Sitting of 21 April 1994

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 28 April.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CROSSRAIL BILL
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Committee on the Crossrail Bill have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed works and areas affected by the proposed works, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Humberside Police Force
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to the Local Government Commission's proposal to split the Humberside police force.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the Local Government Commission's recommendation about future policing arrangements in the Humberside area.
    Mr. Mitchell: I was disappointed to hear the Minister say that he is even considering the recommendation because I want him to reject it totally and out of hand. It came out of the blue; it was made without any consultation with any of the interested parties. It is opposed by the police, the police authority, the Police Federation arid the public in Humberside. It would decimate a well-run, efficient force of which we are proud and it would cart parts of the force off to be run by far away local authorities of which we know nothing. The Government should reject the recommendation.
    Mr. Wardle: The commission consulted on its draft recommendations, but the hon. Gentleman is right in that it did not consult afresh on its final recommendations. Those recommendations will now be considered. However, my right hon. and learned Friend will not reach
    1022
    any decision about the Humberside police area without first consulting the police forces, the police authorities and others who would be affected by any such change.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that people want to see more police officers on the beat? Can he assure the House and my constituents that the proposed amalgamation of the North Yorkshire and the Humberside forces, which is in the Local Government Commission report, will deliver more police officers on the beat? It is no good simply offering to consult; we want more officers on our streets.
    Mr. Wardle: As my hon. Friend knows, the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill will make provision for strong police authorities which reflect the interests of local people, set locally focused strategies and evaluate police performance. It will allow for a modernised, flexible and streamlined series of police forces with more officers released for operational duties.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Minister ensure that before there is any change in the area of a constabulary, whether in Humberside or elsewhere, there is a full and proper public inquiry that allows all the people in the area to put their point of view about the area that the constabulary should cover? The Government should not simply try to push things through with a bit of consultation here and there.
    Mr. Wardle: No. The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening to the reply that I gave a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). In making recommendations about local government structures, the commission is required to consider, among other things, the arrangements for law and order services—in other words, all functions that are now part of local government. As I said a moment ago, my right hon. and learned Friend will not reach any decision without consulting the forces and the police authorities that might be affected by any change.

    Rural Areas (Police Liaison)
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to improve liaison between the police and local communities in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): A number of my proposals for reform of the police service will help to improve liaison with local communities, both in towns and in the countryside. They include wider representation on police authorities, a requirement to consult locally and to publish a policing plan that reflects local needs and the development of the parish constable scheme. I am delighted that there is now a parish constable in Bottisham in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Paice: May I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that the parish constable scheme in Bottisham has been widely welcomed? The scheme represents a clear, visible police presence, which is what is needed by so many people in the villages who seek reassurance that the police are really there and are protecting their interests. Is he aware that any extension of that parish constable scheme in Cambridgeshire has now been severely

    1023
    jeopardised by a decision of the county council, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats and Labour? Having been given an extra £1.1 million in the police SSA, the council has decided to spend only £100,000 on the police.
    Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the circumstances that my hon. Friend reports to the House are all too prevalent. Opposition spokesmen make fine noises in the House some of the time, but when their parties have control of local authorities they consistently fail to make available the money that they should for policing.
    Mr. Blair: Is not the biggest threat to police and to communities in rural and urban areas the growing link between crime and drugs? Will the Home Secretary give urgent consideration to two proposals? First, he should put a national Government strategy behind successful projects such as King's Cross, where police, local government, schools and businesses are working together to drive the drug dealers off the street. Secondly, will he get together with the Secretary of State for Education to give us a comprehensive programme for drugs education among young people? That is absolutely essential in deterring young people from the blind alley of drug abuse.
    Mr. Howard: Of course I encourage schemes such as that in King's Cross, and of course we take the education of the young seriously. That is a part of crime prevention to which we attach great importance. The hon. Gentleman wrote an article about crime prevention in the Daily Mirror this week, in which he mentioned a number of local council schemes. He unaccountably failed to mention the fact that they all had one thing in common—they were all funded by the Government. He mentioned Wigan council, but failed to mention that it receives money from city challenge and estate action. He mentioned Newcastle, Bradford and Islington, which all receive money from safer cities schemes, but he failed to mention that factor. He even mentioned a close-circuit television scheme in South Tyneside which is funded by the Department of the Environment's urban programme. When will the hon. Gentleman give credit where it is due for the Government's excellent crime prevention programme?
    Mr. David Nicholson: Let me return to rural areas. My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that there has been a rising tide of crime in rural areas, as criminals have become more mobile, and such communities are vulnerable? Is he also aware that there is a good welcome for the parish constables scheme and for the proposals in recent legislation for new age travellers and ravers?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I entirely agree that the measures contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will make a significant contribution to fighting rural crime. That is something to which we attach particular importance and priority.

    Burglaries
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of burglaries on (a) private properties and (b) commercial properties in the West Yorkshire area and in England and Wales for each year since 1991; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The figures the hon. Member seeks are rounded as follows. Reported burglaries in a dwelling in West Yorkshire: 42,000, 52,000, 58,000. Other reported burglaries in West Yorkshire: 37,000, 38,000, 36,000.Reported burglaries in a dwelling in England and Wales: 625,000, 708,000, 728,000. Other reported burglaries in England and Wales: 595,000, 647,000, 642,000.
    My right hon. and learned Friend has made an increase in the number of detections for domestic burglary a national key objective of the police in 1994–95.
    Mr. O'Brien: Does not that reveal that the Conservatives have lost the fight against crime? In West Yorkshire, the numbers of burglaries are significant and there was a 5 per cent. increase last year. When will the Minister do something to improve safety for my constituents? When will the Government introduce the Morgan report, which gives local authorities some responsibility for combating crime? Does the Minister accept that high unemployment in West Yorkshire has an influence on crime?
    Mr. Maclean: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been this week. We announced that crime overall in West Yorkshire fell by 1 per cent. last year. [Interruption.] If the Opposition care to listen, since December 1993, domestic burglaries in West Yorkshire have dropped by 6 per cent. and non-residential burglaries by 14.5 per cent. In the Wakefield division, which includes Normanton, there was a drop of 19.6 per cent. in domestic burglaries in the first three months of this year. When will the hon. Gentleman welcome that trend?
    Dr. Hampson: Is my hon. Friend aware that people in West Yorkshire, and particularly Leeds, are conscious that the West Yorkshire force has done amazingly well, despite the fact that it has had great difficulties, largely because of a huge capital building programme which squeezes its revenue account? If he also aware that if we compare the figures for West Yorkshire with those for South Yorkshire last year, they show a reduction in West Yorkshire and a 14 per cent. increase in South Yorkshire?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that fact. West Yorkshire police have been tremendously successful in the fight against crime. Where the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) does damage not only to his constituents but to the constituencies of all hon. Members is when he says that one cannot succeed in the fight against crime. The figures that we announced this week show that we can make an impact and we are not condemned to ever-rising crime. By sensibly targeting our resources, we can make a difference.
    Mr. Hardy: I do not wish to get involved in bandying arguments about the achievements in West and South Yorkshire, where a high detection rate has been achieved over a long time. Would the Minister care to comment on the fact that it is essential that if burglars are caught, perhaps even red-handed, they should then be brought to court and convicted? Would he care to tell the House how the conviction rate compares with the rate of arrests?
    Mr. Maclean: I agree entirely that we need all approaches to crime to work. That is a successful police force. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home

    1025
    Secretary has introduced changes in the Police and Magistrates Courts' Bill to that effect. We need improved detection rates and measures in the criminal courts to ensure that those who are guilty of crime are convicted.
    Mr. Hardy: That is what I am calling for.
    Mr. Maclean: In that case, the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his hon. Friends who abstained on the Third Reading of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill and others in his party who voted against the very measures for which he calls.
    Sir Donald Thompson: West Yorkshire welcomes increased funding, but we hear perpetually that we could do with another 200 policemen there. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on that?
    Mr. Maclean: There are vacancies for police officers in the West Yorkshire force. The figures have fallen dramatically in the past few months. The vacancy rate is down to 246 from a figure that was up in the 320s. Of course we all want to encourage the West Yorkshire force to deploy its resources to the maximum effect. The success in recent months on burglary seems to show that, with the present resources, the chief constable there is making a pretty good job of it.

    Field Sports
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much police time was spent in 1992–93 in policing field sports.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: This information is not collected centrally. The deployment of police officers to specific duties is a matter for chief officers of police.
    Mrs. Campbell: Is not it about time that the Minister allowed a free vote in the House on the legality of field sports, bearing in mind the enormous amount of resources in police time, as well as, of course, the extreme cruelty to wild animals, that would be saved if field sports were banned?
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Lady will know that in the last Parliament there was a debate and a free vote because the Government for their part regard such matters to be matters of individual conscience. I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome the proposals in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which are aimed at all trespassers, including hunters, who wilfully disrupt a lawful activity on land.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that we could have more policemen on the beat and better use of police time if the police did not have to waste so much effort dealing with cranks and hunt saboteurs who unlawfully interfere with perfectly lawful field sports?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, in Cambridgeshire the police deploy a number of people for just such purposes. That ties up police officers who otherwise could be deployed elsewhere. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill gives the police powers to direct trespassers to leave land if there are reasonable grounds for believing that they intend to disrupt a lawful activity. It will be a criminal offence to return as a trespasser to that land within three months. The Bill also creates a substantive offence of wilfully disrupting a lawful
    1026
    activity or trying to intimidate someone into not engaging in a lawful activity while he is present as a trespasser on the land.

    Police Force Amalgamation
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received on the subject of amalgamation of police forces in the last nine months; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: We have received eight letters from hon. Members and 68 letters from members of the public.
    Mr. Llwyd: Some weeks ago, I met the Home Secretary, who told me that the 1976 regulation which precludes an assistant being appointed chief constable in a police area had not been breached since 1976. However, it has already been breached twice in 1993–once in Essex and once in Dorset. Does the Minister agree that the advice of Earl Ferrers to a deputation from the North Wales police authority that it should place the assistant on the short list, interview and then not appoint to save face for the Home Office and avoid political embarrassment is nothing short of disgraceful?
    Mr. Wardle: The guidelines have not been breached as the hon. Gentleman suggests and my right hon. and noble Friend did not give that advice. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, and the House may wish to know, that the post of North Wales chief constable is to be re-advertised. The successful candidate will not necessarily be a Welsh speaker, but the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that he or she must undertake to learn Welsh.
    Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that while there is a good case for greater integration of police forces —especially of criminal investigation departments and the use of computer resources—there is not necessarily a good case for big is beautiful and the amalgamation of police forces? The Devon and Cornwall police force, in particular, is already large enough.
    Mr. Wardle: The Government have no hidden agenda, as some would suggest, or a predetermined view about the right size for a police force. As my hon. Friend will know, provisions in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill allow for full consideration of the views and wishes of interested parties when any amalgamation is proposed. Existing procedures, which stem from the Police Act 1964, are cumbersome, long drawn out and expensive and need to be simplified. The ground needs to be prepared in case of amalgamations.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Why does not a British Home Secretary with roots in Llanelli think again about the matter? Does he acknowledge that there are strong feelings and great resentment? In the light of what the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, why does not the Home Office think again?
    Mr. Wardle: As I have already told the House, the post of chief constable of the North Wales force is to be re-advertised, so the procedure will start again with the criteria that I outlined.

    Lenient Sentences
    Mr. Batiste: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Attorney-General's right to appeal against lenient sentences; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: The Attorney-General's power to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal has proved extremely valuable. It has ensured that the most serious offences are appropriately punished. So far, 116 cases have been considered by the Court of Appeal following referral from the Attorney-General and 95 references have resulted in an increased sentence.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that over-lenient sentences bring the criminal justice system into disrepute and are terribly unfair to the victims of crime? Does he recall that when the Government introduced powers to overlook over-lenient sentences, the entire Opposition Front-Bench team voted against, as did all members of the present Opposition Home Office team? What representations has my right hon. and learned Friend received on the subject since then?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to that fact. That is an extremely important power and it helps us to deal with a situation in which the law was brought into disrepute. The record of right hon. and hon. Opposition Members on the matter is little short of disgraceful.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Home Secretary aware that not all Opposition Members are against the powers given to the Attorney-General? However, we wonder why he does not use them against millionaires like Levitt, who was given 180 hours of community service for swindling hundreds of thousands of pounds, Ronson, and Ernest Saunders of Guinness, who is the only person to have recovered from Alzheimer's disease, but who got out of prison early.
    Mr. Howard: I am delighted to learn that at least the hon. Gentleman will no doubt support powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which enable the Attorney-General to appeal against lenient sentences in serious fraud cases.

    Cannabis
    Mr. Deva: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the maximum penalty for possession of cannabis.
    Mr. Maclean: The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, contains provisions that increase the maximum fine available on summary conviction under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 for possession of all class B drugs, including cannabis, from £500 to £2,500.
    Mr. Deva: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government had decided not to increase the maximum penalty for the possession of cannabis, it would have sent the worst possible signal to our young people?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. Those penalties, which have not been increased since 1977, affect not only cannabis but all class B drugs. What signal would we be sending if the Government failed to uprate the penalties for drugs of that nature, which in most cases lead people to take harder drugs?
    Mr. Mudie: The Minister will be aware that, as a result of drugs, addiction, increasing crime, violence and even deaths are regular features of inner-city life. Will he therefore reconsider the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for a Bill outlining a comprehensive strategy for drug-related crimes, backed up with the resources for the police to deal with the matter?
    Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman would care to consult Hansard of last week and read the long and detailed answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), he would see the comprehensive strategy laid out. I shall briefly summarise that answer, which contained information about the Home Office drugs prevention initiative, which is providing schemes in 20 areas, and the safer cities programme, which has supported more than 3,500 crime prevention schemes. We have the toughest rules in Europe against those people who deal in drugs. We have effective police and customs action. Part of the national curriculum deals with the subject. Taking all those aspects into account, we are spending £500 million on drug prevention initiatives. We have put our money where the Opposition's mouth is.
    Mr. James Hill: My hon. Friend will realise that all of us back his Department in wanting the severest penalties not only for cannabis but for all other drugs. I remind him that we passed through both Houses of Parliament an Act that would confiscate the proceeds of those crimes. I have heard little or nothing about that. Will he inquire into that and ensure that the courts are confiscating properties, cars and anything else that have been acquired as a result of that evil trade?
    Mr. Maclean: I can assure my hon. Friend that the measures did pass through the House. They are being used, effectively, by the enforcement authorities—by police and customs. I will happily write to my hon. Friend, giving him details of the latest catches and of how much we have confiscated in the past few years.
    Mr. Flynn: Has the Minister noticed that the policy that the Government are following now has been followed in the United States? The Americans have spent $8 billion on their anti-drugs policy. During the period in which they did so, the percentage of their young people using cannabis, increased from 5 per cent. in 1964 to 70 per cent. now. Will he tell us now the number of people who supported the Government's proposal to increase fines? Did not the police, the magistrates and those who work in drug rehabilitation all condemn it, because they said that it would increase drug abuse and drug-related crime as cannabis users would steal more money or goods to pay the greater fines?
    Mr. Maclean: First, the hon. Gentleman seems to be obsessed with cannabis, whereas the proposals include all class B drugs, so the penalties not only for cannabis but for all class B drugs have been uprated. The hon. Gentleman must consider what the alternative would be. If we did not increase the penalties for certain drugs since 1977, two messages would go out from the House—first that there are now certain types of drugs that it is okay to take and secondly that no one cares about uprating the penalty. It was essential that the penalties were uprated.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does not my hon. Friend find it alarming that the British socialists in the European Parliament have just voted for the Herman report?
    Mr. Michael: No.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Oh yes they did. I have the voting record here. That report is highly federalist and would remove our right to veto changes in immigration and frontier policies, thus preventing us from keeping out drug traffickers. Is my hon. Friend further aware that 27 Conservatives voted against it and none for it?
    Mr. Maclean: The Herman report, if implemented, could have the most serious consequences for drug control in Europe. That is why I am appalled at the thought that 22 Labour Members of the European Parliament voted in favour of that report, although 27 Conservative Members of the European Parliament voted against. The Opposition should explain that to the country in the next few months.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the recommendations of the 1991 Morgan report on crime prevention.
    Mr. Howard: The Government have welcomed the report's endorsement of our partnership approach to crime prevention and accepted its general findings on the important contributions of the police and others. We see no need to implement the specific recommendations in the report about the role of local authorities in crime prevention.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Minister accept, that local councils have a unique role to play in pulling together schools, businesses, voluntary organisations and the police in devising locally based strategies for tackling crime? Why is he so reluctant to implement the key recommendation of the Morgan report to give local authorities statutory responsibility for crime prevention?
    Mr. Howard: Many local agencies have an important role to play in tackling crime and one of the main responsibilities of the new police authorities will be the drawing up of local partnerships between the police and the public to tackle crime. I am surprised that, in asking his supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman did not congratulate the police force of Dyfed Powys, where his constituency lies, on a 22 per cent. fall in crime and a 27 per cent. fall in burglary during the last quarter of 1993.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the success of Greater Manchester police in reducing crime by 6 per cent. last year? Does not that prove that his excellent reforms are having a major impact, even before they reach the statute book?
    Mr. Howard: I should certainly like to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Greater Manchester police on their performance last year. If he looks carefully at last year's figures, he will find that the figure for the last quarter was even better than the figure for the year as a whole. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Greater Manchester police on their part in achieving that.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Home Secretary prepared to withdraw the comment that he made on 3 November on the "Today" programme that nobody knows how to prevent crime? If so, will he proceed to increase his Department's budget for specific crime prevention measures in local areas, to enhance its effectiveness and raise it from a quarter of one per cent., which is a disgracefully low figure?
    Mr. Howard: No one has found the complete answer to the prevention of crime. If the hon. Gentleman has, it is about time that he let us know what he thinks it is. He should recognise that we are spending £200 million a year specifically on crime prevention, without taking account of the £6 billion which the police spend on crime prevention and other things.
    Mrs. Currie: With regard to the most rapidly rising sector of crime—taking from and taking away cars—is the Home Secretary aware of the efforts being made by the police in Derby to persuade people to empty their garages of rubbish, put their cars in them and lock the doors? Is he also aware of, and does he support, the work being done by Nissan's research and development centre at Cranfield into modern devices that can be built into cars to reduce car theft to a minimum?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. We must take every measure that we can to prevent crime and inhibit criminals' ability to perpetrate the crime that they wish to commit. We should consider seriously and implement the measures that she identified.
    Mr. Michael: As the Home Secretary does not appear to have read it, may I point out that the key recommendation of the Morgan report was the role of local authorities? Will he now praise those. Labour local authorities that have developed active partnerships with the police and local communities? The Home Secretary is the missing player. Will he now agree to implement the Morgan report?
    Mr. Howard: I suppose that the local authorities that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) chose to include in his article in the Daily Mirror were chosen because he thought that they were the best. What a pity that he did not mention the fact that all the crime prevention schemes that he identified in that article were funded by the Government. So it is the Government who are taking the lead in crime prevention and it is about time the Opposition recognised that that is the position.
    Mr. Brandreth: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in the last quarter of last year, the number of recorded burglaries fell by 11 per cent., and that crime prevention has a major part to play in that improvement? Will he use this opportunity to salute those involved with home watch schemes? One in six households in my constituency belong to that scheme; we need to encourage more to do so.
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I have made it absolutely clear that we shall succeed in the fight against crime only by building a strong partnership between the police and the public, in which schemes such as home watch have an important part to play.

    Campsfield House Detention Centre
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detainees are refusing to eat food at Campsfield house detention centre.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Today, two detainees at Campsfield house are refusing food.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister accept that those who have been refusing food over the past two and a half months are protesting against the length of time that detainees, including those seeking asylum, are held in detention? Why is the Minister so determined not to give the same democratic and legal rights to those held in detention under immigration control, including asylum seekers, as those available to all others held in detention and prison?
    Mr. Wardle: I shall take no lectures about our willingness to protect people in real danger of persecution. Our humanitarian record is second to none. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 gave all unsuccessful applicants the right of appeal. Anyone with an appeal pending may apply for bail. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that a number approaching 25,000 applications are made each year and about 1,500 may turn out to be genuine refugees. He visited Campsfield house and knows that the majority of people who embarked on hunger strike had either had their appeals heard or had had their applications refused and were waiting on appeal. It is a pity that some people embarked on the hunger strike, which may have endangered their health, but has not altered the merits of their case in any way.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reduction in the number of hunger strikers from 150 to three is a tribute to the professionalism of the orderlies and managers employed by Group 4 in that institution? Does that not show that the public and private sectors can work perfectly well together to solve difficult problems in the sphere of protection?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right and I join him in congratulating the professionalism of Group 4 at Campsfield house, as well as the immigration service staff. I absolutely refute the suggestion made by some Opposition Members that our detention policy puts us in breach of the 1951 UN convention. It does not. If Opposition Members feel that we should not have the power of detention for those who will not comply with restrictions, they should say so loud and clear.
    Mr. Allen: With so many individuals now on hunger strike, does the Minister admit that the Conservative strategy on the detention of asylum seekers is a complete shambles? The rising figures over the past year show that the policy is not, as the Government said, a weapon of last resort, but is now a deliberate strategy. It is a strategy against people, many of whom are fleeing torture, death threats and persecution in their own land. Will he admit that the once fine record of this country as a haven for asylum seekers is now a source of international shame?
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman reveals himself in his true colours. He talks about a haven for asylum seekers. I have already given the figures of the number of people
    1032
    who have proved to be genuine refugees when their cases have been heard. The hon. Gentleman knows—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I should like to see the Minister's rather handsome face.
    Mr. Wardle: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, 46,000 people are waiting for their asylum applications to be heard and 650, in round terms, are detained—less than 1.5 per cent. of the total. Those are individuals who we believe simply will not comply with our restrictions.

    Prison Population
    Mr. Dickens: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what importance he attaches to the prison population as a measure of the success of the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: Prison population figures cannot in isolation be seen as a measure of either the success or the failure of the criminal justice system.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a custodial sentence satisfies the victims, acts as a deterrent, and provides retribution and punishment? While prisoners are under lock and key they cannot be breaking into people's homes. Will he consider getting rid of the stupid nonsense such as remission, rehabilitation and parole?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree that custodial sentences —imprisonment—have a very important part to play in our penal system. I do not know that I would go all the way with my hon. Friend: I think that we should take rehabilitation rather seriously as well. But I agree with much of what he said.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Does the Home Secretary agree that if he wants to move from rhetoric to effective action he should not be closing bail hostels in the west midlands that are badly needed as part of the strategy for dealing with offenders in what the courts believe to be the most appropriate manner?
    Mr. Howard: Bail hostels will continue to play an important part in our strategy. The hon. Gentleman will find that those that are being closed have been under-occupied, and it is incumbent on us all to use our resources as effectively as we can.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: The whole House will want to congratulate the Government on the good news—particularly the 9 per cent. fall in the crime wave in the last quarter. Is it not a fact that the decrease in crime has coincided with a substantial increase in the size of the prison population? Is it not also a fact that if one removes the persistent hard-core offenders from the streets, of course the crime wave will fall and prison will be seen to work, quod erat demonstrandum?
    Mr. Howard: The facts to which my hon. and learned Friend refers are irrefutable. The 9 per cent. fall in the crime figures over the country as a whole for the last quarter of 1993 was the biggest that we have seen since quarterly figures were first kept 20 years ago. My hon. and

    1033
    learned Friend has indicated the correlation between the figures and the number of those in prison who are responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes.
    Ms Ruddock: Is the Home Secretary aware that in the past year the Prison Service has failed to meet its key performance indicators on having three prisoners to a cell; on the use of police cells; on slopping out; and on the number of assaults, which have risen by 20 per cent? Will he today give the House a clear, unequivocal undertaking that he stands by the Government's response to the Woolf report and that, particularly on the issue of rehabilitation, he remains committed to implementing fully the recommendations of the report?
    Mr. Howard: I said a few minutes ago how much importance I attach to rehabilitation. An increasing number of rehabilitation programmes are now available to those in our prisons. These include rehabilitation programmes for those who need to get off drugs, rehabilitation programmes for sex offenders, and general rehabilitation programmes which are making a significant contribution to our objective of turning people away from crime on their release from prison.

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned into the use of closed-circuit television cameras to prevent and detect crime; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: The Home Office has published a number of studies on closed-circuit television cameras as a crime control measure, including its use on public transport, by businesses and in car parks. A current study of the scheme in Birmingham city centre to which the Home Office contributed £90,000 is being extended to include schemes in other areas.
    Mr. Moss: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he will not be distracted by civil liberties objections to the installation of closed-circuit television, such as that proposed in the towns of Wisbech and March in my constituency? Is it not the case that people want more cameras and less crime, not the other way around?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I can give him the confirmation for which he asks. I believe that closed-circuit television has an important part to play in both crime prevention and crime detection.
    Mr. Trimble: Surely it has been established clearly that the installation of closed-circuit televisions in town centres and commercial areas can contribute powerfully to deterring crime and to apprehending criminals. We do not need further studies and experiments. Should the Government not now prepare to help businesses and local authorities nationwide to use closed-circuit televisions?
    Mr. Howard: There is no question of any research being intended to hold up the installation of closed-circuit television—quite the contrary. We are doing everything we can to encourage local authorities, businesses and others to help with the installation of closed-circuit television. We shall shortly publish a code of practice that will ensure that such television is sited as effectively as possible. I entirely agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question.

    Murder
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have committed murder since their release from prison since 1979.
    Mr. Maclean: Eight murderers released on licence since 1979 have been convicted of a subsequent murder—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Gentleman hear the reply?
    Mr. Evans: No.
    Madam Speaker: Will the Minister please repeat it?
    Mr. Maclean: Eight murderers released on licence since 1979 have been convicted of a subsequent murder.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that more than 3,000 people have committed murder since 1965, and that if the British people had been Home Secretaries, they would have hanged the lot of them: in other words, their feet would not have touched the ground? Can the Minister tell me that life means life? Can he tell me which Government were in power in 1965, when the death penalty was abolished? Can he tell me which Government, in 1978, halved the police constables' pay rise and deliberately kept the police force 8,000 short? If he wants a clue, it was that lot opposite.
    Madam Speaker: Do your best with that, Mr. Maclean.
    Mr. Maclean: I think that society has suffered a great deal since those days when the noble Lord Jenkins said that the permissive society is the civilised society, and made the changes that my hon. Friend describes.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ward: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Ward: Will my right hon. Friend unreservedly condemn the continuing attacks on the civilian population of Gorazde by the Serbs, and particularly the outrageous attacks on the hospital there? Does he agree that we must have more effective action by both NATO and the United Nations to protect the UN safe areas?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend speaks for most people in this country. These attacks have rightly been condemned by European, Russian and American leaders alike. NATO should help the United Nations to give stronger protection to the safe areas, and I hope that the additional troops committed to UNPROFOR and the necessary funds will be made available as soon as possible.
    The United Kingdom is pressing for a rapid and united NATO response to the Secretary-General's request for further assistance. That must be based on a thorough military appraisal. We shall also be studying the proposals

    1035
    made by President Clinton last night; but we must keep the objectives of a negotiated settlement clearly in view, while showing that attacks on UNPROFOR or safe areas will meet with a strong response.
    Mr. John Smith: Would it not have been much better if the Government had properly consulted the D-day veterans in the first place instead of paying £62,000 to a public relations company for what turned out to be very bad advice?
    The Prime Minister: I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman enables me to set the record straight on what is happening. Many people will have been concerned over some of the things that they have read, and it is right to tell the House the present position.
    The first discussions with the veterans organisations, including the Royal British Legion, took place in February 1993. The main focus of the programme will be in Portsmouth and Normandy over the weekend of 4 to 6 June. The Archbishop of Canterbury will lead an open air service of remembrance attended by Heads of State and Government from the allied countries that took part in the Normandy landings. There will be similar services in Normandy the following day—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has been asked a question and he is answering it.
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the great interest in the matter, and it will be of interest to the House and others if I set the record straight. There will be similar services in Normandy the following day, including services of commemoration at the British cemetery and a march past of veterans. Many veterans will be able to attend those events and other ceremonies in Normandy, Portsmouth and right across the United Kingdom. Beyond that, many hundreds of events are still being planned, but the present programme includes church services in towns and villages around the country, parades and marches past by veterans and exhibitions illustrating local involvement in the events of 50 years ago.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that the difficulties have arisen about the so-called civilian side of this anniversary? Does he accept that one way in which the Government could avoid constantly getting things so badly wrong is to consult more widely? In the case of genuinely national events, ought that not be on a cross-party basis? Will that be the approach to the VE-day anniversary next year?
    The Prime Minister: It is a genuinely national event, and a genuinely cross-party event in every sense. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will take part in the events to which I referred a moment ago.
    Let me explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House why there is a civilian aspect. Although his colleagues groan, that is the question that he asked. As well as commemorating the bravery and sacrifice of those who took part in the Normandy campaign, we also wish to remember the immense efforts made by the whole civilian population leading up to D-day and beyond. That is why we want the commemorations to involve all generations, including our children. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will share my concern that so few of the
    1036
    present generation understand precisely what happened on that occasion and the fact that we would not have the freedom of speech that we enjoy in the House but for that.
    Mr. John Smith: Bearing in mind the difficulties that have arisen over D-day, but also bearing in mind the fact that the second world war involved the sacrifice by people of all persuasions, will the right hon. Gentleman now undertake that in the planning of the VE-day anniversary there will be genuine cross-party involvement, including the involvement of all parties in this House? Can he give us that undertaking today?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right; it is both cross-party and non-party. Neither on this occasion nor on any future occasions will there be any partisan involvement in the celebrations. That is the right way to approach this event; it was the right way to deal with previous commemorations and it will be the right way in future. There is no difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and me on that point.
    Mr. Leigh: Did my right hon. Friend notice that yesterday Mr. Jacques Delors declared his intention to render worthless any concessions won by Britain on majority voting rights in the Council of Ministers; in particular, his statement that it was a political declaration not a legal text? He said that he could declare that a reasonable period had been exhausted and that it would last only for another two years, thus driving a coach and horses through any concessions we gained. Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, echo his predecessor in replying to Mr. Jacques Delors no, no, no, especially as my right hon. Friend does not have Lord Howe beside him?
    The Prime Minister: What the President of the Commission said yesterday was that the decision commits member states to act in accordance with the declaration. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the Council decision taken as part of the Ioannina agreement is legally binding on the Council. If my hon. Friend finds that not satisfactory, he might also listen to other Foreign Ministers. For example, the German Foreign Minister said:
    "Germany itself would regard the decision as binding on the Council".
    He had no doubt that all other member states of the Union would fully respect the procedures foreseen. That is what we will expect and that is what will happen.
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Gapes: In view of the serious problem in the health service in London—the cuts, the closures and the increased waiting lists—will the Prime Minister give some hope to my constituents in Ilford who face great problems at the King George hospital? Will he instruct the Secretary of State for Health today to stop immediately any further closures, cuts, reductions or staff losses throughout London?
    The Prime Minister: Since the hon. Gentleman mentions Ilford, I might just mention the capital expenditure on the Redbridge healthcare NHS trust £58 million hospital at Goodmayes, the biggest capital development in the region last year; the work under way on

    1037
    the Forest healthcare NHS trust £10 million new wing for Whipps Cross hospital, and the great expansion in primary health care right across London. The hon. Gentleman is not very well informed about his own constitutency.
    Dame Jill Knight: On the question of D-day, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that thousands of people outside the House believe that once we have paid tribute in dignity to the heroism of those who died, it is entirely appropriate that joy should be experienced with enthusiasm to celebrate the fact that the sacrifices made gave us deliverance from the most inhuman and wicked dictatorship that the modern world has ever known?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for many people when she says that after one has dealt with the specific matter of commemoration on D-day, millions of people in Britain will wish to give thanks in one form or another in some form of thanksgiving ceremony for the fact that we have the freedoms today that we take for granted.
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rendel: Will the Prime Minister confirm that his party, unlike the Liberal Democrats, believes that band for band is the best way to compare council tax levels between different authorities? Will he further confirm that on that basis Hampshire is the most efficient English county council?
    The Prime Minister: From memory, I think that Hampshire has had the biggest increases in council tax anywhere across the country. However the hon. Gentleman may care to phrase it, if he looks at matters on a like-for-like basis he will find that Conservative-controlled councils are noticeably cheaper than Liberal Democrat-controlled councils and even less expensive than Labour-controlled councils.
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.
    Dr. Spink: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House when he was last asked a question on unemployment by the Leader of the Opposition? Does the length of time have something to do with the fact that unemployment has been falling month after month after month, so that there are now a quarter of a million fewer people unemployed than there were a year ago?
    The Prime Minister: It certainly is some time since the right hon. and learned Gentleman last mentioned it. I cannot be precisely sure when it was. I do not believe that he has asked such a question since his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said that unemployment would go up month after month after month after month.
    Mr. Clapham: Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the blackmail tactics used by British Coal to coerce the miners at Tower colliery into accepting its
    1038
    closure? Is the Minister aware that, with the closure of Tower colliery, only 16 collieries are now operating under British Coal management, and the men at those collieries face an uncertain future, as do their families? Will the Prime Minister therefore tell the House today, giving a commitment to those men and their families, that he will adopt for the next four years the redundancy package that British Coal has been operating and which closes on 30 April, so that the miners at those 16 collieries will have a fall-back position if the private venture fails?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to British Coal's decision to withdraw its closure proposal, as I understand it, the men at Tower colliery sought further discussions with the corporation at which they indicated that they did not wish to oppose the closure proposal. That is my understanding of what has happened and I am pleased that such an agreement was eventually reached.
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Carrington: What action would my right hon. Friend take over a local authority that has debts of £356 million, more than Gambia, and is being sued for fraud by a bank because of its illegal activities on the money markets and the bank is demanding £20 million in compensation; a council which, through its waste and corruption has cost the council tax payers of Hammersmith and Fulham £250 each and in a local authority which has the third worst record of collecting rents in the country?
    The Prime Minister: The people of Hammersmith and Fulham will have the opportunity to make their own decisions on 5 May. In view of what my hon. Friend has said, they would be very well advised to vote for a Conservative council.
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Hutton: Are the biggest tax increases in modern British history that will take effect this month the result of the Government's incompetence in handling the economy or simply their lack of honesty in dealing with the British public at the previous general election?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not been attending many Question Times over the past few months or he would know that the tax increases were necessary in order to get public finances in better shape, to get Government borrowing down and to ensure that we can sustain a low interest rate level which is helping us in getting back in growth. He will know that, as a result, we now have a growth pattern that is twice as high as any of our main European competitors, that we have inflation at under 3 per cent., that we have exports running at record levels, that we have a stable exchange rate and that we are poised for a long period of sustained, non-inflationary growth—a prospect which this country has sought for many years and which now lies there as a result of the policies that this Government have followed.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House be good enough to state the business for the forthcoming week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 APRIL—Until about Seven o'clock, Private Members' motions.
Motion on the Travellers' Allowances Order.
Motion on the HMSO Trading Fund (Amendment) order
TUESDAY 26 APRIL—Second Reading of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 27 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Intelligence Services Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 28 APRIL—Opposition Day (11th allotted day).
There will be a debate entitled "The National Health Service in London" on an Opposition motion.
FRIDAY 29 APRIL—Private Members' motions.
I am happy to confirm that Monday 2 May will be a bank holiday.
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. I ask him to consider, in the week after the bank holiday, finding Government time for a debate on Bosnia. He will appreciate that it has been some considerable time since that matter has been debated in the House and that a great deal has happened. It is a matter for him and his colleagues, of course, but if the debate were on the Adjournment, it would allow the full range of opinion that exists in the House to be expressed.
Will the Leader of the House also find time to debate early-day motion 1086 on the future of the scientific civil service?
[That this House condemns the fact that decisions about the future of the scientific civil service, AEA Technology, Warren Springs Laboratory, National Engineering Laboratory, National Physical Laboratory and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist have been announced by answers to written questions: is concerned that debate should be conducted in Government time on these important matters; and calls for such time to be made available without delay.]
It expresses considerable concern not only about the difficult future facing the scientific civil service and some very valuable research laboratories in the public service but about the way in which the Department of Trade and Industry is misusing the procedures of the House by slipping out important announcements of that kind in written answers, without any opportunity for debate or scrutiny.
May I also seek statements, first, on the council tax, because of the information that some 2 million people may have been wrongly rated for council tax and are liable to backdating of any payments that may be due if it is reassessed; and secondly, on the position with regard to the opting out of schools? The Leader of the House will know that there is some considerable confusion about whether almost £800,000 of public money has been available for a campaign for opting out, contrary to assurances that the Government gave in the House. He will know also that the
1040
Secretary of State now seems to be suggesting—or at least hinting—that, as parents and governors are being so unobliging as not to decide to opt out, the Government will make them. I think that that should at least be reported to the House in a statement.
Mr. Newton: I will, of course, consider the various points raised by the right hon. Lady in the latter part of her question, although I am not sure that I entirely accept her description of the position.
The right hon. Lady mentioned early-day motion 1086. I am grateful to her for, in effect, confirming that my right hon. Friends have kept the House fully informed by replying to a significant number of written questions describing the process. I note her request for a debate; more specifically, I assure her that I have taken careful note of her request for a debate on Bosnia, although I cannot make any commitment at this stage.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend take note of early-day motion 1057?
[That this House commends the commitment and dedication of the personnel in the Obscene Publications Branch at New Scotland Yard; recognises their unique national role and expertise in investigating child pornography and paedophile rings; notes the ever-growing complexity and volume of computer pornography with which the branch deals; and calls upon the Home Secretary to ensure that the Commissioner abandons any plan to close the Obscene Publications Branch and that this specialist squad is assured a continuing and strengthened place in the Metropolitan Police on the conclusion of the current restructuring review.]
The motion, which is tabled in my name, concerns the proposal to disband the obscene publications squad at New Scotland Yard.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the success of that unit, and its commitment to bringing child pornographers and paedophiles to book? Is he aware of the strength of our belief that the squad should be given more resources and more power within the restructuring process? The proposal to disband it will be applauded by peddlers of pornography throughout the United Kingdom. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the subject very soon?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Newton: There is clearly a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's general comments.
I understand that the Commissioner is reviewing headquarters functions generally, including those of this branch. I assure my hon. Friend that both the Commissioner and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary intend to ensure that any changes help, rather than hinder, the fight against pornography and paedophilia.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Tomorrow's business includes a debate on the Energy Conservation Bill. Will the Leader of the House reconsider the Government's decision to table more than 200 amendments to a Bill to which only five Government amendments were tabled in Committee? Is there not a danger that the new Government strategy is to ignore Committee stages of private Members' Bills, the better to waste the House's time on Report? As Leader of the House, should not the right hon. Gentleman be concerned about that?
Mr. Newton: I understand that the amendments to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are not Government amendments—
Mr. Beith: Fifty of them are in the name of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Newton: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman referred to a rather larger number. It is open to hon. Members to table such amendments as they think fit, and I do not wish to take that right away from them. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment made some comments from the Dispatch Box yesterday which I heard; no doubt there will be ample opportunity for a full debate on these matters tomorrow.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people outside this place find it not only incomprehensible but disgraceful that there has been no debate on Bosnia, given the gravity of the situation there and the fact that we have had so little time to debate it specifically over the past three years? Will he please consider changing the business next week—even Monday's business? Could we at least have a three-hour debate after private Members' motions?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend and I had some informal exchanges about the matter earlier. I pay tribute to him again, and hope that he does not mind my mentioning our earlier conversation. I am aware of the strength of his feeling; he will have heard what I said to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), however, and I cannot add to that at this stage.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that a tremendous number of old-age pensioners in every constituency in Britain are complaining about the fact that they cannot obtain fair treatment on the national health service? Will he call on the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement—either tomorrow or early next week—including a commitment that there will be fair and equal treatment for everyone from the cradle to the grave, including pensioners, and that instructions along those lines will be issued to every health authority?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it very clear on a number of occasions that that is indeed our approach to the health service. Let me add that, in connection with one of the cases referred to last week, the Brighton healthcare trust has written to all general practitioners making it clear that there is no policy of discrimination against elderly patients in the provision of the services involved.
Mr. Bob Dunn: I regret, on behalf of my hon. Friends, that no business was announced for the May day bank holiday. Is it not time that we got rid of that nasty little, unwashed, unloved socialist anniversary?
Mr. Newton: I understand why my hon. Friend asked that question. He will understand why I simply say that I shall be quite happy to have a day off.
Mrs. Irene Adams: Will the Leader of the House find Government time next week to debate the crisis in manufacturing industry? Babcock plc announced today that 400-plus jobs are to be lost—many at the Renfrew plant in my constituency, which has lost more than 90 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs in the past 10 years. I am sure that is just a microcosm of what is
1042
happening in the rest of the country. Will the right hon. Gentleman find Government time to discuss that crisis next week?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate. Her Majesty's Opposition have some time available next week and could change its use if they wanted. I am aware of the job losses to which the hon. Lady referred and acknowledge that that is unwelcome news. I understand that it is part of restructuring intended to ensure the company's long-term future, and that must ultimately be in the interests of all involved.
Mr. James Clappison: Will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss with the Liberal Democrats the newspaper article in which their leader welcomed what he described as the Thatcher revolution which has spread economic power, liberated markets and helped the individual? Can time be found for a debate to commemorate that, and the highly original thinking that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has been exploring under the banner of what he terms "Power to the People", which he described as spreading political power? Would not that give us an opportunity to warn the right hon. Gentleman that if he carries through his plan of abandoning our national veto, the only power spread will be the power of the House going to Brussels?
Mr. Newton: My hon, Friend makes two excellent points and encourages me to consider giving time to the Liberals, to provide an opportunity to discuss those matters on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that not only workers but management in manufacturing industry throughout Britain are fed up with the Government turning Nelson's eye to that industry? Will he reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and find time next week to debate manufacturing industry? Each time there are massive job losses, we are told that it is restructuring to ensure viability—but they are followed by more job losses.
Mr. Newton: While understanding why the hon. Gentleman asked that question, I cannot add to my reply to the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams). When I consider what has happened in recent times in attracting new manufacturing investment to this country and the way that it is generating new trade and exports, I cannot accept that manufacturing industry has been neglected or is going into further decline, in general terms.
Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend urgently arrange for a statement next week by a Minister from the Department of the Environment on the approval of Dover harbour board's plans to create new jobs in the port of Dover, which will involve bringing new offices, equipment, supermarkets and shops to Dover, and will be of immense benefit to the town? Will he give all the support that he can, to make sure that decisions that will benefit Dover are brought forward as fast as possible?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise to bring my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the House for that specific purpose, but I will certainly make sure that he is made aware of my hon. Friend's understandable concern.
Mr. Max Madden: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in calling for a debate on Bosnia, and the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) in urging the Leader of the House to change Monday's business to facilitate such a debate. As a major diplomatic effort is under way to find a solution to that terrible crisis, surely the House should be given an opportunity to debate what is occurring and the protection given to so-called safe areas, and to give critics of the Government a proper opportunity to set out their alternatives to Government policy. Will the right hon. Gentleman urgently consider that request, with a view to changing Monday's business?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I have said previously. I have made it clear—this will be the third occasion—that I am listening carefully to the representations that are being made.
Sir Richard Body: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on the economy, if not next week then the following week? Although the media say nothing about it, there is a lot of good news and some of us on the Government side would like the opportunity of giving voice to it.
Mr. Newton: That question links with one asked of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, about why we have not heard so much about unemployment from the Labour Front Bench recently. The fact is that the increasing flow of good economic news is one of the most striking features of our affairs at present. Of course, I shall look for time when that might be brought to the public's attention more fully.
Mr. William Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his earlier answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), because some of the amendments tabled by the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Energy Conservation Bill tomorrow will remove Northern Ireland from the scope of the Bill, which hon. Members on this Bench particularly resent?
Mr. Newton: I should not have thought that that comment, while it may undoubtedly lead the hon. Gentleman to wish to make some comments in the debate tomorrow, would sensibly change the answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
Mr. Harold Elletson: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on tourism? Is he aware that tourism is the world's fastest growing industry, one of the world's most intensive labour industries and the United Kingdom's second largest industry? Is he aware that the last time tourism was debated in the House was one year ago and that on that occasion the Minister responsible promised that he would try to ensure that there was an annual debate? Will my right hon. Friend assist the Minister to make that promise a reality?
Mr. Newton: I recall the debate one year ago, which followed persistent pressure on me at the Dispatch Box of the sort that my hon. Friend is renewing. I hope that I may be able to respond in an appropriate way at the appropriate moment.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank you, thank you—[Interruption.] —and thank you again.
Madam Speaker: It is good to see the hon. Member keeping up appearances.
Mr. Faulds: I am most grateful. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate in the House where we can comment on the misguided and damaging conduct of the Governor of Hong Kong, and where we can examine the latest report on China from the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is full of lunacies and which has, unfortunately, been produced by a Committee peopled by ignoramuses?
Mr. Newton: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's phraseology, counsels of caution lead me to fall short of promising such a debate.
Mr. Peter Luff: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware of the weekend reports about the serious water pollution incident in my constituency of Worcester. I think that it also affects the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) and for Gloucester (Mr. French). So far, there has been no statement, question or debate on the subject in the House. My right hon. Friend will be aware that when a similar incident took place in London four years ago, a statement was forthcoming very quickly. May I press him for the earliest possible statement or debate in the House on this most important matter?
Mr. Newton: Obviously, I will consider what my hon. Friend says and, indeed, look at the precedent to which he refers. More particularly, I will ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. David Winnick: Though a debate on Bosnia is essential, if there is no debate next week, can we have a statement again on the latest position in Bosnia, bearing in mind that Gorazde is under murderous siege? At least 44 people died yesterday and 137 were wounded. Indeed, the doctor connected with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said that people are dying like rats. How much longer can the international community carry on like that when Serbian aggression is at its worst and crimes and atrocities are taking place? At least we should have a statement again as early as possible.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister's Question Time on the efforts that are being made in those matters.
Even if I have not been able to respond immediately to the hon. Gentleman's requests for a debate, I have demonstrated for many months now that I mean what I say when I say that we will arrange for statements to be made when it seems appropriate.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on drugs and criminality, the need for which is evidenced by the difficulties that the police have had in my constituency in successfully uncovering two drug factories? Will he also use the debate as an opportunity to highlight the activities of the IRA with regard to drugs and to emphasise the weakness of the Opposition's policies on drugs matters?
Mr. Newton: May I first extend my sympathy to my hon. Friend? He is obviously suffering in a similar way to that in which I have suffered in the past week or two. Fortunately, I now seem to be a bit better than he is.
My hon. Friend knows well that the Government attach great importance to preventing drug misuse and to curbing the supply of drugs and the like. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reference to a succesful venture in that field. We also attach importance to any action that can contribute to cutting the flow of funds for terrorism.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the appalling way in which the Tories are running Calderdale council? Is he aware of the chaos in the social services department where there is a £2 million underspend, and yet elderly people cannot get home helps? The council is also sacking wardens and threatening to close old people's homes.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also ask the Secretary of State to look at what the Tories are doing with the green belt policy, as they are driving a coach and horses through it?
Mr. Newton: I will, of course, draw the hon. Lady's questions to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I should perhaps make the point that he was here to answer questions only yesterday.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend is probably aware of discussions in the City of London shipping circles about the fact that the British merchant navy register is slowly but surely disappearing out of sight through a lack of numbers. There is a suggestion from the Baltic Exchange that there should be a British overseas register, which would possibly capture a lot of the Chinese shipowners who will have nowhere to go after 1997.
Is it possible to have a debate in depth on the future of the British shipping register? Where do we go from here?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be well aware that his questions are properly directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. While I shall not seek to pre-empt his role, I will make sure that the points are brought to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate next week on the threat to endangered species? We would then have an opportunity to discuss the threat to the giant land tortoises on Isabella in the Galapagos islands which have been threatened by a terrible fire.
Will the Leader of the House draw to the Prime Minister's attention the reply given to me by his predecessor in March 1985, when I asked her, following a previous fire on the island, whether she would send resources? She acted admirably and quickly with some very good help. Will the Leader of the House say to the Prime Minister today that he should emulate his predecessor in that respect?
Mr. Newton: I must admit that I was not aware of he precedent to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's attention is drawn to the proposal.
Lady Olga Maitland: Would my right hon. Friend care to have a debate next week on
1046
Northern Ireland security? I raise that in view of the death yesterday of an RUC policeman in Londonderry, plus two serious injuries by the IRA. Does he agree that it is appropriate for the House to be given an up-to-date assessment by the Government about counter-terrorism and also, importantly, about our relationship with the Republic in that regard?
Mr. Newton: The House would want me to acknowledge my hon. Friend's question first by extending our sympathy to the relatives of the policeman who was killed yesterday. I would want to say that on behalf of everybody.
As for the rest of my hon. Friend's remarks, I cannot at this moment promise a debate. I draw her attention to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is due to answer questions next Thursday.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on "Taking Stock" so that the Government can attempt to reconcile last year's theory of paying attention to Scottish interests with this year's practice of sending Scottish Water into quangoland? Does the Leader of the House have any message for the 1 million-plus people in Strathclyde who voted to keep Scottish water under local democratic control? Why should their votes and their voice be less important than the five English Tories who decided every Division of the 102 in the Standing Committee that considered the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill?
Mr. Newton: The message that I would give—not least to the hon. Gentleman—is that the Government will seek to maintain the Union and to ensure that matters pertaining to Scotland are discussed in a way appropriate to the United Kingdom Parliament.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend think again about a debate on manufacturing industry so that we may have the opportunity at an early stage to discuss matters such as the minimum wage, the Opposition's approval of the social provisions and the fact that manufacturing industry needs to keep its costs low, which the Opposition would never allow it to do?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend raises several very good points. They are perhaps related to some of the questions that I was asked earlier. It is another excellent idea for a debate. I will bear it in mind.
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 963?
[That this House condemns the decision of Leicester Royal Infirmary Trust to increase the rents of new student nurses from £12.25 per week to £32 per week, an increase of 250 per cent.; notes that existing student nurses are fearful and anxious that the proposed rent increases will be extended to them; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Health either to continue to subsidise through central Government funds rents for student nurses or to support an increase in the bursary of student nurses from £83.07 per week to pay for the rent increases.]
It highlights the plight of student nurses at Leicester royal infirmary, who face rent increases of 250 per cent. as a result of unilateral action taken by Leicester royal infirmary trust. Will the Leader of the House join me in

1047
condemning that decision and arrange an urgent debate so that we can discuss the general principle involved? If he cannot find time in the immediate future, will he draw the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Newton: On the latter point about drawing the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend, of course the answer is yes. I understand that the revised charges include electricity, gas and water and compare favourably with the rented housing market and charges to other students, including university students.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Now that we have completed all stages of the Finance Bill, will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate about the taxation policies of the Opposition parties? May I draw his attention to the council tax in Colchester and the fact that Essex county council and Colchester borough council, both under Lib-Lab control, received substantial extra grants, yet have still increased the council tax? Does not that show that, whereas we increase taxes only when we have to, the Opposition parties tax at every opportunity?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has waited a long time to make debating points. We are not on debating points at this stage. We are asking for a debate next week. Will the Leader of the House do his best to reply to the first part of that question?
Mr. Newton: I shall merely make the observation that I, too, am an Essex council tax payer.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Leader of the House please arrange for the Home Secretary to come here urgently next week to make a statement about private security firms? There is considerable concern at some of the cowboys who are going around. Particularly in my constituency, postcards are being handed out on old people's estates which say, "Put this in your window. We will collect £1 a week and we will then guard you." That is an urgent matter and I should be grateful to the Leader of the House if he would draw it to the attention of the Home Secretary.
Mr. Newton: I will draw it to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention, but it is less than an hour since he left the House after answering questions. As it happens, he will be here again next week for the Second Reading of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. It is not for me to say whether that matter would be in order, but there is always scope for ingenuity.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the teaching and learning of history, particularly military history, with a view to evaluating immediate responses to great battles such as Waterloo, Trafalgar—
Mr. George Foulkes: And Bannockburn.
Mr. Greenway: Not forgetting Bannockburn. We could evaluate the reaction of people who took part in those battles and their thanksgiving for victories, as well as
1048
their wish to celebrate them in succeeding generations. We could also consider the part of lay people in military battles —for example, the contribution of Vera Lynn.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's question echoes some of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) during Prime Minister's Question Time. One thing that we can all agree is that all, or most, of those great events—certainly D-day —entailed a huge effort by the whole population, although they obviously entailed special effort and sacrifice by fighting troops.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Leader of the House aware of early-day motion 1075 drawing the attention of the House to the recent Home Office publication, "Fear of Crime", which finds that 48 per cent. of all women and 58 per cent. of women over the age of 60 find that fear of crime blights their lives? [That this House notes the results of the Home Office's Fear of Crime study published on 19th April showing that 49 per cent. of women and 63 per cent. of women over 60 feel 'very' or 'fairly' unsafe when going out at night; considers this to be an unacceptable state of affairs; is concerned by the increasing use of television reconstructions of true life crimes portraying violence against women which are broadcast for purposes other than the apprehension of criminals; and urges the Secretary of State for National Heritage to enter into discussions with television companies to monitor the use of such programmes and to ensure that programme makers are not permitted to exploit and worsen women's fears, understandable in the light of an increase in reported rapes of over 300 per cent. since 1979, of violent crime.]
Would it be possible to have an early debate on the issue, as a growing body of opinion finds that television programmes that attempt to re-create real-life crimes help to feed and foster the fear and perception of crime?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will shortly be meeting the chairmen of the main broadcasting organisations and the Broadcasting Standards Council to discuss whether all that can be done on that matter is being done.
Mr. Michael Bates: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the International Monetary Fund, during which attention could be drawn to the IMF pronouncement yesterday that Britain is one of the few economic bright spots in the world? Perhaps a contrast could be drawn between that and the IMF description of the last Labour Government, when the organisation was the last refuge and listening post of bankrupt Labour Chancellors presiding over rampant inflation, rising unemployment and empty balances.
Mr. Newton: To those of us who lived through the period, the contrast that my hon. Friend mentioned is striking. That underlines the increasing success of the policies that the Government are pursuing.
Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Leader of the House please consider a debate on pollution in Liverpool bay and the Irish sea? Does he know of the widespread concern about the increase in deformities of the limbs in new-born children? A lobby is taking place on the

1049
matter. Does he accept my great concern regarding Mr. and Mrs. Parry, who live in the town of Buckley in my constituency, whose child has been affected in that way?
Mr. Newton: Of course, I note that request. On behalf of the House, I express our sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's constituents
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the construction industry in view of its excellent performance, especially when compared with the rest of Europe, and the important report that Sir Michael Latham is preparing on contractual arrangements within the industry?
Mr. Newton: I cannot find immediate time for a debate, but I was here during Department of the Environment Question Time yesterday and heard references to that important report, as did my hon. Friend, and of the Government's intention to study it most carefully.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the Lord President consider a debate on the way in which we commemorate events such as D-day? Many other events took place at around that time—they have been forgotten during the recent unseemly debate—including, for example, the fall of Monte Cassino after three months of bitter battle only three days before D-day. Veterans of that episode may feel a little left out of all the debate, which was caused by the Prime Minister's incompetence. May we have a debate on the issue?
Mr. Newton: In his last sentence or two, the hon. Gentleman soured an otherwise reasonable question and I do not accept his view. While it is possible only to stage major commemorative events in response to events of the scale of D-day, we all agree that much was happening in many of those years that deserves our memory and certainly our thanks to the people involved, who fought on our behalf.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the press, in the light of reports in The Independent on Sunday and the Daily Mirror that branded part of my constituency—the fine community of Blacon—as a no-go area? Those reports are a travesty of the truth and an insult to the good people of Blacon, who meet challenges with good humour, resilience and the will to overcome them. A fine community has been traduced by two national newspapers. May we have a debate next week to explore how newspapers can slander such communities without any justification?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate. I am glad that he has had an opportunity to mention the matter. I am grateful to him for giving me a copy of the press release that he has issued, which, I hope, will help to correct the impression created.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we debate early-day motion 1070?
[That this House notes with concern that blinkered ideology and the privatisation of last year's firework safety campaign has contributed to a rise in the number of injuries to over 1,000, a 20 year high; notes that the Government ignored repeated warnings from safety experts and others that the privatised campaign would be a disaster; notes that when civil servants ran the safety campaign firework
1050
injuries were less than 1,000; notes that the Government gave the contract to a French company subsidiary, Euro RSCG, and doubled the budget previously administered by civil servants to £160,000; notes that the Minister cancelled the key firework safety booklet, Safer Displays, against the advice of civil servants and to the consternation of Britain's fire chiefs; notes that the fire posters produced by Euro RSCG were so poor that fire departments refused to circulate them and that television advertisements were so ineffective that they were cancelled; calls on Euro RSCG to return the fee they received from the DTI and compensate the victims of firework injuries; requests the National Audit Office and the Committee of Public Accounts to investigate how this campaign came to be privatised and why the spending of public money was so ineffective, and to make recommendations to ensure that future firework safety campaigns are run effectively by experienced civil servants and fire safety experts; and regrets that Ministers are seeking to abolish the licensing of imported fireworks, thus putting the public at risk from potentially dangerous category 4 fireworks.]?
It describes the calamity of the privatisation of the firework safety campaign, which resulted in a double cost to that campaign by a foreign company. It produced material that was unusable and the result was the greatest number of fireworks casualties for 20 years. May we debate the Government's privatisation binge and decide that it has now come to an end, that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel, and that there is no way in which organisations such as Companies House, the Patent Office, the Accounts Services Agency and the Passport Office in my constituency can be sensibly privatised?
Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman was straining to get from the point with which he started to the point with which he finished, and I do not accept any general conclusion that he seeks to draw.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Bearing in mind that the objective of the terrorist is to create maximum disruption and inconvenience and provoke over-reaction, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the powers of the police in the City of London are due to be renewed shortly, and will he give the House an assurance that there will be a full debate on the counter-measures that have been taken in the City of London, which have created a great deal of disruption and can be described as having played into the hands of the terrorists?
Mr. Newton: I hear what my hon. Friend says, although I have to say, as someone who travels pretty frequently through the City of London on the roads, that it does not seem to me that disruption has been on the scale that he suggests, or anything like it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, one of my colleagues principally involved in those matters, came into the Chamber while the question was being asked and I am sure that he will have noted what was said.
Mr. Bill Olner: The Leader of the House must be well aware of the injustices that continue to be perpetrated on my constituents and, I suspect, other Members' constituents, by the Child Support Agency. Will the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of urgency, ask the Minister to come to the House to make a statement, or seek a debate in the House so that the matter can be

1051
reconsidered? He must be aware of the tremendous injustices that are being perpetrated every day, causing undue anguish to hundreds of women and men.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was here, for example, during the last Department of Social Security questions, when many references were made to that, and my hon. and right hon. Friends said that they were keeping the matter under continuing review. He will also be aware that a Select Committee announced this week that it is undertaking further inquiries into the matter.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware of your request, Madam Speaker, for short questions and short answers. Will the Leader of the House therefore ask the Prime Minister to set an example and, especially, next week ensure that he answers questions briefly and that if he wants to make statements he makes them at half-past 3, so that we can have a dignified debate about them?
Mr. Newton: The Prime Minister this afternoon—if that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind—was asked a clear question by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition about the D-day celebrations and he answered it clearly and fully. The House is entitled to expect no less. I am sure that my right hon. Friend was right to do that.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House examined early-day motion 1063 dealing with blind and partially sighted voters?
[That this House warmly congratulates Camden Council for its innovative initiatives to help blind or partially sighted residents to cast their votes in person in the forthcoming local elections and beyond; welcomes, in particular, the introduction of a Braille template which will allow blind people to read the same information on candidates in each polling station throughout the borough as sighted residents; further welcomes the introduction of ballot papers with enlarged print for people with partial sight or poor vision; commends such initiatives to all councils which wish to ensure equal access to polling stations; and gives its support to the umbrella group, Full Franchise, in its endeavours to persuade the Government to do its upmost to boost voter registration levels and access to polling stations for disabled people.]
It compliments Camden council on action that it has taken to assist such voters to exercise their franchise rights, and compliments the organisation Full Franchise, which also seeks to get disabled people into polling stations. It would seem to be especially appropriate to debate it in the coming week, as we are moving into an election period.
Mr. Newton: I have great sympathy in all respects, other than providing time for a debate, with the hon. Gentleman's question. We encourage returning officers to
1052
do all that they can to help in those matters and have issued guidance provided by the Royal National Institute for the Blind on the size and choice of typeface for ballot papers.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I join the Lord President in expressing sympathy to the family of Constable Pollock, but also extend it to all other victims of terrorism and their families at this time?
Will the Lord President bear in mind next week's debate on the private Member's motion in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and consider allowing free time in the House so that the mind of the House may be carried on the Civil Rights (Disabled People) Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry)?
Mr. Newton: I have not yet seen the terms of my hon. Friend's motion, so I cannot comment further at the moment. I agree whole-heartedly with the hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week about the spin-offs of privatisation, particularly the £2 billion worth of contracts that the public utilities have brought back in the past year or two from Latin America alone? During that debate, we could reflect on the fact that had the Opposition been successful in defeating those privatisations, thousands of jobs in Britain would not have ensued.
Mr. Newton: That is certainly worth reflecting on, as is the fact that many of those orders and contracts have followed overseas visits by my right hon. and hon. Friends, not least my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: If it is correct that Scotland has been excluded from the Energy Conservation Bill, which will receive its Third Reading tomorrow, what are the Government's intentions on energy conservation in Scotland?
Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Lady must be referring to an amendment tabled to the Bill. It is not a decision that the House has made and the right course would be for her to make her point in tomorrow's debate.
Mr. Alistair Darling: May we have a statement or a debate on the proposed takeover of the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society by Lloyds bank? Many people in the industry believe that it may be just the start of a spate of such takeovers. Unless the Government make a clear statement on the framework that will govern those takeovers, it is feared that competition and, therefore, choice available to the people of this country will be seriously diminished. It is a matter of public interest and we need a clear Government statement.
Mr. Newton: While I will draw those remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends, I am sure that they will give appropriate consideration to any such matter in view of their responsibilities under the relevant legislation.

Points of Order
4.12 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This matter relates to your role as the defender of Back-Bench Members and concerns whether oral questions are in order. On Tuesday this week, in answer to a question of mine seeking information, the Secretary of State for Employment said:
"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."—[Official Report, 19 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 734.]
Is it reasonable to expect even the most diligent hon. Member to be familiar with every part of every paragraph of every report of every Select Committee that has been before this House? As you rightly call hon. Members to order when our questions are not entirely related to the original question, will you consider calling Ministers to order when their answers are irrelevant and evasive?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may ponder on whether it is possible for even the most diligent Speaker to be familiar with all the reports and printed questions that appear on the Order Paper. Had he given me notice of his question, I should have done research on it and been able to give him an answer. It is extremely difficult to refer to Hansard and various reports and, however diligent the Speaker may be, I cannot familiarise myself with all of those.
Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may have been aware of a certain commotion during Prime Minister's questions. A number of hon. Members became aware of what they thought was a flash from a camera in the Press Gallery. Will you conduct an urgent inquiry to establish whether that was the case? Will you also take the opportunity to remind all those who observe our proceedings that still camera photography is not allowed in this place?
Madam Speaker: I am always riveted by the proceedings in the Chamber and am not interested in what goes on elsewhere. However, I have interested myself in the matter and made inquiries. It was a foreign camera woman who did not understand our regulations and took some film. The film has since been confiscated. Is everybody happy?
Hon. Members: Yes.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have repeatedly made representations to hon. Members in the recent past for short questions and short answers. While I accept that you have a difficult job in trying to keep the House in order and I could even accept that, on occasions, it is necessary to treat the Prime Minister differently from other hon. Members, I do not believe that I am exaggerating when I say that the first answer that the Prime Minister gave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) this afternoon was a full two minutes in duration and his second reply was a full one and half minutes. When the tactics are clearly not to answer the questions, but to bore the House into submission, surely you can give us some protection.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I am not responsible for comments made by the Prime Minister or any other Member in the House. When questions are asked—I hope that they are not long questions—I like to see brisk answers. I would not have said that the Prime Minister's response was boring to any section of the House. I thought that both sides of the House were interested in what he said in response to a perfectly proper question.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I agree with you—I thought that both replies were interesting. They were so interesting that many of us wanted to ask many supplementary questions on them. That is why I seriously ask you to consider the following. You rightly say that Question Time should have cut and thrust, and fast repartee, with quick questions and quick responses. If the Prime Minister does as he did today and makes two important statements during Question Time, not only do we lose that cut and thrust, but we lose the opportunity to ask supplementary questions. It would be better if you could guide the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister to make statements at the appropriate time, rather than making them during Prime Minister's Question Time.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the entire House gives me support in attempting to make good progress. I have been keeping records. Since I made my statement, things have improved. But this last week, as I mentioned the other day, I have been disappointed. I hope that what I have said will be taken on board by Back Benchers as well as Front Benchers in the coming week.

Orders of the Day
  OPPOSITION DAY
    10TH ALLOTTED DAY

      Transport
      Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I have had to limit speeches to 10 minutes between 7 pm and 9 pm.
      4.18 pm
      Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
      That this House deplores the Government's transport policies which are failing Britain and which, if continued, will leave the country with a transport system unfit to meet the needs of the people of Britain in the twenty-first century.
      I must first declare an interest—I am proud to remind the House that I am sponsored as a Labour candidate by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, formerly the National Union of Railwaymen, which tries to serve the interests of so many people who live and work in my constituency. It was the union of which both my father and grandfather were members, and I am proud to continue that link. I receive no personal financial assistance from that arrangement.
      Over their period of office, the Tory Government have abandoned to market forces many of the strategic and regulatory duties carried out by previous Governments, and still carried out by most Governments in the developed world. Nowhere has that been more obvious than in the transport sector. The Government have tried to hand their responsibilities over to the private sector.
      The trouble with that free market approach to transport is that it does not work. One reason is that most important transport projects are large in scale, require enormous amounts of investment and take a long time to complete, so it can be a long time before investors have any return on their investment.
      That fact applies whether it is a railway, a tunnel, an airport or a road. As a result, would-be investors often want some guarantee of income, or a monopoly, or both. That is where the free market approach breaks down, because a guaranteed income or a lawful monopoly can be achieved only with the help of taxpayers and government, whether local, regional or national.
      Mr. Oliver Heald rose—
      Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way for a moment.
      That is not the only problem faced by those who would rely on market forces. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Give way."' I will give way when I have made a little progress with my speech. If hon. Members opposite persist in interrupting, I can assure them that I will not give way to them.
      That is not the only problem faced by people who would rely on market forces in transport. Free market forces will not secure safety or protect individuals and communities from the danger, nuisance and environmental damage caused by various forms of transport. Government, whether local, regional or national, has to set and enforce limits and standards for noise, safety, engine emissions, or the skill and character of taxi drivers. In short, to ensure a
      1056
      decent transport system, we need a strategy, and we need regulation. The present Government have abandoned both, and the results are obvious.
      Traffic congestion is estimated to cost businesses £15 billion per year—and that takes no account of the frustration faced by the human beings involved. Parts of the railway system are a national disgrace. Business is hampered by the difficulties of shifting freight, and passengers are hampered by the unavailability of fast, regular and reliable public transport.
      Nowhere is the Government's failure to discharge their strategic duties more obvious than in the scandal of the channel tunnel rail link, and the failure to upgrade the west coast main line. The Government decided that the private sector should build the channel tunnel link. No public money was to be invested—they even passed a law against it.
      But what has happened? While the 186-mile fast link from the channel to Paris has been built and is ready, not a yard of the link between the channel tunnel and London has been built, although that is a distance of only 67 miles. As a result, the British link may not be in place until 10 years after the French connection is in operation. Trains from Paris will travel to the channel at 185 miles an hour, will go through the tunnel at 85 miles an hour and will then trundle though Kent at about 50 miles an hour. Could anything better epitomise what is wrong with Britain?
      The Secretary of State has boasted in the House that it will take only three hours to get from London to Paris on the train. So it will, but he can take no credit for that. If the train were to travel through France at the speed at which it travels through Britain, the journey would take not three hours but five and a half.
      Then there is the Secretary of State's outrageous treatment of people on the route. He is still resisting the reasonable requests of the people at Pepper Hill in Gravesham. But the situation is worse than that after the route crosses the Thames.
      Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
      Mr. Dobson: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
      In Barking, before entering the tunnel running to my constituency, the Eurotrains will thunder past the houses of thousands of local people. I have met a woman whose house is just 12 in from the fence at the side of where the channel tunnel link will run. The trains through Barking will pass far closer to people's homes than was ever suggested anywhere in Kent. The people of Barking demand the same treatment as the people of Kent. They are right to demand it, and we support their demand.
      Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does the hon. Gentleman remember twitting the Secretary of State for not making a decision on Pepper Hill? Had the Secretary of State made that decision, the line would have gone under the houses of my constituents, and we would not have had the opportunity to try for an alternative.
      Mr. Dobson: I was objecting to the years of indecision and stupidity on the part of the Government, which have left the people of Kent still feeling very uncertain and blighted. They are not yet convinced that the route has been fixed. It is sensible of the Government to adjust the route

      1057
      at Pepper Hill in line with what people want. They could have done that years ago if they had had the wit to get on with it.
      Mr. Phillip Oppenheim rose—
      Mr. Dobson: The failure to build the channel tunnel link is bad for London and the south-east, but it is a disaster for other parts of the country, which will be denied fast, regular and reliable connections with the European rail network for a decade or more. People in south Wales need the north downs railway line from Reading to Redhill to be upgraded. That would provide a direct rail link from Wales to the channel tunnel, avoiding congested routes through inner London, and it could place Cardiff within little more than four hours of Paris. But the Government do not propose to do that.
      Nowhere is the Government's failure more obvious than on the west of Britain, served—if that is the right word—by the west coast main line. That line, which links the major conurbations of Greater London, the west midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Glasgow, is a national disgrace. As we approach the 21st century, one of the signal boxes on the west coast main line contains working equipment placed there in 1890, 104 years ago.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: The west coast main line covers my area too, and I too want it improved. The one way I see that happening is if private investment comes in to finance the line. As the hon. Gentleman also wants improvements to the line, may I ask him whether he has changed his attitude since September 1992, when, talking about entrepreneurs who will be looking to invest in our railways, he was quoted in a national newspaper as saying:
      "Yes, this is the politics of envy. We are envious of their wealth. These people are stinking, lousy, thieving, incompetent scum."
      Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman's quotation is accurate, but misapplied. I am proud to repeat what I said; I was talking about people who enriched themselves at the expense of others on poverty wages: they are thieving scum. I believed it then and I believe it now. As far as I know, my remarks do not apply to anyone who intends investing in the west coast main line—unless, under privatisation, it is intended that rail workers be paid poverty wages. In that case, my comments will apply.
      Mr. Michael Bates rose—
      Mr. Dobson: No.
      What do the Government have against the people who rely on the west coast main line, and who depend on it to serve their industry and commerce? Eighteen million people and 2 million manufacturing jobs depend on the line.
      Let us compare it with the east coast main line. King's Cross to Edinburgh takes four hours and six minutes on the best journey. Euston to Glasgow takes five hours and 22 minutes. Admittedly, the Glasgow journey is eight miles longer, but I do not think that can account for a difference of one hour and 16 minutes. The difference is accounted for by the inferior track, signalling, power supply and rolling stock.
      The average speed from King's Cross to York on the east coast main line is 94 mph. The average speed from Euston to Preston is 78 mph. There is just no comparison —and all the Government can say is that they are trying to attract private sector funding. Even that, however, is
      1058
      intended to be used only as far as Crewe. No one is even thinking of improving the line north of Crewe. That is a grotesque betrayal of all the people north of Crewe who depend on the line.
      So what have the Government been doing? The answer is: not very much, except privatising and deregulating buses, and preparing to privatise the railways. What cock-eyed priorities they have.
      All over the country, buses have been deregulated and privatised. As a result, many services have disappeared. Many staff have had their pay cut and working conditions worsened. What is more disturbing is the increasing incidence of fiddling by employers, which increases drivers' working time and reduces their rest periods.
      I suspect that right hon. and hon. Members will be surprised to discover that, with the approval of the Government, drivers have been told by their employers that the time when they are collecting fares can be counted as part of their statutory rest period, because the limitation on hours applies only to the period when they are actually driving.
      Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Dobson: No.
      I heard recently that a driver who finishes work at 1 am is knowingly employed by another part of the same company to drive a school bus, commencing work at 7.30 am. That cannot be safe for the driver, other people on the road or, above all, the schoolchildren in the bus. All over the country, safety is being sacrificed in the name of deregulation—and there is more to come. Most regulation is necessary to protect passengers, staff, other road users and the environment. Deregulation imperils all that.
      I remind Conservative Members that the late Lord Ridley, then Mr. Nicholas Ridley, told the bus operators that, as a result of the changes he was making, they would be able to operate their undertakings without a social conscience, and they are certainly doing so. They have no social conscience towards the staff, the passengers or the communities they serve.
      Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Dobson: No.
      Mr. Oppenheim rose—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know the rules.
      Mr. Dobson: It is costing a fortune to privatise the railways. Official figures from the Department of Transport and British Rail show that at least £446 million has been squandered on rail privatisation. Not a penny of that £446 million will be spent on new track, new coaches or the new signalling that is needed all around the country. Most of it will be poured into the pockets of accountants, brokers, merchant bankers, PR advisers and management consultants—£446 million, to provide outdoor relief for the advisory classes.
      We should consider where that money could have been invested instead. That £446 million would meet more than half the cost of modernising the west coast main line; £446 million would pay 10 times over for the Government's share of the cost of building the midland metro, the supertram from Birmingham to Wolverhampton, but £40 million is not being found.

