolition of quantitative restrictions accompanied by safeguard provisions. It sets the eventual goal of a possible free trade area between Russia and the EU. Progress towards this goal will be reviewed in 1998.

  (c) Sectoral cooperation in areas such as the approximation of laws, funded by technical assistance through the TACIS scheme.

  (d) The draft also allows for future evolution of the agreement and for its suspension in the event of either side failing to fulfil its obligations.

  Nuclear Weapons, South Asia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he is considering to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the south Asia region.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our objective remains to secure India and Pakistan's accession to the non-proliferation treaty as non-nuclear weapon states. We continue to encourage both countries to engage in dialogue on regional security, and we support United States proposals to establish a multilateral forum on regional security in south Asia. We have also voted in favour of a resolution at the United Nations which calls for the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in south Asia.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent President Yeltsin is consulted over all strategic decisions relating to UNPROFOR operations in Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Regular consultations in the Security Council and bilaterally take place between Ministers and officials of nations closely involved in the former Yugoslavia, of which Russia is one.

  Economic Community of West African States
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to provide advice and assistance to the Economic Community of West African States in order to help develop its peacekeeping and peacemaking roles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has no plans to provide advice or assistance to ECOWAS in the field of peace keeping, although we supported the establishment of the United Nations operation in Liberia in which ECOMOG troops work alongside United Nations military observers.

  Intelligence Services Bill
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the source of funding for compensation payments to complainants as provided for in the Intelligence Services Bill.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under the provisions of the Bill, the tribunal may direct my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to pay to a complainant such sum by way of compensation as may be specified either by the tribunal or by the commissioner. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would consider all the individual circumstances of a case before determining from which budget any compensation award would come. Any payments would have to come out of existing provisions.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Proton Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Proton cars were purchased by his Department in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and at what cost.

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

  Health and Social Services Trusts
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which organisations have been consulted over the membership of the proposed Down and Lisburn unit trust and Craigavon and Banbridge unit trust; and which organisations were invited to nominate members to the trusts.

  Mr. Ancram
  My noble Friend Baroness Denton, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State advises me that her 450
  predecessor did not consult on the membership of the Down and Lisburn and Craigavon and Banbridge Health and Social Services Trust boards.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he or his colleagues had with the Eastern and Southern health and social services boards regarding the membership of the boards of the Down and Lisburn unit trust and Craigavon and Banbridge trust.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who were the lay helpers or assessors who were involved in the creation of the Down and Lisburn and Craigavon and Banbridge trusts; and what was their role.

  Mr. Ancram
  The lay helper for the Down and Lisburn trust was Mrs. Gillian Shaw and the lay helper for Craigavon and Banbridge community trust was Mr. David Cook.

  The position of lay helper in any trust is informal—voluntary and unpaid. Normally the role of lay helper is to assist in drawing up the formal appliction, and to support the sponsors of the application by giving potential trusts access to the types of skills and experience that non-executive members are expected to bring to the trust board. They are also expected to identify potential candidates for appointment as non-executive directors on the board of the trust.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what appointments were made to the boards of the Craigavon and Banbridge and Down and Lisburn unit trusts; when they took office; and what is their remuneration.

  Mr. Ancram
  On 1 September 1993 the following appointments were made to the board of the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust:

  Chairman

  Mr. Gillian Shaw

  Non-Executive Directors

  Mrs. Denise Fitzsimons

  Mr. Albert Baird

  Mr. Alfie Linehan

  Mrs. Ann Colgan

  Mr. Mark Ennis

  Mr. David Cook was appointed chairman of the Craigavon and Banbridge Community Health and Social Services Trust on 23 November 1993. On 1 March 1994 the following non-executive directors were appointed:

  Mr. John Fairleigh

  Mr. Cyril McElhinney

  Ms Roisin McDonough

  Mr. Michael Morrow

  Remuneration for chairmen is based on the revenue spending of the trust. On that basis, Mrs. Shaw receives £19,285 per annum and Mr. Cook receives £17,145. All non-executive directors receive £5,000 per annum.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations took place with the district councils in the Eastern and Southern board area, with members of the Southern and Eastern health boards, with members of the Southern and Eastern health and social services councils, or with hon. Members with
  451
  constituencies covering the Southern and Eastern boards, regarding the membership of the Down and Lisburn and Craigavon and Banbridge trusts.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to review the social fund system in respect of regional differences in applications and awards, the removal of budgetary considerations, clearer definitions of the circumstances in which an award is made, clarification of the priority groups and a wider remit for those the fund assists.

  Mr. Ancram
  The operation of the discretionary social fund is monitored routinely. We believe that the basic principles of the fund are right and working well. Nevertheless, we continue to monitor its effectiveness and to introduce operational improvements as required.

  Details of the basis of allocation and district allocations for 1994–95 are in the Library.

  Dental Services
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to undertake a review into the funding of children's dentistry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr.Ancram
  There are no plans, at present, to undertake a review specifically into the funding arrangements for children's dentistry. The Government are, however, currently formulating proposals in relation to the future of national health service dentistry as a whole, and those proposals will take account of child dental health.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the amount spent annually per child under 18 years on general dental services in Northern Ireland, irrespective of registration with a general dental practitioner.

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), on 11 March,Official Report, columns 436-37.

  Overgrazing
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what procedures are in place to monitor whether meetings between his officials and producers to discuss ways of reducing overgrazing have led to reductions in overgrazing.

  Mr. Ancram
  County agriculture development officers have instructions to satisfy themselves that any measures agreed with farmers to reduce overgrazing are sufficiently monitored.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what procedures are in place to reduce

  Table 1—Nominal Terms

  Financial Years (£)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  11994–95

  Sheep Annual Premium

  30,763,195

  28,653,416

  42,066,430

  34,938,000

  Suckler Cow Premium

  16,578,500

  17,023,513

  15,401,150

  36,614,000

  Beef Special Premium

  7,226,097

  6,226,618

  14,655,469

  38,499,000

  1Estimated

  452
  environmental damage caused through overgrazing consequent on that damage continuing after hill livestock compensatory allowances are withheld as a result of the introduction of the hill livestock compensatory allowance overgrazing clause.

  Mr. Ancram
  There are no overgrazing provisions in the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme beyond the withholding of allowances. A consultation paper has, however, recently been issued on a proposal to introduce similar overgrazing provisions with other livestock subsidy schemes.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many farmers have had hill livestock compensatory allowances withheld in 1992, 1993 and 1994 as a direct result of the introduction of the hill livestock compensatory allowance overgrazing clause.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many farmers have been approached by his officials to discuss ways of reducing overgrazing in each year since the introduction of the hill livestock compensatory allowance overgrazing clause; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  None. The overgrazing provisions are designed to ensure that farmers are informed of concern about changes in the condition of vegetation. Only a very small minority of farmers is likely to be affected.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what procedures are in place to monitor whether overgrazing has reduced following the withholding of hill livestock compensatory allowances as a direct result of the introduction of the hill livestock compensatory allowance overgrazing clause.

  Mr. Ancram
  No hill livestock compensatory allowances have been withheld.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many hill livestock compensatory allowances he has withheld in 1992, 1993 and 1994 as a direct result of the introduction of the hill livestock compensatory allowance overgrazing clause; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Livestock Allowances
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the budget, in real and nominal terms, for Northern Ireland in (i) 1991, (ii) 1992, (iii) 1993 and (iv) his estimate for 1994 for(a) the sheep annual premium, (b) the suckler cow premium and (c) the beef special premium.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is in the table:
  453

  Table 2—Real Terms

  Financial Years (£)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  11994–95

  Sheep Annual Premium

  30,763,195

  27,785,774

  40,111,274

  N/A

  Suckler Cow Premium

  16,578,500

  16,508,031

  14,685,339

  N/A

  Beef Special Premium

  7,226,097

  6,038,072

  13,974,314

  N/A

  1Estimated

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Car Crime
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the rate of car crime in each year since 1990;

  (2) how many thefts from vehicles were reported in each year since 1990;

  (3) how many vehicles were reported stolen in each year since 1990;

  (4) how many incidents of joyriding were reported in each year since 1990;

  (5) what is the clear-up rate of vehicle crime, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of reported cases by the police (a) nationally and (b) in Lancashire in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to offences recorded by the police and is published annually in chapter 2 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales"; copies of which are available in the Library. Information for 1993 is not yet available.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of hijacking of cars were reported in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Braille Ballot Papers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to provide Braille ballot papers at polling stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to do so.

  Racial Incidents
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racial incidents were reported to police forces in England and Wales in 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Police forces are required to provide this information at the end of the fiscal year rather than the calendar year. The number of racial incidents recorded by each police force in England and Wales for the year April 1993 to March 1994 will be published once all the figures have been received and collated.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many European Union citizens from other member states have registered to vote as per 454
  their entitlements under the Maastricht treaty; if he will provide a breakdown by parliamentary constituency; and what advice he gave to local registration officers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about the number of Union citizens registering to vote at the forthcoming European parliamentary elections will not be available until the special supplementary register is published on 9 May. We intend to make the information public as soon as possible after that. Guidance has been issued to electoral registration officers on all matters relating to the registration of Union citizens.

  Prosecution Limitation Rule
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases he is aware of in each of the last 10 years where a prosecution for murder or manslaughter has not been possible because of the 366 day rule.

  Mr. Maclean
  Such information is not collected centrally. I understand, however, that the Crown Prosecution Service is aware of five cases in the last four years where the year and a day rule may have been a factor in a decision not to bring a prosecution for murder or manslaughter in England and Wales.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a breakdown of asylum seekers held in detention on 21 March(a) by nationality, (b) by gender, (c) by length of detention, (d) by place of detention and (e) by immigration status at the time of application.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested on the number of asylum seekers detained on 21 March is not available. The information available relates to people detained under Immigration Act powers on 15 April, who had applied for asylum at some stage and is as follows:

  Number

  (a) Nationality

  Algeria

  51

  Albania

  1

  Angola

  15

  Bangladesh

  7

  Brazil

  1

  Cameroon

  1

  China

  7

  Columbia

  7

  Congo

  1

  Cyprus

  3

  Djibouti

  1

  Egypt

  3

  Eritrea

  1

  Ethiopia

  12

  Ecuador

  1

  455

  Number

  Guinea Bissau

  1

  Ghana

  78

  Haiti

  1

  India

  141

  Iran

  2

  Iraq

  3

  Israel

  1

  Ivory Coast

  16

  Jamaica

  1

  Kenya

  19

  Liberia

  3

  Libya

  3

  Malawi

  1

  Nationality Doubtful

  4

  Morocco

  1

  Niger

  4

  Nigeria

  88

  Pakistan

  21

  Peru

  1

  Philippines

  1

  Poland

  2

  Romania

  13

  Russia

  3

  Sierra Leone

  8

  Singapore

  1

  Sri Lanka

  25

  Slovenia

  2

  Somalia

  3

  South Africa

  3

  Sudan

  1

  Tanzania

  1

  Togo

  2

  Turkey

  49

  Uganda

  7

  United States of America

  1

  Zaire

  26

  Zambia

  1

  Zimbabwe

  1

  Total

  651

  Number

  (b) By gender

  Males

  608

  Females

  43

  Total

  651

  Number

  (c) By length of detention

  Over 12 months

  114

  6 to 12 months

  131

  2 to 6 months

  1188

  1 to 2 months

  153

  Under 1 month

  183

  Total

  1369

  1 These figures do not include the 282 illegal entrants detained, for whom no breakdown as to length of detention is readily available.

  (d) By place of detention

  Immigration Service

  Number

  Campsfield House

  136

  Harmondsworth

  87

  Gatwick Beehive

  12

  Queens Building

  13

  Stansted

  6

  Port Detention

  8

  Newhaven

  3

  456

  Prison Service

  Number

  Bedford

  1

  Belmarsh

  1

  Blakenhurst

  21

  Brinsford RC

  4

  Bristol

  1

  Bullingdon

  1

  Brixton

  5

  Canterbury

  22

  Camp Hill

  1

  Cardiff

  1

  Chelmsford

  1

  Dorchester

  1

  Dover

  13

  Dumfries

  5

  Durham

  1

  Elmley

  1

  Exeter

  4

  Feltham

  5

  Gateshead

  2

  Glen Parva

  2

  Gloucester

  3

  Greenock

  2

  Haslar1

  82

  High Down

  14

  Holloway

  2

  Hull

  2

  Leeds

  1

  Leicester

  1

  Lewes

  2

  Norwich

  5

  Pentonville

  13

  Reading

  2

  Risley

  2

  Rochester

  1

  Saughton

  1

  Shrewsbury

  3

  Strangeways

  3

  Walton

  2

  Wandsworth

  2

  Wellingborough

  1

  Winchester

  5

  Winson Green

  29

  Wormwood Scrubs

  4

  Police Cells

  111

  Total

  651

  1 Haslar holding centre is primarily an Immigration Service detention centre, although managed by the Prison Service.

  (e) By immigration status at the time of application

  Application made at port following arrival in the United Kingdom

  Illegal Entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  312

  282

  57

  Voluntary Advice Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the level of funding from his Department for voluntary advice services for the financial year 1993–94 and each of the previous 10 years; and how many schemes received funding in each year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Figures for 1993–94 are not yet available. Figures for the financial years 1989–90 to 1992–93 are given in the table. These indicate the number of schemes run by voluntary organisations where the main
  457
  aims included the provision of advice and information and show the level of Home Office funding. Figures for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Financial year

  Number of schemes

  Level of funding £

  1989–90

  7

  333,584

  1990–91

  23

  474,160

  1991–92

  22

  663,635

  1992–93

  51

  721,606

  Immigration Detainees (Hunger Strike)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what surveillance has been carried out of hunger strikers at Campsfield detention centre.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Detainees who claim to have refused meals for more than three days are placed in a separate unit at Campsfield house so that their medical condition can be closely monitored by qualified medical staff.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detainees, held under the Immigration Acts, are currently on hunger strike; for what length of time each has been on hunger strike; and where they are currently held.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 15 April, 20 people detained under Immigration Act powers in the following locations were claiming to have refused meals since the dates shown:

  Places of detention

  Number of detainees refusing meals

  Date

  Campsfield house

  7

  11 March (1),

  12 March (1),

  13 March (1),

  14 March (2),

  28 March (2)

  Brixton

  1

  30 March

  Canterbury

  2

  8 March,

  15 March

  Exeter

  1

  7 April

  High Down

  4

  9 April (3),

  13 April (1)

  Rochester

  1

  20 March

  Winchester

  1

  8 March

  Winson Green

  1

  19 March

  Alexandra hospital

  1

  30 March

  Epsom general hospital

  1

  8 March

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the hunger strikers in detention centres; and if he will make a statement on his policy towards them.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have received representations and inquiries from 20 hon. Members, as well as from noble 458
  Lords, representatives of the clergy, members and former members of Oxford university, organisations and members of the public.

  It has been made clear to those detainees refusing food that we will not be pressurised into granting release as a result of this action. Equally, we are concerned to ensure that they understand the medical implications for themselves and that their medical condition is closely monitored. In addition, all detention is reviewed regularly and at an increasingly senior level. This review seeks to ensure that everything possible is being done to resolve the detainee's position so that he or she can be released or removed from the United Kingdom without unnecessary delay.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total cost of transferring prisoners from Blakenhurst prison to other prisons following the incident at Blakenhurst on 24 February;

  (2) whether the inquiry into the incident at Her Majesty's Prison Blakenhurst on 24 February has yet been completed; and if the results will be made public.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 April 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the incident at Blakenhurst prison on 24 February, and the total cost of transferring prisoners from Blakenhurst to other prisons following that incident.
  United Kingdom Detention Services (UKDS) bore all the costs of transporting the prisoners after the incident and thus the Prison Service have not incurred additional expenditure.
  The report of the inquiry into the disturbance at Blakenhurst prison was submitted on 7 March 1994. Reports of such inquiries are internal management documents which we do not publish for the reasons given in my letter to you of 10 March [Official Report: Col. 360 10 March 1994].

  Legal Advice
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the provision of a network of independent advice and law centres throughout England and Wales; and what response he has made to the Advice 2000 initiative launched by the Advice Services Alliance.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to his question to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Police Discipline
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals have been made to him by police officers in each of the last five years and how many such cases involved disciplinary proceedings which had resulted in(a) dismissal, (b) the officer being required to resign and (c) reduction in rank; how many such appeals in each category were decided in each of the last five years; in how many cases the appeals were (i) upheld or (ii)

  459
  varied; and where reduction in rank was involved what was the reduction originally proposed and what was imposed after the appeal.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Statistical information relating to police disciplinary appeals is prepared on the basis of cases completed in each calendar year. Figures for the last five years are as follows:

  Appeals completed

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Total number of appeals

  42

  45

  43

  58

  35

  Total appeals against dismissal,

  4

  12

  8

  14

  8

  of which:

  appeal allowed

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  punishment varied

  3

  6

  3

  1

  —

  Total appeals against requirement to resign,

  26

  21

  21

  20

  19

  of which:

  appeal allowed

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  punishment varied

  5

  4

  1

  4

  4

  Total appeals against reduction in rank,

  7

  6

  2

  12

  3

  of which:

  appeal allowed

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  punishment varied

  4

  2

  1

  2

  2

  Analysis of reductions in rank

  Original punishment

  Result of appeal

  1989

  Chief inspector to constable

  Reduced to sergeant

  Inspector to sergeant

  Varied to financial punishment

  Inspector to Constable

  Appeal dismissed

  Sergeant to Constable

  Varied to financial punishment

  Sergeant to Constable

  Varied to reprimand

  Sergeant to Constable (two cases)

  Appeal dismissed

  1990

  Inspector to sergeant

  Allowed

  Inspector to Constable

  Appeal dismissed

  Sergeant to Constable

  Varied to financial punishment

  Sergeant to Constable (three cases)

  Appeal dismissed

  1991

  Chief inspector to inspector

  Varied to reprimand

  Sergeant to Constable

  Appeal dismissed

  1992

  Chief inspector to inspector

  Appeal dismissed

  Inspector to Sergeant (three cases)

  Appeal dismissed

  Sergeant to Constable (two cases)

  Varied to financial punishment

  Sergeant to Constable (six cases)

  Appeal dismissed

  1993

  Chief inspector to inspector

  Varied to financial punishment

  Inspector to Constable

  Appeal dismissed

  Sergeant to Constable

  Varied to financial punishment

  European Court
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's current policy towards the right of 460
  individuals automatically to take cases to the European Court and the other reforms proposed by the Council of Europe.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Reforms of the machinery of the European convention on human rights are provided for in the draft 11th protocol to the convention. The United Kingdom proposes to sign the protocol at the meeting of Council of Europe Ministers on 11 May, and to ratify it in due course.

  The United Kingdom has made a major contribution to the reforms, under which the European Commission and Court of Human Rights will be replaced by a single court. We have, for example, taken the lead in securing within the protocol effective and valuable provision for the friendly settlement of cases, for the re-hearing of cases brought by individual application and, in the final negotiations at Strasbourg on 21 to 25 March, for the re-hearing of "inter-state" cases.

  As we explained in those negotiations, there are good reasons why the right of individual petition to the new court should be optional and renewable, whereas the protocol provides for this to be mandatory. We have decided to accept this in order to allow the institutional reforms to which we have made such a contribution to come into effect.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to the last letter, dated 1 February, concerning Mr. A. Benton, reference 30817/93.

  Mr. Maclean
  The West Midlands police are continuing to make detailed inquiries into Mr. Benton's representations of wrongful conviction. I understand from the chief constable that certain lines of inquiry are still outstanding, but that he hopes to submit a report of his inquiries shortly. Once that report is to hand and I have had a chance to consider all the evidence in the round, I will write to the hon. Member to say whether any grounds have been disclosed which would justify referring Mr. Benton's conviction back to the Court of Appeal.

  Campsfield Detention Centre
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what other companies, or subsidiaries, of Group 4 have been used to provide security staff at Campsfield detention centre.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Security at Campsfield house is provided under contract by Group 4 Total Security Ltd., which has, on occasions, called on assistance from staff employed by Group 4 Securitas, including "Euroguard".

  Coroner Peter Brunton
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when his Department plans to assess new evidence relating to Coroner Peter Brunton; and if he will take evidence from Mr. Geoffrey Turner;

  (2) when he expects the investigation into the conduct of the coroner of Ceredigion in the case of Mr. Jeremy Turner to be completed.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  All representations received are being taken into account; any further written representation from Mr. Turner will be considered. We expect to
  461
  report the outcome of the investigation into the conduct of Coroner Peter Brunton, in the case of Mr. Jeremy Turner, to the Lord Chancellor's Department by the end of May.

  Prisons Ombudsman
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in appointing a prisons ombudsman.

  Mr. Howard
  I am pleased to announce that I am appointing Sir Peter Woodhead KCB as the prisons ombudsman. Sir Peter plans to take up the post in May, and our intention is that his new office will be established and will start to receive and investigate prisoners' complaints in the autumn. I welcome this as a significant step in providing a further safeguard for the fair and just treatment of prisoners.

WALES

  Dental Services
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many family health authorities have been unable to provide emergency dental services in the period since December 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Emergency dental service clinics currently operate in all Welsh family health services authority areas except Dyfed. There was a period up to May 1993 when Gwynedd family health services authority was also unable to arrange such a clinic.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients have contacted each family health services authority asking for help in finding a dentist in the period since December 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information provided by Welsh family health services authorities since 4 December 1992 is as follows:

  Number

  Clwyd

  2,029

  Dyfed

  1,645

  Gwent

  1,292

  Gwynedd

  10,816

  Mid Glamorgan

  437

  Powys

  1,264

  South Glamorgan

  2,935

  West Glamorgan

  205

  This information was provided for management purposes only and has not been statistically validated.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dentists have given written notice to have their names removed from dental lists since 4 December 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information provided by Welsh family health services authorities indicates that 44 dentists have given written notice to have their names removed from dental lists since 4 December 1992.

  This information was provided for management purposes only and has not been statistically validated.
  462
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many continuing care dental patients have been de-registered; and how many dentists have de-registered patients in the period since December 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information provided by Welsh family health services authorities indicates that 12,190 patients were de-registered in the period since 4 December 1992.

  During that period the number of dentists de-registering patients has not exceeded 20 in any fortnightly period.

  This information was provided for management purposes only and has not been statistically validated.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many replies he has given since April 1992 to questions from hon. and right hon. Members stating that the information requested is already on the public record.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since April 1992, my predecessor and I received over 5,500 parliamentary questions. It is not possible to identify information in the form requested.

  Orthopaedics
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the chairman of South Glamorgan health authority concerning the provision and funding of additional Midas-Rex drills for revision orthopaedic surgery and other purposes at the Cardiff Royal group of hospitals;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority concerning the treatment centre at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar, near Cardiff.

  Mr. Redwood
  While I have had no consultations with the chairmen, earlier today my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State announced funding for the treatment centre initiative for 1994–95. This includes £945,051 to provide 291 hip/knee replacements at the Rhydlafar centre, including £99,705 as a special measure to tackle waiting lists. Further funding, of £178,000 in 1994–95, is being made available for the extension of the initiative to provide a four-year programme of joint revision surgery within the Cardiff Royal group, including provision for the purchase of a Midas-Rex drill and other essential medical equipment.

  Strategic Development Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each county and district council what allocation of funding has been made under the strategic development scheme and its predecessor schemes, including the urban programmes, rural initiative, projects of national and regional importance and special projects, for the last three years and for 1994–95.

  Mr. Redwood
  Allocations made to local authorities in Wales under the urban programme, rural initiative, projects of regional and national importance and special project schemes between 1991–92 and 1993–94 and the strategic development scheme in 1994–95 are set out in the table.
  463

  Local authority urban programme (UP), rural initiative (RI) project of national and regional importance/special projects (PRNI/SP) and strategic development scheme (SDS) allocations between 1991 and 1995

  Local authority

  Programme

  1991–92

  1992–935

  1993–941

  1994–954

  Clwyd CC

  RI

  165,000

  170,000

  279,000

  —

  UP

  1,904,020

  1,777,985

  804,817

  —

  PRNI/SP

  2,390,000

  2,361,000

  2,000,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,297,237

  Alyn and Deeside CC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  1,297,237

  UP

  257,613

  100,000

  337,500

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,337,527

  Colwyn DC

  RI

  40,000

  —

  32,000

  —

  UP

  315,707

  133,000

  70,000

  —

  PRNUSP

  —

  —

  580,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,447,000

  Delyn

  RI

  120,000

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  810,141

  756,658

  337,998

  —

  PRNI/SP

  650,000

  2,000,000

  1,950,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  728,758

  Glyndwr DC

  RI

  180,000

  270,000

  174,540

  —

  UP

  298,987

  225,237

  118,131

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,186,956

  Rhuddlan BC

  RI

  147,000

  —

  27,000

  —

  UP

  687,000

  1,125,000

  1,137,554

  —

  PRNUSP

  840,000

  825,000

  1,200,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  820,867

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,436,703

  549,559

  246,401

  —

  PRNI/SP

  1,350,000

  200,000

  2,085,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,487,336

  Dyfed CC

  RI

  553,000

  2,312,700

  838,500

  —

  UP

  1,010,538

  303,683

  351,184

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,289,6532

  Carmarthen DC

  RI

  557,650

  126,500

  120,000

  —

  UP

  694,088

  17,865

  17,865

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  183,9333

  Ceredigion DC

  RI

  140,000

  240,000

  302,000

  —

  UP

  277,127

  107,163

  76,781

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  500,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  975,1943

  Dinfwr BC

  RI

  78,000

  125,000

  236,000

  —

  UP

  762,731

  1,080,375

  427,830

  —

  PRNI/SP

  900,000

  600,000

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,443,915

  Llanelli BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  434,327

  1,103,627

  764,057

  —

  PRNI/SP

  1,000,000

  1,095,627

  1,500,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  2,224,300

  Preseli Pembrokeshire DC

  RI

  33,450

  347,104

  1,021,460

  —

  UP

  316,530

  112,439

  140,000

  —

  PRNI/SP

  650,000

  700,000

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  927,015

  South Pembrokeshire DC

  RI

  60,000

  146,000

  678,340

  —

  UP

  274,247

  193,000

  221,792

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  1,000,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  2,481,272

  Gwent CC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  5,479,696

  2,234,987

  1,355,759

  —

  PRNI/SP

  1,054,000

  500,000

  500,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  2,389,256

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  RI

  9,800

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  5,883,525

  1,680,885

  915,728

  —

  PRNI/SP

  1,055,000

  700,000

  655,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,752,723

  Islwyn BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,058,884

  840,476

  722,920

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,256,908

  Monmouth DC

  RI

  236,000

  211,000

  56,911

  —

  UP

  264,683

  29,724

  203,306

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  57,873

  Newport BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  678,392

  815,426

  1,034,386

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,153,335

  464 465

  Local authority

  Programme

  1991–92

  1992–935

  1993–941

  1994–954

  Torfaen BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  801,739

  464,436

  345,344

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  640,075

  Gwynedd CC

  RI

  410,000

  208,000

  641,000

  —

  UP

  1,069,774

  1,495,728

  1,460,011

  —

  PRNI/SP

  248,000

  —

  806,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  2,778,897

  Aberconway BC

  RI

  —

  617,983

  440,000

  —

  UP

  260,900

  190,900

  170,450

  —

  PRNI/SP

  759,000

  2,185,000

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,170,000

  Arfon BC

  RI

  300,000

  94,500

  590,000

  —

  UP

  807,403

  656,932

  381,854

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,126,060

  Dwyfor DC

  RI

  250,000

  156,400

  501,300

  —

  UP

  250,000

  150,000

  121,475

  —

  PRNI/SP

  1,400,000

  1,900,000

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  787,464

  Meirionnydd DC

  RI

  —

  100,000

  526,100

  —

  UP

  399,539

  221,029

  157,595

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  622,576

  Ynys Mon BC

  RI

  52,000

  135,000

  390,000

  —

  UP

  583,406

  318,282

  127,071

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,019,198

  Mid Glamorgan CC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  2,163,187

  2,419,309

  2,195,545

  —

  PRNI/SP

  7,430,000

  2,374,309

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  2,595,176

  Cynon Valley BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  2,272,621

  2,322,765

  1,775,532

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,936,880

  Merthyr Tydfil BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,059,184

  1,487,581

  987,046

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  892,769

  Ogwr BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,185,108

  1,353,902

  1,165,412

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  1,102,278

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rhondda BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,823,311

  1,896,285

  2,804,766

  —

  PRNI/SP

  900,000

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  4,450,290

  Rhymey Valley DC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  642,858

  1,161,266

  744,720

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  800,000

  Taff-Ely BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  665,850

  1,084,591

  533,282

  —

  PRNI/SP

  350,000

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  420,789

  Powys CC

  RI

  277,122

  500,000

  317,000

  —

  UP

  763,280

  114,640

  90,566

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  774,738

  Brecknock BC

  RI

  360,000

  —

  110,000

  —

  UP

  385,000

  250,000

  —

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  1,316,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  2,330,000

  Montgomeryshire DC

  RI

  580,000

  196,826

  262,000

  —

  UP

  560,000

  —

  —

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  125,790

  Radnor DC

  RI

  420,000

  31,000

  —

  —

  UP

  604,686

  15,836

  15,836

  —

  PRN/SP

  805,000

  250,000

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  182,918

  South Glamorgan CC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,136,343

  1,624,470

  1,339,602

  —

  PRNI/SP

  400,000

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,227,698

  Cardiff CC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,206,534

  1,076,683

  1,310,492

  —

  466 467

  Local authority

  Programme

  1991–92

  1992–935

  1993–941

  1994–9544

  PRNUSP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  988,961

  Vale of Glamorgan CC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  288,710

  577,677

  760,882

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,189,632

  West Glamorgan CC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,072,526

  1,358,844

  1,632,821

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  300,000

  1,879,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  2,281,353

  Port Talbot BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  622,700

  183,047

  330,809

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  249,797

  Lliw Valley BC

  RI

  —

  —

  8,344

  —

  UP

  302,300

  432,078

  338,504

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  281,758

  Neath BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  816,520

  679,811

  310,285

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  347,311

  Swansea CC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  554,307

  544,277

  964,804

  —

  PRNI/SP

  1,239,000

  —

  165,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  2,625,245

  1Includes additional in-year allocations.

  2 Includes £0·5 million available to any local authority within the West Wales Task Force area.

  3 Does not include £1·9 million set aside for projects supported in principle for Carmarthen DC and Ceridigion DC.

  4 Includes slippage on schemes carried forward from 1993–94.

  5 Figures updated since Mr. Elfyn Llwyd's question (PQ 934/93/94) answered on 3 March 1994.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what method his Department calculates the index used to determine funding for strategic development schemes in local councils; what method is used to allow for sparsity of population; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Funding under the strategic development scheme is allocated according to the quality of the bids which local authorities submit. In reaching decisions I have regard to the needs reflected in the index of socio-economic conditions. The composition of the index was agreed with the local authority associations and is compiled using eight factors largely derived from census information. The factors are measured in terms of both scale—that is, actual numbers—and intensity—that is, proportion of the population. The data are statistically transformed to make each factor comparable, weighted and combined to give an overall score for each electoral ward. The eight factors are:

  a. Unemployment

  b. Economically active population

  c. Low socio-economic groups

  d. Population loss in the 20 to 59 years age group

  e. Permanently sick

  f Overcrowding in housing

  g. Level of basic housing amenities

  h. Standard mortality rate (relatives values only).

  Sparsity of population is not a factor in the index.

  School Admission Appeals
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the figures, in total and for each local education authority, of admission appeals by parents failing to obtain a place for their child in the school of their choice; and, of this total, how many(a) were withdrawn before committee stage, (b) were settled to mutual satisfaction before
  468
  committee stage, (c) were rejected by committee and (d) were decided in the parents' favour by the committee for each year since 1989–90.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Advice Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy towards the provision of a network of independent advice and law centres throughout Wales; and what response he has made to the aims of the Independent Advice Services in Wales initiative and the Advice 2000 initiative launched by the Advice Services Alliance.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department.

  I cannot comment on the aims included in the reports, "Independent Advice Services in Wales" or "Advice 2000", as I have yet to receive copies.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of funding from the Welsh Office for voluntary advice services for the financial year 1993–94 and each of the previous 10 years; and how many schemes received funding in each year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Figures for 1993–94 are not yet available. Figures for the financial years 1989–90 to 1992–93 are given in the table. These indicate the number of schemes run by voluntary organisations where the main aims included the provision of advice and information, and show the level of Welsh Office funding. Figures for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  469

  Financial year

  Number of schemes

  Welsh Office funding £

  1989–90

  15

  533,025

  1990–91

  14

  673,196

  1991–92

  24

  797,456

  1992–93

  47

  1,990,406

  Table 1

  Cash (£'000s)

  Outturn

  Expected outturn

  Provision

  Scheme

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Sheep annual premium (including LFA supplement)

  78,196

  95,101

  137,201

  133,832

  Suckler cow premium (including extensification 1994–95)

  10,686

  11,428

  9,042

  21,167

  Beef special premium (including extensification 1994–95)

  0

  0

  5,156

  11,604

  Table 2

  1994–95 prices (£'000s)

  Scheme

  Outturn

  Expected outturn

  Provision

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Sheep annual premium (including LFA supplement)

  87,190

  102,119

  142,689

  133,832

  Suckler cow premium (including extensification 1994–95)

  11,915

  12,271

  9,404

  21,167

  Beef special premium (including extensification 1994–95)

  0

  0

  5,362

  11,604

  Notes

  1. The figures in table I for 1991–92 and 1992–93 can be found in the respective appropriation accounts.

  2. The figures in table 2 for 1993–94 will be finalised in the appropriation accounts which will be published later this year.

  3. The figures for 1994–95 are available in the 1994–95 main supply estimate class XV vote 1.

  4. Prior to 1993–94, beef special premium expenditure was the responsibility of the Intervention Board Executive Agency.

  Overgrazing
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers have been approached by his officials to discuss ways of reducing overgrazing in each year since the introduction of the hill livestock compensatory allowance overgrazing clause; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. Claimants for the hill livestock compensatory allowances are warned that if the land on which the stock is kept is found to be overgrazed the payment will be reduced. There have been no cases so far where this has been necessary.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many farmers have had hill livestock compensatory allowances withheld in 1992, 1993 and 1994 as a direct result of the introduction of the hill livestock compensatory allowance overgrazing clause;

  (2) how many hill livestock compensatory allowances he has withheld in 1992, 1993 and 1994 as a direct result

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the budget, in real and nominal terms, for Wales in (i) 1991, (ii) 1992, (iii) 1993 and (iv) his estimate for 1994 for(a) the sheep annual premium, (b) the suckler cow premium and (c) the beef special premium.

  Mr. Redwood
  The budgets for the sheep annual premium, the suckler cow premium and the beef special premium schemes are set out by financial year in the tables. Table 1 shows the expenditure and provision in 1994–95 and table 2 shows the figures at 1994–95 prices adjusted using the current GDP deflator.

  of the introduction of the hill livestock compensatory allowance overgrazing clause; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures are in place to monitor whether meetings between his officials and producers to discuss way of reducing overgrazing have led to reductions in overgrazing.

  Mr. Redwood
  There have been no such meetings in Wales. However, my officials would satisfy themselves that any measures agreed with graziers to reduce overgrazing in the future are adequately monitored.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures are in place to monitor whether overgrazing has reduced following the withholding of hill livestock compensatory allowances as a direct result of the introduction of the hill livestock compensatory allowance overgrazing clause.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Agriculture Department has arrangements with ADAS to undertake monitoring of the
  471
  growth, quality and species composition of the vegetation on land which is considered to be overgrazed, to establish trends and to report on whether the measures taken have been sufficient to arrest further deterioration.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures are in place to reduce environmental damage caused through overgrazing consequent on that damage continuing after hill livestock compensatory allowances are withheld as a result of the introduction of the hill livestock compensatory allowance overgrazing clause.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Department has arrangements with the Agricultural Development Advisory Service to undertake monitoring of the growth, quality and species composition of the vegetation on land which is considered to be overgrazed, to establish trends and to report on whether the measures taken have been sufficient to arrest further deterioration.

HEALTH

  Dental Services, North Warwickshire
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in practice in north Warwickshire(a) take national health services patients and (b) take private patients only, but took national health service patients until 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At September 1993 the number of dentists providing general dental services in the Warwickshire family health services authority area, which includes North Warwickshire, was 149. The comparable number at 30 September 1990 was 146. Dentists are independent contractors who make their own decisions about whether to accept patients under national health service arrangements.

  Nitrites
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence exists to connect the use of nitrites as aphrodisiac drugs with AIDS.

  Mr. Sackville
  Two studies published in 1993 investigated a relationship between the use of alkyl nitrites and the development of AIDS in homosexual men. One study followed up 812 homosexual and bisexual men in San Francisco for eight years. The second study followed 715 homosexual men in Canada for an average of 8·6 years. Both observed that AIDS-associated diseases occurred only in men who were infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Further, use of alkyl nitrites had no effect on the rate at which AIDS developed in HIV-infected men. Significant numbers of HIV-negative men used alkyl nitrites but these men did not develop AIDS-associated diseases. Smaller studies in the United Kingdom have found similar results.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being or has been conducted into the effect of nitrites, with particular reference to amyl nitrite, on the immune system; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no evidence that use of amyl nitrite causes severe, prolonged or progressive immunosuppression. A study of 715 homosexual men in 472
  Canada followed for an average of 8.6 years investigated the effect of amyl nitrite use on the CD4 cells of the immune system. The loss of circulating CD4 cells is observed in all patients with AIDS. The use of amyl nitrite inhalers had no effect on the number of circulating CD4 cells either in HIV-negative or HIV-positive men.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Sherman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will establish a high-level inquiry into the present level of deaths from breast cancer;

  (2) when she will next meet representatives of general practitioners to discuss the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer;

  (3) what steps she is taking to reduce the number of deaths from breast cancer;

  (4) when she last met the Royal College of Surgeons to discuss the level of deaths from breast cancer in the United Kingdom;

  (5) what action she is taking to spread best practice from the best health authorities and hospitals in the diagnosis, treatment and care of breast cancer to those areas and hospitals which perform badly.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to establish a specific inquiry into breast cancer deaths in this country. The Chief Medical Officer's expert advisory group on cancer is currently preparing advice for general practitioners and health authorities on the organisation of cancer services. These recommendations will be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and will be followed by consultation with relevant professional bodies.

  Psychiatric Services
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average annual amount per capita spent on psychiatric services in East Anglia.

  Mr. Sackville
  My hon. Friend may wish to contact Dr. Stuart Burgess, chairman of the Anglia and Oxford regional health authority, for details.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the level of annual spending per capita on psychiatric services in(a) West Suffolk, (b) East Suffolk and (c) North Lincolnshire.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on annual spending per capita on psychiatric services is not available centrally. However, information on annual spending per capita in 1992–93 on mental health services, which includes psychiatric services by district health authority is available in the Library.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many young doctors left the health service this year; and what were the figures for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals now have no junior doctors working more than 72 hours per week; what percentage this is of the
  473
  total; if she will name the hospitals which have junior doctors working more than 72 hours per week; what plans she has to reduce the maximum weekly hours worked by junior doctors; and what considerations underlay the decision to apply quotas in respect of junior doctors to NHS trust hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on individual hospitals is not available centrally.

  In England, there were 11,205 junior doctors and dentists contracted for more than 72 hours a week at 30 September 1993—43 per cent. of the total. Of these, 7,889 were in hard-pressed posts, a fall of 22 per cent. on the previous six months. Our priority is to eliminate all hard-pressed posts contracted for more than an average of 72 hours a week by the end of 1994. This is in accordance with the timetable in "The New Deal", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Regional task forces monitor and support implementation locally. I announced in March further central funding to support reductions in hours. This will mean that since "The New Deal" was launched in 1991 we have funded an extra 600 consultant and 150 staff grade posts to help reduce hours. Overall we have spent more than £115 million since 1991 to support the new deal. This is a clear indication of our commitment to tackle this problem.

  Our medical staffing policy is set out in "Achieving a Balance: Plan for Action, 1987", a copy of which is also available in the Library. Its major objectives are to improve patient care by increasing the amount of care provided by fully trained hospital doctors and to safeguard the career opportunities of junior doctors.

  Under "Achieving a Balance", arrangements exist to relate the number of United Kingdom and European Community doctors entering the registrar and senior registrar grades in all national health service hospitals to predicted consultant opportunities while continuing to allow overseas graduates access to the training grade. This aims to minimise the possibility of over or under-provision of training places in each specialty and the concomitant waste of resources. Regional task forces have responsibility for changing the number and distribution of senior house officers where this is needed to achieve new deal hours targets.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what level the decision as to the quota of junior doctors allocated to a trust hospital is taken.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At senior and career registrar levels, the joint planning advisory committee is responsible for advising the national health service executive as to overall targets for all the medical and dental specialties. These targets are then allocated to regions, the special health authorities and Wales. Exact locations of posts within each region are then a matter for local decision, in discussion with postgraduate deans and specialty advisors to ensure the educational appropriateness of training facilities.

  Control of senior house officer numbers has been devolved to the regional office task forces, in consultation with regional postgraduate deans.

  Sex-Enhancing Drugs
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to warn people about the possible adverse effects of the use of sex-enhancing drugs, and in particular nitrates, and the possible impact of such substances on the immune system.

  Mr. Sackville
  Recently the Department ran a £2·6 million television and press campaign to inform parents in the fight against drugs and solvent misuse. We are also running a competition for schools "Acting for Health—Drugs, Smoking and Alcohol Abuse", which aims to encourage young people to think about the consequences of substance misuse and how it affects the individual, his or her family and friends and community. As part of our strategy to reduce substance misuse we are keeping the position regarding alkyl nitrites under close review.

  Drug and alcohol abuse, including the use of sex-enhancing drugs, may increase the likelihood of indulgence in risky sexual behaviour which could lead to infection with sexually transmitted diseases. This message, including mention of alkyl nitrite inhalants, is included where appropriate in sexual health promotion material prepared for homosexual men.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence exists and what research has been or is being conducted into the link between the use of sex-enhancing drugs, with particular reference to nitrites, and cancer, with particular reference to Kaposi's sarcoma.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no clear evidence that use of alkyl nitrites causes cancer in humans. Some studies reported an association in homosexual AIDS patients between development of Kaposi's sarcoma and prior use of alkyl nitrites. However, later studies have not confirmed this association. The epidemiology of Kaposi's sarcoma suggests the involvement of an infectious agent that can be transmitted sexually. It is possible that use of alkyl nitrites is associated with higher number of sexual partners and thus greater risk of infection with this agent. As well as the occurrence of Kaposi's sarcoma as a manifestation of AIDS, a less aggressive form of the disease is seen in elderly men of mediterranean origin and in Africa. Use of alkyl nitrites is likely to be rare in these populations.

  High-alcohol Beers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she proposes to take to discourage young people from drinking high alcohol content beers.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government are committed to encouraging everyone who drinks alcohol to do so sensibly including young people. The effects of alcohol are included in the national curriculum, and the Department, the Health Education Authority and the industry-sponsored Portman Group have all produced materials for young people. It is important that alcohol consumers should be aware of the strength of their drinks and in "The Health of the Nation," we announced we would seek agreement with alcohol trade associations for the display of this information at points of sale.

  Homeless People
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has of the percentage of homeless people who have had a care order at some time in the past or at present.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department does not collect information about the whereabouts of children once they have ceased to be looked after by a local authority and no figures are currently available about homeless children subject to court orders.

  Press Officers
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time taken for one of her press officers to answer a telephone call.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a copy of Strachan Heppell's letter dated 6 September 1993 to the president of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry about how the new version of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme will be implemented.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Edgware General Hospital
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will announce her response to the public representations against the proposed closure of Edgware general hospital sent to her Department since the beginning of the year.

  Mr. Sackville
  Any proposal for a major change in services would be subject to a period of public consultation. The matter comes to Ministers if there are objections. All factors are taken into account including public representations.

  Condoms
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with the Minister for Consumer Affairs following the lifting of price controls on condoms.

  Mr. Sackville
  There has been no formal meeting of Health and Consumer Affairs Ministers following the lifting of price control on condoms. The decision to accept the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was taken by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs in the light of the fact that the Department of Health had given evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and in liaison with the Minister responsible for consumer affairs.

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she plans to publish the report of the Leigh review of the Health Education Authority.
  476
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 11 March at column 445.

  Vacant Consultant Posts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 79, what information has become available to her Department as a result of representations received about the number of hospital consultant posts that are currently vacant as a result of recruitment difficulties in (a) anaesthetics, (b) ophthalmology and (c) paediatrics.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No new information has been made available as a result of representations received in the specialties mentioned.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what monitoring procedures are in place to ensure that district hospital management committees and hospital trusts do not discriminate against the elderly by refusal to provide, or withdrawal of, treatment; and what further action she proposes to take;

  (2) how many administrators and medical staff have been found to have used age as a means of determining access to treatment or physiotherapy facilities in the last five years; and what disciplinary measures have been taken in respect of them.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is the duty of all health authorities to ensure that people of all ages have access to acute care and that specialist care is available to those who suffer with chronic conditions due to the aging process. We are satisfied that we have mechanisms in place for monitoring the performance of health authorities in this respect.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will lay down a streamlined procedure for patients who allege they have been discriminated against because of their age in the medical treatment they receive.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is the duty of all health authorities to ensure that people of all ages have access to acute care, and that specialist care is available to those who suffer with chronic conditions due to the aging process. The patient's charter establishes a charter right to have any complaint about national health service services—investigated and to receive a full and prompt written reply. If patients think that they have been, or were likely to be, denied one of their national charter rights, they should write to the chief executive of the national health service executive who will investigate the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently received a report on NHS complaints procedures and is considering its recommendations.

  Wythenshawe Hospital Development Scheme
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 12 April,Official Report, columns 78-79, what is her estimate of the total cost saving expected for the revision of the Wythenshawe hospital development scheme; if she will provide a breakdown of her calculations; and when she expects to be able to give details of the impact of the revision on the scheme as originally proposed and on Withington and other Manchester hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The revision of the Wythenshawe
  477
  scheme is not yet finalised, and we are not therefore yet in a position to give further details.

  Private Patient Units
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has received regarding proposals to convert NHS wards to dedicated private patient units.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Regional Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the revised funding formula for the allocation of resources to regional health authorities will be published;

  (2) how long the consultation period will be on the new funding formula for the allocation of resources to regional health authorities; and which groups and organisations will be included in the consultation process.

  Mr. Sackville
  The results of the review of the weighted capitation formula, which is used to allocate resources to regional health authorities, are currently being evaluated. When the report has been presented to Ministers we shall consider the arrangements for circulation, and extent of the consultation required.

  Adult Placement Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health wat evaluation she has undertaken of the impact of the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 on the regulation of adult placement services; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowls
  Following representations from the national organisations concerned with adult placement schemes, the social services inspectorate asked local authorities for information about how they intended to apply the guidance issued on implementation of the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authorities(a) directly regulate adult placement services through registration officers and (b) allow adult placement services themselves to regulate the services under the supervision of registration officers.

  Mr. Bowls
  There is no legislation requiring the registration of adult placement schemes as such. However, where residential accommodation, board and personal care are provided for up to three residents, registration of the home concerned is required under the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991, in the same way as for other small residential care homes.

  No information is available centrally about the extent to which local authorities, in carrying out their responsibilities under the Act, rely on checks on individual carers made by the adult placement schemes rather than make checks directly themselves.

  Temporary Ward Closures
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will monitor health authorities and trusts in order to establish whether temporary closure of long-stay elderly wards is used as a means to permanent closure; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  No. District health authorities have a478
  statutory duty to consult the relevant community health council on proposals they are considering that would result in substantial changes to local services.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that temporary closure of hospital wards is subject to full consultation procedures where this results in the break-up of specialist medical and nursing teams.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regulations specify that health authorities must consult where a substantial closure, development or variation of service is proposed. No distinction is made between permanent and temporary closure. A specialist medical and nursing team would normally only be changed for service reasons.

SCOTLAND

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the list of possible special areas of conservation will be moderated by him on economic, social, cultural and local characteristics before a list is issued for public consultation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Yes.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has had to increase the openness and accountability of Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government and the Scottish Enterprise network keep under review the scope for increasing the existing openness and accountability of Scottish Enterprise and its local enterprise companies. My right hon. Friend recently invited Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies to consider how the already high level of accountability and openness in the network might be further developed to secure greater transparency and wider participation.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the existing contract for local enterprise companies comes to an end; and what procedure will be followed in choosing the successor companies.

  Mr. Stewart
  The local enterprise companies' operating contracts with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are renegotiated and renewed annually. Selection procedures, in the case of competing bids for a particular area, are an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when an announcement on the rotational set-aside for non-LFA farmers not in less-favoured areas is to be made.

  Sir Hector Monro
  As I announced on 25 March, the EC Commission has agreed the regulation stipulating that
  479
  the uncompensated set-aside requirement this year in respect of the 1993 overshoot in the Scottish non-LFA arable sector has been reduced to 0.54 per cent. My Department is now making arrangements for additional compensatory payments to be made to the farmers concerned; these will issue as soon as the Commission regulation comes into force.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many private landlords have been visited by rent officers in each year since 1990;

  (2) how many private landlords were prevented by rent officers from providing accommodation for benefit claimants in each year since 1990;

  (3) how many private landlords provided accommodation for benefit claimants in each year since 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Rent officers register fair rents for regulated tenancies, and determine reasonable rents for the purposes of housing benefit subsidy on request from local housing authorities, who decide whether to award housing benefit in individual cases. Rent officers are not required to visit landlords for either function, although they may inspect individual dwellings; and when registering a fair rent the rent officers may hold a consultation to which the landlord is invited, but which he need not attend. Figures are therefore not available for landlords as requested, but the figures for rent determinations for fair rent and housing benefit purposes are as follows:

  Year

  Fair rent

  Housing benefit

  1990

  17,309

  37,034

  1991

  15,554

  39,670

  1992

  12,411

  45,690

  1993

  12,163

  50,231

  Note:

  These figures may include more than one determination relating to the same person.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total sum of rents referred to the rent registration service for the last year for which figures are available and the total sum of rents determined as reasonable for housing benefit subsidy for the same period.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 March 1994]: It is estimated, on the basis of a 90 per cent. sample of cases recorded for 1993, that the total sum of rents referred to the rent registration service for housing benefit purposes was around £145 million and the total sum of rents determined was around £131 million.

  Concessionary Travel Schemes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will commission a comparative study of the concessionary travel scheme in operation in the Greater London area and those currently in operation by regional authorities in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. Regional and islands councils have discretionary powers under section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 which allow any local 480
  authority, or any two or more local authorities acting jointly, to establish a concessionary travel scheme for eligible categories of person. After local government reform the new councils will retain these powers and the Strathclyde passenger transport authority will have the power to establish a scheme for its area. Decisions on the extent and administration of such schemes are entirely for the local authorities concerned to consider, taking account of local needs and circumstances, and the Government do not propose to change these arrangements. Concessionary travel arrangements in London are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Construction Group Collapse
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what investigations were carried out following the collapse of the Lafferty construction group; what action resulted from these investigations; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Lafferty Construction Ltd. went into receivership on 18 August 1988, and into liquidation on 7 August 1989. Receivers are required by statute to report any unfit conduct by directors to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The joint receivers submitted an adverse conduct report on 7 August 1990, the liquidator on 8 August 1990. Applications to the court must be made within two years of the insolvent event. In this case the reports were not received until the 23rd month after the event and proceedings were not issued.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what investigations were carried out following the collapse of the Lilley construction group; what action resulted from these investigations; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Lilley plc, and group companies, went into receivership on 7 January 1993. Receivers are required by statute to report any unfit conduct by directors to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The joint receivers have complied with their statutory reporting obligations and the documentation provided is under consideration.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the arrangements for the transfer of Scottish Homes housing stock to other landlords; if the transfer price will reflect the market value of the stock; what discounts will be offered to landlords; what financial guarantees he will seek from purchasers to ensure that the rights of tenants are secure; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under section 2(3A) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, the transfer of Scottish Homes housing stock requires the consent of my right hon. Friend, who issued guidance to Scottish Homes in February 1989 and February 1991. An independent valuer will assess the market value of the stock, taking into account the conditions attaching to the sale and this valuation will be used as a benchmark against which final decisions will be taken. The question of specific safeguards intended to protect tenants' rights is a matter for Scottish Homes as owners of the stock to consider. However, all
  481
  disposals of stock must be in accordance with the guidance which has been issued and which provides for substantial safeguards for tenants. My right hon. Friend will withold his consent to any disposal if he is not satisfied that the interests of tenants have been fully protected.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of houses owned by Scottish Homes in each district council area in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes. I have asked its chairman, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what regulations will govern ballots arranged by Scottish Homes on the transfer of housing stock; how many options will be put before tenants in the ballots; if tenants will retain the right to opt for Scottish Homes as existing landlord; if tenants will have a right to choose district councils as their landlord; what rules will govern management buy-out options; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In terms of Scottish Homes' published procedures for the transfer of its stock, an independent teller will be commissioned to undertake a postal ballot of tenants in the proposed transfer area. For operational reasons Scottish Homes has decided that the ballot paper will contain two options, the status quo or a move to a specified alternative landlord. However, the tenants' independent advisor will be able to feed tenants' views into Scottish Homes' consideration of the preferred alternative landlord. The guidance which has been issued to Scottish Homes by my right hon. Friend makes it clear that it will be for Scottish Homes to decide whether there are special circumstances relating to particular houses which would make the local authority an appropriate alternative landlord. He would however expect this to arise only in exceptional circumstances and where such disposal did not compromise the Government's objective of promoting diversity of choice. Scottish Homes has established a code of conduct to govern management buy-outs, which will be open to competition from other landlords.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if members of staff of Scottish Homes who are involved in the development of management takeover bids in relation to the disposal of their employer's housing stock are being, or will be, granted permission to do so during working hours or given equivalent time off from routine duties.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes and I have asked its chairman, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Member.

  Tourist Signs
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what rules and regulations govern the erection of directional signage on or near public highways by businesses to assist drivers to locate hotels and tourist attractions; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The erection of advertisements on or near a public road is controlled under 482
  provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 and the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984 and to the extent that they may represent an obstruction, under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Where the advertisements are intended to give directions to motorists they are also subject to the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

  Road signs giving directions to hotels and tourist attractions may be erected by traffic authorities. Such road signs are subject to the provisions of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1981 and to any relevant directions made by the Secretary of State. Circular No. 3/1992 "Tourist Signposting", a copy of which has been placed in the Library, provides advice and guidance to local authorities on the circumstances in which such direction signs may be appropriate.

  Denominational Education
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Roman Catholic Education Commission to discuss the continued provision of denominational education in Scotland; what aspects of the subjects were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the Catholic Education Commission on 25 February 1994. At that meeting a range of issues relating to denominational education was discussed, including school transport and catchment areas. Archbishop Winning, who was present at the meeting, has since publicly welcomed the positive progress made in the Government's discussions with the commission.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current outstanding loan debt of Scottish local authorities in relation to(a) housing and (b) general services; how much in each case and in (i) cash and (ii) percentage terms this debt accounts for in relation to (1) rents and (2) council tax bills; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The available information is set out in the table.

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Housing revenue account

  Outstanding debt at 31 March 1993

  —

  3,823

  Loan charges 1993–941

  —

  2500

  Income from standard rents 1993–94

  —

  2926

  Loan charges as percentage of standard rental income in 1993–94

  54

  —

  General fund services

  Outstanding debt at 31 March 1993

  —

  4,624

  Loan charges 1993–943

  —

  4730

  Budgeted income from council tax 1993–945

  —

  912

  Loan charges as percentage of budgeted income from council tax in 1993–94

  80

  —

  1Repayment of principal, interest on debt and loans fund expenses.

  2Provisional outturns.

  3Repayment of principal and interest on debt.

  4Local authority budget estimates for 1993–94.

  5Income which authorities budgeted to raise from the council tax for 1993–94.

  483
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the application of the annuality principle to local authority revenue budgets; what studies have been undertaken into the cost-effectiveness of fixed annual budgeting on the provision of services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no evidence that annuality creates any difficulty for local authority revenue budgets and has no plans for such a review. However, to assist local authorities in their financial planning, he announced for the first time last December the plans he had made for both Government-supported expenditure and aggregate external finance for the two forward years of the 1993 public expenditure survey. My right hon. Friend plans to take similar action in future years.

  Youth Unemployment, Renfrew
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young people under 18 years of age there were in Renfrew district on the latest date for which figures are available who were not employed and had not had a youth training opportunity offered to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  Domestic Utilities
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of privatised utility companies to discuss the abolition of standing charges on domestic bills; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Ministers and officials meet senior managers of the privatised utility companies from time to time to discuss a range of issues. Standing charges, like all tariff issues, are the responsibility of the utilities themselves and their regulators.

  Economic Initiative Area, Renfrew
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to establish an economic initiative area in any part of Renfrew district; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  There have already been established in Renfrew district the Ferguslie Park Partnership and a smaller urban renewal initiative in Barrhead. My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to establish further economic initiative areas in Renfrew district. The local authority, local enterprise companies and others are, however, free to decide to target their activities and resources on particular areas of perceived need or opportunity. The Glasgow airport initiative is an example of such an initiative established to take advantage of economic development opportunities in the area.

  Monklands District Council
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to whom the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has written seeking evidence about alleged corruption at Monklands district council; if he will list their names and offices; and if he will make a statement.
  484
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: None of the Scottish Office Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, in their position as Scottish Office Ministers, has written to anyone in Monklands district council seeking evidence about the alleged corruption of Monklands district council.

  Undergraduates
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of full-time undergraduates in Scottish higher education institutions are on four-year courses.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]: In 1992–93, the percentage of full-time undergraduates in Scottish higher education institutions registered for four-year courses was 62·4 per cent. and for courses of four years and over was 73·4 per cent.

  Rural Enterprise Programme
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the rural enterprise programme on marketing.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: A baseline study was undertaken in 1991 to provide a benchmark against which to measure the effects of the rural enterprise programme, including the marketing element of the scheme. This provides a basis for a full evaluation of the impact of the programme, which we plan to commission in 1995.

  Islands Shipping Subsidies
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when KPMG Management Consultants was instructed to prepare a report on the operation of the tariff rebate subsidy scheme and shipping services to the Scottish islands.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: On 4 August 1993.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department has yet received the report from KPMG Management Consultants in respect of its inquiries into the tariff rebate subsidy scheme and shipping services to the Scottish islands.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: No. I expect to receive KPMG's report in the near future.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total level of financial support for shipping services to Orkney and Shetland under the tariff rebate subsidy scheme in 1993–94.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: Financial support for shipping services to Orkney and Shetland in 1993–94 totalled £7·833 million.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the operating subsidies to Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd., P and 0 Scottish Ferries and Coastal Shippers for 1993–94, estimated outturn, and 1994–95 plans, in the same form as table 3.39 of his Department's "Statement of Expenditure Plans Serving Scotland's Needs 1993".

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  485

  Support to shipping services

  £ million

  1993–94 outturn

  1994–95 plans

  Operating subsidies

  Caledonian MacBrayne

  110·6

  5·7

  P and O

  6·1

  6·8

  Coastal Shippers

  3·0

  3·1

  Total

  119·7

  15·6

  1Includes an additional £3·4 million to eliminate the deficit which would otherwise have been incurred in the period January to March 1994, that is the transitional period between the company's old calendar year accounting period and the new fiscal year accounting period.

  Overgrazing
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what involvement Scottish Natural Heritage has had in operating the measures introduced to prevent overgrazing under the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: The Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, the predecessor body to Scottish Natural Heritage, and a range of environmental organisations were consulted about the introduction of this measure.

  Undeclared Fish Catches
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to stop the landing of unlogged fish around the coast; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 Apri11994]: The Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency attaches a high priority to curbing clandestine landings, which are damaging to the conservation of fish stocks and to the future prosperity of the fishing industry. Substantial resources are targeted towards the detection and prevention of this activity. Regular out of hours patrols are undertaken by fishery officers and fishery protection vessels are deployed at harbours where there is a known risk of undeclared landings.

  Rosyth Naval Base
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the employment implications to Fife and Scotland of a possible closure of Rosyth naval base; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: There are currently some 1,600 civilians working in Rosyth naval base and some 2,700 Navy personnel either working in the naval base and the immediate vicinity or based on ships operating from Rosyth. Under present plans, stemming from decisions taken in 1992, the number of civilian employees will be reduced to 1,300 and the number of Navy personnel to around 2,300 by 1 April 1995.

  As the Secretary of State for Defence has made clear, all relevant factors will be taken into account before any decisions are made on recommendations arising from the naval infrastructure study and other defence costs studies. It is too early to speculate on the outcome for Rosyth or any other naval base.

  Economy, Fife
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the proportion of Fife's economy which is dependent on defence.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: The Scottish Office Industry Department's current assessment is that between 8 per cent. and 13 per cent. of civilian employment in Fife is directly employed in defence-related work, depending on whether or not armed forces personnel are included in the calculation.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to deal with any further loss of jobs; and what are his proposals for strengthening the Fife economy.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: It is for the local enterprise company, Fife Enterprise, in collaboration and partnership with others in the public and private sectors, to decide in the first instance on the strategy and appropriate measures to tackle the employment and economic development needs and opportunities in the region. I am sure the local enterprise company would be happy to discuss its plans with the hon. Member should she find that helpful.

  For those who are, unfortunately, made redundant or become unemployed, the full range of measures available through the local enterprise company or the Employment Service will, of course, remain available.

  Prison Capacity
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about capacity limits for prison accommodation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 April 1994]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 19 April 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about capacity limits for prison accommodation.
  As at 1 April 1994, the design capacity of the prisons estate in Scotland was 5,736, largely in the form of single cell accommodation. Allowing for cells not available because of redecoration or damage repair work, refurbishment (including in some cases to provide night sanitation) or for other policy reasons (including being retained in the event of an emergency), a total of 5,159 places were in use at that time.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of(a) all pensioners, (b) pensioners aged 75 years or over, (c) pensioners aged 80 years or over and (d) pensioners aged 85 years or over were in receipt of income support at (i) the latest date for which figures are available, (ii) five years earlier, (iii) 10 years earlier and (iv) 15 years earlier.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is in the table.
  487

  Pensioners receiving income support/supplementary benefit as a Percentage of the Great Britain population

  Year

  60 and over

  75 and over

  80 and over

  85 and over

  1993

  14·7

  25·4

  31·2

  35·8

  1988

  14·8

  23·7

  27·5

  30·4

  1983

  16·7

  25·3

  27·0

  27·1

  1978

  18·2

  25·9

  27·0

  27·8

  Notes:
  1. Sources: Supplementary Benefit Statistical Annual Enquiries, 1978 and 1983.

  Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry, May 1988.

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1993.

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Government Actuaries Department.

  2. For Income Support purposes, pensioners are defined as cases where the claimant and/or partner is aged 60 or over.
  3. For Supplementary Benefit purposes, pensioners are defined as

  Geographical area1

  Tenants with Housing Benefit (Thousands)2

  As a percentage of all dwellings3

  Local Authority

  Private

  Local Authority

  Private

  North (including Cumbria)

  232

  74

  65

  49

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  304

  106

  64

  45

  East Midlands

  188

  75

  61

  42

  East Anglia

  82

  48

  59

  34

  London

  408

  267

  60

  47

  South East (excluding London)

  347

  243

  58

  42

  South West

  168

  120

  62

  43

  West Midlands

  312

  94

  65

  43

  North West (excluding Cumbria)

  379

  176

  69

  58

  Wales

  152

  68

  70

  54

  Scotland

  460

  84

  57

  41

  Great Britain

  3,032

  1,355

  62

  45

  Data Sources: the Housing Benefit Management Information System quarterly caseload count4 November 1992 and the Housing and Construction Statistics for December 1992.

  1 Standard regions. Information for individual local authorities for the whole of Great Britain is not available.

  2 The figures are for benefit units, not individuals. A benefit unit may be a couple or a single person.

  3 Includes unoccupied dwellings.

  4 Includes estimates for non-responding authorities.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the budgeted expenditure for the disability working allowance in 1993–94; and how much of that has actually been taken up.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government's expenditure plan for disability working allowance for 1993–94 was £16* million and the estimated outturn will be £10* million.Source: * Social Security Departmental Report published in February 1993 and March 1994 respectively.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he has received that the operation of the Child Support Agency is increasing the number of legal contests over child custody;

  (2) what representations he has received indicating that (a) a clean break settlement involving capital payments not yet finalised may be reconsidered and (b) future such clean break settlements will not take place as a result of the operations of the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has received (a) asking that travel costs by absent parents to visit children be included in the assessments for maintenance payments by the Child
  488
  claimants over pensionable age. This definition excluded certain cases (particularly men aged 60-64) who would be counted as pensioners under Income Support.

  4. Percentages have been calculated from the resident population of Great Britain of the appropriate age group.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many tenants in(a) the public and (b) the private sectors are in receipt of housing benefit; what percentage this is of the total number of tenants in each sector; if he will provide a breakdown of these figures into district council areas or other geographical area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the table.

  Support Agency and (b) indicating that the contact with such children by absent parents will be diminished by the present system of assessing maintenance payments;

  (4) what representations he has received indicating that the work of the Child Support Agency is prompting some persons into voluntarily giving up work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  Ministers have received representations from hon. Members, organisations and members of the public about various aspects of the child support scheme. Information about which representations refer to a particular aspect is not available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Families (Statistics)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proportion of children of single parent families live in families where no maintenance payments are made by the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany, (c) France and (d) the USA;

  (2) what proportion of parents under the age of 18 years were (a) married, (b) divorced, (c) separated and (d) never married in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 1994 in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) France, (iii) Germany and (iv) the USA;
  489
  (3) what proportion of children of lone parent families live in families where the non-custodial parent is unknown in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany, (c) France and (d) the USA.

  Mr. Hague
  This information is not available.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women contesting invalidity benefit appeals on the grounds of European sex equality legislation have had a benefit award from a social security appeals tribunal or an adjudication officer suspended under the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987, regulation 37 and 37A, that is, suspension in individual cases and in identical cases, respectively; what percentages of the total number of awards these represent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest available information about the number of payments suspended relates to 31 August 1993, at which time increased payment was being suspended in 33,442—97·86 per cent.—of the 34,175 cases considered. Separate information for cases being appealed individually and other cases where the issues are identical but no appeal has been made is not available.Source: 100 per cent. clerical count by Benefits Agency offices in Great Britain.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 10 March concerning a constituent, 6/3644/74.

  Mr. Hague
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 18 April.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 7 December 1993 and 14 March 1994 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. M. Hussain.

  Mr. Hague
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied to the right hon. Member on 22 December 1993 and 18 April 1994.

  Benefits, North Warwickshire
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently receiving(a) attendance allowance, (b) disability allowance, (c) family credit, (d) income support, (e) invalidity benefit and (f) sickness benefit in each of the Benefits Agency districts which fall within the north Warwickshire area; and what proportion of each figure represents persons resident in the north Warwickshire area.

  Mr. Scott
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Mike O'Brien dated 18 April 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about benefit recipients in the North Warwickshire area.
  490
  The full range of information requested is not available and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost. This is because statistics are only available by Benefits Agency District for the locally administered benefits, Income Support, Invalidity Benefit, and Sickness Benefit and, of the centrally administered benefits, Family Credit. Unfortunately, the computer systems used to administer Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance do not identify recipients by Benefits Agency District, and to obtain figures for these benefits would require an exercise examining each individual claim, which could only be undertaken at a disproportionate cost.
  I have therefore shown below figures for the Benefits Agency's Warwickshire District which deals with the North Warwickshire area. As the Warwickshire District also deals with areas other than North Warwickshire it is not possible to say what proportion of these figures relate to persons actually resident in North Warwickshire.
  It should be noted that statistical data for each of the benefits is collected and collated over different periods and timescales. The latest available figures show that the Agency's Warwickshire District on the last working day of February 1994 there were 35,222 people claiming Income Support; on the last working day of March 1994 there were 10,924 people claiming Invalidity Benefit and 2,021 people claiming Sickness Benefit, and at 18 March 1994 there were 3,430 people claiming Family Credit.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

EMPLOYMENT

  Minimum Wage Legislation
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his assessment of the effect of the abolition of the minimum wage legislation on youth employment prospects in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The introduction of a minimum wage would result in widespread job destruction.

  Part-time and Temporary Workers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people at the latest date for which figures are available were in part-time or temporary employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  At the end of last year there were 6.9 million part-time jobs in Great Britain and 1·4 million of all persons employed held temporary contracts.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to reduce the numbers of deaths and injuries at work.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Responsibility for ensuring work-place health and safety rests with employers and others most directly involved. The Health and Safety Commission's priorities for promoting improvements in health and safety at work will be set out in its plan of work for 1994–95.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how often, on average, a workplace can expect to be visited by officials inspecting health and safety standards.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is no fixed period between inspections of workplaces. When planning visits, health and safety inspectors give priority to premises that are known to pose a higher risk to employees and the public. The highest-risk sites are inspected once a year. In addition
  491
  to planned inspection, visits to workplaces are made for a variety of other purposes, for example to give advice and guidance and to investigate accidents, incidents or complaints.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement regarding the outcome of recent meetings he has held regarding health and safety issues.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's most recent meeting specifically to discuss issues of health and safety was with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) to discuss the Health and Safety Executive's investigation of an incident in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has particular responsibility for health and safety, and conducts the majority of meetings on that topic.

  Older Workers (Training)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives his Department has taken to improve the training prospects of older workers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have raised the upper age limit of training for work to 63 years from this month. This is in accord with my "Getting On" campaign, in support of older workers.

  Youth Unemployment, West Midlands
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the west midlands between the ages of 18 and 25 years are unemployed.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The figure was 84,000 in autumn 1993, which is a fall of 7,000 on the previous autumn.

  Part-time Workers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when his Department intends to respond to the House of Lords judgment on part-time workers' rights by giving them the same rights as full-time workers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government are carefully considering that judgment to ascertain its full implications and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of jobs in railway engineering in the United Kingdom; and what was the figure on 31 March 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There were 14,400 employees in the railway industry in Great Britain in September 1991. Reliable estimates of change since then are not available.

  Ellington Colliery
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what additional employment creation measures he plans following the redundancies resulting from the closure of Ellington colliery.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have made available an additional £2·8 million to Northumberland training and enterprise council and the Employment Service for additional employment and training measures, as a consequence of the closure of Ellington colliery.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to develop a national strategy to counter the effects of domestic violence on women.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A wide range of initiatives across Government has been taken in recent years to tackle domestic violence. These are directed towards ensuring that perpetrators are brought to justice; that victims receive the necessary material and emotional support and that steps are taken towards prevention in the long term. The ministerial group on domestic violence, which is led by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, will be meeting to consider how proposals for further action can be taken forward.

  Employer-employee Relations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on employer-employee relations.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government believe that employer-employee relations are a matter for the employers and workers concerned. Our step-by-step reform of employment law has been a principal factor in achieving the dramatic improvement of this country's industrial relations record and reputation since 1979.

  Unemployment (Rochdale)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to visit Rochdale to discuss unemployment in that area.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State currently has no plans to visit Rochdale.

  Access to Work
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has had to Government proposals for the "Access to Work" scheme for the employment of people with disabilities.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I announced details of "Access to Work" on 28 February 1994,Official Report, column 534. The changes have received an enthusiastic welcome.

  Jobs Summit
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding the G7 jobs conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Before attending the G7 jobs conference I had meetings with the director general of the CBI and the general secretary of the TUC.

  The G7 conference was a valuable conference about policies to achieve sustainable reductions in unemployment and increases in employment. The conference underlined the importance for all our countries of sound macro-economic policies to achieve sustainable growth, open and competitive economies to encourage innovation and enterprise, more flexible labour markets, improved education and training, and active employment policies to help and encourage unemployed people to get back to

  493
  work. The jobs conference has ensured that each Government will learn more about the employment and training programmes of the others. Policies to reduce unemployment will be discussed by Heads of Government at the forthcoming G7 economic summit in Naples.

  Maximum Working Week
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the costs to United Kingdom industry of a statutory maximum working week of 35 hours.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A compulsory 35-hour maximum working week would cost United Kingdom industry up to £20 billion in the first year alone. It would be disastrous for competitiveness, jobs and the economic recovery.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met small business representatives to discuss the working of TECs.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I regularly discuss training and enterprise councils with people from small businesses.

  Airport Workers (Hearing)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will take steps to ensure that all airport workers are covered by health and safety legislation which adequately protects their hearing;

  (2) what categories of airport workers are not covered by legislation to protect them against deafness, tinnitus and other industrial diseases involving their hearing.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Noise at Work Regulations 1989, which came into effect on 1 January 1990, oblige employers to take steps to protect the hearing of all employees at work, including airport workers.

  Multinational Companies
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the EU's draft legislation to make EU multinationals set up cross-border machinery for informing employees of closures, collective redundancies and shifts of production from one country to another will apply to multinationals based in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham., Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 15 April 1994,Official Report, column 346.

  Year

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Serious Fraud Office

  1989–90

  —

  Asterisk Design Systems Ltd.

  Aims Systems Ltd.

  COI

  BDL Marketing Services

  Cumulus Software Ltd.

  Digitus

  Kinesis Computing Ltd.

  Stothers and Hardy

  PA Management Consultants (2)

  The Human Science and Advanced Technology Research Centre

  Yale Data Management

  Number

  —

  2

  7

  3

  Working Hours
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current average hours of work of(a) blue collar workers, (b) white collar workers, (c) executives and (d) directors of firms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the average hours paid at basic and overtime rates for full-time employees is published in table X3 of part A of the 1993 new earnings survey report. A copy of the report is available in the Library. The table provides information for manual and non-manual occupations. Executives and directors are classified as managers.

  The result of the new earnings survey show that the average basic hours of full-time employees have been around 37·5 hours for the last three years. On average, the basic hours of work of manual employees are just under two hours more than those of non-manual workers.

  In 1993, over two thirds of employees worked no paid overtime and the average was 2·3 hours a week.

  Jobs Summit
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received during the G7 jobs summit in favour of measures which would increase non-wage labour costs.

  Mr. David Hunt
  At the end of the G7 jobs conference, United States Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen noted that we have to create the climate in which the corporate world has jobs for people. One of many encouraging features of this conference was the clear consensus that non-wage labour costs must be controlled, and where possible reduced, to improve employment prospects and help reduce unemployment.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 336, if he will list the firms of consultants employed by his Department in each of the last five years and the number of contracts they have undertaken.

  The Attorney-General
  The firms of consultants to which contracts have been awarded are listed in the table. Where more than one contract has been awarded to any firm this is indicated.
  495 496

  Year

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Servious Fraud office

  1990–91

  —

  Not known

  Hunterskill

  ACT

  Isis

  COI

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Digitus

  Scoll

  Stothers and Hardy

  Shapes

  TDA Consulting Group Ltd.

  Touche Ross

  Number

  —

  —

  7

  4

  1991–92

  —

  CCTA Consultancy Services (3)

  Art of Management

  Digitus

  P. Hurst Esq., Property

  Bull

  Stothers and Hardy

  Holdings

  CS college

  Integrated Project Support

  P. A. Consulting Group

  Lighting FX

  M. L Taylor, Esq.

  Oracle(2)

  PE International

  Shapes

  TDA Consulting Group Ltd.

  Verity

  Yale

  Number

  —

  6

  12

  2

  1992–93

  —

  Axsis Consultants Ltd.

  Axsis(2)

  ACT

  B. D. O. Consulting

  Bull

  Admiral

  J. Blair, Esq.

  CCTA Consultancy Services

  Digitus

  CCTA Consultancy Services

  Cs College

  Headra

  Recruitment and Assessment

  DoE Fuel Branch

  Morgan Lovell

  Consultancy Services

  DoE Special Services Group

  SISL

  M. L. Taylor, Esq.

  ECD Architects

  Stothers and Hardy

  Telecome Capita

  Forward Catering

  Systemhouse (2)

  B. D. Yates, Esq.

  Infact(2)

  Impact

  Lamp Associates

  MCL

  Mouncey

  Price Waterhouse

  PSA BM NorEast

  Sequelogic

  Shapes (2)

  Shreeveport

  Tim Hodder Associates

  Touche Ross

  Number

  —

  8

  24

  9

  1993–94

  —

  Axsis Consultants Ltd.