      1059
      That money would pay seven times over for the extra tunnelling needed to give the same environmental protection to the people of Barking as has been given to the people in Kent. It would cover four times the cost of electrifying the midland main line from Bedford to Sheffield or extending electrification from Edinburgh to Aberdeen.
      It would pay three times over for the cost of electrifying the trans-Pennine link from Liverpool to Hull; it would pay eight times over for the cost of electrifying and resignalling the line from Leeds to Bradford. That £446 million would pay for 29 new InterCity trains or 130 Network SouthEast units or eight or nine major resignalling schemes, but instead the Government are frittering it away.
      The improvement schemes I have listed are all sensible ideas supported by local people and local businesses because they would help the economy of all the areas affected by them.
      Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Dobson: No.
      I challenge the Secretary of State, and I challenge him now—
      Mr. Oppenheim rose—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is not giving way. That is his prerogative, and the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
      Mr. Dobson: I challenge the Secretary of State now to ask people in the west midlands or the north-west, in Strathclyde or Lothian or Tayside or Grampian, in Liverpool or Hull, in Bradford or Sheffield, whether they think that he has his priorities right; whether he should invest money in their area, or bung money instead to Tory supporters in the City of London. That is what Labour will be asking up and down the country. We are asking it here and now, and we shall be asking it in the local and Euro-elections in every part of Britain: have the Government got their priorities right?
      What is the money going on? Some of the £446 million is going on top people's pay. At one time, just one person was responsible for major decisions—the boss of British Rail. There is still one of them, but half his job is now being done by the boss of Railtrack, another part of his job is being done by the rail regulator, and another part of his job is being done by the franchising director; and they are all being paid more than £100,000 a year.
      That apparently is the new Tory idea of efficiency—top job shares. Split the job into four and give them all a top salary. As the managers multiply and mutate, the salaries go up, and the staff they manage come down. Since 1990, the number of blue-collar employees on the railways has come down by more than 20,000, while the total doing white-collar jobs has risen by more than 9,000. There is a marked resemblance there to what has happened as a result of the so-called health service reforms.
      What else are the new appointees up to? Well, Railtrack has announced that it wants to cut its investment in maintenance by one third over the next three years. That must be wrong. I do not know whether I am blind, but I cannot think of anywhere where one looks out of a window
      1060
      on the railway and sees somewhere that looks as though it could do with less maintenance. Everywhere I look out looks as though it could do with a lot more.
      On top of that—this is a serious matter to which I ask Conservative Members to listen—Railtrack has said that it will no longer fund centrally the national school liaison programme, previously run jointly with the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and the British Transport police, to warn children of the perils of trespassing and vandalism on the railways.
      One can see what sort of priorities the new people who have been brought in have. One can see what priority they are giving to safety—no money for the kids' education programme, and less money for maintenance.
      Mr. Gyles Brandreth rose—
      Mr. Bates rose—
      Mr. Dobson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) in a moment.
      On top of that, consultants have now predicted that, to save money, the separated train operators will have their rolling stock brought in for maintenance after every 400,000 miles, rather than the present limit of 250,000 miles. That will not just be bad for safety and reliability: it will also be bad for jobs, particularly in Eastleigh, which relies on such work.
      Mr. Bates: Although the hon. Gentleman was endorsing the remarks he made in 1992, when he said that company directors were stinking, lousy, thieving, incompetent scum, he then said that that did not apply to potential investors on the west coast main line, but that it did apply to other companies which exploited people on low wages. The hon. Gentleman clearly has a company in mind. Will he name that company and put it on the record?
      Mr. Dobson: Some Conservative Members may need to declare an interest in their shareholding in such companies. All I can say is, if the cap fits, wear it. If they could not be bothered to ask me questions when I was responsible for employment matters, I shall certainly not answer in detail now. But I will mention some industries.
      Then I challenge Conservative Members to go away and see which people from those industries are making major contributions to. Tory party funds. They should go and look at wages in the catering and hotel industries, then go and see how the people running those industries are ripping off their employees and bunging money to the Tory party—to ensure, for instance, that wages councils were abolished, so that they could pay even lower wages.
      I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I was diverted from the matter of the debate. But it will also be bad for jobs if the amount of maintenance is reduced. There has already been a falling off of maintenance orders at the Eastleigh works, and at other works, and the chances are that worse is to come.
      Throughout the country, people are sick to death of the Government's costly obsession with privatisation and deregulation. Throughout the country, local people are looking for something better. They are looking to Labour to speak up for them and promote their interests.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Dobson: I do not wish to give way at the moment. I have made that quite clear, so hon. Members should sit down.

      1061
      I have time for only a few examples of initiatives that have been taken by Labour and which have benefited people. In Grampian region, the Labour party pushed through a scheme to allow pensioners to travel on a bus anywhere in the region for just 10p. That scheme is now at risk of being overturned unless Labour increases its representation in Grampian region in the elections on 5 May. Even if we succeed in doing that—I hope we will —the scheme is unlikely to survive the break-up of Grampian region that will follow the Government's gerrymandering reorganisation of local government in Scotland.
      Also in Scotland, Labour-led Strathclyde has led the battle against Railtrack's doubling of access charges for the use of the track and has forced it to try to justify its figures; it is finding it very difficult.
      In the north-west, Labour has led calls for the M62 relief road to be abandoned. The main trans-Pennine motorway—
      Mr. Brandreth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman might not know it, but he is not directly affected by the M62 relief road.
      The relief road scheme will cost £320 million, just to provide 11 miles of road through Bury and Bolton. The Tories could attract passenger and freight traffic off the M62 by electrifying the trans-Pennine rail link at a cost of only £120 million, yet they persist in the M62 relief road madness.
      Mr. Brandreth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because in fact I do use the roads. I have a balanced approach to transport. I use public transport a great deal, but also the roads, as do people in my constituency.
      The hon. Gentleman has talked a great deal about priorities and strategy, but has delivered neither. Given that the Government currently spend more than 40 per cent. of the transport budget on public transport, will he explain to us what is his priority, particularly in relation to roads?
      He described the Government's roads programme as "over-bloated". Does that include the Christleton bypass in my constituency? What are his priorities? What is his balance—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. Is the hon. Gentleman deaf? I do not expect to have to call "Order" more than once. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be seeking to catch my eye too soon, because he may have a long wait.
      Mr. Dobson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, every time that I have spoken about the roads programme, 1 have said that parts of it are vital, are right and would be popular.
      Mr. Brandreth: Give examples.
      Mr. Dobson: I have given examples. I will give them again, if the hon. Gentleman likes. I have said all along that there are examples that are right and popular, but for some bizarre reason the Government will not go ahead with them. They insist on going ahead with those that are wrong and unpopular. One would have thought that they might have adjusted their policies in the light of their present circumstances.
      In Sheffield and Manchester, Labour initiatives led to the building of the Manchester metro and the Sheffield supertram, in the face of Government delay and
      1062
      prevarication. In Bristol, the Labour party led calls for the introduction of a light rapid transit system for the city. That would help relieve congestion and reduce pollution in Bristol, where levels of car pollution regularly exceed European Union limits. But the Government have refused to provide any support, and still the Tory Government will not help Bristol.
      But, in fairness, I have to say that it is not just the Tories who try to block new schemes such as this. It is also the Liberal Democrats. In Sheffield, it was against the opposition of the two-faced Liberal Democrats, who voted against the supertram project no fewer than eight times. In view of that, I find it hard to take them seriously when their "Pocket Guide to Environmental Policy" pledges them to
      "encourage new schemes, using light railways and trams in cities."
      To vote against something eight times is a novel way of encouraging it.
      That brings me to London.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Dobson: No, I will not.
      Nowhere in Britain better illustrates the inadequacy of Tory transport policy and their lack of an overall strategy to maintain the existing transport system and develop it to meet the needs of the 21st century than what is happening in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will deal with a large number of matters to do with transport in London, the Government's plans for London's buses, and the threat that the Government's plans pose to people's pensions.
      But we are all entitled to ask, where is the Government's strategy for developing the railway system, underground and overground in London? They do not have one. It is a collection of piecemeal developments. They gave top priority to the Jubilee line extension, but it does not include the crucial station in north Greenwich. Then there is the Heathrow express, coming into Paddington, where it has poor connections with the rest of central London. Next there is crossrail—basically a good scheme, but only if it includes a connection with the channel tunnel link at Stratford and possibly at St. Pancras.
      That brings me to the Northern line. Asea Brown Boveri, the Derby train makers, put forward their proposition for a leasing scheme for new trains for the Northern line as a follow-on order from the new trains for the Central line. That was delayed and obstructed by the Government, and by the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) in particular. He said that it was a bad bargain for the taxpayer.
      Now, under pressure, the Government have allowed London Underground to invite tenders for negotiated contracts, but it is far from certain that the scheme will go ahead, because there is still the crackpot suggestion from the Treasury that ABB should take part of the revenue risks of operating trains. The Secretary of State for Transport should remember Winston Churchill's summary of the Treasury's attitude to anything new, which he described as "like inverted Micawbers waiting for something to turn down". The Treasury will turn it down if it can. All that is delaying getting new trains on the Northern line and is threatening jobs in Derby, where the trains will be made.

      1063
      One of the things that deters people, especially women, from using public transport is their fear of assaults while travelling on bus, train or tube, and even more so when they have to walk home from the station or bus stop.
      Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He seems to be under the impression that there is nowhere west of Cardiff. He has not mentioned Wales much, and has not referred either to Plaid Cymru.
      Does he agree that it is very important that Plaid Cymru's ideas about the development of freight transport, connecting the Irish Republic with the channel tunnel, be developed, and that the current study of pilot actions for combined transport be followed by action to upgrade the track so that we can get connections between western Wales and the European continent?
      Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman kindly acknowledged that I had mentioned Cardiff. I am aware that there are parts of Wales both north and west of Cardiff, but I simply did not have time to mention them all. I do not claim any familiarity with the transport policies of Plaid Cymru. I apologise for that.
      London Underground and the British Transport police have made a tremendous and successful effort to cut assaults on people on the tube, but it still remains a problem, and the Government have been doing little or nothing. The initiative has been left to people such as my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) and for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), both of whom have drawn attention to the problem of assaults.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich has persuaded Network SouthEast to provide a £40,000 grant, in addition to the significant contribution from Labour-controlled Southwark council, to improve safety at four of the eight stations in Dulwich. [Interruption.] Let me answer the churlish inquiry about the whereabouts of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich. She is in hospital in my constituency, because she is ill.
      One of the factors that have contributed to the rise in violence and vandalism is the reduction of staff on buses and trains, and in stations and station car parks.
      Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to a churlish inquiry if there never was one?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of points made by hon. Members—and a very good thing too.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I crave your indulgence for just two seconds? There is clearly an organised Conservative campaign to disrupt the speech from the Opposition Front Bench; I assume that, if Opposition Members intervene equally energetically during the speech of the Secretary of State for Transport, they will be allowed the level playing field that Conservative Members seem to think necessary.
      Mr. Bob Dunn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I may be safely left to judge whether noise or interruptions go
      1064
      beyond what is reasonable, and I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is well able to take care of himself.
      Mr. Dobson: Perish the thought, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Dunn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—for the fifth time. Conservative Members are entitled to resent the point of order of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The truth is that there is no organised Conservative campaign against the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor, and it is clear that there is no organised Opposition campaign in his support.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already made my views clear. I think that it would be for the good of the debate if everyone settled down a little more quietly.
      Mr. Dobson: And I shall try to speak more quietly, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Having people around in uniform deters crime. The introduction of more and more automatic ticket machines may save on wages, but they have their disadvantages: there is still no recorded case in history of a ticket machine coming to the aid of a passenger being assaulted by a drunken lout.
      All over the country, Labour people and Labour councils have been taking initiatives similar to those that I have mentioned. In Lancashire, the Labour-controlled county council has been funding part of the cost of raising station platforms to make it easier for pensioners, and everyone else, to board the newer trains whose doors are further from the ground. Now the money has run out, but the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) may be paying off: British Rail has initiated talks on improvements to other stations.
      Of course, not only transport services are suffering under the present Government. The staff have been badgered from pillar to post, and forced to accept lower pay and poorer working conditions to avoid being thrown out of work. Worse still, pension arrangements are threatened. People who thought that, whatever else happened, their pensions were secure are now not so sure. All over the country, existing railway and bus pensioners are getting jittery about what is happening to their pension funds, and they are right to be concerned.
      The Government still have not presented the House with the pension proposals they promised. Until they do, railway pensioners in Eastleigh, York, Crewe and Derby —indeed, throughout the country—will not feel secure. At the very least, the Government should sort out the pension issue: they owe it to all the people concerned. They must not do a Maxwell by Act of Parliament.
      Throughout our transport system, the lack of any long-term strategy is obvious. In recent times, the Government seem to have had little or no strategy for British merchant shipping, other than to make its life harder than that of its competitors by ending roll-over tax relief in 1985. I understand that today, having for years resisted and voted down Labour's amendments to secure roll-over relief, introduce capital allowances and secure other concessions to help British shipping, they have at long last announced that they will do something about roll-over relief.
      We have taken our campaign out to towns and communities the length and breadth of the country—from

      1065
      Dover to Liverpool, from Southampton to Hull and from South Shields to Aberdeen. In maritime communities, people have asked how a Government could sit back and watch the number of United Kingdom seafaring jobs fall from 40,000 in 1984 to fewer than 20,000 today.
      The Government somehow give the impression that sending goods around the world by ship is no longer fashionable. That is not true: more goods are being carried by ship today than ever before. If today—in response to pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley)—the Government have finally acceded to Labour's call for roll-over tax relief, it is no credit to them; the credit belongs to those who have campaigned on the issue for so long.
      Little or no strategy is discernible for the aviation industry. The development of regional airports is being deliberately held back, and we now hear that another madcap privatisation is on the cards—the privatisation of air traffic control. That should send a shiver down the spine of any sensible passenger. Just imagine the exchanges between cockpit and control tower: "Zebra Alpha to Group 4: are you receiving me?", or "Zebra Alpha: we cannot speak to you now. This is an answering machine. There is no one here to take your call at the moment. We are having a meeting with the receivers"—like the privatised Astra Training Services.
      It is, however, in railway transport that the lack of strategy and investment is most obvious. Investment in the railways has declined as money has been diverted to investment related to the channel tunnel. Orders for traction equipment and rolling stock have almost dried up: just 164 vehicles have been ordered this year, compared with 841 in 1990–91.
      Current British Rail orders run out this year, and no further domestic orders from British Rail or any of its successors are on the books of any British train builder. That is bad for rail users, but it is disastrous for both companies and work forces in Crewe, Derby, Eastleigh, Doncaster, Glasgow and Milton Keynes, and for Metro-Cammell in Birmingham.
      The trouble is that the Government never consider the industrial consequences of their policies. We have a railway system denied new investment in rolling stock, without a fast link to the channel tunnel, with a decrepit west coast main line, and with an inadequate plan for European freight depots around the country. Getting those things right was the Government's responsibility, and they got them wrong. They have tried to shift responsibility on to the private sector, and it has not worked.
      When the Government—a Tory Government; in a sense, this Tory Government—still accepted responsibility for major railway projects, the east coast main line was uprated; now, the west coast main line is left in limbo. For years, Labour said that the Government should raise money from the private sector—or allow British Rail to do so—to invest in the system. The Government refused. They used to mock my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) when he suggested it. Instead, they did nothing.
      Now they say that they want private sector investment: it could be the answer to all their problems. They still cannot manage it, however. They have not a single penny piece of private money invested in the relatively straightforward channel tunnel link—so what are their chances of succeeding with the infinitely more complex west coast main line?
      1066
      It is all so slow. It took Robert Stephenson just three years to build and start operating the line from London to Birmingham; on the Government's best estimates, it will take them 10 years to uprate it. That is why we say that their incompetence is not just bad for Britain now: its consequences will be with us well into the new century.
      At every stage in its economic development, a society needs a transport system that meets the current needs of industry and commerce and allows individuals to get around easily so that they can enjoy its benefits. A good transport system is a prerequisite for a civilised and economically developed society. By those standards, the Government are failing the nation.
      Unless they change their policies, our country and our children will be left with a transport system incapable of meeting the needs of the new century. I remind the House that that new century is just six years away.
      4.59 pm
      The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
      'strongly supports the Government's transport policies which are providing more efficient and effective delivery for all users, in particular through the programme of privatisation and liberalisation in transport which allows the market to provide the transport services users want rather than the services which central planners dictate they should have; believes that the Government's rail reforms will build on the improvements in passenger service quality already achieved under the Citizen's Charter and offer the best opportunity to transfer freight from road to rail; noting the increased levels of public investment in rail, road and London Transport infrastructure, welcomes also the innovative means of financing new transport infrastructure developed in the Private Finance Initiative; supports the initiatives taken by the Government in the European Union to deal with sub-standard shipping; and applauds the Government's drive to liberalise aviation in the European Third Aviation Package and elsewhere.'.
      I am delighted that we are having this debate, because it is revealing in all its stark emptiness the poverty and paucity of the Labour party's transport policy. I have rarely read such an unimaginative Opposition motion. It is totally lacking in content and analysis and wholly negative—qualities matched only by the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who clearly does not know the facts. The hon. Gentleman accused us of lack of investment. I will show later that investment under this Government has been a great deal higher throughout than under the last Labour Government—particularly in relation to London Transport.
      The hon. Gentleman does not understand either that our private finance operations are progressing extremely well and have received a tremendous response from the private sector. I will also demonstrate that. He accused us of neglecting safety. Yesterday, I announced the best road safety figures ever: there were fewer road fatalities than since records began, despite a fourteenfold increase in traffic. That was brought about by a heavy emphasis on all sorts of safety programmes. The same is true of rail, and I will refer later to our rail safety plans.
      The hon. Gentleman's speech lacked consistency. At the beginning of it, he accused us of not making any investment in the channel tunnel rail links but towards the end complained that we were not investing elsewhere in the railways because we have been diverting public funds to the channel tunnel rail links. The hon. Gentleman is right

      1067
      on his second point, because we have spent £1.4 billion already on the channel tunnel rail links infrastructure. I suppose he does not think that that is very much money.
      Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that not one penny piece has yet been invested by the Government in the channel tunnel fast rail link?
      Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman talks about the channel tunnel link. He must understand that we have invested—[Hon. Members: "Answer."] I am answering the question. We have invested £1.4 billion already in the channel tunnel rail links and the infrastructure, including nine freight terminals throughout the country—some £450 million invested—to capitalise on the channel tunnel. Those big sums have been invested already. The second channel tunnel rail link will meet the capacity available at the beginning of the next century, and we will have that capacity in place because that scheme is going well. The hon. Gentleman does not understand that a Bill must pass through the House before we can start incurring expenditure. Above all, the hon. Gentleman missed the point that a substantial amount of money has already been spent on the link.
      Mr. Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents are delighted that he invested time and money investigating an alternative route at Pepper Hill from which they could benefit? Had my right hon. Friend taken the advice of the Opposition's transport spokesman, a line would have been bulldozed under houses at Pepper Hill.
      Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I decided to re-examine the situation at Pepper Hill and Ashford, but the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras accused me of ignoring the needs of the community. In fact, the community and the councils asked me to take a further look, and I did so in their interests. The hon. Gentleman was wrong about that, too.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is not present. I thought that he would be, and apologise for not giving notice of my intention to refer to him. His contribution and that of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras over the past week show up the sterility and triviality of their thoughts. They attacked the salaries of the chairman of Railtrack, the Franchising Director and the Rail Regulator. They fail to understand that if one is appointing people to top jobs that involve huge responsibilities, it is important to go for high quality.
      I want Railtrack to be the most efficient and effective provider of track and signals possible. That is in the interests not only of all who use the railways but of those who work on them. If the management does well, the employees will do well. I want high quality and the best skills for the challenging and important post of Franchising Director, because it matters to passengers that he gets it right. The Rail Regulator will be there to ensure fair competition and to protect the consumer. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras lives in an old-fashioned, outdated world. If one wants high quality and the best skills, one must pay for them. That does not mean a big increase in cost—only a tiny increase. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is wrong, he cannot want the best management for the railways and the best skills for the jobs.
      1068
      Privatisation costs for British Rail and Railtrack this year will be about £88 million, some £30 million of which will be valuable new investment, including investment financial and information systems. That is a tiny proportion of their costs. If one improves management and systems and achieves greater efficiency, one yields substantial savings.
      British Rail's operating costs are expected to fall considerably in the year just ended, with something like a 7 per cent. reduction in operating costs because of improved efficiency. The costs of restructuring the railway system in one year are, proportionally, a good deal less than the savings that BR has already achieved this year, and which the rail system will continue to achieve as a result of the new management and systems. The hon. Gentleman got that completely wrong, too.
      The other big contribution made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North in the past few days was to table an early-day motion—early-day motion 1040—on child safety in coaches and minibuses. It
      "deplores the fact that the Secretary of State turned down this offer"—
      of a meeting with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—
      "saying 'it would not be wise to consider making further regulations in this area'."
      From that, right hon. and hon. Members would take it that I do not intend ever to make further regulations. In fact, my letter to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras dated 21 January, from which he quoted—and that shows how up-to-date he is in getting around to tabling his early-day motion—stated:
      "However, as you may know we are currently reviewing the full technical and cost implications of seat belts in these vehicles. Until this review is complete and we have full reports of the tragic accidents which occurred last year, we feel that it would not be wise to consider making further regulations in this area."
      That statement has been turned into an early-day motion that implies that I did not think it would be wise to make further regulations. That is the most disgraceful way of carving up a single sentence and is grossly misleading to the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will apologise.
      Mr. Peter Snape: The Secretary of State spoke of attracting top people. Is it true that the person appointed as chairman of Railtrack, and paid £120,000 for a three-day week, is the only BP chairman in that company's history to take it into a loss, and that he was forced out by the unanimous vote of BP's other directors? Is that the right hon. Gentleman's idea of a top person?
      Mr. MacGregor: The chairman is an outstanding business man who is well regarded in the business community. Everyone in the business community knows that he is doing an extremely good job and is well worth the salary that he is paid.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing rose—
      Mr. George Foulkes rose—
      Mr. MacGregor: Very well, but then I must make progress—I have already given way three times.
      Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, who is courteous in these matters. In replying to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), he mentioned the Union Rail route. Is he aware that the Bill that he

      1069
      mentioned will contain a provision for the tunnels to run underneath many hundreds of homes in Newham, instead of below the existing railway—which it does for part of the route? Is not that asking for trouble? Will the right hon. Gentleman examine that matter, because the Bill will surely be held up unless the route is changed to run below the existing line rather than underneath houses?
      Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that has completely escaped the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. To ensure the most effective route and one that takes account of local communities—and obviously it is not possible to meet everyone's requirements—an enormous amount of time and resources were spent and there were huge public consultations. A hybrid Bill will also be required to be passed by the House, and that will clearly take a great deal of time. The hon. Gentleman thinks that somehow or other we can do it just like that and we will have the railway system in place tomorrow. He completely ignores the two to three years that are involved in the process. That is the point at which some of the issues can be examined.
      Mr. Heald: Before my right hon. Friend leaves his point about the early-day motion, and given that motion's clear inaccuracy, will he give the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) the opportunity to withdraw his comment which is false?
      Mr. MacGregor: I have made the position clear to the House. I have read out exactly what I wrote to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will now withdraw his comment.
      My charge relates to matters much more serious than the trivial and misleading episodes to which I have referred so far—although the hon. Gentleman's speech contained a lot of other examples. My charge is both that he has no policy and that he is still attempting to mislead the country into thinking that he has. He spent almost his entire speech criticising our levels of investment, despite the fact that we have invested a great deal more than the previous Government.
      The implication of that criticism—there was a complete roll-call which we will be studying carefully—is that a Labour Government would be engaging in all those programmes and carrying out all that investment. Recently, the shadow Chancellor said that the Labour party's so-called spending commitments simply do not exist—that there are no manifesto commitments to public spending at this stage.
      Let me ask the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras some questions. Has he secured from the shadow Chancellor an increase in the overall transport investment programme? He has already put forward the most enormous range of criticisms of spending and therefore, by implication, clearly expects changes to be made, and made quickly; he has complained about the speed of such changes. He ignored the fact that we have invested huge sums in the east coast main line; the west coast main line is the next priority. He seemed to think that both of them should have been done at once. There is a clear implication—
      Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. MacGregor: No, I am addressing the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who expects a big increase in
      1070
      the transport programme. We shall simply cost the range of proposals that he has put forward today and be clear about what they are. If he does not have an increase in the programme, where will he make cuts?
      The hon. Gentleman said little about the roads programme. In the House the other day, he described it as bloated—despite the fact that, as he knows, a large number of his colleagues on the Back Benches were urging me to get on with road projects in their areas. I assume that the hon. Gentleman will make savage cuts in the roads programme. He should therefore tell us exactly where he will make the big cuts.
      He must then face this point.
      Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. MacGregor: I am still on the same paragraph. Even if overall passenger rail traffic could be increased by 50 per cent. as a result of the massive investment that the hon. Gentleman claims he would make, it would cut passenger road traffic by only some 3 per cent.—less than one year's growth at present. It would be a totally silly use of resources to cut the road programme savagely and switch over. That would add a great deal to what we are already spending. We are spending 40 per cent. of our programme on public transport for 10 per cent. of the traffic. The hon. Gentleman wants to make the big switch to spend 60 per cent. or 80 per cent. of his total programme on public transport. That would not only be a bad use of resources; it would disappoint a lot of communities around the country.
      During our exchanges on the road review, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) was at least honest. He said that he was not sure which way he wanted to go on my decision about the A167 western bypass at Durham: he said that he was sitting on the fence. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said that he was on the roundabout, going nowhere but round and round. At least the hon. Member for City of Durham was honest in saying that he was sitting on the fence.
      The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Harvey) does not even admit that he sits on the fence. He has been extremely critical of the roads programme. Recently at the Liberal Democrat party conference, a resolution was passed drawing attention to the urgent need to shift the emphasis from road building to public transport.
      The hon. Gentleman undoubtedly knows that almost all his colleagues keep fawning on my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic urging him to get their road schemes through as quickly as possible. He knows that in different parts of the country his colleagues are saying that they want their roads urgently—he criticised the Government for not producing them. Those hon. Members want schemes cut back in different parts of the country, where other hon. Members are saying that they want their road schemes and that they want cuts made elsewhere. It is absolutely typical of the Liberal Democrats to be saying different things in different places. They have not made up their minds and are all at sea.
      Mr. Nick Harvey: When we have debated the roads programme on previous occasions I have, indeed, taken a hostile stance on the majority of that programme. The Secretary of State said, in a tone of astonishment, that I seem to be for some roads and against others. I put it to him that there is not one hon. Member in the House who is either in favour of or against all roads.

      1071
      We have said consistently that we want a moratorium on motorway widening and a review of the roads programme. Clearly, local schemes can go ahead within that. It is the motorways with 14 lanes that we speak against, and we have done so consistently.
      Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because at last we have flushed him out: he is hostile to the majority of the roads programme. We will now tell all Liberal councils and councillors across the country, who call for increased and more rapidly spent money on the roads programme—in Newbury and in lots of other places —what the hon. Gentleman said. He cannot get away with saying that we must simply avoid widening the motorways. He must face the fact that the business congestion costs about which he complained are mainly concentrated on motorways. Ordinary motorists who want to journey around the country are being held up mainly on motorways.
      If the hon. Gentleman does not propose to do anything about the motorways, we shall remind the country that in 10 years' time it will be the Liberal Democrats' policy to have our motorways as parking lots for cars with their engines running. That is entirely what the hon. Gentleman's policy means.
      If this debate has achieved one thing, it is that it has shown us the transport policies of the Liberal Democrats. Now we know what those policies are and we will let the country know.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. MacGregor: No, I must get on.
      My final point relates to the charge in the motion of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that we have failed the country. That charge is defeated not only by the fact that we have greatly increased spending, and by the other things that I shall mention in a moment, but by surveys of informed overseas business men and companies.
      I have in front of me a survey of European senior executives that was undertaken by Healey and Baker in connection with more than 18 capitals around the world. The questions in the survey related to the best cities in terms of external transport links and the best cities in terms of transport infrastructure. In each case, London came second out of the large range. That does not suggest that
      London is regarded as not having good links.
      In a recent survey of foreign-owned companies operating in the United Kingdom, KPMG said:
      "The UK's infrastructure and transport were highly rated with closeness to key markets, road, air and rail access all exceeding expectations."
      The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras always tries to shout down and talk down our transport infrastructure. Those who have experience of it regard it as one of our great assets. That is why the hon. Gentleman's motion completely fails.
      The hon. Gentleman criticised the levels of capital investment. London Transport capital investment is nearly three times larger now in real terms than under the Labour Government and the GLC in 1978–79. The total investment in London Transport between 1974 and 1979 was less in real terms than capital investment this year. That is what we are doing now. It is no wonder that the hon. Gentleman
      1072
      does not like it. We are spending more now in real terms than was spent throughout the whole period of the Labour Government. Capital investment in the rail industry—[Interruption.] It is no wonder that Labour Members are trying to drown me out; they do not like to hear the facts.
      Capital investment in the rail industry now is 50 per cent. higher in real terms than it was 10 or 11 years ago and is at among the highest levels for 30 years. Capital investment in national motorways and trunk roads is 87 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978, yet the hon. Gentleman has the gall to say that we are not investing in our transport infrastructure.
      I shall turn to other aspects of transport, not only the investment in infrastructure. Our transport industries are not only investing a lot in infrastructure; they are much more efficient and competitive. Compared with the completely public sector-oriented policy that the Labour party is pursuing—
      Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. MacGregor: No, I will not.
      Mr. Foulkes: I have been sitting here all through the debate.
      Mr. MacGregor: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to sit for a bit longer.
      On long-distance coaches, our changes have multiplied choice and lowered fares. The deregulation of buses has produced an increase in bus mileage and has made services more flexible. There are more operators, and subsidies have been halved. There are good returns for those who were previously providing subsidies.
      Mr. Foulkes rose—
      Mr. MacGregor: As a result of privatisation, British Airways is now one of the most efficient, competitive and profitable airlines in the world. It is highly regarded.
      Mr. Foulkes rose—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I make the point to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), as I did to an hon. Member from the Government Benches: if a Minister, or anybody else who has the Floor, does not choose to give way, hon. Members must resume their seats.
      Mr. MacGregor: I have given way a good deal more than the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did.
      Our ports have been modernised, and they are attracting business again because of privatisation and the abolition of the dock labour scheme. That is the kind of transport policy to which the hon. Gentleman wants us to return. He complained about privatisation and deregulation, but they have worked in practice to increase investment and to provide greater choice and, in many cases, lower fares. The policy has worked and that is why the Opposition are now by and large refusing to reverse it.
      What did the Labour party do? It failed to get investment and to reduce inefficiency, overmanning and restrictive practices in the transport industries, so failing the consumer. The Labour party opposed each and every one of the policies that I have just described, which brought such massive improvements. That is why I totally reject the motion on the Order Paper, and that is why the Government do not think that the hon. Gentleman has made his case.

      1073
      Turning to the future, let me begin with rail. Everyone realises that there is a need for change and improvement on the railways. The system that existed before 31 March on British Rail had been ossified for too long. As a monolithic, nationalised industry, BR was not responsive enough to what its users needed. At the heart of our reforms are the interests of the users—the passengers and the freight industry.
      I fully acknowledge that much improvement has taken place in recent years under Sir Robert and Sir Bob Reid, and their boards. The programme "Organising for Quality" and the impetus given by the passengers charter undoubtedly produced big improvements in the standard of service. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras laughs, but standards of improvement are coming through and that clearly motivates staff.
      For example, the latest results show that, on average during the past year, 13 out of 15 commuter routes in the south-east were meeting or exceeding the punctuality standards set by the passengers charter. The London, Tilbury and Southend line has seen a performance turn-around, and it is one of the most punctual of all. That shows what can be done by changed systems, the targets of passengers charter and better management.
      All of that took place before the large-scale investment. There has been a big turnaround, and major investment is now in hand. Work on a £83 million resignalling project is now under way.
      Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. MacGregor: I must get on. I have given way a great deal.
      The franchising of passenger services is one of the key elements in our plans. The franchising targets which I set for the franchising director last month are ambitious, but achievable. They are based on my desire to see that railway passenger services in Great Britain are provided under the franchise agreements as soon as is reasonably practicable. It is through franchising that we will see an overall improvement in the quality of services that are available to railway passengers.
      Today, the franchising director published his timetable for the programme. He sets out how he intends to meet those targets by awarding the first six franchises by the end of 1995 and by franchising over half of BR's current passenger services by April 1996. I am confident that franchising and competition will attract keen interest from the private sector from companies with experience of the transport sector, companies looking to diversify and from BR management-employee buy-out teams.
      Since November, when the Railways Act received Royal Assent—it is only a short time ago—we have achieved, with the full co-operation of BR and Railtrack, a massive restructuring of the railway industry to get it into shape for our reforms. It is the most far-reaching reform of the industry in half a century. Railtrack is now a fully independent company, and passenger and freight-operating companies have begun to operate as units within the board. Those will emerge as separate companies in the next year or so.
      The infrastructure maintenance as been put together under one management, and we are already seeing the benefits of greater management focus and transparency of accounting. Better decisions will be made that way, and
      1074
      that is a point that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras completely fails to understand. Passenger services in particular are beginning to demonstrate new creative ideas about the services that customers want. All this is happening well before the franchising and other privatisations get under way.
      Mr. Dobson: Does the Secretary of State welcome the initiative from the new management of what is now called North London Railway artificially to re-zone Hampstead Heath station from zone 2 to zone 3, so that they can put up the prices by 36 per cent.? Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome that sort of initiative?
      Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that when some zoning areas are out of line with the rest, they must be adjusted. That happened under the previous system: there have been a number of occasions on which it has taken place. I must tell him that that has nothing to do with our reforms.
      Railtrack is another clear example of why our reforms will produce better management and better decisions. As the chairman, Bob Horton, made clear, Railtrack believes that a public service business must behave like every other modern business. I agree with that. Costs must be transparently sourced, and it is on that basis that Railtrack has derived the cost of running the network and apportioned it into access charges.
      It is not in Railtrack's interests—nor is it in the interest of the public or the railways system—to make unrealistic charges. Railtrack has divided up the entire cost of running the network at around £2 billion. We are discovering—as a result of the efforts and resources about which the hon. Gentleman complained—where the costs lie and the ways in which they can be put right.
      Railtrack has allocated around £2 billion according to the use made by particular operators. For the first time, users of the infrastructure will bear the true cost of running the network. The advantage is that they will see where the true costs lie, and that is the key to real management control.
      There are other advantages. The arrangement enables depreciation to be covered, and track investment can be given a priority that it has not always had. At the same time, Railtrack has been set challenging targets to get efficiency gains, and also to get its costs down and to give a realistic return to invest in the development of its asset base.
      On pensions, once again the hon. Gentleman made outrageous charges which, if they have any effect outside the House, can only frighten people and lead them in completely the wrong direction. For a start, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have made our proposals following discussions with the British Rail pension trustees, as we have said. We have put our proposals out for consultation and the hon. Gentleman indicated that he would like to see them. I must tell him that copies have been in the Library for some time, and are therefore available there.
      Of course, the moment we finish consultation we will make our proposals to the House in the way that we have always been expected to. I expect orders to be laid in this House and in the other place in May. That is in time to enable us to have them in places before the arrangements come into operation in October.

      1075
      I must make an important point to the hon. Gentleman. We have agreed with the trustees on all the absolutely key issues, and I am therefore confident that there are few issues—and they are not substantial ones—which remain unresolved. If there are any, they will be put to the House. The way in which the hon. Gentleman once again accused us of purloining funds was quite outrageous.
      I want to mention the new regime of rail safety to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Railway accidents are rare, and rail remains one of the safest modes of transport. Building on that, the Government, Railtrack and British Rail are committed to maintaining and improving our enviable safety record. Both boards have my full support in ensuring that safety remains a top priority during the significant organisational changes to the industry.
      This year's safety plan for the rail industry is published today, and sets out strategic safety objectives for BR and Railtrack for the coming year. There are also detailed arrangements for managing safety and reports on BR's safety performance in 1993–94. The safety plan is a comprehensive and forward-looking document which fully meets, and in some respects exceeds, current safety performance. It demonstrates a high level of commitment and resources which are being devoted throughout the industry to running a safe railway. The hon. Gentleman should have the grace to acknowledge that fact.
      Mr. Dobson: What contribution to the improvement of safety does the Secretary of State think has resulted from Railtrack saying that it is unwilling to finance centrally the advisory service for children to keep them off the railway?
      Mr. MacGregor: I understand that that is the responsibility of British Rail, not Railtrack. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would focus on the substantial funds that are being deployed to ens re that we have safe railways. If he looks at the safety plan, he will see that that is the case.
      Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. MacGregor: I must turn to roads. I shall be brief because we debated roads in March and the roads review has been published. I simply wish to make a few key points which are important in a debate on transport policy.
      The roads review was one of the scheme priorities. There was a clear managerial need to establish priorities. To progress all the schemes in the programme with the same effort and often at much the same pace did not make the best use of resources. It wasted money and time and created uncertainty.
      Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman says, apparently having been advised by his colleague—another expert on these matters—that responsibility for the anti-trespass and vandalism scheme is the responsibility of British Rail. Robert Horton, the chairman of Railtrack, wrote to the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen saying that the scheme was the responsibility of Railtrack and that Railtrack did not intend to discharge it centrally and would delegate it to individual managers. At least that is my understanding of the letter.
      Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps we can clarify this comparatively small point. I am happy to clarify for the hon. Gentleman where the responsibility lies. I think—I
      1076
      shall have to check—that the responsibility lies with the British Transport police, of which British Rail is the employer. However, it is extremely important that the hon. Gentleman withdraws his accusation about lack of attention to safety on the railways. That is the key issue.
      I was saying that the aim of the roads review was the better use of resources. The review has resulted in savings of up to £100 million a year which would otherwise have been committed to preparation and holding inquiries too early. That money could be better spent elsewhere in the roads programme. I should also make it clear that there is a high level of road building. Even with that, it was clear that some schemes would not have entered the construction frame for a very long time. So I felt that it was realistic to withdraw some of the schemes. I understand the concerns of those who have complained about the withdrawal of schemes, but it was clear that construction was a long way away.
      For all the schemes which remain in the programme —the vast bulk—the review has not resulted in delays. The priorities assigned to the schemes made public what would have happened in practice. I took the opportunity of the review to consider an up-to-date assessment of the balance between the different environmental and economic considerations. That is why I decided to withdraw some schemes such as the M12 and the trans-European network from Stansted to Oxford.
      In addition to the roads programme review, many other effective, important and often radical policies are being pursued. That, again, is why the hon. Gentleman's motion is so wrong. First, the delivery of the roads programme is being speeded up. We have set up the Highways Agency, which will certainly ensure better delivery. I have already referred to road safety. I strongly attack the hon. Gentleman for suggesting that we have not devoted resources or a great deal of attention to road safety. The evidence is all there in the results.
      All our policies reflect the importance that we attach to getting the balance right for the environment. To give one example, the Government have recently published planning guidance which seeks to reduce the need to travel. Our sustainable development strategy published in January sets out our thinking on how to reconcile society's need for access to an ever wider range of goods and services with our ability to sustain the quality of life for future generations.
      Then there are the initiatives on electronic motorway tolling and the design, build, finance and operate programmes, the next stage of which I have taken forward in the past month. That leads me to another important point.
      Mr. Foulkes: While the right hon. Gentleman is shuffling his papers, will he give way?
      Mr. MacGregor: I do not want to go on for too long so I am throwing away some of my notes. I prefer to concentrate on the important points. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras misunderstands the nature of the private finance initiative. He suggests that the Labour party has invented the idea of bringing private finance into the system. However, he gave the game away in his criticism of the Northern line proposals and of what Asea Brown Boveri and the other tenderers in that competition are being asked to do when he said that it was wrong that they should take on some of the risk.

      1077
      It is clear that the Labour party's idea of private finance is not to transfer the risk but simply to engage in off-balance-sheet financing to get round public expenditure controls. That is another way in which the hon. Gentleman simply piles up expenditure on the public expenditure programme. That is also why his policies for the future simply do not add up.
      Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. MacGregor: I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman took a long time.
      To accuse us of not getting on with the private finance initiatives is a gross travesty of what is happening. have here a list of schemes that are already being constructed under the private finance initiative. They include the Jubilee line, the Dartford-Thurrock bridge, the second Severn bridge, the Heathrow express rail link. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not realise that a £400 million private sector contribution has been made to the Jubilee line.
      Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. MacGregor: I shall not give way.
      In order to get the initial feasibility study under way, Railtrack launched the west coast main line competition. More than 40 organisations responded and Railtrack has appointed the winner. That is the first stage of the project. It has created tremendous interest and it is going ahead.
      We are taking forward the second channel tunnel rail link and crossrail as joint ventures. I hope that the Private Bill Committee which is considering the Crossrail Bill will get through the House. It has the Government's full support. We can then get on with that project. We are moving fast on the competition to find a private sector promoter to design and build the second channel tunnel rail link and to operate the international services on it; 74 organisations have already responded and requested the pre-qualification documents. We shall move ahead with issuing the full tenders in June. Many other private finance projects are in the pipeline. Those projects also show where the Government's policies are working.
      I want to speak briefly about shipping. I agree with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras about the importance of shipping. We are pursuing five specific measures to assist the industry. I hope to announce them in greater detail more publicly but I shall outline them quickly now. First, I announced a package of measures to the House on 15 December. It was targeted specifically at the competitiveness of United Kingdom shipping and included new regulations which are now in force. The regulations simplify ship registration law and enable ships on bareboat charter to be brought on to the United Kingdom register for the first time.
      Secondly, I announced consultations on changes to the officer nationality requirements for United Kingdom vessels. Those changes should be in place by autumn. My announcement came shortly after the Baltic Exchange approached me with a proposal for a British open register. After carefully considering the proposal, I decided not to proceed with it for the present. I am worried about the impact that opening the new register would have on the existing United Kingdom shipping register. It would be better to assess the effectiveness of our new, much freer regime for the existing register over a reasonable period before considering whether to go further.
      1078
      The third measure is connected wi h the important subject of seafarer trading. The 15 December package included proposals to extend the financial assistance for that.
      Fourthly, we have made it clear on several occasions that it would not be in the best interests of the industry, the consumer or the taxpayer to offer blanket financial assistance to shipping. Nevertheless, we recognise that British shipping can be at a disadvantage when competing with foreign shipowners who benefit from various fiscal measures.
      As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, after careful consideration, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced today that he proposes to introduce a provision which will allow capital allowances, being balancing charges for ships, to be rolled over for up to three years: that is, roll-over relief. We estimate that the measure will benefit the shipping industry by up to £20 million per annum in a full year. Subject to our obligation to notify the Commission, my right hon. and learned Friend will introduce the necessary legislation in next year's Finance Bill with retrospective effect from today.
      The fifth important matter to which we have given close attention is substandard shipping. I have focused strongly on that matter since I became Secretary of State for Transport. We have encouraged the European Commission and the Council of Ministers to do likewise. I am delighted that we are making real progress on it in the European Union, where action on the subject has been positive.
      We welcome and support the International Maritime Organisation's efforts to improve flag state control and to ensure that all states apply and enforce the agreed international standards. However, until all states meet their international responsibilities, we shall have to concentrate on enhancing our own port state control measures. We inspect more than 30 per cent. of the foreign flag ships that visit our ports. Last year 6 per cent. of the 2,000 ships inspected—some 120 vessels—were detained.
      There will be a meeting of European Ministers later this year to discuss improvements to the regional port state control system. I have spent much time on the matter with European Union representatives because it is important for a variety of reasons. We shall work to bring all initiatives together in the coming months, to ensure that our actions and those of our international partners together increasingly deter substandard ships from using our waters and that those that continue to do so are identified, inspected and dealt with effectively.
      That five-point programme contains nearly all the points on which the shipping industry has urged us to take action and I am happy to announce them as a complete package.
      Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the British open register proposed by the Baltic Exchange, which I advise, was not designed to help not the British shipping industry but maritime London and its institutions, such as the Baltic, Lloyd's and so forth? I hope that my right hon. Friend does not rule out reconsidering that proposal.
      Mr. MacGregor: I said that I was prepared to review it after a time and I well understood that that was the point of the proposal. Having talked to many people about it, the evidence showing whether it would have such an effect

      1079
      was slim and it could have caused problems for the existing register. In addition, the changes that I announced in December could well meet some of the objectives of the Baltic Exchange proposal. We must therefore wait and see whether they have that effect. My hon. Friend will know that many people at the Chamber of Shipping were extremely doubtful about the proposal and worried about it. If the changes do not have the desired effect in wider areas we must consider the criticisms. I made it clear that I am prepared to review the situation, but we have considered the matter carefully.
      On aviation, we have been guided by privatisation of airlines and airports and liberalisation of aviation systems in the European Union and beyond. There can be no doubt that our privatisations of British Airways and the British Airports Authority had tremendously positive results. As a result, BA is one of the world's most profitable, successful and competitive airlines. At the Transport Council in Luxembourg this week one of my colleagues complimented us on what we did and clearly implied that he wished that his country had acted to restructure and privatise the aviation industry when we did that with British Airways; he recognises that we have realised the benefits.
      As for the BAA, there has been a much greater increase in investment than would have taken place if it had remained in the public sector and a sharpening-up of services for all those who use the BAA airports as a result of dynamic enterprise.
      On liberalisation, the United Kingdom has played a leading part in securing the third aviation package to open up the skies in Europe. It is important to ensure that that package is implemented in two ways: first to ensure that there are no transgressions of the package; secondly, to ensure that there are no unfair state aids, or that they are phased out as quickly as possible. I have spent much of my time during the past few months dealing with both, and that is a formidable task.
      We have secured that package, which has great benefits for all air passengers, and it is important that we continue on that course. I assure the House that I will be very vigilant about any transgressions of the third aviation package and will pursue them and the state aid question with the Commission and in the Council.
      On aviation and the United States-United Kingdom negotiations, we remain committed to liberalising transatlantic air services. We tabled a wide-ranging liberalisation offer last December. Liberalisation tends to be viewed differently in this country and in the United States. For the United States, increased access for its airlines to Heathrow is the important issue. For us, it is opening up the United States domestic market to access to other airlines so that competition can be fair. For that reason, we have emphasised the British Airways-United States air deal. Approval for that deal was one of our key objectives in the negotiations.
      I am very glad about another development—the recent proposed deal between Virgin and Delta, which involves closer co-operation in several areas, in particular code-sharing on Virgin's flights to Heathrow. We and the United States Administration are examining the proposal, which appears to show an increasing acceptance of the realities of capacity constraints at Heathrow. As I told the House, I very much regret the fact that the talks with the
      1080
      United States have stalled and I am trying to get them going again. The proposed deal between Virgin and Delta gives us another opportunity to do so.
      I shall be responding shortly to the Select Committee on Transport about regional airports. Under this Government such airports have prospered and expanded dramatically. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will also know that, in my proposals to the United States, I gave prominence—I put them right up front—to granting access to regional airports, because I understand the importance of that.
      Mr. Tony Banks: What about Stansted?
      Mr. MacGregor: As well as to Stansted. I am constantly trying to find out whether we can make a mini-deal that involves regional airports and Stansted, even if we cannot get the full deal quickly.
      I apologise for the fact that I have taken some time, but I have given way to—
      Mr. Foulkes rose—
      Mr. MacGregor: I have given way to many interventions and I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      My summary shows that we have a co-ordinated and coherent transport policy—a policy that depends on getting the infrastructure that we require for the 21st century; giving transport users the opportunity to respond to market forces; and enabling our industries to be among the most competitive, in some cases in the world and certainly in Europe—for example, the road haulage and coach industries.
      Mr. Dobson: What about the railways?
      Mr. MacGregor: And the railways. Under our reforms railways will be increasingly competitive. The taxpayer will not be burdened with the colossal burdens that German and French taxpayers have to bear because of their railways. Our policies are doing the same for aviation and shipping. We have many measures contained in a substantial programme. Our policy is full of measures—many radical—to ensure that we are up to date.
      We heard from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras about a transport policy that is rooted in the past. He pretends that the cost will be met by a significant increase in public expenditure. In the months ahead we will probe to find out how much his colleagues would support him to carry through the substantial extra investment that he was urging. We know that he cannot count on their support, which is why he is putting a bogus prospectus before us. That is why I totally reject the Opposition's transport policy, such as it is, and the motion.
      Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the opening part of the Secretary of State's speech, he said that he would say something about London Transport. I heard one general sentence about investment, but then he moved on. He did not speak about London Transport, so that was a dishonest statement.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already explained that the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for the contents of Members' speeches.
      Mr. Michael Bates: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter of procedure. Is it the case, as outlined in "Erskine May", that when a Member criticises another Member through an early-day motion and it can be proved that he or she knew that the criticism was inaccurate, under the Standing Orders the Speaker is vested with the power to amend the early-day motion or to insist that it be withdrawn?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I advise the hon. Member that if he has a grievance he should discuss it with the Clerks at the Table.
      Mr. Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: There are no further points of order on that subject. If the hon. Gentleman has a different point of order I will hear it.
      Mr. Heald: Page 325 of "Erskine May" deals with early-day motions and makes it clear that a matter concerning the conduct of an hon. Member can be dealt with only through a substantive motion, which allows for a distinct decision of the House. In the early-day motion in question—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have issued guidance on that matter and I expect hon. Members to take it.
      As many hon. Members have said that they want to speak and Madam Speaker has already announced a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm, unless hon. Members exercise considerable self-restraint before that time, many Members will be disappointed this evening.
      5.49 pm
      Ms Kate Hoey: I am delighted to be called so early—what have I done to deserve it?
      I want to say a little about an aspect of transport in London that has not been mentioned today—the use of the River Thames and river transport. London has one of the widest highways in Britain—a highway which is extremely under-used for freight and passenger transport, as becomes apparent when we consider the ways in which other European cities with equally important rivers make use of their rivers.
      The Minister for Transport in London, whom I am pleased to see sitting here today, announced in 1992 a new working group to encourage freight and passenger traffic to use the Thames. I welcomed that announcement, as I welcomed the subsequent work of the group, and since then he and I have entered into some conversations about certain aspects of river usage and we had a meeting about the subject. I know that the group has received many responses to its consultation exercise.
      It is disappointing that there was not one mention in the Secretary of State's speech today about the river, the initiative and its progress. When the Minister replies to the debate, he should say what is happening to the working group. It seems that since the launch of the initiative very little has happened and there has been very little progress.
      Following the launch of the working group, one of the first things that happened was that the river bus service in London collapsed—I am sure that it was nothing to do with the setting up of the working group. That was disappointing because the river bus was just beginning to
      1082
      turn around and to attract passengers and to work up to being a reliable and regular service and it was greatly of use not only for commuters but for tourists and for people who wanted to travel in and through London without using the roads.
      If we consider freight transport, about 23 million road miles are saved by the Thames barges that take away our domestic rubbish. Cereals, sugar, paper, steel, wood, oil products and even coal are still brought into London by river. Although I am sure that everyone, including the Minister, would wish that that traffic could be doubled, why do not the Government more seriously consider measures to bring that about? The Government are not adverse to dictating which heavy goods vehicles can use which roads at which times. Surely the logical extension of that would be to integrate those considerations with alternative options for use of the Thames.
      The problem is that the Government's approach to the Thames is a mass of contrasts. There is no overall co-ordination. Although there may be some commitment to getting the Thames used more, the enthusiasm among some of the Ministers has not been passed on to the Department and some of the agencies involved.
      There is a great contrast between what happens in London and what happens in other major river-based cities. I know of an example of a firm with headquarters in Bombay, which wanted to find a place along the river front here to import rice. The firm was considering three areas in the Greenwich part of the river. One site in which it was interested was owned by British Gas, which wanted a huge amount for it—between £400,000 and £500,000 per acre. That meant that it was out of the question. The firm immediately went to Rotterdam, obtained support, received help from the Government and was able to locate there.
      Surely we should be able to make it more attractive for companies to set up operations here. A grant is available to attract businesses such as the one that I have just mentioned, but in that case the process took six months from when the firm first applied and it had to negotiate so many different bits of bureaucracy that, by the time that it got anywhere near the end, it had already been offered the base in Rotterdam. Therefore, we lost another opportunity to bring the river more into use.
      Let us consider commuter and passenger transport. Let us remember—it is worth remembering—that in 1905 the former London county council set up a river steamboat service for commuters travelling between Greenwich and Westminster. In 1906, it carried about 3 million passengers. Sadly, the service was closed, but in 1948 a new service was established between Kew and Greenwich. At its height, before closing in 1962, it still carried 2.25 million passengers a year.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Who closed it?
      Ms Hoey: Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene?
      Mr. Banks: Yes, I do. I was hoping that my hon. Friend would complete the story, because that successful river bus service was closed down by the newly elected Conservatives on the Greater London council.
      Ms Hoey: My hon. Friend is always very clear and he is quite right in this case.
      The London river bus service could have continued operating if more support had been given by the

      1083
      Government. Subsequent ventures in 1963, 1972, 1973, 1974 and the most recent river bus partnership all suffered similar fates, due in large part to financial constraints, a matter which I want to discuss. The start-up costs for such new businesses are prohibitive and the running costs can prove crippling.
      I know that the Minister knows that I am not an opponent of the private sector being used properly to get new initiatives going, but I hope that the Government will accept the basic principle that that form of public transport on the river should receive equal consideration for public subsidy with rail, London Underground and bus services. The river bus failed because it did not receive even the basic subsidy. The travel pass could not be used on the river bus so people who used the London underground and the bus could not simply convert to the river. Overall, no one was responsible for promoting the river as an asset.
      Lady Olga Maitland rose—
      Ms Hoey: I will not give way. I think that the hon. Lady wants to make a speech, as does every hon. Member. I will carry on.
      River-borne transportation has definite environmental advantages. One million tonnes of London's rubbish shipped from Wandsworth and the City of London by river to Thurrock takes 4.2 million lorry miles off London roads. No transport network is better placed to deliver the construction materials to developments in the east Thames corridor or to remove construction debris in an environmentally friendly manner than that on the Thames. We should do more. It is a question not only of resources and of sustained effort. It is important that there is co-ordination but, most important of all, there must be some faith, some conviction and some will.
      As a result of the way in which the responsibility for the river is fragmented between the Port of London authority and various organisations, no one has overall responsibility. That brings me back to the fact that, from whatever angle one considers transport in London, one cannot fail to recognise that London still suffers from the lack of a strategic authority. Economic regeneration, business development, commuter transport, tourism and leisure, the environment, planning permission and even policing are all handled by diverse agencies or are simply not handled.
      Although many organisations do their best to promote the river, the London Rivers Association produced a wonderful document called "The Working Thames: an Agenda for Action". Every single bit of that document, if adopted by the Government, could get our river used, and not only for transport and freight. With the right use of imagination, we could do that.
      Finally, I pay tribute to the work of the Thames river police because they play a tremendous role in policing the river. Members might not be aware, or may have noticed, that as a result of the continued security alerts, which we are now so used to, a good proportion of the available personnel is occupied on the river round this area at any given moment and there are always river police there. Could extra resources be given to the river police for their additional work?
      The widest highway in Britain runs through the centre of its capital—never mind the proposed 14-lane M25 motorway—and it is virtually traffic-free. That is crazy,
      1084
      and the Government should do much more to get people to use the river and give everyone an opportunity to travel as they wish—in a pleasant manner on the river.
      5.59 pm
      Sir Geoffrey Pattie: It is important that, in a debate on transport, something is said about motorway development. I shall make my points as briefly as possible because many other hon. Members want to speak.
      I declare an interest as a car driver and frequent user of motorways, so I am not anti-motorway or anti-motor car. I recognise that congestion occurs and must be dealt with. Many hon. Members have cherished projects for bypass schemes in towns and villages throughout the country and they have often been successful in relieving congestion. I wish all those hon. Members success in their projects.
      My constituency, however, already has the benefit of the M25, which is expanding to two four-lane highways, making it an eight-lane motorway. The Department of Transport plans shortly to extent it further to 14 lanes. Although many of my constituents have written and, in the next few weeks, will write again in their thousands to the Department of Transport to express their views on those proposals, it is not just a local issue. Obviously, it is a local issue for those whose houses will disappear but the national question is whether our motorway provision should head in that direction.
      Clearly, nobody wants a motorway at the bottom of his or her garden, whether it is a six, eight or 14-lane motorway. However, I have been impressed in recent weeks by the number of people who have written to me from all over the country, who are not directly impacted by the loss of property or by noise. Naturally, I do not knock people who complain about those matters, but there is now a widespread feeling of unease, and a belief that we should not go in the general direction in which uch a proposal takes us.
      The Department of the Environment's "UK Sustainability" report says:
      "If people continue to exercise their choices as they are at present and there are no other significant changes, the resulting traffic growth would have unacceptable consequences for both the environment and the economy, and could be very difficult to reconcile with overall sustainable development goals."
      The Government realise that their problem is how to reconcile people's ability to move around with their desire for peaceful environment and a sensible quality of life. When we leave this place tonight, we shall all want to jump into our cars and use the motorways but, with our other hats on, we do not want to destroy the countryside in the process.
      Germany has a more sensible approach. Germans have greater car ownership than people in the United Kingdom, but they use their cars less. They appear to have found a way of providing and costing transport opportunities so that people can work out a better and more sensible way to get around.
      The fundamental point, which the Department of Transport has not yet conceded although it understands it well enough, is that new provision always attracts more cars to take it up. That has been proved time and again, and the M25 is a good example. It was conceived as an orbital road around London to take traffic from the Channel ports away from London and it has worked well in that sense. It was not realised that people would take jobs at

      1085
      extraordinary distances. We have all met people who work in Guildford but live in amazing places like Braintree—[Interruption.] Whichever town one chooses, the journey would have been unachievable before the motorway was constructed.
      Many people are now tempted to drive, so more traffic is dragged in. That major question must be considered for the future. The 14-lane link road proposal will work in exactly the same way. If it is built—I hope that it is not —we shall have traffic jams on it in 2006, or whenever it may be.
      On 24 January, Runnymede borough council, which is responsible for the area in which the first widening scheme will take place, produced a package of alternative proposals. I shall not go through it in detail, but it includes such proposals as high occupancy vehicle lanes, certain elements of road pricing, speed cameras, speed controls and better junction and carriage way management. All those measures are, to an extent, palliatives but the Department is trying them in various places.
      The high occupancy vehicle lane proposals have been used in the United States and Holland. Will the Department recognise, if not in this debate then soon, please, that it should not automatically assume that the only way to meet congestion is by laying more concrete, although it may be right to do so in many cases? If the Minister says in winding up that that is the right approach, I shall be delighted. People outside have the clear impression that it is not how the Department deals with the problem.
      I hope that, when the public inquiry takes place into the widening of the M25, Runnymede borough council's proposals will be properly assessed and sanity will then prevail. Those measures are worth trying before one indulges in the colossal environmental damage of laying more concrete and I hope that that will be the outcome of the public inquiry. It is a long time to wait but I am prepared to have a side bet with the Secretary of State that the achievement of the proposals will never see the light of day.
      6.7 pm
      Mr. Nick Harvey: I, too, welcome an opportunity to debate the issue but regret that it has not been in Government time. In the two years that I have been in the House, the Government have not provided time for a comprehensive debate on transport issues across the board because, while they undoubtedly have some piecemeal transport policies, they lack an overall vision or objective for the transport sector as a whole.
      I wish that the Government had issued a Green Paper or White Paper on their transport policy, as that could have lead to debate in the nation and in the House, but they resisted the opportunity to explain their overall transport policy. During the passage of the Railways Bill, the point was made that Britain was the only European country not to have an overall railways policy. The Government resisted any effort to develop one, saying that they did not want some glossy document. Whenever somebody tried to move amendments to broaden the terms of reference of the Secretary of State, the Rail Regulator or the Franchising Director to look at the overall part which the railways should play in our society, environment or economy, they were resisted by the Government.
      I am not suggesting that the Government can do everything in the transport sector, but they should be
      1086
      willing to lead, to take the initiative, to plan ahead and, crucially, to set targets and stimulate investment. Public investment and private enterprise in tandem can deliver what the public want. The theme should be that of enabling and giving people the tools, opportunities and support to make the most of their life and enjoy the best possible standard of living. All we seem to get from the Government is blind worship of the unfettered market and an over-enthusiastic devotion to road building. The market, unaided, cannot deliver a transport network.
      I shall suggest some long-term targets that could be set for road development, rail and bus services, as well as suggesting how they might be financed. Nothing so typifies the Government's approach to our railways as the saga of the channel tunnel high-speed link. Seven years after the deal was struck and the plans made, we are effectively back to square one. Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been wasted on options that have subsequently been discarded.
      I accept that the interests of communities alongside any of the proposed routes should rightly and properly have been looked at in great detail, but the country that led the world in steam locomotion has only just reached the point of agreeing a route. The fact that the link will not be open and running until the year 2002 at the earliest is not so much a disappointment as a disgrace.
      During the privatisation debate the Government offered only the fond belief that the private sector would modernise and make good the years of under-investment in the railways. All the marketing skill in the world will not make an inherently expensive service attractive to the private sector. Evidence of that can be seen in the excessively high charges that Railtrack is to charge any company wanting to come on to the rail network.
      The Government should set a target—I would suggest doubling the number of rail passengers in the next 10 years. Another objective could be to double the amount of long-distance freight haul at the same time. To achieve that, we need a national network of road-to-rail depots. For a relative pittance—by comparison with the money going into the roads programme—it would be possible to reconnect every town with a population of 23,000 or more to the rail network.
      Setting such targets would set the scene to boost investment. They would prove the Government's commitment to the environment and quality of life.
      Mr. Gary Streeter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Harvey: No, I shall not give way as Madam Speaker has urged everyone to keep their remarks short and I intend to stick to her guidance.
      The Government remain firmly committed to a policy of building more roads. The Department of Transport has finally recognised that more roads will lead to more traffic. The big challenge confronting us is the projected doubling in road traffic by the year 2025.
      Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Harvey: I shall not give way.
      Towns are congested and the growing evidence of pollution leading to asthma and other health problems presents us with a challenge that we must meet. We must develop a response. Should we simply pander to the fact

      1087
      that traffic is set to double or should we say that enough is enough and we must put a stop to the increase in traffic? One does not have to be anti-car or anti-road to regard the figures as unsustainable and to say that the decisions that we make now will determine whether we reach that statistic by the year 2025.
      We should freeze the motorway widening programme and conduct a comprehensive review of the roads programme. We should proceed with roads only where there is no public sector transport alternative. We need a switch of the funds that would otherwise go into road-widening programmes.
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Harvey: No, for the reason that I have given, I shall not give way.
      We need to switch some funds from the roads programme into public transport. If Liberal Democrats from around the country write to the Minister for Roads and Traffic asking for 14-lane motorways in their constituency or for road programmes where the Department of Transport is willing to fund a public transport alternative, I hope that the Department will write back reminding the authors of the letters of Liberal Democrat policy. If the Department cares to let me know about such letters, I shall gladly do the same.
      The Secretary of State mentioned the possible congestion on our motorways in 10 years. If the Government are willing to freeze the motorway programme and switch the money to public transport alternatives, I shall happily return in 10 years and have that debate with them. If they will not, we should return in future to consider the growth in car usage figu es. That is the challenge that, together, we must face.
      I do not believe that the Government have carried out a comprehensive review of the roads programme. I think that they have had a change of heart on one or two schemes because Conservative Members such as the right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) have made clear how unacceptable the road programme is to their constituents, once the implications of it at a more local level are understood.
      The Government have been rattled by seeing protests on their television screens, not from the sort of people whom they are accustomed to seeing protesting but from retired military folk of the country districts who are traditionally Conservative voters. The time has come to say that enough is enough. The Government should listen to the views of the Confederation of British Industry, the business community and the private sector in general, all of whom are urging that public transport should be improved.
      Buses are the most cost-effective and flexible, the cheapest and quickest way to improve public transport. The contrast between the state of the bus service in London and that in the rest of the country proves what a disaster has been the total deregulation of buses in the countryside. Passenger journeys have gone down—in Wales by 18 per cent., in Scotland by 15 per cent. and in shire England by 16 per cent. But in London, where there is still some strategic planning and a passenger authority effectively buying services on behalf of the travelling passenger, there has been a rise in passenger journeys of 10 per cent. When
      1088
      we allow liberalisation, but within a regulated framework, we see a model for successful bus services throughout the country. At the same time, costs have been driven down by 30 per cent.
      Instead, in the countryside there is a free market hotch-potch of jumbled journeys. A sensible objective to map out in the bus industry would be to return to 1985 levels of usage by the end of the century. The Government should establish targets for a comprehensive bus priority system in every town, for grants to modernise the bus fleets, for increased revenue support grants for comprehensive service networks in every area—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about finance?"] I am coming to the question of finance. There should be modern information systems and user-friendly terminals throughout.
      I wish to mention the light rapid transit system. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred specifically to the city of Sheffield. He knows as well as I do that everyone in local government is restricted by the financial straitjacket imposed by central Government. The Liberal Democrats in Sheffield are, of course, committed to public transport, but they are also committed to every other public service. They have to battle for their financial priorities within the straitjacket imposed by central Government. I find it as surprising as it is disappointing that the Labour Front-Bench team hide behind the Tories' handling of local government finance to score a political point.
      As Conservative Members have been saying, the policies to which I have referred cost money. I recognise that the transport budget has grown. Whichever party holds office in the next few years, pots of public money will not be available to spend on public transport. We clearly need private money to be invested—but the market alone will not deliver it. The Government say that they regard privatisation as freeing British Rail and the new operators from the dead hand of the Treasury. The point has to be made that the Government make Treasury rules—they are not made by act of God.
      Although the Secretary of State tried to score a point at the expense of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras by referring to his suggestion for the new Northern line train system as an accounting device, I rather agreed with the Secretary of State that there should be some transfer of risk. But even the accounting device which he accused the hon. Gentleman of using would be better than absolutely nothing at all.
      The Government should look at the way in which other countries are financing their public transport. I think that they will see some obvious solutions to the financial conundrum in which we find ourselves. I have already referred to some possible solutions, such as switching money from the road programme and using revenue from road pricing. The Government should explain exactly where the revenue from road pricing will go. They should examine some models from abroad, as they would find that there are policy alternatives.
      For example, in America bonds are frequently issued for infrastructure projects. In San Francisco a business rate supplement to be used for transport improvement was widely accepted by the business community. In France there is a generally accepted payroll tax for the improvement of urban public transport. Sir Alistair Morton, the chairman of Eurotunnel, has called for the establishment of a transport investment fund to be paid for by a pollution tax.

      1089
      Of course, there is still the relatively unexplored area of taxation hypothecation. The public might be prepared to pay more if they were convinced that as a result there would be an improvement in public transport networks.
      The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The hon. Gentleman is in important territory, although he is meandering a little in getting there. Given that the most popular routes in London, according to passengers, are those operated on tendered routes by private companies and given that the most obvious way of injecting private capital into bus services is to sell the nationalised bus companies—which are an anachronism, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman acknowledges—do I take it that the Liberal Democrats support the privatisation of the London bus subsidiaries?
      Mr. Harvey: I am happy to confirm that the Liberal Democrats would support the privatisation of the London bus subsidiaries.
      Mr. Snape: Unless it proves to be unpopular.
      Mr. Harvey: Bus deregulation has been the cause of the disaster; without that, the question of who owns the buses is of much lesser importance.
      Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Harvey: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench but, on the basis of what Madam Speaker has said, I will not give way now.
      We need a public transport system that is clean, reliable, safe and cheap. For all the Government's big schemes and for all the fun that they have had announcing again and again that some of them would go ahead, absolutely nothing has happened. The picks and shovels lie dormant. There is no movement, there are no jobs and nothing is being put in place for the future.
      The market cannot deliver unaided the transport network that we need. The Government need to have an overall vision and plan. A combination of public investment and private enterprise could build a network that would be the envy of Europe and a pleasure to use.
      6.22 pm
      Mr. Bob Dunn: I listened with some incredulity to the speech by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and I will pick up one point he made. He said that all towns with a population in excess of 23,000 should have the right to be linked automatically to the national mainline railway route.
      Mr. Harvey: It could be done.
      Mr. Dunn: Is that the hon. Gentleman's policy or is it the policy of his party? In this place, we are used to hearing Liberal Members of Parliament making statements which are then denied by the party.
      Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many towns in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland with populations in excess of 23,000 would have to be connected automatically to the main line? What would happen if a town with a population in excess of 23,000 which did not enjoy a connection to the main route was surrounded by an area of outstanding natural beauty, such as the Peak district, parts of Yorkshire, or parts of East Anglia, which are represented by my colleagues on this
      1090
      side of the House? Would the link go through irrespective of the wishes of the local people, if population were the only trigger?
      I think that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was right when he said that it would happen unless it proved to be unpopular. It will be a very expensive proposition, not only in financial terms but in terms of the environment, public accountability and democracy, but the point is that it is the official policy of the Liberal party.
      The Liberal party is also in favour of an energy tax, which would increase the price of petrol. Petrol charges are important for a variety of reasons well known to us all. The rural dweller—perhaps someone from north Devon—needs a motor car perhaps more than the urban dweller, who has easier access to shops, schools and places of leisure. But the policy of the Liberal party is to increase the energy tax, and therefore increase the cost of motoring for the country dweller. The Labour party spokesman, who is no longer in the Chamber, declared his personal interest in transport.
      Mr. Streeter: Before my hon. Friend moves from the contribution of the hon. Member for North Devon, is he aware that the hon. Member not only would trample on his constituents by introducing an energy tax which would increase their fuel costs, but also has called for the closure of major road programmes—despite the fact that north Devon has benefited from the north Devon link road, which has brought untold inward investment to his constituency? Is that not a double standard?
      Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right. We are sick and tired of Liberal spokesmen, of whatever level, saying one thing in this place and another thing back home; one thing in the council chamber and another thing in a different village; and one thing in one street and something different in the next street. The policy of the Liberal Democrats is "all things to all men".
      Mr. Waterson: Will my hon. Friend comment on a document that was recently released by the East Sussex county council, which is currently controlled by a Lib-Lab pact? The document is entitled "Time is Short", and has the temerity to criticise the Government over the slowness of their trunk road improvement programme in East Sussex.
      Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend makes a very valid point, to which I am sure he will return when he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, later in the debate.
      The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) rightly and properly declared an interest in the debate. He said that he is a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, and was proud to be a member, as were his father and grandfather before him.
      We know that the Labour party represents the monopoly interest—the supplier/provider interest. I, too, want to declare an interest: I declare that I represent the people of Dartford, and I represent the commuters of Dartford who have suffered at the hands of monopoly providers for decades. My constituents, along with those of many of my colleagues, look forward to the full impact of the Government's privatisation policies in breaking the monopoly control over transport.
      I have looked forward to debating the motion proposed by the official Opposition on their Supply day, but when the shadow Cabinet meet to discuss their success or

      1091
      otherwise in today's debate, they will have to consider it a failure. There are 39 words in the Opposition's motion, but it says nothing. The speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras also said nothing. The motion says nothing, it does nothing and, quite frankly, it is nothing.
      I turn to a number of aspects of Government policy. Over the years, we have seen the effect of massive liberalisation on a number of transport institutions. One example is the port of Felixstowe, which was set free in 1988 and has gone from success to success since then. In 1967 the number of fixed container units moved through Felixstowe was 18,522. By 1993, the figure had increased out of all recognition, to 1,137,947. The success of the port continues.
      I ask the Government, however, to ensure, in the Council of Ministers, that the unfair subsidies that European port authorities receive are terminated. In Rotterdam, about $28 billion of public money is to be spent on infrastructure, plus $4 billion or $5 billion of private money. That is an unfair, unwarranted and probably illegal subsidy—yet all the advances that are to be made at Felixstowe will be financed by the port itself. There are a number of other successful examples across the UK.
      I should like to remind the Minister of the success of the Dartford river crossing. Some time ago, legislation was introduced to this House to allow the private sector to develop, build, run and finance the Queen Elizabeth II bridge. Since it was opened, the bridge has been a huge success for Greater London and the home counties. The project was completed and opened on time and within budget, to the benefit of the road and commercial users of the south-east.
      Equally, the success of the Government's policy of introducing Networker trains on the Kent lines is proving of immeasurable benefit to the people I represent. As more and more Networker trains are introduced across the southern region, many of our constituents who have had to suffer a poor and unreliable service for many years will benefit.
      I want to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), who referred to the need for a new Greater London council. I believe that it is now the official policy of the Labour party that such a council should be set up again. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are behind the times, Bob."] Well, it was announced in the newspaper today, as part of Labour's London election campaign, that the Leader of the Opposition now backs such a council.
      Lady Olga Maitland: What will it cost?
      Mr. Dunn: Not only that: what will it do? When I was a Minister in the Department of Education and Science I was involved in the abolition of the GLC, and I personally abolished the Inner London education authority. [Interruption.] These events took place a long time ago; let us just say that there was a difference of opinion—and I am still here.
      I should like to ask the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) some questions which be may answer when he winds up the debate. He is a courteous and well informed man, if philosophically wrong, but I am sure that he will do his best to answer my questions.
      1092
      What will a new GLC cost; what will it do; and, significantly for the people of Kent, where will its boundaries be? We all know that the old GLC boundaries extended to Bexley, and Kent extended from Dartford thereafter—
      Mr. Terry Lewis: Why does not the hon. Gentleman talk about transport?
      Mr. Dunn: I am talking about it in the context of the GLC, which would be a transport body, and I want to know about the boundaries. Will they come down at the M25, meaning that half my constituency will be under the GLC and the other half not? Will it extend further, to Maidstone; or will there be a super new regional authority, ending at Boulogne? I should like answers to these questions.
      To return to the Liberal party: I am sorry for the hon. Member for North Devon, who has had to be here alone all day today—
      Lady Olga Maitland: Where are they all?
      Mr. Dunn: Perhaps it is indelicate to ask. The truth is that the Liberal party is becoming a hokey-cokey party. I am sure we all remember the old children's game: "Put your right arm in, your right arm out; in, out, in, out, shake it all about. You do the hokey cokey and you turn around: that's what it's all about." Or perhaps the Liberals are the zig-zag party—they seem to have different ideas on each succeeding day.
      The hon. Member for Holborn and St.Pancras—to return to the Labour party—talked about the problem of car congestion in London. As with much of the rest of his speech, he defined some problems, made some rhetorical statements and huffed and puffed in the way we know, love and have to cope with, but he did not tell us what the Labour party is going to do about the problem—he made no suggestions about what the Government should do to ease car congestion.
      There are, of course, many ideas—park-and-ride facilities, enhancing public transport, perhaps making better use of the Thames, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall rightly suggested. But what would Labour actually do, given its contempt for red routes and other useful measures that are already in full force? The answer is that Labour Members want to tax the motorist.
      Interestingly, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras mentioned a number of by-election constituencies, but he failed to mention Dagenham. Why? Because the policies of the Labour party do not sit well in Dagenham, because Dagenham is the centre of the Ford Motor Company. The workers in Dagenham do not want to hear about policies that would affect the sale and manufacture of motor cars, because they would mean fewer jobs.
      Mr. Nick Raynsford: I shall answer some of the hon. Gentleman's questions later, but to help him out of his suspense and agony, I had better put him right on one thing now. The Labour party will be fighting a number of by-elections in the seats of hon. Members who have died. We do not regard a significant number of them as contests into which we need to put an enormous amount of effort, because they are Labour-held seats. We are, however, putting an enormous amount of effort into Eastleigh, and we intend to win it.
      Mr. Dunn: I look forward to getting my answers later. The point of an Opposition Supply day, surely, is to

      1093
      highlight what they perceive as weaknesses in Government policy and to give the Opposition a chance to set out their own wares. They have singularly failed to do the latter today.
      Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I might, however, go on—I should like to end on a constituency note. The Minister knows that both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) are extremely attached to the need for a new international station at Ebbsfleet. It would have an enormous impact on the region that I represent. It would regenerate rundown areas and provide opportunities for commuters from west Kent to enter London more conveniently. I hope that it will not be too long before we have a response to the Minister's undertaking of a while ago that he will announce which of the sites he intends to endorse for the international railway station.
      I have been disappointed with the quality of the speeches by Opposition Members this evening—we have learnt little from them, but that is hardly surprising. Our policies are working in transport as elsewhere, and I commend them to the House.
      6.39 pm
      Mr. Terry Lewis: It will come as no surprise to Ministers that I shall confine my remarks to the M62 bypass, which was proposed a long time ago. I also want to draw attention to the duplicity of Ministers and officials in the way the whole affair has been conducted so far.
      It started life as the Greater Manchester western and northern relief route, which appeared first in the 1989 White Paper which, as most White Papers do, first saw the light of day at the end of July, just before the summer recess. It was not until the end of that year that I had time to have a close look at the White Paper, and realised that my constituency and neighbouring constituencies in the trans-Pennine corridor would be afflicted with yet another motorway.
      It was always going to be a major motorway development—in fact, a new motorway—but the duplicity of Ministers came about when, piecemeal, they dripped out three stages of different motorways, which were to become one big motorway. They talked about the A580 bypass, which was to be phase 1, the M56-M62 relief road, which was phase 2, and the M62-M66 relief road, which was phase 3. Taken together, the three phases meant one huge new motorway where one already exists.
      A subsequent Minister promised that the whole project would be put together and not be in three parts, following pressure from myself and other hon. Members. The Government subsequently reneged on that promise, and we were left with two sections of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief route to be taken together.
      Ministers argued throughout that the route from the M6 to the M66 was vital. However, when the second part of the route was treated separately—this is where Ministers made fools of themselves—it was dropped, ostensibly because there were 6,000 objections. The original concept had gone, so they had to find a new title for what has turned out to be a 14-lane highway through the village of Worsley in my constituency and through the constituencies of other hon. Members, resulting in the destruction of about 500 houses and blight on properties throughout the Greater Manchester conurbation.
      1094
      What sticks in my craw about the whole business is that Ministers and Departments do not seem to talk to each other. The whole justification for a 14-lane highway going through a picturesque village is that the Department of Transport insists that there will be 140 per cent. growth in road traffic between now and 2010. Contributing to that growth, the same Ministers have granted permission for a sub-regional shopping centre at Dumplington, which is three miles south of junction 13 of the M62, with 14,000 car parking places.
      Even Ministers in this Government will realise that, if there are 14,000 parking spaces, silly people will drive cars to park on them, and then they will go back again. It is my contention, and that of anybody who uses the roads in the area, that the current congestion is caused not by commuter traffic from Hull to Liverpool or by people using the motorway to get to Manchester airport; it is local commuter traffic.
      I drive 35,000 to 40,000 miles a year. I use the motorways, but most of my journeys are short hops from one part of my constituency to another, or to go shopping locally in adjoining towns. Local traffic causes the problem. The Government and Ministers are increasing the problem by allowing the Manchester Ship Canal Company, which happens to fist money to the Tory party, to build a sub-regional shopping centre that nobody wants —not local authorities or the people who inhabit the area.
      In addition, three miles north, the same Manchester Ship Canal Company, through a subsidiary, plans to build two 18-hole golf courses to replicate the Belfry in the midlands, with international golf tournaments that would draw people in from all over the world.
      The proposed 14-lane highway will need to be a 20-lane highway before I retire—I am absolutely sure of that. Those are the inconsistencies. The planning system has gone mad when Ministers cannot recognise that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy to say there will be a sufficient increase in traffic in the area to justify the building of a 14-lane highway.
      On the question of the amenities in the area which would be devastated by the building of such a highway, let us talk briefly about pollution. It is my view, corroborated by people who know more about these things than I do, that European limits on pollution are already exceeded by the traffic on the M62.
      There are already enormous asthma problems. At one school alongside the existing motorway, the incidence of asthma far exceeds that which one would expect in an inner-city school. I am talking about what is by and large a country area. It would be irresponsible in the extreme for Ministers to ignore that.
      I should like to pay tribute to Salford city council, which, despite the fact that it has been crucified by the Government in terms of what it can spend ratepayers' money on, recently invested in a very expensive laboratory system which matches any monitoring and analysis carried out by the Department of Transport. If it comes to a public inquiry, I can assure Ministers that the weight of evidence that will be produced on pollution will be at least as powerful as anything the Department of Transport can produce.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that pollution is not the only danger? A recent road check of vehicles carrying hazardous materials on the M62 revealed

      1095
      that 60 per cent. of the vehicles were breaking the law, and one was carrying 22 tonnes of explosive ammonium nitrate.
      Mr. Lewis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I was about to mention some of the difficulties that I have experienced in following those loads on the M62. That takes me nicely on to the other problem of congestion in the Irwell valley.
      When the vehicles to which my hon. Friend referred reach the Irwell valley, congestion is caused as soon as they get onto the gradient. It is no good talking about crawler lanes, as there are far too many vehicles to be accommodated in that way. As soon as they get onto the gradient, everything else is backed up behind them. What is the solution—another six lanes on the same gradient? Instead of having eight lanes with heavy vehicles causing back-ups, the same problem will be replicated in another six lanes.
      The cost of all that is £29 million a mile. According to Ministers, 11 miles of motorway will solve all the problems of congestion on the M62. It is a pity that the Secretary of State is no longer in the Chamber. He asked where the money would come from for Labour party policies. The answer is simple. I will save the Minister £320 million now—mind you, I would not mind giving lengthy odds that it will be very much more than £320 million before it is actually built, if it ever is built.
      If that £320 million were spent on other projects to take people such as me off the motorway, it would be money far more sensibly spent. That is the debate we want, but that is the debate that Ministers are avoiding, and they do so by using the rhetoric that the Secretary of State used this afternoon.
      Let me talk about one of the alternatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned the Manchester metrolink. In its first year, that saved 1.5 million car journeys from Bury and Altrincham into Manchester—two of the main commuter routes to Manchester from the surrounding towns. Those people left their cars in Bury and Altrincham. Their wives or husbands took them to the station and they travelled to work and back on the metrolink.
      If the Minister wants proof of that, I invite him to go to the multi-storey car park at the Chorlton street bus station, where three years ago one did not even look for a space but drove straight up the ramp to the top because it was full. If one goes now at any time during the day, one can park on the second floor; that is because people have chosen to leave their cars at home.
      Local bypasses are a good idea. The Irlam bypass, the second phase of which has again been stalled by the Government, could easily, for an insubstantial amount of money, result in fewer journeys.
      As I have said, a section of the Government's intended road was dropped because of the weight of objections. Answers to questions that I have tabled in the past week reveal that the scheme has attracted the second highest number of objections of any scheme at any time in the country. The M6-M1 link in Yorkshire attracted the most, and this one has attracted no fewer than 18,500 objections to date.
      In addition, well-established organisations oppose the scheme, including Residents Against the Motorway in my
      1096
      constituency, which has objected to it for four years, even before its details were known, because we knew that its effects would be devastating. I suspect that Ministers will not have proper regard to those, as they have been so determined all along, come what may, to develop the arguments in favour of the road.
      The failures in Conservative transport policy are manifest in our area. The deregulation of buses has clearly put more people into cars on the road. The Government have failed to recognise the merits of metrolink, and the need to extend metrolink to other towns in the area such as Bolton, Wigan, Leigh and Salford should be taken on board, but I cannot see Ministers doing that.
      Those failures have been manifest during the past few weeks, when the Conservative party has found it difficult to raise a candidate in the safest Conservative ward in the whole of Salford, which happens to be in my constituency. It was only two days before the election that one was found. I can see that you are getting restless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall stay on the point.
      That may have been because Conservative activists do not need to be elected these days; they simply have to be appointed to quangos. But the Government's problems in Salford have more to do with their loony transport policies and the threat to put a 14-lane highway through what still remains a picturesque part of the Greater Manchester conurbation.
      I urge Ministers to rethink. Do not let us have to go through the trauma of a public inquiry. The road is not wanted, the weight of opinion is against it, and if Ministers were democrats, they would drop the scheme now.
      6.54 pm
      Sir Peter Fry: I hope that the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) will not mind if I do not follow him through the intricacies of the M62. In the time available we should consider the wider transport issues.
      I welcome the Opposition's choice of subject today, but I do not welcome much that has come from the Opposition Front or Back Benches. It is incredible that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) could table a motion for a debate on transport and speak for about 40 minutes without mentioning the means of transport used by an overwhelming number of people in Britain—the motor car. It is incredible and alarming.
      At least the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) was honest about the Liberal Democrats being anti-car. I suspect that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is equally anti-car, but perhaps he is not quite so naive as the Liberal Democrats and intends to keep that fact well away from the electors during the next few weeks.
      The Opposition's motion does not deserve much consideration. One need only consider transport as a whole to realise the enormous advances that have been made in recent years. For example, we should be proud that our airlines receive no subsidy. British Airways is a much smaller airline than the three great airlines in the United States, yet it can compete and cause the American airlines considerable problems, as a result of which, fares across the Atlantic are probably the lowest that they have ever been in real terms. Many of our fellow members of the European Union would be glad if they could say that their airlines did not need any further Government subsidy.
      I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, where the red routes have been

      1097
      highly successful in speeding up traffic and reducing emissions, and they have been a great advantage to the travelling public. With regard to the channel tunnel, let us not underestimate the importance and significance of the fact that we have been able to finance the one great civil engineering project of the end of the 20th century without the expenditure of public money. That is very much to the credit of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      Let us not forget the great movement for those people who are - not so well off. It was the Government who revolutionised coach traffic in Britain, enabling people with modest means to travel much further much more often and much more reasonably than ever before. Despite the fact that the number of bus passengers has dropped, more route miles are being served now and the public has a better service than it has had for many years in many parts of the country.
      Another delight of the Opposition is the light rail system, and the Government deserve credit for the start of light rail systems in certain cities. But above all, the Government have recognised that the British people have voted not with their feet but with their steering wheels. They want to use their motor cars. It is the Government who say that we must live with the motor car. Our policies are designed so that the British people have the choice. But we are taking action on matters such as the use of lead in petrol, exhaust emissions and ways in which to control rather than prevent the undue use of the motor car.
      Over the years I have made a number of contributions to these debates. During that time I have seen many Secretaries of State for Transport and Opposition spokesmen, and I have put forward one or two ideas which I have been rather surprised and pleased to see accepted.
      For example, I suggested many years ago, first, that we divide the operation of the rail track from the running of services. I am delighted that that is now Government policy. Secondly, at the end of the bus Bill, I suggested that many areas should have a kind of franchised competitive tendering. I believe that it is as a result of the Government adopting that policy in London that London buses are so successful now and will be in future.
      Thirdly, I suggested that we should introduce shadow tolls on our motorways. I remember a debate with my right hon. Friend the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury in which he did not think very much of the idea. I am delighted now to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that it is part of Government policy. I do not mention those things to boast—
      Mr. Snape: No?
      Sir Peter Fry: No. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not like that. I mention it because I believe that these debates provide Back Benchers with the opportunity to suggest some new ideas, which, hopefully, will be considered by Ministers and might well form part of future policy. I believe that to be the function of Back Benchers, not to make snide and personal remarks across the Floor of the House.
      Before I sit down, I shall make one or two suggestions for consideration. The Government's amendment to the Opposition motion calls for
      "more efficient and effective delivery for all users"
      and says that that should be the key for transport policy in this country.
      We all know what the problem with aviation is at the moment—too many operators want to come into Heathrow
      1098
      and there is a shortage of slots. The much delayed forecast that all the aircraft that would be landing would be 747s and, therefore, that one could reduce the distance and time between aircraft of different types, has not come about. Some years ago, I witnessed the cross-runway operations at a number of US Air Force bases. I believe that, with increased efficiency of air traffic control, we could look at that again to see whether that could be a relief for Heathrow.
      Secondly, we should look also at the possible use of Northolt airport for general aviation, which would reduce a considerable number of slots and help to solve some of the disputes that are taking place nationally and internationally over civil aviation.
      I have long been aware that the problem of rail financing in this country, certainly in terms of revenue support, is not InterCity, or even Network SouthEast, but the cross country regional routes, which, except in a few cases, are so very expensive and costly to the taxpayer. I suggest to my right hon. Friends that perhaps the time has come to see whether responsibility for the more local rail routes should follow the responsibility that already exists for bus routes, or be devolved to local authorities.
      If local people want the survival of those branch lines, I fail to see why the rest of the taxpayers and the rest of the country should necessarily justify it. If the argument is that those lines are feeder routes into the new main lines, for the first time those people who are operating the new routes will be able to see whether that is a worthwhile contribution and whether they should put any money into the pot to subsidise the purely local lines.
      Thirdly, let us look at light rail. I believe that only a limited number of projects can come forward, but we are running into some problems with financing. For a while, I acted as a consultant to south Yorkshire passenger transport executive. The problem there is that, although the Government guarantee the original capital investment, at a later stage, moneys have to be paid in by component councils, and often the choice is whether they make their full contribution, or whether, perhaps, they make a teacher redundant, or take on an extra crossing patrol. I suggest that, in those cases, where we are dealing with a large project, perhaps the expenditure on those light rail schemes should be ring fenced.
      The biggest area of concern, as I said earlier, is urban congestion and the use of the private car. Most people in this country are not aware that we are still well behind many other countries in the number of cars per thousand that we own. We are way behind the United States, and are still behind Germany, France and Italy—just to mention three more; and that at a time when the number of people travelling on our railways has remained static for some 30 years and the number of people travelling on our buses, despite the extra route miles, is dropping.
      I believe that any transport policy that does not recognise the desire of the mass of our people to have their own personal form of transport and be able to use it will be doomed to failure. That is why I welcome the Government's road programme. It is realistic. The widening of the motorways means that not only are we serving the economic causes of this country but we are enabling people to get about it in a fairly easy manner. I reject the arguments that we should not widen the motorways. It seems to me that, in the long run, the only alternative is new motorways driven across open country. Most people do not want that.

      1099
      There are one or two things, however, that the Government should do. In the urban context, we should avoid, at all costs, bullying the motorist. Before we think about road pricing, we should examine every other option to make public transport more attractive to the motorist. Park and ride has been suggested, but in London it would be exceedingly expensive to implement. One would need extra slip roads off the motorways, large areas for parking, many car parks would have to be built and a high degree of security would be necessary. Let us not underestimate the cost of what is needed, but that would make a very great contribution.
      I regret to say that one of the areas in which money is still wasted is that we still cannot get the Treasury to agree the projected traffic flows of a road rather than those that it maintains are there at the moment, and what it will finance. I shall cite two cases. On the A45, in my constituency, a separated junction had to be built three years after it was made a dual carriageway road because of the high number of accidents. The dualling of Higham Ferrers bypass will now go-ahead in the next year thanks to my hon. Friends, but which should have been dualled in the first place.
      But perhaps the most significant case is that which affects my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), who will reply to the debate, and myself—the A1-M1 link, the A14, for which he had to fight tooth and nail to get dualled in the first instance. Originally, it was to be a single traffic road with passing places. I suggest that by looking a bit further ahead and by the Treasury being more realistic, we could save public money and, indeed, have a better public transport system.
      I do not want to delay the House any further. I am aware of the large number of people wishing to speak, but I hope that I have put forward one or two ideas that my right hon. Friends might consider. I believe that the job of Ministers is to be prepared to listen to new ideas, be willing to be original —they have shown that in many respects in recent years—at the same time show concern for the needs of the economy and, above all, for what the people of this country want.
      Those are the basics for the right kind of transport policy. From all that we have heard this afternoon, I have no confidence in the Opposition parties being able to supply that and every confidence that my right hon. and hon. Friends will fulfil those conditions. Therefore, I have great pleasure in supporting the Government's amendment.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I remind hon. Members that from the present time until 9 pm, speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.
      7.8 pm
      Mr. Keith Hill: It might charitably be said that the tenor of the speech of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) was one of premature super-optimism, given his description of the triumphs of the Government's transport record in recent years. He congratulated them on the success of their red routes programme in London; he will clearly be surprised to discover that only one pilot red route is in existence, and that the remainder will not come on stream for another two
      1100
      years. I rather doubt whether they will prove quite the success that the hon. Gentleman imagines. He was right, however, to draw attention to the problem of urban congestion—although his conclusions were wrong.
      After 15 years of Tory rule, the defects of our transport system are still draining the nation's economy of a ruinous £15 billion a year in congestion costs. That estimate was published by the Confederation of British Industry three or four years ago and, as far as I am aware, the Department of Transport has never seriously challenged it. In real terms, the figure is doubtless higher now. The transport system is in a mess and it is getting worse.
      Since bus deregulation in 1985, travel by bus in cities has declined by 25 per cent. In many cities, travel by bike represents fewer than 6 per cent. of all journeys, which reflects the appalling lack of facilities and the risks faced by cyclists. It has been observed that nowadays travel by bus and train in any combination requires military-style planning and perseverance; and, for the vast majority of women, public transport outside peak hours is a no-go area because of the loss of staff offering security and surveillance.
      Our children are effectively denied the option of walking or cycling to school because of the unacceptably high levels of traffic danger to which they are now routinely exposed. The crazy consequence of that is that at least 25 per cent. of traffic on urban roads during the morning peak hour consists of cars taking children to school. It is a vicious circle and, given current indications, it can only get worse.
      It is all very well for the Secretary of State for the Environment to launch his famous planning policy guidance 13 initiative against the "great car economy". The Department of Transport is still persisting with its forecast of an increase of between 83 and 142 per cent. in traffic growth by the year 2025. There is no sign of a change of heart and every sign that the Department is still stuffed full of "old believers"; given the evidence so far, some of them are sitting on the Government Front Bench. Traffic growth on that scale will spell disaster for our great cities, not least London.
      Two years ago, in my maiden speech—which I am sure hon. Members well recall—I noted the logjam in infrastructure developments in London. Since then, we have seen a faltering start on the docklands extension of the Jubilee line—the scheme, incidentally, with the lowest cost-benefit assessment in the central London rail study. There is still no progress on Thameslink 2000—which had the highest cost-benefit assessment—or on the east London line, and we are now receiving ominous signals about the future of crossrail. If the Government use traffic forecasts as an excuse to scupper that scheme, it will constitute an enormous vote of no confidence in the future of London's economy and an enormous blow to commuters.
      Paris is about to embark on its fifth cross-regional railway. The French take the view that investment in the public transport infrastructure is a positive and creative contribution to the economy. We should adopt the same approach. In any case, all the evidence points to the fact that new transport infrastructure generates its own traffic. Look at the M25—if you can bear it. What is true for the M25 will also be true for crossrail. The Government should get on with it straight away.
      My constituency needs those priority central London schemes. We want them on stream, so that a start can finally be made on the extension of the Northern line to

      1101
      Streatham which the people of Streatham were first promised in 1926. The truth is that there is a vast need for more investment in public transport and bike and pedestrian facilities in London and elsewhere, which is simply not being met.
      Of course, the Government will throw up their hands in protest and claim that they are spending loads of money on public transport in London and elsewhere. According to the famous statistic of the Minister for Transport in London, for every £1 spent on roads in London, £3 is spent on public transport. What the Minister omitted to say was that the £1 does not include local council spending on roads and that the £3 includes all spending on Network SouthEast from Peterborough to Exeter. That is a nonsensical statistic.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister should get on his feet and answer that.
      Mr. Hill: No, I have no time to give way.
      Then there is the Secretary of State's claim, made three weeks ago in the House when he announced his trunk road review, that real spending on London Underground is six times greater now than it was in 1979. He amended that claim this evening, stating that it was three times greater: I always observe a certain shakiness in the right hon. Gentleman's approach to statistics.
      Mr. Banks: And the Tories were in county hall in 1979.
      Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right: the Secretary of State was comparing the present position with what was happening at a time when the Conservatives were in charge of London's public transport spending.
      Capital, the transport campaign for London, has made a careful analysis of spending on the London underground in the 14 years since 1979. That analysis reveals that the real increase is 10 per cent., not the 600 per cent. claimed by the Secretary of State. That is peanuts in the context of the needs of an aging London underground system: the Northern line has had no new fleet since the second world war.
      Mr. Norris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hill: Very briefly.
      Mr. Norris: Will the hon. Gentleman simply specify how much more money he is committing his party to spend in London this year, next year and the year after that? I am sure that the House would be grateful if he could tell us.
      Mr. Hill: That is a perfectly reasonable question for the Minister to put to me, and to other Opposition Members. Given that we want to increase spending on public transport, it is entirely reasonable to ask how we would pay for it. I rather think that I am reflecting the views of those on my Front Bench when I say that, under a Labour Government, spending on the roads programme must be subjected to greater scrutiny than has been applied over the past 15 years.
      The truth is that, notwithstanding the trunk roads review announced by the Secretary of State on 30 March, road-building expenditure will remain at £2 billion over the next three years. There is still £20 billion in the overall roads programme. Indeed, the Secretary of State was rather proud of that: I very much hope that he squared it with the Secretary of State for the Environment.
      The Government justify their road-building programme
      1102
      on the basis that it is a way of cutting industry's costs; yet road building is extremely poor value for money. Transit costs typically amount to only 2 per cent. of industry's output costs. The lack of importance of road building to British business was reflected in a 1992 survey carried out by the British Institute of Management, which found that only 15 per cent. of managers in this country supported extra public expenditure on the building of new motorways.
      As a job creator, road building is certainly poor value for money: pound for pound, it creates far fewer jobs than spending on, for instance, housing and public transport. The Government may make wide-ranging claims for the economic benefits of road building, but in reality they make no effort to discover whether such benefits exist.
      Dr. Jeremy Vanke, author of a major study on the road-building programme, wrote to the Department of Transport asking about the economic implications of the completion of the M25, apart from the number of construction jobs created. His letter attracted the following illuminating response from the Department:
      "The statement made by the Secretary of State referred only to jobs created in construction work. I regret that I cannot answer the other questions you raise as the Department does not keep any information of this type. I am sorry that I cannot be of more help."
      That is scarcely the most persuasive case in favour of the economic benefits of the road-building programme. The programme is enormously costly in its own right—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
      7.18 pm
      Mr. Alan Haselhurst: It is evident from every Opposition speech, not least that of the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), that the Opposition are all about spending money. It is no coincidence that the debate was inspired by the Opposition shortly before local government elections. Even the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) pleaded for greater expenditure, but no clear impression was given of where the money is to come from, unless from an attack on the roads programme.
      Listening to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), we were even more baffled about alternative policies. The hon. Gentleman demonstrated that the Liberal Democrats do not know what they want or to which audience they are playing. In 1991, a Liberal Democrat policy document stated that they wanted to reduce the need for transport. By 1993, the Liberal Democrats called, in another policy document, for substantial investment in local public transport, additional electrification of various rail routes and more transport in rural areas.
      Today, we heard from the hon. Member for North Devon that for a mere pittance, to use his expression, every town with a population of more than 23,000 could be connected to the rail network. I should like that spelled out in detail. The hon. Gentleman suggested additional taxes, such as more business rates and a payroll tax. I suspect that the Liberal Democrats face every which way. They are suspicious of road projects in general, but in favour of every one that is put to them.
      Recently, a Liberal Democrat luminary in my constituency wrote to me that it was time that the Department of Transport stopped acting as a lobby for the road construction and haulage industries and put a halt on further road construction. Not far from where that gentleman lives, local Liberal Democrats are agitating for

      1103
      road expenditure on the new Al20 to be speeded up. Liberal Democrats hold totally different views within the same constituency and local authority area.
      Much nonsense has been talked about road and rail. The contradiction that I described exemplifies the ghastly over-simplification that one can simply halt expenditure on roads and spend it all on the railways. The rail network does not present a choice in many parts of the country, whether in terms of industry wanting to move freight or the private individual's personal travel. That was true even before Dr. Beeching. The idea that one can have an alternative rail network throughout the country to match the road network is absolute moonshine. Neither Opposition party can demonstrate how that could be achieved.
      There is no evidence that the public would be enthusiastic about new rail routes and connections, because they have shown that they are as often disturbed about the environmental impact of new railways as about new roads. There are serious questions to be asked about car usage and its growth, but we must face the fact that few of the people we represent are yet aware of grave difficulties in future. They are strongly in favour of the freedom to use their motor cars, and they cherish that most.
      It is not a question of no public transport alternative being available. The public prize highly the freedom that car ownership brings. There are no circumstances in which Essex or East Anglia are likely to be criss-crossed with railway lines that would make car or long road journeys unnecessary. It would require the most improbable number of bus routes and frequency of services for the public to abandon their cars.
      Goodness knows what would have to be spent to achieve the utopian society described by the hon. Member for North Devon. Perhaps he wants to revive the scheme abandoned in Cambridge for providing free bicycles. Perhaps that is the Liberal Democrat vision of the future.
      Opposition Members must get real and understand that it is all about freedom of choice, which is why the Government's approach is infinitely more sensible. Many people, as citizens rather than as car owners, want more roads, where they would bypass towns and villages. Letters that I receive from constituents vilifying over-emphasis on road construction are far outnumbered by those demanding new and better roads.
      In some parts of the country, however, there is a sensible choice and, in those circumstances, it is right to influence the situation in favour of public transport. If it becomes more expensive to use the roads and the railway appears more efficient and reliable, the public will make decisions accordingly. But they will do so for themselves. That is the better approach, rather than Labour's proposal to ram public transport down people's throats as the only form of transport that they should have.
      I conclude by concentrating on the last two words in the Government amendment, "and elsewhere", in the context of air transport policy. The Government have given a positive lead towards achieving liberalisation of air services in Europe—even Opposition Members might acknowledge that. Outside Europe, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has played a good hand
      1104
      in trying to improve the liberalisation of air services with the United States, in the current bilateral talks. It is not his fault that they have become stuck for the moment.
      Part of the problem overshadowing those negotiations is our airports policy, which does not fit with the Government's desire for greater liberalisation and competition in the provision of air services. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement on the trunk road programme review on 30 March, he said:
      "It is no part of the Government's policies to tell people when and how to travel."—[Official Report, 30 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 929.]
      When it comes to providing airport capacity, the Government are dangerously close to contradicting that admirable sentiment. There is no doubt from any analysis, such as that made recently by the Select Committee on Transport, that a heavy preponderance of people travelling to and from London by air want to use Heathrow. Equally, there is no doubt that people in East Anglia, albeit in smaller numbers, would like to travel to the United States from Stansted, and that there is undoubtedly a market for more transatlantic business based on Manchester and Birmingham.
      The key to liberalisation of air services with the United States and, I suspect, with other countries that want more rights in the UK, is to find the answer to the Heathrow conundrum. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) in commending to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the Northolt option. It is right to explore the opportunities for extending the capacity of Heathrow using Northolt. I do not believe that it is part of the answer to expect the three existing London airports to accept more and more night flights. I cannot believe that that is the right approach.
      It is hard to get that part of our air transport system ready for the 21st century and it is small wonder that the Liberal Democrats are ducking that issue. Their official policy is to expand airports outside the south-east while freezing further development at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. That has not percolated down to Thaxted, where Liberal Democrats stated in a recent issue of Focus that, if another runway is required, it should certainly be located at Heathrow or Gatwick.
      Official Liberal Democrat policy flies in the face of both the Civil Aviation Authority and the RUCATSE group, which concluded
      "the scale and location of demand are such that regional airports cannot be an effective substitute for more south-eastern capacity."
      We must face the problem of Heathrow and how it might be extended in a way that does not offend the people who live nearby.
      Neither the Labour party nor the Liberal Democrats offer an effective substitute for Government transport policies, and the absurd Opposition motion should be defeated.
      7.28 pm
      Mr. David Clelland: Because transport has such a major effect on people's lives, the Government should do more than merely hand everything over to the private sector. Their philosophy is based on the mistaken belief that competition will automatically result in efficiency.
      Transport policy should ensure that the various forms of transport complement each other rather than compete. That

      1105
      would be real efficiency. Planning policy should ensure that the transport implications of development are also fully considered.
      A classic example is the development of the Metro shopping centre in Gateshead. Although it is undoubtedly a huge commercial success and popular with the public, it has brought massive transport problems for the nearby community. The Department of Transport's answer to that is to propose a bypass to a bypass, cutting a huge swathe through some of the finest greenbelt land in the area, demolishing homes and condemning thousands of people to live on a traffic island. This is the simplest—although suprisingly for this Government, not the cheapest—option, and a classic example of the Government's failure to look at the total situation.
      As Gateshead council has suggested, the way to deal with the congestion problem on the A 1 western bypass caused principally by the. Metro shopping centre is to introduce a combination of improvements to the existing road network and various traffic management initiatives. One longer-term measure to assist with this problem would be to link the Metro centre up to the metro light rail system serving the Tyneside conurbation.
      The efficient and popular metro transport system provided by local Labour councils was opened in 1980 and was an immediate success—so much so that, within a year of its opening, the pressure on car parks at various stations meant that they had to be enlarged and, in at least one case, doubled in capacity, proving the theory that people will get out of their cars and use public transport if it is right. The system was recently extended to Newcastle airport and a few weeks ago, a ceremony took place to mark the beginning of plans to extend it to the city of Sunderland. The region would benefit enormously from further extensions to the system.
      The biggest blow to the efficiency of the system came with the deregulation and privatisation of local bus services. That separated the operation of bus services from the operation of metro services. At a stroke, the integrated system that had been initiated when the service opened, and for which it was designed, was brought to an end. Buses now run alongside metro trains, duplicating services, competing with the metro and competing with each other. There is little evidence of any huge benefit to passengers as a result. What we have is hugely increased congestion and the consequential deterioration in the environment.
      Queues of buses line our high streets, holding up traffic and belching out fumes from diesel engines. It is now recognised that they are much more harmful to health and the environment than traditional petrol engines which are fitted with catalytic converters.
      When the late Lord Ridley was Secretary of State for Transport, he told me in an exchange in the Chamber that, as a result of deregulation, buses were queueing for people, rather than people queueing for buses. That is the sort of flippant remark for which he was noted, but it is hardly an example of efficient transport policy where co-ordination, rather than competition, is surely the key to efficiency.
      The people who have clearly benefited from privatisation are senior company executives whose salaries escalated while the wages of workers were cut and fares were increased. Now, the Go-Ahead Group, which was bought from the public sector for £2.9 million, is to be floated on the stock market for an estimated £40 million.
      1106
      After the payment of debt, that will leave the tidy sum of about £20 million almost entirely in the control of only three men.
      For weeks now, the local press has speculated that the three directors who were part of the original management buy-out would become millionaires overnight as a result, thus repeating the pattern that we have become used to with privatisations, where the most obvious change is that a few people are made richer. It is little wonder that the managing director was one of those who wrote to local newspapers during the general election campaign advising people to vote Tory.
      In a gesture of generosity, we have been told that the three directors have set up charitable trusts, the details of which they would prefer to keep secret. We have also been told that a new bonus system will be introduced for staff, the details of which have yet to emerge. However, the pressure that has been put on the three directors by local newspapers, trade unions and politicians may have brought about a change in thinking, as hints of sweeteners have begun to emerge recently.
      Some benefit to the community certainly could be possible if the directors are genuinely looking for transport-related, useful ways to invest moneys generated from the flotation in the region. Perhaps they might talk to the Tyne and Wear passenger transport authority, which is looking for private support for financing the metro extension to Sunderland. That important line will cost about £46 million and under current conditions will have to be funded by a combination of the private and public sectors.
      Public sector funding, including European funds, will be heavily influenced by the Government. I hope that the Minister can tell us that, even though it is early days yet, at least the Government have sympathy with the scheme and will co-operate in trying to find financing. That in itself would be an enormous encouragement to the private sector.
      Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked the Prime Minister what his Government have against pensioners. Of course, her question arose from the rationing of health services on an age basis, but it also applies in transport. The Labour-controlled authorities in Tyne and Wear were among the last in the country to be forced by the Government's restrictive policies to abandon free fares for pensioners—a policy which helped to fill empty buses during off-peak periods. More importantly, it brought a new freedom of movement to thousands of people.
      Even though the standard 15p fare which has been introduced could be considered small, for every journey there is a return journey, so the standard in reality is 30p. Once a charge is levied, we know that the pressure will be on to increase it. I look forward to the day when we might seriously consider reinstating the free service to our senior citizens.
      As has been said, transport includes our regional airports. I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 662 which calls for the urgent granting of rights for additional United States airline services to regional airports. Newcastle international airport in particular is an example of successful local enterprise through public ownership and investment. The airport was built from virtually nothing to a thriving international terminal by north-east local authorities. It has overtaken Luton in passenger throughput, having passed the 2 million mark,

      1107
      and recent independent forecasts see that number rising to 3.5 million by the year 2002 and 4.5 million five years later.
      Extensions to the passenger terminal are currently under way, but much more needs to be done to meet the forecast demand. However, Government borrowing restrictions mean that all major capital works must be financed from reserves. That is yet another example of how the dead hand of Whitehall and Government dogma restrict the ability of public services to meet the demands placed on them.
      The policies and priorities of any Government, especially this one, are not always the same as those that are aspired to in the regions. That is why I am a believer in regional government and the devolution of powers from the centre. Transport is one of the key areas that would be most appropriately devolved to regional and local levels.
      A regional government for the north would give priority to improving the Al north of Newcastle to Scotland and coast-to-coast routes by the A66 and the A69, which would open up links between east and west ports. It would be a powerful lobby for accelerating the provision of a direct rail route around London to the channel tunnel, improving the regional rail network and promoting and improving our regional airports.
      There is a great deal of good will and co-operation across the region and a determination to work together in the interests of the region and its people. Our manufacturers are working hard to improve performance. The manufacturing challenge, as part of the drive to double the productive base of the regional economy, aims to treble manufacturing exports over the next 10 years. It was observed in a feature on regional exports in the Newcastle Journal this week:
      "Without the best (transport) links, manufacturers will suffer a disadvantage over other regions of Europe because of our geographical peripherality."
      Under this Government, we are peripheral not only to Europe but to Whitehall as well.
      Our transport priorities are different from those of the Government, yet we must live with the consequences of their decisions. That is not good enough. There should be more flexibility and more variety within our democratic system. That is why a Labour Government would introduce elected regional government into the English regions, an elected authority for Greater London and national governments in Scotland and Wales. One of the areas of public policy which would be an immediate beneficiary of such a change in our constitution is transport.
      7.38 pm
      Mr. Stephen Day: I shall comment briefly on the speech of the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). I would have thought that the last thing the north-west needed was another layer of government. I can think of no time in my seven years as a Member of Parliament—I am honoured and privileged to serve the Cheadle constituency—that I have ever been approached by anyone asking me for another layer of government; if anything, quite the reverse.
      First, I shall mention something that relates specifically to my constituency. I see that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is on the Front Bench; the matter relates to his brief. Within my constituency, there is a road
      1108
      scheme which has been awaited for some 20 or 30 years. It has massive public support. Initial work has just started on the central section.
      The road to which I refer is the M56 to A6 link, known locally as the Manchester airport eastern link road, or MAELR. The central section of the road has been built in advance of the rest, and the whole scheme is not being built together. In Woodford road in my constituency, there is a junction where no junction was supposed to be, and a road that was supposed to be of benefit to my constituents will initially cause problems, particularly for the villages of Bramhall and Woodford.
      My question to my hon. Friend is, when can we except a firm date for completion of that road? I appreciate that it may be linked with the A6(M), but if he could comment now I would welcome his intervention.
      The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): I can reassure my hon. Friend that only yesterday I discussed MAELR with the chief executive of Manchester airport and the chief executive of the Highways Agency. I shall be in Manchester next week looking at transport in that part of the country, and I can assure him that the road has a high priority and my close attention. I cannot at this stage give him a definite date, but I hope that it will not be long.
      Mr. Day: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. [Interruption.] I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), but, as usual, I shall ignore him.
      I raise my other point in my capacity as co-chair of the west coast main line group. Hon. Members of all parties have a keen interest in the west coast main line. It is vital throughout the west of country, the west of Scotland, the north-west, the midlands and elsewhere. The Government recognise its priority, and I would like to pay my compliments and give thanks to the Minister for Public Transport for the way in which he has always responded to requests from the group to meet us. He has been co-operative in that regard.
      A problem has been drawn to my attention which I have been asked to bring into the debate, particularly by those hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. I am told that, on 31 March, a contract was lost by Railfreight to carry 100,000 tonnes of steel per year, which was to be distributed for the whole of Ireland via the west coast main line and through Stranraer.
      I understand that that contract has now gone to road hauliers, and the steel will be shipped through Heysham. I appreciate that it is a commercial decision, and I would not wish the Minister to intervene directly—indeed, he does not have the power to intervene. I will just make the point to my hon. Friend that it emphasises the importance of the west coast main line.
      If we lose contracts such as that, obviously the whole viability of that important line could be put in doubt. I hope that my hon. Friend will make himself aware of the situation, and will find out the reasons why that came about. I also hope that he will make sure that it has nothing to do with the viability of the west coast main line itself. It will be of great concern to many hon. Members if it has.
      I regret the tone of the speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and his comments

      1109
      about the west coast main line. The hon. Gentleman had nothing constructive to say. The Government have made great strides on the matter, and it is their top priority.
      Government Back Benchers wish the Government well in their efforts to secure finance from the private sector. I believe that the private sector will come forward with the necessary finance for that line. I do not believe that it helps the Government if doubt is cast upon the scheme by somebody who would wish to be a Minister one day. God forbid that the hon. Gentleman is ever in that position.
      I would like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that I have never heard anybody in the all-party group question the need for the scheme to succeed in the way in which the Government have proposed it. Most hon. Members who have an interest in the west coast main line do not much care where the money comes from, as long as we get it. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has found it necessary to make the issue a political football —for the first time, in my experience.
      It serves nobody's interests whatsoever, and the west coast main line group has never dealt with it in that way. We have no intention of allowing the hon. Gentleman to make it a political issue, which would destroy the unity of the all-party group. If anybody will bring pressure to get success for the west coast main line, it will be the all-party group and not the Opposition Front Bench.
      The hon. Gentleman seemed unclear what he was telling the House about the Opposition's approach to transport. I could not make out whether he was in favour of private investment or not. The Labour party recently boasted that it thought that there was a role for private investment in roads and in rail. However, the hon. Gentleman seemed to carp at every proposal which the Government made to achieve objectives which I would have thought we all shared.
      That also suggests to me that, as usual, the Labour party has only one solution to the problems of transport—to throw more money at them. That is the same solution as it has for every issue. It never tells us where the money is coming from, but it is easy—it is other people's money, so it does not matter. I find incredible the idea that the Labour party has changed its spots since the election.
      There were tax increases in the Budget. However, if the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was in charge of the finances of 'this nation, people would be facing not only tax increases to pay for the Budget deficit, but the £35 billion of extra spending which the Labour party promised before the last election. In addition, they would have to pay for all the other promises which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has made on transport.
      The Labour party must get its act together on what it is telling the country. Of course, that is the last thing that the Labour party will do. The Government's policies on transport are quite clear, and they will have my support in the Lobby tonight.
      7.46 pm
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The west coast main line is having money spent on it. Of course, it is not being spent on improving the line. Of course, it is not being spent on re-signalling. It is certainly not being spent on improving facilities for the passengers.
      1110
      It is being spent on the setting up of a competition for people to look at ways of introducing private finance into one of the most vital railways in the United Kingdom.
      It is becoming clear that the Government have a clear transport policy, and it is in effect one of double taxation. When they are asked whether they understand the economic implications of providing a first-class infrastructure for both the economic and political life of this country, they say, "Of course, but it is vital that we should have a partnership between private industry and the state." Their definition of a partnership is similar to that of the medical profession many years ago, when the senior partner got all the money and the junior partner did all the work.
      It is quite revealing that today we have been given, in addition to a number of questions about rail privatisation, very little clear idea of what the three-day chairmen of the various quangos will do to bring in this great new surge of investment into the railway system. Mr. Robert Horton, when giving evidence to the Select Committee on Transport, said that he saw his role as generating interest among opinion-formers. He said that he wanted to convince people like me that investment was needed in the west coast main line.
      I must say that, while I do not have an overweening idea of my own importance, I would have thought that even Mr. Horton would have noted that one or two Opposition Members were asking for investment in the west coast main line when Mr. Horton was still trying to make money out of fossil fuels. I find that difficult to understand, but I find it particularly difficult to understand when I look at some of the answers we get from the Secretary of State for Transport and his Ministers.
      I asked if he would list
      "the percentage of public funding to British Rail that has been used for restructuring of British Rail in preparation for privatisation".
      I also asked what was his estimate for next year and what funds were made available to British Rail for reorganisation. The Minister answered:
      "In 1992–93 British Rail reported that around £10 million was spent on reorganisation. In 1993–94, we understand that British Rail expects to spend around £56 million. In 1994–95 British Rail and Railtrack have estimated that they will require an additional £50 million for running costs and up to £30 million for expenditure on new equipment and systems in support of reorganisation."—[Official Report. 21 March 1994; Vol.240, c.100.]
      The Minister says that it is because of the Government and reorganisation that not only greater efficiency but new information systems and an improvement in management techniques have come about. I do not know where the Minister has been.
      The reorganisation of British Rail has happened not once but consistently, long before any suggestion that Railtrack would be created. The improvement in the use of information technology has been led by people in British Rail, whose only fault was that they did not have enough common sense to tell the United Kingdom what a marvellous job the men and women in that industry were doing. In case anyone has any concern, yes, I am a sponsored Member. I am proud to be a member sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. I want to make that clear.
      The Government are seeking to isolate expenditure on transport in a particular way. Interestingly enough, they are doing so not only for railways. It is clear from what has been said today that Railtrack will see as its function not only to apply what the Secretary of State said was a proper

      1111
      overhead sum to its economics. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted transparency, and wanted people to understand how much their services cost.
      Let us have no doubt what that means. The Government will put in place a sophisticated game. First, they will put up the cost. Then they will say that everyone should know what a particular rail service costs. Then they will say that it is too expensive, and it would be much cheaper to run alternative services such as privatised coaches.
      In case anyone has any doubt about the efficiency of privatised coaches, let us consider what is happening with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. The Government are removing restrictions which protect health and safety in road transport. The Minister does not seem to know. Let me help him.
      When the legislation was being debated, local authorities expressed anxiety about the removal of the right of traffic commissioners to prevent the use of operating centres with planning permission. They pointed out that ordinary people would have considerable difficulty in the future. Everyone in the industry pointed out that, if there were continuous licensing, members of the public would find it difficult to question those who ran public service vehicles. It is not a small problem. Once there is continuing licensing, how will we monitor those who drive school buses and coaches, who have many lives in their hands?
      It is clear that, in many traffic areas, public service vehicles do not reach the required standards. Let us take the traffic commissioner's annual report for the north-eastern traffic area. Some 30 per cent. of all public service vehicles failed the initial MOT test. In the west midlands, the number of PSV cases brought for public inquiry for disciplinary matters, which include maintenance and a wide range of points that would affect any woman using a bus driven, perhaps, by someone who was not 100 per cent. in control, increased by 500 per cent. between 1991–92 and 1992–93.
      In south Wales, the number of PSV companies called to inquiry increased by 90 per cent. The overall total of operators of PSVs called for disciplinary action increased from 362 to 412—an overall increase of 14 per cent. The public do not realise that deregulation means that they face a deteriorating service, and certainly deteriorating controls on those involved.
      I asked a series of questions about what the Ministry did about checking whether people who were granted PSV licences had any convictions. I was told that, because of the lack of resources, Department of Transport staff did not check the declarations given by applicants. If an applicant ticks a box stating that he or she has no criminal convictions, no check is made. A total of 17,922 objections were received to goods vehicle operator licences.
      The Transport Select Committee highlighted in its report the dangers of privatisation of the Department of Transport agency work. The Department is doing two things. It is setting up independent quangos that will use the taxpayers' money supposedly to attract investment from private funds outside. In order to do that, they will use the taxpayers' money again to hand over considerable sweeteners. There will be no control over those people or over the quality of the transport provided. Increasingly, there will be no real investment in the infrastructure that is not in the form of double taxation.
      1112
      Not one Conservative Member today has said that it is the intention of the Government to go for road pricing in the form of either shadow tolls or more direct forms of tolling on motorways, and perhaps even on urban roads. The Government know how to make money out of the transport infrastructure, but they are not prepared to put it back. They are happy to commit the taxpayers' money at every level, preferably twice, but they are not prepared to come to the House and announce that they will put money into creating a first-class transport system.
      We need the west coast main line. We shall have an emergency by the end of the year, because we know that the machinery and infrastructure will cease—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. John Carlisle.
      7.56 pm
      Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful to be called in what has been a strange and mixed debate. Listening to some of the whinges and whines from the Opposition Benches, one would think that we ground to a halt every time that we left this place and that we did not have motorways which were relatively unclogged most of the time and did not have an excellent rail and air system within Britain.
      The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—probably hinting at what I might say to him —made an extraordinary speech in what should be a serious debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) said, the debate should be on a wide range of subjects, but inevitably comes down to constituency interests. So I promise the House that I shall speed through my remarks, as a Vauxhall Cavalier would through the highways and byways of this country, so that other hon. Members can participate in the debate.
      It is inevitable that transport policy in Britain, as the Government's amendment suggests, should be market led. It is nonsense for Opposition parties to try to force people on to forms of transport that they do not want and which, by their own volition and choice, they have avoided. I become extremely cross at the anti-car policies pursued by hon. Members from both major Opposition parties. As I represent Luton, I have a constituency interest in ensuring that that great town continues to thrive and boom. Its greatest industry, Vauxhall Motors, is very much part of that.
      I remember being asked by one or two people when I was first elected what constituency I represented. I must admit that when I said that I represented Luton, some people's faces fell. Some said, "I have been through it." I suppose that, to an extent, that is what Luton is all about. We can boast probably some of the best systems and examples of what the Government have done in terms of transport facilities and structures in the 15 years since they were returned to office.
      The country's major motorway runs through the middle of my constituency. We also have a thriving airport. Although it has recently been surpassed by Newcastle—the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) gave the numbers—once it gets into private hands it will continue to expand. I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that I would support legislation that forced Luton borough council to sell the airport into private hands to ensure that it continues to expand and is better used.
      Luton airport has a great future and might go some way to relieving the problems that my hon. Friend the Member

      1113
      for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) mentioned in connection with Heathrow, when he discussed Northolt and Stansted.
      Luton also has excellent rail links, with passenger trains to London every 10 minutes at peak times and in some cases even more frequently. The old British Rail invested money in much better facilities, and we are proud of our facilities in Luton.
      Good transport is one reason why the town is beginning to boom again and why people are coming to our part of the world. Obviously, links to London are good and, as our closest large centre of population, London was always familiar territory, but links are also good to the north and to other parts of the country. If Opposition Members want to visit a place where transport is working and which epitomises the best of Government transport policy they should come 30 miles up the M1 to see us.
      It ill befits the Opposition to continue their extraordinary anti-car policy and it exasperates many car manufacturers and people in the motor trade. Significantly, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras mentioned the constituency of Eastleigh several times, but he did not mention that of Dagenham. I wonder whether he would have made quite the same speech if he had visited Dagenham or Luton and described his policies to Vauxhall workers.
      Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Carlisle: I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman knows, and I know, that it will not be worth my while to do so.
      The Opposition, supported in most cases by the Liberals, continue to propose an incredible policy, but it will not go down well in a town that relies heavily on the motor car and the motor trade.
      About 10,500 workers in and around my constituency are employed by General Motors. The company is a success story partly because it has been encouraged by the Government's excellent road-building projects during the past few years. It is a success story which has also brought enormous benefits in terms of car quality to its customers. General Motors has espoused a sensitive policy on the environment, pollution, noise control and so forth and has been in the forefront of such developments.
      As other hon. Members have said, we must accept that our people should have the freedom to have a motor car if they so wish. It ill befits Opposition Members to deny them that privilege. Since I came to this place about 15 years ago, the car park, which was relatively empty then, has become full to bursting mainly because Opposition Members—including many London Members, some of whom are sitting opposite at this very moment—come here in their cars. They enjoy owning motor cars, but would deny ownership to others.
      I crave your indulgence for a few minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to put a word in the ear of my hon. Friend the Minister about widening the Ml. As he knows, I fully accept the need for widening, and welcome it. The M1 is our major trunk road and carries about 100,000 vehicles a day through the heart of my constituency. Road widening is necessary and to be welcomed, but I must bring several matters to his attention which he may wish to deal with tonight or by post at a later date.
      There is talk of the road widening being delayed by about 12 months for all sorts of reasons. The worry,
      1114
      nuisance and concern that widening is causing people who live near the motorway is such that they would rather that we got on with the work and got it out of the way as quickly as possible. I know that that would be my hon. Friend's intention, provided that the public inquiry agrees. I hope that there will be no further slippage in time. I am not blaming anyone for it, but now that the road has been widened to junction 9, it is important for widening to continue as far as junctions 10 to 12 as quickly as possible, although I understand that my hon. Friend and his colleagues must go through the diplomatic process.
      The second problem is noise pollution and I make no apologies for mentioning that subject, because it is extremely important. My hon. Friend the Minister may not have seen a recent letter that I wrote about people who have lived near the motorway from the start and were there before it was built about 30 years ago. At that time, they were not given grants for noise insulation, because, when the M1 was built it had virtually no traffic on it. Some hon. Members may have seen pictures of it.
      An anomaly exists whereby grants for noise insulation can be given only to people for whom the level of noise will be reduced when the motorway is completed. I am not talking about many homes—probably about 100 or even fewer—but under the 1975 noise regulations, about which we have corresponded, there is an anomaly. Some of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) will be affected and will not get compensation even though the noise levels that they are suffering are totally out of proportion to the levels existing when their houses were built more than 30 years ago.
      My plea to my hon. Friend the Minister is that, when he receives my letter, he should look at it carefully and possibly come back to me with a somewhat kinder reply than he gave a month ago. That would help those poor people, who are genuinely caught in a trap that only my hon. Friend can alter, possibly through a statutory regulation.
      Having said that, it gives me enormous pleasure to support the Government and their policy and to condemn the attitude of the Opposition parties, which has been remarkable this afternoon. The motor car is here to stay and the trunk road should receive—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I call Mr. Peter Snape.
      8.6 pm
      Mr. Peter Snape: My only comment on the speech by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) is that it is typical of the present Conservative party. Having seen all their policies collapse around them, all Conservative Members can do is to use their usual scaremongering tactics and say that other parties are anti-car. Most Opposition Members drive motor cars. The unrestricted use of private cars at certain times of the day is the cause of major congestion throughout the country, however, and Government transport policy should be directed towards curing that congestion and not to the sort of silly yah-booing that we have heard from so many Conservative Members.
      In the short time available, I must mention two points, but must first declare an interest as a member of the RMT, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, and as a non-executive director of the employee-owned West Midlands Travel.

      1115
      The railway industry is my first concern, especially the locomotive and rolling stock manufacturing industry. Recently, we have heard much about the acquisition of British companies by European firms, but not much about the acquisition of British rolling stock and locomotive manufacturers by European concerns.
      The former British Rail Engineering was privatised and was taken over by Swedish-based ABB Transportation. Our other major manufacturer, GEC Alsthom, is a largely French concern. Certainly, for Birmingham-based MetroCammell—part of the latter group—times are tough, although at least the Washwood Heath factory in the city of Birmingham is involved in work on channel tunnel Eurostar trains as well as those for the Jubilee line extension. However, like firms in other parts of the country, it has no work for British Rail, or the core British Rail business, beyond the end of this year.
      May I draw the attention of the Minister for Public Transport to an article in the Birmingham Post of 29 March in which the deputy business editor reported on
      "an industry in danger of going off the rails".
      Under the heading, "Locomotive industry rolls nearer to cliff edge of BR privatisation", Mr. Barber points out that that
      "venerable industry now faces one of the worst crises in its illustrious history."
      He leaves his readers in no doubt who is to blame and writes:
      "The prime culprit behind the current plight is rail privatisation."
      He sets out starkly that
      "order books have dried up as uncertainty over privatisation casts a virtual freeze on investment in Britain's railways."
      The article quotes a spokesman for the Railway Industry Association, who stated:
      "the bleak outlook is hitting not only the big manufacturers but also specialist subcontractors and general engineering companies,"
      throughout the country, but especially in the midlands. Total employment, for example, at ABB's works in Derby, Crewe and York has been slashed from 8,500 in 1989 to just over 5,000 today.
      We have heard a great deal during the debate about the need for investment in the west coast main line. I remind the House that that line lost out in its bid for £150 million of Government money last year to lease 15 new InterCity 225 trains. The more cynical among us were not surprised when that order went instead to Network SouthEast for new rolling stock on the London-Kent commuter services. We in the midlands did not only lose out on the benefits of railway modernisation. Metro-Cammell, for example, lost out, as it would no doubt have manufactured those new trains.
      The article from which I quoted earlier is a gloomy one and points out that the Railway Industry Association is quick to dispel hope that the private sector will come to the industry's rescue by ordering gleaming new rolling stock for the newly privatised railways. I know of no operators wishing to acquire franchises, and we still wait to hear from the Government of any who do. I am willing to bet money that no franchisee, with a seven, 10 or even 15-year franchise, will make the huge investment necessary in new rolling stock. The concluding words of the spokesman from the Railway Industry Association in the article are:
      "It is difficult to come up with an encouraging scenario."
      1116
      With the opening of the channel tunnel shortly, the future for Britain's rolling stock manufacturing industry could well become much worse. Given that what is left of the industry is in foreign hands, the tunnel will make it much easier for the French to use the French arm of GEC Alsthom to meet any new British rolling stock requirements in the years to come. What can the Minister say tonight to give us some hope that that vital sector of British industry, especially in the midlands, has a future?
      During the debate on the Finance Bill a couple of days ago, I drew to the House's attention the need for the go-ahead for the midland metro, especially as it affects the west midlands region. I reiterate that plea today, for if we are to begin to tackle congestion in the Wolverhampton-West Bromwich-Birmingham corridor, a fast, modern metro system is, in our view, the only way to tempt motorists out of their cars.
      I emphasise to the Minister for Public Transport, who has made supportive noises, although has not come up with the cash, that the agreement with the private sector, which was so applauded by the Government, expires in 1996. Given the long delay, it will not be surprising if, at that time—if the go-ahead has not been given—the private sector walks away from it on the basis that the Government have no real interest in the project going ahead.
      With or without the metro system, the bus will continue to play a major role in moving large numbers of people around the conurbation. We are all familiar with the decline in the industry that has taken place since deregulation in 1986. In spite of some of the nonsensical comments that we hear from Ministers, fares have increased countrywide and bus fares and timetables change with bewildering rapidity. The average age of vehicles has increased remarkably and the British bus-building industry has all but collapsed.
      We now learn that what the Ministers used to call "the benefits of deregulation" are to be denied Londoners. Lucky old them, in the view of many of us on the Opposition Benches. May I inquire of the Minister why the rest of the country is forced to suffer from the ideological nonsense that is deregulation while the capital escapes? I am sure that it is not that ministerial limousines are considered too important to be delayed by the congestion that deregulation has brought to busy routes in the west midlands and other parts of the country.
      No reputable operator in the bus industry objects to competition, provided it is competition that can be seen to be fair. However, in the west midlands, for example, where things have been reasonably stable in recent years, we are now witnessing an influx of smaller operators who buy clapped-out, high-mileage vehicles from other regions, repaint them and run them up and down the busier routes of the conurbation between 7 am and 7 pm. They do not operate late at night or early in the morning unless specifically paid to do so by the transport authority; nor do they operate on Sundays.
      Those people are not competitive—they are parasites. By undermining the profitability of major network operators, they make those operators' marginal services less competitive and less profitable. If that type of conduct is not to be allowed in London, where the more sensible route franchising system is to operate, why is it encouraged in areas such as the west midlands and other parts of the country?
      Needless to say, those companies are not known for the enlightened nature of their working hours, conditions of

      1117
      service or rates of pay. I have here a contract from one of those small companies for its bus drivers. It speaks about remuneration:
      "You will be paid for each duty worked at the rate for the duty (a standard duty of approximately 12 hours is paid at the rate of £50, shorter duties pro rata)."
      It speaks about holidays—that is a brief part of the contract:
      "During the first year of employment—Nil
      During the second year of employment—2 weeks (ie 10 days if employed to work 5 duties per week, otherwise pro rata)… No payment will be made for Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays unless required to work."
      Ebenezer Scrooge, where are you today? He would be proud of companies such as that.
      Under the column, "Deductions from wages", any damage to the vehicle due to an accident, however caused, means a deduction of up to £100 from the driver's wages, in any one month limited to 10 per cent. of that month's gross pay—so there is a bit of heart there. The balance of any difference between cash paid in and the amount shown as due by the ticket machine is deducted from the driver's wages. Those are the type of people who have been attracted into the industry, yet are being specifically kept out of London because deregulation is not to apply here.
      The Department of Transport should acknowledge the real contribution that the bus can, and does, make to the reduction in urban congestion, and work with local authorities and passenger transport authorities to fund bus priority measures, guided bus systems and natural gas-powered vehicles.
      As we have seen for many years in the west midlands conurbation, people will not tolerate massive urban road building any longer. If we are to avoid complete gridlock, some of the money that the Department throws at the road building sector—that £20 billion referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), for example —must be diverted to fund the type of bus priority measures and public transport improvements demanded for many years by the Opposition. Only when that type of common-sense decision is taken will we make some progress to alleviating congestion throughout the country, and only then will the Government be able to say that they have a transport policy.
      8.16 pm
      Mr. David Lidington: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) pointed out that motor car ownership was now a blessing and a curse.
      Car ownership has brought about a democratisation of the freedom to travel when and where one wants—which, until comparatively recently, was only available to a small, wealthy elite. The value of car ownership is well known to any parent who has had to struggle to travel, not only with a small child, but with the nappies, potties and pushchair that go along with being a parent of a small child.
      Nevertheless, the car and its growing use have brought noise, pollution and the destruction of large areas of countryside to make space in which those greater numbers of vehicles can travel.
      It is obviously a cause for concern that present forecasts are that private vehicle ownership is on course to double between now and 2020 or 2025. If that trend is realised, no amount of good environmental policy, no number of catalytic converters or lean-burn engines, will stop the sheer number of vehicles on the roads from overwhelming
      1118
      the Government's correct attempts to implement important international commitments about limits on vehicle and other emissions.
      The Government have rightly said that they will not try to build sufficient roads to accommodate all the traffic that is forecast. Therefore, if that greater number of vehicles is manufactured, bought and used at present rates, we shall experience increased congestion, with all the additional burdens and costs which that means to British industry.
      We cannot disinvent the car, but we have to find ways in which that growth can be checked. I do not believe that it can be stopped, and that means finding ways in which we can discourage unnecessary journeys, especially short journeys, by motor vehicle. It is worth pointing out that about a quarter of vehicle emissions come from the first four to five miles of a car journey, when the engine is cold. Therefore, we should try to deter those journeys which will have the greatest impact on vehicle emissions.
      As hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, good public transport is one way to achieve that objective. I welcomed the Government's private finance initiative to try to get the resources that are needed for public transport.
      The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who is no longer in his place, complained that his constituents had been promised an extension of the Northern line since 1926. That illustrates the problem of keeping public transport capital spending entirely in the public sector.
      Each year, the Minister for Transport must go to the Treasury and argue the case for public spending on transport. In doing so, he is competing with his colleagues who are asking for money for hospitals, schools and pensions. In the bargaining on public expenditure, the amounts allocated for transport are often settled by means of a compromise based on horse trading, rather than a proper business assessment of the capital that is needed and can be commercially justified.
      I especially welcomed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's reiteration of the Government's support for the crossrail project, in which I have a particular interest. I hope that the reason for the absence from the Chamber now of the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) is that he has nipped out to telephone Liberal Democrat-controlled Tower Hamlets council and ask it to drop its campaign of opposition to the crossrail project, which is using up a lot of time and costing local council tax payers many thousands of pounds in expensive barristers' fees.
      It is appalling but not surprising that Liberal Democrat spokesmen should champion a public transport project in the House of Commons when Liberal Democrats outside are leading opposition to the project in practice.
      Better public transport will not be a panacea. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that an increase of 50 per cent. in rail passenger traffic would cut road passenger journeys by only some 3 per cent., so we should look to other policy measures as well. Those include ensuring that transport policy is integrated with land use planning.
      That is why I strongly welcomed the issuing of planning policy guidance note 13 earlier this year, with its firm advice to local authorities that they should use their local regulatory and planning powers to ensure a sensible balance in their localities of different modes of transport. They could be achieved through traffic management schemes, traffic calming measures and park-and-ride

      1119
      schemes. It is right that the Government should require those systems of traffic management to be driven according to local circumstances, rather than impose a nationally drafted blueprint that would not be appropriate in all parts of the country.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton said, the Government should look with an open mind at-the use of national regulations to discourage unnecessary road journeys. They could include the use of speed limits to ensure a better use of the existing roads, and designating lanes for commercial traffic, public service vehicles or cars with more than one occupant. I am, however, well aware that such proposals entail enormous opportunities for avoidance and difficulties of enforcement. I only hope that my hon. Friends are prepared to look with an open mind at some of those suggestions.
      I hope that the Government will push forward with their policies on road pricing and taxation, even though they will not be popular. The Government have been right in recent Budgets to shift the tax burden from car ownership to fuel consumption, a policy that should be maintained. They are also right to look to the introduction of road pricing. I agree with the suggestion by an Opposition Member that road pricing could be appropriate not only on motorways and trunk roads but in certain urban areas, although the decision must be taken in the light of local circumstances.
      Politicians must be clear and honest about the consequences of road pricing. A wealthy car owner will be able to afford the extra charges; somebody driving a company car could probably be reimbursed; and a commercial company could pass the charge on to customers. But relatively poor car users will be most affected. That is why, before pursuing such a policy, it is important to look carefully at its practical consequences and why, for road pricing to become publicly acceptable, the Government must ensure that the revenues from it go not only into road maintenance and building but into other forms of transport.
      There is no single solution to the challenge posed by the exponential growth in car ownership, but a judicious mix of the measures that I have suggested might enable us, over the next couple of decades, to strike the right balance between personal freedom and the need to ensure for all our citizens a pleasant and civilised environment in which to live.
      8.25 pm
      Mr. John Heppell: Like the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), I accept the need to achieve a balance. Having listened to the debate, however, I believe that the chances of the Government achieving a balance or coming up with a coherent transport policy are seriously hampered by two things. First, as a number of hon. Members have already mentioned, they are hampered by the dead hand of the Treasury. The Government's transport policy is dictated more by the Treasury than by Ministers responsible for transport.
      A good example is the roads programme. The reason for the Government's cutting the roads programme was not, as some hon. Members may think, because of environmental concerns or as a result of a real assessment of the programme. I have talked to people in my regional office of the Department of Transport, who say that they found
      1120
      out about the cuts in the review by reading about them in the newspapers. Official confirmation arrived a few days later.
      Nor is the reason for the cut in the roads programme to give priority to genuine bypass schemes, or to divert money from the roads programme into public transport. It is simply because the Treasury wants to take money back. That is the only reason that I can find.
      Secondly, the Government are hampered by their obsession with and blinkered approach to privatisation, which seems to be their answer to everything. They are so inept that they save £500 million on the roads programme and spend £500 million on privatisation. That money is frittered away, when it could be used in many other areas. Examples have already been given of how it could have been spent: 220 new locomotives or 29 new InterCity trains could have been bought with the money that has been spent in preparation for privatisation.
      That is important in the context of what the Central Transport Consultative Committee says. The CTC chairman, Lennox Napier, said:
      "I share the grave concern of the RIA"—
      the Railway Industry Association—
      "that apart from the £150 million worth of leased Networkers ordered in 1993, no further orders for rolling stock have been placed since 1992, and as far as we know are unlikely to be placed in the near future. The railways in this country are facing a double problem—if new orders are not placed soon, many thousands of passengers will be condemned to travel in trains that are already well past their 'use by' date with the resulting unreliability. At the same time, we face the real prospect of this country's railway manufacturing industry becoming so run-down that we might well lose the capacity for building trains in Britain."
      That is of particular importance to places such as Eastleigh, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned. The rail workers in the works at Eastleigh want to see orders coming in, and think that the Government should be prepared to give them orders.
      The Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that the pensions issue was finished, and there was no problem. I know that the Secretary of State met people about railway pensions today —or it may have been the Minister—
      The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman)indicated assent.
      Mr. Heppell: The Minister met the trade unions today, and I understand that he met the trustees this afternoon. I understand that the Government will introduce statutory instruments towards the end of May.
      It seems strange that, after two years of prevarication and an inability to resolve the pensions issue, all of a sudden, just before a by-election in Eastleigh—where many workers are employed by the railways and are worried about their pensions—the problem is solved. That typifies what the Government are all about.
      We see nothing about transport, but we see press releases and publications. The Government may have organised the demise of BR, but they have certainly not organised the demise of PR. Instead of public transport, they are concerned with public relations. Glossy brochures are produced on rail privatisation, the Highway Agency and the Marine Safety Agency, to which I shall refer later, if I have time.
      The Government have less time for transport than any other Government in the past. Spending through the 1980s was at least £2 billion less than spending through the

      1121
      1970s. The public service obligation—which is not a subsidy—to try to ensure that we keep the 11,000 miles of track we now have, has fallen steadily. Some £3 billion has gone from the public service obligation since 1983. The Government have bragged about the fact that they now give less money to keep open socially beneficial lines.
      I know that the Minister will come forward with statistics to show how much investment the Government have put into the railways, and how much money they have spent on trying to retain the viability of public transport. That will not wash with the people in Nottingham any more. When Ministers say that they think that it is justifiable to lie to Parliament some of the time—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman might wish to rephrase that.
      Mr. Heppell: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not suggesting that the Government would lie to Parliament; I was saying that a Minister in another place has made that allegation—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman could avoid getting into difficulty if he used a different word. We do not want the word "lie" being banded about.
      Mr. Heppell rose—
      Mr. Snape: What about "inaccuracy"?
      Mr. Heppell: Yes, inaccuracy—if a Minister is prepared to give inaccuracies to Parliament some of the time, people realise that the Government are prepared to give them inaccuracies all the time.
      The public see what is happening in the transport sector, and see that no investment is being made in the railways. People no longer refer to Nottingham station, but to Nottingham sidings. They see that less money is being spent in that area. It is no longer one of the InterCity stations. Every time that a new timetable comes out, we see that another train has disappeared. Tonight, I would have been able to catch the 10.30 pm train back to Nottingham, but it has disappeared from the timetable, and I shall have to catch the later one at 11.30 pm.
      I do not want to dwell too much on the railways, as I recognise that there are many other sorts of transport. Buses are still the cheapest and most reliable way of providing public transport in this country.
      I owe my credibility to the Minister and the Government. During the mid-1980s, I campaigned to try to stop bus deregulation, and I was called a scaremonger. I said what would happen—I said that there would be leapfrogging of buses, congestion and problems in the streets. Unfortunately, after deregulation, none of that happened—it was easy, and there were no problems. But since then, the bus wars have begun in Nottingham, and there are headlines in the papers such as
      "Bus stopper! 'War' could hit services".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The clock system is not working quite as it should. I shall be fair and check exactly what is happening. Speeches are still limited by the 10-minute rule. I call Mr. Nigel Waterson.
      8.35 pm
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today's important debate. I begin by welcoming the announcement of my right hon. Friend
      1122
      the Secretary of State earlier today on measures to help the shipping industry, which will go a long way to deal with the concerns that many of us have had over a number of years. I also declare an interest as a maritime lawyer. I am sure that those important measures will be widely welcomed in the British shipping industry.
      The Government are to be congratulated on their roads policy for various reasons—principally two. First, they had the courage to produce a prioritisation statement and dropped 49 schemes. Secondly, they have proposed measures to improve and streamline planning procedures. It is a scandal in this country that it can take up to thirteen and a half years from the original proposal to the opening of a new road.
      I wish to dwell particularly on the roads policy of the Liberal Democrats. We are all aware of their eccentric approach to policy-making. It seems to boil down to knocking on doors and asking the first person what they want and believe, and saying that that is what they too want and believe. It does not matter if the person next door takes a different view, as that is also what the Liberal Democrats say they want and believe. It is not merely that their views and policies differ from one part of the country to another: they can differ from one part of the same constituency to another. Nowhere is that more true than in relation to roads.
      Earlier, the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) spoke of the Liberal Democrats' relentless hostility at national level to road improvement schemes. He came out with the immortal comment that he was hostile to the majority of the Government's roads programme—a view that he backed up eloquently in his speech. Nationally, the. Liberal Democrats oppose roads, but they never say to which part or majority of the roads programme they are hostile. But that attitude is not always carried through locally.
      The hon. Member for North Devon was reported in the Mid Devon District Star as saying:
      "Unfortunately, at its"—
      the north Devon link road's—
      "inception, wiser voices calling for a dual carriageway were overruled".
      I assume that those wiser voices included that of the hon. Member for North Devon.
      We have to decide what the national policy of the Liberal Democrats is, and then see whether it is carried through locally. The answer, as on so many other matters, is that it is not. There are some exceptions. The Liberals in Somerset have been doing their bit to fulfil the national policy by cutting £2.6 million from the roads and highways budget. I imagine that they thought they were following party policy. In my next life, I want to be a Liberal Democrat, because it is an easy way of making one's way through the political jungle.
      There are important road schemes in my area.
      First, the Government have recently announced a transport supplementary grant of £25 million for the A22 new route. I am very grateful for that decision, especially in the midst of a tough spending round. There were many representations from local politicians, authorities, businesses and people in favour of the scheme, and I led a delegation to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic.