  Amtec

  ACT

  BDO Consulting (3)

  Axsis

  Hedra

  G. H. Beetham, Esq.

  Bull

  Hoskyns

  J. Blair, Esq.

  Butler and Young Associates (2)

  Inaight

  CCTA Consultancy Services

  Calibre Training

  Rand

  P. Cooper, Esq.

  Comshare

  Stothers and Hardy

  Lamb Associates

  D. E. G. W. Consultants

  N. F. Ledsome, Esq.

  DoE Special Services Group

  J. D. Montgomery, Esq.

  Hoskyns

  Recruitment and Assessment

  Hunterskil

  Consultancy Services

  Images

  Touche Ross

  Infact

  Triad Special Systems Ltd.

  Kaliber Training

  Lighting FX

  MCL

  NIFES

  Olivetti

  Oscar Faber

  P.E. International

  Plain English Campaign

  Projectlink

  Quadratron

  Sequelogic (2)

  Shapes (3)

  497

  Year

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  Treasury Solicilor's Department

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Serious Fraud Office

  Simdell

  Tim Hodder Associates

  Touche Ross (2)

  WTI

  Number

  —

  14

  33

  6

  Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate more than one contract.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about military activity in Liberia; and how it is affecting the peace process and the delivery of humanitarian aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 15 April at column 330. Aid deliveries from Cote d'Ivoire and from Monrovia to the surrounding regions are uninterrupted, but interfactional fighting is affecting deliveries to south-east and south-western Liberia.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps UNDO in Somalia has taken to conduct a strategic appraisal of the infrastructure needs of Somaliland.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The framework for planning Somalia's long-term reconstruction and development, prepared in December 1993 under World bank leadership and with United Nations development office participation, identified broad infrastructure needs throughout the country. UNDO has begun the detailed needs assessment process and carried out a preliminary assessment mission to Woquooyl Galbeed region in the north-west in March. The report will be discussed by the Somali aid co-ordinating body on 18 and 19 April.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans UNOSOM 2 has to devolve decision making to its office in Hargeisa; and how and when it proposes to deliver services and resources to north-west Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  UNOSOM's Hargeisa office acts primarily as a liaison point for UNOSOM II operations in north-west Somalia. UNOSOM is mandated to assist with the development of programmes on demobilisation and disarmament, demining and the development of justice systems in north-west Somalia. Salaries for police and local mine clearance amounting to US$730,800 have been paid during the period January to April. We intend to raise the question of devolution of decision making to UNOSOM's Hargeisa office at the Somali aid coordinating body meeting on 18 and 19 April.

  Natural Resources Institute
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his current plans for the future of the Natural Resources Institute.
  498
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 26 January at columns 272-73. The study of ownership options is continuing and no decision has yet been reached. Meanwhile, restructuring is in train.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) in which programmes staff, proposed for redundancy by the Natural Resources Institute in the course of 1994, are currently involved; and what the effect on these programmes of the proposed redundancies is expected to be;

  (2) what aid projects and which developing countries benefit from the work done at the Natural Resources Institute on (a) oilseeds and (b) mycotoxins;

  (3) how many staff at each grade the Natural Resources Institute proposes to make redundant in the course of 1994;

  (4) what programmes of research are currently undertaken by the Natural Resources Institute; and how each programme will be affected by his plans for the institute's future development.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Natural Resources Institute under its chief executive, Mr. Anthony Beattie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. Beattie to Mr. Tom Clarke, dated 18 April 1994:
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd has replied to the first of the five questions about NRI which you put down for written reply on 14 April. I have been asked to reply to the remainder. If I might take your questions in a slightly different order to that in which they were asked, dealing first with No. 79, the Institute is engaged in programmes of applied and adaptive research which, in line with the objectives of the Aid Programme and of ODA's Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy, seek to help developing countries to improve the productivity and sustainable management of their natural resources. The Institute is presently undertaking research in some 13 programme areas as listed at Enclosure 1.
  As an executive agency, NRI undertakes research on a customer-contractor basis and its activities are accordingly shaped by the requirements of its clients, notably ODA and other major aid agencies. The priorities of these clients are bound to change over time and this will be reflected in the pattern of demand for the Institute's services. Thus it is not so much a question of how plans for future development will affect a pre-determined set of research activities, but rather how the Institute can best be adapted to respond flexibly and effectively to the changing requirements of its clients.
  You have asked specifically (No. 72) what aid projects and which developing countries benefit from work done here on oilseeds and mycotoxins. Details are provided in Enclosure 2.
  More generally, you have asked (No. 78) how many staff, by grade, are proposed for redundancy in 1994, which areas of work they are involved in and what the effect on existing programmes will be.
  Under a programme of staff reductions announced earlier this year a total of 49 posts have been abolished. A breakdown by grade is at Enclosure 3. As individual members of staff are likely to contribute to more than one programme of research I have

  499
  provided a breakdown by a broad strategy area rather than specific research programme. Details in response to question No. 70 are also at Enclosure 3. In all but six cases, this reduction in staff numbers has been achieved by voluntary means. It is likely that further reductions will be needed in due course, but the scale and timing of these have still to be determined.
  The staff reduction programme is based on a careful analysis of the skills available at NRI and developing patterns of demand for these skills. As mentioned above our concern is with adapting the skill-base to match demand. This is essential if we are to continue to meet the needs of our clients and to maintain the Institute's reputation as a multi-disciplinary centre of excellence in a competitive and evolving field of activity.
  I should of course be glad to provide any further information you may require.

  Areas of research in which NRI is presently engaged, grouped by strategy area:

  Resource Assessment and Farming Systems

  Resource assessment

  Agronomy and cropping systems

  Livestock production

  Forestry

  Socio-economics

  Integrated Pest Management

  Pest management for annual and perennial crops

  Component technologies for pest management

  Adaptive research in integrated pest management

  Biological systems and functional variability

  Food Science and Crop Utilisation

  Horticulture and tree crops

  Food security in cereals and pulses

  Fisheries and aquatic resources

  Forest products, oilseeds, edible nuts and fibres

  NRI's work on oilseeds and mycotoxins

  INTRODUCTION
  NRI's work on oilseeds and mycotoxins spans a wide range of activities and benefits, both directly and indirectly, many developing countries. It is principally funded by ODA's Natural Resources Research Department and feeds into bilateral and multi-lateral development programmes. The following is a synopsis of activities which have been carried out over the last year or so.

  Oilseeds
  The focus of work has been principally on the two priority commodities of ODA's Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy: groundnuts and coconuts. Total expenditure in 1993–94 from all funding sources was approximately £325,000.

  Advisory and representation
  In the last year over 240 inquiries were received from 36 countries on oilseeds processing and utilisation, mainly from Latin America. Africa and Asia. Several international conferences were attended and research and development findings disseminated.

  Training
  In 1993 eight personnel from Ghana, Indonesia, Morocco, Peru, The Philippines, Sri Lanka and Turkey were trained in various aspects of oilseeds, oils and fats.

  PROJECT ACTIVITIES

  Agronomic, pest control and plant pathology:
  assisting in improving oilseeds production at the Lumle

  Analysis of (job) redundancies by grade and strategy area

  Enclosure 3

  Grade

  Resource assessment and farming systems

  Integrated pest management

  Food science and crop utilisation

  Social sciences group

  Corporate services

  Grade total

  Grade 6

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Grade 7

  1

  —

  5

  —

  —

  6

  Senior Scientific Officer

  1

  3

  6

  —

  2

  12

  Higher Scientific Officer

  2

  —

  3

  —

  —

  5

  Scientific Officer

  1

  1

  5

  —

  —

  7

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Higher Executive Officer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Executive Officer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Administrative Officer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Personal Secretary

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  5

  500

  and Pakribas Agricultural Centres in Nepal;
  a study on oilseeds in mixed cropping systems in lowland tropical forest margins;
  a pest control manual for groundnuts (China, India and other producing countries);
  work on lethal yellowing and wilt disorder of coconuts (Zanzibar and West Africa);
  collaboration with CGIAR in India on groundnut rosette virus and vector control.

  Processing and development:
  stemming from socio-economic, marketing and technical studies, the introduction of new and improved methods of small-scale processing of oilseeds mainly in rural areas, with particular emphasis on smallholder farmers, traders and gender issues (Tanzania, The Gambia, Ghana, Zimbabwe, India, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Indonesia, Solomon Islands). This work is part-funded by the United Nations' Common Fund for Commodities;
  development of analytical techniques, and training in product analysis and quality control, including trade assessments.

  Mycotoxins
  Over the past year the control of mycotoxins in foods and feeds has been pursued at NRI through some nineteen projects. The range of commodities studied includes cereals, oilseeds, edible nuts, spices and livestock feeds from numerous countries. Total expenditure from all funding sources in 1993–94 was approximately £375,000.

  Advisory and representation
  Over 130 enquiries were received from 30 countries on mycotoxins over the last year, mainly from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Staff attended several international conferences to disseminate information and served on several United Kingdom and EC Committees dealing with mycotoxins.

  Training
  In 1993 four analysts from Brazil, Philippines and Saudi Arabia were trained in mycotoxin analysis.

  PROJECT ACTIVMES
  The Institute's mycotoxins work involves the establishment, of Mycotoxin Centres in developing countries, with fully equipped and trained personnel; and the utilisation of these Centres in the identification and control of mycotoxin contamination, using multi-disciplinary teams.
  Centres have been established in Pakistan, India, Thailand and Philippines. This approach is supported by a research programme which focuses upon the development of methods (sampling and analysis) for the surveillance of mycotoxins and the development and testing of control (including chemical detoxification) procedures.

  Work carried out over the last year includes:
  studies on sampling procedures for monitoring bulk shipments of livestock feed ingredients and on methods for the analysis of moulds and mycotoxins in a variety of foods and feeds. The findings assist in the formulation of quality standards and legislation. This work has been partly funded by the EC and MAFF;
  a study of the effect of commercial chemical detoxicification procedures on the transmission of mycotoxins into milk;
  setting up a Mycotoxin Centre in Bangladesh;
  establishing a strategy for the quality control of pistachio nuts in Turkey;
  surveillance studies in Honduras, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
  501

  Grade

  Resource assessment and farming systems

  Integrated pest management

  Food science and crop utilisation

  Social sciences group

  Corporate services

  Grade total

  Typist

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Support Grade Band 1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Support Grade Band 2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Strategy area total

  7

  6

  23

  2

  11

  49

  Gambia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures have been taken either bilaterally by the Overseas Development Administration or multilaterally through the European Union to promote the development of coastal fishing resources in the Gambia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Between 1979 and 1991 the European development fund provided 5·66 mecu—£4·4 million, of which the United Kingdom share was £0·72 million to develop marine artisanal fisheries in six Atlantic coastal villages.

  Multilateral Agencies (Aid)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms are in place to influence the deployment of funds provided by the United Kingdom to(a) the European bank for reconstruction and development, (b) the European Union, (c) the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and (d) the World bank; and what further steps are planned to increase the accountability of those organisations to the United Kingdom Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  For the European bank for reconstruction and development, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and the World bank, the United Kingdom participates actively in meetings where overall policy priorities and work programmes are discussed. For the European Union we play a full part in discussion of development policy issues in the Council of the Union, and in discussion of project proposals in European Commission management committees. We also maintain regular contact with the senior management of all these institutions. We will continue to work through these mechanisms to strengthen their efficiency and accountability.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Sir Malcolm Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to continue to support economic and political reform in Africa under the third phase of the special programme of assistance for sub-Saharan Africa co-ordinated by the World bank.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have pledged to commit up to £300 million under the World bank's SPA III programme over the three years 1994–95 to 1997–98. These funds will be available to poor, debt-distressed African countries, selected by Her Majesty's Government, which are adhering to an IMF/IBRD-endorsed economic reform programme, and are pursuing good government policies.

DEFENCE

  Battle Tank Khalid
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which year the battle tank Khalid was first marketed; and if he will make a statement on its application.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter for the company concerned.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent of 25 March,Official Report, columns 471-72, regarding protection against chemical and germ warfare, if he will estimate the cost of (a) protective clothing and equipment, (b) anti-contamination equipment and (c) medical counter measures against chemical and biological attacks during the period April 1990 to April 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  The expenditure incurred on clothing and equipment to protect against chemical and biological attack during the period April 1990 to April 1992 is set out in the table.

  £million

  Protective clothing

  265

  Protective equipment

  18·4

  Detection equipment

  24·6

  Decontamination equipment

  0·9

  Total

  70·4

  As previously advised in response to the hon. Member's questions of 12 July 1993, Official Report, column 366, 19 July 1993, Official Report, column 87 and 26 July 1993, Official Report, column 744, details relating to medical counter-measures against chemical and biological attacks are classified.

  PINDAR Bunker
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the equipment installed in the PINDAR bunker.

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of the equipment installed in the PINDAR bunker was approximately £60,000,000. The cost of the systems includes hardware, software development, software, documentation, testing and installation.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual running cost of the PINDAR bunker.

  Mr. Hanley
  The average cost of the PINDAR bunker including staff costs, maintenance and support is £7,320,000.

  Submarine Nuclear Reactor Cores
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications he has had with the nuclear transport licensing authorities regarding the temporary use of commercial containers to transport used submarine nuclear reactor cores.

  Mr. Aitken
  The contract to procure two commercial containers to transport used submarine nuclear reactor cores requires the contractor to provide the containers fully licensed for the purpose required. As such the request and approval of a licence is a matter between the contractor and the nuclear licensing authority.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what functions the A45 building at Aldermaston will carry out once the A90 building is fully operational.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our general policy to disclose details of the role and function of individual buildings at Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston. Howevever, manufacture of a variety of components and assemblies not being transferred to building A90 will continue to be produced in A45.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the radiation leak at AWE Aldermaston on 24 March.

  Mr. Aitken
  On 24 March 1994 during planned maintenance in a laboratory a quantity of radioactive material was disturbed. Monitoring of protective clothing worn by the two individuals involved revealed that there was slight radioactive contamination on their overshoes. Subsequent monitoring by AWE medical staff has confirmed that the two individuals received radiation dose levels equivalent to a small fraction of the annual permissible dose limit. External monitoring outside the building has confirmed that there was no release of radioactive material into the environment. As part of normal procedure the Health and Safety Executive has been informed.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the last full safety assessment of the A45 building at Aldermaston was made.

  Mr. Aitken
  The safety of all buildings at AWE Aldermaston, including A45, is under constant review. A full safety assessment of building A45 was conducted in late 1988 and further safety reviews of the facility have been carried out at regular intervals.

  Ammunition
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use has been made by United Kingdom forces since 1981, of 155 mm ammunition rounds.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are two types of 155 mm ammunition currently in use with the British Army. They are the United States designed M107 and the European designed—United Kingdom/Germany/ Italy—L15. Although records of usage are not available for the period in question, it is estimated that some 44,000 L15 rounds have been used since 1990 and some 223,000 M107 rounds since 1985.
  504
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether British tank forces use 105 mm and 120 mm rounds.

  Mr. Hanley
  No, to the former; yes, to the latter.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the cost to public funds which would be incurred by uprating all service pensions in payment to the level of such pensions awarded today.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information which would be necessary to make this calculation is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at inordinate cost.

  Optical Surveillance Technology
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether satellite and related optical surveillance technology represents a strategic national security interest.

  Mr. Hanley
  Yes.

  David Hart
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether David Hart has any access to(a) confidential papers and (b) facilities and resources of his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  Mr. David Hart is one of a number of advisors from outside the Ministry of Defence who provide informal advice to the Secretary of State, and who are involved in the work of the defence cost study. These outsiders may see classified papers under strictly controlled arrangements where this is directly relevant to the work they are doing. Such advisors have no independent call on the facilities and resources of the Department, although they do discuss matters with Departmental officials.

  Offset Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if projects approved as part of the offset programme are subject to export licence, COCOM and missile technology control regime controls.

  Mr. Aitken
  Yes.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates delegations to Saudi Arabia were organised by the Offset Office; and if he will list the members of those delegations.

  Mr. Aitken
  The British Offset Office has arranged two high-level visits to Saudi Arabia to promote Al Yamamah Offset. The members of the first delegation, which visited from 16-21 February 1990, were:

  Mr. Roy Allen

  ICI

  Mr. Cedric Brown

  British Gas

  Sir James Craig

  Saudi British Bank

  Mr. Alec Daly

  GKN

  Sir Ronald Grierson

  GEC

  Mr. George Moody-Stuart

  Booker Tate

  Mr. Alan Nickalls

  NEI International Ltd.

  Mr. Gilbert Phillips

  Pilkington

  Mr. Michael Rouse

  British Aerospace

  Mr. Richard Turner

  STC

  The second delegation visited from 3 to 9 May 1991. Its members were:

  505

  Mr. Richard Barnes

  British Aerospace

  Mr. Tony Belisario

  Dowty Defence and Air Systems

  Mr. Antony Bruce

  John Brown

  The Hon. David Douglas-Home

  Morgan Grenfell International

  Mr. John Elliott

  Burmah Castrol

  Mr. John Hill

  Wessex Water

  Mr. John Lawrence

  Thorn Security

  Mr. Jake Stewart

  British Steel

  Dr. Brian Tempest

  Glaxo

  Mr. Damien Turner

  British Aerospace

  Mr. Peter Usher

  Vosper Thomycroft UK

  In addition the British Offset Office organises ad hoc visits to Saudi Arabia for companies as required.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the membership of the British Offset Committee in each year that committee has existed, together with the principal business interest of the private sector members.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Al Yamamah Offset Committee met for the first time in March 1987. Its members were:

  Chairman

  Sir Colin Chandler—Head of Defence Export Services, MOD

  Members

  The Hon. David Douglas-Home—(Morgan Grenfell International Ltd) representing COMET—Mr. Alan Titchener

  DTI—Dr. Maurice Dixson—British Aerospace

  Dr. David Mitchell—Rolls Royce.

  Mr. Philip Curry—MOD

  The following changes to membership took place at subsequent meetings.

  December 1987

  Mr. John Weston (British Aerospace) replaced Dr. Dixson.

  Mr. Colin Craig (Schroder Asseily) joined the Committee; Mr. Curry (MOD) left the Committee.

  September 1988

  Mr. Ian Dixon (DTI) replaced Mr. Titchener.

  Mr. Richard Spink (FCO) joined the Committee.

  February 1990

  Sir Alan Thomas (MOD) replaced Sir Colin Chandler.

  The Hon. David Gore-Booth (MOD) joined the Committee.

  Mr. Michael Rouse (BAe) replaced Mr. Weston.

  Mr. Petter (DTI) replaced Mr. Dixon.

  May 1991

  Mr. Michael Janner (MOD) replaced Mr. Richard Spink.

  April 1992

  Mr. Damien Turner (British Aerospace) replaced Mr. Rouse.

  September 1992

  Mr. John Hill (Saudi British Bank) replaced The Hon. David Douglas-Home as representative of COMET.

  May 1993

  Dr. Noel Brehony (Rolls Royce) replaced Dr. Mitchell.

  December 1993

  Mr. Ian Cliff (DTI) replaced Mr. Petter.

  Mr. David Hewitson (British Aerospace) replaced Mr. Turner.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the projects(a) approved and (b) commenced under the offset office programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  Projects currently approved, but not yet commenced, under the Al Yamamah offset programme are:

  Missile Engineering Facility

  Rolls Royce participation in the Middle East Propulsion Company

  Oil seed manufacture

  506

  Materials handling systems

  Lightweight marble and granite manufacture

  Water treatment equipment

  In addition, the following projects have commenced implementation:

  Glaxo pharmaceutical plant

  Tate and Lyle sugar refinery

  Vocational training facility

  British Aerospace participation in Aircraft Accessories and Components Company (AACC)

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what links exist between the Offset Office and the Export Credits Guarantee Department; and whether approval under the offset programme is always accompanied by Export Credits Guarantee Department approval.

  Mr. Aitken
  No special links exist between the Al Yamamah Offset Office and the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Cover arrangements are a matter for ECGD and participants in individual projects.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department set up an Offset Office for Saudi Arabia; and what the costs of this office have been in each succeeding year.

  Mr. Aitken
  The British Offset Office was set up in 1987. It forms part of the Saudi Armed Forces Project Office in the Ministry of Defence, the costs of which are met by the Government of Saudi Arabia.

  Falkland Islands Flights
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the flights on which seats were for sale to civilians to and from the Falkland Islands in 1992 and 1993 and to date in 1994, and which arrived either at RAF Mount Pleasant or at RAF Brize Norton more than two hours late.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is available only for flights into RAF Mount Pleasant, and is as follows:

  1992

  1993

  11994

  Number of flights with seats for sale to civilians

  92

  80

  21

  Number delayed by two hours or more

  23

  13

  5

  1To date.

  Information on the number of flights from the Falkland Islands arriving at RAF Brize Norton more than two hours late is not recorded centrally and figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Because of the length of the route, the unpredictable weather in the Falkland Islands and the limitations of en-route services such as air traffic control, a greater level of delays can be expected on the United Kingdom to Falkland Islands route than on many more widely used routes.

  IMS Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records are maintained of the business activities of former employees of International Military Services Ltd.

  Mr. Aitken
  None.

  Conditions and Allowances Review
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings he envisages will be made through the review of conditions and allowances in the armed forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  As is made clear in the terms of reference for this independent review, set out in my answer to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on 30 March,Official Report, columns 752-53, the primary purpose is not cost cutting but to ensure that we have structures appropriate to the needs of the services in the 21st century. No estimate has therefore been made of the scope for any savings but the independent review is, naturally, also required to identify the resource implications of its proposals and to seek to contribute to the reduction over the longer term of the overall resource cost of manpower.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what external consultancies will be assisting in the review of conditions and allowances in the armed forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  A minor consultancy to advise on the scope of the independent review of service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service, and on the interrelationships between the different aspects of the review, has already reported. The matter of what further consultancy assistance may be required is primarily one for the review chairman, but my Department is making arrangements to ensure that such assistance can be commissioned at short notice as and when requirements are identified.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what opportunities will exist for United Kingdom citizens including serving or former members of the armed forces involved in Operation Granby in the Gulf war in 1991, to claim for damages for deleterious health effects from the United Nations Compensation Committee.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Nations Compensation Commission—UNCC—will consider, against established criteria, claims from United Kingdom citizens suffering from deleterious health effects directly caused by Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait between 2 August 1990 and 2 March 1991. It will require evidence to show that there is a direct causative link between the symptoms of the claimant and the Gulf conflict.

  This right to claim extends to members of the allied coalition armed forces, who were prisoners of war and whose loss or injury resulted from mistreatment in violation of the international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Most of the British prisoners of war held captive during the Gulf conflict have put in claims, as have members of the British liaison team, and their dependents, who were in Kuwait at the time of the invasion.

  Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to reply to the letter from CND which was handed in following the demonstration on 15 March at Porton Down; and if he will place a copy of his reply in the Library.
  508
  Mr. Hanley
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Ken Livingstone, dated 19 April 1994:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when he intends to reply to the letter from CND which was handed in following the demonstration on 15 March 1994 at Porton Down has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. There was no demonstration at Porton Down on 15 March 1994 when two representatives of the Salisbury Branch of CND visited the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment on 16 March 1994 to mark the anniversary of the use of chemical weapons on the civilian population of Hallabja. They were invited into the Establishment and handed over a letter dated 16 March 1994 addressed to myself as Director General.

  3. I replied to the letter on 8 April 1994 and am making arrangements for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Gulf Trust
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current amount of money in the Gulf Trust; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what criteria are used to determine whether or not payments are made from the Gulf Trust; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how much money was received and paid out by the Gulf Trust in (a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92, (c 1992–93 and (d) 1993–94; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what consideration he has given to seeking to alter the criteria under which payments are made from the Gulf Trust; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Contractors
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan),Official Report, columns 473-74, if he will list those contractors that have quality management system certifications which have been (a) subject to assessment by his Department or (b) can be shown to be acceptable to the corresponding ministry in another NATO country.

  Mr. Aitken
  Approximately 1,000 United Kingdom defence contractors hold quality system certification following assessment by MOD. They are listed in the "United Kingdom Register of Quality Assessed Companies" maintained and issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. The DTI register also identifies those United Kingdom contractors who hold quality system certification granted by third party certification bodies holding appropriate accreditation from the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies.

  Each NATO MOD is responsible for identifying contractors with acceptable quality management systems, details of which are available to United Kingdom MOD, on request.

  Rwanda
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent his staff have been involved in United Nations contingency planning for United Nations sanctioned operations in Rwanda; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Ministry of Defence staff have not been involved in United Nations contingency planning sanctioned operations in Rwanda.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with(a) his NATO counterparts, and (b) his UN counterparts relating to the situation in Rwanda; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not had any discussions with either his NATO or UN counterparts relating to the situation in Rwanda.

  Airworks plc
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what problems have arisen in the contract awarded to Airworks plc to fit defensive systems to Hercules aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Varying degrees of minor repairable damage was caused to 11 Hercules aircraft; rectification will be complete shortly, at the contractor's expense, and no long-term operational or airworthiness concerns are likely to arise from this problem.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number and nature of current contracts his Department has with Airworks plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department currently has some 41 contracts with Airworks plc. Details of the subject matter of all those contracts are not held centrally. However, the company is recognised as a supplier of a wide range of services, such as repair, maintenance, modification and ancillary tasks, in support of aircraft, rotorcraft, simulators and training aids, radio, radar, electronics, avionics and test equipment.

  Recruitment Targets
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out for each service the annual targets for recruitment in 1993–94 of officers and other ranks and the extent to which these targets have been achieved.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]The recruiting targets for the year ending 5 April 1994, and achievements in recruitment up to January 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, are as follows:

  Target

  Achieved

  Percentage achieved

  Royal Navy Officers

  Officers

  478

  285

  60

  Other ranks

  1,439

  928

  64

  Army

  Officers

  1,005

  664

  65

  Other ranks

  8,992

  6,702

  75

  Royal Air Force

  Officers

  328

  235

  72

  Other ranks

  696

  537

  77

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Braizier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the Territorial Army to contribute to operational commitments undertaken by the regular Army.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Further to my announcement of 17 June 1993,Official Report, columns 1009-11, we plan to deploy a Territorial Army platoon in support of the regular Army in the Falkland Islands from July to November this year and a TA company as part of the Falkland Islands garrison from March to July next year. Both deployments will represent a pilot scheme to test the use of the TA in this way and will, if successful, facilitate the wider use of our volunteer reserves in circumstances short of war.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

RAF Combat Strength
Lord Constantine of Stanmore Lord Constantine of Stanmore asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the RAF is to lose approximately one-third of the number of combat aircraft which it held during the Gulf War, and how such substantial cuts can be reconciled with their stated policy of "Front line first".
Lord Annaly: My Lords, as a result of Options for Change and subsequent decisions announced last year reflecting the significantly reduced threat, the number of RAF fast jet combat aircraft has reduced by approximately one-third. The "Front line first" study is a wholly separate exercise which is designed to achieve the delivery of our defence capability more cost effectively.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and congratulate him on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: Is he aware that training a pilot recruit takes three years before appointment to his first fast jet squadron? In an emergency, how long is it likely to take Britain to regain the air strength she enjoyed at the outbreak of the Gulf War?
Lord Annaly: My Lords, there is a sufficient number of trained pilots to sustain the front line. We are confident that the RAF could make a full contribution to a similar coalition operation, although the precise mix of contribution might be different.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, although a Member of another place I was a fighter pilot in the auxiliary air force for many years before the last war. I know and remember well the torments we went through having to fly obsolete animals like Wapitis as fighters in the three years before the war. Please, do not let us be caught like that, even though, thank God, there is no Hitler.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, we are confident that the studies currently being undertaken will not leave us in that position.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as a defence spokesman, a difficult role indeed. In the light of the questions that have been asked, will the
86
noble Lord give the House an assurance that the air force will always be maintained at the level necessary for the defence of the United Kingdom?
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. Since I have been coming to the House —and now I am coming more frequently-I have admired the noble Lord's contributions. I know therefore that I shall have to be on my toes. With regard to his question, we are confident that we remain prepared.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, in adding my
congratulations to the noble Lord, may I assure him that he has nothing to fear from the noble Lord, Lord Williams? He must look behind him for reassurance!
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, acting on the advice that he has just been given, that many of us are very unhappy about the reduction in the forces, particularly in the aircraft of the RAF? Is he prepared to exercise his influence to prevent further cutbacks and indeed to restore in some measure the strength of the air force?
Lord Annaly: My Lords, the Government take account of all views.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos:: My Lords, how many airfields will be closed as a result of the cuts?
Lord Annaly: My Lords, the noble Lord's question may be a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. If he would like to know the answer, I shall make sure that I write to him with it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. Can he confirm that the aircraft flying today are far superior to their counterparts? Can he give the House some indication as to what is happening with the new Euro-fighter?
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. Perhaps he will give me a moment. I am not so quick in finding my way around my folder as I hope to be shortly. I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick::My Lords, in order to give us the fullest information and enable us to evaluate his comments, can the the noble Lord tell us the number of aircraft there were before the cuts and the number of aircraft we shall be left with after the cuts?
Lord Annaly: My Lords, yes, I can give the House that information. The 1990 force levels in fighter aircraft —all the RAF aircraft—stood at 521. The planned force levels for the mid-1990s will stand at 354, which is 68 per cent. of the former figure.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend on his elevation. Will he accept that in 1958, when it was my privilege to fly some of Her Majesty's first line aircraft, I was told that

87
if I smashed a plane it would cost £40,000? I understand that today it would cost £40 million. Does the noble Lord agree that it would be wise to lease those aircraft so that they become a charge against revenue as opposed to capital?
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those kind words. The defence cost study is looking at the possibility of leasing arrangements for air transport.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the proper answer to the question put by the noble Viscount is that we should not allow the noble Viscount to be in charge of any of our aeroplanes?
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I should not wish to say anything against my noble friend.

British Rail: Pension Fund
2.46 p.m
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to reach agreement with the British Rail pension trustees in accordance with the memorandum of understanding signed in July 1993.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we hope to reach agreement very soon. Detailed discussions have taken place between our respective officials and we put our proposals to the trustees on 31st March. Copies have been placed in the Library. Although we await a formal response following a meeting of the trustees board later this week, we believe that very few issues remain unresolved between us.
The trustees have agreed in principle a mutually acceptable formula in relation to future support payments under the Transport Act 1980 to the pensioners' closed fund once it has the benefit of an absolute solvency guarantee from the Government.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am very glad to know that the nine-month process is about to yield some result. Is my noble friend aware that there is some satisfaction that the question of phasing capital payments into the fund, which once seemed to be a sticking point for the Government, has now been settled? At the same time there is concern and disappointment that the nibbling process is still going on, apparently with the aim of modifying the arrangements made in the memorandum of understanding governing the possibility of a surplus arising and the pensioners' share in it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind words in the first part of his question, even though the process may have taken nine months. To answer the last part of his question, that remains one of the issues that we are discussing. Indeed, the officials met yesterday afternoon and came to a form of words. Both sides have taken them away in order to study that possible solution and see whether it is
88
acceptable to both sides. It is a difficult question. It centres around any surpluses which arise in the fund subsequent to a stage when the taxpayer may have put some money into the fund and whether that surplus—or the amount equal to what the Government put in previously—should go into reserve before the division is made between the fund itself and the existing pensioners to allow them to have an increase. It is a complicated matter. We understand the problem from the other side but, equally, we believe that we have to look after the interests of the taxpayers.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the experience of the Government in this regard, with the rather serious delay in settling this matter, have any lessons for the Government in dealing with another large nationalised pension fund; namely, the Coal Board fund? Can we assume that, as we passed the Coal Board privatisation Bill, there will be no similar delays in the very complicated situation that arises in the coal mines?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I must advise the noble Lord that I shall deal with one pension scheme at a time, given that these are the documents that were placed in the Library on 31st March. Clearly, this privatisation was different from previous privatisations and the pension position had to be dealt with quite separately from previous privatisations. I am sure that if there are any lessons to be learned, the Department of Trade and Industry will be more than happy to learn them from us.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will the actuarial advice that has been made available to the Government from the Government Actuary be published along with the documents that have been placed in the Library? Further to that question, has the membership of the board of trustees of the closed pension fund now been amended to include the Government's chief actuary as a member, as was originally proposed? I am sure that the Minister will be aware that we are all conscious of the strong views held by the Government's chief actuary in relation to the British Rail pension fund.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as to the first part of the noble Lord's question, certain of the agreements will be published, but I do not think that separate advice from the Government Actuary to the Government will be published unless it forms part of the eventual agreement. As to the question of whether the Government Actuary will be a member of the board of trustees, which was the original proposal, the Government recognise the potential conflict between his duties under the general trust laws and his responsibility to the Government, and we have decided not to proceed with the concept of a government director, as envisaged in the memorandum of understanding.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister indicate when that was announced? In view of the heavy job losses that have already been suffered in British Rail between March and December of last year and the fears of serious job losses resulting from the activities of Railtrack, which is planning to cut the annual cost of

89
maintaining the rail network, will the Minister make the Government's position quite clear? Is it now the case that workers undertaking new jobs with different employers in the industry will be able to transfer their pension? Why, up to 1st April, were the Government insisting that that would apply only if the transfer was involuntary? Why were the Government asserting that the Inland Revenue would not permit British Rail staff to maintain their existing pensions with a new employer?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a number of complicated questions. I am afraid that I cannot tell him the date on which the announcement about the Government Actuary was made. I am not sure whether that information is in the documents beside me, but I cannot quickly whizz through them to see. It may be that I have just announced it for the first time publicly, but who knows?
Turning to the noble Lord's other questions, the pension arrangements of existing employees of British Rail will transfer with them to the new joint industry scheme which will be set up and, thereafter, to any scheme set up by separate employers. I think that the Inland Revenue problem was that it would not recognise a scheme run by a number of different employers. Therefore, there had to be different schemes for any future different employers in the railway industry.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, having regard to that answer, does the Minister recognise that there is an obligation to make the position very clear to the employees, which, with respect, is rather more than that answer provided?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am quite certain that the position will be clear to the existing employees who will know that their pension rights will transfer from the current scheme when it is divided between the two schemes: the closed scheme, to deal with existing pensioners and deferred pensioners; and the new scheme, the joint industry scheme, which will cover those continuing their employment in the railway industry.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that two matters of concern to pensioners in both the rail and coal pension schemes are, first, the division of surpluses and, secondly, the possibility that if the funds should run into deficiency in any one particular year there would be a consequential cut in the pension entitlement? Can the Minister give any reassurance on those two issues?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, on the latter point, as I explained in my Answer to my noble friend Lord Peyton, there will be an absolute solvency guarantee from the Government. That should deal with the real substance of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while I understand that many complicated matters are involved, does not my noble friend agree that there is an underlying, basic, simple issue—the fulfilment in letter and spirit of the obligations that were undertaken by the
90
Government in the memorandum of understanding? I wonder whether my noble friend is aware of how much I hope that it will not be necessary for me to come back to ask the same Question again in three months' time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that it is our intention to come to a satisfactory conclusion of this matter—satisfactory both to pensioners and future pensioners, and to the Government. I earnestly share my noble friend's hope that he will not have to come back to ask me another Question on this issue.

Human Rights: Protocol 11 Ratification
2.55 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, at the next meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in May, they will sign, and thereafter ratify, Protocol No. 11 to the European Convention on Human Rights (to reform the European Court of Human Rights), thereby ensuring a permanent right of access to the court for victims of violations of the convention by the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the United Kingdom will sign Protocol 11 at the ministerial meeting on 11 th May and will ratify it in due course.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that extremely welcome Answer. The Government's decision will greatly strengthen the urgent and much needed reform of the enforcement procedures under the European Convention on Human Rights for the benefit of everyone in this country and in the new and old democracies of the rest of Europe. May I ask the Minister whether, in ratifying, the Government will seek to equal the record that was set by the Attlee Government in 1951 of being the first contracting state to ratify this international instrument'? For good measure, will the Government complete the process of enforcing human rights through law by giving support to a measure to make the rights of the convention directly effective in our courts as well as on the international plane before the European Court?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I see no reason why the United Kingdom should not ratify before others. I shall ensure that the noble Lord's suggestion is carefully considered. On the question of incorporation, the view taken by successive governments is that the rights set out in the convention are generally secured in this country by the provisions of existing common and statute law, and that incorporation would undermine the sovereignty of Parliament by giving courts a direct role in determining the compatibility of domestic laws with the convention. I

91
would be very concerned if that could, for instance, propel judges into the political arena, thus threatening their independence, but I shall look into it further.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the pleasure that this announcement gave to those of us who were at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg last week when we heard that the United Kingdom Government were going to make the right permanent? Will my noble friend investigate a little more the view that the necessary merging of the Commission and the court will speed up matters? There are signs that the avalanche of cases may not prove to give the result that we would all like to see.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments about the pleasure given. It is a good move. I share his concern about the length of time that it takes from the lodging of an application to a decision by the court. I understand that it has been taking up to four-and-a-half years. I sincerely hope that the reforms set out in Protocol 11 will greatly reduce the time taken. We must monitor what happens.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the very great pleasure that this will give not only in the United Kingdom and the Council of Europe but throughout the world, since the United Kingdom has been one of the leading countries to talk about and press for human rights observations throughout the world? One of our great strengths has been that we ratified Article 25 of the convention, allowing for personal representation and individual redress of grievance to the Court of Human Rights. That, again, will strengthen the position of the United Kingdom not only in Europe but in international fora.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. The UK has played a major role in developing the terms under which the institutions of the European Convention on Human Rights is to be reformed. I believe that that bodes well for the future.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, will the noble Baroness amplify her answer that the Government continue to oppose direct enforcement by our own citizens of the convention rights in their own courts? Why do the Government trust foreign judges but not our own judges to enforce the convention, with its impact upon our own domestic law?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, helpful as I should like to be to the noble Lord, I do not believe that I can add anything to the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. We certainly believe in our own courts; we certainly believe that there is a proper role, through our own courts, for human rights. As I said, Parliament rather than the courts should determine individual rights in this country.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the right of access continue to be dependent on exhausting our own domestic procedures?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand that to be so.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House how many other countries in the Council of Europe have failed to incorporate those terms into their own domestic law? If, as I understand the matter, there are very few, will the noble Baroness say what is so special about this country that others can do that and we cannot?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand that Iceland, Ireland and Norway have not yet incorporated the convention into their domestic law. I understand, too, that the Government have made considerable progress on this matter and I look to seeing further progress in the future.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, if the rule which compels domestic remedies to be exhausted first is to remain in place, which means that appeals may reach as far as the House of Lords, would that not stultify the hope which my noble friend indicated that matters would move more quickly in the future?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for elucidating that matter. He raises an important issue which I am interested in taking further.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her references to parliamentary sovereignty have caused some perplexity? Is it not correct that no Parliament can bind its successors? If Parliament should wish to incorporate the convention, it cannot undermine its sovereignty by doing so.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot find fault with the noble Earl's logic.