      1123
      A member of the delegation was Councillor Skinner, the chairman of the management and finance sub-committee of East Sussex county council—which, for the moment at least, is controlled by a Lib-Lab pact. The council gave its enthusiastic support to the scheme.
      It is an important scheme for Eastbourne. It will cure much congestion and improve the environment. It will assist tourism, including the Sovereign Harbour development, and in due course it will help with access to the channel tunnel. The scheme will provide more access for business and industry in my constituency. It has been estimated that some 2,000 jobs have been lost over the years because of poor access. It is the last piece in a jigsaw of important road schemes in our area.
      A second very important scheme is the Polegate bypass. I am chased regularly by Liberal Democrat councillors who ask why the scheme is not proceeding. However, I am pleased to say that it is on the reserve list for a start in 1994–95. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, there is the A27 Lewes-Polegate road improvement. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) has been a doughty campaigner for that scheme.
      The link is vital for all of East Sussex. However, views about its importance do differ—not least among Liberal Democrats in different parts of the county. In a recent letter to the Coastal Leader, Councillor David Rogers, the Liberal Democrat leader of East Sussex, said:
      "The County Council supports the proposed trunk road improvements, and wishes them to be constructed as soon as possible.
      Poor trunk roads discourage inward investment and are a severe handicap to many existing businesses".
      I could not agree more. But Councillor Rogers wrote the letter in answer to comments by Councillor Norman Baker, who is in fact the Liberal Democrat leader of Lewes district council.
      Councillor Baker has a rather different view of the scheme. In a press release, he expressed "severe uncertainty" about its impact, and said that the route will have a "devastating effect". He continued:
      "It will also have an adverse effect on the whole of the South Downs between Lewes and Polegate and many of our local communities."
      That is a typical piece of Liberal democracy—a real example of leading from behind.
      Councillor Baker said:
      "we will continue to support whatever action the public wants us to take over the preferred route proposal."
      That is a very courageous and clear-cut political lead from Councillor Baker.
      But the scheme is a vital link in the road network in our part of East Sussex. It is remarkable that there are almost as many views—whether general or specific—about road programmes as there are Liberal Democrats. There is a national policy, about which we have heard already this evening, and then there are local policies. The county councils seem to favour the road schemes, but then the Liberal Democrats in Lewes take the opposite view.
      Finally, I turn to the Labour party. The Labour party spokesman said very little about roads. Labour is also hypocritical on roads issues. Labour Members oppose roads programmes in general, but are in favour of them in particular.
      I ask the spokesmen for the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party simply to do what the Government have done
      1124
      —publish a list of the road schemes that they wish to see discontinued, axed or scaled down. That is all I ask; it seems a very reasonable request, in the real world of planning and transport policy. Then we and our constituents can know exactly what their policies on roads are. I am very pleased to oppose the motion.
      8.44 pm
      Ms Glenda Jackson: I begin by declaring a personal interest in the debate, as I am the sole Member of Parliament sponsored by the rail union, ASLEF—a sponsorship which I carry with some pride. I also declare a special interest in the debate. As is not the case with previous speakers from Tory Benches, 56 per cent. of the people who live within my local authority have no access—nor will they ever have any access—to private transport. Therefore, public transport is a major issue for my constituents. I have no doubt that, given recent events in my constituency, they will be delighted by the timing of this debate on transport.
      Hon. Members will remember that on 1 April—a date which says as much about the Government's presentational skills as it does about their transport policy—Britain's railways were privatised. On 8 April I received a letter from the newly created North London Railways train operating unit informing me and my constituents that, from the beginning of May, Hampstead Heath station, which under British Rail had been classified a zone 2 station for travelcard purposes, would be classified a zone 3 station.
      The effect of that move has been to increase fares for commuters using Hampstead Heath station by £168 a year—an increase of more than 30 per cent. Presumably this is what the Secretary of State for Transport meant in his statement of 28 March when he welcomed what he called a "new era" on the railways and pledged:
      "franchises will seek to attract new passengers by creating new standards of care at competitive prices."
      I would be interested to know how a fare increase by 12 times the rate of inflation will attract new passengers and by which criteria a price rise of 30 per cent. can be judged to be competitive.
      I should add that North London Railways, under its new guise as a train operating unit, is making great efforts and some progress in improving the quality of the service that it delivers to its passengers. However, it is being hampered in its efforts by a new operating regime that places the need for a commercial profit above the needs of the passenger.
      Sadly, the railway within my constituency is not the only system to have suffered in recent days from the Government's disdain for the public transport network. Yesterday, the lift shaft at Hampstead tube station, which at 181 ft is the deepest on the network, suffered a mechanical failure which resulted in 19 passengers being stuck within a lift for more than one and a half hours. They were rescued only when the lift was winched manually back to ground level, after which two people required oxygen from the emergency services. Thankfully, there were no serious injuries, but what is happening on our underground system when lift breakdowns, power failures and electrical short circuits start to become not isolated but monthly and almost weekly occurrences?
      On 25 March an article appeared in my local newspaper, the Hampstead and Highgate Express, which revealed that London Underground did not have the necessary resources to replace the wooden escalators at Highgate and Swiss

      1125
      Cottage underground stations as recommended by the Fennell report into the King's Cross fire, which was in 1987.
      Seven years later, with the underground approaching the 21st century, how can it be that the world's largest tube network does not receive sufficient finance to replace wooden escalators with escalators that do not represent a fire threat to the travelling public? Putting aside the safety implications, do the Government have no sense of shame? That is a rhetorical question because I can answer it myself: no, they do not.
      Is there not even an ounce of contrition among those on the Government Front Bench about the fact that the nation's capital city—a city that the Secretary of State for the Environment recently described as a beacon that attracts investment and visitors and competes directly with Paris, New York and Tokyo—cannot even afford a tube system in which elevators do not trap passengers for hours on end and in which escalators are not under constant threat from a carelessly discarded match?
      Yesterday I read the debate on the Government's response to the Fennell inquiry in 1987. The debate was concluded for the Government by the then Minister responsible for public transport, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo). On that day, the right hon. Gentleman boasted of the increased investment that London Underground had received and praised London Underground for its remarkable response to the Fennell report. Seven years on, the Chief Secretary no longer praises London Underground but attempts to bury it under financial restrictions.
      The Government's attacks on our capital's public transport infrastructure do not stop at allowing sky-high fares to jostle with rock-bottom investment. As anyone who has been following the progress of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will be aware, while the travelling public are denied the opportunity easily and Speedily to travel in their own capital city, heavy goods vehicles are about to be given the run of London, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, thanks to Government proposals to abolish the London lorry-ban permit system.
      Last week my constituents were given a reminder of the cost of that proposal when I received a copy of a letter from Mr. Brian Marsh, chair of the London Boroughs Transport Committee, addressed to the Minister for Transport in London. That letter, which describes the Minister as possessing a striking dearth of understanding of the operation of the permit system, goes on to warn:
      "It is patently obvious that London's environment is not your first concern and that proposals to abolish the permit system reveal that your Department would find acceptable a substantially reduced level of environmental protection for Londoners."
      That, in a nutshell, is the Government's transport policy lorries on the loose, tubes on the blink, train fares up, investment down. For my constituents whose homes lie in the path of those lorries, whose trips to work are delayed by mechanical breakdowns on an aging tube network and whose household budgets continually dwindle as a result of rising fares, that is an unacceptable state of affairs.
      Ministers are fond of telling the House that there is no such thing as Government money, only the people's money. Well, the transport system of the capital also belongs to the people. Their money paid for the railway services that are now being sold off at knockdown prices to private investors. Their money paid for the buses that constantly adorn our roadsides with their bonnets up and
      1126
      their "not in service" signs displayed and for the tubes that have difficulty making it from one station to another without hour-long pauses.
      Having paid for those things, the people of London have a right to see them work. If Ministers fail to maintain, invest in and modernise our transport system, making it one that Londoners can look on with pride rather than trepidation, then they will find themselves paying as heavy a price as those who do battle with the transport system every single working day.
      8.52 pm
      Mr. Peter Luff: It is not just because I am an adviser to the Chamber of Shipping that I want to begin by warmly welcoming what the Secretary of State had to say today about changes to the taxation regime for roll-over relief for shipping companies. On both sides of the House there is a strong consensus that the importance of shipping to the United Kingdom economy cannot be overstated—not simply because of the 90 per cent. of our foreign trade that it carries to and from our shores but because of the 26 per cent. of domestic trade that shipping companies carry in this country.
      It is a shame that this debate, like so many others on transport, has understated the importance of shipping to the United Kingdom by overstating the importance of road freight, not making allowance for the fact that more than one quarter of all domestic freight is carried by sea. Besides this direct contribution to our transport, the shipping industry makes its contribution to the marine equipment industries that supply it and it underpins the City of London and all the marine services there.
      I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) would have been more impressive in his rather brief and peremptory remarks about shipping if he had praised not just the role of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). I freely admit that she has played an interested role in the debate about the future of our shipping, but it would have been helpful if the hon. Gentleman had also praised my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), for Dover (Mr. Shaw), for Slough (Mr. Watts), for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill)—not to mention my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. They have all consistently and convincingly argued the case for British shipping.
      The measure announced today to the House will help some sectors more than others, but it will still help the whole industry. It is part of a series of measures that the Government have taken which will have an important cumulative effect on the fortunes of the British shipping industry. I now ask my right hon. Friend to conduct with the utmost vigour his battle against state aids in the rest of Europe. Although the playing field may have been somewhat levelled, there is still quite an imbalance. I particularly ask my right hon. Friend to deal with the attempt by the French Government to provide £1 billion-worth of subsidy to Compagnie Generale Maritime—a classic example of subsidy if ever there was one.
      In this debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State demolished a number of the myths that are often peddled about public transport. He demolished the myth

      1127
      that it is possible to remove the need for new road building by increasing the use of rail. The startling figure that a 50 per cent. increase in rail traffic would lead to only a 3 per cent. reduction in road traffic speaks volumes about that myth. My right hon. Friend also demolished most effectively the myth that the Government do not fund public transport adequately. With 90 per cent. of United Kingdom traffic going by road and 40 per cent. of his budget spent on public transport, it is clear that that argument cannot be sustained either.
      I was slightly surprised, however, that one myth did not surface in the debate—the myth that it is possible to achieve the chimera of an integrated transport policy. Had anyone referred to the need for that, I would have happily referred him to the famous episode of "Yes, Minister", in which Jim Hacker is charged with the task of bringing about an integrated transport policy—described by the Cabinet Secretary in his diary as
      "a bed of nails, a crown of thorns, a booby trap".
      In the event the Minister falls for it.
      The reason why such a policy is a crown of thorns is later revealed by Sir Humphrey, who says:
      "Formulating policy means making choices. Once you make a choice you please the people you favour but you infuriate everyone else. This is liable to end up as one vote gained, ten lost. If you give a job to the road services, the Rail Board and unions will scream. If you give it to the railways, the road lobby will massacre you."
      It is perhaps this fear that lies behind the total inability of the Opposition parties to make any reasonable choices about the future of transport in this country. The Government face up to those choices, and I believe that they consistently take the right ones.
      There was a previous attempt to provide an integrated transport system, but unfortunately we had to repeal it in the Railways Act 1993. My friend Robert Adley, then the Member for Christchurch, and I were saddened by the repeal of the four Railway Road Transport Acts of 1928 and the four Air Transport Acts of 1929. The rail companies fought hard for those eight Acts, which gave them powers to co-ordinate road and rail transport and to take cross-shareholdings and other transport interests. The Great Western Railway took shareholdings in many bus companies and reduced its own operations. As a result of its experience, it began to experiment with diesel multiple units and produced the first diesel railcars.
      Those Acts of Parliament were delivering co-ordinated transport through market forces and that process should have been allowed to continue, with proper scrutiny by the competition authorities. War, recession and the motor car all made the railways' task more difficult. It was the Labour party that finished the process off, with its ideology and dogma and its nationalisation of the railways.
      That ugly monster, the British Transport Commission, created on 1 January 1948, was to blame. As a result of the Transport Act 1947, it had the duty to provide an integrated system of transport in Britain. However, as "The Great Western Railway History" published in 1984—the official history—reveals:
      "Sir Cyril Hurcomb, Chairman of the BTC, … made the mistake of organising rail, road and water in five separate Executives and … selected incompatible people for the Railway Executive, which left him with no hope of integrating road with rail, and no chance of integrating the four railways."
      Nationalisation finally destroyed the proper hopes of an integrated public transport system in Britain. However, we
      1128
      should be seeking not an integrated system but a balanced one. In my constituency of Worcester I am happy to report that the combination of Government policy and market forces has achieved precisely that and enormous benefit is now flowing to our local economy as a result.
      The widening of the M5, completed on schedule and within budget last year, has made an enormous contribution to relieving local road bottlenecks. I am appalled to hear that the Liberal party wants a moratorium on such widening. What do the Liberals think that failure to widen the M5 would have done for communications from the south-west to the midlands and north of our country?
      Investment in rail is also proceeding. The Cotswold Line Promotion Group, in its winter 1993–94 newsletter, described the effect of £3 million of investment in new rolling stock:
      "The new service of modern Class 165 and 166 Turbo trains through to and from Paddington is now beginning to pay handsome dividends. Mike Haigh, District Manager for Regional Railways (Central) has recently told the Group that passenger numbers, since the introduction of the trains in May 1993, are 25 per cent. up and revenue is 32 per cent. up on the same period last year".
      That is Government money.
      I am glad to report that we have good private sector bus services. Deregulation of bus services in my constituency has not produced any of the dire consequences predicted by the Labour party. Since the liberalisation of air services, Birmingham international airport is steadily expanding its range of international services, making the area attractive to inward investment.
      In my constituency, there is clear evidence that the Government's policy is delivering a balanced transport policy in the interests of all my constituents. A number of my hon. Friends have spoken about the democratic imperative of having good transport policies. Freedom of movement for all—those with cars and without cars—is almost as important in the modern world as another great democratic freedom—freedom of speech—and we are achieving it.
      9 pm
      Mr. Roy Hughes: Transport is central to people's lives and, understandably, it is high on the political agenda. It should be looked at in its entirety, not piecemeal. For instance, we need a transport system that gives access to people without cars: that means bus or rail, and deregulating bus services did not help. The cost of privatising British Rail is enormous, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) pointed out.
      Money should be spent on electrification, rolling stock and upgrading lines. Instead, the Government are lining the pockets of consultants, advisers, merchant bankers and brokers in the City. How wasteful and irrelevant is the Government's action in relation to Britain's real transport needs. Money can be frittered away in that manner, yet in my constituency of Newport, East we cannot get the pittance to provide a simple rail halt at Magor, which could do so much for the transport needs of the area.
      A look at public transport as a whole reveals 15 years of underspending on infrastructure, despite all the revenue from North sea oil and the massive receipts from the sale of public assets. The Government are hostile to public

      1129
      investment, subsidies and planning. Profit is the principal objective and consequently Britain is left with probably the worst transport system in western Europe.
      I should be the first to recognise that we need a transport system to meet our economic needs. Goods have to be transported quickly and efficiently so that we can compete in world markets. Likewise, we should recognise the need to spread economic growth throughout the country instead of confining it to the south-east of England.
      We must face reality. Where would south Wales be today without the M4 motorway and the Severn bridge? It would be an industrial wasteland. All the pits have gone and steel has suffered massive cuts in manpower. Our manufacturing sector tends to be based on motor components: Ford engines in Bridgend; Lucas Girling in Cwmbran; Bosch, the major German company, in the Vale of Glamorgan, and many more besides. Without a modern road network, none of those firms would now be based in south Wales.
      We need to get as much freight as possible on to the railways. With the channel tunnel, British Rail has the opportunity to prove that it can move long-distance freight expeditiously and competitively. At present, 89 per cent. of freight miles are travelled by road. If we succeeded in doubling the volume of freight that goes by rail—an enormous task—it would make little impact on the tonnage travelling by road.
      In the retail sector, people have become accustomed to fresh produce, wide choice and full shelves in stores and supermarkets. The requirement is for huge amounts of stock at the point of sale and at the right moment. In reality it is only the lorry that can give that flexibility. For short-distance deliveries, for service calls, for trips with multiple destinations, the choice is invariably the car or van.
      Some 90 per cent. of passenger miles are travelled by road. Compared with other countries of western Europe, Britain has a relatively low level of car ownership, but the proportion of travel by car in the United Kingdom is the highest in Europe. Germany has far more cars per head of the population, but their owners use them less and travel is far less car-dominated. The Government therefore have a clear duty to encourage commuters and those travelling in urban areas to use cars less and thereby cut congestion on our roads. They could help, too, by providing better public transport.
      People are understandably concerned about the environment but some go over the top on that subject and are misleading many sincere people. The claim has even been put about that Britain is being concreted over. In fact, all roads cover only 1.5 per cent. of land. Even if the full road programme were completed, it would cover only 1.6 per cent. of land. The largest part of land is taken up by roads that have been part of the landscape since Roman times or the middle ages. They have been added to by road widening and the bypasses that are so helpful to the environment.
      Nevertheless, I agree that we should all be concerned to minimise the intrusion into the countryside. People today value their mobility. A motor car provides the personal transport that was once the prerogative of the rich. The prosperous countries of the world—led by the United States followed by Germany—have the highest rate of car ownership. By comparison, Poland has the lowest rate, and we all appreciate the depth of economic depression in that country.
      1130
      I am one of those who regularly use public transport. In London I travel daily by bus. Down in south Wales I use the train frequently; it is a most agreeable form of transport. I end where I began. Transport should not be treated in a piecemeal fashion. The Government's free market dogma has not helped. Likewise, it is no answer to throw out the roads programme. Our competitors, Germany, France and the Netherlands, are investing heavily in their road networks. Despite Jim Hacker, we need an integrated transport system linking road and rail in the public and private sectors. That is the way to a sound economy and the road to prosperity.
      9.8 pm
      Mr. Edward Garnier: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) started on what I thought would be a well-considered discussion of the various transport issues facing us today. For a while, I was not disappointed, because he began to make an attack on the Liberal Democrat party—indeed, he made a vitriolic and excoriating attack on it. I thought that I could agree with much of what he said, but then I thought a little more about what he had said and realised that he was perhaps being unfair. In the few moments that are left before those on the Front Benches wind up, let me explain why I think that, by drawing attention to what has been going on in my county of Leicestershire and what the Opposition parties have been doing about it.
      In my constituency there is a road called the A427, which goes from Market Harborough and crosses into the constituency of Blaby at a village called Kilworth. On its way there, it passes through villages such as Lubenham, Theddingworth and Husbands Bosworth. There is a crash nearly every day on that road. Either a lorry goes into someone's garden or house, or a car crashes into another car and endangers the life of one of my constituents. It is a county council road, not a Department of Transport road, and thus comes under the auspices of those on the county council transport committee, which, I regret to say, is run by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrat party. They are in an unholy alliance on the council.
      That is why I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was being just a touch unfair to the Liberal Democrats: outside the House, in my county, the Labour party is in alliance with the Liberal Democrats—
      Mr. Dunn: And in Kent.
      Mr. Garnier: It may well be in my hon. Friend's constituency, too.
      When the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made his terrible attack on the Liberal Democrats, he was clearly not advised by those who write his speeches for him that, not so very far away from the House—just 100 miles north of here—a county council is running a transport system and a road system that fall into the trap that he has set himself. The county council has refused to place the A427 at the top of its list of priorities for road improvement. Every time I write to complain, it uses, day in and day out, the mantra, "We are waiting for the completion of the A14—the Al-M1 link."
      The A1-M1 link is much needed and will soon be completed. It goes from just west of Huntingdon across to the MI just south and west of my constituency. I am happy to say that the Department of Transport has made sure that the funding for it is there and that the project will shortly

      1131
      be completed. The road will make a tremendous difference to the economic well-being of my constituency, where, only yesterday, it was announced that the unemployment figure is now as low as 1,937—a reduction of nearly 29 per cent. from this time last year.
      One of the reasons why the unemployment picture in my constituency is so good is that the Government's transport policies have ensured that the Government's end of the transport system in my constituency is well looked after. The fact that communications are good attracts business and investment and allows people in my constituency to do business and trade and therefore increase employment. The Liberal Democrats and the Labour party on the county council refuse to improve the A427, however, so, until they are removed from the county council, we will have to carry on listening to the lorries and the cars crashing about on that road.
      What else have the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats done in my constituency to improve the public transport or road infrastructure? They have failed to complete the eastern district distributor road, which goes around the city of Leicester. It is all but complete. The bit that is not complete is the two to three-mile section in my constituency. I am sure that it is a coincidence that my constituency is represented by a Conservative Member of Parliament, while the city council is run entirely by Labour and the county council is run by Labour and the Liberal Democrats; doubtless that is not the reason for the councils' failure to complete the road but it is a fact, and one about which the House should know. Two much-demanded public transport schemes have thus been neglected by the Opposition parties, which makes the vitriolic and excoriating attack made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on his allies in my county doubly unfair.
      Hon. Members may ask whether I would like to compare that record with the Government's policies, which have produced good transport developments in my constituency. The Market Harborough bypass, for instance, was opened by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport 18 months or two years ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "How exciting."] It is exciting. I am sorry that it embarrasses Opposition Members, who have nothing useful or constructive to say about the issue.
      The Market Harborough bypass is of great value to my constituents. Not only does it serve a useful transport purpose; it is environmentally beneficial. A huge number of trees have been planted alongside it, and Market Harborough itself has gained tremendously from the absence of smoking lorries queueing up in the high street and destroying the infrastructure, buildings and general pleasantness of an ancient market town. Would that Labour and the Liberal Democrats would do the same, and improve the A427.
      The other Government-sponsored road in my constituency is the A47, the Leicester to Peterborough road. It, too, has had the benefit of Government money, and I am happy to say that it is another of the many roads throughout the country that have been greatly improved by the Government. It is a pity that the Opposition's friends in county hall, be they Liberal or Labour, have not had the foresight to organise their priorities to the benefit of the constituents whom I have the honour to represent. I say that
      1132
      it is a pity, but perhaps it is not surprising: most Liberal and Labour county councillors live in the city or represent wards in it, and most Conservative wards are outside the city. All the money is therefore sucked into the city, and none of it is spent in the county.
      My rural villages are being denied the bypass at Theddingworth that is so desperately needed. As I said earlier, the people of Theddingworth are daily having to deal with the detritus of car crashes; the health service is daily having to send out ambulances, and the police service is daily having to send out policemen to deal with the accidents. The cost benefits that would result from a bypass are so obvious as hardly to require analysis.
      I have had the honour to represent my constituency for two years. In that time, I have seen great improvements in its economy—brought about, as I have said, by the transport benefits conferred by the present Government. I often look in my local newspaper to see what the Liberals are doing at county hall; I look across at them in the Chamber, and wonder what on earth they think they are doing.
      I used to believe that rotation was something to do with the management of crops, but I have now concluded that it is nothing other than the policy stance of the Liberal county council, which changes day in, day out, week in, week out. What the Liberals say in the House is different from what they say in the county council; that is different from what they say in the borough council; what they say differs from street to street. I think that that is the experience of other Conservative Members.
      I should like the Government to warn the members of the county council in my constituency that, unless the A427 is improved and placed higher on the list of priorities when the council applies next year for transport supplementary grant, it will be denied further funding for projects outside the southern half of Leicestershire. For too long, Government money has been going into the city and near-city without any benefit to my constituency. Those whom I represent have just about had enough.
      The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras opened the debate by attempting to criticise the Government; he spent 40 minutes saying an awful lot but exuding more heat than light. I have no doubt that we shall hear something of interest from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport when he winds up. I hope that he will take on board my concerns about the A427 and will ensure that its improvement goes ahead.
      9.20 pm
      Mr. Nick Raynsford: This debate has exposed the inadequacy of Government transport thinking and highlighted the alarming absence of any coherent policy. We heard the continuing neanderthal voices of those Conservative Members who believe that more and more road building, irrespective of the social and environmental consequences, is the Department of Transport's only purpose. We heard in excellent speeches from my hon. Friends example after example of the decay and rundown of public transport services because of lack of investment and failed Government policies.
      We have witnessed at first hand the Government's confused and bungling approach to Britain's transport needs. There is no vision, strategy or sense of direction. We get only a jumble of unco-ordinated ad hoc responses to

      1133
      short-term crises. We have seen also sad attempts to put into practice some of the barmiest ideas ever to emerge from the intellectual morass of right-wing think tanks.
      Nowhere is that lack of strategy more evident and damaging than in London and the south east. When we highlight transport problems in Scotland, Wales, the north-east, Manchester, Birmingham and many other parts of the country, most Conservative Members show little or no interest. They probably switch off because they have little or no experience of those areas transport needs.
      They cannot, however, ignore the transport needs of London and the south-east. Whether they are stuck in a car or taxi in a traffic jam, delayed because their train to London is late, trying to survive a power failure on London Underground, stuck waiting in the rain for a bus that shows no sign of arriving and generally experience the day-to-day horrors of transport in London, Conservative Members know what a mess the Government have made of London's housing policy. [Laughter.] I mean, London's transport policy. They certainly made a mess of London's housing policy, but also of transport policy.
      What a different prospectus existed when the Government, in their characteristic high-handed fashion, took control of London's public transport from the Greater London council. Moving the Second Reading of the London Regional Transport Bill in December 1983, the then Secretary of State for Transport, the late Nicholas Ridley, did not mince his words:
      "The purpose of the Bill is to enable us to provide the most convenient, attractive and efficient service possible for London's travelling public."—[Official Report, 13 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 865.]
      That was the Government's promise more than 10 years ago. We know their unenviable reputation for wildly misleading election promises, that their forecasting is—to put it mildly—rather wide of the mark and their predilection is for being economical with the actualité. Given that, yesterday, the Palace of Westminster was yet again surrounded by Evening Standard billboards proclaiming "Thousands hit by tube chaos", it is difficult to imagine any other field of activity in which people who so manifestly failed to deliver their promises would not have been hounded from office years ago.
      I am pleased to say that the people of London will be voting in two weeks' time. In doing so, they will undoubtedly be casting a richly deserved verdict on the representatives of the Tory party. That is the party which took away from London its right to determine its own future through a democratically elected citywide authority. It is the party which arrogantly claimed that it knew best how to run London's services. It is the party which promised that it would deliver,
      "the most convenient, attractive and efficient service possible for London's travelling public".
      Let us look at the reality. Yesterday's further disruption on the underground, which was caused by a derailment on the much-troubled Central line, was only the latest in a long series of incidents, the most serious of which effectively shut down the eastern section of the Central line for a whole week last November.
      The catalogue of failure is depressing. There were more than 2,000 incidents on the London Underground last year which resulted in passengers having to wait for more than 20 minutes. On average, just under 10 per cent. of London Underground escalators were out of action during 1993 and on some lines the figures are much worse; more than 15 per cent. were out of action on the Piccadilly line.
      1134
      In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) rightly highlighted the horrifying experience of her constituents who were trapped yesterday in the lift at one of the stations on the underground. In 1993, nearly 1,500 stations were closed for more than 20 minutes, more than 100 were closed for more than one month, and Mornington Crescent station was closed throughout the year—and it remains closed now.
      I sometimes suspect that the Government have a vendetta against those who live in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). My hon. Friend's constituents must suffer the continued closure of their station at Mornington Crescent; my constituents suffer a slightly more cruel form of torture. As we have no underground lines to Greenwich at present, Ministers cannot close down any of the stations. However, they have found a more subtle way of going about it—they are refusing to build the stations that they promised on the Jubilee line.
      North Greenwich station—proudly announced by the Minister and his colleagues in the past—will not be built at the moment because they are still haggling with British Gas over the price that British Gas is expected to pay for the station. If the Minister wants to announce that the station is going ahead, I will be happy to give way—I hope that the Ministr will give that assurance.
      Mr. Norris: The Minister would announce that no one is talking about deleting stations on the Jubilee line extension except the hon. Gentleman. There is absolutely no reason why the negotiations between the owners of the land and London Underground will not result in that station being built. It is only the hon. Gentleman who consistently talks the system down in his constituency and, indeed, all over London.
      Mr. Raynsford: Hon. Members will note clearly the Minister's failure to give the pledge that I asked him to give—that the station at North Greenwich will go ahead. He knows that London Underground has not been able to sign the contract for the station.
      Mr. Norris: Tough negotiators.
      Mr. Raynsford: Tough negotiators. Eighteen months after the scheme was due to begin, London Underground still has not signed the contract, because the Government are incompetent negotiators and cannot construct a proper underground line.
      Like so many of the problems of London Underground, the episodes that I have highlighted emphasise the extent to which the service is chronically underfunded. The Minister for Transport in London admitted it candidly on Budget day when he said:
      "It's perfectly obvious to a blind man that more money needs to be spent than we have got at the moment."
      That might seem to be refreshingly honest if it had not come from the Government who, before the last general election, promised London Underground £3.5 billion for investment over the next three years, only to abandon that pledge at the first opportunity that they could after the election—the autumn statement in 1992.
      The decently modern metro—a rather less ambitious target than the
      "most convenient, attractive and efficient service possible",
      which was promised eight years earlier—will remain a pipe dream or be postponed yet again to the first decade of

      1135
      the next century as London Underground is able to invest no more than £475 million in its core business in the current year, compared with the £750 million which is required and which the Tory party promised before the last election. That was an election pledge which, like so many others, they have broken.
      If breaking election promises is one characteristic of the Government, spitefulness towards anyone who has the temerity to remind them of it is another. Hence the fiasco last month when Sir Wilfred Newton had to postpone his retirement from London Transport because his deputy, Dr. Alan Watkins—whom everyone expected to take over and who was eminently qualified to do so—was turned down for having had the temerity to tell the truth about the Government's failure to honour their election pledges.
      If London's ailing underground system is one monument to the Government's funding failure, London's buses are victims equally of the Tories' ideological fixation on deregulation and privatisation. The prospect of deregulation which hung over London until last autumn has now been mercifully abandoned. There are many other parts of the country where the problems of deregulation sadly are all too evident.
      We heard clearly from my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) about some of the problems. I am thinking in particular of the horrendous example of the exploitative conditions imposed by an employer whom my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras would rightly describe as scum. That employer's exploitation of the work force in a most unscrupulous way was rightly highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East.
      That horror of deregulation, exploitation and near-slave labour conditions has been withdrawn from London in the short term. That is unofficially, of course, until after the next general election. It has, of course, been withdrawn full stop, because it will not happen after the next election as the Conservative party will not be sitting on the Government Benches.
      Privatisation is proceeding in the meantime for the usual tawdry Tory reasons. Public assets are being flogged off at knockdown prices and pension funds are being eyed by latter-day Maxwells as suitable opportunities for plunder. There is no concern whatsoever for the public interest and no thought for the impact on London Transport. Instead of a coherent and integrated transport scheme, we have the prospect of fragmentation, deteriorating services and increased prices.
      The Government's preoccupation is to drive down and eliminate subsidy, whatever the impact on the number and quality of services and whatever the impact on fares. One interesting issue is the travelcard. How long will the travelcard—by unanimous agreement, one of the few success stories of London Transport in recent years—survive this fragmentation?
      Ministers rush to promise that the travelcard will continue, because they know how popular it is with the travelling public. How much value can we place on their assurances? We know their lamentable record of broken promises on investment in London transport, tax, VAT and so many other things. But what is one to make of the Minister for Transport in London, who categorically
      1136
      assured the House last year that the travelcard would continue in form and in substance in terms of price and in real terms?
      The Minister knew that, just one month later, the travelcard would increase in price by more than 6 per cent.—far greater than the rate of inflation—and, on the lower bands, it would increase by some 9 per cent. [Interruption.] I gave the Minister the quote and the reference. He promised that the travelcard would remain at the same price in real terms, and the pledge was broken within one month. That is an indication of how much trust one should place in the promises which are made by the Minister for transport in London.
      To add insult to injury, users of the Northern line have been stung by a shifty redesignation of their zones, which leaves some facing a rise of £168 a year in their travel costs. I know that it is fairly common practice for Government Members to shoot themselves in the foot, but, by pledging that there would be no increase in real terms in the cost of the travelcard when he was fully aware that his own policy would involve the price increasing within a month, the present Minister for Transport in London is rivalling the Prime Minister for incompetence and ineptitude.
      If the Government's stewardship of London Transport is found wanting in almost every count, their record with British Rail is equally deplorable. Many hon. Members rightly highlighted the concerns about the way in which the rail service was being broken up in deference to the ideological prejudices of the right-wing think tanks. Ministers will continue bleating unconvincingly about increasing efficiency, but no one will believe them. The only growth that we can expect is in the number of separate bureaucracies spawned by the botched privatisation, which, as we all know, did not command the support even of the late Lord Ridley.
      As train operator units, leasing companies, track authorities, regulators and other quangos proliferate, each backed up by its own small army of public relations advisers, logo and uniform designers, image consultants, accountants, administrators and parliamentary lobbyists, the day fast approaches when the serried ranks of the rail quangocracy brought into existence by the Government will far exceed the number of train drivers, the number of trains operated and the number of passengers on the network.
      While all this is being done supposedly in the interests of efficiency, the facts tell a different story. In an interesting and revealing article in February's journal of the Institute of Economic Affairs, a man called Michael Asteris concedes that
      "in efficiency terms, BR compares fairly well with many of its continental counterparts. The productivity of the workforce is among the highest of any European railway."
      He goes on to give the game away. He says that the true test of the privatisation of BR will be how many jobs it sheds and how many lines it closes. Of course, he was not referring to members of the quangocracy—the highly paid salary earners brought into post by the Government's privatisation.
      He holds out as good examples British Gas, which cut its work force by 17 per cent., British Steel, which cut its work force by 28 per cent. and British Telecom, which cut its work force by 32 per cent. Then he spells out exactly what the future holds for passengers in any area in which the service does not cover its costs. He says:

      1137
      "Once a clear system of track charging is in place, the costs of running a network will become more transparent than they have ever been. Attention will therefore tend to focus on whether the external benefits of heavily loss-making lines are sufficiently large as to justify the costs of retaining them. In other words transparency will bring to the fore a question which was last highlighted by the Beeching Report more than 30 years ago. How large a rail network should Britain have?"
      Mr. Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: No, I will not give way.
      That quotation is a pretty clear indication from a pretty authoritative source of exactly what the Government's game is. It shows the scorched earth policy that we are likely to get from them. We shall have a country littered with abandoned and overgrown railway lines, closed stations, redundant railway workers and abandoned passengers who, in consequence, will be forced to travel by road and in so doing add to the already severe problems of congestion and pollution from which we suffer. There can be few clearer examples of the nonsense of the current public transport policy, in which fragmentation is the order of the day and no one thinks long term about how to provide properly for the transport needs of the 21st century.
      Only the incurably foolish could believe that there is any sense in concreting over acre after acre of green belt land around London to provide ever more lanes of the M25. I was pleased to see that the right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) both made that point in speeches which were interestingly at variance with many of the other speeches by Conservative Members.
      It is well known that the Government have been obsessed with road building for the past 15 years, despite mounting public outrage at the desecration of the countryside at Twyford Down and the threatened destruction of Oxleas wood, and despite ever more persuasive evidence of the damage being caused to the environment and to people's health by rising levels of toxic emissions. Yet still the Government cling to the discredited belief that traffic and transport problems can be solved by ever more road building. They are simply wrong.
      We shall begin to tackle effectively the acute problems of congestion only if we achieve a significant and sustained shift in the mode of transport from the private car to public transport. As we all know, car ownership is expected to continue to grow substantially in the years ahead. That is not in itself a bad thing if it extends the benefits of travel opportunity to people whose options have been restricted in the past, but it is a very bad thing indeed if it simply facilitates an ever-increasing volume of motor cars on already severely congested roads. The key has to be to discourage unnecessary car use and encourage the alternatives. Far-reaching changes in policy are required to achieve that.
      We have to be more determined to give public transport priority and to ensure the necessary investment to improve the quality, attractiveness and reliability of public transport services. We have to be imaginative and develop new transport systems such as better use of the river, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) argued so effectively.
      We have to ensure that projects such as crossrail, which are vital to London's future, proceed rather than being left in limbo by a Government who say that they support it but have never been prepared to put their money where their mouth is.
      1138
      We know only too well that the Government's policies are short-sighted and do not provide a solution to Britain's needs. Instead of vision, the Government offer only the stale old nostrums of the discredited right-wing think tanks. Instead of decisiveness, they offer only dither and delay. Instead of purpose, they offer us only the humiliating spectacle of Ministers being pushed, kicking and screaming, into projects that they should have advocated years before.
      Instead of a transport strategy, the Government offer only fragmentation and chaos. They have failed lamentably, and it is time they went.
      9.40 pm
      The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): About 20 Back-Bench Members have spoken during this long debate, and my ministerial colleagues listened carefully to some of the more detailed questions, which I will not have time to answer. I will ensure that I or my colleagues reply to the questions that I do not cover.
      It would be helpful if I concentrated on answering some of the questions raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends and, especially, commented on the speeches of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. I have sat through virtually all the debate. It is fair to say that the contributions made by the hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) were negative, ignorant of basic transport policies and, most important, very expensive.
      First, why was the policy of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras negative? The Opposition Front-Bench team have voted for the past 14 years against every sensible transport policy put before the House [Interruption.] Let us go through them [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I am going to.
      Let us start with the abolition of the dock labour scheme. Every one of my hon. Friends will know of the great improvements in the efficiency of our port system and the investment in it. Those Opposition Members voted against abolition of the dock labour scheme. They are also the politicians who voted against the privatisation of British Airways and the British Airports Authority and against the deregulation of our long-distance coach industry. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) who pointed out the tremendous advances in that industry, which took place in the face of opposition from the Labour party, which is also the party that voted against improvements in our rail reforms.
      The Labour party believes in the maintenance of state socialism and is totally opposed to change. The Government have persistently pursued a constructive policy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport dealt comprehensively in his opening speech with some of the new initiatives in our road programme. There have been no new ideas from the Opposition.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined our policy on motorway charging to help improve the motorway system, but we heard no such ideas from the Opposition. My right hon. Friend also outlined our ideas on congestion charging in our major cities, to apportion the true cost of motoring in urban areas. One option is to recycle the proceeds back into improving public transport—something that hon. Members on both sides of the House

      1139
      would welcome. My right hon. Friend also spoke about initiatives on road building to introduce the concept of design, build, maintain and operate roads.
      Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Freeman: No; I will not give way. I am seeking to answer the debate. I will mention the contribution of the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) later.
      By private sector road building, via either shadow tolling or real tolling of roads, we can add to the total road building programme that the public sector can afford. We also have advanced policies about the use of the private sector to finance specifically the second rail link to the channel tunnel. That will help commuters as much as it will help international passangers. I am glad to tell the House that already six consortia are interested in bidding for the construction of the second channel tunnel rail link.
      I am grateful for the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) about the west coast main line. That represents a new idea to bring private sector finance into the construction of infrastructure. I can tell the House and the Opposition Members who mentioned the west coast main line, but are not in their places, that we expect a contract to be let, around the turn of the year, for the construction of the necessary infrastructure modernisation on the west coast main line, and work to start next summer. That is real progress.
      We have also believed in the importance of introducing reforms to our railways. The franchising programme will commence in 1995. It is important that it is done properly. That is why it is being done in stages. I can tell the House — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) laughs, but I shall be happy to debate with him at the next general election, when he will notice some lower fares, new services and an improvement in the quality of our rail services.
      Mr. Snape rose—
      Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman is going to ask me about fares, what about British Telecom charges, down 30 per cent? What about gas prices? I remember the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the privatisation of British Telecom and British Gas, but prices have come down.
      Mr. Snape rose—
      Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question, and I will answer it now. He asked about procurement of new rolling stock and especially the work load of ABB and GEC. He is right to do so. I have met both companies in recent weeks. I encouraged them to come forward with propositions for building new rolling stock. They will have to be in the form of an operating lease. I am certain that there is need, especially on Network SouthEast, perhaps in Kent, and I look forward to those two companies bringing forward sensible propositions. I will work with them to ensure that such orders are placed.
      The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East also asked me about the midland metro. We have made it plain that we will consider the financing of that scheme at the time of the unified Budget later this year. The Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, have provided the finance for the
      1140
      Manchester metro and the South Yorkshire supertram—not the local authorities; the taxpayer. I look forward to considering the midland metro scheme in due course.
      The second aspect of the contributions from hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench that I wish to criticise is their plain ignorance—their ignorance about what we have achieved in terms of public transportation. I heard no recognition of the fact that, in the past five years, we have changed the prioritisation in our expenditure so that 40 per cent. of our budget is now spent on public transportation, but public transportation only carries 10 per cent. of all domestic passenger and freight journeys. That is a clear demonstration of the importance that we place on public transport.
      When the hon. Member for Greenwich spoke about transport policies in London, especially public transport, he failed to mention, first, the Heathrow express, now under construction, and the Jubilee line, £1.9 billion-worth, now under construction. He failed to mention the Central line—£700 million of improvements on the London underground. He failed to mention the Northern line. His hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did so, and I will say something about that in a moment.
      As for crossrail, let me make it plain that the Government support it—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), a member of the Select Committee, in his place—and we look forward to the House of Commons Select Committee reporting the crossrail Bill for further consideration.
      Of course, the Jubilee line and crossrail cannot be built at the same time. We have made it plain that, once the Jubilee line is finished and the main part of the construction expenditure is over, we shall consider the timing of the construction of crossrail. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for his strong support for crossrail, because it will benefit his constituents.
      The hon. Member for Greenwich did not mention the channel tunnel rail link, which will greatly benefit Londoners. He was supposed to be dealing with issues in London and the rail link will help domestic commuters into London as much as international passengers.
      Mr. Raynsford: When?
      Mr. Freeman: We are getting on with the process. We have begun the competition to select the private sector consortium to build the line. Six major consortia are interested in building it.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for his comments about Networkers. That programme has cost some £800 million to improve the rail services on the Kent link.
      Mr. Raynsford: What about reliability?
      Mr. Freeman: They will improve. Their reliability is the responsibility not of the Government but of the manufacturers. Once they work, those who use Network SouthEast will see a great improvement in the quality of service.
      The hon. Member for Greenwich asked about travelcards. We have every intention of ensuring that the travelcard is retained. It is extremely important to all those who commute in London. A multi-modal card, not only for

      1141
      London but for other great cities, is of great benefit to the travelling public and we do not wish to undermine the travelcard in any way.
      My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, who I thought was going to take the debate at one stage—he made some effective interventions—will privatise London buses this year and we shall come to the deregulation of London buses in due course. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras laughs. Deregulation of the bus industry has brought about more bus mileage and a reduction in bus costs. That is a fact. Patronage has declined, but that is not a function of the availability of buses. It represents an understandable preference by the travelling public outside London to use the motor car.
      We must ensure that the bus industry is profitable enough, and I welcome the privatisation of Greater Manchester buses, which will help provide a more efficient and effective service there. We cannot attract more people back on the buses as the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) suggested. I am glad that he has now been joined by the other representative of the Liberal Democratic party.
      For the benefit of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), I shall describe briefly in a moment the Liberal Democrats' polices. We learned tonight that one of them is to double bus patronage in 10 years. That is what the hon. Member for North Devon said. How will he do that? It is no good setting targets unless he has a comprehensive policy to achieve them. On deregulation, the Conservative party does not fall into the trap of setting, in an integrated transport policy, targets that are pious hopes. We believe in providing flexibility of transport and freedom of choice.
      The third aspect of Opposition Front-Bench Members' contributions to the debate was the expensive nature of their policies. We kept a check list. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, for the benefit of hon. Members, I shall run through the spending commitments made today.
      The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that under a Labour Government the public sector would finance the west coast main line, the Avon metro, the Northern line and the channel tunnel rail link—a total of £4.1 billion. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) added to that list the docklands light railway extension, the east London line and Thameslink 2000—another £1 billion. That makes a total of £5.1 billion. Does the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras seek to correct me? [Interruption.] No?
      Mr. Dobson: Yes. The Minister knows that I was suggesting that the £446 million that the Government are pouring into the process of privatisation—most of it into the City of London—would have been better spent on railway projects all over this country.
      Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. It is not £460 million—[interruption.]—£446 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made it plain that the figure is £50 million—£50 million well spent—less than 2 per cent. of British Rail's total turnover. My right hon. Friend also said that British Rail had achieved a 7 per cent. improvement in efficiency in the past year. What one can get for spending 2 per cent. on reorganising British Rail leads one to the conclusion that those efficiency gains will continue.
      1142
      The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did not answer my question. Commitments have been made from the Opposition Front-Bench team today totalling £4.1 billion over five years—I shall be generous to the hon. Gentleman—£800 million a year. From where is the money to come? It will not come from savings on the roads programme, because the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) said that he did not want the M62 relief road and would spend the £360 million on improving Manchester metro. There would be no road scheme savings.
      The money will come from the taxpayer or higher borrowing. Another source would be borrowing from the private sector. If a Labour Government borrow from the private sector in the name of British Rail, that scores as public expenditure. It is no use the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras suggesting that he will obtain money under the private finance initiative, because, given his attitude towards the private sector—during the debate he described some company directors as scum—I cannot imagine the private sector wishing to co-operate with a Labour Government.
      I must, in all fairness, mention the Liberal Democrats. I shall explain to the only Liberal Democrat other than the hon. Member for North Devon who has turned up today, what that party's policies are. First, the Liberal Democrats are in favour of the privatisation of London buses. Secondly, the hon. Member for North Devon, setting policy for the Liberal Democrats, is in favour of stopping the widening of all our motorways. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman favours cutting the roads programme in general, but nowhere in particular. We have been given no examples of any road programme that the hon. Gentleman, as spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, would be prepared to cut.
      The difference between the Conservative party and all the Opposition parties is that they—particularly the Labour party—have advocated the continuation of state socialism—state control of our public sector utilities. Opening the debate, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras spoke for 43 minutes and mentioned the passenger not once. He mentioned the unions five times, but did not mention the passenger at all. [Interruption.] I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I am happy to acknowledge that he has now whispered the word "passenger". It is extremely important that the House understands the difference between freedom of choice for the passenger and state socialism as proposed by the Opposition. I commend the Government's amendment to the House.
      Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
      The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 292.

      Division No. 217]

      [9.59 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Barnes, Harry

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Battle, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Bayley, Hugh

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Allen, Graham

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Alton, David

      Bell, Stuart

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Benton, Joe

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ashton, Joe

      Berry, Roger

      Austin-Walker, John

      Blair, Tony

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Boateng, Paul

      1143

      Boyes, Roland

      Hall, Mike

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hanson, David

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Hardy, Peter

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

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Harvey, Nick

      Burden, Richard

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Byers, Stephen

      Heppell, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hoey, Kate

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Home Robertson, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cann, Jamie

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hoyle, Doug

      Clapham, Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hutton, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Illsley, Eric

      Clelland, David

      Ingram, Adam

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Coffey, Ann

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jamieson, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Janner, Greville

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Keen, Alan

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Cousins, Jim

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cox, Tom

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Cummings, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Lewis, Terry

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Litherland, Robert

      Dafis, Cynog

      Livingstone, Ken

      Darling, Alistair

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Davidson, Ian

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McAllion, John

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

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Denham, John

      McFall, John

      Dewar, Donald

      McKelvey, William

      Dixon, Don

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Dobson, Frank

      McMaster, Gordon

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dowd, Jim

      McWilliam, John

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Madden, Max

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Eastham, Ken

      Mahon, Alice

      Enright, Derek

      Mandelson, Peter

      Etherington, Bill

      Marek, Dr John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Martlew, Eric

      Fisher, Mark

      Maxton, John

      Flynn, Paul

      Meacher, Michael

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Michael, Alun

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Foulkes, George

      Milburn, Alan

      Fraser, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Galloway, George

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Garrett, John

      Morley, Elliot

      George, Bruce

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mudie, George

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mullin, Chris

      Gordon, Mildred

      Murphy, Paul

      Graham, Thomas

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Olner, William

      Gunnell, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hain, Peter

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      1144

      Parry, Robert

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

      Patchett, Terry

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Snape, Peter

      Pike, Peter L.

      Soley, Clive

      Pope, Greg

      Spearing, Nigel

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Stevenson, George

      Purchase, Ken

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Straw, Jack

      Radice, Giles

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Randall, Stuart

      Turner, Dennis

      Raynsford, Nick

      Tyler, Paul

      Rendel, David

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Walley, Joan

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Watson, Mike

      Rogers, Allan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rooker, Jeff

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wilson, Brian

      Ruddock, Joan

      Winnick, David

      Salmond, Alex

      Wise, Audrey

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Worthington, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Short, Clare

      Simpson, Alan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Alan Meale and

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. John Spellar.

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

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Alexander, Richard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Congdon, David

      Amess, David

      Conway, Derek

      Ancram, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Ashby, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Couchman, James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cran, James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

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

      Baldry, Tony

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bates, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Day, Stephen

      Beggs, Roy

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Bellingham, Henry

      Devlin, Tim

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dicks, Terry

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Body, Sir Richard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dover, Den

      Booth, Hartley

      Duncan, Alan

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Dunn, Bob

      Bowden, Andrew

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bowis, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Eggar, Tim

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Elletson, Harold

      Brazier, Julian

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Bright, Graham

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Evennett, David

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Faber, David

      Burns, Simon

      Fabricant, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Butler, Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Forman, Nigel

      Carrington, Matthew

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Churchill, Mr

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Clappison, James

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      1145

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      French, Douglas

      Madel, Sir David

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gale, Roger

      Malone, Gerald

      Gallie, Phil

      Mans, Keith

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Marland, Paul

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Marlow, Tony

      Garnier, Edward

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gill, Christopher

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Mates, Michael

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gorst, John

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Merchant, Piers

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mills, Iain

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hague, William

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Needham, Richard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hannam, Sir John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Norris, Steve

      Hayes, Jerry

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Heald, Oliver

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hendry, Charles

      Ottaway, Richard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Page, Richard

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Paice, James

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Horam, John

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Pawsey, James

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

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Richards, Rod

      Jessel, Toby

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Key, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knapman, Roger

      Sackville, Tom

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

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

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knox, Sir David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Sims, Roger

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Soames, Nicholas

      Legg, Barry

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Leigh, Edward

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lidington, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lightbown, David

      Spring, Richard

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Sproat, Iain

      Lord, Michael

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Luff, Peter

      Steen, Anthony

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Stephen, Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Allan

      MacKay, Andrew

      Streeter, Gary

      Maclean, David

      Sweeney, Walter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Sykes, John

      1146

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Ward, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Watts, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wells, Bowen

      Thomason, Roy

      Whitney, Ray

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Whittingdale, John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Willetts, David

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

      Wilshire, David

      Tracey, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Tredinnick, David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Trend, Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Trotter, Neville

      Yeo, Tim

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Viggers, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Waller, Gary

      Mr. Timothy Wood.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That this House strongly supports the Government's transport policies which are providing more efficient and effective delivery for all users, in particular through the programme of privatisation and liberalisation in transport which allows the market to provide the transport services users want rather than the services which central planners dictate they should have; believes that the Government's rail reforms will build on the improvements in passenger service quality already achieved under the Citizen's Charter and offer the best opportunity to transfer freight from road to rail; noting the increased levels of public investment in rail, road and London Transport infrastructure, welcomes also the innovative means of financing new transport infrastructure developed in the Private Finance Initiative; supports the initiatives taken by the Government in the European Union to deal with sub-standard shipping; and applauds the Government's drive to liberalise aviation in the European Third Aviation Package and elsewhere.

      PROCEDURE
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Raymond S. Robertson be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Cheryl Gillan be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Patnick.]

      Ordered,
      That Mr. Piara S. Khabra be added to the Select Committee on Members' Interests.—[Mr. Patnick.]

    PETITION

      Lancashire
      10.16 pm
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: Today is an appropriate day to present this petition calling for the restoration of Lancashire's historic county boundaries. Today is the birthday of both Her Majesty the Queen, the Duke of Lancaster, and also the noble Earl of Derby, whose ancestor presented Bolton with its first charter in 1253, and who shares the same ancestor with Her Majesty in the Tudor Lancastrian John of Gaunt.
      The petition says:

      1147
      To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
      The Humble Petition of the Friends of Real Lancashire sheweth
      That the petitioners wish that the Metropolitan Counties of Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Cumbria be abolished and the real and historic county of Lancashire be restored.
      Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will call on Her Majesty's Government to place the whole of the county of Lancashire under the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire, to include Lancashire in the postal address, to erect signs bearing the county name where roads enter Lancashire and to remove signs naming the defunct administrative areas of Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Cumbria, and to show the real boundaries of Lancashire on all maps.
      And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Travelling People (Colchester)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  10.18 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to have this debate about a most distressing issue that is afflicting parts of my constituency.
  The background to the debate, which is about the provision of sites for travelling people in the constituency of Colchester, North, is, of course, the Caravan Sites Act 1968. I very much welcome the Government's Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which is amending it and changing the whole regime for caravan sites. The existing regime has been a failure.
  The intention of the Act was to promote public provision of caravan sites for travelling people throughout the country by putting the responsibility on local authorities to provide sites at public expense. The fact is that these have always been extremely hot political potatoes in the areas where they have been suggested, and the provision of private sites, or self-provision by travelling people and their families, has outstripped the rate at which public sites have been provided.
  In some areas, as in Tendring district in my constituency, no public sites have been provided and we still have the problem of travelling people who regularly visit parts of the area and end up illegally occupying public, or even private, land at great expense and inconvenience to local people. In one case, county council land that was not designated for travelling people was occupied and it took three years for the county council to evict them, at great distress to local people in the village of Great Bromley.
  The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will improve the situation with regard to illegal occupation, and the amended regulations on caravan sites will encourage local authorities either to move on with the provision of local sites or let the situation lapse. The effect of that situation on Essex county council and Tendring district council has been rather adverse. Having had a stalemate between them for a great many years, they are now in an unseemly rush —Essex county council certainly is—to provide a site for travelling people in my constituency in Tendring district.
  The interesting thing about Tendring district council and Essex county council is that they are both under Lib-Lab control, yet they cannot agree where the sites should be and members of the same parties are at daggers drawn in great dispute over that particular matter. Essex county council has lighted on a site at Grove farm in Elmstead, but local people have many objections to that proposal, not least because it is land that is not scheduled for development in the Tendring local plan. It sets a precedent for further planning permission to be granted in the area.
  There is no proper access to the site. According to expert advice, new access would have to be created and would cause possible hazards on an already dangerous road. There are no mains services to the site. Furthermore, Grove farm is high-quality agricultural land. It adjoins Palegate Wood, which is an ancient and semi-natural woodland. It is, at the moment, Essex county council's policy to safeguard such woodland.

  1149
  There are preservation orders on the trees to the entrance of the site, which would have to be cut down in the event of the site going ahead, and development would greatly reduce the value of Grove farm. It is no surprise, perhaps, that the farm is owned by Essex county council, and it is using the fact to make it easier to get a gipsy site in that particular place.
  In terms of Essex county council's site selection criteria, it fails on many counts. There are few shops in the vicinity; residential properties are in close proximity; the site is not capable of providing what is called a "living environment"; it is not in an area that is frequently visited by travelling people; a similar site approximately four miles from the proposed site is continuously under-used by travelling people; and it is not provided with the services that one would expect.
  Essex county council has gone ahead with the application for planning permission for the site. I understand that it will be at public expense, costing some £440,000 for only 20 or 25 pitches. Understandably, local people are most concerned and have made many representations to me. Tendring district council, however, has other ideas: it opposes the site recommended by Essex county council, and is going for a site at Willow farm in Great Bromley. I do not believe that the plan is yet subject to formal planning permission, but it falls into the same category, apart from not being subject to an application by Essex county council under the Act.
  The problem with Willow Farm is that, when Tendring district council chose the site, it did not impartially address the criteria recommended by the county council regarding the selection of sites for travelling people. Willow farm is not at a reasonable distance for access to schools and shops; indeed, the village school is 1.8 miles away. It is down long, dangerous, narrow lanes, and it would not be sensible for a mother walking her children to and from school every day to take such a path.
  There are three permanent residential properties in close proximity to Willow farm. Willow farm is clearly visible from the Al20; landscaping and tree planting would be necessary and no doubt expensive. A new road off the Al20 would have to be built to provide safe access. Only 12 yd from the perimeter of Willow farm is a large pig slurry lagoon with run-off from 1,750 pigs, whose capacity is soon to be increased to deal with more than 2,000. That strikes me as hardly a useful facility for travelling people.
  Great Bromley is not a village traditionally visited by travelling people. Willow farm has a very high water table, and no mains drainage or mains sewerage. Furthermore, Willow farm is privately owned and is not owned by a willing seller. It is thus a most unlikely site.
  Another consideration is that there is a Ministry of Defence and police communications link at Willow farm, very close to the proposed site. We cannot imagine that the MOD is not gravely concerned about the security of that installation, given that there will be much more coming and going on the site.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will understand that there is considerable public concern and controversy about both potential sites. We all understand that travelling people have civil rights that need to be respected and accommodated—although many of my constituents might think otherwise. They do not understand the life style of travelling people, and there is much fear and consternation
  1150
  about how those people fit into society—whether they pay their way or are over-dependent on services provided and paid for by others. That, however, is a separate matter.
  The only objective way in which to allay public concern—given the dispute between Essex county council and Tendring district council—is to hold a full public inquiry, in both cases if necessary. I urge my hon. Friend to make representations to the Secretary of State.
  10.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on securing the debate. As the House will know, this is a topical issue, as the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill—which will bear down on unlawful camping by travellers—is currently before Parliament.
  My hon. Friend is concerned about Essex county council's decision to press ahead with a proposed new residential gipsy site at Elmstead Market in Tendring district, despite the proposed repeal of the duty on local authorities to provide sites, and of the power to pay gipsy site grant. Until the repeal comes into force, local authorities retain the duty to provide sites, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is bound by statute to continue to consider paying grant on applications received before commencement of the new legislation.
  The position in my hon. Friend's constituency is that Essex county council applied for grant aid to provide a site at Grove farm, Elmstead Market, and is currently seeking planning permission for it. There is also discussion about Willow farm in Great Bromley.
  The decision in respect of Elmstead Market was made after an extensive search over a number of years for a suitable site, to provide for the demand from gipsies in the district—some of whom are illegally camped. I believe that the delay in site provision in my hon. Friend's constituency caused him to complain to the county and district councils in the past. I understand that the ombudsman was recently asked to investigate the apparent failure of the county council and Tendring district council to fulfil their existing statutory obligation to provide sites.
  A number of sites in the area, both private and public, are being considered—but it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any planning application that may come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment at some future stage for decision. As I said, Essex county council is still bound by the statutory obligation of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to provide gipsy sites—but must, of course, consult the district and other local interests on a choice of location.
  I can appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, if he feels that the public consultation process is not being followed, but I reassure him that the planning application in respect of Elmstead Market is at an early stage and that for Willow farm at an even earlier stage. In the former case, I certainly expect the county council to follow the proper process of public consultation with all relevant parties, including local people, and to hold a local exhibition.
  The thrust of my hon. Friend's argument was that there should be a public inquiry. His concern is that the country council and Tendring district council are in disagreement. If the district council decides that it wants to oppose the county's proposal to establish a site at Grove farm, it can

  1151
  lodge an objection to it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
  If it does so, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, after considering the objection, has three options. He can direct the county to abandon the proposal, proceed with it or refer the planning application for the proposed site to him for his own determination. The third option, which would involve a public inquiry, would need to be considered against the Department's general policy on calling in planning applications for the Secretary of State's decision—which is to use those powers sparingly and only when issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include those that could have wide effects beyond their immediate locality and give rise to substantial regional or national controversy.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am speculating, but my guess is that Essex county council would argue strenuously against a public inquiry, on the ground that Tendring district council's plea for one has simply added to its apparent obstructionist tactics. I am reluctant to rely purely on Tendring district council's section 8 appeal, because it has for years failed to co-operate with Essex county council on this matter. It may be tempting to visit this site upon Tendring district council, to force the issue, but I thought it best to make my own plea on the purely objective ground that, in respect of the Grove farm site, the people of Elmstead have not had a proper say.
  Mr. Baldry: As I shall explain in a moment, one of the reasons why we are taking powers to repeal the Caravan Sites Act is that for far too long there have been too many instances of county councils and district councils being at loggerheads on caravan site provision. That has been incredibly frustrating, not least to local people who have been left in an uncertain position, sometimes for a long time, while the district and county councils have argued the toss among themselves as to where possible sites might be. But the Secretary of State must comply with the statute, and the Caravan Sites Act is clear. If Tendring district council and the county council disagree on the matter, that falls to be resolved within the provisions of section 8 of the Caravan Sites Act.
  I should make it clear that the fact that a planning application is highly controversial locally is not of itself a justification for the Secretary of State to call it in or for there to be a public inquiry. After all, Parliament has charged local authorities with the responsibility for planning, together with many other important administrative decisions. It must be right that, as far as possible, local authorities should discharge the responsibility that has been given to them by Parliament.
  Local authorities are democratically elected organisations and are accountable to their electorate for their decisions. We consider that it would imply unnecessary central control if a large number of decisions on planning applications were taken by the Secretary of State, rather than the local authority. Indeed, it is also important that local authorities should accept responsibility for the decisions that they make, rather than expecting difficult or locally contentious decisions to be taken for them by others. The Secretary of State will therefore intervene only when there are compelling reasons to do so.
  1152
  It might be helpful if I say that, over the past few years, the number of matters that have been called in by the Secretary of State for his own decision has averaged about 100 a year—about two a week. While he may have a role to play where applications are referred to him as a departure from the development plan, he will not intervene on planning applications simply because the local planning authority finds the decision difficult or complex because of local controversy. He will exercise his reserve powers of intervention only sparingly where there are compelling and wider reasons to do so.
  I am in no position to judge whether the matters raised by my hon. Friend would merit a call-in by my right hon. Friend because, as I said, they are at an early stage of the planning process. It is a matter that we will consider carefully, especially having regard to the representations made by my hon. Friend. We will consider it carefully at the appropriate time if the circumstances require it.
  As I have said, my Department has received such an application for Grove farm, Elmstead Market which will be considered in the usual way with the usual criteria under the existing legislation. Proposed residential sites should have planning permission and assured availability for at least 10 years—and normally longer. Authorities must demonstrate that any scheme proposed for grant approval offers value for money, and we have benchmark figures. In Essex, the benchmark is £27,000 per pitch; we would need to be convincingly persuaded to agree to a higher figure. In Essex county council's initial application for the Grove Farm site, the works costs appear to be reasonable, together with land costs which seem to be on a par with other recent schemes.
  Good management is, of course, essential if a site is to work well, and proposals for future management are therefore an important element of applications. We look for sensible and robust designs in line with good practice and capable of being effectively managed. That will ensure the orderly and peaceful integration of a site into the local community and full utilisation by gipsy families.
  Complaints about irregular encampments by gipsies and the mess and disturbance that can go with them come up time and again in the constituency correspondence and surgeries of many of us here, and more so recently because of the disruption and antics of the less traditional travellers, new age travellers and ravers. I know that my hon. Friend has had more than his share of complaints from those in his constituency.
  Over 20 years ago, legislation was introduced to try to tackle unauthorised gipsy camping. That gave county councils a duty to provide decent public sites, in the hope that that would end the unofficial ones. Generous Government grant was made available, and locally there have been successes. In Essex, for example, sites have become accepted and integrated into local communities, even where the more settled population originally had doubts. The development of official sites has led to the closing of scruffy roadside arrangements.
  Across the country as a whole, and despite the substantial Government spending—millions of pounds of Government spending—insufficient progress has been achieved in clearing away the ad hoc sites which cause so much upset to continue to justify an open-ended call upon public spending.
  I think that the gipsy site grant is the only 100 per cent. Whitehall grant made available to local authorities. That is why we intend to change the legislation. It no longer seems

  1153
  reasonable for local authorities to be obliged to provide and run gipsy sites, or for the taxpayer to pay for them. Clearly that does not meet the intentions of Parliament, and we think there is a much better approach.
  Many individual gipsy families would be, and are, perfectly content to make their own site arrangements. I expect that there will also be organisations representing gipsy groups which will be interested in getting permission to provide larger licensed sites as well. We have therefore already issued planning guidance on how their reasonable requirements should be catered for within the existing planning framework. We shall expect—we will, if necessary, insist on—positive statements to that effect to be put in local authorities' development plans.
  Along with that encouragement of greater ability to make provision through the planning process, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill proposes to make it easier to move on the illegal campers who cause so much annoyance and discomfort, and sometimes expense, to those living nearby.
  I accept that, between now and the expected Royal Assent in July, there will be an inevitable hiatus over the proposed council sites. Such a situation is, of course, not infrequent when there are changes in legislation. At the moment, local authorities still have a statutory duty to provide sites, and it would have been inequitable—and almost certainly challengeable in the courts—to stop grant where authorities had already spent considerable time and money trying to fulfil that duty.
  It is therefore still possible between now and July for local authorities to put forward well-advanced, properly planned schemes for grant aid where considerable time and energy have already been expended, as long as they can get them completed in a year or so. That will bring the whole gipsy site grants saga to a foreseeable end. Whether or not local authorities—including that in my hon. Friend's constituency and Essex county council—bring forward such schemes within the rules is not a matter for Ministers. Those are local decisions.
  Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend expect such sites to be brought forward, given the short time scale, for areas which have not been designated for development in the local plan?
  Mr. Baldry: Which sites to bring forward will be a matter for local decisions. We will simply honour the existing statutory commitment to pay grant if the costs are sensible and the site can be quickly put in place.
  Of course, if a county council proposes a contentious site and one to which the district objects, the time scale is bound to be lengthened by the potential section 8 proceedings. Similarly, I sincerely hope that any outstanding planning issues for proposed official sites will be resolved locally. If there are any outstanding issues, local authorities are cutting things fine in respect of acceptable grant applications.
  Whether or not to press ahead at this late stage with an official gipsy site in my hon. Friend's constituency is thus a local matter for Essex county council and, indeed, Tendring district council to determine. Even if Essex county council decides not to proceed, the planning guidance to which I have referred accepts that private sites may well be perfectly admissible within the current planning system. We would expect the local development plan to reflect that.
  However, my hon. Friend and his constituents can certainly take comfort from the fact that, so long as the existing statutory provisions remain, checks and balances exist to resolve disputes between the district and county councils. My hon. Friend and his constituents can also take comfort from the fact that should the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill receive Royal Assent they will have access to easier remedies for those irregular camping incursions that cause so much local misery and discontent.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Noise Pollution
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for the Environment what measures are being taken to reduce the various forms of noise pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The independent noise review working party established by my Department in 1990 considered noise pollution in all its forms and we have subsequently implemented over half its recommendations.

  The Environmental Protection Act 1990 strengthened the statutory nuisance legislation which is available for local authorities to control noise from domestic, industrial and commercial premises. These powers have been further extended by the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993 to control noise from vehicles, machinery and equipment in the street. My Department has, jointly with the Home Office, issued specific guidance on how best to use statutory powers to control all forms of noisy parties and issues general advice about how to pursue noise complaints.

  Separating noisy activities from those most likely to be affected by them can be achieved by a variety of formal and informal mechanisms. We hope shortly to publish a planning policy guidance note which will describe how the planning system can be used to minimise the adverse impact of noise, for example on residential development. We also continue to liaise with, and support, professional and other bodies which are keen to develop and publish their own codes of practice for minimising noise. Codes currently in preparation include guidance on clay pigeon shooting and stock car racing.

  There is much concern about the rising number of complaints about neighbour noise and we are keeping under review the effectiveness of legal and informal remedies. We believe that mediation services have an important role to play in resolving such disputes in a more cost-effective and appropriate way. My Department has funded two pilot studies in order to give local authorities a clearer picture of the benefits of establishing such services.

  Building Inspections
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to set up a body to approve inspections under the powers given to him in regulation 4 of the Building (Approved Inspections etc.) Regulations 1985.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's proposals were set out in a consultation paper "Guidelines for the Approval of Inspectors" dated 29 October 1993. A copy has been placed in the Library. The way forward in the light of the responses to this consultation is still being considered.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what were the factors which produced an increase in the daily rates charged by the planning inspectorate of his Department in September 1991; and what were the mechanisms for its approval;

  (2) for what reason an increase to five days' writing time per day of sitting was imposed by his planning inspectorate for its attendance at the 1991–92 public inquiry into the Birmingham unitary development plan; and what account was taken in deciding on the increase in writing time of the formal request for the report to be concise;

  (3) what was the cause of the delay of the report of his planning inspectorate at the public inquiry into the Birmingham UDP;

  (4) if he will make it his policy for fees charged by the planning inspectorate to local authorities to be limited to three writing days per sitting day.

  Mr. Baldry
  The provision of information on development plan inquiries is the responsibility of the planning inspectorate. I have asked the inspectorate's chief executive, Mr. Stephen Crow, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from H. S. Crow to Ms Estelle Morris, dated 20 April 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the public inquiry into the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan.
  It may be helpful if I explain that the public inquiry into objections to the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan sat for 35 days between 19 November 1991 and 14 February 1992. The Inspector spent 5 additional days in carrying out post-inquiry site visits. The Inspector's report was despatched to Birmingham City Council on 6 October 1992, and took 112 working days to complete.
  Normally Inspectors are able to complete their inquiry reports within a time period of three reporting days per sitting/site visit day, hence the 3:1 guideline used by the Planning Inspectorate. The Inspectorate did not impose an increase to "five days writing time per day of sitting" for the Inspector to complete his report on the inquiry he was appointed to hold. The Inspector, aided by an assistant Inspector because of the size of the task, completed his report in a ratio of 2·8 reporting days to sitting/site visit days. The ratio of reporting days to inquiry sitting days was only 3·2.
  I would not agree that the Inspector's report was unduly delayed. I understand that, although Birmingham City Council had asked for the report to be made available by the end of June 1992, no undertaking was given that this would be achieved. The inquiry was a complex one, and in the circumstances I consider the Inspector and assistant Inspector did well to complete their report in the timescale achieved, and indeed they did so within the normal guideline of 3 reporting days per sitting/site visit day. In any case though I would stress that this is only a guideline, and can be affected by many unpredictable factors which are mostly outside the Inspector's control.
  The Inspector's report was written in the concise form now generally adopted, summarising objectors' cases and the Council's response. This approach was instrumental in helping the Inspector's to produce the report in the short time noted above.
  You also asked about the increase in the daily fees charged for Inspectors taking plan inquiries, effective from September 1991. This increase, the final stage in a series of phased increases designed to effect recovery of the full costs of supplying Inspectors for development plan inquiries, was approved by the Minister then responsible for planning matters and advised to all local planning authorities engaged in development plan inquiries. This charge applied to the time spent by Inspectors on preparation work, inquiry sitting days, travelling time, site visits and report writing. It is the Secretary of State's continuing policy that fees charged by the Inspectorate for the services of Inspectors to take

  589
  development plan inquiries should reflect the full cost of the service provided to local authorities. The fees are subject to regular review.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to allow local planning authorities to set their own fee levels for planning applications; and whether these fee levels will be subject to market testing.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning gave to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) on 17 December 1993,Official Report, column 1102-03.

  As market testing applies only to central Government activities, it would not be appropriate in this context. There will, however, be safeguards to ensure that local authority fees for planning applications are kept at a reasonable level.

  UN Sustainable Development Commission
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to announce the outcome of the meeting of the United Nations Sustainable Development Commission to be held in May.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend will be attending the second session of the Commission on Sustainable Development in May and looks forward to playing a full role in a productive outcome. It is for the Commission to report its outcome to the United Nations Economic and Social Council. We have no plans at present to make a separate announcement.

  Access to Tenancies (Consultation)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in response to the consultation paper, "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies"; and when he proposes to publish his own response to them.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 April to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle),Official Report, column 132. We hope to announce the Government's conclusions during the summer.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to get the messages of sustainable development across to the general public.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today appointed Professor Graham Ashworth as chairman of the new public environment initiative which was announced in the United Kingdom "Strategy for Sustainable Development", published in January. The aim of the initiative, to be known as "Going for Green", will be to increase people's awareness of the part their personal choices can play in delivering sustainable development, and to enlist their support and commitment in the coming years.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, when a domestic property is rebanded for council tax purposes on sale and repurchase, what date the rebanding is backdated to and when this date will be reviewed.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: Under the Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993, an alteration to the valuation list made to correct an inaccuracy in the list on the day it was compiled—that is, 1 April 1993—however the inaccuracy may have come to light, has effect from that day. An alteration made to correct a subsequent inaccuracy has effect from the day on which the list became inaccurate. An alteration following a material increase in the value of a dwelling since the list was compiled, for example as a result of home improvement, has effect from the date the dwelling is next sold.

  My right hon. Friend now proposes to amend these arrangements so that in future any increases in bandings to correct inaccuracies in the original list will come into effect only from the day the list is altered. Decreases would, however, continue to take effect from 1 April 1993. Further details will be announced shortly.

  Industrial Units Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the projects approved under, and the regional distribution of, expenditure incurred within the industrial units scheme since its inception.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department offered grants totalling £4·07 million to institutions which were successful in the support for industrial units scheme competition. The institutions were listed in the DTI press notice of 11 June 1992 and I am sending a copy to the hon. Member. I am unable to disclose details of the individual grants for reasons of confidentiality.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to publish the report on the first five-yearly review of the work of the Legal Aid Board.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  When completed, it is planned that the review will be made publicly available.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of the population were eligible for(a) civil and (b) criminal legal aid in (i) 1964–65, (ii) 1979–80, (iii) 1992–93, (iv) 1993–94 and (v) 1994–95.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Department has no estimate of eligibility in 1964–65. Estimates of the proportion of households eligible for civil legal aid for the other years are:
  591

  Year

  Per cent.

  1979–80

  77

  1992–93

  53

  1993–94

  48

  1994–95

  47

  There is no upper financial limit for criminal legal aid. Anyone whose financial resources are such that he or she requires assistance in meeting the costs which may be incurred is eligible, subject to the interests of justice test and the payment of a contribution where appropriate.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations he has received from(a) hon. Members, (b) peers, (c) other individuals and (d) organisations about the current state of the legal aid system and legal aid eligibility; and what proportion such representations bear to the total number of representations on all subjects.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is not available in the form requested. From 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994, my Department received around 990 letters from hon. Members about all aspects of the legal aid scheme. This is 16 per cent. of correspondence with Members. Over the same period the Department received about 1,000 letters from individuals and organisations about legal aid, about 9 per cent. of all correspondence with the public. These figures do not include representations from major interest groups or from peers, which are not separately logged.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the names of the consultants appointed to the Legal Aid Board's research project into the delivery of legal services.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Policy Studies Institute.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research his Department has conducted into the impact on access to justice made by the changes to legal aid eligibility and to the green form scheme in April 1993.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  We are continuing to monitor the changes, which appear to have had broadly the effect anticipated. The Legal Aid Board will be conducting research into cases where offers of contributory legal aid are made by the board but are not taken up by the applicants and my Department is monitoring the incidence in the courts of unrepresented litigants in civil cases.

  Court Funds Office
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has either to abolish or to privatise the functions of the court funds office; and what research his Department has done into the impact of such reforms on injured minors and the mentally ill.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The court funds office will be part of the Public Trust Office when it is established as an executive agency in the second half of 1994. At the Lord Chancellor's request, work is being carried out currently to examine whether the functions of the court funds office are necessary and to assess the impact of any changes.

  Courts Charter
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints have been received and what amount of compensation for errors and delays has been paid out by county courts in(a) London and (b) the rest of England and Wales for each month since the implementation of the courts charter.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  From the introduction of the courts charter in January 1993 until the end of March 1994 there have been 1,802 complaints about county courts in London and 5,399 about those in the rest of England and Wales. In the same period the amount of compensation paid out for errors and delays in the county courts was £146,800·68 for those in London and £226,928·61 for those in the rest of England and Wales.

  It is not possible to provide the information requested on a monthly basis except at disproportionate cost.

  Law Students
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to implement the recommendation by Lord Justice Steyn, chair of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct, that prospective solicitors and barristers should undertake an initial joint vocational course; and how many representations he has received, and from whom, concerning Lord Justice Steyn's recommendation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No recommendation about joint vocational training for barristers and solicitors has been made by Lord Justice Steyn or the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct. The Lord Chancellor and I await the results of the advisory committee's review into legal education, which will be completed in September 1995, with interest.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the percentage of students taking(a) the legal practice course/Law Society finals and (b) Bar finals who were in receipt of (i) full assistance and (ii) partial assistance from their local education authority for the payment of the course fees for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not collect these figures. However, from information provided by the Council of Legal Education and the College of Law, it appears that the position is as follows:

  Council of Legal Education1

  Year

  Full fees per cent.

  Part fees per cent.

  1989–90

  47

  20

  1990–91

  46

  16

  1991–92

  29

  19

  1992–93

  14

  26

  1993–94

  6

  14

  1 The current vocational course replaced the old style Bar finals course in the academic year 1989–90.

  College of Law1

  Percentage of fees paid by local authorities2

  Year

  Per cent.

  1989–90

  64

  1990–91

  57

  1991–92

  35

  593

  Year

  Per cent.

  1992–93

  23

  1993–94

  9

  1 The Law Society only has information on students at the College of Law and not those studying for the vocational stage at other institutions. The College of Law provides approximately 65 per cent. of all places on the legal practice course.

  2 Information was not available on the breakdown between payment of full and partial fees, only on the total percentage of fees payable by local education authorities.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research his Department has undertaken into the impact on(a) women and (b) members of the ethnic minorities of the non-availability of mandatory grants for the fees for the requisite vocational courses for those wishing to become barristers or solicitors; and if he will publish this research.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has not undertaken any research into this area.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research his Department has done into the correlation between the non-availability of mandatory grants for the fees for the requisite vocational courses for prospective lawyers and the level of representation of women and members of the ethnic minorities among(a) Queen's Counsel and (b) the judiciary.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

  Trial Delays
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of defendants(a) in custody and (b) on bail are not dealt with in the target times set out in the Courts Charter; what number of defendants (i) in custody and (ii) on bail this affects on average each month; how many defendants in custody have to wait more than (1) three months, (2) six months and (3) 12 months before trial; and what percentages of defendants in custody these numbers represent.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The available information covering the year 1993 is shown in the table. Statistics on the number of defendants in custody waiting more than 12 months before trial at the Crown court and the distribution of waiting times at magistrates courts are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Committals for trial to the Crown court: defendants whose waiting time for trial exceeded certain periods in 1993

  Defendants exceeding waiting time

  Type of remand and waiting time

  Percentage

  Average number per month

  In custody:

  8 weeks

  51

  906

  12 weeks

  33

  575

  26 weeks

  11

  196

  On bail

  16 weeks

  36

  1,950

  Notes:

  1. The data are provisional.

  2 The Courts Charter waiting time guidelines are eight weeks for defendants in custody and 16 weeks for defendants on bail.

  594
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the longest period for which a defendant has had to wait in custody before trial in the last three years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Court Closures
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number and the names of all the courts and caller offices which he has determined to close in the last five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the five-year period from April 1989 to March 1994 my Department has closed 22 county courts or caller offices and five Crown court centres. I set out a full list of their names in the table.

  Court closures for the five year period April 1989—March 1994

  County courts

  Beverley

  Bloomsbury1

  Clacton

  Devizes

  Dolgellau

  East Grinstead

  Frome

  Gainsborough

  Great Malvern

  Hexham

  Maldon

  Malton

  Newtown

  Northallerton

  Sevenoaks

  Sheerness

  Sudbury

  Thorne

  Todmorton

  Westminster1

  Whitby

  Widens

  Crown court centres

  Acton

  Beverley

  Huddersfield

  Kendal

  Wakefield

  1 Closed prior to opening of Central London County Court.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what changes he is planning to make to the formula by which funds are allocated to local magistrates courts committees in order to make better provision for special spending needs in some areas; and what representations he has received concerning the current formula from(a) magistrates courts committees and (b) other individuals or organisations.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A review of the current formula is being conducted by a small working group comprising Lord Chancellor's Department officials and representatives from the magistrates courts service. Their provisional findings are expected by the summer to allow sufficient time for consultation with all interested parties before any revised formula is used to allocate grant for the 1995–96 financial year. A number of views about the present
  595
  formula have been received from both magistrates courts committees and others and are being taken into account by the working group.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received concerning the operation of the magistrates courts service inspectorate; and when he expects its first annual report to be published.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In September 1992 my Department issued a consultation document on the role of the inspectorate, to which 92 substantive responses were received. A list of respondents was appended to Decision Paper No. 4, published in May 1993, available from the House of Commons Library. The Department has also received some 1,170 leterrs, direct or through hon. Members, on various aspects of the matters now encompassed in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. Some of these touched upon the inspectorate.

  The chief inspector of the magistrates courts service published the inspectorate's first annual report on Tuesday 12 April. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  County Court Forms
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the statutory obstacles mentioned in paragraph 126 of section A of his departmental report, Cm 2509, that led to the withdrawal of the county court bulk centre from the first round programme of market testing.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The statutory obstacle referred to is section 27 of the Courts Act 1971.

  Small Courts
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to close small courts processing 20,000 units of work or less or small courts within 15 miles of larger courts; what number of county courts in London such a policy would leave in operation; and if he will publish his Department's full accommodation plan for the next three years and his Department's specific plans for small courts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Each case for closure is considered on its merits, taking into account the need to provide an acceptable standard of service in the area generally. The level of work load and proximity to larger courts with good facilities are factors which are taken into account. All closure proposals are subject to wide public consultation. My Department is not planning to close automatically all county courts processing 20,000 units of work or less, or small courts within 15 miles of larger courts. If such a policy were pursued none of the London county courts would be affected.

  It is not intended to publish the Department's provisional accommodation plan, because some of the elements it will contain are being reviewed as part of the fundamental review of public expenditure.

  Compensation
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which court has(a) received the most complaints and (b) had to pay out the most
  596
  compensation for errors and delays; and what plans he has for regular publication of the figures for compensation payments.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The highest number of complaints was received by the Central London county court which also had to pay out the most compensation for errors and delays. In the period January 1993 to March 1994 1,563 complaints were received and £60,636·59 paid out in compensation. Central London county court was created, in 1992, by the merger of the Westminster and Bloomsbury county courts. The process of amalgamation was inevitably difficult and led to a marked reduction in the standard of service. These initial problems are now resolved, and the number of complaints fell to 85 in the first three months of this year.

  There are no plans for regular publication of these figures.

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to(a) contract out, (b) place in the control of an executive agency or (c) privatise the functions of the Public Trust Office Agency; and what reserch his Department has done into the impact of such reforms on (i) minors who have been awarded damages and (ii) private trusts serviced by the executorship and administration service.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Public Trust Office will become an executive agency in the second half of 1994 as part of the Government's "next steps" programme. The Lord Chancellor made the decision following a study of the work done by the Public Trust Office and how best to meet the needs of users of its services. At the Lord Chancellor's request, further work is being carried out to examine the continuing need for a trustee service provided by the public sector and whether the functions undertaken by the court funds office are necessary.

TREASURY

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated cost to the Exchequer in a full year of allowing husbands and wives with insufficient income to absorb their personal allowance of £3,445 to transfer the unused balance of this allowance to their partner, assuming that the transferred allowance(a) may be claimed at the earning spouses' highest rate and (b) is restricted to the 25 per cent. rate.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Exchequer cost in a full year at 1994–95 income levels is estimated to be about £3 billion if the transferred allowance were available at the recipient's marginal rate of tax and £2¾ billion if the transferred allowances were not available at the higher rate. This estimate does not take into account any behavioural changes which could result from such a measure.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost of official entertaining in his Department in each year since 1990–91; if he will list the receptions held in each year at his Department's expense; and what was the cost of each reception.
  597
  Sir John Cope
  Expenditure on official entertainment in 1990–91 was £51,424, in 1991–92, £85,873, in 1992–93, £303,523 and in 1993–94, £70,239.

  Expenditure on receptions has been taken to mean formal hospitality provided largely for the benefit of people from outside the Department, excluding lunches and dinners. In those cases where the cost can be separately identified, expenditure was as follows:

  £

  1991–92

  Press reception

  1,048·21

  1992–93

  Press reception

  622·50

  Russian secondees reception

  627·00

  The large increase in total expenditure on official entertainment in 1992–93 reflects the cost of the informal

  Year

  Amount collected per year £ million

  Amount collected year on year (cumulative total) £ million

  Balance outstanding year on year (cumulative total) £ million

  Percentage

  1988

  25·1

  25·1

  50·7

  202

  1989

  79·2

  104·2

  61·7

  59

  1990

  82·1

  186·3

  74·9

  40

  1991

  83·2

  269·5

  102·7

  38

  1992

  92·5

  362·0

  132·3

  37

  1993

  96·0

  458·0

  116·3

  25

  The percentages shown for 1988–93 are based on year-on-year cumulative totals at 31 March of the default surcharge outstanding and the default surcharge collected.

  Some of the payments collected during any given year may relate to assessments issued in previous years.

  Consultants
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information technology consultants his Department has employed in each of the last five years; for what purpose; and at what total cost.

  Sir John Cope
  I regret that information for years before 1991–92 is not available.

  The number of IT consultancies and their total cost for 1991–92 and later years is given in the table.

  Year

  Number

  Total cost (£)

  1991–92

  0

  0

  1992–93

  4

  26,000

  1993–94

  4

  53,000

  The main work covered is IT support, including software revision and systems development, including work related to the pensions administration system. The firms involved are Bywater plc, ERA Software Ltd., Ground Modelling Systems Ltd., IMS, Jerry Hughes, Moodey International Developments and Dunnit Shaw.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment has been made of the effects of Cameroon's agreement with the International Monetary Fund for the health and education services in 598
  ECOFIN Council during the United Kingdom Presidency of the EC and the cost of the 1992 conference of the International Organisation of Securities Commissions, for which the United Kingdom was the host. The bulk of the expenditure on these events was on conferences and related facilities. Opening receptions were held, but the cost is not separately identifiable.

  VAT
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 March,Official Report, column 820, if he will list the outstanding balance for the collection of the value added tax default surcharge for each year since 1988, including 1993, as a percentage of default surcharge collected.

  Sir John Cope
  Table of default surcharge outstanding at 31 March as a percentage of default surcharge collected:

  Cameroon; and what steps have been taken by the British director at the IMF to ensure that the structural adjustment programme does not damage health and education programmes;

  (2) how the structural adjustment programme recently concluded between the International Monetary Fund and Bulgaria safeguards the poor of that country and its health and education programmes.

  Sir John Cope
  The IMF and World bank are doing valuable work to help countries such as Cameroon and Bulgaria assess the possible impact that economic reform may have on vulnerable groups, in order that reform can be tailored to meet the needs of individual countries. In their design, IMF and World bank programmes pay particular attention to ensuring that sectors such as health and education are given appropriate priority within the reforming country's budget. The needs of the sectors were explicitly addressed in the cases of Cameroon and Bulgaria. The United Kingdom executive director at the IMF, along with representatives of all the fund's members, considers each proposal for a structural adjustment programme to ensure that the programme is appropriate to the needs of the individual country.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many private security firms have been employed by his Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if he will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Sir John Cope
  No part of Her Majesty's Treasury currently employs private security firms. Private security firms have been employed by Forward, which is now in the
  599
  private sector, and the rating of government property department, which is now part of the Valuation Office. Details relating to Forward were provided in the answer my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on 17 June 1993.

  The rating of government property department employed two private security firms sequentially between 1987 and 1992. The contract for the first to 1 April 1989 was for £2,600 per annum; the second was for £4,900 per annum. They involved the provision of one guard.

  Inflation
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's target for underlying inflation in(a) 1996 and (b)

  Sir John Cope
  The Government's aim is to bring inflation down and then to hold it down. This is the only lasting basis for sustained growth. For the rest of this Parliament our objective is to keep underlying inflation, as measured by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments, in the range 1 to 4 per cent. and for inflation to be in the lower part of this range by the end of the Parliament.

  Merchant Fleet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on balancing charges for ships and measures to assist the shipping industry.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new measures he now proposes to assist the British merchant fleet.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The health of the merchant fleet is clearly a matter of great concern both inside and outside the House. The Government have made it clear that we recognise the very important contribution which shipping makes to the economy and the essential role which the industry can be called on to play in a national emergency and we have shown in the past our willingness to help with the problems which it faces.

  We recognise that it is common for shipping companies overseas to benefit from special tax provisions. We believe that such special provisions introduce distortions which can inhibit competition and lead to the inefficiency allocation of resources. We will be raising these points forcefully with the European Commission.

  However, we also recognise that, competitively, tax measures available overseas put our shippers at a particular disadvantage. We have therefore decided to introduce a provision which will allow capital allowance balancing charges for ships to be rolled over for a period of up to three years from the date on which the ship is disposed of, to be set off against subsequent expenditure on ships within that period. The amount of any balancing charge which can be rolled over will be limited to the amount needed to ensure that no tax liability arises as a result of a ship's disposal. We estimate that this measure will benefit the shipping industry by up to £20 million per annum in a full year. In drawing up this provision we will be considering whether it should be restricted to ships on the United Kingdom register; and in doing so will take account of what our European Union partners do.
  600
  As with any measure of this sort we have an obligation to notify the Commission of the proposal. Subject to the outcome of discussions with Commission, we will be bringing forward the necessary legislation in next year's Finance Bill, with retrospective effect from today. The draft legislation will be made available by the Inland Revenue as soon as possible.

  Treasury Forecasts
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to publish in 1994 the two or more forecasts which the Treasury is required to publish each year under schedule 5 of the Industry Act 1975.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I propose to publish the first Industry Act forecast of 1994 in the summer, probably around late June, in good time for the summer economic debate. The second forecast in 1994 will be published on Budget day.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Executive Agencies (Correspondence)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to ensure under the citizens charter that letters from hon. Members to Government agencies are dealt with speedily; what discussions he has held as to a reasonable time limit in which to expect a reply; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Reply times to correspondence are frequently covered by agencies' charters and statements of charter standards. Reply times and other charter standards are decided by the Minister responsible for the agency in consultation with the chief executive.

  Permanent Secretary (Handbook)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 256, if he will place in the Library those sections of the Permanent Secretary's handbook which do not relate to national security.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have carefully considered the hon. Member's request, but I have nothing to add to my reply of 9 March.

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidance has been issued to Ministers regarding the practice of replying to parliamentary questions in terms such as, "I will write to the hon. Member"; and in what circumstances this practice is considered appropriate.

  The Prime Minister
  A reply in which a Minister says that he will write to the hon. Member may be given for a number of reasons. It may be used as an interim reply because it is not possible to provide a substantive answer within the time scale laid down, to provide information of specialist or local interest which is detailed or lengthy or where there is a need for discretion in making the full reply available because it concerns a confidential constituent's case.
  601
  Following a recommendation from the Procedure Committee, first report, Session 1992–93, guidance has been issued that such replies should also state, except where confidentiality is necessary, that copies of the Minister's reply will be placed in the Library.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 April.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 April.

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

  Tigris and Euphrates Valleys
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the latest information to Her Majesty's Government about malnutrition-related diseases, and the shortage of water-pumps, water-filters and pharmaceuticals in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.

  The Prime Minister
  In addition to information given to me by the hon. Member himself, and obtained from non-governmental organisations with local knowledge, information is in the most recent reports from the United Nations and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The reports point out that reliable data are not generally available.

  Costs
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost to public funds of all his offices, duties, accommodation and expenses in 1993–94.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: The No. 10 budget includes the running costs of 10 Downing street and the costs associated with Chequers. A final outturn for 1993–94 is not yet available, but is likely to be some £9·2 million.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide the final figure for 1993–94 for(a) the cost of maintaining and running No. 10 Downing street and additional costs at Chequers, (b) the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust and (c) the costs on a consistent basis expressed at 1984–85 prices.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: Final figures for 1993–94 are not yet available. The estimated outturn for the cost of 10 Downing street and Chequers borne on the vote of the Cabinet Office, OPSS, is as follows:

  1993–94

  £ million

  Cash

  1984–85 prices

  Number 10 capital and running costs of Chequers

  8·9

  5·5

  Grant-in-aid to Chequers Trust

  0·3

  0·2

  TOTAL

  9·2

  5·7

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals on environmental protection he plans to put to the Industry Council on 22 April.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are no issues relating to the environment on the agenda of the Industry Council on 22 April.

  Nynex CableComms
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the extent to which the work being carried out by Nynex CableComms at 28 Oaks avenue, Bolton is in accordance with its licence.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The licence held by Nynex CableComms Bolton Ltd. provides for the standard of its street works to be governed by the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and its associated regulations. I understand that the local highway authority has conducted a sample inspection of the street reinstatement outside 28 Oaks avenue, Bolton as provided for under that Act. The reinstatement was found not to be of the required standard and the cable operator, Nynex CableComms Bolton Ltd., has been asked to remedy this.

  GATT
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those countries(a) which are signatories to the new GATT agreement and (b) which are not.

  Mr. Needham
  A total of 125 countries participated in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, which culminated on 15 April in the signature of the final act at Marrakech. The names of the 125 countries are listed.

  Algeria

  El Salvador

  Angola

  European Communities

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Fiji

  Argentina

  Finland

  Australia

  France

  Austria

  Gabon

  Bahrain

  Gambia

  Bangladesh

  Germany

  Barbados

  Ghana

  Belgium

  Greece

  Belize

  Grenada

  Benin

  Guatemala

  Bolivia

  Guinea-Bissau

  Botswana

  Guyana

  Brazil

  Haiti

  Brunei

  Honduras

  Burkina Faso

  Hong Kong

  Burundi

  Hungary

  Cameroon

  Iceland

  Canada

  India

  Central African Republic

  Indonesia

  Chad

  Ireland

  Chile

  Israel

  China

  Italy

  Colombia

  Jamaica

  Congo

  Japan

  Costa Rica

  Kenya

  Côte d'Ivoire

  Korea, Republic of

  Cuba

  Kuwait

  Cyprus

  Lesotho

  Czech Republic

  Liechtenstein

  Denmark

  Luxembourg

  Dominica

  Macau

  Dominican Republic

  Madagascar

  Egypt

  Malawi

  603

  Malaysia

  St. Vincent/Grenadines

  Maldives

  Senegal

  Mali

  Sierra Leone

  Malta

  Singapore

  Mauritania

  Slovak Republic

  Mauritius

  South Africa

  Mexico

  Spain

  Morocco

  Sri Lanka

  Mozambique

  Suriname

  Myanmar

  Swaziland

  Namibia

  Sweden

  Netherlands

  Switzerland

  New Zealand

  Tanzania

  Nicaragua

  Thailand

  Niger

  Togo

  Nigeria

  Trinidad/ Tobago

  Norway

  Tunisia

  Pakistan

  Turkey

  Paraguay

  Uganda

  Peru

  United Arab Emirates

  Philippines

  United Kingdom

  Poland

  United States of America

  Portugal

  Uruguay

  Qatar

  Venezuela

  Romania

  Zaire

  Rwanda

  Zambia

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  Zimbabwe

  Saint Lucia

  Of these 125 countries, a total of 111 signed the final act of the Uruguay round. Countries which did not sign the final act in Marrakech but can do so in the future in Geneva include: Burkina Faso, Chad, Dominica, Gambia, Grenada, Haiti, Lesotho, Maldives, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Togo, Rwanda and Swaziland.

  Data Encryption
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legislation relating to data encryption his Department is considering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department has no current plans to introduce legislation relating to data encryption.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives he has taken to ensure that his Department encourages training and enterprise councils in their policies for the development of local enterprise.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department is working closely with training and enterprise councils to develop effective business support measures and to help develop the competitiveness of local businesses. In particular, I have asked the TECs to take the lead in bringing together local partnerships to establish a network of business links in England which will provide a single point of access to a wide range of high quality business advice and support services. Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, I will shortly be publishing strategic guidance for TECs which will emphasise, among others, the importance of developing effective plans for enterprise and ensuring that they mesh into wider programmes of action to improve competitiveness.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will publish a list of post offices which have closed or merged since April 1992; and if he will make a statement;
  604
  (2) if he will publish a list of post offices which have changed status and become community post offices since April 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that, since April 1992,435 post offices have closed and that there have been three mergers of branch offices. In the same period, 125 offices are known to have reopened. A further 129 post offices have been converted to community office status. A copy of the full list of offices closed and of those converted to community status is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Record Industry
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what effect in financial and business terms he estimates the international piracy and counterfeiting trade have on the British record industry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The British Phonograph Industry, the record industry's trade association, has recently estimated that piracy is depriving the industry of one fifth of its potential export market, resulting in a loss in earnings of £160 million per annum at current values. I am not aware of any other estimates but fully recognise the importance to the industry of effective copyright protection overseas. The Government will continue to work actively to achieve this by all available means including the GATT, current negotiations within the World Intellectual Property Organisation on new international copyright agreements and European Community initiatives.

  Rural Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has received from north Devon in 1994 about the future of rural sub-post offices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department has received two representations from north Devon in 1994 about the future of rural sub-post offices. In addition, the chief executive of Devon county council has written on the same subject.

  Small and Medium-sized Businesses
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his plans for consulting small and medium-sized enterprises on their needs to ensure that their competitiveness in the European Economic Area according to the Community guidelines for small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department continues to be in constant liaison with small and medium-sized enterprises, through discussions and through its research programme. It continues to discuss the needs of SMEs with small firms' representative organisations, academics and other policy makers. My Department also consults the networks of training and enterprise councils, European information centres, and the developing network of business links. This continuing dialogue with SMEs and with all the key players in the field ensures that we are aware of, and address, the problems and needs of SMEs in the United Kingdom.

  We seek to influence the European Commission's directorate-general XXIII to keep regulations to a

  605
  minimum and to ensure that any assistance for SMEs is targeted where it will have most benefit, and that European assistance is provided only where it is not more appropriately provided at member state level.

  US Investment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing(a) direct investment overseas and (b) inward direct investment in cash, US dollar, prices in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) Germany in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is set out in the two tables. They show figures for outward and inward foreign direct investment respectively. These figures are net figures. Therefore, inward investment in the United Kingdom is measured by adding up the following flows:

  (a) foreign investment in the United Kingdom;

  (b) the acquisition by a foreign company of previously United Kingdom-held shares in United Kingdom companies were:

  (i) the acquisition leads to the foreign company holding more than 20 per cent. of the United Kingdom firm; or

  (ii) where there is an increase of 20 per cent. or more in a foreign firm's share holdings in a United Kingdom company above that 20 per cent. figure;

  (c) profit retained in the United Kingdom by foreign-owned companies;

  (d) the repayment to United Kingdom companies of loans previously made to their parent/subsidiaries overseas; and

  (e) cash injections from foreign companies into their United Kingdom-owned subsidiaries;

  and then deducting from this aggregate:

  (a) sales of foreign-owned companies or shares in foreign-owned companies in the United Kingdom to United Kingdom residents above the same 20 per cent. thresholds;

  (b) profits repatriated from the United Kingdom by foreign-owned companies; and

  (c) the repayment by United Kingdom companies of loans made by their overseas parent/subsidiaries.

  All the figures in the tables are compiled using an equivalent methodology.

  The data come from national sources. Although these are the best sources available, care is needed in the interpretation of the figures. Differences in the definition of foreign direct investment used in the United Kingdom and Germany mean that the data are not strictly comparable. Furthermore, the figures are produced from the results of a sample survey, so both sets are subject to a degree of uncertainty. More recent data are also subject to quite large revisions. Finally, both sets of figures have been converted from the domestic currency into dollars, so exchange rates will have an influence on the dollar figures that emerge.

  Year

  Number of projects submitted

  Number of projects approved

  Expenditure in cash terms £ million

  Expenditure in real terms at 1992–93 prices £ million

  1988–89

  145

  16

  8·1

  10·4

  1989–90

  76

  83

  8·7

  10·4

  1990–91

  72

  58

  11·8

  13·0

  1991–92

  64

  64

  20·2

  21·0

  606

  Flows of Outward Foreign Direct Investment 1979–92
  $ billions

  United Kingdom1

  Germany2

  1979

  6·4

  4·5

  1980

  7·9

  4·0

  1981

  9·4

  3·9

  1982

  3·7

  2·5

  1983

  5·3

  3·2

  1984

  7·7

  4·4

  1985

  11·1

  4·8

  1986

  17·1

  9·6

  1987

  30·8

  9·1

  1988

  37·2

  11·4

  1989

  35·2

  14·5

  1990

  18·0

  23·1

  1991

  16·5

  22·3

  1992

  17·9

  18·0

  Source: CSO, OECD.

  1 United Kingdom data excludes activities of oil companies before 1984. Includes
  reinvested earnings.

  2 Data before July 1990 relates to West Germany only. Excludes reinvested earnings.

  Flows of Inward Foreign Direct Investment 1979–92
  $ billions

  United Kingdom1

  Germany2

  1979

  3·7

  1·7

  1980

  5·9

  0·4

  1981

  2·0

  0·3

  1982

  2·0

  0·8

  1983

  3·1

  1·8

  19843

  -0·3

  0·6

  1985

  5·7

  0·6

  1986

  8·3

  1·2

  1987

  14·4

  1·9

  1988

  20·6

  1·2

  1989

  28·5

  7·1

  1990

  30·5

  2·3

  1991

  14·4

  3·2

  1992

  16·3

  3·9

  Source: CSO, OECD.

  1 United Kingdom data excludes activities of oil companies before 1984. Includes reinvested earnings.

  2 Data before July 1990 relates to West Germany only. Excludes reinvested earnings.

  3 The negative figure for United Kingdom inward investment in 1984 represents a net disinvestment by foreign owned companies in that year.

  Advanced Technology
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the expenditure in cash and standard price terms and the number of projects(a) submitted to and (b) approved by (i) the advanced technology programme and (ii) the support for innovation programme in each year since the establishment of the programme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The expression "support for innovation" covered various forms of support and information in the form requested is not available.

  For advanced technology programme, the information requested is shown in the table.
  607

  Year

  Number of projects submitted

  Number of projects approved

  Expenditure in cash terms £ million

  Expenditure in real terms at 1992–93 prices £ million

  1992–93

  141

  39

  28·8

  28·8

  1993–94

  37

  64

  19·1

  18·5

  Steel Production
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the steel production undertaken by each EC member state for(a) the current year and (b)

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information on the topic is regularly published in "Main Economic Indicators", published by the OECD, and "Eurostatistics (data for short-term analysis)", published by Eurostat, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Trade Debts
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to bring forward legislation for statutory interest on trade debts; what representations he has received from the Institute of Credit Management on the subject; and what was his response.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for small firms and consumer affairs has received a response to the Department of Trade and Industry consultation paper "Late Payment of Commercial Debt" from the Institute of Credit Management. The institute's contribution has been acknowledged and will be carefully considered with other responses.

  The consultation paper sought the views of the business community on options to address late payment, including legislation for a statutory right to interest and a British standard for prompt payment. Responses to the consultation paper are currently being examined.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account will be taken by his Department of postal services for visually impaired people within any future review of postal services in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: The Post Office currently operates the articles for the blind scheme which provides for the free transmission of articles for the visually impaired. In the course of the current review of the structure and organisation of the Post Office, Ministers have assured the Royal National Institute for the Blind that under any outcome the scheme will continue as currently constituted.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will outline the process for the approval of any changes to telecommunications apparatus, indicating the role played by the British Approvals Board of Telecommunications of Oftel and his Department in making approvals.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: The British Approvals Board for Telecommunications, an
  608
  independent company limited by guarantee, is the approval authority, appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, for all types of telecommunications terminal equipment for connection to the public telecommunications network. BABT evaluates applications, accompanying documentation, manufacturing details and test results on the apparatus and, if it complies with the relevant standards designated by my Department of Oftel, issues a type approval. Changes to approved apparatus are subject to further testing only if that compliance is prejudiced. BABT accommodates all changes within its standard procedures so long as the supplier renews its approval. To avoid delay, BABT has made arrangements which, for the majority of changes, permit self-certification at the supplier's convenience.

  My Department, with Oftel, is currently reviewing the United Kingdom approvals regime in consultation with BABT, terminal manufacturers, network operators and users.

  Advice Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy towards the provision of a network of independent advice and law centres throughout the country; and what response he has made to Advice 2000 initiative launched by the Advice Services Alliance.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: The provision of independent advice and law centres is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is 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. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: Although the DTI does not directly fund voluntary advice services, it does fund the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Citizens Advice Scotland and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, whose aims include the provision of advice and information by volunteers. Details for the financial years 1989–90 to 1992–93 are given in the table. The figures for 1993–94 are not yet available and the figures for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Financial Year

  Number of schemes

  Level of Funding £

  1989–90

  3

  10,222,771

  1990–91

  3

  11,604,172

  1991–92

  3

  12,472,500

  1992–93

  3

  13,303,996

  Electricity Consumers Council
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the sources of funding for the Electricity Consumers Council; who appoints its members; and to whom it reports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: The Electricity Consumers Council was abolished by the Electricity Act 1989.

  Gas Consumers Council
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the sources of funding for the Gas Consumers Council; who appoints its members; and to whom it reports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: The Department of Trade and Industry funds the Gas Consumers Council through its vote, although a substantial proportion of this funding is recouped from Ofgas through British Gas's authorisation fee. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for the appointment of the chairman and members of the council, which reports to the Director General and the President.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many days the Scott inquiry has sat; how many counsel, junior counsel and solicitors are involved in the inquiry; by what method payment is assessed; what fees have been paid to each lawyer and how they were calculated; and if they were paid in respect of days on which the inquiry did not sit.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: The inquiry has sat for a total of 93 days. The inquiry employs one counsel, who is paid on a daily basis, and who has been remunerated to date for 212 days' work at a daily rate of £800 plus VAT. The legal work undertaken is not confined to the oral sessions of the inquiry.

  In addition, two civil servant members of the inquiry team are barristers and another one is a solicitor. All three are paid the usual civil service salary commensurate with their grade.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost to date of the Scott inquiry; and if he will list the main subheads under which these moneys were spent with the amount for each subhead.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: The direct costs of the Scott inquiry to date, falling to my Department, have been £994,689. This total is broken down as follows:

  Pay (for DTI Civil Servants)

  £317,426

  Bought-in services, including legal, security and catering services

  £442,515

  Legal costs incurred in advising DTI witnesses

  £165,976

  Other costs, including office machinery, computers, stationery, travel and subsistence

  £68,772

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of what the total cost to public funds the Scott inquiry will be.
  610
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1994:] I am not at this stage able to give a reasonable estimate of the future costs of the inquiry.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of answers given to parliamentary questions over the past five years recorded in the POLIS database as including a reference to part or all of the information being available only at disproportionate cost by this Department was 76, representing some 0·5 per cent. of the total number of questions answered in the period concerned.

  Information relating to which of these questions could now be answered is unavailable and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Israel
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information he has on the consequences of the Israeli blockade on the occupied territories; and what representations he has made on this matter to the Israeli authorities in respect of its effect on the peace process;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effects of the Israeli decision to recruit foreign workers to replace Palestinians on the peace process; and what representations he has made.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We, along with our European Union partners, have made known to the Israeli authorities our concern at the damaging economic and social effects of their closure of the occupied territories. The Israeli Cabinet announced on 17 April the granting of 20,000 permits for Palestinians to enter Israel, 16,000 for humanitarian purposes and 4,000 for agricultural workers, and the grant of 30 million shekels for work projects in the occupied territories.

  European Commission
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British nationals are employed in the European Commission at(a) deputy-director, (b) director and (c) director-general level in DGXVII (Energy).

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There is no such post as deputy-director in the Commission. At director level and above in directorate-general XVII, there is one United Kingdom national—the deputy director-general.

  European Court
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times the United Kingdom has been taken to the European Court over the past 10 years; and what were the legal and consequential costs involved.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 18 April 1994]: Since 1 January 1985, the United Kingdom has been the defendant in 16 infraction cases brought before the court by the Commission under article 169. Details of the legal and consequential costs are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Entry Certificates
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the working of the system for the issue of entry certificates for visitors to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The system for the issue of entry clearances for visitors to the United Kingdom is constantly reviewed.

  The latest list of posts overseas designated to issue entry clearances will be published shortly. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House. In 1993, a total of 957,000 visit applications were received: 863,000, or 90 per cent. were issued, 60,000, or 6·3 per cent. were refused and 34,000, or 3·7 per cent. were deferred/referred to the Home Office. Further statistics are available in the FCO departmental report 1994.

  In December 1993, Lady Anson JP DL was appointed as the first independent monitor of visit visa refusals. Her annual reports will be laid before Parliament.

  North Korea
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what are the implications for United Kingdom policy of the latest meeting between China and North Korea in Beijing, to discuss the question of North Korea's nuclear capacity.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are not aware of any recent official meeting in Peking between China and North Korea to discuss North Korea's nuclear programme.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take immediate steps with his EU counterparts, following the council meeting of 18 April and Committee of Permanent Representatives' advice, to ensure the fullest application of the Council of Ministers information code to provide citizens of the Union with fully open information on all Council legislative decision making, including items normally falling within the inter-governmental pillars.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have strongly supported moves to increase openness in the Community. The code of conduct on access to information agreed in December 1993 rightly affirms the general principle that there should be the widest possible access by the public to documents held by the Council and Commission, with certain 612
  necessary safeguards. This code complements the decisions on open council sessions and publication of votes.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU colleagues about rules governing the secrecy of Council of Ministers documents including minutes of Council meetings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The General Affairs Council on 19 April had a brief discussion on an application from The Guardian newspaper for access to a number of Council documents, but was unable to reach a decision.

  Gas Safety
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review procedures for the reporting of deaths due to gas poisoning of United Kingdom holidaymakers abroad.

  Mr. Lenox-Boyd
  No. I am satisfied that our existing standard procedures for notifying next-of-kin of deaths of British nationals overseas are working properly.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to his Spanish counterparts about gas safety standards enforced in holiday apartments.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No. This is a matter for the Spanish authorities.

  United Nations War Crimes Commission
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 484, by the Secretary of State for Defence, what further batches of information collated from interviews with refugees from Bosnia he has sent to the United Nations War Crimes Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We submitted a fourth batch of evidence, collated by the MOD's defence debriefing team, to the United Nations Commission of Experts on 7 April. This batch consisted of 10 separate reports, some of which were on regions specifically requested by the Commission.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times the United Nations War Crimes Commission has asked for assistance of a military nature or type in its investigations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of one general request from the United Nations Commission of Experts for a military engineering unit to help investigate an alleged mass grave in Vukovar. The Netherlands subsequently provided such a unit.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to assisting the United Nations War Crimes Commission in the apprehension of individuals wanted by that body for questioning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Commission of Experts was established by Security Council resolution 780 to collate, analyse and investigate evidence of war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia since 1991. It is not mandated to apprehend individuals.

  Bosnian Refugees
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the approximate number of Bosnian refugees who have been interviewed by the Defence debriefing team to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The MOD's defence debriefing team has interviewed approximately 5,000 individuals entering the United Kingdom from the former Yugoslavia since the conflict began. Approximately 80 per cent. of those interviewed were Bosnian, but not all were refugees.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to encourage international action for the protection of both foreign and local non-combatants in the civil war in Rwanda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are active in United Nations Security Council deliberations on Rwanda and have welcomed the involvement of neighbouring countries. The first priority is to try to bring about a ceasefire, creating conditions in which it will be possible to relaunch the process of national reconciliation and set up humanitarian relief.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether British Airways was compensated(a) directly or (b) indirectly by public funds in order to make available landing slots at Heathrow airport to Malaysian Airlines in 1989; and whether this agreement was linked to the aid and trade arrangement or arms sales arrangement with Malaysia agreed under the revised protocol of June 1988 between the United Kingdom and Malaysia.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  On the question of compensation for British Airways, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 15 February, column 731, which made it clear that there was no compensation to British Airways either directly or indirectly from public funds. The revised air services arrangements agreed in 1989 were not linked to aid and trade provision or arms sales.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution he is making to the United Nations trust funds to assist Renamo's transformation into a political party.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 12 April, columns 23-24. The Government of Mozambique have since confirmed their agreement to our contribution of £500,000 to the United Nations trust fund for the implementation of the peace process in Mozambique and payment is being arranged.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for the Overseas Development Administration and the EU to publish a full statement on how they and nongovernmental organisations are going to help rebuild the physical and social infrastructure of Bosnia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Rebuilding the infrastructure of Bosnia must depend on first implementing a peace settlement. Following an agreement reached during my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to Washington, a joint United Kingdom/United States team undertook an assessment of the work needed to restore Sarajevo's essential public services. A copy of its report has already been placed in both Libraries of the House.

  The EU is considering how best to assist in the restoration of services in Mostar.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British aid agencies are working in Rwanda; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All British aid agencies have withdrawn from Rwanda. The following nongovernmental organisations—ACORD, CARE, Christian Aid, Oxfam, and affiliated partners of Tear Fund—plan to resume operations as soon as conditions allow.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the Overseas Development Administration is making to alleviate the current unrest in Rwanda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the last week we have committed some £820,000 in emergency aid, through British non-governmental organisations, for the victims of the conflict in Rwanda.

  UN Sustainable Development Commission
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will be attending the meeting of the United Nations Sustainable Development Commission in New York in May.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will attend the meeting. The Department of the Environment has lead responsibilities for the United Nations Sustainable Development Commission. No decision has yet been taken on possible attendance by an FCO Minister.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what offers have been made to construct an airstrip on St. Helena free of capital cost to Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: A United Kingdom company, St. Helena Airways Ltd., has indicated that it would be prepared to privately fund the construction of an airstrip on St. Helena, but in return it

  615
  would require financial commitments and guarantees from ODA and the St. Helena Government. I understand the St. Helena Government will be taking steps later this year to ascertain whether an air service for the island has public support and will consider the situation in the light of the outcome.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many private security firms have been employed by his Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if he will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department was established in April 1992. In 1992–93 DNH and its agencies employed one security firm on a contract with an annual value of £171,092. Approximately 12 guards were employed.

  In 1993–94, four security firms were employed on contracts with an annual value of £520,081. Approximately 30 guards were employed.

  D-day Anniversary Celebrations
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what considerations underlay the selection of Lowe Bell Communications as consultants to the D-day anniversary celebrations in preference to other firms tendering for the contract.

  Mr. Sproat
  Lowe Bell was selected to advise the Department of National Heritage and to help implement a high-profile programme of popular events to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the D-day landings. Of the firms which bid for this contract, Lowe Bell was considered to be best able to fulfil these requirements.

EMPLOYMENT

  Working Hours
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of women in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany, (c) France and (d) the United States of America work (i) full time and (ii) part time.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: Comparable information is not available for the United States of America. The available information is shown in the following table:

  Proportion of women in full-time and part-time work in selected countries of the European Community: 19911

  Percentage of women aged 16 and over in full-time work

  Percentage of women aged 16 and over in part-time work

  United Kingdom

  27·3

  21·2

  Germany

  28·5

  14·8

  France

  32·3

  9·9

  1 Latest comparable information.

  Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey Results 1991.

  Job Protection Legislation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research he has recently commissioned into the employment consequences of job protection legislation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 April 1994]: Research on, or having a bearing on, this issue commissioned by the Department over the past three years includes:

  "Maternity Rights in Britain" by S. McRae;

  "Redundancy Payments Survey" by D. Spilsbury, A. McIntosh and J. Banerji;

  "The 1992 Survey of Industrial Tribunal Applications" by N. Tremlett and N. Banerji;

  "The Abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme" by N. Evans, D. MacKay, Mr. Garratt and P. Sutcliffe;

  "A Review of the Economics Evidence Relating to Employment Protection Legislation" by S. M. Burgess.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the training budget for 1994–95 of each training and enterprise council; and what it was for each year since their inception, at 1994–95 prices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Government offices are currently finalising contracts with training and enterprise councils for 1994–95 budgets and the information is not yet available.

  The information must remain commercially confidential while TECs are negotiating with their providers, and for this reason I am not prepared to give information about individual TEC budgets for 1994–95 until after the beginning of October.

  With regards to TEC budgets since their inception, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 13 December 1993, Official Report, column 512, to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). This provides details of TEC budgets agreed with the Employment Department for the last three years in cash and real terms using prices from the first year's funding.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Advice Quality
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from the Consumers Association on the quality of advice available from local social security offices; and if he will make a statement on the action he proposes to take in response.

  Mr. Hague
  The quality of advice available from local social security offices is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Nick Raynsford, dated 20 April 1994.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the quality of advice available from local social security offices.
  You will be aware of the recent article in the Consumer Association's WHICH magazine. The article drew conclusions

  617
  about standards of customer service available in Benefits Agency offices, based on a survey of their own members and on observations from a small sample of local offices. Although it cannot be said to be representative of the level of service provided by all Benefits Agency offices it is important that the comments are acknowledged.
  The Benefits Agency recognises that customers expect a professional, efficient, quality service which provides prompt and accurate benefit payment. Whilst there are areas in which improvements could be made, considerable progress in this area has already been achieved. One of the major contributing factors to this improvement is our willingness to listen to customers and to respond to their comments.
  For this purpose the Agency have produced two leaflets; "Let's be Fair" explains the Benefits Agency's policy on the customer's right to fair and equal treatment; "Have your say" explains the complaints procedure to customers.
  In addition, the Agency commission annually a national indpendent survey of its customers. In 1993, 3,428 customers were interviewed face to face, selected from a random postal sift of 17,000 households. The results of this survey are due to be published on 25 April 1994 and show that 84 per cent. of customers are satisfied with the standard of service provided by the Benefits Agency, against the Secretary of State's target of 85 per cent. This is an improvement on the corresponding figures for1992 when 82·3 per cent. were satisfied.
  It is important, that as an Agency we are constantly aware of, and responsive to, the needs of our customers. The ongoing process of customer research helps to identify any improvements that are necessary and the areas highlighted by the WHICH article will be considered as a part of this process.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff are presently employed by the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 20 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of staff currently employed by the Child Support Agency.
  At 31 March 1994, the Agency had 5,200 staff in post in Great Britain. You may also wish to know that at the same date there were also 626 Northern Ireland civil servants based in Belfast engaged in work relating to parents with care who live in mainland Britain.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library copies of all internal bulletins relating to the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. David Blunkett, dated 20 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the placing of internal Child Support Agency bulletins in the Library of the House.
  Operational guidance for Agency staff is contained in the Child Support Manual, copies of which are already available in the Library. Relevant internal operational bulletins are incorporated as amendments to the Manual.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what guidance has been issued with regard to 618
  permanent maintenance orders in relation to deduction of earnings through the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what guidance he has given on the use of deduction from earnings orders in relation to interim maintenance orders through the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. David Blunkett, dated 20 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the guidance issued by the Child Support Agency on the implementation of deduction from earnings orders.
  The imposition of a deduction from earnings order is a discretionary decision made by a Child Support Officer having considered the needs of the parent with care, and the children involved and any representations made by the absent parent. Instructions to staff in relation to deduction from earnings orders are contained in the Child Support Manual.
  The Child Support (Collection of Enforcement) Regulations were amended in February specifically in relation to deduction from earnings orders on interim maintenance assessments. Detailed guidance for staff on deductions from earnings orders in such cases is in the course of preparation and will be incorporated in the Child Support Manual.
  A copy of the Child Support Manual is available in the Library.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Community Care
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many community care grants were given from the Thameside office; and how many were given to refugees in each financial year from 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. John Austin-Walker, dated 20 April 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of Community Care Grants (CCG) awarded by the Benefits Agency's Thameside office and the number awarded by the Benefits Agency's Thameside office and the number awarded to refugees.
  I should clarify that the Benefits Agency does not have a Thameside office but does have a Thameside District which comprises of the offices of Woolwich and Bexley. I have, therefore, provided information relating to the Thameside District as a whole.
  The number of CCGs awarded in the District for each of the years 1991–92, 1993–94, which also include CCGs awarded on review, are given at Appendix A.
  Information on the number of CCGs awarded to refugees in the District for the same periods is not collected as a matter of course. The information requested could only be gathered by the manual examination of all the Social Fund applications in the Thameside District and this would incur disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  619

  Appendix A

  Number of Community Care Grants (CCGS) awarded in the Benefits Agency's Thameside District

  Financial Year

  Number of CCGs awarded

  1991–92

  1,613

  1992–93

  2,123

  1993–94

  2,275

  Saztec Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what contracts his Department have placed with Saztec Ltd. since July 1992.

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many private security firms have been employed by his Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if he will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Mr. Hague
  This Department and its executive agencies occupy over 500 sites throughout the country. Security at these sites is controlled locally and this includes the award of contracts to private companies either directly by the Department or, where appropriate, by facilities managers acting on our behalf. Information about contracts awarded is not collected centrally and therefore could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  VAT on Fuel
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements have been made to pay pensioners allowances in respect of VAT on domestic fuel; and what examinations he has made of the reasons where allowances have not been paid so far.

  Mr. Hague
  Extra help for pensioners in respect of VAT on domestic fuel is paid automatically as part of the 1994 increase in benefit rates which is effective from week commencing 11 April 1994. The date on which the first benefit payment at the increased rate is made available will depend on the method of payment chosen by the pensioner and the day of the week on which his or her pension is payable.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of how many claimants are expected to take up incapacity benefit within the Brighton borough council area from the introduction of the new benefit; and what he expects the total benefits bill to be for incapacity benefit for claimants within the Brighton borough council area in the year following the introduction of the new benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Estimates of the number of people who will receive incapacity benefit, and total expenditure of the benefit, cannot reliably be broken down by local council area.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he proposes to promote the take-up of housing benefit.

  Mr. Hague
  Responsibility for the administration of housing benefit lies with individual local authorities which are in the best position to undertake local publicity about it. Information about housing benefit is also available at all Benefits Agency offices and unemployment benefit offices.

  Latest estimates of housing benefit take-up, which are for 1990 and 1991, indicate that between 93 per cent. and 97 per cent. of available benefit is being claimed by between 90 per cent. and 95 per cent. of those eligible. Further information on take-up estimates can be found in "Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take-up in 1990 and 1991" published on 25 March 1994, a copy of which is in the Library.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will list those schools outside the maintained sector that have approached his Department, the Funding Agency for Schools or the Grant-Maintained Schools Centre with a view to acquiring grant-maintained status;

  (2) how many inquiries his Department has received from independent schools seeking to become grant maintained; and how many inquiries from parents' groups, or other groups, seeking to set up new grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has received over 370 requests for information about the establishment of new grant-maintained schools by promoters. Of these, one third have been from existing independent schools and two thirds from other groups. No formal proposals have been received from promoters, and it would be inappropriate to infer, from these initial inquiries, the promoters who may formally publish proposals for new grant-maintained schools in due course.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many surplus school places there are in Wiltshire.

  Mr. Forth
  The estimated surplus capacity of primary schools in Wiltshire as at January 1991 is as set out in the reply to the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) on 31 January 1994,Official Report, columns 517-21. The estimated number of surplus places in secondary schools at that date is 9,987, representing 23 per cent. of capacity. This corrects the figure in the previous reply. Up-to-date information on surplus capacity in all LEA areas will be collected under regulations to be made later this year.

DEFENCE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many parliamentary questions to his Department have not been answered because of
  621
  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. Hanley
  My Department has answered nearly 14,000 parliamentary questions over the past five years, of which less than 250, or under 2 per cent., have not been answered because of disproportionate cost or because the information requested was not held centrally. No doubt as computer and operational systems continue to improve, there will be increased potential for this percentage to decline.

  Service Ranks
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ranks exist in(a) the British Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force; and what is the number of personnel in each rank.

  Mr. Hanley
  Ranks in the Royal Naval Services, Army and Royal Air Force, and the number of personnel in each rank as at 1 January 1994, the latest date for which information is held, were as follows:

  Royal Naval Services

  Numbers

  Royal Navy

  Admiral of the Fleet

  —

  Admiral

  5

  Vice Admiral

  11

  Rear Admiral

  28

  Commodore

  37

  Captain

  328

  Commander

  1,125

  Lieutenant Commander

  2,369

  Lieutenant

  3,158

  Sub-Lieutenant

  1,067

  Officer Designate

  256

  Warrant Officer

  840

  Chief Petty Officer

  7,521

  Petty Officer

  6,624

  Leading Rate

  8,942

  Able Rate

  14,670

  Ordinary Rate/Junior

  1,364

  Royal Marines

  General

  —

  Lieutenant General

  1

  Major General

  2

  Brigadier

  3

  Colonel/Lieutenant Colonel

  34

  Major

  102

  Captain

  195

  Lieutenant

  277

  Officer Designate

  105

  Warrant Officer Class 1

  43

  Warrant Officer Class 2

  222

  Colour Sergeant

  368

  Sergeant

  736

  Corporal

  1,658

  Marine 1st Class

  3,126

  Marine 2nd Class/Junior

  475

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Navy Service

  Commandant Nursing Officer

  1

  Principal Nursing Officer

  2

  Chief Nursing Officer

  5

  Superintending Nursing Officer

  26

  Senior Nursing Officer

  47

  Nursing Officer

  10

  Warrant Officer RGN/Warrant Officer EN(G)

  1

  Chief RGN/Chief EN(G)

  17

  622

  Royal Naval Services

  Numbers

  Petty Officer RGN/Petty Officer EN(G)

  51

  Leading RGN/Leading EN(G)

  232

  Student Nurse/Pupil Nurse/EN(G)

  185

  Probationary Nurse

  70

  Army

  Field Marshall

  1

  General

  8

  Lieutenant General

  9

  Major General

  55

  Brigadier

  210

  Colonel

  552

  Lieutenant Colonel

  1,685

  Major

  4,851

  Captain

  4,776

  Lieutenant/2nd Lieutenant

  2,643

  Officer Designate

  471

  Warrant Officer Class 1

  2,034

  Warrant Officer Class 2

  5,304

  Staff Sergeant

  6,807

  Sergeant

  12,241

  Corporal

  19,222

  Lance Corporal

  19,458

  Private Classes 1 to 3

  36,633

  Private Class 4/Junior

  7,790

  Royal Air Force

  Marshal of the Royal Air Force

  1

  Air Chief Marshal

  5

  Air Marshal

  6

  Air Vice Marshal

  39

  Air Commodore

  105

  Group Captain

  404

  Wing Commander

  1,329

  Squadron Leader

  3,603

  Flight Lieutenant

  6,220

  Flying Officer/Pilot Officer

  1,649

  Officer Designate

  343

  Warrant Officer

  1,719

  Flight Sergeant/Chief Technician

  5,088

  Sergeant

  10,381

  Corporal

  18,909

  Junior Technician/Senior Aircraftman/Leading Aircraftman

  26,857

  Aircraftman

  408

  Notes:

  1. Figures exclude 5 star officers who remain on the active list but do not hold an appointment.

  2. Commodore (RN) and Brigadier (RM) are not substantive ranks but are appointments. Figures represent Captains (RN) and Colonels (RM) filling Commodore (RN) and Brigadier (RM) appointments.

  3. RGN—Registered General Nurse; EN(G)—Enrolled Nurse (General).

  4. Members of Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps (QARANC) and Princess Marina's Royal Air Force Nursing Service (PMRAFNS) hold the same ranks as other personnel serving respectively in the Army and Royal Air Force.

  5. RN Chaplains do not hold Service Ranks, but have been included in the Naval rank equivalent of their class.

  6. The term "Officer Designate" is used to describe university cadets and personnel under initial training or awaiting initial training at one of the Service officer training establishments.

  7. I would also refer the hon. Member to the Tri-Service Personnel Statistics, a copy of which is placed in the Library of the House.

  Sonic Booms
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates, locations and results of investigations of reports of sonic booms over the United Kingdom since 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  During the period 1 January 1992 to 31 January 1994, a total of 27 investigations of alleged
  623
  sonic booms were conducted. Of these, only one incident was established as a sonic boom, 15 were identified as sonic or possible sonic events, in 10 cases the report was either withdrawn by the complainant or no sonic event

  Date

  Location

  Results of investigation

  1992

  5 March

  Off the coast of Blackpool

  Sonic boom

  BAe Tornado

  11 March

  Kings Lynn

  Sonic event

  -111 aircraft suspected

  18 June

  Great Yarmouth

  Sonic event

  F4 aircraft suspected

  24 November

  Cambridge area

  Sonic event

  F15 aircraft

  19-20 November

  Lincoln area

  Sonic events

  F15 aircraft

  1993

  27 January

  North Humberside

  Sonic event

  F15 aircraft suspected

  2 February

  Thurso

  Sonic event

  Tornado aircraft suspected

  5 February

  Scarborough

  Sonic event

  Tornado aircraft suspected

  26 February

  Bridgewater

  Sonic event

  Sea Harrier aircraft

  8 March

  Peterborough

  Sonic event

  F15 aircraft suspected

  14 April

  Peterborough

  Sonic event

  F15 aircraft suspected

  16 July

  Southwold

  Sonic event

  F15 aircraft

  21 July

  Lowestoft

  Sonic event

  F16 aircraft

  11 August

  St. Andrews

  Sonic event

  F15 aircraft

  22 October

  Morpeth

  Possible sonic event

  Tornado aircraft suspected

  7 December

  Norfolk

  Still under investigation

  1994

  25 January

  Peterborough

  Sonic event

  F15 aircraft suspected

  Notes:

  1. A sonic boom is caused by an aircraft travelling at supersonic speed.

  2. A sonic event is caused when a small part of the airframe (such as the wing tips) exceeds the speed of sound. This usually occurs when an aircraft is conducting high energy manoeuvres.

  Air Miss
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his response to the recommendations of the joint air miss working group report on the air miss between a Boeing 737 and three United States air force F-16s on 26 May 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  The recommendations are currently being addressed by national air traffic services in conjunction with the appropriate staffs in MOD.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what briefing the pilots of the United States Air Force F-16 aircraft involved in an air miss with a British Midland Airways Boeing 737 on 26 May 1993 had received on United Kingdom airspace and air traffic control procedures(a) from British military personnel or (b) from United States air force personnel prior to their flight.

  Mr. Hanley
  The F-16 aircraft, operating from their base at Spangdahlen in Germany, were participating in a joint Royal Air Force/United States air force exercise in the United Kingdom. The aircrew received a full briefing on all aspects of the United Kingdom airspace control procedures from United States air force (Europe) personnel. The USAF aircraft are required to adhere to the same flying regulations as those of the RAF.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which airfield the United States air force F-16s involved in an air miss over Midlothian on 26 May 1993 took off for the sortie; and where they landed on completion of the sortie.

  Mr. Hanley
  The aircraft took off from their home base at Spangdahlen, Germany and returned to the same base at the end of the sortie.
  624
  established. One report is still under investigation. Details of the 17 investigations covering sonic booms/events and possible sonic events and the one outstanding case are as follows:

  Atomic Testing
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the report of the National Radiological Protection Board regarding atomic testing.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), on 9 December 1993,Official Report, columns 360-62.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what implications the cancellation of tactical air-to-surface missiles have for the need to conduct low flying exercises.

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been claimed in total in compensation to farmers in Wales for loss of livestock, abortion and loss of production caused by low-flying aircraft; how much of this total is of disputed claims; how much has been settled; and how much remains to be settled for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Hanley
  There can be no meaningful total of amounts initially claimed, because many claims are unquantified at the outset and may be repudiated without valuation. Settlement is reached after a process of valuation, usually on independent advice, and in consultation with the claimant. Reliable data on settlements are available only from 1988 onwards and since then the Ministry of Defence has paid the following amounts of compensation to farmers in Wales for livestock losses which have been attributed to low flying military aircraft activity:
  625

  £

  1988

  30,228

  1989

  31,584

  1990

  47,953

  1991

  59,160

  1992

  33,153

  1993

  30,000

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement summarising the results of ground-level noise measurements for aircraft involved in low flying sorties; and what changes there have been in the amount of noise nuisance since 1980.

  Mr. Hanley
  A series of trials, known as Exercise Luce Belle, to measure noise on the ground arising from military aircraft flying at low level has taken place at RAE West Freugh since 1990. The results of these trials have shown that at the speeds and heights normally flown in the United Kingdom low flying system no aircraft type generates a noise level on the ground in excess of 125 dB(A), a level at which research has indicated there is no significant risk to human hearing. A copy of the report on the first trial, which covered the main aircraft types, is available in the Library of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) announced to the House on 14 October 1991,Official Report, column 115, we aim to have reduced the amount of low flying by jet aircraft in the United Kingdom by around 30 per cent. by the end of this year.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the mean(a) height above the ground and (b) velocity for aircraft during low flying sorties, and what change there has been in these figures since 1980.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average length of time from initial receipt of a claim to its payment by his Department in processing claims for compensation to farmers in the United Kingdom for loss of livestock, abortion and loss of production caused by low-flying aircraft.

  Mr. Hanley
  The time from claim to payment can vary greatly and as the data required to calculate an average length of time is not readily available, the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been paid out in compensation to farmers in the United Kingdom for loss of livestock, abortions and loss of production caused by low-flying aircraft during each year since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  Reliable data are available only from 1988 onwards. Since then the Ministry of Defence has paid out the following amounts in compensation to farmers in Great Britain—United Kingdom excluding Northern Ireland—for livestock losses caused by low flying military aircraft:

  £

  1988

  273,934

  1989

  160,039

  1990

  254,683

  626

  £

  1991

  293,301

  1992

  230,312

  1993

  299,503

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to ensure that additional staff resources are provided to clear any backlog of claims for disability pensions owing to restricted access to the Public Record Office archive at Hayes.