NHS and Elderly Patients
3.3 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How, following reports of discrimination against patients on grounds of their age, they intend to ensure equal access to treatment in the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, National Health Service treatment is open to everyone on the basis of clinical need. It is for clinicians to decide how best to treat individual patients according to their medical condition.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is it not the case that what we have seen last week in the reports of discrimination against elderly patients is really the latest and I would say the most disgraceful example of NHS managers, not clinicians, dictating in the competitive marketplace how

93
people should be treated, which is against the founding principles of the NHS and, indeed, the Government's own Patient's Charter?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are totally unambivalent on this subject. It is unacceptable for treatment to be withheld solely on the grounds of a patient's age. In the two instances which were highlighted over the weekend, one decision was taken by a physiotherapist and the other by a locum doctor. I think that the National Health Service on the whole is little short of a miracle. It invests£39 billion per year and employs a million people. I think it is to be expected that one or two of those people may make mistakes from time to time.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that decisions were taken in the two cases highlighted by a physiotherapist and a member of the medical profession. Is she implying by that that those decisions were taken without any financial pressures being brought to bear? After those incidents, Dr. Mawhinney was interviewed on a news programme and he stated that the elderly gentleman whose physiotherapy had been curtailed because of his age had been offered alternative and more beneficial treatment. What was the treatment which was to compensate for his loss of physiotherapy?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the trust involved in the locum doctor case issued a press release yesterday which categorically stated that it has no policy whatever that is based on discrimination according to age. The physiotherapist from the other trust put out a letter without any consultation with the management, the board of the trust or anybody else. That letter has now been withdrawn. I understand that that trust offers a comprehensive service for elderly people which includes not only physiotherapy but also occupational therapy and other services that would be of use to those people.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that it is deplorable for the "Today" programme to highlight only two cases from the millions of cases where people of all ages have been treated? Does she not further agree that that is scaremongering among elderly patients in this country? Would it not be a good idea for the "Today" programme to pay a little more attention to the success and achievements of the National Health Service rather than trying daily to denigrate it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. As I have said, I think the National Health Service is little short of a miracle—a veritable Brian Lara of a service. When one looks at expenditure in the National Health Service, it is interesting to see that around 40 per cent. of hospital and community health services are devoted to people aged over 65, although they comprise only 16 per cent. of the population. The National Health Service can do little more. It is inevitable that elderly people will receive more treatment, and, indeed, our figures show that.
Lord Howell: My Lords, has the Minister seen a report in the Today newspaper this morning to the effect that Sir John Hale, a distinguished former chairman of the National Gallery, was refused physiotherapy treatment at the Atkinson Morley Hospital? His wife described the attitude that she encountered there as "barbaric". Will the Minister accept that we were extremely pleased to hear her reaffirm the rights expressed under Section 1 of the National Health Service Act, and also the Patient's Charter, that every patient has the right to clinical treatment? Will she tell us how it can be ensured that those rights are determined by clinicians—doctors and surgeons—rather than managers who have never treated anyone in any hospital in the country?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I explained that neither of the two cases highlighted over the weekend involved management decisions. With regard to the case drawn to my attention by the noble Lord which is reported in the Today newspaper, I understand that that individual received therapy at the Putney Home. Physiotherapy is a difficult area because many people feel that it does them good and enjoy the benefits of it. However, in the eyes of the clinicians involved—the physiotherapists—it may not always be the most effective form of treatment. It can be extremely difficult trying to tell the patients involved that that is the case. I believe that that is what happened as regards the Brighton trust.

Vehicle Excise and Registration Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time. The Bill consolidates the enactments relating to vehicle excise duty and the registration of vehicles. The last major consolidation of the vehicle excise and registration Acts was in the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 but further provision about the subject has been made almost annually by successive finance Acts and by a considerable number of other Acts. That of itself indicates a strong case for fresh consolidation. The case is further strengthened by the peculiar recent history of the provisions about vehicle excise duty. This has had the result that the current law can be ascertained only by referring both to the provisions in the body of the 1971 Act and to modifications contained in a schedule, which had originally been expected to operate transitionally for a few years only
I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the draftsmen for continuing their important consolidation work. If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills,
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
3.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Incapacity benefit: entitlement]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("364") and insert ("196").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to make long-term incapacity benefit payable from 28 weeks, as is the present position with invalidity benefit. The Bill extends the period classed as "short-term incapacity" from 28 to 52 weeks. That means that benefit entitlement is delayed for a full year, resulting in a lower level of payment than is currently available under invalidity benefit.
Since 1971, long-term incapacity has been regarded as commencing after the 28th week. The payment of invalidity benefit—introduced by a Conservative government—after 28 weeks of sickness benefit has marked the beginning of the long-term period. Redefining "long-term incapacity" as beginning at 52 weeks represents a substantial reduction in benefit, even for those who pass the more stringent incapacity test; by definition, that is people genuinely incapable of work. It could mean many people subsisting on levels of income below income support level. Often the needs of a nearly-disabled person are greatest in the early stages.
Under this proposal, someone with a terminal illness, or deteriorating or long-term condition, will have to wait for a full year before full benefit is paid. Perhaps I may give an example. A man diagnosed as terminally ill, with a wife working part time and with three children, will not receive full benefit for himself or his children until 52 weeks have elapsed. Therefore, he will be supporting the family solely on the wife's income, and it must be borne in mind that she might be working part time.
The basic rate of benefit is awarded at too lower levels and not the full rate. No allowance is payable for children. No full allowance for a non-working partner can be paid. No allowance based on a claimant's age is possible. No disability premium, which is payable with means-tested benefits, is available.
From weeks 29 to 52, a basic rate is to be payable at £52.50, whereas the current basic rate of invalidity benefit is££57.60. There is a difference of £5.10 per week, which amounts to £122.40 by the end of the first year. The level of invalidity benefit includes 50 pence compensation for value added tax on fuel, which is not payable with sickness benefit or statutory sick pay. As the latter has not been uprated for four years, those two factors increase the differential between short-term and
96
long-term benefit. In future, the disparity could be larger than that. Awarding the full rate of benefit at 28 weeks will reduce the savings that the Government expect to make by £110 million now and £150 million in 1996-97.
Under the proposals in the Bill, no children's allowance will be payable. Dependants' allowances, now payable from the 28th week of incapacity, will be delayed until the end of the first year. The loss of the child's allowance amounts to £11 per week for an only child; that is £264 by 52 weeks. A married claimant with two children will lose £45.65 per week, which amounts to something in excess of £1,000 by the end of the first year. I am sure that Members of the Committee, who I hope will support the amendment, will come forward with other examples. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I warmly support the amendment so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. He spoke most comprehensively, and I am not sure how much I can add
If one delays the incapacity benefit for a full year there will be knock-on effects on other benefits. Entitlement to the disability premium, which is payable with means-tested benefits such as income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit, depends on receipt of long-term incapacity benefit. At present it is payable from the 196th day of incapacity, when at present the invalidity benefit becomes payable. However, after April 1995 entitlement to the premium will be delayed until the end of the first year of incapacity. Therefore, waiting an extra six months for full payment will mean a considerable loss; almost £19.45 a week for a single person under 60. Those with incomes above the level which entitles them to claim income support may have to pay more in rent and council tax and may have a lower disposable income. Therefore the knock-on effects are considerable.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We too warmly support the amendment so well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. On Second Reading there was widespread anxiety about two major issues. The first is that the Bill stiffens the medical test which people must pass in order to be eligible for benefit. The Committee will deal with that issue on Thursday. The second is that after passing a much tougher medical test, the benefits which people then receive will be reduced. A cluster of amendments tabled today deal with that second issue; that is the reduced level of benefits even for those who have passed the more stringent medical test to acquire incapacity benefit.
Of the savings which will result from the Bill—that is, about £1.5 billion in a full year—most will come from people who will be refused access to benefit. But a not inconsiderable portion of the savings will come from reducing the real level of the benefits. As was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, they will come from refusing access to the higher rate of benefit at 28 weeks and instead postponing access to the higher rate of benefit for another six months. In other words, after people have passed the medical test they will not go on to the higher rate of benefit at six months as is now the case but must wait for 12 months. The amendment

97
provides that after a person has passed the medical test they will receive the higher rate of benefit at 28 weeks, as is now the case. The amendment therefore seeks to reinstate the approach which currently shapes invalidity benefit.
The amendment will move people on to the long-term rate of benefit at 28 weeks instead of 52 weeks. That means, for example, that people will be eligible for the higher rate of benefit. They will be eligible for an age allowance, children's allowance and benefit for a dependent spouse. If we do not amend the Bill in that way, it means that a disabled man (they are usually men), his spouse and his three, or four, children would for six months receive no more benefit than if there were just the husband and wife. For six months his family would have to live as though there were no children in the household. At the moment that benefit comes into play after six months. If we do not amend the Bill, the benefit will not come into play for 12 months.
The Government have talked about targeting, but this aspect of the Bill cannot be about targeting because the disabled person will have passed the test at 28 weeks but will not enjoy the associated benefits for a further six months. It must therefore be simply about savings. It is designed to save £150 million in a full year out of a total bill of £1.5 billion.
Contributory benefits such as this are meant to be earnings replacements, yet they are being cut while we all know that earnings are rising at the very time that we all know that to be disabled one needs an increase in income because of the additional costsfor— heating, food, laundry and aids. If the Bill is not amended the benefits will be reduced. Why? Will the Government give any reason for reducing the benefit at 28 weeks? Can they give any reason except that of savings for allowing the full rate to be paid at 52 weeks rather than 28 weeks, as now?
It cannot be to encourage people back to work because the disabled person will have just passed the medical test which says that he or she needs to remain on disability benefit. It cannot be related to previous earnings because, on average, invalidity benefit now is worth less than one-half of what people earned previously. It cannot be related to their needs or costs, because by virtue of being disabled their needs, their costs, their daily living expenses, are increased. They need more heating, special diets and the like. It certainly cannot be related to their poverty, because, if we do not amend the Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, proposes, those who are disabled will for six months (between 29 weeks and 52 weeks) be receiving a benefit to support disability that is lower than income support levels, which I am sure we all regard as the bare minimum upon which to live a decent life.
One of the virtues of invalidity benefit in the past was that it provided a benefit which lifted people just above income support level so that only 9 per cent. of those on it needed to turn to income support. If we do not amend the Bill, we shall send many more people (perhaps 25 per cent.) on benefit back onto income support to top up a benefit for their disability which the Government themselves recognise is not enough to live on, because it makes no allowances for children or age, and often no
98
allowance for a dependent spouse. It means that the disabled person will have to apply for a means-tested benefit to top up a contributory benefit which itself was meant to be an earnings replacement benefit.
What is the point of a contributory benefit, designed for incapacity, which produces a benefit which is below income support levels? If the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, receives support today, which I hope that he will, and if, as a result, the Government are minded to change their position, that would allow the disabled to be no worse off than they are at present, which is to enjoy the full rate of benefit after 28 weeks, not after 52 weeks. But if the Committee is not minded to give that support, the Committee would be saying to disabled people at a point of pain, stress and costs in their lives that they are expected to live on a benefit which is lower than income support for six months longer. I suggest that that is not decent.
Earl Russell: This is an amendment of considerable importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has pinpointed the key point about it. It is something where people are being asked to live at a level below income support. The noble Viscount may remember that I have had a longstanding argument with the department about the adequacy of the income support level itself. He may be relieved to know that I do not intend to reopen that argument now, but I think that he will allow that it is regarded in many quarters of this place as a very important principle that any level of support below income support level should prima facie be deemed to be inadequate. I can recall in the past dividing this place on that principle at 10 minutes to midnight, and I am not ashamed to have done so.
If people are going below a level upon which there is considerable evidence that they find it difficult to maintain an adequate diet, then what are they going to do? Putting people down to that sort of level of support is something that cannot be regarded as entirely without consequence. In another place, the Government talked about focusing the benefit. On these Benches, the word "focus" has a meaning. That is not what that meaning is. I do not rightly understand what the Government meant by "focusing" the benefit unless they meant arranging it more to their own administrative convenience. I cannot see how that argument can be related to real need.
Perhaps the Government supposed that people were going to live on savings during that period. The Government have, from time to time, a curious idea about what people on lower income levels can do on savings. That I think is the result of a misleading Treasury method of classifying the figures, because all the money that we use for pension contributions, all the money we use for mortgage repayments, is classified within the Treasury's categories as savings. Now that appears, if one looks at the figures in Whitehall, to be a fairly considerable sum, but it does not in fact bear any relationship to the amount of money we have in the bank, or under the mattress—whichever may he more appropriate—upon which we can actually call on a rainy day.
If the Government are relying on savings to get people through they may be making a miscalculation

99
based upon their own misleading method, at least for these purposes, of putting the figures together. Mr. Scott in another place also said that the purpose of the Bill here was to constrain costs. Of course cost needs watching. Of course costs are a matter of concern, but in something that is putting people below income support level the burden of proof upon those who would argue that the measure actually reduces costs is a heavy one, because it is to be hoped that people who are reduced to that level will not cease to exist. If they continue to exist, they may generate costs in a great many other ways. The most obvious one, if they are short of food, is that they may become ill. We were hearing only a few minutes ago about the pressure of costs on the health service. Beggar my neighbour is a regular Whitehall game. The Department of Social Security tends usually to be the loser in that game. I have a great deal of sympathy with it for that reason, but I wonder whether all that the DSS is doing is trying to pay back the rest of Whitehall in its own coin. That is a game in which this place has no need to join.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before the Minister replies perhaps I may add my support for the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, intends to seek the views of the Committee in the Division Lobbies because this indeed is an important matter. We are dealing with two different groups of people. In this country over 60 per cent. of employees are not protected in any shape or form by continuous sickness payments from their employer when they are off work due to sickness. However, something under 40 per cent. of people have the privilege—for example, in the Civil Service, the Post Office and various other professions and industries—of six months' full pay and six months' half pay when they happen to be off work due to illness.
While I never like to give examples from personal experience, like many Members of the Committee I have had periods of fairly serious illness during my lifetime in three different sets of circumstances. One occurred while I worked in the engineering industry when there was absolutely no sickness pay. Perhaps I may be so bold as to tell the Minister that, although my family was not born at that time, the hardship endured by my wife and myself was, to put it mildly, a contributory factor to my inability to make a speedy recovery from the illness.
I then moved my employment to the Post Office, where I experienced another spell of lengthy illness. However, in the Post Office I enjoyed six months' full pay and six months' half pay during that time. It is interesting to note that I recovered remarkably quickly. That was because I did not have to cope with the pressure of receiving no income while I was ill.
Further, during my period in another place there was a year when I had to be away from my duties as a Member of Parliament because of another serious illness. I have to tell the Committee that if I were asked to choose where I wanted to be ill—working in the engineering industry or in the Post Office or being a Member of another place—I would choose being a
100
Member of the other place any time. Indeed, I never noticed a blind bit of difference in my income when I was off ill as a Member of another place. But here we are as legislators legislating for people and imposing conditions on them that we simply are not prepared to accept for ourselves. With great respect to the Minister, I suggest that that simply is not an acceptable principle upon which to legislate.
The legislation is undoubtedly Treasury led. As legislators we are inclined to see such proposals in terms of a global sum from the Exchequer's budget. But, of course, it is no such thing: it is individual cases, with people sometimes suffering untold hardship. We have no right to impose further hardship on that already being experienced by those families.
I have spoken only briefly. I shall conclude my remarks with a quote from Aneurin Bevan. At the time of the introduction of the National Health Service, on the one hand, and the social security legislation, on the other, Aneurin Bevan said that,
"at a time of sickness, wealth should be no advantage and poverty no disadvantage".
My goodness, if the legislation before us is doing anything, it is imposing on people who have the disadvantage of being poor a hardship that we are not entitled to impose. I plead with Members of the Committee that when we divide we make it absolutely clear to the Government that we are not prepared on behalf of those people to accept such hardship.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: I believe that we have listened to many most powerful and moving speeches. I grew up among the poor and I know that it is bad enough to be poor; but to be ill and poor is a terrible thing. For us here to feel—and, indeed, every one of us is comfortable—that we can say that the country is in such a bad way that it must take from those who are already at the bottom makes me feel ashamed. I am even ashamed that the proposition has been put forward.
I have but one brief point to make. I wish that the Chamber had been full to hear such powerful speeches. Then there would be no doubt about the result of the Division. We know that the decent thing will be for the Government to say that they have changed their mind.
Viscount Astor: We did, indeed, hear a powerful speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and a most eloquent plea from the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford. But what their speeches actually demonstrated was the importance of statutory sick pay, the importance of employees' occupational sick pay and, indeed, the importance of sickness benefit. Those are very important benefits for people in that situation. However, I return to the Bill. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said, but I am not sure that it was entirely relevant to the amendment now before the Committee
The amendment seeks to limit the period for which short-term incapacity benefit could be payable to the first 28 weeks of sickness. We propose to introduce a new benefit payable at three rates; the longer the period of incapacity the higher the rate. Short-term benefit will consist of a lower rate payable for the first 28 weeks of

101
sickness equivalent to the current rate of sickness benefit (currently £43.45) and a higher rate payable after 28 weeks equivalent to the higher rate of statutory sick pay (currently £52.50). Long-term incapacity benefit will be payable after 52 weeks at a rate equivalent to the current basic rate of invalidity benefit (currently £57.60).
It is important to point out that those who do not have other resources are eligible for income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. This restructuring will provide a basic income to those who cannot work and focus resources on those who are genuinely long-term sick. We believe that 52 weeks is a much more realistic definition of long-term sick than the current 28 weeks.
I should remind the Committee that benefit will continue for as long as a person remains incapable of work. Of course, as I said, it can be supplemented by private provision and, if necessary, income related benefits. Existing recipients will be protected. There will be no cash losers at the point of change. The most severely disabled will receive disability living allowance after 28 weeks and, as now, will qualify for disability premium, while the terminally ill will qualify straight away for DLA and, through it, disability premium immediately.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said that 52 weeks is too long a time to wait for disability premium. We consider that 52 weeks is a better definition of long-term incapacity. Long-term incapacity is only one of the many routes into the disability premium paid with income support and other income-related benefits. The premium is also awarded to people who are in receipt of DLA, AA and SDA and also to the registered blind. Those people will continue to qualify for the premium under the same rules and at the same time as now. The most severely disabled will not be affected. As I said, income support will be available for those with incomes below the income support level.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, talked about the medical test. We shall discuss that later. However, it is important for me to point out that at present we feel that invalidity benefit is not focused on need. It is not means tested or taxed and continues for five years beyond pension age. It is one of the last pre-pension benefits to contain an earnings related element and is highest for those who have worked the longest and earned the most. It takes no account of the growth in occupational pension since it was introduced. It is difficult to defend continuing to pay the earnings related additional pension which goes to the vast majority of invalidity benefit recipients regardless of whether they have an occupational pension and regardless of whether they have contracted out of SERPS. The benefit needs reforming to ensure that resources are focused on those who need assistance the most.
The three different rates of benefit are intended to reflect the cost of short and longer-term periods of incapacity. They are not in any sense a reward for passing the medical test. The rate of benefit and the test are independent of each other. If a link was intended, then the Bill would provide that the long-term rate of benefit was dependent on satisfying the all-work test. It
102
does not, and if it did I expect that some Members of the Committee would resist it because it would mean that any claimants returning to incapacity benefit under the provisions of the two-year DWA linking rule would be subject to the all-work test. The Government's intention is that they would be subject, like all other claimants who had been working prior to a claim, to the own-occupation test but would receive the long-term rate of benefit immediately.
I shall deal with the point about the couple with children who, it is claimed, would receive no child allowance. They would have access to income support if they had no other resources and would qualify for additional support for each child. They would also qualify for child benefit for each child. Incapacity benefit will continue to be paid even to those who have other income or savings. The benefit can be topped up by occupational pensions or, as I have said, by income support for those who need it. The basic rate of incapacity benefit will be the same as the existing rate of invalidity benefit. Age additions will be payable to those whose incapacity begins early in their working life before they have been able to make their own private provision. Increases will continue to be paid to those who have a dependent spouse or dependent children.
Even after the changes about 70 per cent. of new long-term incapacity benefit recipients will have circumstances which take them above income support entitlement. I make no apology for saying that we must contain spending on sickness benefits. Invalidity benefit is the fastest growing contributory benefit. It is second in cost only to retirement pension. Spending on this benefit has doubled in real terms in the last 10 years, from £2.7 billion to £6.2 billion. No responsible government could let that growth go on unattended. If we did, spending would grow by a further. 50 per cent. or more in real terms by the end of the decade. This Government are determined to grasp the nettle and introduce a system which is affordable and which focuses benefit on those most in need. This amendment therefore is at odds with our strategy of providing a sustainable and well targeted system.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the Minister sits down, and as we are in Committee, I hope he will expand on the point that the Bill is meant to focus on "those most in need", to use his words. Will he tell us how the proposals in the Bill will focus on "those most in need" when they will apparently "air brush" children out of existence for a period between six and 12 months? Does the Minister accept that at the moment a married man of 40 on invalidity benefit with two children will for the period between six months and 12 months receive £125 a week whereas under the Government's proposal he will receive only £79 a week? Will he also confirm that that is still some £30 to £40 below what that same man would receive from income support. How can the Minister claim that the Bill focuses on need when it entirely ignores the needs of the most vulnerable—that is children?
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I do not believe that is the case. Obviously, when one focuses a benefit on need, one focuses it on the most needy and some of those who would have received more money in the future—existing claimants are protected by transitional arrangements—will receive less under the proposed changes. However, the point I am making is that if anyone reaches a level below that of income support, he will receive income support if he qualifies for it. Therefore, no one who qualifies for income support will live on an amount which is below the level of income support.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Why then do the Government not bring the benefit up to income support level rather than require people who are fragile, in pain, distressed and disabled to be subjected to the procedures involved with two separate kinds of benefit in order to obtain a bare minimum living?
Viscount Astor: I can only repeat that we think it is wrong to pay higher amounts of benefit to people who have occupational pensions and savings, for example. I would point out that the most vulnerable people are protected. The noble Baroness wishes to give a much larger range of people much more money. We feel, however, that it is important to protect the most vulnerable. There is a difference of opinion between us on the matter. We believe that we must focus benefit. The noble Baroness must accept that explanation although I realise that she may not agree with it. That is the Government's strategy.
Earl Russell: I am not sure the Minister is really at home in a farmyard. He said that he was going to grasp the nettle but what I think he has done instead is impale himself on a fork. The Minister brought income support into the discussion. He is on a fork here because if he does not include income support he is applying a short-term benefit to a period altogether too long for it to be appropriate. If he brings income support into the discussion, then I would have thought that he is wiping out a large proportion of the putative saving. If we are to give people the necessary amount of money for subsistence through a mixed package made up of bits of two benefits, rather than in one, we are introducing a lot of unnecessary administration. I should have thought we are increasing the costs, and increasing the proportion of the costs that are spent on administration and not on meeting real need. I would have thought that that is not the way we needed to go.
Viscount Astor: I would say to the noble Earl that I do not believe I used the term "grasping the nettle"; nor do I believe that I am impaled on a fork. I shall continue, like a cockerel, to crow the policy of the Government; that is until I lose my voice. I accept the important point made by the noble Earl that administration is expensive. I accept that administration costs a degree of money. The difference between a universal benefit and one that is means-tested is that it takes a certain amount of resources to means test a benefit. I do not disagree with
104
the noble Earl on that point. However, if one is to ensure that the benefit is focused, one must ensure it is going to the people one wants it to go to.
Lord Swinfen:: My noble friend says that like a cockerel he will crow. Let us not forget that cockerels often stand on dung heaps to crow. The arguments he has used today are like the contents of a dung heap. I cannot say that I am at all satisfied with what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said that the Bill was Treasury led. I would say rather that it is Treasury drafted and that it is not drafted by my noble friend's department, the Department of Social Security, at all. The brief that my noble friend used to answer the amendment was, I suspect, also drafted for him by the Treasury.
It is said that there were three rates of incapacity benefit that increased over time. Surely my noble friend realises that the moment someone becomes incapable of work is the time when that person has been accustomed to the greatest income and therefore has engendered the greatest expense, for example on mortgages, hire-purchase and commitments of one form or another. It is also the time when that person may need to make substantial alterations to his home to make it suitable for habitation by the person who has become incapacitated. That is a time of considerable expense.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, invited me to test the opinion of the Committee. I am tempted to do so but I do not believe sufficient Members of the Committee have listened to the arguments this afternoon. It would be useful for them to have the opportunity to read the debate and to see the weakness of my noble friend's position. I intend to withdraw the amendment but I warn my noble friend that I shall return to the matter on Report. If he tries to present similar arguments at that stage I shall find it difficult not to take the opinion of the Chamber on that occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Is it the Committee's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
A noble Lord: No.
3.49 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: The Question is that Amendment No. 1 shall be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
The Chairman of Committees: Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Not-Contents have it.
Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 2Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert ("or, if he is terminally ill or suffers from a prescribed disease or disability or is in receipt of the higher rate of care component of disability living allowance, 196 days.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 4. The purpose

105
of the amendment is to enable people who will not be required to pass the functional element of the all work test to be eligible for long-term incapacity benefit after 196 days instead of remaining on short-term benefit for the full 364 days.
It is entirely consistent with the Government's intention to fast-track claimants who are terminally ill or receiving the disability living allowance higher rate care component (or DLAHRCC for short) and those whose conditions are featured on the list which the Secretary of State read in the other place during the Second Reading debate. As presently devised, the list includes severely disabled people and chronically sick people. These, and the terminally ill and people receiving DLAHRCC, are likely to be the most severely disabled of all incapacity benefit applicants. They will by definition be the most seriously disadvantaged financially. There is ample evidence that the daily costs of living as a disabled person increase with the severity of the disability.
The Committee will be familiar with the document Short changed by disability which was researched and written by the Disablement Income Group in 1990 in response to the Government's own survey of disabled people conducted by OPCS. It revealed that the most severely disabled people in the sample interviewed were spending £87 a week on the extra costs of disability, excluding personal care costs. That exceeded by more than £27 a week the higher rate of attendance allowance and mobility allowance combined.
The author of the report, Pauline Thompson, observed that severely disabled people were supplementing their income maintenance benefit in order to meet their particular needs as disabled people. With incapacity benefit they will be even further adrift during the first year of incapacity because they will have to wait the full 364 days before moving on to the long-term rate of incapacity benefit.
The concept of fast-tracking certain applicants through to the highest rate of benefit is not new. There is already a useful precedent in the special rules arrangements for people who are terminally ill and claiming DLA, who go straight on to HRCC.
Since the Government have already decided on special treatment for a prescribed group of claimants in the context of assessment, with the explicit assumption that such people will not be expected to work again, it is logical to allow them to progress swiftly to the long-term rate. Otherwise the consequence for this vulnerable group may well be that severe financial hardship will threaten their early efforts to come to terms with life as disabled people.
During the debate in Standing Committee E on 8th February 1994 it became clear that any government opposition to this amendment was not based on cost. A pair of amendments had been tabled. This present amendment and a second fallback amendment to bring the same groups on to the higher short-term rate from day one of incapacity would, the Minister said, reduce public expenditure savings by approximately £10 million net per year. The reason he gave for not recommending the Committee's acceptance of the
106
amendments was that they ran counter to the Bill's overall strategy, which is to focus the provisions better. It is not exactly clear what the Minister meant by that.
Since the intention is that specific groups of applicants will be identified for fast-tracking in relation to the medical tests, which is in itself a precise form of focusing, it can be argued that providing for the same group of applicants to move to higher rates of incapacity benefit faster is entirely in keeping with that policy. Who better on whom to target resources than the very group which the Government have already identified as not being expected to work?
Government Amendment No. 4 provides for people with terminal illness to receive short-term incapacity benefit at 28 weeks at the value of the long-term rate. The drafting is somewhat unclear. However, I assume that it means that additions for age, partner, and children where applicable, will be payable at 28 weeks for this group of claimants. That is welcome but it does not go far enough. People in the other two categories who will be fast tracked through the assessment process (and who will not be expected to work) may be as severely disabled as someone with a terminal illness and suffering similar financial hardships as a result of their disability. Why have the Government decided not to include people in receipt of the higher rate care component and people on the prescribed list in the new amendment? It would be helpful if the Minister will clarify the point at which the death within six months consideration would apply. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I support what my noble friend said in moving the amendment. He has set out clearly the reasons and commented on the Government's previous reaction to the proposals. However, I emphasise that the amendment is not inconsistent with government policy. The Government have already decided that people with incapacities, including the terminally ill, should receive special treatment and should not need to go through the new medical test. I hope that the Government will consider again what is proposed in the amendment to enable people who are most unlikely to be able to work again and who are in bad physical conditions to be treated in the way proposed.
Lord Swinfen: I, too, support the amendment, ably moved by my noble friend Lord McColl. I have little to add to what he said except to suggest to my noble friend Lord Astor that when considering the amendment he should re-read his brief relating to Amendment No. 1. I believe that part of what he said was in support of this amendment.
Lord Carter: From these Benches, I am pleased that my name is attached to the amendment. The argument was expressed extremely ably by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I wish to emphasise some points. First, the need for such a change has been clearly defined with regard to people who are the most severely disabled of all incapacity benefit applicants. All the evidence indicates that the provision will meet a real need.
Perhaps the Minister will explain the concept of fast tracking and focusing. It was said in another place that

107
the amendments run counter to the Bill's overall strategy which is to focus provision better. But surely the idea of fast tracking—the principle is contained in the Bill—is the best example of focusing. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the proposal is regarded as counter to the policy of focusing whereas the fast tracking of specific groups of applicants, in particular in relation to the medical tests, is in itself a precise form of focusing. There is some confusion in the Government's mind. It would help if the Minister will explain the position
If the Government reject the amendment, perhaps the Minister will make clear whether it is on the ground of the £10 million cost, to which reference was made in another place. It was not clear on reading the debate in another place that the opposition was not based on cost. At the same time the argument for focusing is, if I may say so, extremely unfocused. Perhaps the Government will clarify the matter. If the Government intend to reject the amendment because of cost, they should say
SO.
We welcome Government Amendment No. 4. I assume that Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are consequential. As has been said, we believe that the provision does not go far enough.
Viscount Astor: The amendment introduced by my noble friend Lord McColl concerns the bringing forward of the long-term rate of incapacity benefit in specific cases. As he carefully explained, his amendment brings forward the long-term rate of benefit from one year to the 29th week in cases of terminal illness, receipt of the highest care component of disability living allowance and the list of prescribed diseases.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the issue was addressed when the Bill was debated in another place. It is an issue that we take seriously. We have sought to address the anxieties raised when the Bill was going through another place. Amendment No. 4, and the two consequential amendments, Amendments. No. 16 and 17, bring forward the long-term rate in cases of terminal illness so that it is payable from the 29th week of a claim for incapacity benefit.
On the previous amendment we had a debate about whether the long-term rate of benefit should be payable in all cases from the 29th week. I do not propose to set out again why the Government feel that 52 weeks is a more reasonable measure of long-term incapacity. During the passage of the Bill in another place, my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People promised to consider whether there should be any exceptions to that general rule. I shall come to the detail of my amendment shortly. However, before doing so perhaps I may address the amendments of my noble friend.
The Committee has argued that my noble friend's amendment should be accepted for two reasons: first, because these being the groups so severely disabled that they are exempted from the medical test they should receive the long-term rate of benefit when the exemption comes into force; and secondly, because payment of the
108
higher rates of benefit after 28 weeks would protect the most severely disabled, compensating them for the extra costs of disability.
I am not entirely convinced by either of those arguments. There will be many people just as severely disabled as someone in the exempt category but not automatically exempt from the test. Those people—for example, someone who had a very severe form of arthritis—would easily satisfy the test. They may be more severely disabled even than someone in the exempt group. It is difficult to see why they should receive a lower rate of benefit than someone who is exempt from the test.
My noble friend Lord McColl spoke of those people referred to in the list of exemptions from the test as being likely to be the most severely disabled. The list of exemptions referred to by my noble friend was not devised to define serious disability. It was a list of conditions where incapacity for work was a key factor and in doubt. It would be inappropriate to use that list for other means.
The exemptions are not fast tracked to the higher benefit rates. Those people are exempt from the process of the medical test because their condition is such and there is no doubt about incapacity. Most medical conditions are variable and therefore some investigation of the extent of the incapacity is needed. I can confirm for the terminally ill that additions in respect of partners, children and age will be payable from 28 weeks. As I said in answering the previous amendment, the test and rates of benefit are not linked. The higher rates of benefit are not in any way a reward, as it were, for passing the test.
The amendments that I have tabled bring forward the long-term rate of benefit in a limited way for the terminally ill. I believe that those amendments can be justified. I have tabled three amendments to give effect to that intention. Amendment No. 4 provides that after 28 weeks on short-term incapacity benefit, in cases of terminal illness, the long-term rate of benefit is payable. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 ensure that the long-term rate of benefit is payable straightaway to any claimant transferring to incapacity benefit after 28 weeks on statutory sick pay.
This is a sensitive area and I take very seriously the concerns that the Committee has addressed today. This Government were the first to introduce into the benefits system special provisions for the terminally ill in disability living allowance. The amendments that I have moved today build on this provision. I do not think there is a case for going further than my amendment and I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendments. I hope also that I have satisfied what I realise is a genuine anxiety of my noble friend.
Earl Russell: Before we reach a final resolution of the matter, perhaps the department could do something that I should have done before I came here but I did not have time; that is, to check the debates on the subject during the passage of the Social Security Bill 1990, especially the Government's response to three

109
amendments on the subject of terminal illness moved by my noble friend Lady Seear, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
It emerged in the course of the debates that one of the regular problems with terminal illness was that people were dead before their benefit entitlement was determined. On that occasion, the Government responded extremely generously. Will the Minister be prepared to check those debates, to make sure that what he is doing does not contradict any assurance given then by the Government?
Viscount Astor: I cannot give the noble Earl any assurance that I can do anything. However, I can assure him that I shall read the earlier debates and consider them carefully. I hope that I gave the impression to the noble Earl that this is an area where we take the concerns that were raised then, and those raised today, very seriously. Of course, I shall look at the earlier debates.
Lord Carter: I wish to raise a point related to that made by the noble Earl and which I should have mentioned on Amendment No. 4, which we welcome. We went to some trouble—and the Government worked very hard on it—when we introduced the amendments to the DLA to deal with terminal illness, to make sure that the matter was handled carefully in the guidance notes. In other words, we wanted to ensure that it was not made clear to people that they were terminally ill just because their benefit had changed. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether the Government have thought about the way in which they will do it and the administration of the change.
Viscount Astor: I do not have those details with me today, but I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord before Report stage so that he may have an opportunity to study how we intend to operate the change.
Lord Swinfen: When replying to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friend said that he would read the debates on terminal illness which took place earlier. However, he did not give an assurance that any undertakings which the Government gave at that time would still be honoured. If they do not propose to honour those undertakings now in this Bill, will my noble friend undertake, when we reach Report stage, to let us know that the undertakings are not to be honoured and why? Will he please also let us know what the undertakings were and those that are being honoured?
I realise that governments must be allowed to change their minds, but I feel that we should be advised that a change of mind has taken place and the reasons for the change.
Viscount Astor: I said that I would find out what the undertakings were. I cannot tell the Committee now because I did not deal with the Bill at that stage. Obviously, as my noble friend said, the Government can and do change their mind when they consider different issues. Circumstances change. I shall read the debate, as I said, but I cannot promise my noble friend that, having looked at it, I shall necessarily change my mind.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. I listened carefully to it and I shall read the report in Hansard. I reserve the right to raise the matter at Report stage, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No.3:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert ("or, if he is terminally ill, one day").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to bring forward entitlement to long-term incapacity benefit after one day, which is a more favourable position than at present. Under invalidity benefit rules, someone with a terminal illness is not entitled to benefit with all the additions until the 28th week of incapacity for work. The Bill proposes to delay payment of long-term benefit until the 52nd week of incapacity. People with a terminal illness can claim disability living allowance for care and mobility needs immediately, without having to satisfy the three-month waiting period. They can automatically receive the higher rate of benefit.
People may qualify under the special rules if their death can reasonably be expected within the next six months. Although the provisions assist someone in a claim for DLA, there is no similar provision for immediate access to the full rate of invalidity benefit., nor under its successor incapacity benefit. It could be possible to use the same definition of "terminal illness" as under the DLA special rules to ensure early entitlement to long-term incapacity benefit in such circumstances, to ensure that people with terminal illness do not fail to receive full entitlement before their death. The numbers who could gain from that are likely to be small, but the gains to the individual could be very large indeed
The Government may argue that the existence of the special rules access to DLA renders any similar access to incapacity benefit unnecessary. However, DLA is designed to give assistance with care and mobility needs and not to provide for income replacement during the time of need. People with terminal illness incur additional costs which are not covered by DLA and they may have a partner and a child to support. Bringing forward entitlement to incapacity benefit would go some way towards alleviating the stress and deprivation associated with a low level of income during; that period. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I hope that my noble friend will consider the amendment seriously and favourably. It is quite obvious that the strains upon a family where the breadwinner is terminally ill will be considerable. They will be not only emotional but, usually, also financial as the family endeavours to make the passing of the individual as comfortable and happy as possible and also to relieve the stress on other members of the family, particularly where the family may have one or more children. The additional stress, strains and discomfort from the loss of income at that time is something that no really civilised country should place on any family.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): As I put my name to the amendment perhaps I may briefly add a word of support. I think that the case has been entirely made. We have the precedent of the disability living allowance and I remind the Minister of the words of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on how the other amendments came about, when we realised that the terminally ill were actually dead before they could draw their benefits. I thoroughly support the amendment and hope that the Minister will consider it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on these Benches also support the amendment so clearly moved by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. Terminal illness is a special circumstance in which the family are in the most acute stress and trauma, as well as having even higher costs and greater needs in terms of day care support and the like. The Minister has accepted, through DLA, that such families can go immediately on to the higher rate allowance the moment a terminal illness has been diagnosed. That principle has been accepted for DLA. It has been accepted in so far as such people obviously do not need to go through a second medical test. We are saying: please make the basic incapacity benefit follow the same pattern as DLA and allow those who have a terminal illness, whose life expectancy is probably less than six months, to go immediately—not through stage one, the lower rate, and not through stage two, but immediately—onto stage three. If not, our fears are that they will die before they receive the higher rate. Otherwise, those who are less severely ill will enjoy better financial support than those who are terminally ill. We cannot believe that that is the Committee's intention.
Earl Russell: On behalf of these Benches I shall say only that we agree strongly with the case for the amendment, and I shall not gild the lily.
Viscount Astor: In replying to the amendment moved by my noble friend, first I remind the Committee —indeed my noble friend mentioned this point—that incapacity benefit is an income replacement benefit. It is not intended to reflect the extra cost of being severely disabled. The extra costs of disability in terms of care and mobility needs are reflected elsewhere in the benefits system through disability living allowance and the premia in the income-related benefits. Attempting to make incapacity benefit reflect those needs would duplicate existing provision.
The majority of people who fall sick—we estimate about 80 per cent. of the total—will not be on incapacity benefit but instead, for the first 28 weeks of incapacity, will be in receipt of statutory sick pay from their employer. This amendment would place them at an unfair disadvantage compared to a claimant of incapacity benefit.
As I said in response to the amendment that we dealt with previously, we think that we have the right view about the terminally ill. The Government, as I said, were the first to introduce into the benefits system a special provision for the terminally ill in disability living allowance. Under that provision terminally ill claimants do not have to serve the 28-week waiting period. Instead
112
they go straight onto the highest rate of benefit. For most people that will in fact be the result of the Government's amendment. Most people are on statutory sick pay for 28 weeks. When, after that period, they come onto IB they will get the highest rate immediately if they are terminally ill. The arrangements that we propose for IB take account of the structure of provision for incapacity; that is, state provision and SSP.
The amendments that I have tabled today introduce a new enhancement into the incapacity benefit for the terminally ill. I do not believe that it would be sensible or equitable to go further than my amendment suggests. The amendment of my noble friend would, in comparison with people who are in receipt of the short-term lower rate incapacity benefit, disadvantage people in the receipt of statutory sick pay.
I recognise that dealing with all the benefits that relate to this group of people creates a difficult and slightly complex problem, but I hope that the explanation that I have given my noble friend has given him some reassurance that we have addressed his concerns.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank the noble Viscount for those explanations of this rather complex subject. I reserve the right to raise the matter at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause I agreed to.
Clause 2 [Incapacity benefit: rate]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert:
("(3A) In the case of a person —