  Mr. Hanley
  In addition to the normal, full, staffing levels, a futher nine full-time staff are currently employed on casual contracts and will remain so while a backlog of claims exist. In addition, overtime is being worked seven days a week.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be unrestricted access to the Public Record Office archive at Hayes to enable the backlog of claims for disability pensions to be progressed.

  Mr. Hanley
  There has been unrestricted access to the Public Record Office archive at Hayes since the end of February.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims for disability pensions have been delayed as a result of the asbestos contamination at the Public Record Office archive at Hayes; how many of these claims have been outstanding for more than(a) six months, (b) 12 months and (c) 24 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The amount of war pension claims delayed as a result of the recent closure of the archives at Hayes numbered approximately 30,000 in total.

  Apart from a small number of individual cases of particular complexity which could be separately identified only at disproportionate cost, the archives' backlogs are now rather less than six months and already as little as two months in some areas.

  Defence Debriefing Team
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are currently assigned to the defence debriefing team; what consideration he has given to incresing the size of the defence debriefing team; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are currently some 40 individuals serving with the defence debriefing team, all of whom are military personnel. This is considered sufficient to meet the team's present task and there are no plans to increase its size, although that position is kept under review. During the course of its work the team has acquired information on alleged human rights violations and war crimes committed in Bosnia. This information has been passed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for onward transmission to the United Nations commission of experts.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Importation (Slaughter)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep and other animals are being imported annually for slaughter; from where; and to which destinations.

  Mr. Soames
  Data on the imports of live sheep for slaughter are not available separately from the total of all

  Numbers of live animals imported into the United Kingdom during 1992

  All bovines

  Of which: fat1

  Sheep

  Goats

  Pigs

  All horses

  Of which: for slaughter

  Other live animals

  France

  2,948

  202

  261

  —

  —

  515

  —

  2

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  11

  59

  —

  —

  416

  —

  15

  Netherlands

  5,115

  538

  392

  —

  —

  393

  1

  35

  Germany

  212

  35

  5

  —

  —

  354

  —

  4

  Italy

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  104

  —

  —

  Irish Republic

  112,506

  40,385

  204,230

  71

  109,280

  4,359

  —

  202

  Denmark

  420

  91

  —

  —

  —

  214

  —

  1

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  —

  —

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  —

  —

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  —

  3

  Iceland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  —

  —

  Norway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  —

  5

  Finland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Switzerland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  7

  Austria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  —

  —

  Turkey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Poland

  187

  —

  —

  —

  —

  122

  —

  —

  Czechoslovakia

  250

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Hungary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55

  —

  —

  Former USSR

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  83

  —

  —

  Canada

  234

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  —

  1

  USA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  488

  —

  41

  Austral-Oceania

  29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Puerto Rico

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Nicaragua2

  163

  30

  730

  —

  —

  1

  —

  29

  Colombia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Chile

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  —

  Argentina

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,116

  —

  —

  Barbados

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Sudan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Jordan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  —

  Kuwait

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Guyana

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Israel

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Senegal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Guinea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Ghana

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Cameroon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  South Africa

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Namibia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Dubai

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Japan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Australia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  1

  New Zealand

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  41

  —

  —

  Hong Kong

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Malaysia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  China

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Philippines

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Indonesia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Iran

  30

  15

  340

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  122,124

  41,296

  206,017

  71

  109,292

  11,462

  1

  385

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  1Recorded as "fat" and covers heifers and steers for slaughter.

  2 Sheep import data estimated on weight of animals concerned.
  628
  live sheep imports. For other animal types, data on live imports for slaughter are only separately available from the total of live imports for bovines and horses.

  It is not possible to state the destination for the animals once they have been imported into the United Kingdom.

  The table gives the total number of live imports by animal type for 1992, the latest year for which annual data are available. In addition, the second column gives the number of imports of live bovines for slaughter and the seventh column gives the number of imports of live horses for slaughter.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many parliamentary questions to her 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 she will list each such question along with the name and constituency of the hon. Member who tabled it.

  Mr. Jack
  The POLIS database lists 85 parliamentary questions as not having been answered between January 1989 and December 1993 on the grounds of disproportionate cost or because the information was not held centrally. Details of each of these questions can be obtained from the POLIS database, access to which is available in the Library.

  Estimated average size of farms wholly or mainly in the less favoured areas in 19921 (excluding minor holdings)

  Average size of farms (ESU)

  All main holdings

  Holdings 8 ESU and over

  FBS province and county

  Wholly or mainly in the LFA

  Of which: SDA2

  DA3

  Wholly or mainly in the LFA

  Of which: SDA2

  DA3

  East Midland

  Derbyshire

  25

  25

  25

  44

  46

  39

  25

  25

  25

  44

  46

  39

  Northern

  Cumbria

  36

  34

  41

  47

  46

  52

  Durham

  26

  26

  30

  40

  40

  39

  Northumberland

  46

  46

  46

  60

  61

  56

  37

  36

  40

  50

  50

  50

  North Eastern

  Cleveland

  43

  40

  59

  59

  54

  83

  North Yorkshire

  35

  33

  38

  48

  46

  52

  South Yorkshire

  29

  29

  29

  45

  44

  45

  West Yorkshire

  15

  13

  26

  37

  33

  45

  28

  25

  35

  45

  43

  50

  North Western

  Cheshire

  20

  19

  25

  36

  37

  34

  Greater Manchester

  18

  15

  20

  35

  33

  36

  Lancashire

  28

  22

  35

  46

  40

  50

  Shropshire

  27

  27

  28

  43

  41

  47

  Staffordshire

  25

  22

  26

  44

  39

  46

  26

  22

  30

  44

  40

  47

  Southern

  Hereford and Worcester

  21

  22

  19

  31

  31

  32

  21

  22

  19

  31

  31

  32

  South Western

  Cornwall

  23

  26

  22

  46

  45

  46

  Devon

  24

  21

  26

  41

  36

  45

  Isles of Scilly

  11

  11

  —

  16

  16

  —

  Somerset

  23

  24

  20

  41

  42

  39

  23

  22

  24

  42

  38

  46

  England

  28

  28

  30

  46

  45

  47

  1Based on 1988 Standard Gross Margins; 1 ESU is equal to 1,200 ecu of standard gross margin (average 1987–1989 values).

  2Holdings with 50 per cent. or more of their less favour area land in the SDA.

  3Holdings with 50 per cent. or more of their less favoured area land in the DA.

  Source: Agricultural Census.
  630
  Information relating to questions which could be answered now due to computerisation and/or more effective operational systems could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Farm Statistics
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average size for(a) each English county and (b) each farm business survey county group of all (i) severely disadvantaged area, (ii) disadvantaged area and (iii) less-favoured area farms and for (1) SDA, (2) DA and (3) less-favoured areas farms larger than eight ESUs—European size units.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 20 April 1994]Estimates of the average sizes of main holdings are obtained from the annual June agricultural census. The average size in 1992 of all main holdings which are wholly or mainly in the less-favoured areas and those greater than eight ESUs is given in the table.
  631
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) full-time hired farm workers and (b) part-time hired farm workers were employed on farm holdings in the less-favoured areas for (i) each English county and (ii) each farm business survey group in each year since 1992 and in 1994.

  Estimated number of hired workers on holdings wholly or mainly in less favoured areas (excluding minor holdings)

  1992

  1993

  FBS Province and County

  full time hired1

  part time hired2

  full time hired1

  part time hired2

  East Midland

  Derbyshire

  161

  114

  173

  106

  161

  114

  173

  106

  Northern

  Cumbria

  364

  211

  364

  195

  Durham

  243

  65

  222

  72

  Northumberland

  610

  191

  604

  188

  1,217

  467

  1,190

  455

  North Eastern

  Cleveland

  46

  15

  52

  8

  North Yorkshire

  371

  190

  381

  212

  South Yorkshire

  33

  25

  34

  25

  West Yorkshire

  196

  102

  185

  111

  646

  332

  652

  356

  North Western

  Cheshire

  13

  19

  14

  21

  Greater Manchester

  28

  27

  35

  22

  Lancashire

  203

  154

  193

  163

  Shropshire

  119

  64

  134

  70

  Staffordshire

  84

  63

  70

  68

  447

  327

  446

  344

  Southern

  Hereford and Worcester

  37

  21

  31

  20

  37

  21

  31

  20

  South Western

  Cornwall (including Isles of Scilly)

  137

  139

  132

  147

  Devon

  330

  243

  342

  263

  Somerset

  84

  46

  70

  49

  551

  428

  544

  459

  England TOTAL

  3,059

  1,689

  3,036

  1,740

  1Full time hired workers includes regular whole time workers and salaried managers.

  2Part time hired workers includes regular part time hired workers.

  Source:Agricultural Census

  Milk Marketing
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received in 1994 from North Devon about the future of milk marketing.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend and her Department have received a small number of letters about the Milk Marketing Board's reorganisation proposals from, or on behalf of, individuals and organisations in North Devon.
  632
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 20 April 1994]: Estimates of the numbers of full-time and part-time hired workers on holdings are obtained from the annual June agricultural census. The information requested for 1992 and 1993 is given in the table; information for 1994 is not available.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated gross income and net income likely to be generated by each executive agency for which her Department is responsible for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Jack
  The agencies for which my Department is responsible are required to recover the full costs of their activities each year. None is permitted to make a surplus. Gross income in 1994–95 is expected to be:

  £ million

  ADAS

  85·3

  Central Science Laboratory

  26·3

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  26·2

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  12·8

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  8·1

  633
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give the date on which such executive agency for which her Department has responsibility was set up and its terms of reference.

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry has responsibility for five executive agencies which were established as follows:

  ADAS—launched 1 April 1992

  Central Science Laboratory—launched 1 April 1992

  Central Veterinary Laboratory—launched 2 April 1990

  Pesticides Safety Directorate—launched 1 April 1993

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate—launched 2 April 1990

  With effect from 1 April 1994, the Central Science Laboratory was merged with the food science laboratories at Norwich and Torry to form an enlarged Central Science Laboratory.

  The terms of reference for each of the above are set out in their respective framework documents, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether she will itemise the estimated net cost or net profit likely to be generated for the financial year 1994–95 in each executive agency for which her Department is responsible.

  Mr. Jack
  My Department is a major customer of each of the agencies in question. They are required to recover the full costs of the services they provide; in respect of ADAS this is after taking account of all funding, including departmental contributions to certain charged advisory services.

  Rabies
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the recent changes in the arrangements to prevent the return of rabies to these islands present a risk of such a return.

  Mr. Soames
  The new procedures for importing certain commercially traded rabies susceptible animals, mainly rodents, into this country from other member states of the European Union, with effect from 1 January 1994, and traded dogs and cats with effect from 1 July 1994, do not increase the risk of importing rabies into the United Kingdom.

  Chocolate
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tests of chocolate manufactured in the United Kingdom for pesticide residues are(a) currently being undertaken and (b) planned by her Department.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government's working party on pesticide residues will be carrying out a survey of samples of milk, plain and white chocolate later this year. Samples will be analysed for residues of a range of organochlorine and organophoshorus pesticides and the results are expected to be published in 1995 in the working party's annual report for 1994. Future work will depend on the results obtained from the current survey.

  Sunken Barge, South Devon
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will ensure the removal of the barge that was sunk at Hall Sands off the south Devon coast before the tourist season starts; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  This Department has no powers to do so. I shall be writing to the hon. Member.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Driving Offences
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) how many drivers, prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service on a principal charge under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 causing death by dangerous driving, have pleaded guilty;

  (2) how many drivers prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service under a principal charge of causing death by dangerous driving were (a) convicted and (b) acquitted by a Crown court jury;

  (3) how many drivers have been prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service on a principal charge of careless driving or driving without due care and attention since (a) 1985 and (b) the introduction of the Road Traffic Act 1991;

  (4) how many drivers were prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service under a principal charge of causing death by reckless driving (a) in each year between 1985 and the introduction of the Road Traffic Act 1991 and (b) in total;

  (5) how many prosecutions brought by the Crown Prosecution Service under a principal charge of section 3A of the Road Trafic Act 1991, of causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs have been discontinued or have failed (a) as a consequence of breath or blood tests being deemed inadmissible or of questionable veracity and (b) for other reasons;

  (6) how many drivers have been prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service on a principal charge of manslaughter since (a) 1985 and (b) since the introduction of the Road Traffic Act 1991;

  (7) how many prosecutions brought by the Crown Prosecution Service under a principal charge under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 causing death by dangerous driving were discontinued; and for what reasons;

  (8) how many prosecutions brought by the Crown Prosecution Service under a principal charge of causing death by reckless driving between 1985 and the introduction of the Road Traffic Act 1991 were discontinued, or left on file because the accused pleaded guilty to a lesser summary motoring offence;

  (9) how many drivers prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service on a principal charge under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 causing death by dangerous driving have (a) been convicted by a Crown court jury and (b) been acquitted by a Crown courty jury;

  (10) how many prosecutions have been brought by the Crown Prosecution Service under a principal charge under section 3(A) of the Road Traffic Act 1991, causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs (a) in each year since the Act came into operation and (b) in total;
  635
  (11) how many drivers have been prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service under a principal charge under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 causing death by dangerous driving in each year since the Act came into force;

  (12) in how many cases since (a) 1985 and (b) the coming into force of the Road Traffic Act 1991, a death has been caused by a driver prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service under a principal charge of driving without due care and attention;

  (13) how many prosecutions brought by the Crown Prosecution Service on a principal charge of causing death by reckless driving between 1985 and the introduction of the Road Traffic Act 1991 were discontinued; and for what reasons;

  (14) how many prosecutions brought by the Crown Prosecution Service under a principal charge of section 3(A) of the Road Traffic Act 1991, causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs resulted in successful convictions;

  (15) how many drivers prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service under a principal charge of causing death by reckless driving between 1985 and the introduction of the Road Traffic Act 1991 pleaded guilty;

  (16) how many private prosecutions for (a) manslaughter and (b) causing death by dangerous driving have been taken over by the Crown Prosecution Service and (i) discontinued or (ii) prosecuted successfully;

  (17) how many prosecutions brought by the Crown Prosecution Service under a principal charge under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 of causing death by dangerous driving were discontinued, or left on file because the accused pleaded guilty to a lesser summary motoring offence.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service does not maintain central records of proceedings in respect of specific offences. The information is recorded on individual case files, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dropped Cases
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Crown Prosecution Service has completed its internal investigation into the reasons for the proportion of cases submitted to it which are dropped; when he intends to publish a report on the investigation's findings; and what action he intends to take in the light of the investigation's findings.

  The Attorney-General
  The findings of the survey of cases discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service during November 1993 was placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament on 26 January 1994. The issues are being addressed by the CPS in a number of ways in particular by steps to improve liaison between the police and the CPS including the development of agreed charging standards so that the occasions on which it is necessary to vary charges are kept to a minimum. It is already the policy of the CPS to consult the police in relation to significant variations of charges.

  Fraud
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to publish the report of his review team on the work of the Serious Fraud Office and its relationship with the fraud group of the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The report and the question of publication are both under consideration at present.

  Racially Motivated Offences
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Attorney-General what action he is planning to take in the light of his meeting with the all-party parliamentary group on race and community on Thursday 3 February, on the subject of the Crown Prosecution Service's attitude to racially motivated offences.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service's approach to racially motivated offences is set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. When assessing whether a prosecution is required in the public interest, a clear racial motivation is regarded as an aggravating feature pointing towards prosecution if there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction.

  The CPS is considering the introduction of race awareness training nationally. In London the National Association of Care and Resettlement Officers has been consulted about providing such training. The CPS is also carefully considering systems to monitor the implementation of its policies which are designed to ensure that defendants of all ethnic origins are treated equally.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to(a) privatise or (b) make into a "next steps" agency, the Serious Fraud Office.

  The Attorney-General
  I announced on 6 December 1993,Official Report, column 60, that consideration was to be given to whether the Serious Fraud Office, and two other of my Departments, should become agencies under the "next steps" programme. My decision will be reached in the light of the relevant study of whether agency status is appropriate and this study will, as is usual, cover the question of the extent to which the work in question should be performed in the public sector. A decision that the Serious Fraud Office should become an agency would not involve any change in my superintendence of the office or my accountability for it.

NORTHERN IRELAND

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

  Mr. Ancram
  The problems faced by voters with visual disabilities have been discussed during the course of the post-election review established by the Secretaries of State for the Home Departments, but there are currently no plans to introduce legislation to provide Braille ballot papers at polling stations.

  Community Care
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from organisations in the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland concerning the new community care arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  LEAD, a coalition of voluntary organisations involved with mentally handicapped people in Northern Ireland, wrote to my noble Friend Baroness Denton on 28 March 1994 about its concerns in relation to the implementation of the new community care arrangements. Officials from the Department of Health and Social Services are due to meet LEAD on 20 May 1994 to discuss these concerns.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if community care trusts in Northern Ireland will be obliged to set aside a predetermined and fixed proportion of their overall funding for care of the elderly in private establishments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  It is for health and social services boards to determine the community services they will purchase for elderly people from a range of providers, including health and social services trusts, and the private and voluntary sectors. The Department of Health and Social Services does not require boards to spend a fixed proportion of their "People First" community care funds on services provided by the private sector. However, boards are expected to make full use of the private sector whenever it is appropriate and cost effective to do so.

  New Household Formation
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the rate of new household formation has been in 1991, 1992 and 1993; what the projected rate is to the end of 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Information is not available for 1991 and 1994. Estimates are available for the years 1992 and 1993 and are shown in the table.

  Rate of new household formation

  1992 1·9

  per cent. (9,929 new households)

  1993 2·4

  per cent. (12,894 new households)

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions in the last year he has met the Director General of Electricity Supply and those involved in the electricity industry; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the Director General of Electricity Supply informally in June 1993 and in July 1993 visited Kilroot power station where he was briefed on the operation of the plant. Officials from the Department of Economic Development meet the Director General regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what records and research findings are held within his Department of the numbers of homeless people who are registered on electoral registers; and if he will make a statement.
  638
  Mr. Ancram
  No such records are held.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  DNA Testing
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the police regarding DNA sampling.

  Mr. Howard
  The police have warmly welcomed my proposals to allow DNA samples to be taken in all recordable offences.

  Witness Intimidation
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take to protect witnesses from intimidation.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Criminal Justice Bill contains a new offence of witness intimidation. This will make it easier to prosecute anyone who seeks to intimidate or take revenge on witnesses, jurors or any person assisting the police.

  Body Armour
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that police authorities make body armour available for all police officers who request it.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Decisions about issuing protecting equipment are for chief officers of police.

  Animal Experimentation
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals destroyed were as a result of, or after the conclusion of, scientific experiment or testing in (i) 1983 and in (ii) 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Statistics on the number of animals destroyed as a result of, or after the conclusion of, scientific experiment or testing, are not currently collected.

  Crack
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of possession of the drug crack are known to the Metropolitan police in 1994; and what further action he plans to deal with this.

  Mr. Maclean
  Provisional figures which have been supplied by the Metropolitan police for January and February this year show that there were 88 seizures of crack. I understand, though, that as an agreed Metropolitan police force strategy all area drug squads give priority to tackling crack dealing.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish details of the proposed secure training centres for young offenders.

  Mr. Maclean
  Notifications to those companies invited to tender for the design, build, operate, maintain and
  639
  finance contracts for five secure training centres will be issued this month. I am able to announce today the locations of four of these:

  Campsfield House (Oxfordshire)

  Gringley (Nottinghamshire)

  Medomsley (Durham)

  Onley (Warwickshire)

  A decision on the fifth site from which a secure training centre will serve London and the south-east will be announced as soon as possible.

  Security Firms
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held into the posssibility of local police authorities setting up separate security firms to run in competition with private security firms currently operating.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no such discussions.

  Drug Dealers
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek a change in the law to increase custodial sentences for criminals convicted of selling drugs to young people in the proximity of schools.

  Mr. Maclean
  The maximum sentence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 for those convicted of supplying controlled drugs in class A—for example, heroin and ecstasy—class B—for example, cannabis and amphetamines—and class C—for example, the benzodiazepine tranquillisers—are life imprisonment, 14 years and five years respectively. The Government have no plans to increase those penalties.

  Prison Interviews
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the arrangements by which convicted prisoners give interviews while in prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Prison Service standing order 5A 37 states that visits to inmates by journalists or authors in their professionnal capacity should in general not be allowed. My right hon. and learned Friend has no intention of changing these arrangements.

  Uniformed Police, London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for increasing the numbers of uniformed police officers in London.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Extra resources made available for the civilianisation of non-operational posts currently filled by police officers will enable 400 officers to be released for operational duties in 1994–95. In addition my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has approved the Commissioner's plan to restructure the Metropolitan police and this is expected to release more resources for operational tasks.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet representatives of neighbourhood watch schemes in rural areas.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I, with other ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, regularly meet members of neighbourhood watch schemes during our frequent visits to rural areas. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend will be attending the first national rural crime prevention conference on 13 June and the national neighbourhood watch conference planned for 5 November, both of which will provide an opportunity for him to meet and consider the views of neighbourhood watch members from all parts of the country.

  Prison Disciplinary Regime
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to improve the disciplinary regime in prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Sanctions against misbehaviour by prisoners have recently been reviewed. My right hon. and learned Friend has increased the maximum periods of cellular confinement that may be awarded by governors for breaches of prison rule 47. He is also tightening the arrangements under which prisoners may have additional days punishment cancelled automatically as a reward for subsequent good behaviour.

  Judicious use of incentives to good behaviour also plays an important part in maintaining discipline. Work is in hand to see how the application of incentives can be improved.

  Secure Training Orders
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what importance he attaches to the maximum secure training order lasting two years; and what assessment he has made of the effect of reducing this maximum to 12 months or 24 months in exceptional circumstances.

  Mr. Maclean
  We believe that a two-year maximum is necessary so that courts can sentence appropriately youngsters whose persistent offending is most serious and whose need for custodial training is greatest. Twelve months would allow the courts insufficient flexibility to reflect in their sentencing the gravity of the offending. Criteria designed to identify the exceptional circumstances in which a 24-month sentence would be appropriate would, we believe, introduce unnecessary complications, fetter sentencers' discretion and increase the likelihood of appeals.

  Chief Constables
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning his policies as they affect the appointment of chief constables.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend's responsibilities under section 4(2) and other
  641
  sections of the Police Act 1964 are exercised with a view to promoting the efficiency of the police. An important consideration in deciding upon an officer's suitability for appointment as chief constable is his or her breadth of experience as a senior manager, including service in another force. Guidance to police authorities on this aspect of eligibility for appointment as a chief constable is contained in Home Office circular 76 of 1976, a copy of which may be obtained from the Library.

  Police Radio Communications
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress police forces have made with secure radio communications.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A speech privacy facility—the GEC-Marconi MASC—has been approved by the Association of Chief Police Officers and by the Home Office and 25 police forces have now purchased MASC equipment. Secure radios with a high level of encryption are also available for specialised operations.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effects of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 on refusal rates for asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Implementation of the Act is being carefully monitored. The proportion of outright refusals of asylum applications has increased significantly since last July when the Act came into force. This is attributable not to the Act itself but to the accompanying change limiting the use of exceptional leave to cases where there are genuine humanitarian reasons for not enforcing removal.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total amount of fines which have been levied against carriers under section 1 of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 in each year since its commencement; how much has been waived in each year since the commencement of the Act; and how much is now outstanding.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Total charges levied

  Total charges waived

  1987

  3·92

  0·15

  1988

  4·40

  0·12

  1989

  7·86

  0·34

  1990

  9·63

  0·71

  11991

  12·89

  1·52

  1992

  12·72

  1·60

  1993

  11·04

  3·31

  1 The charge to the carrier for each improperly documented passenger was increased from £1,000 to £2,000 on 1 August 1991.

  The total amount now outstanding is £20·76 million.

  Fine Defaulters
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fine defaulters held in gaols in England and Wales were received into custody for(a) non-payment of television licence, (b) non-payment of poll or community tax, (c) non-payment of fine in respect of soliciting or loitering and (d) other reasons at the latest date available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has 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 Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 21 April 1994:
  Fine Defaulters
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many fine defaulters held in jails in England and Wales were received into custody for (a) non-payment of television licence, (b) non-payment of poll or community tax, (c) non-payment of fine in respect of soliciting or loitering and (d) other reasons at the latest date available.
  The available information which is provisional for receptions of fine defaulters into Prison Service establishments in 1993 is given in the attached table. The available information for non-payment of the community charge, which is classed as a non-criminal offence and not a fine default, is for 1992: it shows that 504 persons (a provisional total) were received into a Prison Service establishment for the offence.
  I regret to inform you that we are unable to provide information relating to loitering as it is not a separately coded offence.

  Receptions of fine defaulters into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, 19931

  Offence

  Number

  Using a TV without a licence

  845

  Soliciting

  7

  Other

  21,731

  All receptions

  22,583

  1 Provisional figures.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were gaoled in England and Wales for fine default in each year since 1982.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has 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 Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 21 April 1994:
  Fine Defaulters
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many people were jailed in England and Wales for fine default in each year since 1982.
  Information on receptions of fine defaulters into Prison Service establishments for the period 1981 to 1991 is published in table 7.1 of "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1991", Cm. 2157, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons library. Provisional information for 1992 and 1993 gives the number of receptions of fine defaulters as 19,826 and 22,583 respectively.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the latest date available, how many fine defaulters in gaols in England and Wales were(a) male and (b) female.
  643
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Dick Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones dated 21 April 1994:
  Fine Defaulters
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, for the latest date available, how many fine defaulters in jails in England and Wales were (a) male and (b) female.
  On 28 February 1994 there were 481 fine defaulters—455 males and 26 females—in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average daily population of fine defaulters in gaols in England and Wales for the latest year available.

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

  Letter from Dick Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones dated 21 April 1994:
  Fine Defaulters
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average daily population of fine defaulters in jails in England and Wales for the latest year available.
  The latest information is for 1993. The average population of fine defaulters in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales was 492 persons in 1993.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fine defaulters in gaols in England and Wales were serving(a) seven days or less, (b) eight to 14 days, (c) 15 to 21 days, (d) 22 to 28 days and (e) over 28 days at the latest date available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has 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 Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 21 April 1994:
  Fine Defaulters
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many fine defaulters in jails in England and Wales were serving (a) seven days or less, (b)eight to 14 days,(c)15 to 21 days,(d) 22 to 28 days and (e) over 28 days at the latest date available.
  A breakdown of the population of fine defaulters on 30 September 1993 by the sentence lengths requested is given in the attached table.

  Population of fine defaulters in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales by period imposed in default, 30 September 19931

  Period imposed in default

  Number of persons

  0 to 7 days

  88

  8 to 14 days

  130

  15 to 21 days

  57

  22 to 28 days

  113

  Over 28 days

  237

  All persons

  625

  1 Provisional figures.

  Special Constabulary
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what categories of employment are excluded from embership of the special constabulary.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The guidelines on categories of employment are currently under review. I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Parish Constables
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many permanent establishment parish constables have been appointed as a direct result of his initiative on parish constables.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Parish constables are being recruited as special constables or as parish wardens. They are volunteers and are not included as part of permanent police establishments.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the practical successes that have come from his initiative for parish constables.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It would be premature to seek to judge the success of the schemes at this stage, although we are pleased with the response to the initiative so far. Officials from the Home Office research and planning unit are collecting information about the progress of schemes, and are closely monitoring the progress of four selected pilots, with a view to publishing a report evaluating the schemes towards the end of the year.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sources of funding are available to fund the provision of parish constables.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Parish special constable schemes are funded in the same way any other policing activities, although a limited amount of capital grant—some £21,000 —has been provided by the Home Office for the supply of essential communications equipment. In some schemes, the local community has sponsored such communications equipment. A number of communities have provided office space free of charge for the use of their parish special constable.

  The sources of funding for parish warden schemes vary. Three schemes are funded by their local police, with communications equipment provided by local sponsors. Three schemes have been funded through the county council. Five neighbourhood watch wardens, a variation on the recommended warden model, are funded by the parish council of Glenfield, in Leicestershire.

  Squatting
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding squatting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office issued a consultation paper on this subject in 1991, to which we received 216 responses. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) gave a general account of these on 17 June 1992 in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), at column 522.
  645
  Since then, we have received a number of further representations from hon. Members and others. The Government's proposals for changing the criminal law as it relates to squatting are contained in part V of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill now before Parliament.

  Refugees
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many political refugees from Turkey there were in Britain at the latest date; and how many there have been in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is that, in the period 1 January 1979 to 31 March 1994, around 2,600 Turkish nationals, including associated dependants, were recognised as refugees and granted asylum in the United Kingdom. Information on the number of these cases who have since died, left the country, obtained British citizenship or otherwise ceased to hold refugee status here, and information before 1979, is not available.

  Information on the number granted asylum in each of the years 1990 to 1993 is given in the table.

  Turkish nationals1 recognised as refugees and granted asylum, including associated dependants2, 1990 to 1993

  Year

  Number

  1990

  580

  1991

  160

  1992

  800

  1993

  520

  1 Estimated figures, rounded to the nearest 10.

  2 Includes dependants who applied with the principal applicant or who arrived subsequently before the grant of asylum to the principal. Figures exclude dependants who arrived after the principal grant.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what records and research findings are held within his Department of the number of homeless people who are registered on electoral registers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None. Homeless people are not identified in the electoral register and no research has been undertaken on behalf of the Home Office into the number registered.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the amount of money to be withheld from United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. under the tems of the management contract to manage Blakenhurst prison, in the light of the incident on 24 February, to have been settled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has 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 21 April 1994:
  646
  HM Prison Blakenhurst
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Blakenhurst prison.
  The matter has now been settled; the intended financial remedy has been taken.

  Electronic Mail
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the use of private encryption technology by individuals or companies to protect data sent by electronic mail.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is a matter for the individual, or company, to take measures, which may include private encryption technology, which they consider necessary to safeguard their electronic mail communication.

WALES

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what computer systems his Department has brought in, for what function and at what cost for each of the last five years; and in each case whether the computer system is still in use.

  Mr. Redwood
  Full details could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, information relating to certain larger systems acquired during the past five years, all of which are still in use, is detailed in the table:

  System type and function

  Cost £

  SYSTEMS PURCHASED TO SUPPORT ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS

  PC Network

  Statistical Systems

  193,600

  (installation period 1989–94)

  PC Network

  Support for Ministerial Offices

  112,400

  (installation period 1989–94)

  PC Network

  Office Automation, Grant applications, Financial Monitoring

  79,000

  (installation period 1990–94)

  PC Network

  Office Automation, Typing Services, Records Management, Press and Publicity

  274,000

  (installation period 1990–94)

  PC Network

  Housing Subsidy and Grants

  48,000

  (installation period 1992–93)

  SYSTEMS PURCHASED AS A RESULT OF LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES

  Mini Computer

  To assist the administration of Agricultural support in Wales

  874,680

  (installation May 1993. Life span estimated to be seven years)

  Mini Computer

  Personal Systems(installation May 1990. Life span estimated to be seven years)

  62,180

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. Redwood
  The number of parliamentary questions that have not been answered because of disproportionate costs or because the information requested was not held centrally over the past five years such as can easily be provided by POLIS is 523. Information concerning how many could be answered now due to computerisation and/or more effective operational systems with the name and constituency of the hon. Member who tabled it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Wales Cancer Registry
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to publish the statistics of the Wales Cancer Registry for the years 1988 to 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Cancer registration data from the Wales Cancer Registry for 1988 have been published in "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for 'Wales, No. 19, 1992", available in the Library of the House. Data for 1989 will be published in the next edition at the end of April. More detailed information relating to the period 1984–89 will be made available in a report from the Wales Cancer Registry, "Cancer Registration in Wales, 1984–89", due to be published during the summer of 1994.

  Cancer registration is complex, relying in the main on data submitted by hospitals, regional cancer registries in England and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. New information on patients may be received some time after the actual incidence of cancer. Extensive validation is required in order, for example, to eliminate duplicates. The policy of the Wales Cancer Registry is to make available and publish data for a particular year when it is believed that future revisions will be small.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information is made available to his Department on the ways in which the content of toxic waste imported into Wales can be verified against consignment notes.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is the responsibility of the competent authority—district council—to ensure that the waste matches the description of the consignment note in accordance with advice given in Welsh Office circular 25/89.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information his Department holds on the companies of origin of the toxic and hazardous waste imported into Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Ombudsman
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many complaints concerning his Department's work have been brought to his attention in each year since 1979 by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; what steps he or his predecessors have taken to deal with complaints forwarded to him; and if he will make a statement on his Department's relationship with the ombudsman.

  Mr. Redwood
  Complaints concerning the Welsh Office are noted, where applicable, in the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration which have been published every year since 1967. Copies of these reports are held in the Library of the House. My Department takes all necessary steps in dealing with complaints.

  Glanders
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of cases of glanders and farcy in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many private security firms have been employed by his Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if he will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Mr. Redwood
  During the past 10 years my Department has regularly employed two private security firms under contracts valued as follows:

  Year

  £000s

  1984–85

  73

  1985–86

  85

  1986–87

  88

  1987–88

  89

  1988–89

  92

  1989–90

  99

  1990–91

  105

  1991–92

  115

  1992–93

  119

  1993–94

  133

  I estimate that 10 guards were needed in each of the years from 1984–85 to 1990–91 and 9 from 1991–92 to 1993–94.

  During the 1991–92 financial year, Cadw Welsh Historic Monuments, an executive agency within my Department made use of a private security firm for a special event at a cost of £ 9,000. The number of security employees involved is not known.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the level of contaminated land on areas controlled by Railtrack in Wales; what discussions he has had with the chairman of Railtrack over the clean-up of contaminated land associated with railway operations in Wales; and what resources he has committed to the clean-up of contaminated land in Wales.
  649
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A survey of contaminated land in Wales, including railway land, was undertaken on behalf of the Welsh Office and Welsh Development Agency in 1987–88. Its findings were published and a copy of the report is in the Library of the House.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales, has had no discussions to date with the chairman of Railtrack on this issue but, as is the case with other landowners, the company would normally be responsible for dealing with any dangerous contamination identified on its land.

  In terms of resources, the Welsh Development Agency estimates that some £7 million of its land reclamation

  Assisted places scheme: Payment to schools financial years 1981–82 to 1992–93

  School

  1981–82 £

  1982–83 £

  1983–84 £

  1984–85 £

  1985–86 £

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Christ College, Brecon

  7,986

  21,443

  36,063

  48,289

  62,116

  95,473

  131,470

  155,404

  189,033

  244,081

  321,779

  359,755

  389,754

  Howell's School, Denbigh

  11,011

  37,883

  70,107

  96,971

  132,971

  179,033

  225,465

  243,740

  237,474

  231,442

  254,759

  310,223

  353,064

  Howell's School, Llandaff

  17,774

  57,094

  106,799

  144,940

  209,858

  274,274

  314,274

  319,099

  334,290

  358,798

  328,763

  399,642

  430,751

  Llandovery College

  3,737

  9,217

  19,615

  31,013

  38,279

  45,440

  55,732

  75,308

  92,650

  140,381

  203,641

  250,671

  256,648

  Monmouth School (Boys)

  18,515

  52,035

  92,610

  134,170

  181,642

  233,684

  307,291

  277,352

  323,194

  303,951

  374,475

  434,416

  456,071

  Monmouth School (Girls)

  9,644

  21,677

  37,072

  52,598

  68,760

  90,225

  109,297

  114,422

  128,010

  140,618

  166,552

  200,729

  186,956

  Penrhos College

  5,108

  21,973

  38,489

  62,843

  81,089

  99,399

  140,459

  136,944

  156,617

  183,500

  225,688

  273,711

  295,428

  Rydal School

  4,194

  38,206

  53,896

  56,864

  67,768

  93,274

  110,254

  112,767

  128,121

  153,508

  189,153

  228,083

  252,589

  Lowther College1

  23,709

  15,244

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  101,678

  274,772

  454,651

  627,688

  842,483

  1,110,805

  1,394,242

  1,435,040

  1,589,389

  1,756,279

  2,064,810

  2,457,230

  2,621,261

  1 Lowther College closed in July 1982.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each district council area in Wales and for Wales as a whole his Department's estimate of(a) the number of people claiming housing benefit, (b) the number of people entitled to housing benefit who are not currently entering a claim and (c) (b) as a percentage of the total number entitled to claim housing benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the estimated number of recipients of housing benefit is published in table 9.6 of "Welsh Housing Statistics No. 13, 1993", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. There are no estimates at local authority or Welsh level of the number of people entitled to housing benefit. However, estimates of housing benefit take-up in Great Britain are included in the Department of Social Security's publication "Income Related Benefits: Estimates of Take-Up in 1990 and 1991" which is also available in the Library of the House.

  Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will set out the conclusions of the review of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Mr. Redwood
  I intend to give hospitals greater choice in obtaining their support services. More money will be released for direct patient care enabling a better standard of service to be provided.

  The authority carries out a number of non-core NHS activities throughout Wales including estates, information technology, procurement, prescription pricing and personnel services. It also undertakes a number of additional functions for the Welsh Office.
  650
  budget in 1994–95 will be devoted to dealing with contaminated land. Further resources will also be allocated through the strategic development scheme.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total amount given to the non-state schools in Wales under the assisted places scheme since its inception; what was the cash total in each recipient school since its inception; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 18 Apri11994]: The assisted places scheme has proved popular in Wales. Almost all available places have been taken up and more than a third of parents pay no fees. The information requested is as follows:

  Now that most hospital services are provided by trusts, the authority need no longer be the major provider of support services. Hospitals will be able to choose between WHCSA and others, and some functions of WHCSA will be privatised.

  The authority has management responsibilities for three clinical services: the artificial limb and appliance services, "Breast Test Wales" and the national blood transfusion service. These will be reviewed separately.

SCOTLAND

  Lambs
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 179, what were the estimated lamb losses attributed to fox predation for each of the past six years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Information on which to base estimates of numbers of lambs lost or of losses prevented is not collected centrally.

  Access to the Countryside
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Ramblers Association to discuss rights of public access to the countryside; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet representatives of the Ramblers Association. On my right hon. Friend's behalf, I recently met representatives of the voluntary environmental sector, including the new chairman of Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link, of which the Ramblers Association are members. The issue of public access to the countryside was raised at that meeting.

  Asthma
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of asthma were reported in each Scottish health region for each year since 1979; and if he will set out the figures in the same manner as the Secretary

  In-patient and day case discharges, including deaths, with a principal diagnosis of asthma by health board of treatment 1979 to 1992

  Health board of treatment

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Argyll and Clyde

  258

  274

  284

  261

  384

  413

  414

  503

  531

  583

  640

  724

  724

  689

  Ayrshire and Arran

  242

  245

  338

  367

  373

  482

  487

  532

  689

  671

  659

  662

  824

  773

  Borders

  47

  69

  73

  108

  98

  163

  141

  161

  177

  204

  202

  268

  177

  176

  Dumfries and Galloway

  69

  108

  121

  140

  170

  148

  158

  185

  190

  219

  195

  219

  231

  248

  Fife

  171

  260

  259

  293

  334

  383

  318

  382

  427

  486

  425

  408

  426

  424

  Forth Valley

  125

  155

  149

  158

  185

  184

  228

  279

  344

  343

  334

  403

  432

  362

  Grampian

  327

  375

  434

  489

  564

  562

  601

  677

  891

  825

  798

  1,115

  1,014

  1,005

  Greater Glasgow

  931

  1,050

  1,192

  1,229

  1,415

  1,504

  1,554

  1,505

  1,714

  1,790

  1,763

  2,043

  2,031

  2,188

  Highland

  123

  161

  183

  205

  236

  268

  235

  277

  293

  286

  281

  347

  332

  299

  Lanarkshire

  232

  364

  455

  406

  517

  571

  621

  583

  735

  801

  900

  958

  1,058

  995

  Lothian

  988

  1,115

  1,156

  1,140

  1,202

  1,231

  1,362

  1,305

  1,545

  1,528

  1,593

  1,624

  1,850

  1,750

  Orkney

  4

  5

  7

  10

  8

  12

  20

  11

  30

  17

  16

  16

  15

  19

  Shetland

  2

  4

  8

  15

  21

  18

  12

  16

  17

  14

  20

  25

  16

  11

  Tayside

  427

  427

  495

  478

  538

  581

  674

  591

  729

  787

  795

  811

  1,001

  921

  Western Isles

  10

  20

  21

  13

  26

  26

  20

  20

  13

  23

  17

  27

  30

  29

  SCOTLAND

  3,956

  4,632

  5,175

  5,312

  6,071

  6,546

  6,845

  7,027

  8,325

  8,577

  8,638

  9,650

  10,161

  9,889

  Police Complaints
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to establish an independent body to investigate and take action on complaints against police officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no plans to establish such a body. The Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill includes a new power for Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to review how a complaint has been handled by the police and, in certain circumstances, to direct the chief constable to reconsider the complaint.

  Gaming Regulations
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what regulations govern the promotion of(a) raffles, (b) pools and (c) totes in relation to (i) registration, (ii) operation, (iii) percentage payouts, (iv) distribution of funds and (v) administration costs; which regulations specifically limit their use by political parties during and outwith election campaigns; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The operation of raffles or lotteries is regulated by the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. Pool betting and totes are governed by the terms of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. Provided that a lottery, pools or tote scheme is promoted in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions, there are no regulations which specifically restrict their use by political parties.

  Clinical Waste Incinerators
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the location and owner or operator of each clinical waste incinerator in the Argyll and Clyde 652
  of State for Health in her answer to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) of 30 March, Official Report, columns 887–90.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information on the numbers of discharges, by health board of treatment, with a principal diagnosis of asthma is shown in the table for calendar years 1979–1992.

  health board area; whether these clinical waste incinerators comply fully with current pollution control legislation; whether they are likely to comply with any known new standards; when the most recent report on the operation of these incinerators were submitted to him; and what action he has found it necessary to take.

  Mr. Stewart
  The NHS in the Argyll and Clyde health board area owns and operates clinical waste incinerators at the Royal Alexandra hospital and Inverclyde Royal hospital. The plant at both hospitals meets current statutory requirements but will not comply with the statutes which come into force in October 1995.

  Whilst there have been operational difficulties from time to time with the incinerators, I understand that currently the equipment is performing to specification.

  A small amount of clinical waste is also burned at the Linwood municipal incinerator installation mainly as a back-up to the local NHS incinerators. This plant meets the present statutory requirements and is, I understand, scheduled to be closed by the end of this year.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the name, address and occupation and/or former occupation of each justice of the peace in Renfrew district; which wards are under-represented as a proportion of the total; when he next plans to make additional appointments; what criteria he will apply in making these appointments; what are the procedures for making nominations; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As for other commission areas in Scotland, my right hon. Friend is advised on the need for new appointments as justices of the peace for the commission area of Renfrew by the advisory committee on justices of the peace for that area, which also advises him on the personal suitability of candidates. Recommendations for consideration by the advisory
  653
  committee may be made on a form obtainable from the Secretary to the advisory committee. The criteria for appointment are, first, that candidates should be personally suitable in character, integrity and understanding; and, second only to this, that the area of selection is wide so that justices are broadly representative of all sections of the community which they serve. Advisory committees are required to have regard to the availability of justices to members of the public and to the requirements of the district court duty rota.

  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible about the detailed information which he has requested.

  Raymond Gilmour
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current position in his consideration of the application for the prerogative of mercy by Raymond Gilmour; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member on 18 April this year, informing him of his decision to reject the petition submitted on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Raymond Gilmour.

  Police Complaints
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what channels exist for police officers to vindicate themselves following false accusations being brought against them; if it is open to all ranks of officer to pursue civil actions against those who they allege have falsely accused them; and what plans he has to review the current arrangements.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Anyone who knowingly makes a false accusation against a police officer may be prosecuted. It is open to all ranks of officer to take civil action against those who falsely accuse them. We consider that these arrangements are adequate.

  Paisley (City Status)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the procedure for making application to elevate the town of Paisley to city status; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  City status in Scotland can be achieved only through the granting of a royal charter. No royal burgh charter has been granted in modern times and there are no plans to revive the practice.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out his target for the sale of Forestry Commission land in Scotland in the current year and for the next five years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  As announced in the Government's expenditure plans 1994–95 to 1996–97, the Commission plans to sell 15,000 hectares of forest land in Britain in each of the next three years. The proportion of this that will be sold in Scotland will depend on the state of the market, particularly the demand for forest land in different parts of Britain, but the Commission estimates that it will be in the region of 70 per cent. As yet, no firm plans have been made for sales in subsequent years.

  Police Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to allowing the new police authorities to set their own pay and conditions; and what were his conclusions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Police pay and national conditions will continue to be prescribed by the Secretary of State under section 26 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, taking into consideration recommendations made by the police negotiating board which includes representatives of police authorities. The Government accept that there should be greater local discretion over job-related allowances.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his current proposals or policies for performance-related pay in the police force.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is considering agreements reached in the police negotiating board on police pay structures and conditions of service for all ranks which include links between pay and appraisal of performance. The Government intend to introduce pay arrangements which depend on appraisal of performance as soon as practicable.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether future police authorities will be able to choose their own chair.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Yes. Joint police boards established after reorganisation of local government in Scotland will appoint their chairman from among their members, who will all be councillors of the constituent authorities.

  Teachers (Illness)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many days work have been lost by teachers due to illness in Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on teacher absences is not held centrally.

  School Transport
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will undertake a study of the adequacy of safety standards that currently obtain in the transportation of children to school in Scotland;

  (2) what plans he has to meet representatives of education authorities in Scotland to discuss safety in school transport;

  (3) if he will publish the current rules relating to safety belts and other safety equipment on school transport vehicles in Scotland;

  (4) what plans he has to make individual seats and safety harnesses obligatory on all school transport vehicles in Scotland;

  (5) if he will estimate the additional cost of making individual seats and safety harnesses obligatory on all school transport vehicles in Scotland;

  (6) if he will consider introducing members of staff as monitors on any double-decker buses used to transport children to school in Scotland;
  655
  (7) what consideration he has given to requiring manufacturers of minibuses for school transport to reinforce areas of the floor to enable seat belts to be fitted;

  (8) what plans he has to impose stricter safety standards on education authorities involved in transportation of children to school;

  (9) if he will consider making finance available to Scottish education authorities to enable them to finance safety improvements in school vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has a policy interest in terms of the general provision by local authorities of a school transport service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has responsibility for vehicle safety matters and the relevant legislation on a United Kingdom basis, including policy on vehicle construction, the provision of seat belts in all vehicles and the three for two concession in respect of school children on school transport.

  The Department of Transport has recently completed a survey on the full technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts nationally in minibuses and coaches and matters such as the three for two concession. It would therefore be inappropriate for the Scottish Office to conduct a separate survey in Scotland or to comment in advance on the outcome of the Department of Transport's review.

  With regard to the provision of supervisors on school transport in Scotland, education authorities already have a duty of care, in law, for the safety of pupils when under their charge. It is therefore for them to decide how supervision should be provided for on school buses. We shall consider whether further measures need to be taken in the light of such decisions as may follow the Department of Transport's review.

  Title

  Cost of production £

  Cost of printing £

  Cost of distribution£

  Total Cost £

  1992

  Examination results in Scottish schools 1990–92 (published November 1992)

  —

  7,672·50

  567·60

  8,24·010

  1993

  Examination results in Scottish schools 1991–93 (published November 1993)

  2,575·00

  5,056·00

  7,631·00

  Scottish schools: Costs 1993–94 (published December 1993)

  2,371·00

  9,895·00

  388·00

  12,654·00

  Leaver destinations from Scottish Secondary Schools 1992–93 (Published December 1993)

  1,353·00

  5,313·00

  259·00

  6,925·00

  Overall total

  35,450·10

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

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: I recognise the good work carried out by existing advice and law centres in Scotland. It is local authorities which are best placed to decide whether there is an unmet need for advice in particular areas. Where there is urban deprivation, however, start-up funding can be provided through the urban programme.
  656
  On the question of financial assistance, in advance of, and without prejudice to, the Department of Transport's review, my right hon. Friend has agreed to a request from Strathclyde regional council for a capping disregard for additional current expenditure in 1994–95 in respect of additional costs to the council of school transport in dropping the three for two concession on dedicated school transport and requiring the fitting of seat belts on all contract minibuses.

  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any immediate plans to meet representatives of Scottish education authorities to discuss safety in school transport. We will, however, consider whether any such meeting might be appropriate in the light of the conclusions of the Department of Transport review.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what records and research findings are held within his Department of the number of homeless people who are registered on electoral registers; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Department does not collect this information.

  School Performance Tables
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the budgeted expenditure to date for(a) publication and (b) distribution of the school performance tables.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the information set out in the table:

  I note that the Advice 2000 initiative is intended to improve further the quality and availability of advice.

  Voluntary Advice Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of funding from the Scottish 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.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: 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 level of funding from the Scottish Office for schemes run by voluntary

  657
  organisations where the main aims included the provision of advice and information. Figures for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Financial year

  Number of schemes

  Level of funding £

  1989–90

  53

  1,307,447

  1990–91

  49

  1,217,851

  1991–92

  39

  879,119

  1992–93

  52

  1,460,923

TRANSPORT

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many private security firms have been employed by his Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if he will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's property managers have been able to provide the following information. Complete records are not available for the earlier years.

  Contracts

  Guards

  Annual value £

  1994–95

  123

  135

  1758,709

  1993–94

  27

  40

  796,274

  1992–93

  22

  32

  729,085

  1991–92

  19

  35

  724,579

  1990–91

  18

  33

  540,165

  1989–90

  10

  20

  565,165

  1988–89

  n/a

  n/a

  456,242

  1987–88

  n/a

  n/a

  334,180

  1986–87

  n/a

  n/a

  296,191

  1985–86

  n/a

  n/a

  244,394

  1984–85

  n/a

  n/a

  190,521

  1 Estimate for 1994–95.

  Maritime Distress and Safety Systems
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the percentage of Inmarsat C distress calls received by the United Kingdom Marine regional control centre are false alarms; and what inquiries he has made as a response.

  Mr. Norris
  No representations have been received on false Inmarsat-C distress calls.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to monitor the effectiveness of the global maritime distress and safety system.

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom monitors the effectiveness of the global maritime distress and safety system by maintaining a record of distress calls received by our search and rescue authorities and their response. One outcome of this has been the identification of an unacceptable level of false alerts. This has been brought to the attention of the International Maritime Organisation.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with unions and owners on the effectiveness of the global maritime distress and safety system.
  658
  Mr. Norris
  The introduction of the global maritime distress and safety system was thoroughly discussed with representative bodies of the ship owners and seafarers at all stages of its development. The implementation of the requirements and their effectiveness is discussed at the Maritime Radio Advisory Committee where these organisations are fully represented.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) under what authority the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising is seeking to appoint marketing communication advisers to promote investor interest in passenger rail franchises;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the compatibility with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising's statutory obligations of seeking to promote investor interest in the privatisation of rail franchises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Seeking to promote investor interest in rail franchises is an integral part of the Franchising Director's statutory duties to designate railway passenger services as eligible for provision under franchise agreements and to invite tenders for the right to provide these services from such persons as he sees fit. The Franchising Director's intention to draw on the expertise of marketing advisers is consistent with the Secretary of State's objectives set for him under section 5 of the Act to secure that railway passenger services in Great Britian, other than exempted services, are provided under franchise agreements as soon as reasonably practicable; and to secure an overall improvement in the quality of railway passenger and station services available to railway passengers.

  Contractors
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the 20 contractors who have received the largest share of motorway and trunk road contracts in each of the last two years giving, for each contractor, the value of the contracts received;

  (2) if he will list for each of the last two years to date major construction contracts awarded by his Department worth over £250,000 at current prices indicating, in each case, which construction company was awarded the contract; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Since 1 April, responsibility for managing, maintaining and improving the national road network in England now lies with the Highways Agency. As the information requested by the hon. Member relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency, I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Laurie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 21 April 1994:
  You put down 2 Parliamentary Questions for answer by the Secretary of State concerning major construction contracts awarded during the last 2 years.
  As the information you asked for concerns operational matters for which the Highways Agency is now responsible, as promised by the Minister, Robert Key, I am replying to your Questions.
  You asked firstly about major construction contracts awarded during the last 2 years and which companies had won them.
  Annex A attached gives the information you asked for in relation to contracts valued in excess of £1 million.

  659
  Your second question concerned the 20 contractors who had won the largest share of motorway and trunk road contracts. Annex B attached gives this information in relation to contracts worth in excess of £1 million.
  The Agency does not currently keep central records of contracts below £1 million and this information cannot be Provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Annex A

  New construction and motorway widening contracts awarded between 1 April 1992 and March 1993

  £

  Balfour Beatty

  M4/M5 Second Severn Crossing

  65,119,651

  M6 Preston Junctions 30-32

  37,458,956

  Tarmac Construction

  M25 Junctions 15-16

  24,446,155

  M3 Bar End—Compton

  25,405,525

  M6 Junctions 20-21A

  52,512,897

  Alfred Mc Alpine/AMEC in joint venture A46 Leicester Western Bypass

  35,981,698

  Taylor Woodrow A27 Brighton Bypass Contract 4

  19,526,438

  John Mowlem A564 Foston/Hatton/Hilton Bypass

  19,367,370

  Fitzpatrick Contractors A23 Pease Pottage to Handcross Bridge

  8,160,560

  Amey Construction A650 Park Road, Bingley

  4,054,039

  Crown House Engineering A20 Folkestone—Courtwood (M & E)

  3,858,042

  May Gurney All Thetford to Bridgham Heath

  2,223,422

  Charles Gregory A42 Construction of 32 Laybys

  1,239,028

  TOTAL VALUE OF ALL CONTRACTS AWARDED

  374,326,327

  New construction and motorway widening contracts awarded between 1 April 1993 and March 1994

  £

  Tarmac Construction

  A30-A39 Indian Queen junction between Bodmin and Redruth

  12,695,070

  M65 Blackburn southern bypass

  65,861,695

  Balfour Beatty A13 Thames avenue—Wennington

  71,273,666

  Amec Civil Engineering A13 West of Heathway (A1240), south east of Wennington

  11,785,847

  A249 between Bobbing and north of Iwade, Kent

  35,721,035

  A406 Silver street—Hall lane, Angel road

  19,785,316

  Amey Construction

  A27 Patching between Worthing and Arundel

  6,402,673

  A4-A46 Batheaston—Swainswick bypass

  44,953,293

  A65 Burley in Wharfedale bypass

  5,547,467

  660

  £

  Alfred McAlpine/Amec Civil Engineering in joint venture

  A1 Walshford—Dishforth

  53,795,508

  Wimpey Construction A31 Ringwood and St. Ives (Ashley heath)

  6,696,391

  A417 Brockworth bypass

  35,142,101

  M5 junction 18, Avonmouth

  7,926,340

  Edmund Nuttall A406 North circular road, east of Falloden way

  27,013,720

  A406 Silver street—Hall lane, Lea Valley

  21,761,735

  John Laing M25 between junction (Merstham) and junction 8 (Reigate)

  45,979,928

  Alfred McAlpine Construction All Wymondham southern bypass

  16,940,943

  A435 Norton Lenchwick bypass

  19,226,966

  John Mowlem M25 widening junctions 10 and 11

  35,097,353

  Birse Construction A50 Blythe bridge

  23,072,304

  M62 improvement junction 14-17

  10,223,164

  Norwest Holst A12 Hackney Wick to Redbridge Flyover

  31,558,185

  May Gurney and Co. A17 Leadenham bypass improvement

  3,322,890

  A17 Wigtoft-Sutterton

  4,402,863

  A17 Walpole-Tilney bypass

  23,455,738

  Christiani and Nielson—Kier in joint venture A50 Blythe bridge—contract 1B

  28,414,397

  Costain Building and Civil Engineering M66 Denton—Middleton

  19,237,248

  Roadworks (1952) All Stump Cross and Four Wentways

  18,149,454

  Tilbury Douglas A45 Stonebridge D and B

  8,447,149

  Kier Construction A66 east of Brough to Palliard

  7,636,582

  Matthew Hall Mechanical and Electrical A27 Kingston—Hangleton, Southwick hill tunnel

  4,561,802

  Shephard Hill M1 junction 1. Barnet viaduct slip roads

  4,235,912

  Total VALUE of All CONTRACTS AWARDED

  739,919,909

  Annex B

  Motorway and Trunk road contracts in excess of £1 million top twenty contractors —1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  £

  Balfour Beatty

  118,915,055

  Tarmac Construction

  114,069,649

  Tarmac Quarry Products

  59,623,689

  Amey Construction

  53,897,813

  Birse Construction

  50,139,207

  Alfred McAlpine Construction

  37,775,581

  A. McAlpine/AMEC

  35,981,698

  Edmund Nuttall

  35,818,406

  John Mowlem

  24,452,021

  Associated Asphalt

  24,221,730

  Fitzpatrick

  20,041,476

  Taylor Woodrow

  19,526,438

  661

  £

  Tilcon Ltd.

  13,369,582

  Costan B & CE

  8,885,621

  A. F. Budge

  8,223,235

  Galliford (UK)

  7,480,336

  ARC Ltd.

  7,077,074

  Thos Ward

  5,410,751

  Eden Construction

  5,176,851

  Colas Construction

  4,976,294

  TOTAL OF ALL CONTRACTS AWARDED

  701,950,191

  Motorway and trunk road contracts in excess of fl million Top twenty contractors

  1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994

  Tarmac Construction

  112,592,231

  Balfour Beatty

  73,690,960

  Amec Civil Engineering

  71,491,041

  Amey Construction

  61,924,277

  John Laing

  54,536,714

  A. McAlpine/AMEC

  53,795,508

  Edmund Nuttall

  50,023,149

  Wimpey Construction

  49,764,741

  John Mowlem

  45,636,804

  Birse Construction

  41,973,189

  Alfred McAlpine

  36,167,909

  May Gurney

  33,789,967

  Norwest Hoist

  32,492,061

  Costain B & CE

  32,059,989

  Christiani/Kier

  28.414,397

  Tarmac Quarry Products

  26,943,630

  Roadworks (1952)

  19,247,959

  ARC Ltd.

  18,888,667

  Galliford (UK)

  15,612,134

  Tilbury Douglas

  15,570,088

  TOTAL OF ALL CONTRACTS AWARDED

  1,003,548,351

  Airport Charges
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what comparisons he has made of airport charges levied by the BAA and those levied in the United States of America and other countries.

  Mr. Norris
  None. I refer the hon. Member to the airport charges index produced by TM Economics, discussed at pages 55-56 of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on BAA plc—a report on the economic regulation of the south-east airports companies including Heathrow Airport Ltd., Gatwick Airport Ltd. and Stansted Airport Ltd.—presented to the Civil Aviation Authority in June 1991. The Commission noted the difficulties of undertaking "fair" comparisons when the level of service offered by different operators varies. TME considered 40 airports; charges at Heathrow and Gatwick, for example, fell within the middle of the range of average charges.

  TME produce this index annually; the most recent edition—1993—has shown that the charges at Heathrow and Gatwick have fallen relative to other airports.

  Domestic Air Fares
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what comparisons he has made of the cost of domestic air fares in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and other countries.
  662
  Mr. Norris
  Comparisons of fare levels in different countries are subject to wide margins of error. The CAA recently published a range of fares comparisons in its document "Airline Competition in the Single European Market" (CAP 623). The broad conclusion was that fully flexible United Kingdom domestic fares were comparable with France, lower than Germany but higher than in some other EU states. The reasons for such differences are not at all clear. The position in the United States depended very much on the airline operating the service. Where a low-cost airline such as Southwest Airlines operated, fares were exceptionally low not only by the standards of the United Kingdom and Europe but also compared to other United States routes, on which fares were sometimes higher than in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to bring United Kingdom domestic air fares down.

  Mr. Norris
  The setting of air fares is essentially a matter for the commercial judgment of airlines. United Kingdom airlines had considerable freedom to compete by setting their own air fares on domestic routes for a number of years even before free pricing was introduced by the EC single market.

  We believe that airlines should be free to set their own fares with a minimum of regulatory intervention. This is consistent with an open and competitive market and is in the best overall interests of users. Safeguards are, however, available under EC regulation 2409/92 to combat the exploitation of consumers by airlines charging excessively high fares.

  Unlicensed Airfields
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints he has received in each of the last five years about alleged breaches of the regulations applying to unlicensed airfields.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 April 1994]: My Department does not keep a record of complaints about unlicensed airfields. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which body has the responsibility for ensuring regulatory compliance by the operators and users of unlicensed airfields.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 April 1994]: I refer to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member earlier today. The appropriate bodies will have responsibility for enforcement of any relevant legislation. The commander of an aircraft using an unlicensed aerodrome is responsible for his own safe operation, including satisfying himself that the aerodrome is suitable in all respects.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to change the regulations applying to unlicensed airfields.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 April 1994]: None.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the regulations which apply to unlicensed airfields.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 April 1994]: No regulations specifically apply to unlicensed airfields. The

  663
  CAA has published guidance material: CAP 428 "Safety Standards at Unlicensed Aerodromes". Article number 87 of the Air Navigation order "Aviation Fuel at Aerodromes" would also apply. Other legislation applies to unlicensed airfields as appropriate.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all unlicensed airfields in the United Kingdom and the operators.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 April 1994]: There are no special registration procedures for unlicensed airfields and it is not therefore possible for me to provide a list of all such airfields and their operators.

  Public Service Vehicles
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department now holds on the failure rates of public service vehicles at the annual roadworthiness test; and if he will specify the level of disaggregation available to him.

  Mr. Key
  I have asked the Vehicle Inspectorate chief executive to write to the hon. Member with this detailed information.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. Gareth Wardell, dated 4 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about the information his Department holds on failure rates for public service vehicles (PSVs) at annual roadworthiness tests, and the amount of detail available to him.
  The Vehicle Inspectorate (VI) is responsible for the annual testing of HGVs and PSVs. VI maintains a database detailing the test record of each vehicle it tests. At its lowest level the database can provide basic information about whether a particular vehicle has passed or failed its annual roadworthiness test and the reason for failure. This detailed information is not made available to the general public for data protection reasons.
  The database also provides regular management information on first annual tests and retests at a regional, national and test station level. It can be programmed to aggregate the results in different ways at additional cost. It no longer records operator types and does not yet produce information automatically about particular PSV operators. This is because vehicle information is not cross referenced with operator details. VI is working on solutions aimed at creating a full vehicle and operator database in the medium term.
  In view of your interest I have enclosed a copy of VI's annual report for 1992–93. This gives details of national PSV test failure rates for the financial years 1988–89 to 1992–93, and provides a breakdown of the reasons for failure over the same period.

HEALTH

  Hospital Information Support Systems
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what has been the cost of the Hospital Information Support Systems project in each year since its inception;

  (2) what level of financial support her Department intends to make available to hospitals that have become trusts to continue the development of HISS.

  Mr. Sackville
  Integrated hospital systems were seen as a key feature of the future information management and technology in the acute sector and, when the national health service reforms were being formulated, were seen as important for the development of contracting. As soon as the NHS reforms were announced a team was set up to run projects to explore these matters.
  664
  Until recently the team dispersed sums to support projects of varying sizes, the amounts of which are shown in the table.

  Year

  £

  1989–90

  5,000,000

  1990–91

  7,500,000

  1991–92

  12,750,000

  1992–93

  21,215,000

  1993–94

  6,690,000

  This phase is virtually complete and the team is involved primarily in tracking benefits realisation, disseminating results, assisting those considering a hospital information support system, supporting activities like consortia to get better value for money and vetting £1 million plus projects under the new approval process.

  To complete the hospital information support sy stem programme, a total of £1.668 million is being allocated to trusts for specific purposes in 1994–95. The further funding of HISS systems is a local responsibility.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many parliamentary questions to her 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 she will list each such question along with the name and constituency of the hon. Member who tabled it.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of answers given to parliamentary questions by the Department of Health between January 1989 and December 1993, recorded on the POLIS database as including a reference to part or all of the information not being available or involving disproportionate cost was 1,223. 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 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  We are anxious to reduce the number of forms which currently have to be filled in by national health service units and returned to the Department. There is a limit to the amount of information required by the Department and the NHS executive on a national service which is regionally and locally administered. Release from the burden of filling in forms will give NHS units more time for activities with a greater bearing on direct patient care.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors are employed(a) by the West Midlands health authority and (b) in the Coventry area; and what were the figures for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There were 2,029 whole-time equivalent registrars, senior house officers and house officers employed in the west midlands region in 1991 and 2,056 in 1992. In 1991, 142—estimated—were employed in the Coventry area; in 1992 the figure had risen to 166.

  There were 272 whole-time equivalent senior registrars in the west midlands region in 1991 and 277 in 1992. The number working in the Coventry area is not available.
  665
  Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

  British Pharmaceutical Industry
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that the British pharmaceutical industry remains competitive with foreign rivals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The British pharmaceutical industry is outstandingly competitive; it directly employs about 80,000 people in the United Kingdom and had a positive balance of trade of about £1·5 billion in 1993. This results from a wide range of factors. So far as my responsibilities are concerned, we have negotiated a new pharmaceutical price regulation scheme for a period of five years from October 1993. This provides continued stability to the pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom, recognises research and development through the prices paid by the national health service for its medicines and encourages the efficient and competitive development and supply of medicines to pharmaceutical markets in this and other countries.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private security firms have been employed by her Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if she will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department employed four private security firms in 1993–94. The estimated total expenditure for these contracts is £700,000 and the estimated total of guards employed was 30. To provide information prior to 1993–94 would incur disproportionate cost.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to improve the quality of procedures for the identification and treatment of breast cancer; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The chief medical officer's expert advisory group on cancer is currently preparing advice for health authorities on the organisation of cancer services. These recommendations will be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State later this year.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will establish a target of reducing levels of death from breast cancer to the OECD average.

  Mr. Sackville
  Reducing deaths from breast cancer among women invited for screening by at least 25 per cent. from 1990 by the year 2000 is a target in the Government's "The Health of the Nation" initiative.

  Premature Mortality
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the latest studies funded by her Department of causes of premature mortality related to(a) environmental pollution, (b) deprived material conditions of work and (c) other forms of material deprivation.

  Mr. Sackville
  The small area health statistics unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is 666
  funded by the Department of Health, Department of Environment, Health and Safety Executive, Scottish Office, Welsh Office and Northern Ireland Office. The unit is conducting a number of studies to determine whether cancers are associated with environmental pollution associated with local sources of pollution.

  These are as follows:

  1. Cancer incidence and mortality around PBI Ltd., Waltham Abbey.

  2. TV and Radio Transmitters: the initial local concern was around Sutton Goldfield, but there are others which are included in the study.

  3. Municipal Incinerators: the study covered 72 incinerators around Great Britain, being all those licensed sites which burn household, commercial and/or industrial waste and for which the relevant information was available.

  4. BP Petrochemical Works, Baglan Bay.

  5. Vinyl Chloride Works.

  The Department is also funding the following:

  1. A research project which will examine the health effects of the December 1991 air pollution episode in London and is due to be completed later this year.

  2. The Social Medicine and Health Services Research Unit which is currently undertaking two research projects, due to be completed later this year, into the incidence of asthma in the United Kingdom and the European Community.

  The Department also supports the newly formed Medical Research Council Institute for Environment and Health at the University of Leicester. This will act as a focus to co-ordinate work on chemical environmental pollutants.

  The Department has not funded any studies into causes of premature mortality related to conditions of work or "other forms of deprivation".

  Health Expenditure, London
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) of 12 April,Official Report, column 72, if she will give the figures for expenditure per capita for London for (a) district health authorities and (b) family health services authorities, including expenditure by the London postgraduate hospitals and special health authorities.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is spent per capita by London district health authorities and special health authorities on health services for residents of (i) inner London and (ii) outer London; and what is the national average expenditure per capita by district health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Expenditure per capita by district health authorities in inner London, at £553, is higher than that of all the other major cities included in my reply to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) on 12 April at column 72, with the exception of Manchester. When special health authorities' spending is added to DHA spending, inner London per capita spend is 56 per cent. above the national average.

  1992–93 per capita spend by inner and outer London district health authorities and the national average spend by DHAs in England are given in the table. The table also shows the effects of including expenditure by the London postgraduate SHAs which were funded centrally in 1992–93. The family health services authority figures given in my reply to the hon. Member for Dulwich are unchanged.

  667

  DHA spend

  DHA spend including SHAs

  Expenditure Per capita £

  Percentage above national average

  Expenditure Per capita £

  Percentage above national average

  Inner

  553

  46

  603

  56

  Outer

  398

  5

  415

  8

  Total London

  460

  22

  490

  27

  Total England

  378

  —

  368

  —

  Notes:

  1. Inner London defined as in the Report of the Enquiry into London's Health Services, Medical Education and Research (Tomlinson Report).

  2. SHA 1992–93 expenditure apportioned to DHAs based on analysis of district of residence of 1993–94 referrals.

  Road Traffic Act 1988
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will estimate how much money(a) her Department and (b) NHS trusts expect to recover under section 157 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for the provisions of treatment to road accident victims for the years 1994 and 1995;

  (2) if she will list the total amount of money recovered by (a) her Department and (b) NHS trusts under section 157 of the Road Traffic Act for the provisions of treatment to road accident victims for each year since 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  Income from Road Traffic Act charges as a whole—sections 157 and 158—was £9·1 million in 1990–91, the last year in which these data were collected centrally.

  Carers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been undertaken as to the impact of the community care changes on carers; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Research is currently being funded by the Department into the extent to which carers are benefiting from the community care reforms.

  Youth Treatment Service
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish the annual report of the chief executive of the youth treatment service for 1992–93; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library today. The report contains, at annex 14, the youth treatment service's receipts and payments account for the year ended 31 March 1993. These accounts, which are unaudited and have no form of endorsement by the National Audit Office, represent the service's view of the financial outcome for the year.