(a)who has been entitled to short-term incapacity benefit for 196 days in a period of incapacity for work, and

(b)who suffers from a progressive disease, and

(c)whose death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within 6 months,

the weekly rate of short-term incapacity benefit payable in respect of any later day in that period is the rate at which long-term incapacity benefit under section 30A above would be payable to that person.").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 8, at end insert:
("(4A) An additional amount of benefit is payable where there are one or more surpluses in the claimant's earning factors for the relevant years; and for this purpose, "relevant year" means any tax year, being neither earlier than the tax year 1978—79 nor later than the tax year 1990—91, in the period which begins with the tax year in which the claimant attained the age of 16 and ends with the tax year immediately preceding the tax year which includes or included the 197th day of the period of incapacity for work in respect of which incapacity benefit is payable.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment relates to the additional pension which has already been referred to briefly by the Minister in his response to Amendment No. 1.
The additional pension was introduced as a means of assisting people who had to leave work before retirement age for health reasons. It was intended to ensure that this group would be no worse off than people who had just a few more years to work to retirement.
As I understand it, the Bill seeks to abolish that provision for new claimants for IVB, although existing claimants for IVB who are covered by the transitional arrangements will continue to receive their additional pension, but frozen at 1994–95 levels; that is, with no further up-rating. The estimated savings from abolishing the additional pension are said to be £20 million net in 1995–96, rising to £130 million in 1996–97; and £30 million has already been saved in stopping contributions after 1990 from counting towards the pension.
The Government have attempted to justify their proposal to freeze the additional pension for existing claimants and to deny it altogether to new claimants by saying, as I understand it, that the additional pension duplicates occupational or private schemes. Indeed, the Minister made that comment earlier today in response to Amendment No. 1. Would that that were so in some ways! Would that more people were covered by good occupational pension provision. Unfortunately that is not so. More people currently receive an additional pension with their invalidity benefit than receive occupational pensions. Anyone who paid national insurance contributions between 1978 and 1990 could be eligible for the additional pension, which could therefore be of more benefit to people who had the least time in which to make occupational or private pension provision.
There may well now be fewer people covered by good occupational schemes than there were before the changes in the labour market to which we have often referred in this Chamber; namely, increased part-time work, casualisation, and so on. In 1992, over 85 per cent. of claimants received an additional pension. Only 38 per cent. of those received occupational pensions, and some of those pensions could very well not have been very high. Not all schemes provide high benefit, particularly to employees who may have short or broken service. The DSS's own research indicates that 68 per cent. of all IVB recipients did not receive an occupational pension.
In practice, many vulnerable groups are not covered by occupational schemes. They include many people who are on low incomes, since often they cannot make the contributions that are necessary in order to be covered by such schemes. Moreover, private coverage is often hard to obtain by people with disabilities. I am advised that the average amount of the additional pension is £13.40 per week. The increased level of benefit which the additional pension represents can enable claimants to avoid a sudden drop in income after becoming incapable of work.
It has been clearly indicated by the Government, particularly by the Minister speaking in the other place, that the reason for this proposition is one of cost cutting. But we are talking, in the main, of very poor people. Most IVB claimants tend to be over 50 and often have very little in the way of skills. Those who have been manual workers may have had little opportunity, once they were disabled, to obtain any work that they could usefully do. The people who receive the additional pension do so because their condition renders them incapable of earning a living. As I indicated, it is not enormously generous. The Minister said at Second
114
Reading on 21st March (col. 525) that the average amount of IVB currently in payment was £90 a week. I have just said that the average amount of additional pension is £13.40 per week. Those two sums taken together clearly do not represent a very high living standard. Certainly, for someone living at that level the freezing of the additional pension could eventually represent a substantial loss. It is even worse, of course, for new claimants, who under these provisions would not get anything at all by way of additional pension.
I repeat what we said on Second Reading. If the Government want to save money they should not seek to do so at the expense of the poor, the disabled and the sick. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: When the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, referred to additional pension being frozen, the verb may have been even more appropriate than the noble Baroness intended. This Government have made a great deal of noise about their virtue in payment of compensation for the cost of VAT on fuel. But it emerged in a Written Answer given to my honourable friend Mr. Rednal on 28th of last month, that those who for any reason do not receive the full pension, also do not receive the full compensation for the cost of VAT on fuel. So they will be hit twice and not just once. And in this world one should perhaps think twice about shortage of heat for those on low incomes.
We have here part of a much larger problem. It is the inevitable price of basing pensions on a contributory system that there will always be people who, whether because of illness, absence from the country or for some other reason, have gaps in their contribution records. Those account for a large proportion of the pensioners who depend on income support and are usually among the poorest of those on pensions. The additional pension was designed to plug at least one small part of the gap. If one becomes disabled and ceases to be able to work, one ceases to be able to make one's contribution and without a device of this sort, may become very short on pension.
If I may say so, we are going to have a second trip round the track of reliance on income support on lo which the Minister put us on Amendment No. 1. He will say that the poverty alleged will be less than alleged because people will rely on income support. That will provoke the obvious reply: if that is so, are not the savings which the Government will achieve a good deal less than they imagine? In fact, I am interested to know on what assumptions in regard to income support the costings have been done. The savings we are being shown are extremely small for the considerable amount of hardship which will be caused.
Once again we must ask the question: are the Government taking their savings gross or net? If they are taking their savings gross, then the figures are credible but not significant; if they are taking them net, then the figures are significant but not credible. Care of the old is one of the most expensive aspects of medicine. We have heard a little about that over the past week. It is a considerable burden on the cost of the health

115
service. Care in the community is also a considerable burden on the cost of the health service and on the cost of social services. The Government should stop to ask whether, by making old people poorer, they are really saving money. If they are not saving money—I do not see how they can be sure whether or not, in net terms, they are—then why are they doing what they are doing? Is it not once again the mistake of looking at savings simply in terms of departmental budgets when what we should be asking is what is the system which involves the lowest cost to public funds as a whole? If that question has not even been asked, then it should be asked before any final resolution of this matter is reached.
Viscount Astor: As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, the effect of this amendment is to introduce into incapacity benefit an additional pension component similar to that which exists for IVB.
We calculate that by the end of the century additional pension will be costing some £2 billion. Additional pension has consistently grown by an average of over 20 per cent. per year since the early 1980s and would continue to grow at an estimated rate of 10 per cent. per year under present arrangements. The Government are committed to making provision that is affordable. The amendment as drafted would cost the taxpayer £20 million in 1995–96 and £130 million in 1996–97.
One of our guiding principles in the development of incapacity benefit was to consider the relevance of the additional pension to a reformed system of benefits. Additional pension is poorly targeted, as it is earnings related. Unlike SERPS, there is no deduction made in respect of opting out. In effect one can opt out, paying reduced national insurance contributions as a consequence, build up an occupational or private pension and also receive the additional pension. Indeed, around half of existing male recipients already receive occupational pensions averaging £70 per week in addition to IVB. That figure is growing.
For those reasons we are abolishing additional pension for new claimants. Present recipients will continue to receive additional pension. However, to continue uprating additional pension for existing claimants would increase the disparity between old and new claims. That would be inequitable, so their entitlements will not be uprated. It is important, however, to remember that there will be no cash losers. Existing recipients will continue to receive additional pension as long as their entitlement to benefit continues.
Members of the Committee focused on the effects of abolishing additional pension on benefit entitlement. A significant proportion of IVB recipients do have other resources. Since additional pension is earnings related, it is likely that those who receive a high amount of additional pension are those who have other incomes and savings. They are thus unlikely to fall into a category of those on whom we would most like to focus benefit spending.
Additional pension is based on earnings and those who have had the least time to build up occupational or private provision will also have the least time to build up
116
additional pension. As your Lordships are aware, that is why we have a provision for those people who come on to benefit at a young age. The new benefit will pay additions to reflect the young's inability to build up private pension provision. It will be £12.50 a week if incapacitated before the age of 35 and £6.10 if they are between the ages of 35 and 45.
IVB recipients now and incapacity benefit recipients in the future will have their contribution record credited for the period in which they are incapable of work. Additional pension is based on earnings and therefore does not plug the gap referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in the national insurance contributions record. We believe that the additional pension is poor targeting. It is an outdated arrangement and no longer relevant to people's needs or affordable in the long term. Therefore I hope that, with that explanation of why we feel it necessary to change the arrangements, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Viscount sits down, can he say whether he calculated his savings gross or net? The point is essential for judging the validity of his argument.
Viscount Astor: The gross savings in the memorandum—£550 million in 1995–96 and £1,450 million in 1996–97—show the effects of the Bill on the new —control total expenditure. They take account of offsetting costs and expenditure on benefits which come under the heading of NCT expenditure. They include retirement pension, housing benefit, council tax benefit, family credit, DWA and income support for the over-60s. The memorandum then shows offsetting costs on cyclical social security expenditure, income support and unemployment benefit, which in the future will be job seekers' allowance.
Earl Russell: I am sorry to ask the Minister for clarification. Was I right in understanding that he was dealing with public expenditure consequences of the Bill as a whole and not with the freezing of the additional pension, which is what we need to know?
Viscount Astor: I was dealing with it as a whole. In my original response to the amendment I gave the noble Earl the figures.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may pursue the point further because it is of importance. Has the department made any assumptions about the effects on the health of old people of increased poverty and also about the possible cost of any such effects; and if so, what assumptions? The point may not be important but I should like it to be considered so that we can tell whether it is or not.
Viscount Astor: The noble Earl asks whether there is an effect on spending on community care. That is what he seems to be implying. What is important is that we get the targeting for incapacity benefit right. There may be some further effect on various people. For example, there may be people in the future who would now collect income support. That could be an effect. There may be the effect that we discussed earlier. I do not think I can give the noble Earl quantifiable figures. What I am saying is that we have to get every benefit focused

117
on the most needy, whether it be a benefit that comes from the Department of Social Security or any other department. That is what is important.
Lord Swinfen: I do not think my noble friend gave the noble Earl, Lord Russell, an answer to the question that he actually asked. He was not asking about community care. He was asking about the effects on the health of elderly individuals who are living in poverty and whether, should there be a deterioration in their health through money worries, it would increase their living costs because they would need more medicines and would have to pay greater prescription charges, and so on. That needs to be taken into account. If it is possible to give a little more to those people so that that financial worry is removed and therefore the effect of ill health is reduced, it would benefit not only the nation's health as a whole but the Treasury as well. I am sure that the Treasury is behind all this.
Viscount Astor: I do not think my noble friend should infer that the responsibility for incapacity benefit has somehow transferred to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has not. It remains with the Department of Social Security. We want to have a better benefit which is more focused. As we go on through the Bill I hope to explain to the Committee the improvements we shall make, so that there will be improvements to recipients; and not only improvements so that the taxpayer can afford to pay the new benefit.
My noble friend makes a point which is not answerable. He compares two things that are not the same. The Bill will not affect the health of anyone. The National Health Service deals with the health of the nation and pensioners do not pay prescription charges. It is not proper that we should get into a health debate. I think that the noble Earl was referring to community care. I go back to what. I said earlier. This Bill is about incapacity benefit. That is what we are trying to get right. That is what is important.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am sure the Minister will not be surprised to learn that we on this side of the Committee are not at all satisfied with his response to the amendment. I do not believe that he has in any way effectively answered the very important questions asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The fact that many people receive a benefit is not necessarily a good reason for abolishing it. Just because a lot of people claim it, why does it suddenly have to be abolished? Nor do I think there is any reason for abolishing it simply because it is held that a small minority—I emphasise the words "small minority"—could possibly gain some advantage. As many Members of the Committee have said, we are dealing with people who are poor anyway.
I challenge the Minister's assertion that there will be no cash losers. Some people will have their benefit frozen anyway, so presumably they will be cash losers. Then there are people who might have had it but for the Bill. They will not get it at all, so presumably they are cash losers as well. If it is claimed that one can always fill in with income support and so on, I think that is very unsatisfactory. When people receive a pension it is something they feel they are entitled to. When, however,
118
they have to apply for means-tested benefits, it is an entirely different story. We all know that there is a relatively low take-up of means-tested benefits compared with pensions or anything to which people feel they are entitled.
I shall not press the amendment to a vote today because we have a rather thinly attended Chamber. However, I shall certainly return to it on Report because we have had a very unsatisfactory response from the Government. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("such age as may be prescribed") and insert ("the age of 60").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 arid 8, which are related. The debate on these amendment; will tend to overlap with the debate on the previous amendment. I make no apology for repeating the arguments because they are extremely powerful and we have not had a satisfactory answer from the Minister.
Amendment No. 6 seeks to extend eligibility for the age allowance payable on top of the basic rate of invalidity benefit for men and women up to the age of 60. At present men up to the age of 60 aid women up to the age of 55 can qualify for this increase. The new age allowances are to comprise the highest allowance for people who become incapable of work under the age of 35 and a lower allowance for people who become incapable of work between the ages of 35 and 45. The new allowances replace the three age bands which were for people under 40, a middle rate for people under 50, and a lower rate for people aged between 50 and 55 for women and 60 for men.
The proposed new structure for the age allowances will mean that people aged between 50 and 55 or 60 no longer be entitled to an age allowance. This could cost them around £3.80 a week. In the debate in another place we were told that the estimated net savings resulting from the abolition of age allowances for the over-45s is less than £5 million in 1995–96 and around £15 million in 1996–97.
The reason for introducing age allowances was to give most assistance to people who became incapable of work at an early stage in their lives. There was a logic to that. However, some assistance has been available to people in the older age groups who in the future will receive nothing extra at all. The existence of a lower rate up to the ages of 55 for women and 60 for men was to recognise that someone becoming incapable of work at that age had also lost several years of work and therefore had lost opportunities to accumulate assets for retirement or as a cushion against loss of earnings due to incapacity for work. With the state of the jobs market at the moment for people of that age, we can understand the importance of the amendment.
Under the existing system the age allowance is offset against payments of the additional pension. We heard about that during discussion of the previous amendment. With the abolition of the additional pension, the

119
age allowance will assume a greater importance in protecting people's incomes. The changes amount to a double problem for people over 45, who will lose any age allowance and would have been more likely to have an additional pension entitlement.
The arguments given in another place against the amendment seem a little muddled. The Minister, Mr. Burt, said that the purpose of limiting age additions to people whose incapacity began before age 45 was to focus help—we again get the word "focus"—on people who became disabled early in life, as was the original intention with age allowances. It means that people who are over the age of 45 are not just out of focus—they are out of the system altogether for this extra payment. It was further argued that people in the older age groups —we have heard this a number of times from the Minister this afternoon—have occupational pensions and other resources. I shall deal with that point at greater length when I speak to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
I turn now to those amendments. They are designed to restore the payment of age allowances at the 28th week of incapacity, when the long-term IVB now begins. Under incapacity benefit, only the short-term benefit will be payable at this stage, which excludes other allowances such as increases for age. By redefining the period of short-term incapacity from 28 weeks to 52 weeks, age allowances will only be payable from the end of the first year of incapacity.
The extension of the period of short-term incapacity means that most people could lose considerable sums of money at a time when they need it most; namely, in the early stages of sickness or disability. With regard to those who become incapable of work after April 1995, younger people under the age of 35 will lose £6.10 per week (which is about £150 in the six months period) and people between 35 and 45 years will lose £12.15 a week (which is about £300 for that period). As I said, the estimated savings resulting from the delay in paying the age allowances are £10 million a year. Reinstating the status quo and allowing the payment at 28 weeks would therefore not reduce to any considerable extent the estimated £550 million gross savings for 1995–96 only.
The argument against the amendments in another place were that reinstating age allowances at 28 weeks would fly in the face of the new definition of "short-term" incapacity and that at the 28 week stage there would still be an increase in the basic rate. We have not heard the logic behind the reason for the new definition of "short-term" incapacity. When speaking to an earlier amendment, the Minister said that he would give that information but he merely stated the fact. It would be interesting to know the logic and the rationale behind the decision to redefine "short-term" incapacity.
I now turn to occupational pensions, relied on heavily by Ministers in this Chamber and in the other place. At Committee stage in the other place, Mr. Burt, the Minister, said:
"People over 45 will have had plenty of opportunities to build financial resources, contribute towards an occupational pension, and they might even have private provision for sickness".— [Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 15/2/94; col. 154.]
120
In reading such statements one begins to wonder what kind of a world Ministers live in. The Minister had earlier said that a change was being made from three bands to two bands, because,
"it became clearer as time went by that many people in higher age groups have occupational pensions and other resources. We feel it right to concentrate more help and effort on the younger groups".—[col. 145.]
To some extent the Minister was right, but not when he said "many". There are some people in higher age groups who have occupational pensions and other resources. There are plenty of company directors, senior managers and senior executives who have been told to pile money into their pensions in the last five years of service to make sure that they have a very substantial pension when they retire. We also know about the very substantial pension packages which are available for company executives who have been made redundant because of the failure of their company.
A number of figures were given in the other place and are available elsewhere about the proportion of claimants who in fact receive anything from an occupational pension. The reply given in the other place was that only 38 per cent. of claimants receive payments from an occupational pension. The department's research study, referred to earlier by my noble friend Lady Turner, shows that 68 per cent. of invalidity benefit recipients did not receive an occupational pension. Only 30 per cent. of men and 41 per cent. of claimants aged over 50 received an occupational pension.
For the Government to rely on those figures as the reason for what they are doing is a very thin argument. I suggest that they think again on that point. These are important amendments which go to the heart of the changes that the Government are making. We have shown that they disadvantage those people who are affected by them and that there is a genuine cash loss compared with what they would otherwise have received. I hope that the Chamber will accept the amendments when they are moved. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained, these amendments would increase the rate of long-term incapacity benefit for people whose incapacity began before they reached the age of 60. In addition, they would bring forward payments of the addition to the 29th week of incapacity.
The purpose of an age addition is, and has always been, to focus help on people who become incapable of work early in life. By limiting age additions to people whose incapacity begins before they are 45, the Bill achieves that aim. Someone aged 45 may well have worked for at least 25 years and will have had an opportunity to build up financial resources and contribute towards an occupational pension and may even have private provision for sickness.
Let me take the reforms as a whole and explain to the Committee that we have set ourselves the twin objectives of making benefits for those incapable of work affordable and better targeted. An age addition paid to the age of 60 would meet neither of those criteria; nor would bringing forward payment of an age addition to the 29th week of incapacity meet them.

121
We are determined to introduce a system which is affordable and well targeted. The new benefit will provide a basic income for those who cannot work and, as I said, would focus resources on the genuinely long-term sick. Existing recipients will be protected. There will he no cash losers at the point of change.
When dealing with earlier amendments, the Committee debated the extension of the qualifying period for the highest rate of incapacity benefit to 52 weeks. I believe that 52 weeks is a more reasonable definition of long-term incapacity. That is also the point from which I believe that the highest rates of benefit, including age additions, should be paid. Members opposite have drawn attention to cuts in entitlement. However, I am not convinced by their arguments. I have already made clear that no one will see a cut in his benefit as a result of the changes that this Bill brings about. Claimants who receive incapacity benefit from the beginning of their claim will get an increase in benefit at the six months point. Indeed, many will have additional, private resources. In addition they will receive another increase after a year of incapacity for work.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I may point out that he said that "many" of those involved will have substantial private resources. Does he know how many?
Viscount Astor: I said, and I shall repeat it for the benefit of the noble Earl, that they may even have private provision for sickness. They also will have had an opportunity to build up financial resources and contribute towards an occupational pension. I did not attempt to qualify the amount.
Lord Carter: It is quite clear that the Minister does not understand the difference between evidence and unverified assertion. He has continued to say throughout every amendment, without producing any rationale or evidence, that people over 45 have the resources and are able to meet the changes that the Government intend to make. I gave the evidence on occupational pensions. I quoted the figures from the DSS report. I shall willingly give way to the Minister if he will now produce the evidence for the statement which he has repeated, and which was also made in another place when this issue was debated there, that people over 45 have had a chance to build up additional resources which will enable them to deal with the problem that we have described. The very people who will have to deal with the problem are those who are the least able to build up the resources to which the Minister refers.
Before I decide what to do with the amendment, will the Minister say what evidence he has for his statement?
Viscount Astor: The evidence is in various places. The point that I tried to make was that someone who has been working for a period of time has had the opportunity that I mentioned. That is the point I made. I can give the noble Lord some figures that he might find helpful. As an estimated proportion of invalidity benefit recipients receiving occupational pensions: for those
122
under 45 it was 5 per cent., for those aged 45 to 54 it was 30 per cent. and for those of 55 years and over it was 55 per cent.
Lord Carter: Will the Minister repeat those figures? I did not catch them.
Viscount Astor: For those under 45 the figure is 5 per cent; from 45 to 54 years it is 30 per cent; and for 55 years and over it is 55 per cent. Those figures may or may not help the noble Lord in his deliberations. I cannot tell. The point that I have been making is that his amendment, which moves the age to 60, goes rather further than we consider reasonable.
Lord Carter: The percentages do not mean much unless one knows how much the extra resources amount to. On a previous amendment, my noble friend Lady Turner referred to the amount of occupational pensions. I would argue that for most of the people who will be hit by the change, the amounts are not substantial and are not sufficient reason for the Government to make the changes proposed in the Bill.
When I moved the amendment, I asked about the rationale behind the change in the definition to 52 weeks. The Minister keeps saying that, but he does not give the reasoning behind it. Of course, we all know the answer—and I shall give it. It comes down to cost. It is being done to save money. If the Minister were to stand up and say that instead of pretending that there is a greater rationale behind it, we would all understand his argument a lot more clearly.
It is obvious that we have been unable to change the Minister's mind—I am not sure that I expected to—but we shall certainly wish to return to this amendment with some strength at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, leave out lines 38 to 40 and insert ("incapacity benefits after 196 days").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 9, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 9 seeks to reintroduce child dependant additions for the 29 to 52-week period, as is the present position with invalidity benefit. Payment of increases for dependent children for 52 weeks, rather than for 28 weeks as at present, will produce significant savings far the Government —that point has come up previously, but we have not really acknowledged that this is a Treasury matter—but will cause considerable financial hardship for those families affected by the change. There will be a loss of £9.80 per week at current rates for the eldest or only child and of £11 per week for each subsequent child. That will place increased pressure on families at a particularly vulnerable time in their lives.
For some claimants, those reduced levels of benefit will bring them for the first time on to means-tested income support. The removal of child dependant additions in the 29 to 52-week period (and the non-payment of adult dependant addition in respect of

123
those under 60 with no dependent children across the board) reduces the value of this non-means-tested income maintenance benefit to below that of the "safety net" benefit. I shall say that again: it reduces the value of the non-means-tested income maintenance benefit to below that of the "safety net" benefit. Many claimants are unlikely to qualify for any additional or top-up help from the means-tested system due to having savings over the fixed capital limit or through having excess income, for example, a small occupational pension. I understand that last year's leaked documents suggested that only 40 per cent. of those who will lose out will be eligible for income support.
When the matter was raised in the Commons during the debate in Standing Committee E on 15th February this year, the Minister said that the new arrangement simply followed the long-standing rule that increases for children are not payable with short-term benefit unless the beneficiary is over pensionable age. Because the payment of the long-term rate of incapacity benefit is being moved back to after 52 weeks, it follows that child dependency increases will move back with it. Between the 29th and 52nd weeks of incapacity, a family will lose some £235 for one child, £498 for two children and £760 for three children.
Amendment No. 10 seeks to restore the present position of making adult dependency increases payable at 28 weeks. As the Bill delays entitlement to full benefit until the end of the first year of incapacity, increases of benefit to adult dependants are not to be payable until the long-term benefit is reached, after 52 weeks. That would represent a loss of £26.90 per week at current rates for weeks 28 to 52, with a total amount of £645.60 for the period.
The savings to the Government arising from delaying entitlement to adult dependency increases to 52 weeks have been estimated at £5 million per year. That comes from the House of Commons Hansard of 25th January this year, at col. No. 189. It is a net figure, offsetting increased payments of benefits such as income support.
Increases for dependants are payable only if the spouse or partner is not earning more than £44.65 per week and is not receiving a benefit in his or her own right. I understand that just over 30 per cent. of claimants receive an increase for an adult dependant.
In addition, there are often care needs resulting from sickness or disability. Where those needs are sufficiently great to qualify for the two higher levels of the care component of disability living allowance, the carer may be able to claim invalid care allowance in his or her own right if he or she is spending 35 hours per week in caring for the disabled person. Where there are care needs which do not qualify for assistance through disability living allowance, a partner may nevertheless provide considerable assistance to the claimant or be unable to consider taking up employment without additional cost to the family or to the social services department. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on these Benches very much support Amendment No. 9, which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and
124
Amendment No. 10, to which he also spoke. Amendment No. 9 focuses on the issue of child poverty, which has been highlighted by the Bill. We believe that some of the worst sufferers in disabled families are children living with disabled parents. The children encounter stress within the family as a result of having a parent who is disabled. That parent is usually a father, who is unable to go out with the children, to play football with them or to do any of the things which one would hope that, in good families, parents and children do together. Such children not only have a disabled parent who is often in considerable pain and is therefore unable to spend the time with the children that they would wish; they not only have a parent who is very poor (because half of all disabled people have savings of less than £1,000); but they also live in a family with parents whose income has been deliberately designed, through the structure of these benefits, to be below income support levels.
In other words, we are saying that disabled families (who at the moment receive an allowance after six months that recognises that they have children living with them) will not, if the Bill goes through unamended, receive that allowance for 12 months. For the period between six months and 12 months, whether a family has one child or two or three or four will make no difference to the benefit received. For the period between six months and 12 months, a family of two adults and a small toddler, for example, will receive the same income as a family with three teenage children. That is the structure of the benefit. That means not only that the person who was previously in work will receive much less than he or she would have received on invalidity benefit, but that that person will have an income that is below the income support level. Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the figures. A man of, say, 40 with a wife and two children aged 12 and 14 receives £125 per week on invalidity benefit, plus child benefit, giving an income of £143 per week. That is now.
That same family on income support where child benefit is deducted receives £109 a week; but on the new incapacity benefit it will receive £79, plus child benefit: £97 in total. So having a level playing field, with child benefit being taken into account in all three cases: invalidity benefit £143; income support, the barest minimum upon which to live, £109; and this benefit £97. That is £22 less than we deem necessary for minimum living standards on income support. It is built up because all that the man will receive if he is 40, with a wife and two children between the ages of 12 and 14, is £52.50 for himself and £26.90 for his spouse, with no additional payment for the children except child benefit. That comes to £97.50.
What is more, the more children that family has, and the greater the financial need, the larger the gap that opens up between what that family receives on income support and what in future it will receive from the new incapacity benefit. The gap for two children is something like £22. The gap for three children is nearer £30. For each child there is a gap of between £10 and £15 between what would be received on income support and the much lower level of benefit received for

125
disability; in other words, a family with children will be worse off than on income support for a period between six and 12 months.
It is a family in which a child is already suffering because the parents are disabled, in pain and under stress. On top of that, we double the financial burden. It is rather shocking that we cannot structure a benefit which at the minimum brings disability benefit and incapacity benefit into line with income support. No one in this place would say that income support is generous. What are we doing constructing a benefit which is below income support where there are children in the family?
If the performance in the other place is anything to go by, the Minister will probably make three points in reply: first, that child dependency rate comes with the higher rate. As the higher rate is 52 weeks, so must be the child dependency addition. So tough luck on kids! My response to that is that the Government have chosen to bring in the higher rate at 52 weeks and have it made it part of the higher rate, and only then can the children's addition be paid; in other words, it is a problem of the Government's own making because the Government are saying that the words mean what they choose them to mean. The Government could do differently. They could construct the Bill differently so that children were not exposed to such poverty.
The second argument that the Minister may put forward is that child support is meant to be carried by child benefit, which families on incapacity benefit would still enjoy. That would be reasonable were child benefit to be at the same level as the child premium in income support, let alone the child premium calculated by the CSA for family maintenance. But is it? If one is disabled and has a child it appears that one is expected to keep it on child benefit alone of £11 a week for the first child or £8 to £9 for the rest, irrespective of their age. If one is on income support it is assumed that one has £15 a week for a child under 11 and between £23 and £27 a week for teenage children. If one is seeking maintenance from the CSA, it is likely to calculate that one needs £45 a week upon which to keep that child. Most of us would regard that as a much more realistic sum.
We always know that children should choose their parents with care, but it is clear here that under the Bill a child should choose a parent who is a lone parent with a father paying maintenance rather than choose a father who is unemployed but fit; but if he must, he should choose a parent who is unemployed and fit and looking for work rather than a father who is unemployed. A father on income support will receive for his children half of what he would receive in child maintenance through the CSA. He would receive only a quarter if he is disabled, and we do not believe that that is reasonable.
Of course, because such families will be in such dire poverty, they will have to be topped up with income support. The Government's own estimate is that about 20,000 to 30,000 people, or a quarter of those on incapacity benefit, especially those with children, will have to go to income support and go through the trauma and problems of means testing, the stigma and the like, which come with the second benefit. There are also the administrative costs. I ask the Minister again: what is
126
the point of a benefit for a family with children that is structured to be below the poverty level deemed necessary for which income support is provided?
A similar argument applies to Amendment No. 10. Under the Bill there is an adult dependency allowance between the six-month and the 12-month period, but only if there are dependent children for whom there is no separate income and the partner (usually a woman) is under 60. No one expects that a partner or spouse should have an allowance made automatically in the benefit when he or she has an income of his or her own; in other words, when in work. But even under the long-term rate, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has said, such people received it only if they were earning less than £45 a week, and at the moment only 30 per cent. of claimants receive it.
What will now happen is that between six months and 12 months, if there are no dependent children, the only income in that household will be £57 a week. It is £57 a week for a disabled man and his wife to live on. Again, that is below income support rates. Where does that situation apply? Usually when we are talking about an older couple—a man, let us say over 50 whose children have grown up and may have left home—all the evidence shows that once a man hits 50 his health becomes increasingly poor; he has multiple health problems; and is likely to be increasingly dependent upon incapacity benefit, with little chance of returning to work.
In such a situation, with poor health, worsening health and multiple health problems—research shows that to be the case over 50—they will need increasingly the help of the spouse or partner as an informal carer. Where the health condition is continuous but intermittent or variable according to the nature of the illness, such as asthma, ME or MS, the partner, even if she were able to, could not reasonably go out to work because she would not know when she would need to care for her partner. Yet such people will receive no help reflected in the allowance.
We are not asking that the benefit should contain a payment for a spouse as such. What we are saying is that the benefit should include recognition for a spouse who is caring for a partner but who is not caring for the partner for 35 hours a week, at which point ICA would be received, and should have that reflected in the household's total income; otherwise they are back on income support because two thirds of men and women on invalidity benefit do not have, contrary to the Minister's suggestion, an occupational pension.
Both the amendments seek to build into the period between six months and 12 months, first, a recognition that children cost money and need care and therefore there should be an income for them; arid, secondly, that for a dependent spouse (dependent because she is caring for her sick, frail, dependent husband) there should be a recognition built into the allowance. At the moment neither of those things is true, and so in both cases the benefit, as structured, will depress families with children and families with a caring spouse well below income support levels. A benefit, as I say, which takes people below income support levels is not a decent benefit.
Earl Russell: We too support the amendments, to both of which I have put my name. We are dealing with the Government's attempt to make very small savings. In the case of the adult dependency allowance, which is covered by Amendment No. 10, the saving is £5 million —or so we are told. I am getting more and more anxious about the basis of costings on the subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, mentioned that we are back on the income support merry-go-round. As the benefit is lower there will be a need to rely on income support; so as the benefit goes down, income support goes up.
I admit freely that some of the questions I have asked the Minister today about costings are difficult. I am sorry for that, but, if we are to reach any realistic conclusion about the cost of what is done, those are the questions to which we need to know the answers. However, I shall ask one question which the Minister should be able to answer. When the Government calculated the £5 million saving on the adult dependency allowance, which is dealt with in Amendment No. 10, did that saving allow for an increase in expenditure on income support as a result of this measure? If it did not, the figure is unrealistic. If it did, I am a little surprised. I would like to know the answer.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may deal first with the point about savings made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I draw his attention to a Written PQ asked in another place about the total amount of savings from incapacity benefit. It is PQ No. 868; I shall send the noble Earl a copy in case he has not seen it. As regards the specific point that he made about public expenditure savings, the figures are net of income-related offsets; that is income support, housing benefit and so forth.
The purpose of the amendment is to make child dependency increases of incapacity benefit payable after 28 weeks of incapacity and to pay adult dependency increases of incapacity benefit at the long-term rate from the same point. I shall deal first with child dependency increases. I can confirm that it is the Government's intention that these increases should not be paid with incapacity benefit until 52 weeks of incapacity have elapsed, except in cases where the person is over pensionable age and still in the 52-week period. After that incapacity benefit ceases and retirement pension is payable.
Our approach is consistent with the long-standing arrangement whereby increases for children are only paid with short-term benefits if the beneficiary is over pensionable age. Currently, these increases become generally available after 28 weeks incapacity when invalidity benefit becomes payable. For the new benefit, we believe that the long-term rate should become payable after a period of incapacity which has lasted 52 weeks. Accordingly, child dependency increases for people under pensionable age will be available from that point.
I should like to point out why these increases are not usually payable with short-term benefits. Prior to 1984, child dependency increases of short-term benefits were payable at a significantly lower level than with
128
long-term benefits. Child dependency increases are designed to supplement child benefit, which is the main benefit for families with children. Consequently, increases in the rate of child benefit at upratings influence the new rate of the child dependency increase. The result of that over a number of years was to reduce the rate of child dependency increases payable with short-term benefits. In fact, increases in child benefit had led to a reduction in the value of these increases to only 15p a week by 1983 and they were therefore abolished in the following year.
I should add that the linkage between child dependency increases and child benefit is not a new policy. Neither is it one that has been operated by this Government alone; it was operated by a Labour government.
It has proved unnecessary to pay child dependency increases with short-term benefits and we consider that it is right to maintain that principle for incapacity benefit. We do not believe that this will cause hardship. Many people, between weeks 28 and 52 of incapacity, will be receiving additional income such as occupational pensions or sick pay from their employers. But if family income is insufficient the income-related benefits will of course be available. We believe that the income-related benefits provide a much more effective means of helping families who are in financial need as a result of short-term incapacity than would child dependency increases. This is supported by the fact that we have used the income-related benefits very successfully to target additional resources on families in need in recent years. Since 1988 significant extra help has been made available for this group, now amounting to some £1 billion a year.
My noble friend explained that the amendments also mean that the highest rate of adult dependency increase would become payable after only 28 weeks incapacity. We have explained that in the context of incapacity benefit it is reasonable to make payment at the long-term rate after a period of incapacity lasting 52 weeks. It follows that the highest rate of adult dependency increase will become payable at that point. As I have made clear, many families will have additional sources of income on which to draw between weeks 28 to 52. For those who are not in that position, a comprehensive system of income-related benefits exists. To pay the highest rate of adult dependency increase after 28 weeks would not represent a sensible use of available resources. In the light of our plans it would also be wholly illogical to make the long-term rate of personal incapacity benefit payable after 52 weeks.
I am afraid that I cannot accept my noble friend's amendment. I hope that with that explanation of the Government's policy he will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wish to press the Minister on two points. He said that those on income support will receive an allowance for children. A family in receipt of income support receives £23 per week child benefit to support a child of, say, 11 or 15. Therefore, people in receipt of income support are expected to need £23 per week to support a child and as a result they do not receive child benefit. Child benefit is deducted from