  Drugs
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to examine the effectiveness of treatment services for drug misuers; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am concerned to ensure that services for drug misusers work to clear objectives and that we are 668
  able to assess how effective these services are in terms of delivering reductions in drug misuse, and the harm associated with it. I have decided therefore to establish a task force to undertake a wide-ranging review of the effectiveness of treatment services for drug misusers. Membership of the task force, which will be chaired by the Reverend Dr. John Polkinghorne, president of Queen's college, Cambridge, comprises experts from the drugs field and people from different backgrounds who will bring a fresh perspective to issues in this important area. They are:
  Mr. Denis O'Connor (Deputy Chief Constable of Kent). Dr. Michael Farrell (Consultant Psychiatrist in drug dependence at Maudsley Hospital).
  Dame Margaret Fry (non-executive member of South and West Regional Health Authority).
  Dr. Silvain Edouard Josse (General Practitioner).
  Mr. James Kay (Director of Healthwise, Liverpool and member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs).
  Ms Rosemary Ramsay (Lawyer, and Vice Chairman of Brixton Drugs Project).
  Miss Esther Rantzen (Member of the Health Education Authority).
  Mr. Tony Shaw (Chief Executive of Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Commission).
  Mr. Tony Sheehan (Nurse).
  Mr. David Taylor (Audit Commission)
  Mr. Rodney Walker (Chairman of the NHS Trust Federation).
  The Rt. Reverend William John Westwood (Bishop of Peterborough).
  The chief medical officer's consultant adviser on drug misuse, Dr. John Strang, will be medical adviser to the task force.

  The terms of reference of the review are:
  "To conduct a comprehensive survey of clinical, operational and cost effectiveness of existing services for drug misusers; to review current policy in relation to the principal objective of assisting drug misusers to achieve and maintain a drug-free state, and the secondary objective of reducing harm caused to themselves and others by those who continue to use drugs; to make recommendations where appropriate and to report to Ministers."
  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will also be represented on the task force, and the central drugs co-ordination unit will take a close interest in their work.

  The work of the task force will complement the role of the central drugs co-ordination unit, which has been established to ensure that, through the development of a comprehensive and co-ordinated strategy, we get best possible value for the significant resources invested by the Government in the fight against drugs. To ensure that close links are maintained, the director of the central co-ordination unit will have observer status on the task force.

  Ophthalmics
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Leeds general practitioner practices were sent letters from consultant ophthalmic surgeons at the Leeds general infirmary explaining that their patients could not be admitted for elective surgery until the start of the 1994–95 financial year.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the United Leeds Teaching Hospitals national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Tony Clegg, chairman of the trust, for details.

  South West Thames Health Authority
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports she has received from the South West Thames health authority concerning the extent to which the accident and emergency departments at(a) Ashford hospital, (b) St. Peter's hospital and (c) Frimley Park hospital met patients charter standards during the quarter ended 31 December 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  The report from South West Thames regional health authority for the quarter ending 31 December 1993 on the accident and emergency standard —initial assessment in accident and emergency within five minutes—shows:

  Per cent.

  Ashford Hospital NHS Trust

  37

  St. Peter's Hospital NHS Trust

  100

  Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust

  71

  North West Surrey health authority was told that action must be taken to ensure improved performance.

  Provisional figures for the quarter ended 31 March are as follows:

  Per cent.

  Ashford Hospital NHS Trust

  93

  St. Peter's Hospital NHS Trust

  98

  Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust

  90

  Allergies
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of whether adequate advice is being provided to general practitioners in England and Wales about the treatment of choice in cases of severe allergic reactions; and what steps she is taking to ensure that the necessary equipment is readily available and easy to use.

  Mr. Sackville
  The next edition of the chief medical officer's update, which goes to all doctors, will include advice on the management of anaphylaxis, particularly in respect of peanuts. The British National Formulary, which is distributed twice a year free of charge to all prescribers, contains a section on anaphylaxis and the treatment available.

  "NHS Changes in London"
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will halt further distribution of the "NHS Changes in London" leaflet pending an inquiry by the Committee of Public Accounts;

  (2) which company is employed by her Department to distribute the leaflet "NHS Changes in London"; how much they have been paid; and when they are distributing the leaflet to each London borough;

  (3) to which areas the leaflet "NHS Changes in London" has already been distributed; and to which London areas it is not planned to distribute it.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The leaflet "NHS Changes in London" was targeted at households within the area bounded by the M25 and aims to address key questions 670
  about health services in London which have been and continue to be put to the Department. The Central Office of Information was employed to arrange distribution of the leaflet. The estimated total cost is £150,000 of which distribution costs are estimated to be £86,500. Distribution was completed by 9 April and there are no further, distribution plans.

  Ms Bridget O'Connell
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions her Department has had with North Thames health authority and the former North East Thames health authority about the case of the consultant Ms Bridget O'Connell.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a complex case, which I hope will be resolved soon. Suspensions are a contractual matter between employer and employee and neither the Department nor Ministers are directly involved in such matters.

  Out-patients
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of an out-patient appointment.

  Mr. Sackville
  The average cost of an out-patient attendance during 1992–93 was £59. 21—provisional.

  Supplies Authority
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names of the members and chairs of(a) the NHS supplies authority and (b) the Bromley health authority on 1 April.

  Mr. Sackville
  The chairman of the National Health Service Supplies Authority is Sir Robin Buchanan. The non-executive members are Mrs. Alison Cook, Mr. Eric Greenhalgh, Mr. Jim Hammond, Mr. Fred Hoult and Miss Catherine McLoughlin. The executive members are Mr. Terry Hunt, Mr. Evan Sutherland, Mr. Richard Chantler, Mrs. Roxanne Sutton and Mr. Chris Uden.

  The chairman of Bromley health authority is Miss Catherine McLoughlin. The non-executive members are Mr. Charles Ilsley, Ms Maureen Theobold and Dr. Robin Kirby. There are currently two vacancies. The executive members are Ms Claire Perry, Mr. Philip Lloyd, Mr. Kevin Barton, Mr. Robin Lorimer and Dr. Jackie Spilby.

  There is no statutory bar to the appointment of chairmen or members of other health authorities to the NHS Supplies Authority.

  Medical Certificates
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 78, what specific categories of medical certificates are on the defined list of medical certificates issued free of charge under GP's terms of service; and what guidelines her Department issues to GPs for appropriate charging rates relating to categories of certificates not on that list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is available in schedule 9 of the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans her Department has to exclude crown and bridgework from the treatments available to fee paying NHS patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government are preparing their response to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report on dental services. Our proposals will be published in due course.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans her Department has to raise NHS dental fees in the financial year 1994–95.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General dental practitioners received a 3 per cent. increase in their national health service fees from 1 April 1994 which fully implemented the Doctors and Dentists Review Body recommendation for 1994–95. The Government will, of course, keep the public expenditure implications of this increase under review throughout the year.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients presented themselves at general medical practices in each year between 1979 and 1993 inclusive, with dental-related problems.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General medical practitioners are not required to provide such information.

  Children's Hospital Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to publish or place in the Library reports from district health authorities due to be submitted through regional health authorities to the management directorate of the NHS excecutive by 1 May concerning the position in relation to the central guidance issued in 1991 on "Welfare of Children and Young People in Hospital", paragraph 6.3, on the specifications for the nurse staffing of children's hospital services and progress made in achieving the standards detailed therein.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Responses to the survey of nursing staffing in children's wards and other hospital departments 672
  where children are cared for are due shortly, and will require proper aggregation and analysis. The results will be made available.

  Water Pollution, Worcester
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will conduct an inquiry into the health hazards associated with the pollution of drinking water in the Worcester area on Friday 15 April; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  People were advised at the time not to drink the tap water. This was a sensible precaution until an analysis could be made to determine what pollutants were present. Those subsequently detected in the drinking water were present at such low levels that no short-term or long-term health effects were anticipated. We understand that some cases of gastric upset and nausea have been reported by some local general practitioners, but it is not possible to say with certainty whether these were caused by the polluted water.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure by each individual first and second-wave trust in 1991–92 and 1992–93, as appropriate on external contract staffing and consulting services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: The information requested is shown in tables which will be placed in the Library. Figures for 1992–93 are provisional and have not yet been validated and are therefore not wholly reliable.

  The figures are not comparable with those for earlier years but confirm the effectiveness of the Government's policy of encouraging overall value for money in the national health service by using alternative sources to supply a range of services. The expenditure by trusts in many cases relates to services provided within the NHS either by other trusts or health authorities. These services range from linen supplies and transport to computing services; it also covers payments to other hospitals for services performed by their consultants and senior registrars.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Docklands Light Railway: Stations
Baroness Stedman asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the undertakings given by the promoters of the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) Act 1993 to the Select Committee of this House which considered the Bill, they approve of the circulation by the promoters of a "consultation document" which suggests that stations should not after all be built at Island Gardens on the Isle of Dogs and at Cutty Sark in Greenwich.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the Government asked the Docklands Light Railway Limited and the London Docklands Development Corporation to consult interested parties on a proposal to delete stations from the Lewisham extension when approval was given for the project to go ahead under the private finance initiative. The enabling Act allows proposed stations to be built but does not make their provision mandatory. I should emphasise that this is a proposal only and no final decision has been taken.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I know that it is only a consultation document. However, is the Minister aware that undertakings were requested from the promoters regarding the new station at Island Gardens to compensate the residents there for all the trouble they would have while the tunnel was being built? Does he agree that the fact that the consultation paper leaves out the stations at Island Gardens and Cutty Sark flouts the will of Parliament in so far as those undertakings are concerned? Will the Minister consider consulting the Chairman of Committees to ensure that when the final decision is taken, the undertakings will be honoured?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, on the last part of the noble Baroness's question, I suspect that it would be improper and, indeed, ultra vires for me to approach the Chairman of Committees on the subject. The enabling Act has passed through your Lordships' House. The Lewisham extension will provide an important new transport link between the City, Docklands, Lewisham and Greenwich with a completely new river crossing, and will help in the regeneration of London, both north and south of the Thames.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Earl help me on one point? What is the role, if any, of Her Majesty's Government in this matter? As I understand it, an Act has been passed by Parliament and
278
there may or may not have been certain undertakings given by certain parties who were required to give evidence under that Act. As the noble Earl rightly said, it would be wrong for the Government to talk to the Chairman of Committees other than on an informal basis. But can the noble Earl tell us what the Government's role in all this could or, indeed, should be?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government's role has to be seen from the point of view that this is an enabling Act. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued his press release on the Act, he said that the Government would have to consider whether the two stations might have to be deleted and that the viability of the whole line would be considered by both financial and engineering experts.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, what is the point of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House spending a long time discussing and debating these matters and taking evidence in great detail if the results are immediately or potentially overturned by the Government stepping in? Surely that is quite wrong.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord is not right: the Government are not stepping in. The Government's modus vivendi on this Act was always clear. We have always said that account would have to be taken of the viability of the line as a whole.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, if it is not a matter for the Government, surely it must be a matter for the Leader of the House. I am subject to correction, but ray understanding is that when a Select Committee of this House considers a Bill of this nature, a Private Bill, it is not able to require amendments to he made prior to issuing its report. Therefore, when a Select Committee reports to the House, it is on the assumption that undertakings given to it will be fulfilled. If we cannot have a clear statement that those undertakings are to be applied fully, we come up against the problem that when other committees consider matters and assurances are given, the House or the committee could say that those assurances cannot be accepted. If it is not a matter for the Government, I think that it is very much a matter for the Leader of the House to ensure that undertakings given in the committee, on the basis of which your Lordships' House passed the Bill, are fulfilled.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that all the procedures in relation to the Bill and, indeed, the structure of the Bill as it passed through both Houses of Parliament were correct. If that is not the case, I stand to be corrected, but I am sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House would say that that is the case.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, what then is the view of the Government on the validity of undertakings given to a Select Committee in these circumstances?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that we are getting right away from the Question—
Noble Lords: No!
The Earl of Arran: With respect, we are getting away from the Question, which is concerned with the Docklands Light Railway and the passing of the Act in your Lordships' House.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, it is to do with assurances given to a Select Committee of this House in relation to the Docklands Light Railway. How the noble Earl can possibly say that my question gets away from the Question, I cannot understand—and nor, I believe, will your Lordships' House.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is my noble friend answering?
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend is answering. I do not want to stop him.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. It is a Question concerning the Docklands Light Railway and the aftermath of the Act going through your Lordships' House. It is not a Question for procedural decision this afternoon.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, we have been told two facts in the course of this exchange. The first is that the Bill was an enabling Bill and the second is that certain undertakings were given. Is not the way out for my noble friend to let the terms of the undertakings and the relevant sections of the Act be placed in the Library and sent to those Members of the House who have raised the matter?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, my noble and learned friend puts important points to the House. I believe that my noble friend Lord Arran has answered the Question absolutely correctly. I have heard questions from noble Lords in all parts of the House about undertakings given to a Select Committee. I give an undertaking to your Lordships that I shall consider those questions to see whether there are any issues that could give us cause for concern. I shall then decide what is the most appropriate way to deal with the situation.

Health and Safety Executive: Role
3.10 p.m.
The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the Health and Safety Executive is able to carry out its dual roles of law enforcement and protector of employees effectively.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, yes, I have every confidence in the Health and Safety Executive's approach to enforcement. The responsibility for protecting employees lies with the employers and with the employees themselves.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply to my Question. Perhaps he can help me and a lot of people out of some difficulty. Employees are afraid to report incidents of pesticide exposure to the Health and Safety Executive for fear that they will be sacked by their employers. Employers are afraid to report such incidents because they are frightened of being prosecuted. Can the noble Lord give the exact position with regard to those matters?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I somehow expected that pesticide exposure might raise its head. I believe that the noble Countess makes a very valid point that it can be extremely difficult for an employee in a firm which employs just one or two people, from a purely personal human relations point of view, to report incidents to the authorities. I hope that the officers and inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive will act with appropriate care and caution, and will make themselves available as best they can.
As regards the noble Countess's second point, I understand that there may be considerable fear by any given employer about prosecution. It may help if I elaborate on the prosecution policy of the Health and Safety Executive. It considers a number of matters: principally the gravity of the offence; the general record and approach of the offender; and, thirdly—and I think this is most important—whether it is desirable to be seen to produce some public effect, including the need to ensure remedial action, by the punishment of offenders in order to deter similar offenders who have not complied with the law. The point is that the Health and Safety Executive is not in the business of prosecuting left, right and centre. It will prosecute only when it is absolutely appropriate in the given circumstances of a case.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many thousands of employees cannot be protected by the Health and Safety Executive because management can hide behind Crown immunity and cannot be prosecuted no matter how negligent it has been? Crown notices are a pathetically inadequate substitute for legal protection. That is why the Government should abolish Crown immunity.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord made that point very forcefully only yesterday. I cannot take the noble Lord any further than I did then. As I said yesterday, the Health and Safety Executive is considering both the costs and benefits of the removal of Crown immunity, but we should not wish to go down that line if it showed that costs exceeded the benefits. However, as I made clear, also to the noble Lord yesterday, we believe that health and safety legislation bites fully on the Crown and that it should observe exactly the same standards as are observed in the rest of the country.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I am sure that he is—that the Health and Safety Commission report for 1992–93 made reference to a new enforcement strategy to be applied by the inspectorate? Is any information available as to how that is working? Secondly, will the Minister give

281
assurances that the Health and Safety Commission will continue to be provided with the appropriate resources to do the very valuable job which it is now doing, despite what is recommended in the deregulation Bill which will shortly be before this House?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as regards the first point, it is rather early days to say what progress is being made but. I shall certainly let the noble Baroness know in due course.
On the matter of resources for the Health and Safety Commission, following the 1993 Public Expenditure Survey, the settlement will be £190 million for 1994–95 and £192 million for 1995–96. That is somewhat less than the previous allocation, but I assure the noble Baroness that it is a still a 6 per cent. increase on the provision for 1993–94. We believe, and the Health and Safety Commission itself believes, that it is most important to increase and have a reasonable number of inspectors for the inspectorate. I assure the noble Baroness that the number of inspectors has increased by about one-third since about 1988.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is not the most important factor that information is freely available and disseminated among the farming population in which the noble Countess is interested? That is more important than prosecuting. I remember an example many years ago, just after the war, when I was instructing my grieve on the dangers of spraying. He said that he was fully aware of the dangers because he had told the men, when clearing the nozzles, to blow and not to suck.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. Obviously information is more important than prosecution. That is why I tried to stress, when I answered the noble Countess, that the Health and Safety Executive does not prosecute just like that. It prefers to offer advice on compliance with the legal requirements as far as possible.
As regards purely agricultural matters, which is the particular anxiety of the noble Countess, I assure the noble Lord that a new document on sheep dipping and how to protect your health will be distributed to all registered sheep farmers in time for the main dipping season.

Advance Fee Loan Fraud
3.15 p.m.
Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated scale of advance fee loan fraud in the banking system, and what measures are being taken to catch and punish the promoters of this type of fraud.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not possible to estimate the scale of advance fee fraud. Where anybody suspects that he has come across an instance of advance fee loan fraud, he should report it to the police, as with any other sort of crime.
Lord Spens: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a common theme running through those advance fee
282
frauds is that they originate from overseas and that they are peddled in this country through intermediaries, foremost among which are certain UK branches of overseas banks? The Bank of England has expressed itself as not competent to supervise that problem and the Securities and Investments Board has said equally that it is incapable of regulating the problem. What is the Minister prepared to do to make sure that the law is changed so that we can get at the perpetrators and promoters of that fraud, because many thousands of small businesses and some larger businesses have suffered gravely in the past three or four years from that large-scale fraud?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Bank of England has issued a letter to all banks which it authorises on the subject, warning them of the dangers of this. The second part of the noble Lord's question seems to suggest that there is a gap in the law. I assure the noble Lord that fraud of this sort is fraud and is a crime under the Theft Act. Anyone who has evidence relating to instances of such fraud should inform the police, who will take the appropriate action.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that nothing has been done about the position of overseas banks, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, since his noble friend Lord Caithness told the House last year that the Bank of England conducts no supervision of European banks operating or promoting advance loan schemes? Has that situation changed? If the Bank of France is capable of declaring such schemes illegal in France, why does the Bank of England not do that here?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear, if there is fraud of the sort referred to in the Question, that is fraud and is a criminal offence under the Theft Act. People should provide evidence of it to the police, who will take the appropriate action. As regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, the simple fact is that the Bank of England authorises certain banks which are based here. Other banks that are based elsewhere in Europe or in the EEA countries obviously will be authorised under the second banking directive, which I believe is the appropriate measure, under their own countries' arrangements. It would be a matter of going to the Bank of France in the case of a bank authorised by the French authorities.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, surely the noble Lord is aware that the Bank of France has managed to make the activities even of non-French banks operating in France subject to its jurisdiction. Is he aware that the European Commission is now investigating the activities of the Bank of France so that its evident success can be generalised to other countries?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord followed me when I said that the important point is that the activities to which the noble Lord refers are fraudulent in this country and are already covered by the criminal law of this country. If the noble Lord and other noble Lords have evidence of such activities

283
taking place, it is open to them either to inform the Bank of England, which will inform the police, or to inform the police directly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has failed to understand the thrust of my noble friend's point. The point is that the Bank of France has succeeded in preventing those potential frauds by a regulation system, whereas the Minister is relying on prosecution after the fraud has been committed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord quite follows what is involved in the fraud. A fraud is quite simply a fraud and no amount of regulation by the Bank of England or the Bank of France will stop people committing such fraudulent acts. I am saying that those are criminal activities under the Theft Act and if the noble Lord knows of people indulging in that form of advance fee loan fraud, he should notify the police.
Lord Spens: My Lords, that is not wholly possible because the fraudsters are nearly always outside this country. The promoters of the fraud are in this country in UK branches of overseas banks. Does the Minister agree that it is extremely difficult to make the fraud run from overseas through to the domestic UK banking arm?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the promoters of the fraud are in this country, they are within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom law. It is open to the noble Lord and other noble Lords to go to the police. These activities are fraudulent.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that, even though it is perfectly true that the main line of attack against those who commit such frauds in this country may be in relation to the fraud itself and not in relation to the banking system, now that we have a common banking directive there is a case to investigate whether our banking supervision arrangements can in any way be used to apply to the management of such branches or banks? The Banking Act requires that the management of authorised institutions should be fit and proper. It ought to be fit and proper in each country of the Community if all the countries of the Community have to share the same regulations.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I fully agree with my noble friend. The Bank will look at whether those managing the banks, which it has the duty to authorise under the Banking Act, are fit and proper persons and at all other matters that are relevant. However, in the case of banks which are authorised under the second banking directive by the banks of our European partners, it is a matter for those banks to look at these matters. I hope that they will exercise exactly the same care as the Bank of England.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that it is not a question of individual banks; it is a question of the Bank of England, which has responsibility under the Banking Act, which your Lordships discussed and passed, to make sure that fit and proper persons are running those banking
284
institutions which are authorised? The noble Lord, Lord Spens, asked in the original Question what measures are being taken to catch and punish the promoters of this type of fraud. Is it not right that the Bank of England should take measures to catch and punish people engaged in this type of fraud?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. The Bank of England will examine these matters in relation to the banks which it authorises under the Banking Act. However, the noble Lord knows that certain things have moved on since the passing of the Banking Act. The second banking directive imposes on a member state's own home bank responsibility for authorisation of the banks from other member states. In the case of a bank based in France, it would be on the Bank of France.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to prolong this discussion but the Minister is being disingenuous. Is he aware that that directive and the subsequent passport that it issued to banks is valid throughout the European Community, or Union as it is now known? Therefore, it is for the regulatory authorities in each country to ensure that that passport remains valid. That is in the legislation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, no, I do not think that I can take the noble Lord any further. The point behind the second banking directive is to institute the home supervisory arrangements whereby banks will be authorised in their country of origin in Europe and that will then be passported to this country for a bank that is based in this country. It is not the duty of the Bank of England to authorise in London a bank from the Netherlands, France or wherever. I think that the noble Lord accepts that point.

Access to Information: Code
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made towards implementing the code of public access to information, affecting the Council of Ministers in the European Union, which allegedly came into force in January 1994, particularly in view of the veto applied by the Council of Ministers to the application of the Guardian newspaper for papers under that code.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the code of conduct on public access to information held by the Council and the Commission came into effect at the beginning of the year. It provides for the widest possible access, subject to certain safeguards. The Council of Ministers was unable to reach a decision on the application under the code by the Guardian newspaper for access to a number of Council documents.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. I appreciate that she

285
did not refer to the situation that has now arisen, with the Danes vetoing the Council of Ministers' decision. In the light of the fact that the position has to be reconsidered, how does the Minister reconcile the protestations of the British Government in their desire for greater transparency in open government by the Council of Ministers with their support for the restriction on the release of information?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I should make it clear to the noble Baroness that the Government have strongly supported the efforts made to increase openness in the Community. Indeed, we took the lead building on the Maastricht declaration in 1991 on the right of access to information. That culminated in the decisions taken at the Edinburgh Council. In addition to the code of conduct on public access, there have to be safeguards to protect relatively small amounts of classified information supplied in confidence by member states.
The situation which occurred at the meeting where the Danes would not agree to pass what we thought had been agreed arose because they wished for a full debate. I thoroughly agree with the noble Baroness that the matter has to be reconsidered unless another course is taken. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that all that has happened has been in order to make as much information as possible publicly accessible. We shall go on working to do that.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the subjects that was discussed at the meeting and on which the Guardian sought information was the protection of children in respect of their working hours? The United Kingdom delegation—made up of Mr. Michael Forsyth, the employment Minister and Mr. Alistair Burt, the social security Minister—sat silent at the meeting. They made no comment whatever on the need to protect children in terms of their working hours. Their silence was based on the United Kingdom's opt out of the social contract. Is the Minister aware that the other 11 member states made it clear that the presence of those Ministers was not acceptable and that on future occasions they will be asked to leave the meeting? Is that a situation of which Her Majesty's Government are particularly proud?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand that 13 applications were made for the information sought by the Guardian. Of those, seven applications were agreed and six were not agreed. As I said to the noble Baroness, the matter was not agreed at the Council meeting at the beginning of this week because Denmark wanted to discuss the matter in full. I do not have access to the exact detail of the Council meeting, although no doubt the noble Lord has read it.
We wish every debate to be as open as possible but undoubtedly there will be times when, if every debate is open in its fullest detail, the discussion will be pushed out into the corridors of the Council. That is why in December the European Council took the decision under Article 4.2 to include safeguards when it believed
286
it was not in the best interests to reveal all the detail. As to the subject matter, sometimes one is silent because there is nothing more to add.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, would it not be possible to separate the executive and the legislative functions of the Council of Ministers and, in accordance with the best democratic practice, to publish an equivalent of Hansard for the legislative deliberations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is an idea but it would mean even more paper, some of which would probably be pure gobbledegook, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would say.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the Minister be so good as to let us know how the British representative on the Council of Ministers voted on this matter and what position he adopted when the question arose? Is information of that kind barred on the grounds of secrecy about what occurs at meetings of the Council of Ministers?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, would know that the agreement on the publication of votes is that they are published automatically unless, exceptionally, the Council decides against publication. We were in favour of the decision which came before the FAC earlier this week. That decision was to give to the Guardian answers to seven out of its 13 applications but not to the other six. In that we were in very good company with our other partners.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us remember well the Edinburgh Council when transparency and openness were trumpeted as being the great achievements of that conference? Whatever the Minister may say, the impression has been given, because of the proper application by the Guardian for relevant information, that the policy which Her Majesty's Government supported has fallen at the first hurdle. Will she give an assurance that Her Majesty' s Government will now take this matter firmly on board and ensure that the promises they made in Edinburgh are kept?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we made sensible promises at Edinburgh. It is early days in connection with the release of documents to form a firm opinion. I should point out to your Lordships that the Guardian application has focused attention on unsuccessful applications only. The code of conduct has had the positive effect that we intended it to have at Edinburgh of opening up access to Council and Commission documents. We intend to see that that works properly, whatever the teething problems that we have experienced with this situation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords—
Baroness Seear: My Lords—
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Baroness, I think.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in the minutes that remain will the Minister answer the question of my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter as to how our representative voted in the Council.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand that it was with the other members, which would have been in favour of the publication of seven out of the 13 applications.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not a fact that after being given some of the documents the Guardian newspaper was alleged to have received them incorrectly from the Social Affairs Department? Is it not also a fact that the safeguards regarding classified information to which the Minister has referred could not conceivably have been invoked properly here? What are the safeguards in this instance? Is it not a fact that the Government merely pay nothing but lip service to openness?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, no, the noble Lord is wrong. We are not merely paying lip service to openness. We wish to see increased openness. We wish to see documents published. I agree with the noble Lord, however, that according to the Council secretariat one document was released which would not have been released had the people in the Council taken account of Article 4.2.

State Hospitals (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
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 5 [Test of incapacity for work]:
[Amendment No. 25 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 9, line 33, at end insert:
("(1A) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Part of this Act, a person shall not be treated as capable of work if he is not capable of any paid work in the open market for at least 16 hours a week.
(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A) above, work shall mean work which it is reasonable to expect a person to undertake having regard to his age, education, training, the state of his physical and mental health, and his capacity to deal with pain and stress.
(1C) A person is treated as incapable of work where a person's ability to perform work related activity is substantially reduced, not the point at which work becomes impossible.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to do three things. The first is to put on to the face of the Bill the definitions of "incapacity" and "work". Secondly, in so doing, it seeks to make use of the definitions used by the panel of 80 experts considering the test of incapacity. Thirdly, the amendment seeks to go further than the proposed functional approach to incapacity by reintroducing consideration of non-medical factors which are used in the current tests for invalidity benefit which are relevant to incapacity for work.
The first aim of the amendment concerns the lack of detail about the proposed test of incapacity within the Bill itself. It is proposed that there will be a purely functional test of incapacity which will be left to regulations which are not to be drafted until much later this year. But leaving the matter entirely to regulations makes it impossible to have an adequate debate on the subject of incapacity for work.
The second reason for the amendment is to bring into the Bill the definitions of "work" and "incapacity" which have informed the work of the expert panel. Those experts are attempting to score and rate disabilities with a view to assisting the Government to develop the new test of incapacity. If those definitions of "work" and "incapacity" are being used by the panel, there seems to be no reason why they should not appear on the face of the Bill itself. The definitions were revealed to Members of this place at a presentation of the test last week. It appears that the definitions to be used, and guidance documentation, have been sent to panel members with each exercise that they have been expected to undertake.
In that documentation, "work" refers to any paid work in the open market for at least 16 hours a week. What is important is a person's capacity to perform activities involved in work in the context of ordinary paid employment. Therefore it is intended that people would not be regarded as capable of work if they could work only in special circumstances, such as sheltered or supported employment schemes, or specially adapted work places, or who could work 16 hours, but only in an unusual combination of very short spells, or where a person's symptoms vary so widely that he or she could not work regularly.
Similarly, the DSS is inviting the panel to consider incapacity in relation to the point at which a person's ability to perform work-related activities is substantially reduced, not the point where work becomes impossible. That is recognition that incapacity for work is not an absolute state. It is the extent of incapacity which is important.
The third reason for the amendment is to extend the meaning of "incapacity" to include other relevant factors in addition to a crude scoring of functional limitations alone. The Government's approach to incapacity is based upon refining the research by the Office of Population Census and Surveys for measuring disability; but as has been highlighted by the Joint Consultants Committee, the OPCS surveys on disability were not designed to define capacity for work.
Incapacity for work is a more complex matter than merely assessing functions. A range of other factors is

289
relevant. The Joint Consultants Committee holds the view that medical factors are not the only ones that determine whether someone is incapable of work. Medical factors cannot operate independently of other factors. For instance, someone with epilepsy may be capable of some types of work; but the stress involved in that can often make the epilepsy worse. The test of incapacity now used for invalidity benefit includes reference to other factors. That means that having regard to the patient's age, education, experience, state of health and other personal factors, there is no work or type of work which the person can be reasonably expected to do.
To determine whether an individual has the capacity to do any work goes rather against the philosophy of general practitioners, hospital physicians and occupational physicians, who strive to rehabilitate people back to work. The new test is expected to be far more stringent, and considerable anxiety has been expressed that people could fail the new test yet still be incapable of work. In particular, people with fluctuating or relapsing conditions could be deemed capable of work on a purely functional measure, and yet not be fit enough for work at all. Cancer can be a relapsing disease with intervals between severe symptoms when a functional test could produce perverse and rather unfair results.
People with a long-term debilitating illness could also be wrongly considered capable of work; for example, if people with ME are made to work when they are not well enough they will suffer a relapse. Similarly, people who have managed their disability—for instance, by way of medication, treatment or supervision—could be regarded as cured if measured by functions alone, yet they would not necessarily be capable of work. Making them work or sign on as unemployed could act as a disincentive to any final rehabilitation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on these Benches warmly support the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in the amendment that he so persuasively moved. In this and the next sequence of amendments we are considering Clause 5 of the Bill. Whereas last Tuesday we were looking at the new levels of benefit, today we are dealing with the tough new medical test which a person has to pass in order to qualify for benefit. As the noble Lord said, that tough new medical test arouses in us very considerable worries. That is because the purpose of that tough new medical test is to ensure that enough people fail it so as to produce government savings of money —11.5 billion.
There is no other reason. Sir Michael Partridge the Permanent Secretary clearly told the Public Accounts Committee that,
"the theory that increased numbers on invalidity benefit is due to fraud is not borne out by research".
Those are the words of the Permanent Secretary of the DSS. Quite so. Therefore, people are now claiming invalidity benefit quite legitimately. That is what the Permanent Secretary said. To save money, fewer people must claim it and that can only be done by making the medical test more harsh and stringent so that the 200,000 people who are now on invalidity benefit will
290
come off it when reassessed, and a further 70,000 a year who now come on to invalidity benefit would not in future pass the test to receive the benefit.
What happens at present? Well, a GP assesses whether an individual patient is eligible for statutory sick pay or sickness benefit and then, after 28 weeks, whether that person's health is such that he should continue to receive the benefit, which would then become invalidity benefit, because he is unfit for work. At the moment, the GP's assessment in half of all cases is reviewed by the medical service of the Benefits Agency. In eight cases out of nine, the OP's decision is upheld. The ninth case usually concerns either mental health cases or fluctuating conditions which, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, explained, are quite difficult to assess.
But, crucially, the GP is making a professional judgment as he knows the person, his history and his entire situation. Perhaps I may quote from the DSS's own research. A GP of 17 years' experience in a group practice said:
"Someone has to decide whether or not people are fit to work".
Who else could know? Who else could make that assessment? The GP knows more about the medical history of the patient than anyone else; indeed, he is the only medical person who knows the patient well.
In future, the GP's role as originally envisaged will be marginal—though perhaps the Minister could help us on that point. At present, the expectation is that the GF' will only diagnose illness and not assess, the capacity or fitness for work as is the case at present. Instead, claimants will be asked to fill in a large self-assessment form which may or may not be user friendly. It will assess their ability to walk, to see, to bend, to stretch, to hear and so on. Numbers will be allocated to the severity of the impairment. Those numbers will be added up and if they pass the threshold the person will receive the benefit; but, if they fail, the benefit will not be awarded.
That process of self-assessment, with ticks in a box, is described as a medical test. Of course, it is not: it is a mechanical test which bears as much relationship to the capacity for work as an MOT certificate does to the ability of a driver to pass the driving test. On that basis, and after an examination by a departmental doctor—which must, by definition, be a snapshot judgment because, unlike the GP, the doctor cannot know the patient—a determination will be made on whether the individual is considered fit for work.
However, the Government's own DSS in-house medical research which the Minister helpfully shared with us makes, I would argue, the Opposition's case —hence the concern for the amendment. What does that research show? It divided disability into little or minimum disability, moderate disability and severe disability. Little or minimum disability meant that the person could walk up to 400 yards or hear in a crowded room. Moderate disability meant that the person could walk up to 200 yards, pick up a two-pence coin and, with difficulty, read a large-print book. Severe disability meant that the person could not walk more than 50 yards

291
—that he could walk only up to 50 yards, or perhaps only five or 10 yards—or that he could not stand unaided or see the shape of furniture in a well-lit room.
I do not think that many of us would disagree with the definition of functional disability. However, the research then went on to show that one-quarter of people examined, with only modest or limited disability, were nonetheless unfit for work. At the other extreme, 15 per cent. of those with severe disability were fit for work. For example, someone who has been blind from birth —a severe disability—may well be fit for work and holding down a good job. But someone else with only a moderate disability—such as chronic back pain if he is a physical labourer—may nevertheless be incapable of work in consequence.
We all know from our own experiences that two people with similar disabilities may have a very different capacity for work. It is not either/or—that is, fit or unfit—but a continuum between being fully fit and fully incompetent to work. In that grey area in between we need a qualitative assessment by the GP who knows the patient's medical history. Why should that be so? Well, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said, the points in the functional test are added up to assess how far the person can walk, see, hear and whether he can lift an arm up above his head or into his shoulders, or touch his knees or feet.
We know that such a test of capacity is an MOT test for the body, but surely we also know that capacity for work is really a question of whether a person can perform such actions all the time or only sometimes. Indeed, it is whether his medical condition fluctuates as with ME, multiple sclerosis and arthritis, or whether it flares up sharply and painfully as is the case with asthma or, again, arthritis.
We also know that such a mechanical medical test may test for disability, but it certainly does not test for sickness; for example, long-term glandular fever and other similar medical diseases. Moreover, even if a person has recovered, it does not test whether that person's return to work will bring on a further onset of illness. Nor can such a mechanical so-called "medical test" tell us how much pain such activity generates because it cannot be mechanically measured. Similarly it cannot tell us how much tiredness and fatigue will follow from making certain movements; whether that is associated with strong mental health and the ability to carry on working; how much is associated with background pain; what the implications are of medication; and even whether that person can travel to work.
All those things we know from our own personal family experience affect and maybe determine one's capacity for work, but they are not counted in the new test which is a mechanical run through of what one can do in terms of lifting, stretching and bending. As a result, we believe that people will be disqualified from benefit on this new test when they nonetheless remain incapable of work. In other words, it is a qualitative assessment made by a GP that is necessary. I am baffled that the Government Front Bench does not appear to appreciate that.
292
So our first criticism of this new test is that it only measures what one can count—for example, the number of yards one can walk—but cannot and does not measure what one cannot count, such as pain, fatigue, stress and fluctuating conditions. In other words, it assumes that only what one can count is real and that which one cannot count should not be taken into account. That is why I suggest that this is a mechanical and not a proper medical test.
The second major defect of this medical test is that it assumes that anything one is not functionally incompetent to do—physically incompetent to do—one is therefore competent to do. In other words it assumes that if one is not physically unfit to do something, one is fit to do it. Whether one is able to do it, or whether even such jobs exist, has not been brought into the equation. Hence the examples we have mentioned at Second Reading of men unable to do heavy, physical, manual labour being told to seek lighter work, such as working as lift attendants, car park attendants and the like (such work now is almost non-existent) or alternatively jobs which require no heavy physical effort but which may nevertheless need skills well beyond the possibility of acquisition. The CAB brought one such case to our attention of a scrap metal dealer with angina who was told that he could do light work as a tax-collector even though he was only semi-literate; or there was the case of a Punjabi with no English who had back pain who was told that he could be a radio telephone operator.
I shall take one example slightly further. I take the perhaps fairly common case of a semi-literate building labourer with chronic back pain who is told that he is functionally incompetent to perform physical manual labour but he is therefore physically competent to perform any seated tasks, such as being a computer operative. The medical test simply states that he cannot do his old job, but if he can do any other job he is fit for work. He is therefore physically fit to be a computer operator as he is able physically to sit at a desk and he can physically manage to move the keys and see the keyboard. He is therefore deemed fit for that work and therefore fails the new test. The fact that his schooling finished at 15, that he can barely read, that he is in his 50s and barely able to undergo training in a completely new field, the fact that, perhaps like myself, he does not have the intellectual competence even to understand the computer principle, and the fact that no one would be willing to invest in his training, or that, if he took a training course, with his background and poor health he would be unlikely to get a job, would all be irrelevant. He would be deemed physically fit because he passed the mechanical test of seeing a screen, moving his fingers and being able to sit at a desk. Therefore he would lose benefit.
If our first complaint is that the test is a mechanical one and our second that it is not realistic in terms of what one can go on to do, our third complaint is that this new medical test is to be defined for us by regulations which at the moment, by definition, are not on the face of the Bill. That is why the noble Lord, Lord McColl —I am sure rightly —moved to incorporate onto the face of the Bill the working definitions that the panels of

293
experts are asked to observe. If the Committee were therefore minded to support this amendment, what would it mean? It would mean that we would bring the medical test back into the real world. It would state what we all know to be true; namely, that fitness for work depends not just on a shopping list of mechanical abilities, but also on one's age, one's aptitude and one's all round health—the sort of things a GP judges. This amendment emphasises what it is reasonable to expect a person to do, all things considered. It may, as a consequence, be that more people will receive benefit. So be it, because it is not right by means of an artificial, mechanical test to define the unfit as fit, the disabled as able-bodied, or the sick as well, just so that fewer people pass an inappropriate test. We support this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I also have my name to this amendment and I strongly support it. The test of incapacity which is presently used for invalidity benefit includes reference to other factors. This definition of incapacity has been developed since 1911, and in 1951 the Social Security Commissioners held that someone was to be considered incapable of work:
"if, having regard to his age, education, experience, state of health and other personal factors, there is no work or type of work which he can reasonably be expected to do".
This test was designed to ensure that people are only considered capable of work which is realistically within their grasp. Local labour market conditions are not taken into account, nor personal factors which are not relevant to incapacity, such as domestic commitments. I feel that non-medical factors relevant to incapacity for work should be taken into account. Factors which interact with disability such as age, skills and work history have a direct bearing on work capacity. Age is a serious omission from the proposals as it clearly relates to capacity for work. This is recognised in the department's own research which highlights the problems of people over the age of 50. In the list of groups of current claimants exempted from taking the test are people over the age of 58. Skills such as literacy, numeracy and communication with work colleagues are all vital issues which have a bearing on incapacity for work.
Ability to travel to work is another factor which has also been recognised in the department's own research. Often the distinction between medical and non-medical factors is blurred, or the factors interact. For instance, arthritis can flair up following external stress; mental health problems often have a social context, as in the capacity to maintain routines, to travel and to behave appropriately in public places, which forms part of how the diagnosis is currently made and understood.
The type of work under consideration must be work which is reasonable given the particular individual's circumstances, not a blanket consideration of all work. Job requirements, and therefore functional abilities to do that job, are different. To take one function in isolation as an example, it is not possible to compare the amount, frequency and intensity of bending required as between clerical and manual work. The "all-work" criteria is unrealistic. Someone whose intellectual abilities are limited does not have the option of switching away from the sort of physically demanding
294
jobs, which he could have undertaken easily in the past, to more intellectually demanding activities. At minimum, there should be consideration of the concept of an occupation which it is reasonable to expect someone to undertake. As with the current test, it should be the requirements of an average employer which is the yardstick. Most employers nowadays require a flexible, reliable and adaptable workforce. People who could only work for an ideal, altruistic employer, who i s willing for staff to work when they feel up to it, should not be regarded as capable of work.
Many disabilities, such as ME, MS or arthritis, are variable in their effect over a period of time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said. Symptoms of such conditions can vary constantly so that any assessment of whether someone has attained the threshold is a totally artificial one. Individuals may be able to perform a specific function, but it does not necessarily follow therefore that they are capable of work. What is required at work is often repeated functions over a prolonged period. The effect of performing or repeating functions has to be taken into account. I believe that there is an illness known as repetitive stress syndrome. Whether that is legally recognised is a moot point; but it is something that with some jobs needs to he considered.
A claimant about whom I have been advised said:
"Being a sufferer of ankylosing spondylitis my condition fluctuates from week to week. Acute sciatic pain followed by restriction in bending and moving of the neck and pain in the chest can be followed by remission of say a week before the symptoms flare up again. If examined during this week I would probably be passed as physically fit, but the condition always certainly comes back with a vengeance".
There are also invisible disabilities. People suffering from chronic pain already have problems convincing others that their pain is real. We are particularly concerned about this in the light of press reports suggesting that massive numbers of invalidity benefit claimants are malingerers. Images of disabled people are often stereotyped, which can result in some people neglecting to take up their entitlement for fear of being labelled a scrounger or, alternatively, being refused benefit on the basis of their apparently fit appearance.
The image of someone with arthritis as an older woman may disadvantage younger people with the same condition when presenting their claims. There are a considerable number of young people who at first sight one would not think had arthritis; but when they suffer from it, it can be very severe and disabling.
I have the impression that the medical test proposed could be conducted by one of those machines invented by Heath Robinson or Emmett. Some Members of the Committee will remember seeing them in Punch. The individual would be put in at one end. There would be lots of whirring and clanking. The person might go all the way through and be declared as being incapable of work but—and far more likely but inaccurately—be thrown out by one of the devilish devices en route.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: We are now considering the clause which deals with the new test of incapacity for work. My noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich moved the amendment and spoke from his great

295
experience of the medical world and his own professional life. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister and the Government will listen most carefully to the comments he made about the details of the new test as proposed.
I must say that I believe that the present situation is unsatisfactory. The test which is now undertaken for invalidity benefit places GPs in a most invidious position. I must make that clear because I believe that their relationship with their patients is involved and the possibility of shaking the confidence of some of those patients who have to come before the test is also in question. Therefore, I sympathise greatly with general practitioners about what is happening now. I believe that there should be a change. I accept that something should be done to relieve them of what I believe is a most invidious burden which they now bear.
However, I believe that the details of the new test must be considered with the greatest care. We have to consider some of the points which have already been raised and take into account particularly the comments and proposals of members of the medical profession, which include my noble friend who moved the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): It is because my name is not on the amendment that I should like to signal how strongly I support it. It is essential to take other factors into consideration rather than only physical and functional limitations. Other Members of the Committee who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord McColl, have made a very good case for the amendment, so I shall not take up the time of the Committee. I hope that the Minister has listened very carefully and will reflect on and respond positively to the amendment.
Earl Russell: I should like to offer my thanks to the Minister—and through him to his officials—for the meetings which he arranged for us with members of the Benefits Agency Medical Services to discuss these tests. I do not think that we agreed on every point, but we found the meeting extremely helpful. We were very grateful indeed for the opportunity to have such a meeting. None of us would wish anything that we have said today to give any other impression.
There is a fairly strong procedural case to be made in favour of the amendment. Perhaps the most important aspect of the Bill is that it introduces a new test of incapacity for work. I could not describe Clauses 5 and 6 on that subject as forthcoming. They merely state that this will all be prescribed in regulation. While I would not want by any means to suggest that anything here comes within the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's definition of a skeleton Bill, it is a Bill whose skeleton is showing at this point. I think that we should decently cover it with some flesh. This test is an extremely important one. I believe something should go into primary legislation to spell out exactly what is meant.
I also share the doubt which has been expressed in every quarter of the Chamber about the purely functional test. Take, for example, people who are in a
296
state of shock after some particularly traumatic stress: say, for example, the cases which have been reported recently of people who were in Hillsborough at the time of the tragedy. It would be possible to have a functional test which did not show anything at all in that case.
It is a regular phenomenon with back pain that there are tests which do not show anything. The patient says that it hurts and no one believes him. I remember one case of somebody with acute pain in the knee who was dismissed by several doctors as suffering from growing pains. I do not know exactly what the medical meaning of that term is. It was not until she went to a top orthopaedic surgeon and had the knee X-rayed that it was discovered the problem was a chronic abscess as a result of falling off her bicycle 10 years earlier. That is the type of problem which a functional test simply would not show up.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, mentioned glandular fever. There have been more cases among my pupils of that disease in this past year than in all the 30 previous years put together. They find it very hard to get back to work afterwards. I sympathise with them. I remember a time when exhaustion put a stop to my attempts to read Agatha Christie when I was in that situation. However, I do not always accept what every pupil says to me about his or her inability to work in that situation. To judge it, I find it essential to know the person and to know his or her record and to know quite how much weight I can put on the individual's assertions. That is why it is unfortunate that the GP will not be given an opportunity to express an opinion on fitness for work.
I understand the point that the noble Viscount and the Secretary of State, and others, have made in this connection. I understand that the GP is under pressure because he risks offending, and possibly losing, a patient, and thereby diminishing his income. If that is true, is it perhaps the first admission by the Government that performance related pay may have a corrupting effect? If that point is sound, one has to weigh it against the knowledge of the patient's history. Even if one accepts the point, one may not necessarily give it priority.
Will the doctor of the Benefits Agency medical service be allowed to express an opinion on the patient's fitness to work? It seems to me that at some point, whether from the GP or someone else, we need a medical judgment to be made on the fitness to work, not just the use of an allegedly objective test.
The amendment also deals with the question of what fitness for work means. We have an undistributed niggle in the Government's mind. We have the "own occupation" test; and we have the "all work" test. But a great deal of unfitness for work falls somewhere between the two extremes. I must reassure the Minister that we are not reintroducing the labour market considerations. We are concerned with people who for medical reasons are unfit to do any other work which they might otherwise have been capable of doing. Let us take an extreme example. Were I to become blind, I would in the short term at least be incapable of doing most of the work that I normally have done. But were I to be told that there was work available as a model, I do

297
not think that I would be particularly well suited to it. I do not believe that I should be regarded as capable of the work on the ground that I have no physical obstacle to doing such work —or should I say at least no medical obstacle to doing such work.
Alternatively, if I were to be told that there was a vacancy for an opening bowler for England, I might dearly love to take up that vacancy, but I somehow doubt whether on the grounds of age, experience or aptitude I could persuade someone that I was suitable. There has to be some concept of suitable work.
Let us take the case of a building labourer who loses the use of his legs. He may perfectly well be fit for work in some clerical capacity. But suppose that he also happens to be illiterate. In that case the statement that he is medically fit for clerical work is irrelevant and he should be held to be unfit to work even though he could do a clerical job. There has to be a sense of appropriateness. For all those three reasons I very much hope that the Minister will take the amendment seriously.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Rea: As a general practitioner, I appreciate the considerations of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. Yes, general practitioners are sometimes in a dilemma when they have to decide about one of their patient's fitness for work. That can occur when a patient who has been unemployed for a long time is sent to him by an official in the local Department of Employment office and asked to obtain a certificate of long-term incapacity from the doctor rather than to go on claiming unemployment benefit because he has a minor complaint. That has happened to me and my colleagues on numerous occasions.
I strongly support the amendment for the reasons put forward so eloquently by the movers of the amendment. I refer specifically to the absence in the Bill of details of the medical examination and of who will conduct such examinations. As my noble friend pointed out, all those factors are left to regulations, the content of which we do not know and which may alter from time to time. What is an "own occupation"? How is an "own occupation" test to be constructed? What is the "all work" test? We are left in the dark as to the exact nature of those proposed tests, who will perform them and where.
I believe that it is essential that more details are made known in the Bill before we pass it. The amendment gives claimants a degree of protection. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, it states the principles on which those tests should be based. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My noble friend Lord McColl is an acknowledged expert in this field. I am a layman. So with some hesitation I express some doubts about the amendment.
First, I doubt whether the details in the amendment can be reconciled with the original aims which my noble friend Lord Astor laid down in his speech on Second Reading. He said that the aim of the Bill is to refocus the benefits on those who are medically incapable for work.
298
That seemed to me to be an acceptable definition and a way of overcoming some of the acknowledged difficulties which exist at present.
He also said that we need a clearer and more objective assessment of incapacity. I agree with that too. I think that all Members of the Committee probably agree that those are both desirable objectives. However, when one considers the details of the amendment—for example, in new Section (1A) in which 16 hours a week is laid down—I find it difficult to judge whether or not that is a valuable factor until we have heard the views of the expert panel which is now considering the detail of the tests.
I am also doubtful about the reference in new Section (1B) to age and education. Age may be a medical factor in some cases; I am doubtful whether it is in all cases. I am equally doubtful whether education is a relevant factor for such a test.
I recognise, as has been said by a number of noble Lords, that fluctuating conditions are particularly difficult to deal with. That was one of the facts that my noble friend had well in mind in seeking to be more specific in his amendments. Asthma, back pains, multiple sclerosis and mental illness, all subject to changes in condition from day to day, will present some obvious difficulties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that the test, as she understands it, will measure only what one can count. Again with respect to her, I do not believe one can say that with any precision until we know what the expert panel produces.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the noble Lord for kindly giving way. My comments were based on the presentation which the medical staff of the DSS gave to us at the invitation of the Minister. We found it helpful. Therefore, my remarks were in the context of the tests which they indicated would be presented to us.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I well remember that helpful briefing. However, the fact is that we are still at an early stage. The expert panel has not presented its detailed provisions. It would be unwise to write on the face of the Bill rigid conditions which the expert panel may not consider appropriate.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the problem of regulations. If we leave it all to regulations there are procedural difficulties as regards examinations. I accept that that is the case, but it seems to me that it is far better to retain the flexibility which regulations can allow than to have rigid conditions put on the face of the Bill that may in practice prove to be undesirable. Therefore, legislation may again be required, with all the attendant difficulties of time.
The more I look at the amendment and similar amendments, the more preferable it seems to me to wait until we have the views of the expert panel and then to proceed in a more flexible way which is possible through regulations.
Viscount Tonypandy: The noble Lord, Lord Dean, and I served in another place in the same job, trying to control proceedings and I therefore find it almost

299
embarrassing to disagree with him. However, I am grateful that I follow him and did not precede him as it gives me an opportunity to deal with the points made.
The noble Lord was afraid that we might act too soon before we had listened to the voice of the experts. With every respect, we have heard the voice of the experts: those who deal with such people in their professional careers. I do not think that anyone who has listened to the arguments will feel that it is at all a party matter. The great advantage of this Chamber is that we can improve legislation by amendments recommended to another place. I honestly believe that the moving speeches made in support of the amendment should weigh heavily with the Minister before she replies to the debate.
Lord Swinfen: It may be helpful to my noble friend Lord Dean to know that the panel of 80 experts who are helping to devise the threshold above which the capacity to work is reduced were advised that "work" refers to any paid work in the open market for at least 16 hours a week. That is why the figure has been included, because the panel of experts is working to it. It is a person's capacity to perform the activities involved in work in the context of ordinary paid employment which is important.
Lord Dean of Harptree: What I said is that I think it is a mistake to prejudge the final report of the panel of experts when it is still at work.
Lord Rea: The purpose of the amendment is not to prejudge but, as I see it, to give an outline of guidance within which the test should be designed. The amendments are not rigid, they are reasonable, humane and, in my view, sensible.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I support the amendment wholeheartedly and I particularly wanted to support subsection (1C):
"A person is treated as incapable of work where a person's ability to perform work related activity is substantially reduced, not the point at which work becomes impossible".
I think that that is the most important part of the amendment. The assessment of physical ability should include not only whether the person is able to do a certain thing, such as walk or stand, but how that task is performed and what it takes out of the individual to do the task. There is the recent example of someone's ability to walk to a test centre being taken as proof of ability to walk. It completely ignored the fact that the person might have taken three times as long as you or I would have taken to do that walk, with frequent steps. Many people could also be in great pain and, in my view, would not be in a position to work.
Like many other speakers, I am sad about the removal of the judgment of the claimant's general practitioner. I heard what has been said about the problems, but what worries me is that although the GP can give a diagnosis to the Benefits Agency, he will not be asked to comment on the claimant's self assessment nor to give his opinion on the claimant's ability to undertake any kind of work.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that, from a health point of view, probably no one knows a
300
patient better than his general practitioner. But the GP also frequently knows the patient from his whole background. A GP is usually aware of the family background and the general state of mind of his patient so his opinion would be of enormous importance. It is a tragedy that it has been removed.
Another matter which I ask the Government to contemplate is that the Benefits Agency Medical Services panel should include a physiotherapist. Physiotherapists routinely assess disability and mobility problems in the course of their work, frequently more than the medical profession. It seems to me that it is a tragedy that the Bill is being introduced at this point, long before the Government have decided what regulations will apply and long before they know quite where they are going. Would it not have been better to leave the Bill until the regulations were ready?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): As has been said this afternoon, this amendment seeks to change the definitions of the "own occupation" and "all work" tests expressly to include certain medical and non-medical factors and to re-introduce the subjective concept of reasonable work. I believe that these amendments are misconceived. First, the "own occupation" test will be a factual test of whether or not a person is well enough to do his own job. Secondly, the "all work" assessment will include all the medical factors raised by these amendments, such as pain, stress and general health.
Perhaps I may expand. The "own occupation" test of incapacity which will apply to most people for the first 28 weeks of sickness will be a test similar to that which applies under the current system. It will assess a person's capacity to do his normal job. It will take into account relevant factors, including a person's general state of physical and mental health, disabilities and capacity to cope with pain or stress. However, it will only take these factors into account in so far as they affect a person's capacity to do his usual job.
The primary evidence for incapacity during the first 28 weeks will be provided by the claimant's own doctor, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Robson, said.
Lord Swinfen: Will the noble Baroness allow me to intervene? As I understand it, the Bill talks about incapacity for work generally. My noble friend used the expression incapacity "to do his usual job". There is a considerable difference between the incapacity to do one's usual job and the incapacity to do any job. If what my noble friend just said is accurate, she is supporting the amendments.
Baroness Cumberlege: That is not the interpretation. The "own job" applies only to the first 28 weeks. The "all work job" applies after that and if my noble friend will let me continue I shall explain it as we go further.
The primary evidence for incapacity during the first 28 weeks will be provided by the claimant's own doctor. He or she will exercise his or her independent clinical judgment in deciding whether or not the person

301
concerned should refrain from their own occupation. But this amendment seeks to tell the doctors how to do their job. It advises them how to exercise their clinical judgment by specifying the factors that they should consider. We do not think that is necessary. Nor is it necessary to set those factors out on the face of the Bill. The GP takes into account a person's general state of physical and mental health, his disabilities and his capacity to cope with pain and stress, when he is judging whether or not the person is fit for work. Guidance to GPs will continue to make that clear.
The amendment affects both tests of incapacity. I have explained how the amendment is unnecessary in relation to the "own occupation" test. In relation to the "all work test", I can assure my noble friend Lord McColl that the new test will assess physical and mental disabilities which affect a person's capacity for work in a range of physical functions. Mental health will also be assessed and the effects of pain, stress and fatigue. All these will he taken into account in that assessment.
I think that the amendment may be based on a misunderstanding of how the new test is being developed and how it will operate. I do not say that as a criticism; it is a very complex matter. It may help the Committee if I briefly recap on the current development work on the test and how the test will be applied in individual cases.
We are trying to establish a new, more objective test, by obtaining an effective assessment of how the effects of an individual's medical condition limit his or her capacity to work. We shall do that by assessing a claimant's limitations in a number of areas of activity which are relevant to work: for example, standing, lifting, and stretching. As my noble friend Lord McColl said, the work-related activities we are using are based on the disability scales developed by OPCS during the 1980s in its disability surveys. But our development work has gone further, in adapting the scales to measure incapacity for work rather than disability.
My noble friend Lord McColl is concerned at the lack of detail in the Bill, and that point was mentioned by other Members of the Committee this afternoon. But the Bill sets the framework, as with other Bills. It is for regulations to pick up the detail. However, we are very anxious to get it right. Therefore we are undertaking a thorough consultation and evaluation process. The consultation document published in December has so far prompted over 350 responses. We are looking carefully at all contributions. In addition, Members of the Committee who attended the presentation on the medical test—which was referred to by the noble Earl, and I thank him for his comments—may remember that we have convened two expert panels to look in detail at the categories of functional limitation, to define thresholds, and to look at functional capacity in relation to particular jobs. The detail of the test will be revised to take account of the consultation process and the outcome of the panels' deliberations. An evaluation exercise with a sample of 500 volunteers will begin in May and last through the summer. When the evaluation exercise is over, we will issue a report which will summarise all the work that we have undertaken and present our proposals for the test on which we will be
302
seeking views. Only after all that will we present our final proposals on the test to Parliament for approval, in the form of regulations.
In the majority of cases, the new "all work" incapacity test will apply after 28 weeks, at which point a questionnaire will be issued to claimants. The questionnaire will give claimants the chance to record their own views on the effects of their conditions. Any claimant who has problems in completing the questionnaire will be able to seek help from one of our offices. The claimant's own doctor will then complete a statement of the diagnosis and principal disabling effects of the medical condition. I accept very much the remarks that were made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, in that we want some input from GPs, but we do not see it as their role to decide issues beyond the medical ones.
Most claims will then be referred for advice to the Benefits Agency Medical Services (BAMS). The effects of medical conditions can vary widely between individuals and over time. We want the assessment of capacity for work to be as full and fair as possible to each individual claimant. That is why, in the vast majority of claims, it will be necessary to seek specific advice from the Benefits Agency Medical Services.
The BAMS doctor will provide advice to the adjudication officer. In doing so, he will take account of all the evidence. That will include the claimant's past medical history and the information submitted by the claimant and his doctor. The BAMS doctor will use his clinical judgment in forming his opinion of the case. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that that will, of course, include taking account of the claimant's mental and physical health, any disabilities that he suffers and the effects of pain, stress or fatigue. Because many effects can vary from day to day or, indeed, from hour to hour, the doctor will form an assessment of the effects over time.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Forgive me, but will the Minister be kind enough to answer how he can form a judgment over time when he is not the GP and will have one interview?
Baroness Cumberlege: These doctors are experts in this particular field. They understand the pathologies of the disabilities that are before them. They take a medical history, and they also have a report from the GP. They will get a very full picture of the person's condition.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister again for allowing me to intervene. I am quite sure that at that point in time they will have the full snapshot. But it is a snapshot. The point that many of us made is that people's conditions fluctuate so much over time—not just over a week or a month, but over a year—that only the GP is likely to be able to make a proper qualitative judgment. It cannot be made in a one-off interview with a doctor. However expert in the pathology such doctors may be, they are not experts on the individual.
Baroness Cumberlege: That is absolutely true. A person's condition does fluctuate. That is one of the reasons why these doctors have to be experts in their field; why they have to listen to what the claimant tells

303
them; and why they have to take into account what the GP says. I can foresee that a GP's report will say, "Over so many months this patient has suffered this condition, but we have seen it worsen at certain times". I think that I should press on.
The adjudication officer will then weigh all the available evidence and reach a view of the claimant's level of functional limitation. He will do that by applying the scores and thresholds laid down in the regulations.
The amendment seeks to reintroduce the old system, whereby the "all work" test is to be defined by reference to work a claimant could reasonably be expected to do, and a claimant's capacity to perform the work-related functional activities will only be a part of the picture. This undermines the whole aim of the new medical test. As my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree highlighted so lucidly, we are trying to get away from the subjective "supposedly-reasonable job" approach, with its lists of appropriate jobs, and all the disquiet and ridicule that that method of assessment has generated—as was highlighted very effectively by your Lordships in the Second Reading debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen raised the question of whether this benefit should be paid on grounds of medical incapacity, and took particularly into account a manual labourer, for instance, who cannot read and write. It is not a benefit that is paid on grounds of age, on grounds of lack of education, or on grounds of lack of training. It is a benefit that is paid on medical incapacity to work. The manual labourer, in this circumstance, where training, education and age are taken into account, is not sick. He is unemployed; and the proper benefit for him is unemployment benefit. In adapting the OPCS disability scales to measure incapacity for work rather than disability, we are aiming at a more objective test of incapacity.
We are developing a test which will be a significant improvement on the current arrangements for the assessment of incapacity. The Committee will, I hope —and particularly the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea—agree that, while the consultation and development period is still incomplete, it would be very foolish of us to set down the details in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree said, we need the advice of the expert panel before we set the details of this test.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen was concerned that the test would be merely mechanistic. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was also concerned that medical judgment should be exercised. The independent clinical judgment of the departmental doctor, based upon scrutiny of the evidence and in some cases on examination of the claimant, ensures that the test will not be applied mechanistically. He will need to exercise his clinical judgment and knowledge of disability.
The noble Earl also raised the clinical condition in particular of post-traumatic stress syndrome, relating that to the whole issue of mental illness. The effects of post-traumatic stress syndrome are psychological in nature and manifest the mental health problems. The
304
mental health questionnaire, which is part of the new test, will focus on those particular disabilities and will assess them in regard to their effects on work. Stress syndromes will be picked up and quantified in the new test.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen was also concerned that people who could not work regularly would be found capable of work. People who cannot work regularly every week or who can only work each week in short irregular spells or only in a specially adapted workplace would not be found capable of work under these particular tests.
The only parts of the amendment which will not be covered by the new arrangements and which we do not wish to include in them are the references to age, education and training. As I said in this Chamber two days ago, age is not a disability and to include it as a reason for incapacity for work would encourage discrimination. Increasing age may be a factor in the development of physical conditions, but those conditions will be taken into account in the whole assessment of the claimant's physical state.
The "all work" test does not take into account factors such as training or educational qualifications. There are people who, through their medical condition, become unable to do their own job. Such people will be entitled to be measured against the "own occupation" test for the first 28 weeks. However, we do not think it right that they should continue to receive incapacity benefit for evermore simply because they are physically incapable of performing one particular job. That is why the "all work" test will be applied.
Equally, we do not think it right that people should continue to receive incapacity benefit when they are trained for only one job and no other. Unemployed people are expected to consider all work after a certain period. Incapacity benefit is specifically designed for those who are medically incapable of work and used as a test for medical incapacity. If a person cannot find work because he has little work experience or unsuitable educational qualifications, a benefit designed for the sick and disabled is not appropriate. Assistance offered elsewhere by the Department of Employment and the Department of Social Security is appropriate for those people.
I should like to finish with the good news. The final part of the amendment relates to the new functional test of incapacity. It seeks to specify on the face of the Bill that a person should be treated as incapable of work where his ability to perform work-related activities is substantially reduced, not where work becomes impossible. That was a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. That is precisely what we intend to do.
The principle behind the proposal is one on which we already operate. The thresholds in each category of functional limitation and the combinations of those limitations will be set at the point at which a person's capacity for work is substantially reduced. It may reassure the Committee if I read a passage from the instructions on setting thresholds, which we sent to the panel which is working on the medical assessment:

305
"We want to define a threshold at which a person should be regarded as incapable of work for the purpose of deciding benefit entitlement. This means we are interested in the point on the scale of increasing severity of disability at which a person should not be expected to work, not the point where work becomes impossible".
The development of the new medical test therefore is proceeding exactly along the lines suggested by this Chamber. This part of the amendment is unnecessary because what it proposes is exactly what we intend to do. For those reasons, I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The noble Baroness said that regulations would be able to be debated by us. I am afraid that I find that of very little comfort. First of all, the regulations will be debated in another place and in that other place there will be a Whip put on and there will be no recalcitrant Cross-Benchers to outweigh the Whip. Therefore, the regulations are almost certain to be passed and when they come to this Chamber there is a convention that we do not divide on regulations which have been passed by another place. So I do not find the idea of the regulations coming before us to be very helpful.
Earl Russell: I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her comments on the last part of the amendment. However, I hope that between now and Report stage there will be time for a little more thinking. I appreciate just how difficult it can be to reply to a debate with points coming at you from all directions. But I was not altogether convinced that the reply at all points met the arguments put forward not only from this side of the Chamber but from many others.
In particular, the argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, that this provision is too early is one which perhaps risks proving rather more than it intended. Parliament is now asked to approve a test. If Parliament approves a test, in relation to this Chamber it will be too late to call back that approval and say, "Oh, I am awfully sorry but we did not mean it." It is said that the Emperor Caligula, when drunk, used to turn on his friends and say, "Off with his head", and the man's head was duly cut off. The next morning the emperor, recovered from his cups, used to send for the person and was told, "He has been executed." "Oh," said the emperor, "I did not intend it." When this test takes a final form, we do not want to look at it, be told we have approved it and say, "Oh, we did not intend it."
So, if it is too early to lay down general principles on the tests, it is too early for us to approve Clause 5. I do not see that we can have the argument both ways.
The noble Baroness also argued that this amendment told doctors how to do their job. I do not think that that is accurate. It tells the doctors what the job is that they are being asked to do—on what point they are being asked to pronounce on the person's fitness. It is a little analogous to asking counsel's opinion. If you ask counsel's opinion, you must state a case on which you ask the opinion. Otherwise counsel does not know what
306
he is being asked to do. This amendment should be seen rather as stating to the doctor a case on which the doctor is to be asked to pronounce.
I also found it a little curious to hear such a great defence of the doctor's judgment, when we are told that neither the GP nor the Benefits Agency Medical Services' doctor is to be allowed to pronounce on the person's fitness for work. I cannot understand how the Government can use both those arguments.
Again, the noble Baroness argued that it is an objective test. It is not an objective test. Somebody devised it. That somebody had a mind and, having a mind, had assumptions, outlooks and attitudes. Let us consider the American graduate record examination, which is a similar, allegedly objective test. I had to administer it when I was there. I set t and was rather disappointed by my own performance until I was assured that, on average, non-Americans did 20 per cent. worse than Americans on that test, save only for Canadians, who did 5 per cent. worse. That is a classic example of the exception proving the rule. This is not an objective test. It is a quantifiable test. Whitehall tends to confuse the two, but they are very different.
The problem is that a great many people are not convinced that the test will get anywhere near deciding who is incapable of work. Unlike any resemblance to any living person, the results that are accurate may be purely coincidental.
To my great disappointment, the noble Baroness has argued that we are going back to subjective criteria. As long as you have subjects, you have to look at the individual case. If any attempt to look at such a case is to be dismissed as subjective, then I do not see how we can ever pay attention to the people before us which, after all, is what we have to do. The noble Baroness is still anchored to the undistributed middle between the "all work" test on the one hand and the "own occupation" test on the other. There is no response at all —I hope that there will be at Report stage—to our argument that there are situations of unfitness for work which come in between those two opposite poles. I do not ask the Government to agree with us on that, but I ask them to notice that that in fact is our opinion and if it is not theirs, to tell us why it is not.
We are not saying that education or age are medical conditions. We are saying that they are conditions which affect the type of work for which we might reasonably hope to be considered. If you are not fit for any type of work for which in perfect medical health you could hope to be considered, then in my book you are not fit for work.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may first make a comment. When the Minister uses the word "subjective", I would use the word "qualitative". When she uses the word "objective", I would use the word "mechanical". It is a question of language. In the Minister's notion of an objective test, we are saying that she is instead relying on a mechanical test which seeks to measure functional incapacity, which in turn bears little relation to the capacity for work.
I wish to press the Minister a little more on her views as to the work of the panel. Can she tell us whether all

307
the 80 members of the panel are still on board, so to speak? Can she tell us how the work is progressing and whether the members currently on the panel are comfortable and accept the framework within which they are being asked to work? In other words, can the Minister say what they are doing and how they are progressing? Does the scheme, as proposed, enjoy the full confidence of the panel?
Baroness Cumberlege: I understand that when the panel was appointed the members wanted it to be confidential and did not want their names to be released. They wanted to be open among themselves in the work that they were doing and they wanted to exercise their personal judgment. As such, I would not wish to betray the fact that they would be able to operate in confidentiality.
Perhaps I may now take up some of the points made by the noble Earl. It is very difficult when one is trying to put forward legislation such as this. The purpose of the Bill is to set the framework. The details which are to be put forward through regulations are very detailed. It is appropriate that the method of doing that should be through regulation. Work started 18 months ago on these tests. For the first 10 months all that work was done in-house. But we wanted to be open about it. We wanted to involve other people, including these 80 experts. Therefore it is very important for the success of the Bill that this work should be completed; that it should be done well; and that it should be ongoing. The panel is now into its third phase and is continuing its work. The Bill is no different from others and it is crucial that the work continues.
As regards the whole purpose of regulation, I say to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that I understand that this House has voted 26 times against regulations since 1979, so there is opportunity for your Lordships to express your views.
Lord Rea: Before the mover of this amendment decides whether to press it, I thought that the Committee would be interested to hear examples of some of the questions which comprise the test for mental health incapacity. I have just received this fax. The questions are from A Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit received from the Benefits Agency this year. These are some of the questions asked to assess people's mental condition:

"Do people or things so upset you that you just lash out?

Do you prefer to be left totally alone at all times?

Do you feel panic if you are on your own even for a brief time?

Do you need someone always in reach in case of problems?

Do you need someone to encourage you to get up and dressed?

Do you often sit for hours doing nothing?"