129
that income. However, a person in receipt of the new incapacity benefit will receive no allowance for their children and only child benefit, which is half that sum. Is that appropriate? In other words, is the Minister aware that a disabled person will receive £11 per week to support his child but a person who is not disabled during the same period will receive £23? Is the Minister comfortable with that?
Secondly, why does the Minister say that the longer-term addition should be paid only at 52 weeks? If there is a recognition of child and family poverty at 52 weeks, why does that not apply at 26 or 28 weeks? It is no use the Minister saying that people have occupational pensions because the figures that he has given to the Committee suggest that only 38 per cent. of men have occupational pensions to lift them above the poverty line. They certainly do not have savings; only half have savings of less than £1,000. Therefore, why does the Minister believe that it is acceptable to need £23 per week if you are on income support, £45 per week if you are on the CSA and only £11 in child benefit allowance if you are in receipt of incapacity benefit?
Viscount Astor: I should explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that the important aspect is that income support is available for those who qualify. She talked about recognising child poverty at 52 weeks. I do not believe that that has anything to do with this—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It has everything to do with it.
Viscount Astor: No, it has not. We have always said that if someone's income falls below a certain level they could qualify for income support. Of course, it is available to the disabled and to the able-bodied. The invalidity benefit review gave us the opportunity to look afresh at the concept of dependency. The current arrangements came into force nearly half a century ago. I am sure that the Committee will agree that social changes have occurred in that period; for example, when it was introduced, few married women worked but today over 70 per cent. of married women under 60 who do not have dependent children do so. The Government's view is that it would be wrong and illogical to leave unchanged the scope of dependency increases, regardless of social change. These increases are intended to meet a real need. Therefore, it is right that they are properly targeted.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister tell us why we have incapacity benefit at all? Why do we not merely put everyone on income support and be done with it?
Viscount Astor: We are trying to produce a benefit which is targeted at those in real need. I hope that the noble Baroness will address those issues and concentrate her remarks in this Committee on that important point. It would be disappointing if she did not do so.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend said that he would send a copy of the Parliamentary Question from the
130
other place to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Perhaps he will be kind enough to send a copy also to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and to me.
I am becoming increasingly concerned for my noble friend. He is an honourable man trying to do a dirty job. He is wearing a nice elegant pair of shoes; he should have worn his gumboots, because he is paddling around in the mire, at any rate up to his ankles, with this Bill.
He gave a long and complicated answer which I should like the opportunity to read. But from what I understood, I have a very strong suspicion that I shall return on Report with another or a similar amendment. I must warn my noble friend that I shall find it difficult not to test the opinion of the House on that occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Incapacity benefit: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No.
Page 4, line 40, leave out ("8 weeks") and insert ("2 years")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to introduce an incentive for recipients to encourage them to attempt suitable employment and so to move off benefit. It would allow for spells of incapacity for work not separated by a period of more than two years to be treated as one period of incapacity for work.
I was not able to make a contribution on Second Reading of the Bill because I had obligations in Scotland on that day, but, in general, I support the Government's intention to rationalise and improve the present system and practice. Within that area, changes are proposed in the Bill. But what I, and I am sure other Members of the Committee, wish to do is to see whether there are any anomalies or gaps which arise in the process.
I am in favour of the principle of encouraging recipients to return to employment and I am sure that the Government subscribe also to that principle. The report (No.19) commissioned by the Department of Social Security called Invalidity Benefit; a Survey of Recipients showed that the increases in volume were the result of people spending longer on invalidity benefit rather than an increase in numbers claiming it for the first time.
Over three-quarters of long term recipients who were surveyed no longer saw themselves as attached to the labour market in the sense that they were looking for work or thinking that they were fit to look for work. This amendment is directed at long-term recipients. It should remove the apprehensions of those who might be deterred from seeking work or from seeking to return to work.
Individuals are wary of moving away from invalidity. benefit and into employment. They are concerned that they may not be able to cope with the work which they are starting and consequently have to try to requalify for long-term benefit with considerable financial loss.
The new incapacity benefit proposed in this Bill, with its long qualifying period for long-term benefit, could act as a greater disincentive to those who were considering attempting going into or returning to

131
employment. If the principle behind the amendment is adopted it could lead to savings by enabling individuals to come off benefit and to become economically active once more. I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. As he has rightly emphasised, it is a very brave person who will come off invalidity benefit and endeavour to return to work, particularly if he has been an invalid for a long time. Therefore, such people need every encouragement because if they feel that they wish to return to work it is only right and proper that the correct arrangements are in place to encourage them to do so.
It is inevitably a gamble for people in that position. They cannot tell whether or not they will be able to manage the work. Equally, relapses are wholly unpredictable. A person may find that he is able to manage the work for a few weeks —even eight weeks —but he may suffer a relapse after that period. Therefore, it is important that there should be some assurance for people who unfortunately find themselves in that position when they have made the effort to return to work.
As I understand my noble friend's amendment, it would also bring the linking period into line with the linking period for the disability working allowance and for people who undertake training courses before returning to work. Therefore, it seems to me that the amendment has a logical, as well as humanitarian, aspect. The longer period of two years would make it more likely that people would try to return to work because they would know that if they suffered a relapse and could no longer manage the work within two years their incapacity benefit would not be placed at risk.
I received the impression that the Minister in another place was somewhat sympathetic to the points which my noble friend has raised, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Astor will be equally sympathetic today.
Lord Swinfen: I support the amendment which stands also in my name. When considering it, my noble friend should take account of the fact that in most jobs there is a probationary period and that for the vast majority eight weeks is far too short a time. Therefore, I suggest that six months is better. A period of two years would allow people who are incapacitated in one way or another to acclimatise themselves to working. It would provide for them a safety net if things did not work out.
At present there seems to me to be every disincentive for people to try to get themselves back into work. My noble friend will be able to work out for himself that by getting people back into work they will cease to be paid by the state—in other words, the taxpayer—and will be paid by their employer, thus relieving the burden on the state. I strongly support everything that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said in moving the amendment. If the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, I honestly feel that they should bring forward something similar at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings.
Lord Carter: I, too, was glad to add my name to the amendment. The argument behind it has already been expressed extremely well by those who have spoken. Therefore, I shall not repeat the arguments. I shall just ask the Minister to deal with a few points that have been made.
One involves the inconsistency between the new benefit and the DWA—that is, the arrangements in the disability working allowance. That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. We know that a disabled person can give up his or her incapacity benefit, take a low paid job, receive a top-up payment of DWA and be involved in a trial period of up to two years without the risk of losing the opportunity to claim DWA. It would be interesting to know the logic behind the Government's reasoning in seeing a difference with the benefit.
As I understand it, the Government have accepted that it is almost certainly a no-cost amendment; indeed, there could even be savings involved. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Government's main concern, having accepted the principle, is with the burden on employers as regards the administrative costs of introducing the provision. I should like to know what consultations the Government have had on that point with employers. When we dealt with the Statutory Sick Pay legislation there was a great deal of consultation with the institute of payroll managers, the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses and others. Have the DSS researched that point to ascertain what the burden on employers would be? I understand that that is the main reason for the Government's concern and that they wish to have a longer period with the DWA to see how it works in practice.
Perhaps I may put a practical question to the Minister. I am an employer. I am involved with two companies, one with a payroll of 25 people and the other with a payroll of 40. As an employer what would I have to do that would be burdensome and mean that the provision would be hard to introduce? As I said, I believe that the Government accept the logic behind the amendment, but the administration of it concerns them. If that is the case, it would be interesting to know the basis of their reasoning.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: The Bill as drafted provides for an eight-week linking rule between spells of incapacity. There are two reasons for such a linking rule: first, it allows those recipients of incapacity benefit who want to try to return to work to do so safe in the knowledge that they can return to their previous rate of benefit if that attempt should fail; secondly, those people suffering from bouts of incapacity resulting from a serious illness such as chronic bronchitis can link their periods of incapacity in order to establish entitlement to the higher rates of benefit.
Perhaps I should also point out to the Committee that linking rules play an important part in many areas of the social security system, not just in incapacity benefit. The interaction between those areas is very complex. We need to be sure that by changing rules in one area of the benefit system anomalies are not created elsewhere.

133
As Members of the Committee have pointed out, a similar amendment to the Bill was tabled during the proceedings in another place. At that time my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security said:
"In the long term I shall look carefully at the whole question of linking rules".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 17.2.94; col. 227.]
We shall do so.
We consider that eight weeks is a reasonable length of time in which a person can test their ability to work and, should that attempt fail because of their incapacity, make a further claim to incapacity benefit. Of course, DWA is available to help with attempts to try paid work for those with a continuing disability of some kind. Moreover, rules on therapeutic earnings and voluntary work enable people to ease themselves back into employment. As my noble friend acknowledged, the most vulnerable are protected through the disability working allowance. Indeed, DWA is available to people who have been on long-term incapacity benefit, who have a continuing disability and who work for low wages. If people receive DWA and reclaim IB within two years of leaving incapacity benefit, they can go back on to the rate applicable on the day that they left.
Of course, it is possible that savings could be generated. But, on the other hand, there could be costs involved as the higher rate would be payable immediately. Therefore, as regards the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I do not believe that one can necessarily say that such a change would necessarily lead to savings.
However, we feel that it is illogical that indefinite spells of unemployment should help build up entitlement to higher rates of benefit. That is why we have removed the indefinite link through spells of registered unemployment. That will better focus the higher rates of benefit on those who are genuinely long-term sick rather than long-term unemployed. Indeed, we are considering the matter very carefully on a long-term basis, in particular, as I said before, the implications for other social security benefits. As we have always made clear, linking rules spread far wider than incapacity benefit. We must maintain a coherent approach. We must be sure that we do not, by amending the linking rules in one benefit, adversely affect people's entitlement to other benefits.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me about the burden on employers. Of course, employers need to maintain records to check whether a link is appropriate and, therefore, whether SSP or incapacity benefit is payable. Computer payrolls have to be amended and operated to take account of those complexities. That is quite burdensome on small employers. The noble Lord also asked why there are different rules as between DWA and incapacity benefit. One, of course, is an in-work benefit—namely, DWA—and the other represents an income replacement whereby benefit is paid when someone is not working. Therefore, their respective arrangements are not really comparable.
I am not sure we shall be able to reach any conclusions before the current legislation completes its passage through Parliament. I cannot give my noble
134
friend Lord Campbell of Croy any commitment that I shall be able to deal with the points that he raised. However, if he feels able to withdraw the amendment today I shall look again at the issue most carefully. Indeed, I shall read very carefully what he said and what other Members of the Committee have said in today's debate. Moreover, I shall certainly write to 'my noble friend before the next stage of the Bill.
I should point out to the Committee that we are looking most carefully at the area as part of the long-term review of social security being conducted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is very complicated to change linking rules without having a knock-on effect. I am not sure that the Bill is the right place to attempt to start changing such rules. It is possible that we should perhaps have another vehicle to change the linking rules whereby we can change them in such a way that we do so coherently as regards the way that they affect all benefits. With that commitment, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: As regards statutory sick pay, can the Minister just confirm that in the review, which we all welcome, the Government will actually consult the employers' associations? We heard the argument about small businesses. In fact, when the Government consulted the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, it actually produced the answer to the Government's problem which is now enshrined in that Act of Parliament. Therefore, perhaps the Minister can confirm that when considering the burden on employers the Government will actually ask employers for their opinion.
Viscount Astor: We shall certainly consider all the representations made. The passage of the statutory sick pay legislation showed that, when representations are made to us and they are ones which improve the system for small employers, we do consider such matters; indeed, we looked most carefully at the representations made and acted upon them. As the noble Lord knows, we shall be bringing our conclusions about statutory sick pay to Parliament later this year.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor for his reply which seems, in short, to say, "We will be looking at the whole question but we will not produce a result now". I understand and agree with him that it is necessary to make sure that any changes are comprehensive and that they are not inconsistent with other systems of benefits. It was disappointing to hear that it is unlikely that a change can be made during the course of this Bill. However, I am glad that my noble friend says that he will look at the whole subject again. I promise him that I shall return to it at Question Time from time to time to jog his memory and that of other members of the Government should we appear not to be making progress.
I am glad that my noble friend did not produce, as a major objection, the claim that the provision would provide a burden on employers at a tune when we are trying to do away with red tape and bureaucracy. I can assure him that my contacts with industry, and

135
particularly with the bodies which industry has set up to deal with the problems of disabled people, have always indicated that once employers know what the situation is and what the problems are, they are on the whole prepared to take on the extra work. One hopes that with the technological advantages provided by computers and other such machinery, the work will not be as great as it would have been even 10 years ago. I am glad that that point has not been raised as an objection. I repeat that I am grateful to my noble friend for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert ("the reference there to 4 consecutive days were to such lesser number of days, whether consecutive or not, within such period of consecutive days, as may be prescribed;").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 12 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 35 and 73. These amendments are of a technical nature and provide both correction and clarification of existing provisions. Amendment No. 15 is probably the most straightforward; it introduces a definition of "week" into new Section 30C in Clause 3 which had inadvertently been missed. This is to make clear that where there is a reference to "week" in this section it refers to a period of seven days.
The Bill incorporates two concepts, a spell of incapacity for work and a period of incapacity for work. The spell of incapacity is used to determine when the "all work" test should be applied, normally after 196 days (28 weeks) of incapacity. The period of incapacity for work is used to determine the point at which the higher rates of benefit apply; that is, after 196 days on the short-term lower rate the higher rate becomes payable, and after 364 days on short-term benefit the long-term rate becomes payable.
Both the spell and the period of incapacity would normally only arise where there are four or more consecutive days of incapacity for work. However, a regulation-making power exists to allow less than four days in each week to count. This provides in particular for those people who have regular treatment which renders them incapable of work. However, the wording of these powers as currently drafted is confusing and Amendments Nos. 12, 35 and 73 serve to clarify the intention that for both spells and periods of incapacity, less than four days will count and they need not be four consecutive days.
We are also introducing a power to extend the eight week linking rule in specified circumstances in calculating a spell of incapacity. I realise that these amendments are particularly detailed but should point out that they are beneficial provisions. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope the Minister can provide a little more clarification about Amendment No. 35, to which he has spoken, which states,
"for the reference to 8 weeks there were substituted a reference to such larger number of weeks as may be prescribed".
The Minister said this concerned the linking rule. Am I to understand that the Government are taking powers to themselves, having rejected the previous amendment to
136
extend the linking rule up to two years, nonetheless to extend the linking period from eight weeks to any subsequent number of weeks they may think appropriate? Is that what the amendment seeks to do? If so, we could have no objection, although obviously we would like to see a firmer period built into the Bill.
Viscount Astor: In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I would say that this is an existing power that has never been exercised. All we are doing is clarifying existing circumstances.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Does that mean that if there is an existing power which the Minister seeks to continue in the new legislation, it might mean that if he were persuaded by the arguments put earlier on the linking rule the Government would have the power, by amendment presumably, to extend the linking period from eight weeks to a much longer period and would not therefore need primary legislation for it?
Viscount Astor: I believe that what the noble Baroness says is correct. However, I will check and if that is not the case I shall write to the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 50, leave out ("56") and insert ("156").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 13, which is a paving amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 65 to 72, which are amendments to Clause 10 and deal with the disability working allowance. The purpose of this group of amendments is to improve the take-up of DWA by extending entitlement to persons who demonstrate that they have been seeking work and are also disabled. Improvements —if we can make them—to the DWA will ensure, or help to ensure, that a large proportion of people who may be deemed incapable of work can become able to work.
Many of us remember the Bill which introduced the DWA in 1992 to help disabled people into employment through the topping up of low earnings in recognition of the extra costs faced by disabled people in employment. Like the DLA, it was an attempt to meet the demand, made over a long period by various organisations of, and for, disabled people for a disability costs allowance. It is means tested and therefore it is not the disability costs allowance that the organisations would have liked to see. Entitlement is dependent upon receipt of a qualifying benefit prior to the date of claim, and the claimant has to show that he or she is disadvantaged in the workplace by a disability. I am sure the Government are as concerned as we at the low take-up of DWA. Perhaps, when the Minister replies, he can give us the latest figures for the take-up.
It is clear that any amendments aimed at improving the disability working allowance would ensure that the benefit becomes the source of assistance for disabled people who are capable of work, as opposed to the new incapacity benefit. It is obvious that any costs incurred in introducing improvements to DWA would be offset by the savings made through encouraging a substantial number of disabled people claiming non-means tested invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance and

137
incapacity benefit to take up employment opportunities. Disabled people in employment would therefore contribute to the Exchequer in the form of taxes and national insurance contributions. That is one of the trade-offs which I know the department looks for when introducing benefits.
I shall discuss the amendments in their groups and then each amendment individually. Amendments Nos. 13, 66 and 70 are intended to improve access to DWA. At present a person has to have been in receipt of an incapacity benefit for at least one out of 56 days before the date of claim. The amendments would increase that period from eight weeks to six months and would therefore open up DWA to a new group of claimants, for example, partially incapacitated people or those who have recently become incapable of work but are still disadvantaged in employment as a result of their disability.
The second group comprises Amendments Nos. 65 and 72. They would extend DWA to disabled people who are capable of and available for work but are unable to claim DWA at present. Amendment No. 69 seeks to enable people on incapacity benefit up to two years previously to requalify for benefit automatically if they become incapable of work. As this is a large and complicated group of amendments I hope it will help the Committee if I discuss the amendments individually and explain their import.
Amendments Nos. 66 and 67, as I said, aim to improve access to DWA. They enable people who have been on incapacity benefit up to six months (or to be more precise 156 days) before starting work or a training course to requalify. They replace the eight-week linking period, which we regard as inadequate—we have discussed the matter previously —proposed in the Bill with a more realistic period and would help people who have recently become incapable of work but who still suffer disadvantage in employment, or those who are partially incapable of work. The amendments help to open up DWA to those who are neither fully capable nor totally incapable of work.
Amendment No. 68 enables people who have been on incapacity benefit for up to one year previously to requalify. That is a substantial improvement on the 13ill's proposal of an eight week linking period, which would not bring incapacity benefit linking rules into line with those for DWA, which has a two year linking period.
Amendment No. 69 enables people who have been on incapacity benefit up to two years previously to requalify. It brings the linking period for incapacity benefit into line with that now used for the disability working allowance.
I should emphasise that these are probing amendments covering the whole subject. Some are fallback amendments relating to other amendments. The intention is to promote debate. I can tell the Minister now that I do not intend to divide the Committee, whatever he says in his reply. I shall need a great deal of persuading to divide the Committee because these are highly technical amendments. I believe that we should
138
have the debate now. That is the purpose of the Committee stage. However, I warn the Minister that I shall certainly return to the subject at Report stage.
Amendment No. 69 brings the linking period for incapacity benefit into line with that now used for DWA. It is important as part of the Government's approach to encourage people back into work. We can all agree with that. As we heard in relation to previous amendments, 56 days does not give people a realistic period of time to try out work without losing their link with benefit. Evidence shows that many people will not try to return to work if it means that they lose their linking entitlement.
We feel that the problem will be exacerbated under the Bill as the full entitlement to incapacity benefit will not be reached until after one year. That means that a person who works for 57 days will have to return to the beginning in counting days towards the entitlement to receive benefit. I appreciate that there has to be a cut-off point somewhere, but we believe that 56 days is too short. Two years brings the linking period into line with DWA and provides a realistic opportunity to try out work.
I understand that the Government expressed interest in the subject during the debate in the other place and we feel that acceptance of the amendment would go a long way towards the rehabilitation of people who work.
Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 march together. They amend subsection 3(b) to enable people who have been on incapacity benefit up to six months previously to requalify. Like the amendments proposing extension of the linking period for requalifying for incapacity benefit to one or two years, these amendments also aim to improve access to DWA. At present a person must be in receipt of an incapacity benefit for at least one out of 56 days before the date of claim. The amendments would increase that period from eight weeks to six months. The extension is important to allow people a realistic period of time in which to find work. Figures show that it can take at least six months or up to 18 months to find work, and a longer linking period would be more realistic in encouraging people back to work.
Finally, Amendment No. 72 is extremely important. It removes the restriction of entitlement to DWA to those with a qualifying benefit and enables people to qualify for DWA on the basis that they are registered unemployed and also disabled. The two have to be taken together. It is argued that the restriction to entitlement to DWA to receipt of a qualifying benefit, which is in the rules, has been a major factor in the low take-up of DWA. This is intended to provide an addition to the qualifying benefit condition by way of a simple test of disadvantage in the workplace as a result of disability. That would increase the take-up of DWA by people who are determined to work but are not in receipt of the benefits which are currently required to become eligible. I hope that when he replies the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government have some sympathy with that approach even if they cannot go all the way.
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has reported a number of cases. For example, a widower who is epileptic, registered disabled arid works full-time in a sheltered workshop cannot claim

139
DWA because he is not in receipt of a disability benefit. He earns just over £108 a week and receives no help with his rent or council tax. A CAB in Portsmouth has a client aged 40 with asthma, heart disease and ulcers who works full time and takes home £120 a week. He has a mortgage of £460 a month. He is unable to claim DWA without leaving work and claiming disability benefit. We believe that Amendments Nos. 65 and 72 are necessary to improve the take-up of DWA.
I believe that the Government acknowledge that under the new medical test, which we shall deal with on Thursday, fewer people will qualify for incapacity benefit. Statistics show that 25 per cent. of disallowances for DWA so far were due to a lack of qualifying benefit. If people consider themselves to suffer disadvantage in seeking work it will be fair and sensible for them to be eligible for DWA. When we debated DWA in the Social Security Bill in 1992 we were all as anxious as the Government to see that there was good take-up. We are all disappointed by the low level of take-up. It would be helpful if the Minister could give the Government's view as to why there has been such a low take-up.
The tightening of the invalidity benefit adjudication has shown that some people may be partially capable of work. We feel that the DWA could be adapted to do more to help that group through changes to the qualifying benefit criteria.
This is a large and complicated group of amendments. It is intended to probe as best we can the provisions in Clause 10 relating to DWA. We shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has raised this very important matter of the disability working allowance. I am glad, too, that although he has put forward a series of amendments he is not necessarily going to go to the stake on any of them but regards them as probing amendments.
This is a new benefit. It is understandable that it should have teething troubles. It takes time for any new benefit to work itself into the system and for possible claimants and their advisers to get to know how the benefit is likely to work. Nonetheless, as the noble Lord said, so far the take-up has been disappointing. I understand that so far there have been just over 3,000 successful claims, whereas I understand that the original estimate by the Government was that there would be 50,000 claimants. However, it is early days and one cannot expect everybody who might benefit to apply at once.
It seems clear from the considerable amount of work which has been done by various disablement organisations, particularly by the Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Citizens Advice Bureaux, that the main reason for the low take-up so far is the qualifying benefit conditions and the loss of other benefits such as housing benefit and council tax concessions. They therefore believe that instead of having the present qualifying
140
benefit conditions it would be better to have a simple test of disadvantage in the work place caused by disability. The organisations which have put forward the proposals are experienced bodies. I feel sure that my noble friend will give serious attention to them.
I welcome the fact that the Government are evaluating this new benefit and have commissioned independent research. I believe that that research is to be completed in 1996. I hope that if a clear case is made out before then for a change in the working of the benefit to improve take-up the Government will be able to give an assurance that they will introduce changes as soon as they can see an effective way of improving the benefit.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, has given a particularly lucid summary of the basic issues relating to these amendments. I agree with practically every word he said.
When it was introduced, the disability working allowance was one of the most imaginative and constructive measures which this Government have introduced. However, we are all agreed —and I do not think that the Minister will dispute it—that to date the take-up has been disappointing. The Government regularly promise to monitor the effects of any measures they bring in. We have here a case to which that monitoring ought to be applied. We ought to be thinking as far as we can in a constructive spirit about what needs to be done next. It is fairly clear that something needs to be done.
We are concentrating first on the issue of the linking period. A linking period is a procedure which allows two episodes of disability separated by a short period, perhaps in work, to be counted together for entitlement. There are some illnesses where that is particularly important; for example, an episodic illness such as schizophrenia. I have known schizophrenics who in between episodes were quite as fit to carry on with normal work as you or I, but because they could never be certain when they would have another episode they could not work with confidence. That is one area in which the linking period is important.
As those of us who have had a temporarily incapacitating physical injury know, there is a considerable problem of confidence with getting back to regular movement and regular life. That was the basic point, after all, of the old RAF rule: if one had had a crash the first thing the RAF did was to send one up again. With illness one cannot do that instantly. But hospitals dealing, for example, with people recovering from leg operations go to some trouble to get patients walking as soon as possible. However, they can do so only if the patient knows that there is someone there to catch him if he falls; and that if on that occasion he is not quite ready he will not suffer for it.
In these situations, the notion that benefit is lost if, having gone back to work and after eight weeks and one day one finds the effort too much and collapses, can be somewhat of a deterrent. Therefore, I hope the linking period will be reconsidered.
The other basic issue relates to the qualifying benefit. The benefit has been passported on another, as has been done with the new disregard for child care which was

141
introduced in the Autumn. Statement. There is likely to be a problem in the new situation as well as the old. Passporting one benefit on another does not always succeed in capturing all the cases that it ought. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, quoted the example of someone who was disabled but in work. There are people who are disabled who work. We do not wish to discourage but rather to encourage that. To offer a benefit for which one has to go out of work in order to qualify for it, not knowing whether one will get back into work again afterwards, sounds rather a revolving door procedure. I hope that that issue may be considered.
Finally, we are left with the problem to which we return over and again: I refer to poverty traps created by the operation of passported benefits. This is not the occasion to do so, but I believe that we shall need to have a full debate on the operation of the system of passported benefits.
I have referred to some areas in which I hope the Government will consider seriously what should be done next. I shall listen with great interest to the Minister's reply.
Lord Swinfen: I support the general gist underlying the amendments. I have put my name to two of them. I shall not speak for long because others have already said most of what I wish to say.
I hope that the Government will consider carefully the linking of benefits, of qualifying and passporting benefits and the poverty squeeze. This may not be the place to say it, but I shall say it all the same. I have never yet understood why there should be a set cut-off point in benefits. There comes a time when people are able and want to work but cannot necessarily afford to work because they will lose their benefit if they do so. It should be quite possible for a scheme to be drawn up where for every pound —preferably after tax—that someone earns when they go back to work they lose only 50 pence of their benefit. That may be the wrong proportion; perhaps it should be every 30 pence of a pound. People can then slide into work and start to pull their weight within the country again instead of being supported but yet not have that dreadful feeling that if anything goes wrong they and their families are in a mess. Most of the time it is not just themselves about whom they are worried but their families. I believe that the Government should consider that issue. Today may not be the time for my noble friend to give an answer but I should be grateful if the matter can be considered.
Lord Wise: I have put down my name to a couple of amendments. I support them. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the Government should be congratulated on the disability working allowance. It is a wholly admirable concept. However, since the take-up rate is so low, it is clearly not working as satisfactorily as we had hoped. This group of amendments is an attempt to improve the situation. The amendments aim to improve the take-up rate by increasing access to the DWA both by extending the linking period of requalification for the incapacity benefit necessary and by extending the DWA to additional groups, especially those who are capable of and available for work but are
142
unable to claim DWA at present because they are not entitled to the necessary qualifying benefits. Those issues must be considered. I hope that the Minister will give us some favourable replies.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Astor: We have had a slightly wide-ranging debate on the subject which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said is a large and complicated subject; and indeed it is. I shall seek to address the issues on the amendments that he raised today and hope to satisfy a number of his concerns.
The Government believe in the importance of in-work benefit as a way of getting rid of the poverty trap. After all, we have DWA and although I fully accept what noble Lords have said about the low take-up rate —I shall come to that issue later—we also have family credit and in-work benefit which is a benefit now taken up by nearly half a million people.
Perhaps I may turn to the individual amendments. The first amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, relates to the new long-linking rule through periods of training which forms part of the new incapacity benefit. It would extend the period allowed between last receiving incapacity benefit and starting a training course in order to qualify for the two year training linking rule. The period would increase from 56 days to 156 days.
The long linking rule is designed to allow a person who undertakes a period of training for work, in connection with arrangements under Section 2(1) of the Employment and Training Act 1973, to return to their previous rate of incapacity benefit if during, or on termination of, their training they find that because of their incapacity, their attempt is not successful. It aims to remove any disincentive for a person who, in spite of continuing incapacity, wishes to take part in training that will help their rehabilitation back into work.
We believe that 56 days (eight weeks) provides ample time for a person to start a period of training. A person who is incapable of work can continue receiving incapacity benefit while arranging a course of training. Only when they begin their training and receive a training allowance do they have to leave incapacity benefit. Therefore, a period of eight weeks provides adequate time in which to leave benefit and begin training. Indeed, for most people the training is likely to begin on the day immediately following their last day of benefit.
Those people who are found capable of work have a period of two months in which to start on a training course. That should allow sufficient time in which to arrange the appropriate course through their local Training and Enterprise Council and start their training. They would then qualify under this two year linking rule if at some stage their condition deteriorated and they were unable to continue with their training. A claim to incapacity benefit would allow them access back to their previous rate of benefit.
The second group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 65 to 72, seeks to extend the qualifying period from the present 56 days to 156 days or two years, or 365 days for people who have been undergoing training

143
for work, and to extend the qualifying period from the present 56 days to 156 days for people who have previously been in receipt of a qualifying benefit (invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance).
Any extension of the 56-day qualifying period and the benefit rule would be contrary to the normal 56 days linking of periods of incapacity and periods of unemployment. We have to consider every implication of extending the qualifying period and the benefit rule for DWA to ensure that we maintain a coherent approach in many areas of the social security benefits system, not just DWA. To extend the qualifying period as suggested would raise fundamental questions about the definition of disability and access to benefit. We are awaiting the outcome of extensive research undertaken by the Policy Studies Institute as part of the evaluation of DWA and consider that it would be premature to make major changes at this stage.
My right honourable friend the Minister of State made a commitment "in the long term" to,
"look carefully at the whole question of linking rules".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 17/2/94; col. 227.]
We intend to carry out further investigation on the operation of the existing qualifying period and the benefit rule.
To obtain DWA, claimants must satisfy the qualifying benefit test. This means that they must either be receiving disability living allowance or a similar benefit; or, within 56 days before they claimed DWA, they must have been getting invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance or a disability premium with income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit. This ensures that they need only confirm that their disability places them at a disadvantage in getting a job when they apply for DWA.
If the "qualifying benefit" test is amended to include employment service clients who do not receive DLA or a long-term incapacity benefit, we will need some other way of confirming that those claimants are disabled. Extending DWA to people who are registered as disabled does not seem to be an effective way of doing this. The Department of Employment is keen to help disabled people into work, whether or not they are registered. DWA is not at the moment restricted to people who are registered and I do not see Amendment No. 72 as representing a helpful way of making progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the six months between the last payment of incapacity benefit and the first payment of DWA. If there is a six-month gap between receiving the last payment of the incapacity benefit and the finding of a job, the question is whether they should qualify for DWA. DWA is intended for people with a continuing disability.
We are already committed to evaluating the disability working allowance and, as I said, we have commissioned research which will help support our evaluation. We shall consider options for change sooner if the case is made. For example, from April 1995 disability working allowance recipients with savings of £8,000 or less will automatically qualify for free prescriptions and free dental charges. That proposal
144
brings the disability working allowance recipients into line with those on income support and family credit. We remain convinced that the disability working allowance fills a gap and provides an important opportunity for some disabled people to work if that is what they want to do.
The noble Lord asked me about low take-up. We have always said that the caseload would take time to build up; new benefits can be expected to take a period of time to become established. Of course, the caseload is dependent on whether people choose to move into work, and there is no compulsion. I believe that the take-up now is over 3,600.
On the question about the qualifying benefit rule, one of the main purposes of DWA is to help people on long-term incapacity benefits who wish to make the transition into work. The qualifying benefit rule ensures that the resources available are directed to helping those people in particular. We believe that help should be targeted towards those whose need is greatest. The qualifying benefit rule also ensures that all claimants satisfy or have recently satisfied a medical test for long-term disability or incapacity benefit. Because we can use that as supporting evidence, we do not have to apply an additional medical test for DWA.
We are committed to evaluating DWA, and we have also received representations about improving the take-up of DWA, which I recognise has been disappointing. I am considering these issues separately and will report to your Lordships on the conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised some quite detailed points. If he will allow me, I should like to respond at Report stage to some of those points because I believe that I shall then be able to offer proposals that might help the problems. I cannot go into the details now of what the proposals might be or details of which amendment they might affect. However, perhaps the noble Lord will accept the assurance from me that I shall come back at Report stage on a number of the issues that he has raised today.
Lord Wise: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether there is any possibility of a recipient of DWA being worse off in employment if he loses some of the benefits to which he was previously entitled.
Viscount Astor: I think that that would depend on the benefits that that person was receiving at the time. I cannot go further in my answer to my noble friend at the moment, but perhaps he will allow me to write to him with an explanation.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister, I did not think that my friendly warning that I would wish to come back at Report stage would be quite so effective, nor that the Minister would agree to bring something back. So we are all pleased about that.
I should like to make a number of points but I shall deal with them only briefly. The availability of training was not mentioned but it is something which we might have to consider in the ease of the working of the linking rule. It would be helpful if the Minister could write to me on that or reply at Report stage. We should be

145
interested to know when the evaluation is likely to be concluded on the DWA and when the department thinks it will have the results. Will it be one, two, three years or what?
On the low take-up, I rely entirely on my memory because I was working on the Bill when the DLA and DWA came in in 1992. I remember that at the time the Government expected a take-up of 50,000. I am sure that the figures are in Hansard but I think that we were advised and expected a lower take-up than the Government's estimate of 50,000. From memory, I believe we said 16,000 but now it is only 3,000 so obviously we were all under-calling the numbers. It would be interesting to know why, I do not think that anyone is clear about it. There is obviously no single reason: it is a combination of reasons but I hope that the research which the department is undertaking will help on that.
The final point is that what we are describing is the need for a partial incapacity benefit. The Minister will be aware of the debates on the subject which have taken place over time and I am sure that they will have to come into our thinking in the evaluation of the department's undertaking. I am grateful to the Minister and to all Members of the Committee who took part in the debate. This was intended to be a probing group of amendments to enable this important subject to be discussed in Committee and I think that we have been successful in that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 14, at end insert ("or a prescribed scheme of training or employment preparation open to recipients of any benefit paid in respect of incapacity for work, or with money provided under the European Social Fund.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, which stands in my name and the names of two other Members of the Committee. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a wide range of training schemes are counted as periods of incapacity for work. The Bill allows for a period of attendance on a Training for Work scheme to be counted as a period of incapacity for work. This should help people to re-qualify for their previous incapacity benefit, if they remain incapable of work following a training course.
My amendment seeks to extend the scope of that provision to other employment and training schemes —that is to say, courses which are additional to the British Training for Work scheme. The European Social Fund is mentioned in the amendment and I remind the Committee that the fund supports a number of government training schemes such as Training for Work and Youth Training. It also assists other non government-funded training and employment programmes provided by voluntary sector organisations, further education colleges, local authorities, training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies. As the European Social Fund training schemes are not covered by legal regulations, the benefit entitlement of trainees is not protected in the same way as trainees on directly supported government programmes; neither is the £l0 allowance payable.
In contrast to practice in government schemes, disabled trainees on European funded schemes can find their incapacity for work and eligibility for benefit being challenged simply because they are on a course. At present, when a person has been receiving invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance and starts on a government Training for Work scheme, the benefit award is informally terminated but can be reinstated at the end of the course if the claimant remains incapable of work.
The problem for trainees on the European fund schemes is that their incapacity for work can be challenged at any time, not just at the end of the course, Time spent on the European fund programme does not count towards a period of interruption of employment Therefore, if training lasts more than eight weeks the person concerned would have to requalify for benefit from the very beginning.
Unless changes are made on the lines of this amendment, there will be considerable confusion among disabled people about their financial position. It will depend on the particular type of training course and the vagaries of the funding for the various courses. Those individuals will have to bear all the risk of trying out training with the possibility that they could lose benefit entitlement should they need it in the future. That must be a considerable disincentive to training and rehabilitation. I hope that the Government will take that into account and, if this amendment is not suitable, consider some other proposal to try to deal with the situation that I have described. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My name is attached to this amendment, and I strongly support it. I understand that such organisations as the RNIB also support it. The amendment will broaden the range of training schemes that can be undertaken by disabled people without jeopardising their entitlement to claim incapacity benefit after the training programme finishes and prior to employment. The passing of the amendment would secure that the widest possible range of training and rehabilitation schemes could be undertaken by people on incapacity benefit in the hope that, through training, more people would be helped off benefit and into employment. As my noble friend said, we should remember that a number of training schemes last more than eight weeks. For some types of jobs eight weeks would be a remarkably short period and would be thoroughly impractical.
Passing the amendment may be considered to place an undue burden on the adjudication officers. I do not believe that that is the case at all. If they are capable of being adjudication officers, they should be well qualified to deal with this small improvement to the lives of disabled people. We should do whatever we can to help disabled people get into employment of one sort or another. It is very worrying that a number of such people feel that they are left on the shelf and are rather useless. There are an awful lot of things that they can do if they are given the opportunities and the encouragement. I feel that the amendment is just a small step in the right direction.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I too put my name to the amendment. It is a very worthy amendment, and it has the support, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, of a number of organisations, including the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which is active on behalf of disabled people. In fact, in a letter to me today the RNIB points out that it runs training schemes for which it has had the support of the European Social Fund. It would be a great pity if people who participated in such schemes were to find their financial position at risk as a result.
Quite frankly, we are happy that Clause 3 is there. Attendance on a training scheme does not mean that someone is not capable of work. CABs and welfare rights agencies report that people have been told that if they are fit to train they are fit to work. To some degree Clause 3 is clearly meant to deal with that problem. But if only certain schemes are covered, disabled people, as we know, will be very uncertain about their financial future. I therefore urge the Government to give a smooth run and a sympathetic hearing to this amendment. My impression is that when this point was raised in the other place the Minister seemed quite sympathetic and undertook, at col. 250 on 17th February, to consider the matter between now and further proceedings to see whether a more sensible arrangement could be devised. I look forward to hearing from the Minister this evening that this amendment at least will have the support of the Government.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: On behalf of these Benches and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Russell, I support this amendment very much indeed. We welcome the fact that training under the Bill is now counted as a period of incapacity for work.
It is well-known that people with disabilities are finding it increasingly difficult to get a place in a TEC. The TECs and training providers tend to focus on arranging training provision to maximise their own funding rather than always addressing the needs of the trainees.
In the Training for Work schemes it is also sometimes difficult for an incapacitated person to get a place. That is not necessarily because the scheme itself will not take such people, but because the person with disability lacks a certain confidence in his ability to profit from the training. There are a great number of training schemes run by voluntary organisations which are meant purely to give trainees a belief in themselves so that they can go forward after a period into a Training for Work scheme. It is very important that people with disability should have that opportunity through joining such schemes, which are usually funded from the European Social Fund—or are partially funded in that way—to give such people a belief in themselves and a greater opportunity to find training possibilities.
Viscount Astor: As my noble friend described, the effect of his amendment would be to extend the scope of the long linking rule which is applied to incapacity benefit recipients who then undertake a period of training. The long linking rule would then apply to all training courses funded in part by the European Social Fund and any other training that is prescribed.
148
The long linking rule is intended to provide reassurances for those people who choose to try and return to work in spite of their continuing incapacity. Of course, the uncertainty over whether a scheme may or may not qualify for European Social Fund funding year by year is likely to act as a disincentive to move on to training. Those long-term incapable require rehabilitation in addition to retraining to get them back to work. The European Social Fund does not focus specifically on the needs of the long-term incapable in making the transition back into work. The rehabilitative effect would depend very much on the individual needs and limitations of a person undertaking the training or education.
I take the point in regard to the confusion. As my right honourable friend said in another place, there is a real problem with defining training courses and we are considering all the implications carefully. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is aware, it is a complex issue and we need to consider the implications of the amendment carefully to see what may be workable. I am not yet in a position to report back on our deliberations. I also assure the Committee that I hope to do so at Report stage. I also assure my noble friend that we are taking the matter seriously. With that assurance and the earlier assurance given in another place, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment this evening.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for that reply. I knew from the previous observations of his colleagues that there was sympathy for what is proposed, though I understand that it is a wide-ranging subject. I look forward to hearing more at the Report stage and hope that something can be done to help those who are about to choose whether or not to embark on training courses to know where they stand financially before they are committed. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 15 to 17:
Page 6, line 14, at end insert:
("( ) For the purposes of this section "week" means any period of 7 days.").
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("and").
Page 6, line 21, at end insert:
("and
(c) section 30B(3A) above (period after which incapacity benefit is payable at long-term rate in case of terminal illness),").
The noble Viscount said: If the Committee will permit me, I shall move Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 en bloc. I spoke to them with Amendments Nos. 2 and 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 32, at end insert:
("(4) There shall be excluded any days in respect of which a person was disqualified for receiving incapacity benefit.")
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 18, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 39, 46, 48, 50, 51, 56, 57, 59, 76 and 79.
These amendments are of a technical nature and deal with the action to be taken where a person falls into one of three categories; namely,
"(a) he has become incapable of work through his own misconduct;
(b) he fails without good cause to attend for or submit himself to such medical or other treatment as may be required … or
(c) he fails without good cause to observe any prescribed rules of behaviour".
In any of those circumstances a financial penalty would be imposed by stopping payment of benefit for a period of up to six weeks. At the end of that period benefit should be re-instated without requiring a further claim to benefit.
As the Bill is currently drafted, subsections 171A(4) and (6) would make provision to treat a person as capable of work in those circumstances. Their entitlement to benefit would cease for the six-week period. As a result, a further claim would be required at the end of that period. That is not what was intended. This group of amendments replaces the current provisions with a new Section 171DA which provides that a person be disqualified for receiving benefit during the six-week period rather than disentitled.
The main points to highlight to the Committee are that by introducing this disqualification provision, entitlement would continue throughout the period and no claim is required to start paying benefit once disqualification is ended. The provision applies both to incapacity benefit and to severe disablement allowance. The provision is particularly beneficial in severe disablement allowance where a person could lose entitlement to benefit if there were a break in their claim; that is, a person who has been passported through the disability test because they are under age 20 would only retain that passport for as long as entitlement continues. If there was a break in their claim they would be required to satisfy the 80 per cent. disability test afresh. By continuing entitlement through the period of disqualification the "under 20" passport will be protected.
For consistency, it is also intended that there should be a financial penalty for those receiving income related benefits (income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit) on grounds of incapacity. Rather than disqualification there will be loss of the disability premium when that is paid on grounds of incapacity. The penalty will not affect exemption from the requirement to be available for work in income support while incapacity remains.
I hope that that slightly complex explanation to this large group of amendments will persuade the Committee that it is a sensible change in this area. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I wish to make just a brief comment. I accept that the amendments involve technical matters, but I draw attention to Amendment No. 46 which introduces a whole new clause into the 1992 Act. Three sections of that simply provide for regulations to be made by the Minister. Although it is a technical subject, we have no way of knowing what those regulations will contain and what they are about.
150
I simply register that point and in passing mention that the introduction of an amendment of this kind, with those powers of subordinate legislation, came after the report by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee was circulated to us. I had the privilege of being a member of that new Select Committee. Its fifth report was devoted entirely to this Bill. It was not able to take into account the powers contained in the new clause because the clause has only now been introduced and will go into the Bill after we consider it.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, makes an important point. We do not at present have any procedure for the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee to look at amendments introducing delegated powers which are introduced during the progress of a Bill. It would be useful to the Committee if we could find a procedure by which such amendments could be shown, perhaps in a provisional form, to the scrutiny committee a little while before the Committee considers them.
I too want to probe Amendment No. 46 and ask a few questions—there is doubtless case law on the matter —about how some of these general phrases are likely to be interpreted; for example, the words,
"has become incapable of work through his own misconduct".
Clearly one must accept the spirit of what is intended. I just want to know what case law exists in regard to what is meant by "misconduct" in that context. In particular. I should like to have a little more information in regard to subsection (c), which states,
"he fails without good cause to observe any prescribed rules: behaviour".
That is a rather blank cheque. Before it all goes through I should like to know a little more about what that blank cheque means.
As the noble Viscount is aware, I have been concerned for some time about what happens to people who are disqualified or disentitled from benefit. What do they live on in the meantime? Are the people concerned entitled to income support during the interim?
I should like to draw attention to what is a very general problem in relation to misconduct by people on benefit to which I do not think we have any generally satisfactory answers. Clearly one cannot say that they should be allowed to misbehave or indulge in fraudulent practice and go absolutely scot-free. At the same time, it is an unacceptable penalty to put people in a position where they cannot eat. Starvation is a penalty rather more severe than is proper to impose by law. But if' benefit is somewhere near subsistence level—as, when the Treasury has anything to do with it, it is likely to be —then even the partial disentitlement to benefit may cause rather more severe hardship than we would really like to see.
I do not pretend to have the answers to those problems. I can only ask the questions. If anybody else has the answers I shall be extremely interested to hear them.
Viscount Astor: The noble Earl said that he did not have the answers. I have to tell him that, as yet, neither do I. Perhaps I may deal with a point first raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell about regulations and the

151
Select Committee. I should point out that these regulations were looked at by the committee when it produced its report. My amendment, Amendment No. 46, produces the regulations in new Section 171DA. Those regulations are the same as the regulations currently in the Bill—in new Section 171A(4) to (6). If my noble friend looks at that he will see that the committee has looked at the powers proposed by the regulations.
Lord Swinfen: I have not quite understood what my noble friend has just said. He said that the regulations were the regulations in the Bill under new Section 171A. Subsection (4) states:
"Regulations may provide that a person shall be treated as capable of work".
Subsection (5) states:
"Regulations may prescribe".
They are not the actual regulations. There are powers to make regulations, but they are not the regulations, as I understand the drafting of the Bill.
Viscount Astor: My noble friend has misunderstood me. The point I was making to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was that the Select Committee looked at the power in the Bill for making the regulations and did not adversely comment on the way those regulations have been put into the Bill.
Perhaps I may answer some of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Regulations have been made under existing provisions in the same form. Those regulations provide that claimants must not do anything which retards their recovery, or be absent from their place of residence without saying where they are, or do paid work. Those are the issues which the regulations cover at the moment and those are the areas that we shall look at when we bring forward regulations under my amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister enlarge on his explanation of Amendment No. 50?
Lord Campbell of Croy: While my noble friend is preparing himself for that, perhaps I may help by saying that I am grateful to him for his reply to me. I would have given him notice but I did not have time to do so. I was able to examine this government amendment only earlier this afternoon, and because the debate was at such short notice I did not give my noble friend very much time to get a reply. I congratulate him and his noble friend on having produced that reply very quickly.
My point concerning the Select Committee was that, if an amendment was made at any stage in the passage of the Bill through the House after the Select Committee's report, it would be too late for the Select Committee unless it thought it was worth while going back to produce another report. In this case I have not had the opportunity to compare the text with what was earlier in the Bill. It is quite clear now that the same text appears twice in the Bill because as part of the editing the 1992 Act is being altered. I recognise that in going through the regulation-making powers the Select Committee was considering the same text which appears now a second time in the Bill.
152
For the benefit of my noble friend I was talking about the delegation of powers. I made reference to the fact that when regulations are prescribed in a Bill, which enable Ministers to produce them, one does not know unless one is told by the Minister and given a description of what is likely to be in them. My main point—the Select Committee one—concerned the powers to make regulations rather than what was eventually going to be in them. In that regard I have received an answer. I am grateful to my noble friend, who I hope has now had time to be ready for the other point.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to my noble friend for accepting my assurance that the power to make these regulations had been looked at before.
Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Amendment No. 18 in this group ensures that days of disqualification do not count for the purpose of determining the rate of incapacity benefit. Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 give effect to a parallel arrangement on income-related benefits. In order to give effect to the disqualification provision in the income related benefits where the disability premium will be withdrawn for the same period, it is necessary to treat the person as being capable of work for that period.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth Lord Zouche of Haryngworth moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 7, line 16, at end insert:
("(4) Regulations may provide for the comparable treatment of any allowance to which a person is entitled by virtue of his membership of any body prescribed by regulations made under section 171E(5) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 47. I should like to start by saying how much the voluntary organisations and disabled people generally welcomed the Government's announcement during the Second Reading of the Bill that existing claimants on invalidity benefit will soon be able to do up to 16 hours a week voluntary work without affecting their entitlement to benefits. That is a welcome step forward. I understand that this will come into effect in the summer and I urge my noble friend to do all he can to assist it along its passage as soon as possible.
I wish to probe my noble friend the Minister on two areas of activity which the Government quite rightly wish to encourage; that is, disabled people carrying out voluntary work and disabled people representing their own interests on committees, boards of management and other bodies of many different kinds. The aim of the amendment is to extend the position given to councillors under the provisions of the Bill to volunteers and people working on committees and public bodies. The first amendment, to Clause 3, is necessary to ensure that any allowance paid to someone working on a committee or public body is treated in the same way as it is for councillors. The second amendment, to Clause 6, provides for regulations to be introduced which will

153
disregard voluntary work and work as a member of a committee and the assessment of a person's capacity for work.
Voluntary work is something that many disabled people are able and want to do. It does not imply an ability to work, as the nature of it is that they do not have to be committed as one has to be for paid employment. If one is able to turn up once a week or can manage only a day or two, that is acceptable. That situation would be quite unacceptable to an employer and makes a difference between being capable of paid work and not being capable of paid work. As I have stated before, this Government are encouraging disabled people to do voluntary work and to represent their interests on user bodies and committees. My amendment would make further improvements and continue that good progress. Under the provisions of the Bill disabled people will be able to carry out work as councillors without it affecting their entitlement to incapacity benefit. My amendment would ensure that they are also able to carry out voluntary work, without limiting it to 16 hours only, and to work on public bodies and committees without affecting their entitlement to benefit.
With regard to the 16-hour restriction, I have already said how it does not relate to somebody's capacity to work. It is an arbitrary limit which does not reflect the reality of disability. I should like to dwell on that point a little longer. I must declare an interest as I have been involved with the Multiple Sclerosis Society as a volunteer going back for over 20 years. My experience shows me that volunteers are the very heart of charitable organisations, most particularly the disabled volunteers. They are the ambassadors of their charities. Everything must be done to support and encourage them.
They must not be frightened away, as was the case with a local branch of the Multiple Sclerosis Society a few months ago. Several committee members in one branch heard of an incident in their area in which a local man who was receiving IVB and did a couple of hours' work each week voluntarily escorting people to hospital appointments was investigated by the DSS and had his benefit stopped. A member of the same committee then saw a local television programme which reported that the DSS was investigating people whom it suspected of undertaking voluntary work while on IVB. The DSS was trying to obtain incriminating evidence through talking to the neighbours of those individuals under suspicion.
That report caused the committee members to panic. None of them could risk losing his benefits. Consequently the chairman and two welfare workers took a joint decision to resign from the committee. That left the branch, which consisted of some 200 members, without vital people of the committee to continue its support.
The proposed legislation is causing great distress to disabled people. Sir Peter Large, who is a parliamentary representative on the Association of Disabled Professionals, was kind enough to brief me on the case of one of his members. It is about those disabled people who are able and wish to work for more than 16 hours
154
a week on a voluntary basis. Unless my amendments are accepted, those needy people risk losing their invalidity benefit.
Perhaps I may give the Committee one case history which Sir Peter passed on to me. It is very relevant. It concerns a blind person. A 63 year-old electrician, whose last paid job was as a computer programmer with a large state owned corporation, became blind after the gradual loss of his sight 10 years ago. He lives in a village. He said: "Not only was it becoming increasingly difficult for me to work, but the journey to and from the office was so daunting that I agreed without ill will to my employer's suggestion that we should part. There was no work for me locally. It seemed that to try to help a charity concerned with blindness would be a way of keeping my mind busy and of being useful to the human race. I took on more and more jobs, all unpaid of course, and now I do 40 hours in an average week. A lot of it is of course on the telephone. I could not manage without my wife. She reads the considerable correspondence that I have to deal with, keeps my papers in order, does the filing and accompanies me to meetings. Invalidity benefit for me makes the difference between a plain but tolerable life and a harsh constraint."
I could tell the Committee of numerous other case histories but we do not have the time. However, we must not and cannot allow this proposed legislation to pass without fully understanding its implications for disabled persons. It is difficult fully to understand the frustrations, loss of dignity and depths of despair that must occur when one is struck down with blindness, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis or other such frightful diseases. Some people have the guts and fortitude to get on with life rather than staying at home and feeling sorry for themselves. They take on a useful and fulfilling voluntary job, which gives them the chance to regain some of their dignity. I have described such people in the case histories. Then someone who knows better comes along and says: "By the way, chaps, if you work more than 16 hours a week, sit on boards of management or receive allowances you will be ineligible for the benefits."
I ask Members of the Committee: how would you feel? What would your reaction be? I should be utterly disgusted. It will cost the Government nothing to remove the 16-hour limit. It imposes an unnecessary restriction on disabled people who are carrying out useful and fulfilling work. I beg my noble friend the Minister to look at this restriction again and remove it.
Before I sit down I should like to say a few words about user representation, which the Government do so much to encourage. There are many public bodies and committees to which disabled people are able and wish to make a useful contribution but which require their representation. To list but a few: the National Health Service and Community Care Act of 1990 provides for local consultation of disabled people and other users; the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, set up under the Transport Act of 1985, requires that 50 per cent. of its members be disabled or representative of disabled organisations. There are quite a few other bodies, but I shall not list them all. They include

155
housing advisory committees, the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and the committees associated with the utilities, among others.
During the passage of the Bill in another place the Minister made the welcome announcement that the disregard allowance to members of the disability appeal tribunals would be extended to members of the advisory board dealing with the disability allowance. Those are all steps in the right direction. My amendment will ensure that the principle, which is rightly accepted by the Government, is applied to all bodies and committees on which disabled persons may wish to serve. I have already said that it is a nil cost measure. It will go a long way toward encouraging disabled people to participate in and contribute to society as fully as they are able. I urge the Government to accept my amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I strongly support the amendment so well moved by my noble friend Lord Zouche. He mentioned user representation. In this Chamber we have some excellent user representation. I do not believe that any of us sees those Members of this place in this building for fewer than 16 hours when we are sitting —and sitting very late at night. I must admit that they are here later than I normally am.
There are many disabled people on all kinds of organisations who use not only their special skills from occupations and training that they had possibly before they became disabled and now are able to give help in a voluntary capacity to other people. Also, they have knowledge and expertise in disability itself. They know how it affects the organisations which they are trying to help and the people whom those organisations help.
The Committee will be well aware that I work for a charity. Volunteers very often go on courses, and disabled volunteers can quite easily go on such courses. It is not at all uncommon for courses to last over a two-day period and possibly for three or four days, stretching well over 16 hours a week. To limit the hours to just that number is wrong. Voluntary work is very often the route back to full employment. It builds up confidence. It gives people skills that they may not have had before. It is a tool that we should use to help those who are trying to get back to work. We should remember that once they are back at work, that is an investment into the community; it is not a payment by the community to those people. I am afraid that once again the Treasury has stuck its ugly paw into the Bill. It has got hold of its pistol and is shooting itself in the foot.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to support the amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Zouche, has already said, it is welcome that disabled people are able to work for up to 16 hours on voluntary work without that affecting their entitlement to benefit. But what happens if they wish to work for longer? An outstanding issue for disabled people is acting as a member of a public body or committee. If the amendments are accepted, disabled people will be able to work on public
156
bodies and committees without that affecting their entitlement to benefit. They would be put in the same position as councillors.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 lists a number of bodies on which it is desirable to have someone who has a knowledge of disability or who is disabled. They include housing advisory committees and the transport users consultative committee. The latter is very important. The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 reinforces the need to include the experiences of disabled people on councils, committees and other bodies. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept the amendments.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to add my warmest support to the amendments that were so clearly and so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Zouche. I hope that the Minister will accept them. Councillors are already disregarded in the Bill and I, too, welcome the fact that members of the DLA advisory board will also be disregarded. As the noble Lord, Lord Zouche, said, the Government have long encouraged the membership of disabled people on committees. They are to be applauded for that. As my noble friend Lady Kinloss said, that started with the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. I remember that particularly well because it contains the first amendment I ever moved. It happened entirely by mistake. It was the first amendment after dinner. I believe that it stood in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. All other noble Lords who had put their names to it were at dinner and I, the mug, was the one who moved it, so I remember it very well indeed. It was accepted. The Government wanted it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, work as a volunteer is important. People with disabilities can bring much to the job and, in many cases, it may do a lot for them as well. It is a two-way thing. I should like to give a very short quotation from a volunteer. It is a case history from the Association of Disabled Professionals. It comes from someone who has made a spectacular contribution. She is a 51 year-old whose last paid job was as an air-hostess:
"I had had a marvellous life until my eyesight went; I had travelled the world, driven cars in rallies, played fair tennis, married, and had two children. At 32 and blind, with my background, offers of employment were nil. I decided to raise money for research into the disease that had blinded me. My husband left me, and my nerve nearly failed but I set up a charity, found like-minded souls to help me, started branches all over the country, and now have the satisfaction of seeing the research we have sponsored beginning to produce results. How many hours a week did I work? About 60 to start with, I should guess, fewer now, say 40; I travel less.
I've been on IVB since I had to stop work. I don't know if what I do would be called therapeutic for me, but a lot of other people have benefited from it, I think".
Disabled people cannot risk losing their benefit, because it is too precious. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will accept the amendments or at least come back with something of his own to ensure that people with disabilities can continue to make a contribution to life either in decision-making or by giving practical help to others.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Zouche, for moving these amendments so persuasively. They would provide that entitlement to incapacity benefit is not jeopardised if any disabled individual is able to undertake work of more than 16 hours a week for bodies other than local government. Obviously, if there is any such fear, they will not undertake such work. I hope and believe that the ground between those moving and supporting the amendments and the Government is not very wide.
We all recognise that it is highly desirable for at least three reasons that disabled people should be freely able to offer a voluntary service. The first is that it is attractive and good for them, if they so choose. It makes a life that can be rather isolated that much more rich and fulfilling. It is also true, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, rightly reminded us, that it can have a therapeutic effect. We all know that a disabled person's re-entry into the labour market can be determined by the fact that he or she remains attached to the labour market. Therefore, any activity in voluntary work which brings disabled people into regular contact into the world of work and with a focused work environment—with paperwork, 'phones ringing all the time, businesslike methods, an office environment, handling accounts and minuting committees—will help to familiarise them with the world of work as well as, in some cases, giving them information about possible jobs for the future. We have all heard from the research that what most inhibits disabled people from moving back into the world of work is not the attitudes of employers, but the fact that they will need to work flexible hours, need to work close to home and need a supportive environment in which to build up confidence. Working with voluntary organisations can provide that route to re-entry.
The second reason why it is valuable and important for disabled people to take part in voluntary work is not just that it is good for them if that is what they choose to do, but because it is extremely important that their voice be heard on such bodies. Given that I had disabled parents, I thought that I was reasonably "up to speed", so to speak, with some of the issues of being disabled —until I hurt my leg in a relay race and found myself in a wheelchair for six months. It was a very different experience. I learnt at first hand the implication of cambers on the road, of dog shit, and of the location of road crossings. At university, I found that ramps were too steep to be used safely by someone in a wheelchair without another person being present. I found that I could not get into telephone boxes and that lift doors closed too quickly. I found that the deep freezes in supermarkets were too high to look into, but that the supermarket aisles were too narrow to take a wheelchair. I learnt about house design for those in wheelchairs and that, once in a wheelchair, I could not manage to open a window because I was too far away and because the type of window was inappropriate. I picked up some of that just from six months in a wheelchair when I was otherwise fit and able to work.
The input of disabled people is needed not only in relation to house design and public services; their voice
158
should be heard also in the role of school governors. Take the new fashion for competitive team sports: that does not necessarily take into account the particular contribution that a disabled person can make through individualised decathlon competitions, for instance. One needs to hear a disabled person's voice on that. We need to hear their voice in industrial injuries tribunals and social security advisory committees. We need it on CHCs. The noble Lord, Lord Zouche, quoted experiences that had been brought to his attention by Sir Peter Large. We have heard evidence quoted that a disabled woman, a 55 year-old wheelchair user, was contributing to the work of CHC until she was told that her capacity to attend CHC meetings meant that she was fit for work and she was threatened with the loss of her invalidity benefit because she was doing exactly what the 1980 and 1986 Acts asked her to do: that is, to bring her relevant experience to bear on a user body. We need to hear the voice of disabled people on such user bodies. That voice is sometimes threatened and imperilled by the current state of law.
The third reason in addition to the fact that such work is good for the individuals and also for the bodies on which they serve is that the participation of disabled people is good for the community. This group of amendments focuses on the capacity, not the incapacity; on the ability, not the disability, of individuals to contribute to their community. Those practical skills will be valued and, in the process, the "do-gooder line" is blurred—the line between those who do good and those to whom it is done; between those who give help and those who receive it; between those who are independent and those who are dependent; between those who are able and those who are disabled. That sense of contribution reconstructs our notion of mutuality and interdependence. There is no tidy line between the fit and the disabled. We are all fit in some ways and all disabled in others.
Therefore, this is an important pair of amendments. The precedent was established by the Prime Minister himself back in 1987 when, as a Minister at the DSS, he said that experience showed that people with long-term sickness or disability could give valuable service as. councillors even though they could not undertake: normal employment, and that it would be wrong if they were deterred by the rules of the benefit system from contributing to local democracy as elected representatives. He was right when he spoke about the contribution that disabled people could make to local government services. If the Minister is minded to accept. the amendments we could bring that same set of assumptions to bear on the whole range of voluntary work user bodies and thus enrich ourselves accordingly.
Earl Russell: It falls to me to say that support for the noble Lord, Lord Zouche of Haryngworth, and admiration for the way that he moved the amendment, comes from every quarter of the Committee. Almost every person in the Chamber at one time or another has spoken for an amendment saying that, "In making appointments to this body, the Secretary of State should have regard to the desirability of appointing persons with disabilities". Those are good amendments, but I am

159
sure that none of us ever thought, in speaking to such amendments, that we should be disentitling people to their benefits.
Many public bodies are priority places, located in buildings which receive priority attention and where special efforts are made, and rightly made, about such things as access. Because such trouble is taken, and because it will be a while before such trouble is taken everywhere, the fact that people can attend those public bodies and make vital contributions, often for much more than 16 hours a week—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen—does not mean that they will be able to do the sort of ordinary work that they might be offered at the job centre. This is a good amendment. I hope that it will be accepted.
Viscount Astor: It may be helpful if I set out our proposals to allow incapacity claimants to undertake voluntary work. The Government recognise the importance of voluntary work, both to individual claimants and to the organisations to which they offer their skills and experience. We have recognised that in a number of ways. First, there is the new provision to allow claimants to work up to 16 hours' voluntary work per week. That has been widely welcomed. In fact, we received requests to introduce the provision into the current scheme, and that is what we have done.
On Second Reading, I announced that the voluntary work concessions would be brought forward. The necessary regulations will come into effect on 16th May this year. I hope that many claimants will be able to take advantage of the new situation.
Secondly, we are carrying over into the new scheme the current provisions on local authority councillors and members of disability appeal tribunals. The work undertaken by claimants who are local authority councillors does not affect their current entitlement to benefit and will not do so in the future. There are special arrangements for the treatment of the expenses they receive and those will also continue. That gives claimants the chance to participate in the running of their local affairs, if they wish to do so.
Claimants who are members of a disability appeal tribunal do not have their entitlement to benefit called into question provided that they do not sit as a member on more than one day per week. That arrangement was introduced because we needed the help of people who had direct experience of the effect of disabling conditions. Again, we are replicating those arrangements for incapacity benefit and extending them by making a similar arrangement for members of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board.
At the Bill's Third Reading in another place, my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People promised to consider further whether those arrangements should be extended to other specified bodies and organisations. That consideration is still being carried out. Any changes which arise could be made by regulations under the proposed new Section 171D(2). As now, claimants will be able to earn up to £42 per week if their doctor considers that the work they undertake is therapeutic.
160
The two amendments seek to extend the provisions further. Amendment No. 47 would extend the current provision to disregard the work undertaken by local authority councillors to all volunteers or to members of prescribed tribunals, committees and other bodies. Amendment No. 19 would introduce for such claimants arrangements for the treatment of expenses similar to those that apply to councillors.
I believe that these amendments are unnecessary. The arrangements I have outlined give incapacity benefit claimants the opportunity to undertake a wide range of voluntary work and we are now considering whether those arrangements should be extended. I must stress the word "voluntary". I remind the Committee that incapacity benefit is to support people who cannot work. If someone can work for any organisation and receive remuneration, then the question of their continued incapacity must arise. The arrangements that we have for local authority councillors recognise the particular importance of their work and the need to ensure that claimants can undertake such duties if they wish to do so. We have undertaken to consider whether the rules permitting voluntary work should be extended, and I hope to be in a position to announce the result of our considerations on Report. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I hope that I have explained why we believe the amendment is unnecessary. We believe that we are achieving the objectives that my noble friend laudably seeks by the various things we are doing. As I said, I hope to announce on Report the result of our further considerations.
Lord Swinfen: When continuing his considerations, will my noble friend take into account what many of those who have taken part in this short debate have said about the 16-hour limit, because it does not seem reasonable? That is so when a great deal of voluntary work on committees, in particular, takes place outside normal working hours. A good, hard look should be taken at the 16-hour limit. To my mind, it does not seem right.
Viscount Astor: I am not sure that I understand the point made by my noble friend. He says that much of the work takes place outside normal working hours, but these are people who would not be working in normal working hours. If they were, they would not be receiving incapacity benefit. We have made a change in the 16-hour rule. It has been welcomed widely. Although I can give my noble friend no assurance that we will do anything about the hours rule, I undertake that we will study carefully everything that has been said this evening.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: I thank all Members of the Committee who supported my amendment. I felt that there was support from all parts of the Committee. I am struck almost dumb by my noble friend the Minister saying that he felt the amendments were unnecessary. That can only be his interpretation of them. I am disappointed that his attitude is not more positive, but I should like to read carefully what he said. I can assure him that I shall be coming back on Report

161
to hat again on this issue, because I feel strongly about it, and I believe that I have support from all parts of the Committee on the issue. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Power to provide for the transition to incapacity benefit]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 8, line 13, leave out ("the age of the person") and insert ("whether the person was aged 50 or over").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 21. The amendments relate to transitional arrangements. On Second Reading, we recognised that if one were automatically to require all those who might be eligible for incapacity benefit to be re-tested at 28 weeks, that would be worrying, costly and unnecessary for those who would clearly be unable to work in the future.
The Secretary of State proposed three grounds on which someone at 28 weeks would not have to be re-examined to acquire eligibility for incapacity benefit. First are those already on the higher care component of IDLA, which is the subject of a subsequent amendment, that will serve as a passport. Second are those with terminal or specified illnesses, such as those registered blind or paraplegic. The third are those aged 58 or over who had been continuously on invalidity benefit since 1st December 1993. That is the subject of the amendment. Some 850,000 of the 1.5 million people in receipt of IVB would not, to use the Secretary of State's phrase, be bothered by a review.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 press the Minister on the 58-year old rule and the continuous receipt of benefit from 1st December 1993 as opposed to those coming on to the benefit from April 1995 when the changes come into effect. We suggest that those up to 1st December 1993 and those coming on to invalidity benefit between 1st December 1993 and April 1995, when there is a switch over to the new benefit, should be treated similarly. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 21.
Amendment No. 20 seeks to replace the watershed age of 58 as exempting people from subsequent tests with the age of 50. The Minister in another place accepted that age was a relevant factor in incapacity, otherwise he would not have an age rule. What is the sensible age? Why is it 58? When pressed in another place the Minister suggests that the age was somewhat random; it was suitably below the retirement age of women but suitably close to the retirement age of men and therefore it would not serve as an early retirement route. He gave the impression that one year was almost as good as any other and that he happened to choose this one. However, helpfully and importantly he conceded that the motivating and driving force was not cost but something quite different; that is, the quest to seek a convenient cut-off age. The Minister implied that there was no obvious choice of age; any age was as good as another and 58 was a suitable compromise.
But that is not the case. There is a clear choice for an age watershed, which is what the Bill introduces. It is a
162
choice that is produced by the Government's own DSS sponsored research. Not one but three pieces of DSS research confirm that the right cut-off age should be 50 and not 58. The research is that carried out by Ernes and Ghate on IVB longitudinal study (No. 20); the report of Lonsdale on IVB recipients (DSS report No. 19); and the report by Ritchie and Snape, a qualitative study of IVB recipients, which appears to be unnumbered and perhaps is not fully published. All three reports study the interconnection between age, health, work prospects and severity of illness. The three studies break down the situation of claimants under 40, between 40 and 50, between 50 and 55, between 55 and 60 and 60 plus. All three studies show that on almost every measurable item the watershed age is not 58 but 50.
What illnesses do people have that take them on to invalidity or incapacity benefit? I understand that there are three major sources of illness or disability. The first is muscular-skeletal, which can be back or legs and is often the result of an injury at work. The second disability is mental health, which is often a life-trauma experience. The third is circulatory or heart problems, which are a source of continuous illness.
The research shows that those under the age of 50 are generally ill with muscular-skeletal problems (32 per cent.) or with mental health problems (20 per cent.). But of those over 50, 19 per cent. are disabled with muscular-skeletal or back injuries; 23 per cent. now have arthritis problems, whereas only 9 per cent. of those under 50 have them; and 26 per cent. have heart or circulatory conditions, whereas that applies to only 9 per cent. of those under 50. As regards the illnesses from which people suffer, according to DSS research there is a clear cut-off point at the age of 50.
Secondly, the research shows that those with muscular-skeletal and mental health problems expect to get better and to return to work. They are younger and they are most likely to do so. However, those with arthritis and heart and circulation problems, which mostly affect those over 50, had conditions which do not often improve and often gel. worse. Those conditions often made it impossible to return to work and those people did not return to work.
The three research studies show that people under 50 with muscular-skeletal and mental health problems were more likely to have only one source of disability—one medical condition—and therefore were able to return to work as quickly as that condition improved. However, those over 50 with chronic and degenerative illnesses increasingly were more likely to suffer from multiple illnesses; that is, 68 per cent. compared with a much smaller figure for those under 50. Again, the watershed is 50. Of those expecting to improve, 12 per cent. under 50 thought that they would do so but there were only 2 per cent. aged between 50 and 55 and 1 per cent. aged between 55 and 60. Again, the watershed is 50. When the recipients of IVB were reinterviewed, it was found that 21 per cent. of those under 40 had improved, as had 11 per cent. of those between 40 and 50, but only 5 per cent. of those over 50 had improved. Again, the watershed is 50.
The DSS research states:

163
"There was a strong correlation between age and whether or not people's health improved: as respondents increased with age, the likelihood of reporting worse health also increased … and this also varied according to the type of condition they had (itself related to age)".
Those who are able to return to the labour market are those with less severe conditions, those with a single condition, those with muscular-skeletal or mental health problems, both of which improve, women who return to lighter physical work and those who get better. Overwhelmingly, they are under 50. Over 50—not over 58—almost all of those things are untrue: they are unable to return to the labour market; they have more severe conditions; they have multiple conditions which are likely to get worse; and they do not return to the labour market.
I have deliberately not referred to their employment prospects because I do not think that that is necessary. I suggest to the Minister that if he has read three heavyweight pieces of DSS research he does not have to choose 58 or, as was suggested in another place, that the choosing of the age is done at random. The department's research makes it clear that there is a watershed year and that it is around 50. I am sure that the Minister has read those reports and I hope that he will be persuaded by these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: I believe that the purpose of the amendments is to seek to enlarge the groups of people who will not be subject to the new medical test. As the Committee is aware—and as the noble Baroness mentioned—we intend to exempt about 850,000 people from the new test.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security said on Second Reading in another place, this covers people who are terminally ill, who suffer from one of a number of severe or chronic conditions, people who are receiving the highest rate care component of disability living allowance and people aged 58 and over when the new test is introduced who have received invalidity benefit continuously since 1st December last year. In forming our proposals on applying the new test to existing cases we wanted to be able to provide as many existing claimants as possible with a guarantee about their future entitlement.
It is clear that it would be both unwarranted and distressing to ask very ill people to undergo a medical examination. We have no desire to waste claimants' time and taxpayers' money in unnecessary testing and examinations. That applies to existing and new incapacity benefit claimants.
When we decided upon the age cut-off for existing claimants, we wanted to reassure those who were approaching pension age. But we also had to bear in mind the view that IVB is being paid to people for whom it was not intended. In particular, we believe that a number of people aged 50 and over have been receiving benefit as a form of early retirement support. I am sure the Committee will agree that that is not the purpose of incapacity benefit.
We had to draw the line somewhere. It would undoubtedly be unfair for us not to test any existing claimants under the new assessment of incapacity—
164
unfair on the taxpayer and unfair on new claimants. However, those approaching pension age are in a difficult position. The Government recognise that by introducing the provision that those aged 58 and over in April 1995, who are receiving benefit at the time of the announcement, will not be subject to the new test.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked how we reached the age of 58. It is a question of judgment. There are competing concerns. On the one hand, there are the interests of the taxpayer that benefit should go only to the sick. And on the other, we have the needs of claimants who are approaching pension age. We looked first at providing the cut-off at two years from state pension age. That would impact unequally on men and women, and might be open to challenge in Europe. We then considered setting the cut-off at 60. However, that would offer little to women since it is their state pension age. We therefore concluded that the cut-off should be the same for men and women, set at 58, as a balance between the competing concerns of the taxpayer and the existing recipients.
Amendment No. 21 seeks to change the eligibility for those people excluded on age grounds from the date of the announcement to the date of the commencement of the new scheme. There is a very good reason why we set the date at announcement and not commencement. The reason is simple: we do not want to have a "closing down sale" on invalidity benefit. That is, we do not wish people to take advantage of the period between the announcement in December 1993 and commencement in April 1995 in order to get themselves into one of the exempted groups.
Amendment No. 20 proposes that no one over the age of 50 shall be tested under the new test. That is unacceptable. In April 1992, about 70 per cent. of IVB claimants (including those over pension age) were aged 50 and over. To exclude all these people would effectively be to exclude existing cases from the new test, which, as I have said, is unfair to the taxpayer and unfair to new claimants.
We think that the present system does not have a good enough test of incapacity. That is why we are introducing the new arrangements. If we accepted these amendments, we believe that we should be offering people the opportunity to avoid all future testing for incapacity benefit. I trust that Members of the Committee will see the common sense of our position and reject these amendments.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: Since the noble Baroness has widened the discussion a little to include the general question of exclusions from the tests, may I take this opportunity to ask her whether schizophrenics will be excluded from the new medical test?
Baroness Cumberlege: I believe that we shall be discussing those matters on Thursday when we resume our discussions in Committee. It is a question of degree and we shall go into that then because, as the noble Earl is aware, mental illness is a particularly difficult area.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. First, the Minister referred to

165
taxpayers' concern if we were to bring down from 58 to 50 the age after which no one need undergo a subsequent test. How much does she reckon that that would save the taxpayer? Secondly, given that the three research reports show clearly that the watershed age is 50 and not 58, does she disagree with the research findings of her own department?
Baroness Cumberlege: As regards expenditure, we believe that Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 would reduce public expenditure savings by £50 million in 1995–96 and by £220 million in 1996–97. I am sorry. I lost the second question.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Does the Minister accept the implications of the research findings of her own department; namely, that the watershed year is around 50 and not 58 in terms of the nature of the disability, the severity of the condition, the likelihood of improvement and the multiple nature of the illness?
Baroness Cumberlege: I believe that one must accept that research is there to inform and that, in the end, it is a judgment and a decision which has to be made. However, the department and Ministers believe that age itself is not a factor relevant to incapacity. Clearly, as one gets older, one is more likely to suffer from different kinds of incapacity but we know that, of itself, age is actually not a factor.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: But the DSS research says that that the type of condition varied according to age. I do not understand the Minister's comments in the light of her own research findings, which show that age is related to the type of condition and, therefore, was a factor in the incapacity.
Baroness Cumberlege: Age is not a condition in itself. Clearly, if an elderly person has a number of different health problems, those will be taken into account when we come to do the tests. I must say that older people, when they go for the tests, are perhaps more likely to prove to have an incapacity for work. But to simply use age is not a relevant factor.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may try to be helpful. I do not believe that the position of the two noble Baronesses is entirely incompatible. I do not believe that we are saving that age, in itself, is a disability. We are saying that age diminishes the likelihood of recovery.
Baroness Cumberlege: I believe that the test will actually prove whether or not that is the case in individual circumstances. But the other point that I should like to make is that just because people take the test does not mean that they will not receive the benefit.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she comment on the point that, by refusing Amendment No. 21, she is creating a situation in which it would be possible to have people of similar age or with similar disabilities being treated differently? It could lead to anomalies and differential treatment among people depending on the date of the
166
claim and whether they have been continuously in receipt of benefit since 1st December 1993. Would that not lead to an anomalous situation?
Baroness Cumberlege: Clearly, we shall have to take each case on its merits. I believe that a lot of this debate will take place when we look at the tests and the impact that they have on individual circumstances.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like to reflect on the situation before Report stage. I beg leave 'to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 8, line 16, at end insert ("or by reference to the middle or highest rate of the care component or the higher rate of the mobility component of disability living allowance on commencement").
The noble Baroness said: Again, we come to an amendment relating to transitional protection. At present, transitional arrangements will apply to people on invalidity benefit who receive the higher rate of care component of the DLA. The purpose of the amendment is to extend that transitional protection to those in receipt of a middle rate of care component or higher rate of mobility allowance or mobility component.
The former need help during night or day but not both; the latter are unable, or virtually unable, to walk. Receipt of the DLA at any of those levels is an indicator of severity of disability. Is it not reasonable to suggest that those claimants should also be eligible for fast-tracking through the assessment process?
I feel that we should learn from the experience of the former ILF. It was able to consider only applications from people on the higher rate of the care component of the DLA or attendance allowance. It found that that meant that some people did not have their care needs met by the fund because, although they managed to get through the night without assistance, that was very often only because of medication; for example, they might have been given sleeping pills or have had a self-turning bed. Their needs could well arise during the day and were, therefore, quite a different matter; indeed, it was found that they could be as great if not greater than the day needs of people who qualified for a higher rate.
Without the amendment, we shall exclude from transitional protection and subject to the hassle of the medical test and lengthy form filling people who may be as severely and, in some cases, even more severely disabled than the fast-tracking recipients of the higher rate of the care component of DLA. The numbers affected are likely to be small, but it is most important for those people who are affected.
I hope that the Minister will go into the matter. Her department should be able to find a way to identify from DLA records the level of severity scored for the test in an individual's case and find some way to relate the DLA assessment to the incapacity assessment. I very much hope that the Minister will explore the matter. With a little luck, we may find that computers can actually talk to one another. If that is so, then it will not be such a huge exercise in this day of technology.
I should love to hear the Minister say that she will accept the amendments. However, to be realistic I hope that she will give serious thought to them and either return with something on Report or agree to discuss the issues and the possibility of some relationship between the assessments before the next stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I simply rise to express my support for the amendment. I really cannot add anything to the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) introduced it. It seems to me to be an admirable amendment in every respect. There clearly is a case for fast tracking those people through the assessment process.
Baroness Cumberlege: As I understand the amendment, it seeks, like previous amendments, to extend further the exempted categories. The exempted categories are for those whose capacity is beyond doubt. Those who receive the highest rate of the care component of disability living allowance fall into that category because people who receive that element of benefit are clearly so far incapacitated that we need not question their capacity for work. The amendment seeks to widen the provision to include those who receive the middle rate care component of DLA and/or the higher mobility component of that benefit.
However, the other groups of people to which the amendments refer are not such extreme cases. While those people may well suffer disability—otherwise they would not receive their benefit—the effects of their medical conditions are not such that we can, in every case, be sure that they are incapable of any work. As Members of the Committee have made clear, they are well aware of the distinction between capacity to achieve domestic tasks and capacity for work. DLA is intended to meet the extra costs associated with personal care needs arising from an illness or disability.
We are introducing new arrangements to provide an improved test of incapacity. At present, we are not mindful to accept the amendment. But, bearing in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said about computers talking to one another, we shall look into the matter to see whether there is anything that we can do.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like, first, to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for her support. I am grateful to the Minister for the last part of her reply. However, I was extremely disappointed by the earlier part of it. I had hoped that I had made the case that many of the people on the middle rate of care and on the higher rate of mobility allowance are in fact just as disabled, if not more severely disabled. Of course, I accept that there may be some who are not.
However, the issue is really another debate and I shall not go into it now. You cannot have a test that shows with 100 per cent. certainty that someone is incapable of work. The proposed benefit is really a recognition of significant disability whether physical, intellectual or emotional. It is a recognition of a degree of disability that people in general would consider is sufficient reason for a person with such disability not to work. It
168
is not that such people necessarily cannot work; indeed, one has only to think of Dr. Stephen Hawking who is the greatest living expert on black holes and who is in a very severe state with motor neurone disease. You cannot devise a test that would show that Dr. Stephen Hawking can work, and the reverse is also true.
The point is that it would be unreasonable to expect people to work if they pass the test. In any event, I am glad that the Minister has some faith in computers. I would be most grateful if she would explore that area and find a relationship between the two. She may then at least be able to fast track the people who are as disabled as those on the higher rate of the care component. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 9, line 12, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
The noble Viscount said: In moving the above amendment, I think it may be for the convenience of Members of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 24, 54, 55, 61, 62 and 77. The amendments arise as a consequence of the recommendations of the Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers. I am sure that Members of the Committee are grateful for the work of the Select Committee. The Government are happy to accept its recommendations.
The Select Committee drew attention to two points. First, the period to which regulations are made under Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Members of this Chamber, and the Select Committee in particular, pay close attention when considering Bills which contain powers to make secondary legislation, whether powers are subject to the affirmative or negative procedures. As Members of the Committee are aware, there are twin pressures: on the one hand, ensuring that the business of the House is not cluttered up with regulations which are of minor import; and, on the other, that major measures should be properly scrutinised on the floor of the House.
The Bill attempts to marry those concerns, with an approach of time-limiting the period to which regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. It is likely that the first few sets of regulations made under the provisions will attract a high level of interest and scrutiny. However, future regulations are likely to be non-controversial amending provisions. The Select Committee welcomed the approach of time-limiting the application of the affirmative procedure.
The Government felt that three years from Royal Assent would be a suitable period. The amendments of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy make regulations subject to the affirmative procedure for three years from commencement of the Act. In principle, I have no quarrel with the sentiment which extends the Bill by about a year. However, my noble friend's amendment would have the unintentional effect of making the first set of regulations, which we hope to make in the autumn, subject to the negative procedure. That is because regulations will be made before the full commencement of the Act. A commencement order will, in all probability, commence Clauses 4 and 7 of the

169
Act in full. It will, however, only commence Clauses 5 and 6 to the extent that regulations can be made. A later commencement order will fully commence Clauses 5 and 6 along with the rest of the Act in time for 13th April 1995.
The approach of commencing enabling powers to make regulations before the full commencement of an Act is preferred by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in preference to the use of Section 13 of the Interpretation Act 1978. As Clauses 5 and 6 will not be commenced until April 1995, any regulations made under powers contained in those clauses would, under the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell, automatically revert to the negative procedure.
The amendments tabled in my name attempt to get round the problem and meet the spirit of my noble friend's amendments by extending the period after Royal Assent to which regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure from three years to four. Amendment. No. 77 proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to which I have added my name, concerns the scrutiny of regulations made under Section 30B(5)—regulations setting out age additions—by the Social Security Advisory Committee.
As the Members of the Committee may be aware, most social security regulations are subject to the scrutiny of that committee. The two main exceptions are regulations made within six months of an Act and regulations which concern rates of benefit. We originally thought that regulations made under Section 30B(5) would only set out the rates of age additions. Accordingly, they would not fall to be scrutinised by the SSAC. Paragraph 52 was included in Schedule 1 to the Bill.
The regulations will be broader than just the rates of benefit. It is appropriate, therefore, that SSAC should consider the regulations. I am grateful to the Select Committee for bringing that to my attention. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for so quickly tabling the appropriate amendment and allowing me to add my name to it. I commend my amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I shall speak to my Amendment No. 24 and with it the similar Amendments Nos. 55 and 62. As my noble friend said, this matter arises from consideration by the new Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers of which I am a Member, although I speak of course for myself in debates on Bills in this Chamber at various stages. These amendments of mine would apply to any Bill of this kind whatever the subject. Therefore, the subject is immaterial, but I think it is a matter of some constitutional interest.
The Select Committee in its fifth report—it is only its fifth report—devoted the whole of that report to this Bill and proposed what is suggested in my amendments. I should make clear that the Select Committee considered it a very sensible new arrangement in Bills to have a period of three or so years for the affirmative procedure to be required for delegated legislation after which the negative procedure could be applied. I agree with that.
170
However, we realised that in many Bills the Minister has the right, after Royal Assent, to decide on the date of commencement. This Bill, like many others, has separate dates which can be prescribed by the Minister for separate parts of the Bill. That could take out quite a lot of time from the three years. It might be a year or even two years before the part of the Bill concerning regulations commenced. That is the reason for the amendment.
I was able, I am glad to say, to table these amendments before the Easter Recess. So there was plenty of time for government departments and experts to consider them. I received a letter yesterday from my noble friend Lord Astor explaining the particular problems about this proposal for this Bill. He has just mentioned them, but the main point is that regulations can be made at different times and that some regulations are expected to be made before the commencement of the part of the Bill in question. Therefore, the literal interpretation of our amendment would be that those regulations—the very early ones—would be subject to the negative procedure, and the affirmative period of three years would not have started.
Therefore, in this Bill, for technical reasons, the amendment is not appropriate. However, I hope that the Government will continue to follow the principle and that in other Bills it should be possible for a period of three or four years to be inserted for the affirmative procedure, related to the date of commencement. I am thinking of circumstances where there: would be no difficulties over timing the making of various sets of regulations, which has not been possible in this Bill. Of course, I am glad to accept the Government's amendments which extend the three years in my amendments to four years, and I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Swinfen: I welcome the Government's proposal to extend the period from three to four years. There are, however, a number of Acts on the statute book far older than that, where various parts have not yet received the order for commencement. What happens if the order for commencement is not made within the four-year period?
Lord Campbell of Croy: I failed to mention one point, which is that we owe something to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. As mentioned in our Select Committee report, it was he who made the suggestion in his personal evidence when the Select Committee was first set up and when we were inviting evidence. I would like to make clear that he must receive some of the credit for this proposal.
Earl Russell: I give a warm welcome to this group of amendments, and in particular thank the Minister for putting his name to Amendment No. 77. I am entirely convinced by his reasons for preferring his Amendment No. 23 to our Amendment No. 24. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I believe that the Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers has once again proved how useful it is to the Chamber.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I should answer the point raised by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. Incapacity benefit will be introduced from April 13th 1995 and of course all the regulations we have discussed will be subject to the affirmative procedure for the period that I explained.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, I should say that the point I raised is not just pertinent to this Bill. It could be pertinent to other Bills as well. I understand that at the end of the four-year period the regulations stop being subject to affirmative but become subject to negative instrument which means that they are not even discussable. That is what I am thinking of. While I welcome the suggestion of the longer period, that is something that needs to be looked at.
Viscount Astor: I would say to my noble friend that we are dealing with this Bill and not other Bills and therefore we must contain ourselves. But of course negative resolutions can be discussed if a Motion is put down. That is up to Members when they consider any regulations as they come before the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Medicines (Veterinary Drugs) (Pharmacy and Merchants' List) (Amendment) Order 1994
8.8 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to delay the implementation of the Medicines (Veterinary Drugs) (Pharmacy and Merchants' List) (Amendment) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994 No. 599) for two months whilst they consult with the industry.
The noble Countess said: My Lords, I am moving this Motion tonight because I believe that the Government, upon the advice of the Veterinary Products Committee, have acted in haste and that they are approaching the sheep dip problem from the wrong end. In the case of organophosphate sheep dips, farmers are being blamed for causing their own ill health by misusing the chemicals. We need to bear in mind that when OPs were first introduced they were widely advertised as being safer than the organochlorates which they replaced. In fact when Boots introduced its "New Diazinon Dip" in 1965 it was advertised as completely
172
safe except of course for the ectoparasites it was designed to kill. Farmers had been accustomed to using poisons such as arsenic in sheep dips and were aware of the precautions which should be taken. It stands to reason that a normal person would believe that if a product is promoted as safe, not so many precautions need to be taken.
We must also bear in mind that it is only as cases of ill health caused by exposure to OPs in sheep dips have occurred that the labelling on containers has become more explicit. Early containers carried very little if any warning on the health hazards to users, and if a person has used the same product regularly he is unlikely to change his working practices unless hazard warnings are clearly highlighted. I do not read the instructions on a soap powder packet each time I use it because, having studied them at the time I first made my purchase, I believe that I know how to use it. I know that bleach and limescale remover are dangerous if misused. Although I can no longer use them I would take the necessary precautions because there are clear hazard warnings on their containers. Until last year there were no such cautions on OP sheep dip containers.
The noble Earl the Minister will tell me that before the Government enacted this order they consulted all interested parties. I have seen the responses to the consultation paper. It is interesting that the responses of those who actually represent the men and women who dip sheep have all expressed deep reservations about the order. They fear that, rather than spend time, effort and expense, many farmers will prefer not to dip their sheep in OPs and that the incidence of sheep scab will increase rapidly.
We must first understand that, with one exception, OPs are at present the only chemicals available to farmers to prevent rather than treat sheep scab. OPs are especially effective because they offer long-lasting protection against the sheep scab mite—so much so that the fleeces of sheep dipped in the autumn retain the chemicals in their lanolin until shearing time in the following May or June. Other ectoparasites can be controlled by alternative products on the market.
Until very early in this century sheep scab was endemic in the United Kingdom. Shepherds treated affected animals with a variety of salves and potions, none of which was effective. In 1870 the disease was made notifiable, but this had no effect on the number of outbreaks, which varied between 1,200 and 3,500 over the next 30 years. Infected imported sheep added to the problem.
Between 1901 and 1905, as a result of pressures from agricultural organisations, the feasibility of eradicating sheep scab was assessed. In 1905 a single dip was enforced before sheep could be moved from one locality to another, under police supervision. This was followed by compulsory annual dipping in 1907. From then until 1910 there was little reduction in the number of outbreaks. Further research revealed that a single dip did not eradicate the scab mite eggs, so in 1920 double dipping within an eight-day period was enforced. The number of outbreaks fell by about two thirds.
Local authorities had been empowered to make their own regulations for dipping. This arrangement

173
generated a great deal of friction between them and farmers. There were problems with ensuring that all the sheep in hill areas were gathered for dipping. This, combined with the apathy of some farmers, created additional difficulties.
A new phase in the campaign opened in 1933 when Ministry staff supervised gathering, particularly in the uplands, and dipping. They also inspected flocks regularly. In 1938 the local authority functions were transferred to Ministry veterinary staff. Until 1946 all approved dips were based on arsenic, tar acids, nicotine or lime and sulphur. In that year benzene-hexachloride was introduced. By 1952 all sheep scab had been eradicated from the United Kingdom.
Early in 1973 there was an outbreak of scab on the Yorkshire/Lancashire border, believed to have been caused by sheep imported from Ireland. Rumour has it that Ministry inspectors supervised the dipping with non-scab dips. If that is true today's story might be very different.
In 1976 compulsory dipping with MAFF approved organochlorine products was reintroduced. These chemicals were abandoned when residues were found in the food chain. They were replaced by organophosphates, of which 17 were approved, and pyrethroids, of which one was approved. The pyrethroid dip was very much more expensive than its OP counterparts. As I said, they were promoted on the basis of their safety. We are only just beginning to discover how unsafe these chemicals really are. Despite 16 years of compulsory dipping, the campaign was not a success. In 1992 MAFF decided that greater reliance should be placed on self-regulation by the sheep industry. The national dipping and sheep scab orders were repealed in July of that year.
Since then there has been a serious and worrying spread of sheep scab from the upland areas to flocks in all parts of the country. Many noble Lords will have seen the disturbing pictures of affected sheep after the recent successful prosecution of a farmer in the North of England.
I am as concerned as anyone about the effect this disease has upon the welfare of the animals. Prevention is part of good stockmanship. Would that all sheepkeepers were good stockmen and women. Profit margins in the sheep industry have always been tight and for some this will inevitably lead to cutting corners and reducing dipping.
There have always been feral sheep in the uplands and moorlands of the UK. It is known that these animals have been missed during the gathering for dipping. Unfortunately, they are a reservoir for sheep scab. This was known in the 1930s. Sadly, the vigilance of those appointed to police dipping procedures from 1976 was not what it was during the earlier decades.
I believe that the MAFF Minister made a serious mistake when he rescinded the orders which made sheep scab a notifiable disease and compelled farmers to dip their sheep. Had he had the will of some of his predecessors he would have ensured that scab was eradicated from the national flock before the measures were repealed. Those involved with the industry, from shepherds to skin processors, are eager to see scab
174
eradicated. Those of us who believe that their health has been affected by OPs, wish the same, for it would reduce considerably the need to use these chemicals.
All those in the industry have plenty of very constructive ideas as to how that should be done. They are fearful of the consequences of the requirement for purchasers of organophosphate sheep dips to have enrolled for a certificate of competence during the 1994 season and to hold such a certificate after January 1995, as I have already explained. Self-regulation is not working. The irresponsible minority stick the proverbial two fingers up at their concerned neighbours when asked to deal with affected animals. The fear is that the disease will once again become endemic.
When the Minister announced the recommendations of the Veterinary Products Committee at a press conference late last year she was asked repeatedly whether she could guarantee that the health of no more humans would be adversely affected as a result of dipping if they hold a certificate of competence. I am not surprised that she would not answer the question, for I know that she cannot give such a guarantee. My own response at the time was that anyone who believes that a certificate will protect their health needs to be certified.
There is no indication in the order as to how suppliers of organophosphate dips are to be monitored. I believe that it is unreasonable to expect them to be responsible for ensuring that every purchaser is certificated.
I said at the beginning of my speech that I am convinced that the Government are using the wrong approach. I ask the noble Earl the Minister to consider seriously what I have said and to ask his right honourable friend the Minister in another place to suspend the order for two months to enable her and her advisers to confer face-to-face with those in the industry who represent individuals responsible for dipping and otherwise handling sheep. Asking for written submissions is not satisfactory.
I am very conscious of the cost of eradication, but this must be weighed against other costs. I am sure that a balance can be struck between the need to protect the national flock from an extremely unpleasant disease and condemning an increasing number of individuals to chronic ill health and total disruption of their lives. It may well be that the need for certificates of competence will be overcome in the discussions. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to delay the implementation of the Medicines (Veterinary Drugs) (Pharmacy and Merchants' List) (Amendment) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994 No. 599) for two months whilst they consult with the industry.—(The Countess of Mar.)
8.18 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, when I was President of the Oxford University Plough Club sonic 42 years ago I invited two guests of honour to the annual dinner. One was a professor of agriculture who also happened to own a small agricultural chemical factory. In those days one could own a small agricultural chemical factory. The other guest was the then Earl of Portsmouth, who was an organic farmer. I seated them

175
either side of me. Lord Portsmouth leant across me to the professor and said, "So you are one of those persons who are poisoning us, are you?". It was a very enjoyable occasion.
That was a rather light-hearted introduction to this very difficult and painful problem. I early came to the conclusion that I was on the side of those who fought for what we have now come to call the precautionary principle. If ever there was an unanswerable case for the precautionary principle it is in dealing with OP sheep dips. There is overwhelming evidence to show that these substances are intensely dangerous and that a great many people have suffered from their use. They are dangerous to use and they are dangerous to dispose of. That has been either known or suspected for a very long time and much more action is needed from the Government than has been so far forthcoming or promised. What we need is, if not quite the Government falling down before the noble Countess like the emperor at Canossa before the Pope in penitential ashes, at least an acknowledgement that mistakes have been made, combined with what we clergy call a firm intention of amendment.
On these Benches, like our colleagues in another place, we support the noble Countess in her action. The least that we can do is to support the call for a short delay while the matter is considered again. I hope that your Lordships will agree with the noble Countess.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for putting down the Motion. We know that she has wide-ranging interests. However, recently she has concentrated on the problems of the OP sheep dip and the dangers to human health. I am not sure that the Ministry of Agriculture has met her efforts with unadulterated enthusiasm but she has fought hard to bring the problem before us. She has certainly succeeded. I believe that the Government and the department have a difficult balancing act to perform between the danger to human health and the awful effects that we know of scab and fly strike on sheep.
The Government are approaching the matter, on the recommendation of the VPC, through the order with training and certification, with enrolment in the first year and proficiency after 1st April 1995. That is perhaps the only way to deal with the problem. It is a sensible approach. Is that the thin end of the wedge? Is that the approach that will be adopted with products other than those covered by this order?
Perhaps I may say a few words on the order. How will it work in practice? It contains curious phraseology which refers to:
"a person whom the seller knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to be a person who has animals under his control for the purposes of, and in the course of carrying on, a business".
How is the seller supposed to establish that? How does the seller establish "reasonable cause to believe" the person to be the holder or employer of someone with the relevant certificate? How will the issue be policed?
176
Comparison has been made between the regulations regarding the control of agricultural pesticides and the application of sheep dip. Before the debate I told the Minister that I would ask whether the department had any idea of the number of dippers. I do not refer to sheep farmers but the number of people who are likely to be caught by the order. I also wish to confirm—I believe I am correct—that the order does not cover all sheep dips with active ingredients but only those with an organophosphorus component.
I have another question on the terminology in the order. The order refers to,
"a person who has animals under his control for the purposes of, and in the course of carrying on, a business".
Having looked at the results of many sheep flocks over a number of years one might wonder whether most of the owners of sheep flocks in the country could be regarded as carrying on a business. Would those owners be caught by the order? On a more serious note, will the Minister state what will be the effect on the small hobby flocks of sheep? Such owners are clearly not carrying on a business. Will they be caught by the order? The sheep flocks could, of course, be a source of infection.
The BVA has pointed out that it is essential that staff employed by agricultural merchants are fully trained to know the regulations and to be able to recognise the different classes of compounds contained in sheep dip preparations. We certainly hope that that will be the case. Does the department have any plans to ensure that that is so?
I turn now to the speech of the noble Countess. She gave some cogent reasons for delay of the introduction of the order. She asks for two months. She has referred to the deep reservations expressed during the consultation period. We do not discuss the efficacy of the OP products in the control of disease but the dangers to human health. The balance is between the protection of sheep and the dangers of OP poisoning.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be able to assure the noble Countess and the House that the consultation has been sufficient, that consultations are continuing and that therefore there is no reason for the delay that she seeks. If the answer is not satisfactory, and if the noble Countess divides the House, I shall have to consider carefully with my colleagues whether we support the noble Countess.
8.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I echo the noble Lord, Lord Carter, by saying that the noble Countess deserves the gratitude of the House for having so successfully and persistently drawn your Lordships' attention to an issue of genuine concern. Her efforts, perhaps more than anyone's, have ensured that the Government's actions have been subject to the closest scrutiny. That scrutiny has, I hope, demonstrated our overriding concern to protect human health through measures that are practicable and effective.
The noble Countess's Motion concerns legislation about new conditions attaching to the purchase of organophosphorus, or OP, sheep dips. From April of next year, anyone who wishes to buy such material will

177
need to possess a certificate of competence in the safe use of sheep dips. In the meantime, they will need to show simply that they have registered for such a certificate.
The noble Countess advocates a period of consultation with the industry. Let me say to her that the Government wholeheartedly support that principle. In that area, as in all others, we are committed to meaningful consultations with all those likely to be affected by new proposals. Thus consultation with organisations in the sheep industry, and far beyond, began on 17th December. The order came into force on 1st April and the arrangements take full account of the comments that we have received. We wrote to all sheep farmers outlining the new measures as soon as the order had been laid before Parliament. Allowing a transitional year before purchases of OP dip become dependent on possession of a certificate will provide ample opportunity for the industry to seek any further clarification that it needs of how the new arrangements will work.
I hope therefore that noble Lords will agree that the Government have fully met the need for consultation with industry which is the subject of the noble Countess's Motion. It might, however, be helpful if I touch upon some of the wider issues that have been raised in the debate.
OP dips generate strong opinions. At one extreme it is argued that they are far too dangerous to have on the market and should be banned straight away. At the other, it is suggested that a small number of people are making a great deal of noise about risks to health when really that is a lot of fuss over nothing, and we should simply carry on in the same way as before.
The Government's approach falls between the two extremes. That is not because of a desire for compromise—it would be quite wrong to view our attitude in that light—but because we believe that we should look to objective scientific advice and form judgments accordingly. In October last year the independent Veterinary Products Committee, which advises agriculture and health Ministers on all matters concerning the licensing of animal medicines, held a special meeting to discuss the future of the OP dips. They were also joined for the day by various acknowledged expert consultants, neurologists, doctors and poisons experts. They concluded that a ban on the use of OP dips when used correctly could not be supported. But they also had before them evidence of cases of reported human ill health associated with dip exposure. It was clear to the committee that in only 10 per cent. of those cases, regardless of the age or experience of the person concerned, had the full recommended protective clothing been worn or properly used. The committee therefore went on to recommend that a certificate of competence for sheep dipping be introduced as soon as possible, so that sales of OP sheep dip would in future not be permissible unless supported by a certificate. The Government accepted that recommendation and noted the committee's wish to see urgent action taken.
In December, we set out full details of our plans to introduce a certificate of competence scheme in a letter
178
consulting interested organisations. We explained tat we were planning to have a scheme in place by 1st April. In response, there was broad support for the principle of a certificate. But several organisations criticised the complexity and jargon-laden nature of the original first draft of material for certificate tests prepared by the National Proficiency Tests Council. As a result, we went back to the NPTC and hammered out a much improved format—one which they then subsequently ran past a sample of sheep farmers. We understand that the farmers found it to be a fair test—no push-over, yet easy to understand.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether we planned to extend the certification scheme to any other veterinary medicines. There are no plans at the moment to extend the scheme to other veterinary medicines. We shall, however, in October review the non-OP dips to see whether they should be brought into the scheme, but no decision has yet been made. However, local agricultural colleges and the Agricultural Training Board offer training in the use of veterinary medicines, and certification through the National Proficiency Tests Council is available on a voluntary basis.
The noble Lord also asked how many dippers there are. I regret that we do not possess that piece of information. There are approximately 90,000 sheep farmers in England and Wales, not all of whom will use OP sheep dips, which are the only product subject to the certification scheme. Some will use alternative products or employ contractors.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. If he does not know the number of dippers, how has the department been able to carry out the compliance and cost assessment which I believe is attached to the order?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we have had to make some kind of an estimate, but we are not necessarily confident that it will turn out to be correct. There are a number of alternative products on the market and in the end it is up to the sheep farmer's individual choice as to what he or she may do to protect the health status of the flock.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also asked how the new controls will work in practice. The control mechanism on sale and supply of OP dips is simple and effective. From 1st April 1994 until 1st April 1995 agricultural distributors must have reasonable cause to believe that the person buying OP dip either has enrolled with the NPTC for taking a certificate of competence test or is the employer of, or acting on behalf of someone else who has enrolled. After 1st April next year the certificate of competence itself will be necessary to support purchases of OP dip. We have worked closely with the Animal Health Distributors Association in the run-up to the coming into force of these new controls. All agricultural distributors who sell the dips have as a result been sent an extensive question-and-answer brief to help them understand how to apply the new system.
Already some 2,500 sheep farmers have enrolled. We shall be mounting a publicity campaign to ensure that next April's deadline is kept clearly in view. Those who

179
have not already done so continue to enrol. This one year phase-in should allow sufficient time for everyone who wants to do so to qualify.
The noble Lord also asked about hobby flocks. My understanding is that there are no exceptions at all to the controls for small flock owners, but I reserve the right to correct myself in writing. If I am wrong in what I have said, I shall write to the noble Lord straight away.
The question that is sometimes lost sight of is why sheep are dipped in the first place. The noble Countess rightly raised that point. Sheep dips are highly effective weapons in the armoury to combat sheep disease. Sheep scab is not nice. It is caused by parasitic mites scraping the skin. Left alone, these mites reproduce quickly and can soon cause great distress to the animal and can be fatal.
Ensuring that sheep flocks are free from scab is the responsibility of sheep owners. Yet it appears from a number of representations that we have received that some sectors of the sheep industry may be failing to exercise that responsibility. It is not as though this is difficult. Regular inspection of the animals will show whether there is a scab and it can be treated readily by the farmer. Failure to treat a scab outbreak is likely to lead to animal welfare problems. No one should be under any illusion, the Government attach great importance to all issues which concern farm animal welfare. Welfare legislation exists to protect our animals and we shall not hesitate to press for prosecution, wherever sheep are found to suffer through neglect.
There may be some farmers who have resisted treatment because of their anxieties over the safety of OP dips. I hope that they will now be encouraged by the steps we have taken to improve operator safety; or that they will find the non-OP products, such as the ivermectin injectable product licensed this year for sheep scab treatment, to be acceptable alternatives.
The noble Countess has mentioned the current incidence of sheep scab. We have received a number of requests for the Government to reverse their deregulation policy and re-introduce the notifiable status for the disease. We are looking into the reports of an increased incidence of sheep scab and when the information is available we will consider whether further steps might be necessary to encourage farmers to act in a responsible manner. This should not, however, be interpreted as signalling an inevitable return to a regulatory-based solution for controlling scab. The arguments upon which we based the policy of deregulating the sheep scab legislation in 1992 are still relevant today.
The purpose of compulsory national dipping was to control and eradicate sheep scab, particularly on premises where the existence of infestation had not been recognised. However, after 15 years it is an inescapable fact that the policy failed to meet those objectives and was unlikely ever to achieve them, particularly as the lack of EC controls meant that we could not request additional trade guarantees to protect our disease-free status, if that were ever to be achieved. The policy also failed to secure the co-operation of a significant minority within the industry and that was a problem.
180
Those who call for a return to regulation should therefore remember that the disease is, after all, one that can be quite effectively dealt with by the farmer by using a licensed medicinal product in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Those procedures, combined with care in the purchase of replacement animals and flock management to prevent re-infestation, should provide the industry with all it needs to control the spread of sheep scab.
The Veterinary Products Committee, at its special meeting last October, concluded that in spite of a lack of firm evidence to support the association of chronic health effects with exposure to OP sheep dips the knowledge of their potential toxicity should be enhanced. They recommended that a new medical and scientific panel be set up to look into this and the question of whether further research projects would be necessary. As noble Lords will know, the panel's chairmanship and composition have been announced and its first meeting held on 31st March. We await the findings of the panel with interest.
I have already mentioned publicity and not only will we be reminding sheep farmers about the need to qualify for certificates before next April, but we are also setting in train a programme to promote safer dipping practices. This will complement the new requirement for a certificate of competence. HSE have already made a useful training video explaining the control of substances hazardous to health regulations and illustrating good practice. HSE inspectors will continue to provide advice and, where necessary, enforcement on their routine visits to sheep farms.
A major part of the action programme will be a new leaflet published jointly by HSE, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Department of the Environment setting out detailed guidance. That includes advice on using the less hazardous alternatives to OP dips where appropriate and what precautions farmers need to take when OP dips on welfare grounds are clearly the best choice. The guidance will be sent free in early May to all registered sheep farmers in time for the main 1994 sheep dipping season.
Another important safeguard, as the noble Countess will know, is the monitoring and investigation of suspected adverse reactions associated with the use of any particular licensed product—sometimes known as the "yellow form" scheme. Between January 1985 and April 1994, 520 reports relating to OP sheep dips had been received concerning 606 people. An appraisal panel comprising scientists and doctors from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, the Department of Health and the HSE meets regularly to consider such reports. Their conclusions are reported to the VPC and are taken into account by the committee in formulating advice to Ministers.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred to the disposal of sheep dips and indicated that more government action was required. The Government have continually reviewed their advice on the safe disposal of sheep dip, taking into account the results of the latest research. The Government have borne in mind that the approach must both protect the environment and be

181
practical to operate—hence the latest advice which is being issued in the form of a booklet by HSE, MAFF and DoE.
In the short time that we have had tonight to debate this subject I believe that we have covered the ground very well. But in the final analysis I also believe that we have no choice but to accept without further ado the certificate of competence scheme which the order introduces. I am convinced it will lead to a significant raising of awareness among sheep handlers of the precautions that they should take to protect their health when dipping. That is something which the noble Countess can only welcome. We are talking about an important safety measure and one which is soundly underpinned by objective scientific advice. I urge the House to accept that the Government's approach has been both responsible and balanced and that consequently the Motion should be rejected.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he say a little more about the nature of the consultation that has taken place on the part of the Government? He said that the consultations started in mid-December, which means that they have covered a period of some four months. It strikes me as a layman in these matters that for a serious issue such as that raised by the noble Countess—she is obviously very knowledgeable; she has spoken on this subject on a number of occasions in this House—the request for another two months is reasonable. Indeed, I think that she is very generous in asking for only another two months.
What worries me to a very large extent is that this Government are governing by statutory instrument. Is the Minister aware (I am sure that he is) that last year there were no fewer than 3,300 statutory instruments? I hope that the Minister will not say to the House that the Government think that every one of those 3,300-plus statutory instruments was perfect in every way. Nevertheless, that is what happened. It seems to me that on the big and very serious issue that is being raised tonight, not only ought we to be given more information but the Minister, and therefore the Government, ought to be much more sympathetic.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I cannot accept that contention. I believe that MAFF's record on consultation is very good. We go out of our way to consult on virtually everything that we do. In this case we wrote to over 200 organisations and bodies. Among those that replied, there was, as I said, a broad acceptance of the principle of what we proposed to do. Where there was disagreement was on the detail and complexity of the detailed proposals. We addressed those issues. For example, the points raised by the National Association of Agricultural Contractors on the competence test were fully taken on board.
No statutory periods are laid down, of course, for consultation. It is a question of allowing a reasonable amount of time for the person consulted to research and then to produce a response. The normal time allowed for consultation on veterinary medicine matters is six weeks. But there is no hard and fast rule. On this issue a five-week period was given for responses.
182
The Government had accepted, in an announcement on 1st December, the advice of the Veterinary Products Committee to introduce a certificate of competence scheme as soon as possible and had indicated their intention to do so from 1st April. Indeed, a preliminary meeting with the industry had been held in early December prior to the issue of the formal consultation letter. The drafting of the statutory instrument which accompanied that letter took into account the views that were expressed at that meeting. Consequently the proposals, I have to say, came as no surprise to the industry. I am fully satisfied that an adequate period of consultation was allowed.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before the noble. Earl sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether he will very kindly give me an undertaking that he will ask his right honourable friend to call a conference of all the people who are concerned with this problem so that they can discuss it face to face and at length and we can really get to the bottom of it.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I must say that I do not see the need for such a conference. There is nothing in our scheme details that is immutable. The NPTC is perfectly ready in due course to introduce further modifications to the scope of the test in the light of experience. What we have to do is to let the scheme itself go ahead. The details of the scheme, as I said, are not immutable. We will review them in the light of experience. I do not really see that a conference will achieve very much beyond the kind of responses that we have already received under the consultation exercise.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Carter, for the support that they have offered me. I am also very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his kind remarks at the beginning of his speech and for the full way in which he has dealt with the matter. He always does it very kindly and courteously.
I have thought a great deal about this problem. I am still not entirely happy that the consultation period, which was from 17th December to 21st January, was full enough, particularly if one also takes into account that during that period there was nearly a fortnight at Christmas. I am afraid that I must test the feeling of the House.
8.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 58.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Airedale, L.

Hylton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kinloss, Ly. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Blyth, L.

Lawrence, L.

Carter, L.

Mar, C. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

McNair, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nathan, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Norrie, L.

Gregson, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

183

Rea, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Russell, E.

Swinfen, L.

Selkirk, E.

Thurlow, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Arran, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Astor, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Barber, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blatch, B.

Dormer, L.

Brookes, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrers, E.

Butterworth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Byron, L.

Gisborough, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Goschen, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Harvington, L.

Courtown, E.

Haslam, L

Crathorne, L.

Henley, L.

184

HolmPatrick, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hooper, B.

Selborne, E.

Howe, E.

Sharples, B.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Davids, V.

Leigh, L.

Stockton, E.

Lindsay, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

[Teller.]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swinton, E.

Mersey, V.

Teviot, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Trumpington, B.

Reay, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Vivian, L.

Renwick, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at five minutes before nine o'clock.

  SHEEP-DIP EXPOSURE: RESEARCH PROJECT
  SHEEP-DIP EXPOSURE: RESEARCH PROJECT
  ALKYL NITRITES and AIDS
  ALKYL NITRITES and AIDS
  DRUGS BUDGET: PROPOSED CUTS
  DRUGS BUDGET: PROPOSED CUTS
  DISPENSING BY DOCTORS
  DISPENSING BY DOCTORS
  DISPENSING: CLOTHIER COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
  DISPENSING: CLOTHIER COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
  TERRITORIAL ARMY OPERATIONAL ROLE
  TERRITORIAL ARMY OPERATIONAL ROLE
  AFRICA: ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL REFORM ASSISTANCE
  AFRICA: ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL REFORM ASSISTANCE