I believe that those questions speak for themselves. Perhaps the amendment should guide what the tests are to comprise. They are going the wrong way at the moment.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend has just told the Committee that this House has voted against regulations on a number of occasions since, I believe she said, 1976. I find surprising the number that she gave. Can she tell the Committee whether these regulations had previously
308
been agreed to in the other place or whether they came to this House first, where there is possibly an opportunity for us to do something about them? Is she prepared to give an undertaking that the regulations under this Bill will be laid before this House first rather than another place?
Lord Carter: Before the noble Baroness answers, I believe that when she referred to the number 26 she was including an example which we had only this week; namely, a Motion to call on the Government to delay implementation or something of that nature. It was not voting against regulations. I would find it very surprising if this House had voted 26 times to reject regulations.
Baroness Cumberlege: I sense the feeling of the Committee. I recognise the wisdom in your Lordships' House. I would certainly would not wish to press this point. I may well have got the figures wrong, in which case I would like to withdraw them.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness has not got the figures wrong. I have all the relevant papers lying on the floor of my study. I have not got them to hand so I cannot immediately answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. But I can answer it for him by tomorrow if necessary. The figures certainly do not include regulation cases when Motions to resolve are tabled. There are precedents and I believe that the last one was in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
Baroness Cumberlege: It is very encouraging to find that help comes from unexpected quarters. I am very grateful to the noble Earl. If Members of the Committee would like it, I shall put some evidence in the Library. Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about the questions on mental health. The questions in that consultation document are now out of date. Work continues on revising those tests, so I can reassure him on that point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If my noble friend is right in saying that since 1979 there have been 26 occasions when this House has rejected a regulation, that is news to many of us. Will she not merely put in the Library, but circulate in the Official Report a list of those cases which she says make up the 26? Until I can see that, I reserve my views.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may be permitted a small clarification. These are not cases where the House has rejected regulations. It has voted on a Motion to do so but none of them has been carried.
Baroness Cumberlege: I hope that the matter is now a great deal clearer. I shall certainly put the evidence which my noble friend seeks in the Library. The principle is really established. Tonight I am urging Members of the Committee to reject this amendment.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank my noble friend very much for her careful reply which I shall study in detail in Hansard. I have always been impressed with how severely disabled ex-servicemen, who have, for

309
instance, lost both legs, have made light of their disability. I have always been impressed by this marvellous attitude on their part which has often been totally misconstrued by assessors who have been ignorant of their personality, their courage and their unselfishness. So I do have reservations. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 10, leave out lines 7 to 16.
Page 10, leave out lines 26 to 32.
The noble Viscount said I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 18 at an earlier stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 10, leave out lines 33 to 39.
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 29 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 40 and 58. The effect of Amendment No. 29 is to delete Section 171A(7) from the Bill. Amendment No. 56 is a small consequential amendment to Clause 6 of the Bill, which deletes a reference to subsection (7). Amendment No. 40 is a consequential amendment to Section 171C. It may be helpful if I explain the original purpose of subsection (7) and why we are proposing to delete it.
Section 171A provides for incapacity for work to be measured in the same way across the social security system and for regulations to be made which are common to both tests of incapacity. It may help if I recap on how the test will operate. As with any other benefit, claimants for incapacity benefit will have to supply the necessary information to support their claims. This will include, in some cases, attending medical examinations. It will take some time for the test to be completed. And so that we do not leave people without money, we will deem them as satisfying the test on the basis of a medical certificate. Section 171A provides regulation-making powers which, among other things, treat claimants as being capable of work if they fail, without good cause, to supply such information.
Subsection (7) provided a power for regulations to be made so that where a decision had been made to treat the claimant as capable of work because of his failure to supply information the claimant would in these circumstances continue to be treated as capable until such time as the information is provided. Also, where a claimant has been found capable of work because he has failed to satisfy the tests of incapacity, he shall continue to be treated as capable until such time as he provides evidence of a material change in his condition. The purpose of this subsection was to amend the power which exists to deem people as satisfying the test while the test is being carried out, where a person has previously failed to provide information or been found capable of work.
One of the amendments proposed in Committee in another place was to delete subsection (7). After discussion, the amendment was withdrawn. However, we agreed to look again at the provision. It seems to be
310
redundant. We do indeed need the powers that I have outlined, but they can be provided for by a small amendment to Section 171C. We propose therefore to delete Section 171A(7). Amendment No. 56 is a small, consequential amendment which deletes a reference to that subsection in Clause 6, Section 61A(3) (a).
Amendment No. 40 inserts a new paragraph in Section 171C(3). Subsection (3) allows regulations to be made to treat, if the prescribed conditions are met, the "all work" test as being satisfied until the claimant has been assessed under that test. This will allow us to continue to pay claimants incapacity benefit during the period that the "all work" test is being applied. The purpose of the new paragraph is to ensure that a claimant who has been previously treated as capable or found to be capable is not deemed incapable if he claims the benefit again when his circumstances have not changed. The prescribed conditions will include that it has not been previously determined within a prescribed! period that the claimant is, or is to be treated as, capable of work. In other words, for the "all work" test to be treated as satisfied, one of the prescribed conditions will be that no previous decision on the person's capacity has been made within a prescribed period.
The situation that we wish to avoid is one in which someone is paid benefit during the period that the "all work" test is applied, fails to meet that test and is found to be capable of work, then reclaims benefit shortly afterwards and is again paid while the "all work" test is applied again. We are trying to prevent anyone from playing the system.
The purpose of these amendments is to delete a redundant provision and to clarify the remaining regulation-making powers. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may use this as an opportunity to press the Minister and ask him a question. We understand the technical points he is making in clarifying some of the technical regulations. Will he confirm for the record that someone who fails the incapacity for work test and therefore loses that benefit will automatically be eligible for unemployment benefit or, when it is appropriate, income support—in other words, he will not subsequently be judged unavailable for work and not actively seeking it by virtue of a continuing disability which, however, is not regarded by the incapacity for work test as sufficient to qualify him for benefit?
Viscount Astor: As I understand the noble Baroness —I shall have to read what she said—she is asking whether someone who is on incapacity benefit and then fails the test and comes off incapacity benefit will be able to claim other benefits if they qualify. The answer to the general point is yes.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I know the answer to the general point: yes, if they qualify, they qualify. My question is whether, by virtue of not qualifying for incapacity benefit, that automatically means that they qualify for unemployment benefit or income support. To make the point very obvious, what we are afraid of is that some people may fail a new stringent test who in the past would have received invalidity benefit and

311
therefore be regarded as not sick or disabled enough to be incapable of work; but, on the other hand, when they go down to the unemployment office or the income support office they will be deemed not fit enough to be held capable of work—available for and actively seeking work. Therefore, they could fall between two stools and not be eligible for either benefit. That is what I am pushing the Minister on.
Viscount Astor: I understand the noble Baroness's anxieties. They can get unemployment benefit if they qualify and are actively seeking work, which they would be if they come off the test. If for some reason they do not qualify for unemployment benefit, income support is available.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister is saying that if one fails the incapacity for work test one thereby automatically qualifies in terms of eligibility for unemployment benefit or income support. Obviously, one still has to pass the test of actively seeking work—
Viscount Astor: The noble Baroness is putting words into my mouth which I did not say. If she cares to read Hansard, exactly what I said about qualification for benefits will become clear.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 10, line 41, leave out ("12") and insert ("21").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 31, by which I am endeavouring to increase the period from the current 12 weeks to 52 weeks. I very much appreciate that my noble friend the Minister has moved on this one and has moved quite a way. That is a step in the right direction. However, I wonder why he has stopped at 21 weeks and not gone on to 28 weeks which would tie in with other benefits and therefore probably make it much easier to administer.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I should apologise to my noble friend. Amendment No. 30 is my amendment which, when I moved it, I thought was grouped with Amendment No. 29, which, of course, it is not. Perhaps it would help my noble friend if I spoke to Amendment No. 30 first and then allowed him to speak to his amendment, Amendment No. 31, which is grouped with it.
The effect of Amendment No. 30 is to extend the application of the "own work" test at the onset of incapacity to people who have been engaged in an occupation in more than eight weeks in the past 21 week period. My noble friend's amendment seeks to extend the period further to more than eight weeks in the past 52 weeks.
The Bill that we are considering introduces two tests of incapacity. The "own occupation" test will apply to most people at the onset of their period of sickness. It is a test of whether people can do their own job. The proposal mirrors the current system. For the purposes of the test, we have to have a definition of "own occupation". When the Bill was considered in another place, we proposed that this definition should be that if
312
someone had worked in more than eight weeks in the past 12 weeks, he should undergo the "own occupation" test. If someone did not fulfil that requirement, he should undergo the "all work" test at the beginning of his incapacity.
In the discussions in another place, it was said that that definition was unreasonable and we undertook to consider the matter further. Having done so, I can tell the Committee today that we agree that the definition is unreasonable. It would mean, for example, that someone who has been in work for 20 years and is then made redundant would face the "all work" test immediately if he fell sick after five weeks of his redundancy.
I should also explain that, in defining the "own occupation" test, our aim was to produce a simple and workable definition which would ensure that as many people as possible would undergo the "own occupation" test when they fell sick. Only in exceptional circumstances did we expect that anyone would have to undergo the "all work" test at that stage.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend seeks to extend the period under consideration to more than eight weeks in the past 52 weeks. I am afraid that I am not able to accept this. There is no evidence that the amendment would have the suggested impact on the disabled. It is in fact the case that people with disabilities have better work attendance records than the rest of the population.
Perhaps more importantly, the idea behind the definition is that it relates the test of incapacity to an occupation which the person has recently undertaken. If the Committee accepted my noble friend's amendment, it would allow a situation in which someone could begin a job in January, do it for nine weeks, then leave it and register as unemployed, claim incapacity benefit in November and still be assessed against that job. I do not think that many people would consider it reasonable to assess a person's incapacity against a job which he has not done for a period of some months, especially as, when unemployed, the same individual would be treated as being available for all work.
The amendment I am supporting proposes a middle way. It would mean that a person who had undertaken an occupation for more then eight weeks in the past 21 weeks would face the "own occupation" test at the onset of incapacity. We think that that is a reasonable period.
When this matter was discussed in another place, there was some discussion about whether, for example, people on leave or on training courses would be included. It might be helpful if I clarify the matter. The amendment would allow anyone who had worked for more than eight weeks in the past 21 weeks to undergo the "own occupation" test. If the person had been on paid leave from his job, or undergoing training paid by his employer or connected with that job, we would not count him as being unemployed. We are still considering whether it would be possible to include other types of training in the provision. In addition, if the person had had more than one job, we would add the periods together. If the person had had more than one job at a time, we would include him in the provision, as long as each job took more than 16 hours per week.

313
I hope that I have explained that we aim to operate the application of the "own occupation" test at the onset of incapacity as flexibly as possible. I believe that the period that I have suggested is a reasonable one. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will understand why I believe that my amendment is perhaps preferable to his.
Lord Swinfen: I do not know that I necessarily consider Amendment No. 30 to be preferable to mine. That might dent my personal pride. To be honest, I am human. Although, as I said earlier, I am pleased that my noble friend has tabled an amendment which moves in what I consider to be the right direction, I wonder whether between now and the next stage he will give a little further consideration to this matter. I think that, in order to protect people in the widest possible circumstances, a period of 28 weeks would be better than 21 weeks. I do not need my noble friend to reply on that point now, but perhaps he will consider the point and possibly table an amendment on Report.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I understand the point that my noble friend makes. He asked why we have chosen a period of 21 weeks. One of the reasons is that there is a parallel with unemployment benefit under which people can restrict their search for a job to their own occupation for up to 13 weeks, after which they must widen the search and they are considered available for all work. Amendment No. 30 introduces the same period into the qualification of the "own occupation" test. We are trying to align the rules throughout the social security system because that makes for a much simpler system.
As I said, we are considering whether it will be possible to include other types of training in the provision. I am happy to give my noble friend the assurance that between now and Report stage I shall study carefully what he has said. Obviously, I cannot give my noble friend any commitment that I shall be able to return with an amendment in his favour.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We appreciate that the Government have moved from their original 12 weeks to 21 weeks. That is welcome. Perhaps the Minister will clarify a point for me. It might just be a matter of mishearing because of the microphones in the Chamber. I was not sure whether the noble Viscount said that, if someone was on a training course, that would count as being unemployed or employed. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify that. I believe that it came fairly early on in his brief.
Viscount Astor: I said that we are looking at training as a whole. I gave that commitment. I said that if a person had been on paid leave from his or her job or undergoing training paid for by the employer or connected with that job, we would not count that person as being unemployed. We are considering whether it would be possible to include other types of training within the provision.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is helpful. It meets some of the concerns that were raised in another place. I should like to support some of the comments
314
made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. We are seeking the same sort of approach as in the linking rule on DWA. Somebody who is disabled because of a fluctuating medical sickness condition may have a very different work history in terms of attempting to return to work than somebody who is not so disabled. I think we are all agreed that the rule may be reasonable for somebody who is fit. We would perhaps accept the Minister's point that the rules may not be unreasonable for somebody who is disabled but with a steady disabled condition.
However, there is a third category of people whose sickness condition fluctuates. They may come in and out of work and even the 21-week rule—although a welcome advance—may not allow them a sufficient or realistic opportunity to return to their own occupation. I am afraid that the moment that one presses an "all work" test on those people, one ensures that they will be denied benefit because, by definition, they can do some work even if that work is not realistically within their grasp, as we explored earlier this afternoon.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 10, line 49, at end insert ("having regard to personal factors such as age, state of physical and mental health, capacity to deal with pain and stress.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 32, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 38 with which it is grouped. The amendments are designed to ensure a definition of incapacity which includes relevant factors in addition to physical and mental disablement. They seek to reinstate a definition which includes non-medical factors. The new so-called "objective medical test" will assess only physical and mental functions. As such, it can measure only impairment, not incapacity. A purely diagnostic and functional test, based on scoring ability to carry out functions of daily living, is not the same as looking at "workability". Incapacity for work is a more complex matter, because a range of other factors is relevant. Medical evidence is of course necessary, but it is not sufficient.
Introducing a new functional test represents an overreaction by the Government to the increasing number of people receiving invalidity benefit. The independent Policy Studies Institute has found that there is no evidence that more people are making new claims for benefit, rather that fewer are leaving benefit. It estimates that the increase in claims can be accounted for in demographic terms so that, for example, 29 per cent. of the increase is comprised of people over pension age who would otherwise be drawing retirement pension, and 16 per cent. is due to more women in the labour market paying national insurance contributions.
The PSI has stated that it is a mistake to discount all reference to environmental factors in considering incapacity for work. External influences have to be taken into account in so far as they impinge on the experience of a particular claimant. The test for incapacity now applied under invalidity benefit includes factors which interrelate with disablement to constitute incapacity. That has been developed since the introduction of national insurance sickness benefit in

315
1911. It has rightly been regarded as a sensible approach otherwise no one would be considered incapable of work.
In 1951 social security commissioners held that someone was to be considered incapable of work if, having regard to his age, education, experience, state of health and other personal factors, there was no work or type of work which he could be reasonably expected to do. That is designed to ensure that people are only considered capable of work which is realistically within their grasp. Whether there is a job available is not a relevant consideration, nor are personal factors, such as domestic commitments, which have no bearing on incapacity.
If the capacity to deal with pain or stress is not taken into account, people may be regarded as fit for work, but be unable to deal with the stress of work. One woman with a diagnosis of schizophrenia trained as a teacher and was desperate to go to work. She found some unskilled work, shelf filling in a supermarket, but could never do more than a few days even at that sort of work as she could not cope with the stress of getting up and sustaining the pressure of a full day's work. Her health deteriorated until an adviser ensured that she had regular invalidity benefit payments and sheltered accommodation.
Under the present system a person with a background in manual work, as has been said earlier, with no educational qualifications could be regarded as incapable of work as factors such as education and employment background are taken into account. However, the new test is expected to be far more stringent. It is expected that some 200,000 people on invalidity benefit will be excluded as a result of the new test. I gathered that information from Hansard of another place dated 9th February (col. 369). It is possible that a person in that condition could be deemed to be capable of work under the new test of purely functional ability.
As has been said, concentrating upon purely functional limitations could disentitle some people from benefit. People with fluctuating conditions who may not be able to carry out a function repeatedly; people with a long-term debilitating illness whose condition can worsen if they are forced into employment prematurely; people whose disabilities are invisible, such as those with chronic pain who often encounter difficulties in convincing others that their pain is real; people who have managed their disability, for instance, by way of medication, treatment or supervision, could be regarded as cured if measured by functions alone. Yet they would not necessarily be capable of work. Making them work or sign on as unemployed could act as a disincentive to any final rehabilitation.
Excluding non-medical factors which are relevant to incapacity for work will create further hardship for thousands of disabled claimants and merely transfer statistics onto unemployment benefit or income support. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This is a good amendment, and I support it. When I said a little earlier that I do not accept
316
that this is an objective test, one of the best reasons I can see for taking that view is the decision that it should be a purely functional test. It should be clear by now that that was an intensely controversial decision, and therefore whether you think it right or whether you think it wrong, not an absolutely objective decision. It is a decision which represents one point of view.
The reason why the Government have taken that decision is their determination to exclude all non-medical factors. I understand why they may have wanted to do that, but you cannot do that for the simple reason that there is not a single thing called work. Work covers a great variety of activities, and there are a great many of us here, I think, who work very hard indeed, who might possibly fail a great many of those tests. The tests in the consultation document that was published are not in any way related to any specific occupation. The scoring of the test is not in any way related to what sort of work you are looking for. You simply cannot consider whether a person is fit for work until you can discuss the particular work for which they might or might not be fit. That is why we cannot use an assessment of incapacity for work which does not take into account what are the types of work for which that person, if they were fit, might reasonably be required to look.
I do not believe that I need give any more examples of that. The point is, in its own nature, clear enough. One either agrees with it, or one does not. Until we can consider the question of suitability for work, I do not see that we have any prospect at all of deciding who is incapable of it and who is not. The test will produce a list of people who are said to be capable and a list of those who are said to be incapable. It will have a great deal to do with the scoring system. It will not, in my view, have much to do with whether they are or are not capable of work.
Lord Carter: Our earlier debate was concerned overall with the test for incapacity for work. The amendments deal, as we know, with the "own occupation" test. Although the debate is somewhat similar, it is important to recognise the difference. We are now dealing with the "own occupation" test and not the "all work" test. I do not wish to repeat the arguments about the problems that we are having due to all the details being left to regulations, but I am sure that the Minister is aware, if she was not before, that that is causing a great deal of concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, explained the amendments extremely well. What we are trying to do is to improve the test. It has nothing to do with controlling numbers or anything of that nature. It attempts to add to the "own occupation" test in Section 171B(2) the personal factors such as age, state of physical and mental health and the capacity to deal with pain and stress. It is intended to improve the definition. I emphasise that because I hope that when the Minister replies she will not introduce figures showing that there is a need for change because there are more people claiming. The amendment has nothing to do with that. It has to do with obtaining a definition of the test which

317
will be fair to the applicant and the taxpayer. It is all about ensuring that the "own occupation" test is properly defined and fairly applied.
I wish to make a general point which applies to the "own occupation" and "all work" tests. We have heard that the details of the tests will be in regulations and that the research work and so forth is being carried out. We understand that it will be some time before we know the final details. Is it intended to put all the details in regulations or is it more likely that there will be a combination of regulations and guidance notes, as is normally the case?
On previous occasions guidance notes have been circulated in draft to Members who are interested for consultation. Does the Minister anticipate that the details of the test will be a combination of regulations and guidance notes? If so, will it be possible to see the guidance notes and to make comments on them?
Baroness Cumberlege: Amendments Nos. 32 and 38 seek to define the factors to be considered both in the "own work" test and the "all work" test and to prescribe these on the face of the Bill. Despite what the noble Lord said, the "all work" test is covered too. As I have said before, these amendments are misconceived. First, the "own occupation" test will be a test of whether or not a person is well enough to do his own job. Secondly, the "all work" assessment will include all the medical factors raised by these amendments, such as pain, stress and general health.
As I have explained, Amendment No. 32, which refers to the "own occupation" test, is not necessary. The "own occupation" test of incapacity, which will apply to most people for the first 28 weeks of sickness, will be a similar test as applies under the current system. It will assess a person's capacity to do his normal job. It will take into account a person's general state of physical and mental health, disabilities and capacity to cope with pain or stress. Training and education are unlikely to be important factors at this stage, as the person will evidently be sufficiently trained and educated to perform his own job.
The primary evidence for incapacity during the first 28 weeks will be provided by the claimant's own doctor. Like any other doctor, he will exercise his independent clinical judgment in deciding whether or not the person concerned should refrain from his own occupation. The amendment advises doctors how to exercise their clinical judgment by specifying the factors that they should consider. We do not think it is necessary to do this. Nor is it necessary to set it out on the face of the Bill. The GP knows to take account of a person's general state of physical and mental health, his disabilities and capacity to cope with pain and stress when he is judging whether or not the person is fit for work. Guidance to GPs will continue to make this clear.
As I have said before, I think that Amendment No. 38, which specifically includes a number of medical and non-medical factors in the assessment of incapacity for all work, is based on an understanding of how the new "all work" test is being developed and how it will operate. I can assure Members of the Committee that the new test will assess all the physical and mental
318
disabilities which affect a person's capacity for work in a range of physical functions. The effects of pain, stress and fatigue will all be taken into account in that assessment.
We have set this out specifically in our development. work on the test. In the instructions on this point to the assessment panel we stated:
"Where pain is not mentioned explicitly, it should still be taken into account as a constraint on a person's ability to perform an activity. In other words, someone who is effectively prevented from doing something by pain should be regarded as equally incapacitated as someone who cannot perform the activity at all"
The same principle applies to stress and fatigue. Mental health will also be assessed by separate procedures. A sub-group of the main assessment panel is currently working in this area.
The only parts of Amendment No. 38 which will not be covered by the new arrangements and which we do not wish to include are the references to age, employment history, education and training. Age is not a disability and I believe that it encourages discrimination. Of course, increasing age may be a factor in the development of physical conditions but that will be taken into account in the whole assessment of the claimant's physical state.
The "all work" test does not take into account factors such as training, employment history or educational qualifications. Of course there are people who, through their medical condition, become unable to do their own job. Such people will be entitled to be measured against the "own occupation" test of incapacity for the first 28 weeks. However, we do not think it is right that they should continue to receive incapacity benefit far evermore simply because they are physically incapable of performing one particular job. That is why the "all work" test will be applied.
Equally, we do not think it is right that people should continue to receive incapacity benefit because they are trained only for one job and no other. Unemployed people are expected to consider all work after a certain period. Incapacity benefit is specifically designed for those medically incapable of work and uses a test of medical incapacity. If a person cannot find work because he has little work experience or unsuitable educational qualifications a benefit designed for sick and disabled people is not appropriate. Assistance offered elsewhere by the Departments of Employment and Social Security is appropriate for him.
Amendment No. 38 seeks to reintroduce into the "all work" test the element of subjectivity that was such a problem in the old system. We are trying to get away from the subjective "supposedly-reasonable job" approach, with its lists of appropriate jobs and consequent problems, many of them cited by Members opposite. With this test we are aiming at a more objective test of incapacity.
Perhaps I may pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Time is being taken to develop these tests. However, we hope to reach a conclusion in August when a report will be produced. That report will be out for full consultation before the regulations are drawn up and laid before the House.
Lord Carter: I asked the Minister about the guidance notes, which are so important. One would expect a report to be circulated and it would be helpful if the guidance notes were attached to the regulations and circulated in draft.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, that will be the case. Guidance will be made public so that people can comment on it.
Earl Russell: As we go through the debates I beg the Minister not to repeat the argument that age is not a disability. No one has argued that it is. That argument is a complete misunderstanding of the case which is to be met. We have not argued that age makes people incapable of work. To argue that here would be a contempt of this House and I have no intention of doing so.
We have argued that age affects the type of work for which you might be found fit. I do not believe that at the moment I would volunteer for work as an Olympic oarsman but I regard myself as being perfectly capable of work. The Minister is still impaled on problems created by thinking of fitness for all work and not thinking of fitness for work for which one is capable.
I beg her also not to repeat the argument that the case we are trying to make is subjective. We are simply trying to say that we are considering subjects. Each person is a subject and each person has particular aptitudes. Within the meaning of the language as I understand it, I do not regard it as subjective to say that one ought to consider the work for which that individual person is fit.
The noble Baroness said that we have not understood the test but I am afraid that we have understood it all too well. As the debate goes on, what she is convincing me of is not what she intended. She is convincing me more and more that it is not possible or desirable to attempt to compile a single test to assess fitness for all work. The fitnesses one needs for different kinds of work are so completely different that it simply cannot be done within the scope of a single test. In fact, the noble Baroness is convincing me that the whole project should be scrapped. If she says that what we say is fundamentally in conflict with what the Government are doing she is encouraging us to vote out the clause altogether. I do not believe that is what she intended but that is what she has done.
Baroness Cumberlege: The noble Earl may not agree with what I said but we are clear about what we want to achieve in terms of incapacity for work. We believe that the benefit should be judged on medical factors alone but these amendments try to bring in other issues. The noble Earl may believe that the arguments I have put forward about age are not relevant. I believe that on Second Reading mention was made of the fact that age is a disability in itself. We say that it is not and that, although it can contribute to a range of disabilities, those will be taken into account when the tests are carried out.
On the question of jobs, what is available and whether one is fit to do them, perhaps I may just say to the noble Earl that I share his view that neither he nor
320
I will ever be an Olympic oarsman, but that does not mean that we cannot look for jobs in other areas. That is what the "all work" test is about: it is fitness for work but it does not mean to say that all people can do all jobs.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may just clarify what I said. I was not saying that what the Government are doing is wrong. If it could be done, it might be very good. I am saying that it simply cannot be done at all.
Lord Swinfen: I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. In the last part of my noble friend's winding up remarks she insists that the Government are attempting to rely solely on a medical test. That reminds me of a famous story: the operation was a great success; unfortunately, the patient died.
I should like to read what my noble friend said and to consider it. I must admit that it is very likely that I shall return to this matter on Report, either with the same amendments or with a revised version of them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 11, line 8, leave out ("197th") and insert ("365th").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to make the "all-work" test applicable at the same stage as the long-term rate of incapacity benefit becomes payable.
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. At the same time as redefining short-term incapacity at 52 weeks, the new "all work" test remains applicable at 28 weeks. That will mean that people who pass the test at 28 weeks will be regarded as incapable of all work but not entitled to full benefit for a further 24 weeks.
The Government appear to be wanting to have their cake and eat it by changing the definition of long-term incapacity to 52 weeks for payment purposes but keeping 28 weeks for the "all work" test of incapacity.
As the Committee will appreciate, the amendment is a fall-back position on Amendment No. 1, which we dealt with on Tuesday. That sought to restore the status quo in the definition of long-term incapacity and therefore provide for full payment of benefit at 28 weeks.
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. Assessment of incapacity for work has followed that pattern. For the first 28 weeks of incapacity, when short-term benefit is paid, incapacity for work is assessed by reference to the claimant's usual occupation. After that time, alternative work can be considered, although there is no set period within the legislation when all work should be considered. Guidance issued to GPs by the Department of Social Security states that when a patient has been incapable of work in his normal occupation for six months or more,

321
consideration should be given to what alternative work he could reasonably be expected to do. That coincides with the payment of invalidity benefit after a period of 28 weeks.
When discussing Amendment No. 1, my noble friend Lord Astor said—and it is recorded at col. 101 of Hansard—that the different rates of benefit were designed to reflect the cost of short-term and long-term periods of incapacity. He went on to say:
'"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".—[Official Report, 19/4/94; cols. 101–102.]
However, the Government intend to change the definition of long-term incapacity from 196 days to 365 days. No convincing rationale has been put forward for that change, beyond stating that 365 days is reasonable. The Government have failed to explain the basis of that change and I should be grateful if the Minister would do so when she replies. In my view, it would be far more reasonable if the claimant had to satisfy the "all work" test at 365 days rather than 196 days; otherwise, disabled people will have passed the test confirming that they are incapable of all work and yet they will not be entitled to benefit. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. He moved it fully and so I shall be brief.
We are trying to establish that at the point at which one fails the "all work" test—in other words, the point at which it is recognised that one is incapable of any work—one should be regarded as long-term disabled, and, therefore, should simultaneously move to long-term disability benefit.
In Committee, on Tuesday, we tried to bring the benefit forward to the point at which the test is taken; that is, at 28 weeks. We tried to persuade the Minister and we shall obviously return to that on Report. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, this is a fall-back amendment; namely, that if one moves on to the higher rate of benefit not after six months but after 12 months, so too should the "all work" test be brigaded with it.
In the past, the two have run together. The Minister has simply asserted that he is to sunder them, to sever them, but has given no reason why that should be the case. It is incumbent on the Minister to explain why, at the point when one fails to pass the "all work" test and is therefore regarded as incapable of all work, one should not receive the higher rate of benefit. We may argue about whether both should occur at six months or at 12 months; but that they should be interlocked seems to us self-evident and the Minister, apart from saying, "It is as I say it is", has given us no such evidence. We invite her now to do so.
Baroness Cumberlege: This amendment seeks to link the application of the "all work" test to the highest rate of incapacity benefit, with the effect that the "all work" test will not be applied until the 53rd week.
The Bill proposes that where a person has had a regular occupation, the "all work" test shall be applied
322
at the 29th week of incapacity. Up till the 29th week, the "own occupation" test will be applicable. That is intended to reflect the current system. The present law provides that the test of incapacity for work is capacity to do work which a person can be reasonably expected to do. Decisions taken by the social security commissioners have held that in the short-term, where capacity for work is only temporarily impaired, this means assessing a person's capacity for his usual job. In such circumstances it would not be fair to expect the claimant to change his usual occupation. In time, however, it is reasonable to measure his incapacity against a wider field of work.
In providing for two tests of incapacity in the Bill, we have used the case law as a basis. For the first six months of incapacity, therefore, the test will be the claimant's capacity to do his own job. Later, however, he will be tested against a wider definition, as the commissioners' decisions show. We considered that six months was a reasonable period to apply the "own occupation" test. In considering an unemployed person's availability for work, the Department of Employment allows only 13 weeks for the person to look for a job similar to his previous one; thereafter, he must consider all work.
There is a related issue of the linking of benefit rates to the application of particular tests. We have deliberately sought to keep those two areas separate. It is not the case that passing a certain test brings a higher (or lower) rate of benefit. Depending on its construction, a link would discriminate for—or against—those claimants who have not had a recent regular occupation and so who are not eligible for the "own occupation" test, but will take the all work test at the outset. That is not our intention. Benefit rates are designed to be linked to the length of a person's period of incapacity, and the needs arising therefrom. I urge Members of the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for her response. I shall consider carefully what she said. With my poor brain, and especially with a hearing defect, it is sometimes difficult to take things in when briefs are read rapidly. Nevertheless, I shall read in Hansard what my noble friend said and may return to the matter at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 11, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert:
("( ) Any provision of this Act apart from subsection (4) above under or by virtue of which a day is or is not to be treated for any purpose as a day of incapacity for work shall be disregarded for the purposes of this section.").
The noble Viscount said: This is a technical amendment that serves to clarify the current drafting of Section 171B(4) (of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992).
Where either the DWA or the training long-linking rule applies to a person, it is not intended that that should affect the test of incapacity that is applied. However, Section 171B(4) could be open to different interpretation as it stands. The effect of that would be that where a person who has been working and receiving DWA finishes a job and makes a further claim for

323
incapacity benefit, he will be subject to the "all work" test even though he has clearly been working for more than an eight-week period prior to the claim. The amendment puts the issue beyond doubt, ensuring that the "own occupation" test, not the "all work" test, is applied where appropriate. That is beneficial for claimants. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 11, line 38, leave out from ("if') to end of line 39 and insert ("—

(a) 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; and

(b) for the reference to 8 weeks there were substituted a reference to such larger number of weeks as may be prescribed.").

The noble Viscount said: I spoke to the above amendment when moving Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: When Amendment No. 12 was debated, I asked the noble Viscount a question. I wonder whether he has had the opportunity to ascertain the answer. It concerns the precise implications of paragraph (b) of the amendment which reads,
"for the reference to 8 weeks there were substituted a reference to such larger number of weeks as may be prescribed".
At the time, the noble Viscount said that that paragraph was merely repeating an existing provision. I understand that, but can he say whether that will allow the Minister concerned—presumably, by regulation—to extend the linking rule from eight weeks to a longer period? If that is the case, we can only support such flexibility. Does the Minister intend to make use of it?
Viscount Astor: I am still considering what the noble Baroness said on Tuesday. However, I shall write to her on the matter before the Report stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert:
("(1A) The all work test is whether he is incapable by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement of doing all work which he could otherwise reasonably be expected to do.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 37. The purpose of the amendments is to get the nature of the "all work" test described in primary legislation. The first amendment is modelled on the definition of the "own occupation" test in Section 171B(2). The second amendment is consequential.
The Bill contains an explicit definition of the "own occupation" test on page 10 at lines 40 to 44. However, by contrast, the definition of the "all work" test is left entirely to regulations which will prescribe a list of activities. Whether a person passes or fails the "all work" test will depend on the extent of his incapacity to perform the prescribed activities.
I feel that the latter is unsatisfactory. First, although the test is called an "all work" test, there is no
324
requirement for the prescribed activities to have any direct bearing on a person's ability to work. Secondly, ability to undertake work is not synonymous with ability to perform a standard set of activities. The activities threshold above which a person is likely to be incapable of work is bound to vary considerably according to the nature of the work for which the person is suited by age, education, training and experience. Judging incapacity for work solely on the basis of ability to perform prescribed activities would be manifestly unfair in the context of an income maintenance benefit. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I was pleased to add my name to Amendment No. 36. For reasons that I shall try to explain, it is extremely important that we should have a definition of the "all work" test. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, the "own occupation" test is clearly defined in Section 171B(2). However, in comparison, the definition of the "all work" test in Section 171C(2) (a) refers to,
"defining the all work test by reference to the extent of a person's incapacity".
We have all heard about the disadvantages of the "all work" test—indeed, I am sure that they will be discussed again —so the definition of the test is most important. We are concerned that there will be a test of doubtful validity which will be used as a reference point in deciding on the "all work" test and prescribed in regulations. Therefore, there will be a contrast between the objective definition of the "own occupation" test in Section 171B(2) and a secondary definition. However accurate the scoring on the assessment test, there will be a degree of subjectivity in the decision as to whether or not a person has passed the "all work" test. That is inevitable. Therefore, it is most important that the definition should be clearly made and that the "all work" test is not defined only by reference to the extent of a person's incapacity.
We now have the opportunity to discuss the definition of "all work". The Minister will remember that, when we had that extremely helpful presentation by officials regarding the testing, I gave the example that all work covers everything from filling envelopes to flying Concorde. I chose those examples deliberately because they seemed to me to show the extremes of what could be defined as an occupation of work. If one links that extreme to the other definition, "any paid work in the open market"—which is crucial and which the department is to use'—the market becomes more and more open as jobs become less and less skilful. To use my example, there is a very open market for filling envelopes which can be compared with a very closed market for those who can fly Concorde. Every Concorde pilot can fill envelopes; but, I do not know how many envelope fillers can fly Concorde.
I used those examples quite deliberately. It seems to me that the "all work" test must drive people downwards in the market place for work. If that is the case, it is most important that we should have a clear definition of the "all work" test on the face of the Bill and that we do not attempt to define it by reference only to a person's incapacity to pass such tests which, in any event, we believe to be of doubtful validity.
Baroness Cumberlege: The amendments seek to define the factors to be considered in the "all work" test and to prescribe them on the face of the Bill. We believe that they are misconceived. The "all work" assessment will include all the medical factors raised by the amendments, such as pain, stress and general health, though not the non-medical ones.
The amendments seek to redefine and weaken the "all work" test. I have already set out the current development work on the test and how the test will be applied in individual cases. I shall not repeat the details again. Suffice it to say that the new, function-based test of incapacity which we are developing is designed to do what Amendment No. 36 proposes. First, it will assess the effects of specific diseases and bodily and mental disabilities on a person's capacity for any work. Secondly, the activities specified in regulations will be related to those necessary to perform the 100 most common jobs in the economy. These jobs are drawn from the Labour Force Survey, classified according to standard occupational classification, and between them cover nearly three-quarters of all the jobs in the UK economy. It can therefore hardly be said that the test is unreasonable. The test is, however, new: it introduces a new way of assessing incapacity.
The amendments effectively seek to reintroduce the old system. The "all work" test is to be defined by reference to work a claimant could reasonably be expected to do, and a claimant's capacity to perform the work-related functional activities will only be a part of the picture. This undermines the whole aim of the new medical test. The current system is subjective and, despite its objective of "reasonable work", often produces unreasonable outcomes. Currently, the adjudication officer may be asked to give a list of jobs a claimant could do: this is an unreasonable demand, as an adjudication officer is not an employment rehabilitation adviser. This blurring of employability and incapacity also leads to unfairness: two people with precisely the same degree of incapacity may be treated differently because one has retrained and the other has not, although both are equally capable of retraining. That is both unreasonable and nonsensical: someone who cannot work because he does not have the appropriate skills requires training, not a benefit for sick or disabled people. As I have said before, we are trying to get away from the subjective "supposedly-reasonable job' approach. In adapting the OPCS disability scales to measure incapacity for work rather than disability, we are aiming at a more objective test of incapacity.
We are developing a test which will be a significant improvement on the current arrangements for the assessment of incapacity. While the consultation and development period is still going on, it is not possible to put down details of the test in the Bill. As I have said, the "all work" test does not take into account factors like training, employment history or educational qualifications. Incapacity benefit is specifically designed for those medically incapable of work, and uses a test of medical incapacity. If a person cannot find work because he has little work experience or unsuitable educational qualifications, a benefit designed for sick and disabled people is not appropriate. Other social
326
security benefits or assistance with, for example, retraining from the Employment Services Agency may be appropriate. For these reasons I invite the Committee to reject these amendments.
6 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for her response. I would say, however, that a test which is called an "all work" test cannot simply be about physical and mental functions. A disabled person's inability to work depends on other factors such as education and experience. Essentially what we need is a fair means by which to identify people who are incapable of work. The amendment addresses the Government's concern that over the years the commissioners and the courts broadened and blurred the definition of incapacity for work beyond the perceived intention. It does this by balancing the need for a tighter definition with what may be considered a realistic approach. I am not really satisfied with my noble friend's response but we have a "thin" Committee and therefore I am not tempted to press the amendment to a Division tonight. However, I may well come back to it at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 39 and 40:
Page 12, line 7, leave out from ("(2)") to end of line 8 and insert ("or (3) above or section 171DA below.").
Page 12, line 8, at end insert:
("The prescribed conditions may include the condition that it has not previously been determined, within such period as may be prescribed, that the person in question is or is to be treated as capable of work.").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendments Nos. 18 and 29.1 beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 12, line 8, at end insert:
("(4) Regulations may provide that where a person has satisfied the all work test, he shall not be subject to further testing unless the adjudication officer has reasonable cause to review the person's incapacity.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment aims to ensure that someone who passes the "all work" test is only re-tested when there is a proper reason for doing so. The Bill makes no mention of the frequency with which incapacity benefit claimants could be tested. I recognise that this may be covered in regulations to be made later, or in guidance. My object at this stage is to find out the Government's intentions in this matter.
Invalidity benefit claimants are at present referred to the Benefits Agency Medical Services for consideration, or medical examination, at intervals which depend on the type of illness or disability. As the new test is expected to be more stringent than the present test, I would be concerned if someone who passed the "all work" test were to be regularly re-tested without good reason. The rules at present allow for adjudication officers to review a claim if they have good cause to do so. That provision, I believe, should surely enable

327
adequate scrutiny to be maintained. Having passed this stringent test once, the individual should be assured that he is not going to be subjected to it again and again without good reason. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: I do not wish to pre-empt any debate but perhaps it might be useful if I explained why this amendment is unnecessary and that is because it duplicates existing provisions. Section 25 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 outlines the conditions under which an adjudication officer can undertake a review. The adjudication officer can only review a case if he is satisfied that there is a change of circumstances, or that he was ignorant of or mistaken as to a material fact, or that he was wrong in law. The proposed amendment adds nothing to the powers of the adjudication officer. The existing provisions require that the adjudication officer is satisfied that there is a reason to review. The proposed amendment merely specifies that there is reasonable cause. It is therefore weaker than Section 25, and is therefore not necessary. With that explanation, I hope very much that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to my noble friend for the assurance which I was seeking because it sounds as though she has met the point I raised and has indeed referred to the present duties of adjudication officers, about which I spoke. I am glad to know that they will continue and that that will be the safeguard in these cases. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Test of incapacity for work: supplementary provisions]:
Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 12, line 21, leave out from ("or") to ("work") in line 22 and insert ("earning no more than the prescribed amount for doing").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 42, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 43. These two amendments are concerned with therapeutic earnings. As we know, at present someone on invalidity pension is able to earn up to £43 a week without losing entitlement to invalidity pension, if his or her doctor affirms that the work is of therapeutic value. Therapeutic earnings are currently governed only by earnings (less allowable expenses). It is understood that it is proposed in future to limit therapeutic earnings by both earnings and hours, as I gather it is proposed that the hours should not be more than 16 hours a week.
The therapeutic earnings system is highly beneficial to disabled people, actively assisting many back into full-time work. The proposed future imposition of a 16-hour limit, as well as an earnings limit, could be a retrograde step even if some people would become entitled to the disability working allowance. It must be noted that an ability to work more than 16 hours a week on an occasional basis is of little interest to most
328
employers and the disability working allowance is not therefore an option for many who now benefit from the therapeutic earnings limit.
I understand that in the other place the Minister, Mr. Burt, appeared at one time to be reasonably sympathetic because he said,
"We recognise that some groups of people on incapacity benefit undertake more than 16 hours of rehabilitative work but receive very little remuneration—for example, people who are in-patients in hospitals and similar institutions and undertake work under medical supervision as part of their treatment"—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Cttee E, 22/2/94; col. 354.]
I am informed by the Association of Disabled Professionals that it has a number of members who are too disabled to work in ordinary employment but who can work irregularly, sometimes exceeding 16 hours a week. It has given examples from among its members. One example is that of a 35 year-old woman who contracted multiple sclerosis and whose last fully paid job was that of a secretary. Her condition made it increasingly difficult for her to work regularly, and she lost her job and was awarded an invalidity pension. Not wanting to be idle, she sought and was given a job by a national organisation for disabled people. She worked irregular hours, sometimes as much as 30 and some other weeks much less than that. Her doctor considered the work of therapeutic value and her earnings per week were governed by the therapeutic earnings limit.
There are many examples of people who benefit from doing this kind of work. It seems to me that there is no reason to put limits in relation to hours or in relation to earnings if people are certified by their doctors as incapable of normal work but capable of doing therapeutic work. The Association of Disabled Professionals, to which I am indebted for some briefing, has indicated to me that many of its members remark that invalidity benefit enables them to live but the work that they do, even though irregularly, helps to keep them sane. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I can see no reason why my noble friend could not accept these amendments. I understand that very few people undertake therapeutic work. Indeed, of claimants surveyed by the Department of Social Security, as indicated in its Research Report No. 20, only 1 per cent. of claimants had done such work; 80 per cent. of claimants had not even heard of it.
Removing the earnings limit may assist a very small number of people towards rehabilitation. It would have virtually no expenditure implications. However, helping people back to work will have beneficial financial implications because instead of the Government spending money they will probably end up gaining funds through tax.
Once again I suggest that where people are trying to get themselves back into proper employment, the Government should consider seriously not withdrawing all benefit but withdrawing it on a sliding scale. As I said on Tuesday, I suggest that for every pound disabled people earn, they should lose only 50 per cent. of their benefit. That would mean that they had encouragement to work. With modern computers that should not be difficult or expensive to administer. In the end it would

329
help to improve the economy of this country, about which the Government talk so much. I hope that they will accept the amendments.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to support the amendments, which were explained so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said about a sliding scale. Since the 1970s, I have been trying to remove the total cut-off point of the therapeutic earnings rule. The fact that once one reaches a certain limit one forfeits all one's invalidity benefit has always been a very severe disincentive for a disabled person to attempt to return to work. Imposing a 16-hour limit to boot is a highly retrograde step. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, made it very clear why that is the case; and I shall not produce any further evidence. I shall say only that I hope that we receive a more encouraging response to these two amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: The concept of therapeutic work is perhaps rather more wide-ranging than we sometimes realise.
I recall in the local elections in my borough in 1986 somebody who was in a wheelchair, had no use of her legs, very limited use of her arms, and who would have qualified for incapacity for work under any reasonable test. She acted as an election agent, and did it extremely well. She had the full use of her fingers and could operate a computer, and understood everything about how that mysterious object worked. She was able to use her husband, when necessary, as her arms and legs. That was a thoroughly well-managed campaign.
Being our party, she was not a paid election agent. But there are such things as paid election agents. If she had been earning, that money would have been thoroughly well earned and thoroughly deserved. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, it would have been in the interests of the Exchequer, which would have benefited. However, in any normal sense of the words, that woman would still have been incapable of work. That is just the kind of case which this amendment is intended to cover.
Viscount Astor: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, gives an example of therapeutic work in relation to elections. Some would argue that an election itself is a therapeutic measure, particularly when the Government are returned.
A number of important points have been made in relation to therapeutic work, and I shall return to those. However, I should point out that the amendments are not concerned only with that issue. They are slightly wider. Therefore it would be right for me to address the wider issues.
The first of the amendments would restrict the power so that the regulations could only prescribe an earnings limit and not a limit on the number of hours worked. The second amendment has the reverse effect in specifying that only a limit on hours could be imposed and no limit on a person's earnings.
We intend that therapeutic work will be allowed for up to 16 hours a week with an earnings limit of £43 a
330
week. The accepted definition of full-time work used across the social security system is 16 hours a week or more. This is the right benefit for people who undertake remunerative work and are at a disadvantage in the labour market because of their disability.
Incapacity benefit is intended to provide a measure of income replacement to those people who are unable to work because of an incapacity. I am sure that the Committee will agree that it would be wrong to allow a person who is receiving incapacity benefit to use it as a supplement to well paid part-time work. That would be the effect of the second of the amendments, which prevents any reference to an earnings limit. We need to maintain the earnings limit to ensure that the benefit is focused on the right people.
We intend to introduce a new provision to allow incapacity benefit claimants to be engaged in up to 16 hours voluntary work a week without any impact on their benefit entitlement. That provision will be introduced in regulations under Section 171D. Our announcement of its introduction has been widely welcomed. The work done by charities and voluntary organisations is enormously important in our society and often has a significant role in helping people back into work. Indeed, we have now brought forward regulations which will introduce the provision from 16th May this year.
That change is consistent with the Government's wider policies to encourage voluntary work. It will also help people who want to go back to work by allowing them to make a gradual transition. We hope that incapacity benefit claimants will be, able to take advantage of the new provision to build up their confidence and experience in the workplace.
However, as I have already explained, this is of benefit to those people who are incapable of work. There must be a point at which a person undertaking many hours of voluntary work can no longer be accepted as being incapable of work. The definition of full-time work within the social security system is 16 hours a week. It would therefore be appropriate to apply that limit to voluntary work.
I hope that the Committee will agree that there is a need to maintain some control over the amount of work people do while receiving income replacement benefits paid by the state. The amendments would remove that control.
Perhaps I may address the specific group of claimants who would be adversely affected by the 16-hour limit on therapeutic work; for example, people working in adult training centres who work for more than 16 hours a week and receive a nominal amount of remuneration, say £10. I should point out to my noble friend Lord Swinfen, that the disability working allowance—the right benefit for people working at least 16 hours a week —seeks to encourage those people to work.
We are aware that some groups of people receiving incapacity benefit who undertake rehabilitative work of more than 16 hours receive little or no remuneration for that work. I refer in particular to people who are in-patients in hospitals and other similar institutions who undertake work under medical supervision as part

331
of their treatment. For those people, claiming disability working allowance would almost certainly leave them worse off financially.
We are very concerned that such people are not adversely affected by the 16 hours limit. Indeed, we are looking carefully at ways of protecting their position. However, there is no need to amend the Bill to achieve that. If special provisions are required, they can be included in regulations made under Section 171D (1).
I shall consider carefully what has been said during the debate about therapeutic work. If we consider that changes are necessary and are required, I shall announce them during the progress of the Bill. I shall consider the issue carefully. However, I must point out to the Committee that the two amendments are not the way to satisfy the very reasonable concerns of my noble friend.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his response to the two amendments. I am a little disappointed that he does not accept entirely both amendments or our arguments on them. However, I am glad that there will be some announcements made as to the Government's response during the passage of the Bill.
Of course, there will be regulations again. Yet again we have legislation via regulation. As the Minister will know, we are not altogether happy about that. We would sooner have people protected by provision in primary legislation. I had not considered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), concerning the possibility of a sliding scale. That is a matter that can reasonably be considered. At present there is an arbitrary cut-off point. It would be much better for the people concerned if there were a sliding scale.
In view of the comments made by the Minister it is certainly not my intention to press the amendments to a vote tonight. I am glad that he will consider carefully what we have said this evening. If we return with some provision at Report stage, perhaps he will be sympathetically inclined. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 12, line 23, at end insert ("or by reason of carrying out duties as a carer.
(3) For this purpose, "carer" means a person (not being a person employed by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment) who is providing a substantial amount of care on a regular basis to a disabled person or to a person in need of community care services.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that carers who are incapable of work are not deemed to be ineligible for incapacity benefit because they happen to undertake caring duties for another sick or disabled person. The provision would make it abundantly clear to the Benefits Agency officials that carers could claim incapacity benefit in their own right as opposed to the confusion that currently exists. Many people currently in receipt of invalidity benefit are carers themselves, looking after someone who is in need
332
of greater care. Carers on invalidity benefit are often in poor health as a direct result of the physical and mental strains of their caring responsibilities.
In May 1992 the Carers National Association produced a report based on a survey of 3,000 carers. That research revealed that two out of three carers suffered from problems with their own health. The Carers National Association has evidence that under the present IVB system a person's ability to carry out caring duties such as lifting, washing, cooking, and so on, is sometimes taken into account in judging capacity for work.
One has to remember that many carers are spouses, often elderly, and because they have little help it is quite proper and natural for them to care for their spouse—male or female. If there were no help they would do that in any case. The association has been contacted by a number of carers who have told us that they have been informed by their local DSS offices that it is not possible to claim invalidity benefit if they are a carer. What nonsense! One carer was told, "You can't be disabled if you are a carer", even though he was a chronic arthritis sufferer. Another carer was told that invalidity care allowance would have to be claimed rather than invalidity benefit and that he should get his doctor to sign him off. We strongly believe that a person's caring responsibility should be ignored completely when judging capacity for work. I should like to see that made clear in relation to the new benefit.
Carers on invalidity benefit face little choice but to carry out certain caring tasks even if that means a degree of pain and health cost to themselves. That is the reality of community care and the personal sacrifices made by carers. But their willingness to perform such tasks should not be taken as an indication of a general capacity or ability to work. We would like to see the Government give assurances to that effect in introducing the new benefit. The Bill already sets a precedent by stating that work as a councillor should be disregarded for the purpose of judging capacity for work; and we believe that work as a "carer" or "caring duties" should be similarly disregarded.
If the Committee accepts this rather small amendment it will recognise the contribution being made to the United Kingdom by the 6.8 million carers who support sick, elderly and disabled people and enable them to remain in the community, as well as safeguarding their right to claim incapacity benefit.
It is the Government's wish that care should take place in the community. By caring for their relatives at home, those carers save the Government millions. I do not believe that accepting this amendment will cost the Government anything like as much as is saved. I should like my noble friends on the Front Bench to consider this: when the time comes and they are elderly, not very strong and with problems with their own health, will they not care for their spouse if their spouse needs greater care than they do? I beg to move.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has understated his case. He said that carers were saving the Exchequer millions. According to the society security Select Committee in another place, in 1990 the correct

333
figure was £24 billion a year. That is the equivalent of 12 pence on the standard rate of income tax. That amount might induce any government to think again.
I believe that the Government would be unwise to encourage those acting in their name to say, as in the cases quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, "You are incapable of work. You cannot be a carer". If the Government say that those people are incapable of caring for their own families, they will find that alternative care has to be provided under the care in the community programme. That is a programme for which money is not particularly plentiful. Such provision would be at considerable extra cost to the state. In doing that, the Government would take a considerable risk of pulling apart a number of marriages among the elderly by putting one person into residential care when the other was perfectly well able to look after him or her. I hope that the amendment will be taken seriously.
Lord Carter: It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could tell us whether the problem that has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is due to lack of clarity in the adjudication or a misunderstanding or whether it is expressing policy. When the matter was discussed in the other place in February, the Minister, Alistair Burt, said:
"Carers will be considered in the same way as everyone else to determine what their disabilities are, how they affect their capacity for work and whether they substantially reduce their opportunities of finding work".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E 22/2/94; col. 360.]
That is clear enough. However, we need to know whether the fact of caring will be taken into account in deciding on capacity for work. It is as simple as that. If the Government intend that it should not be taken into account, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell the Committee that guidance notes will be issued to adjudication officers to make that clear. That is the central question—whether the fact of caring will be taken into account in deciding on capacity for work.
Lord Rix: I support the amendment. I fear that my statistics are anecdotal and not totally accurate, but I rely on the information which, as chairman of MENCAP, I receive from hundreds of parents. Many of them are incapacitated and they look after their learning disabled offspring. The withers of Members of the Committee would be wrung if I were able to bring the stories and the lists to the Committee. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has moved an amendment of great importance from the point of view of MENCAP and I hope that the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked for will be given to us.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I do not think that I could possibly take issue over anything that is said about the importance of carers in our society. However, what we have to decide is which benefit is the right one for everyone within our society and whether it is focused on the right thing, whether it should be one benefit or another. I shall try to explain and put it in context.
Incapacity benefit, like sickness and invalidity benefit, is meant for those who are unable to work by reason of their mental or physical incapacity. Other
334
benefits are available for those who cannot work for other reasons; for example, unemployment benefit and income support for those who are unemployed; retirement pensions for the elderly; the invalid care allowance for carers; the disability living allowance for people aged under 65 who, because of illness or disability, need help with personal care and/or with mobility.
The amendment seeks to make provision for carers by amending Section 171D and states that a person shall not be treated as capable of work by reason only of caring for another person. It also seeks to define a carer, for the purposes of the Bill, as someone,
"who is providing a substantial amount of care",
for someone else, but is not employed by any organisation to do so.
I believe that my noble friend's amendment is based on a misunderstanding of the functioning of the new test. We will not be telling claimants, for example, that, if they can walk upstairs to look after a relative, they can clearly work. The new test will instead depend on an assessment of functional capacity. The test will assess a claimant's ability to perform a series of functional activities which are related to work, not their capacity to care for someone else.
However, if a claimant is found to be capable for work under the new test, they will be expected to seek work. It would be inappropriate for us to pay incapacity benefit to someone who is able to work simply because they were caring for another person. Incapacity benefit is designed to support people who cannot work because they are sick, not those who are involved in caring for other people. Carers will be considered in the same way as everyone else who wishes to claim incapacity benefit.
A wide range of other benefits exists for those who need care and their carers. First, the care component of the disability living allowance has three rates of support to meet the extra costs associated with personal care needs arising from an illness or disability. Secondly, invalid care allowance is the major benefit for carers. It provides an independent income for some caters which is paid to the person who is doing the caring. Expenditure on invalid care allowance increased from —4 million in 1979 to £345 million in 1992–93, while claimant numbers rose from 5,000 to 199,000.
Thirdly, on the carer premium in the income-related benefits, the latest estimates indicate that about 70,000 recipients of income-related benefits are being helped by the carer premium, which, of course, was introduced in October 1990.
Finally, there are also generous earnings allowances which encourage carers to retain or establish links with the employment field. Carers can earn up to £50 a week from April 1994 after deduction of allowable expenses while the carer is at work. These include national insurance contributions, fares to work, and cost of paying for the care of a child or a person living with the carer, among others.
What I am trying to point out to the Committee is that the needs of carers are addressed elsewhere in the benefit structure. They are important needs and I hope I

335
have explained to the Committee that we address them. However, my noble friend's amendment would address them through the wrong benefit.
Lord Carter: May I confirm that those conducting the test need not know that the person is a carer? They have no need to ask for that information. If people were asked whether they were caring for anyone, they would be entitled to tell the assessor to mind his own business.
Viscount Astor: We have tried to explain that the medical test is a test on the capacity to do things, it is not a test on age, education or anything else like that. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has seen the evidence on how we do the test. He makes an important point, the test is of a person's capacity to work, not the capacity to look after a relative.
Lord Carter: I am sure that that is right, but I repeat the question. Would the assessor be entitled to ask whether that person was capable of caring, if he was in a caring capacity or in a caring situation? Or has that nothing at all to do with the test?
Viscount Astor: I think that I should have to look at the proposed regulations. However, I can assure the noble Lord that it would not be our intention in any way that an assessor could use the fact that someone was caring in order to change the capacity or incapacity for work.
Earl Russell: In this House, as in games of chess, there are a limited number of gambits. I sometimes think that, as in chess, we ought to go in for naming them. What the Minister has offered us here is what I think of as the "filing clerk" defence. In arguing about appropriate categories of benefits, the noble Viscount went into great detail about the carer's premium. He seemed to assume that either you were a carer or you suffered from incapacity. He gave that impression so strongly that I became more convinced than I was before of the necessity for the amendment. I think that the Minister ought to look again at his reply to see whether it has made the case against the amendment or, as I think, the case for it.
Viscount Astor: If the noble Earl will allow me to say so, I thought I tried to explain quite clearly that there may be carers who are on incapacity benefit. I was trying to separate the two, and I hope that I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that that was a different issue from capacity for work.
Earl Russell: That is a fair enough answer but the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, quoted cases where people had been told that because they were carers they were not incapable. Will the Minister consider issuing guidance to the effect that that should not be done in future?
Viscount Astor: I shall certainly consider what the noble Earl said this evening and write to him before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Swinfen: That is a very disappointing reply, except for one ray of hope. It sounded to me, though I
336
may not be right, that my noble friend was saying: become a carer and enjoy perfect health. I have probably misquoted him but that is the impression I received.
To change the subject, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the Standing Committee in the other place had said that carers saved the nation £24 billion—I only talked of millions—or 12 pence on income tax. I wonder whether my noble friend can tell me what would be the cost of this amendment. I do not think that it would be anything like that. Or can he tell me what would be the cost of the additional home helps who would be required if these people, through lack of any benefit, were forced to go out and get work of any kind? I do not suppose that he has the figures to hand. But a little bit of simple arithmetic would show quite a healthy profit for the Treasury—and the Government seem to work an awful lot on profit and finance, which I do not always agree with.
It is getting late. I should like to digest all that my noble friend has said. I have a feeling that I shall return at the next stage with either the same amendment or an even stronger one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 12, line 23, at end insert:
("(3) Regulations may provide that a person shall be treated as incapable of work if he suffers from one or more prescribed conditions including those which have not been subject to further medical controls for invalidity benefit purposes.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 45. The intention of the amendment is to try to ensure that the list of exempt conditions will include all those that are listed by the Benefits Agency as requiring no further medical control. The Secretary of State in the other place said at Second Reading that the Government had tried to identify the groups of people whom they can tell a priori are clearly unable to work. He said that none of those would have to undergo any review process in the future. He said at some length, at col. 43 on 24th January, that the proposed list included conditions such as tetraplegia; paraplegia; persistent vegetative state; registered blindness; severe learning difficulties; and severe and progressive neurological or muscle-wasting diseases and disorders. He gave a whole list of disorders that clearly render the unfortunate sufferer incapable of work. Somewhat surprisingly, I noted, Alzheimer's disease was not included. The Secretary of State said, however, that the Government were,
"consulting leading disability organisations with a view to seeing whether the list can be extended".—(Official Report, Commons, 24/1/94; col. 43.]
The purpose of this amendment is to probe to see whether the list of conditions will cover all conditions that are currently described in Benefits Agency literature as not requiring further medical controls. That includes conditions such as congestive heart failure; pneumoconiosis; rheumatoid arthritis, and so on. Clearly people with those conditions are unlikely to be able to do future work. It seems wrong to put further stress upon them by subjecting them to a medical review. The Secretary of State seemed to accept that

337
point when speaking at Second Reading in the other place. I therefore await the Minister's response with some interest.
Earl Russell: I am happy to support this amendment. There is a case for writing into legislation the list that the Minister outlined in another place. After all, we accept the Government's intentions in the matter. This Government may not be in office forever. It would be worth having something permanent on the statute book. Also, it seems to me to be important that the test as we have it is more suited to measuring some forms of incapacity for work than it is others. Almost all benefits tests are much better in particular at dealing with physical impediments to work than they are at dealing with mental impediments. The whole approach in the Bill of functional impairment necessarily exacerbates that. There are some conditions—I am thinking particularly of schizophrenia—which it would be very, very difficult indeed to test by the procedures that the Government are laying down, but which nevertheless are ones that are very difficult to combine with regular work. If we do not take that on hoard, some unfortunate employer may find that he has appointed the successor of Christopher Clunis.
Lord Swinfen: I should also like very briefly to support this amendment. It is enabling; it would be a useful measure; it should not be difficult to operate; and it would be of considerable assistance to those who are severely disabled, incapable of work and unlikely to show any improvement.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: This amendment seeks to extend the number of people who will be exempt from the new "all work" test. It may be helpful to the Committee if I very' briefly explain our proposals on the application of the test.
We intend to apply the test to all existing claimants, except those who are clearly incapable of work. These are people who are terminally ill, those who receive the highest rate care component of disability living allowance, and people suffering from one of a number of severe, incapacitating disabilities. The same categories will apply to new claimants. In addition, existing claimants who were receiving invalidity benefit on 1st December last year and are still in receipt and aged 58 or over when the new benefit is introduced will also be exempt.
The new test assesses the effects of a person's medical condition on their capacity for work. Such effects can vary widely, we know, over time and between individuals. In only a limited number of serious conditions can incapacity for work be assumed. We have—as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said—produced a provisional list of these conditions. That was announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place at Second Reading on 24th January. We want to be sure that the list is full and complete. As the noble Baroness said, to help us, we have consulted the disability organisations, including the Disability Benefits Consortium, which represents the leading disability organisations and includes the
338
British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, the Disability Alliance, the Disablement Income Group and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. We have asked the consortium for its views by the end of April. The amendment seeks to extend the proposed list by adding to it all the medical conditions, which, under the current system, means that no further medical controls are carried out.
As the Committee is aware, under the current system, when a claim is received, the adjudication officer consults written guidance prepared by the Benefits Agency Medical Services on the likely time the average person would take to recover from the particular medical condition involved The adjudication officer then decides whether any further medical control action should take place. In certain cases, where recovery i s unlikely or the claimant's condition is unlikely to improve, the written guidance advises no reference or no further reference so long as the claimant is suffering from that particular condition.
Accepting the amendment would increase the number of exemptions from the new test. All those existing claimants —about half a million in number—whose cases are marked for no further control would be exempt, as would anyone who claimed the new benefit and was suffering from one of the relevant conditions.
I cannot accept the amendment. It seeks to introduce into the new benefit much of the current system of control, which we consider to be ineffective. The list of medical conditions that is used at the moment is out of date and would require serious revision if we were retaining the current system. It was designed as part of the current system and it would be inappropriate to import it into a new, very different, benefit. It does not take account of recent advances which have improved the management of certain medical conditions. For example, people suffering from ischaemic heart disease can now benefit from treatment techniques which increase markedly their chances of getting better.
The list of serious incapacitating disabilities that is being developed will ensure that both existing and new claimants who are clearly incapable of work will not be bothered by the application of the new test. It is right that other people whose incapacity cannot be assumed should undergo the new test. Many of them will be found incapable of work. The amendment seeks to import part of the current ineffective control system into the new benefit.
Perhaps I could just take up the point about Alzheimer's disease made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. It is in fact included as one of the exemptions under "dementia". With regard to schizophrenia, sufferers are likely to fall into the category of severe mental illness. They will not be asked to complete a questionnaire. The department's doctor will liaise with the claimant's GP to gather that necessary information.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baroness for what she said about schizophrenia but I wonder whether she could perhaps be just a little more forthcoming. She said that such people were very likely not to fall into the new test. Will she go just that little bit further and say that they will not do so? It is particularly difficult for a

339
schizophrenic to fill in a questionnaire setting out his own mental state. Such people usually think that they are absolutely and completely sane and if anyone is not sane it is all the rest of the people over there! I feel that it would be wise for the Government to do that. It would save them a great deal of trouble and increase goodwill, which is usually worth doing when it does not cost anything.
Baroness Cumberlege: The information would come from the GP and the consultant psychiatrist. If that were their diagnosis, those people would be exempt from having to fill in a questionnaire or undergo any test.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am glad to hear from the noble Baroness that consultations are proceeding with the organisations representing the disabled and that agreement over a list is expected. I am also glad to know that Alzheimer's disease is included, because I raised that matter quite specifically.
However, I still remain a little suspicious. The Minister's reference to having to move away from the present system of control simply leads me to believe that this is part of the Government's move to cut the costs of benefit and part of the move to save on benefits which would otherwise have been paid under the existing system. She will know from all the contributions that have been made, not only from this side of the Chamber but from various parts of the Committee, that many of us are very concerned that people who would be eligible for benefits under the present system, will find themselves out on a limb under these proposals.
I shall not press the amendment at this late stage and with such a thin Chamber. I am still not terribly happy with the response that was made to what I believe were very reasonable propositions from this side of the Committee. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 12, line 23, at end insert:
("Incapacity for work: disqualification, &c.
171DA—(1) Regulations may provide for disqualifying a person for receiving any benefit, allowance or other advantage under any provision for the purposes of which this Part of this Act applies, or, in such cases as may be prescribed, provide that a person shall be treated as capable of work, if—

(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 in accordance with the regulations; or

(c) he fails without good cause to observe any prescribed rules of behaviour.

(2) Regulations shall provide that any such disqualification shall be, or as the case may be that the person shall be treated as capable of work, for such period not exceeding 6 weeks as may be determined in accordance with Part II of the Administration Act.
(3) Regulations may prescribe for the purposes of this section—
340

(a) matters which are or are not to be taken into account in determining whether a person does or does not have good cause for any act or omission, or

(b) circumstances in which a person is or is not to be regarded as having or not having good cause for any act or omission.").

The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 13, line 26, leave out from ("person") to end of line 27 and insert ("—

(a) is, or is to be treated as, capable or incapable of work, or

(b) falls to be disqualified for any period in accordance with regulations under section 171DA of that Act,

and to the determination for any such purpose of such other related questions as may be prescribed.").
The noble Viscount said: Again, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 13, line 30, leave out from ("conclusive") to ("for") in line 31.
The noble Viscount said: This amendment to Clause 6 removes an unnecessary provision. Our intention is that where there has been a determination that a person is, or is not, capable of work, then the determination will apply:
"for any purpose for which the provisions of Part X11A of the Contributions and Benefits Act apply".
I understand that that is the right Part of the Act, but I shall check it. The determination will continue to apply to all the other parts of the social security system for as long as the initial determination stands.
Thus, a person who is found to be capable of work, having failed the "all work" test in connection with a claim for incapacity benefit, will be considered capable of work for other social security purposes, such as entitlement to the disability premium in income support or when applying for national insurance contribution credits.
The current wording of Section 61A(2) allows circumstances and periods to be prescribed in connection with this determination. In fact, there is no need to prescribe any circumstances or period for this determination. Therefore, the effect of this amendment is to delete the unnecessary words. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
Page 13, line 31, at end insert:
("Regulations may in particular provide that a determination that a person is disqualified for any period in accordance with regulations under section 171DA of the Contributions and Benefits Act shall have effect for such purposes as may be prescribed as a determination that he is to be treated as capable of work for that period, and vice versa.").
Page 13, line 32, leave out from ("for") to ("to") in line 35 and insert ("questions of such descriptions as may be prescribed").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to both these amendments with Amendment No. 18. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 13, line 39, leave Out from ("tribunal") to ("and") in line 41 and insert ("to include one member with medical qualifications").
The noble and learned Lord said: I move this amendment in an interrogative spirit, or partly so, motivated by a thirst for knowledge. However, lest the Government Front Bench take too much comfort too quickly, it is done only partly in that spirit.
The amendment relates to the constitution of the tribunal which will hear appeals against the adjudications which the Committee has been discussing. I do not seek to reopen the debates about the issues which will fall to be decided. I appreciate that the questions will relate not to medical theory but pragmatically to what the claimant can and cannot do, and that a claim will be initiated on the basis of a self-assessment. As I understand it, clearly it is envisaged that what the claimant says will be tested in some way. The benefit will not be paid just because it is claimed. The fact that the Bill provides for adjudications makes that clear. Testing whether a claimant's condition renders him incapable of work inevitably entails medical questions. So much, I understand, is common ground and it forms the basis of the Bill.
This amendment is concerned with how appeals from the adjudications can be most conveniently and fairly decided. At the outset, I should declare an interest. The Council on Tribunals, which I am privileged to chair, was consulted on this Bill. I say at once that we are grateful for the good relations that we have with the Department of Social Security. The council, having been called on to address the problem, duly addressed it. It is no secret that we have continuing discussions on a whole range of matters with a number of bodies which are concerned with these issues, including the office of the president of the Independent Tribunals Service.
I accept that for any tribunal which has to consider medical questions there is a problem, unless every hearing is to be unacceptably long and expensive. Medical evidence will normally be tendered in writing. A claimant appealing to any tribunal about a medical condition will be well advised to bring along a medical report, usually from his general practitioner and sometimes from the consultant who has been treating him.
If every report were full, clear and—dare I say it? —legible, there would probably be no need for this provision in the Bill. If it were expressed in language which was readily comprehensible by lay people, usually—not always, but usually—a tribunal of three lay people would assess the report, decide whether it was consistent with what the claimant said and, it is to be hoped, decide the case. I hope that the medical profession will forgive me when I say that the standard of medical reports produced to tribunals varies, at least those which we have at the moment to adjudicate on invalidity benefit. Some are very good and very clear. Sometimes they are virtually incomprehensible, sometimes they do not address the question at issue and sometimes they consist of a one line certificate from a general practitioner saying that X is unfit for work. Not
342
infrequently, alas, they are handwritten and quite illegible. If that is construed as a criticism of the medical profession, I hasten to say that the legal profession, too, has its occasional lapses.
I should add that sometimes a claimant before a tribunal, asked about a medical certificate, replies that the doctor makes a financial charge for a report and that the reason why he is appearing before the tribunal is that he has no money. In the absence of medical evidence, as we heard in a debate earlier today, a tribunal is sometimes reduced to assessing a claimant by noting how he walks into the tribunal hearing room, which basically is relying on uninformed guesswork.
I suspect that all this is recognised by the Government, which is why they have sought to make the provision which we have in the Bill; namely, that the tribunal shall be a social security appeal tribunal with provision for a medical assessor. It would help to be told the reasoning behind this because, so far as I am aware, the Committee has not yet been told. But what troubles us about the Government's solution is twofold: there is an objection relating to legal theory and an objection which is severely pragmatic. To say that an objection is theoretical is not to say that it is unreal; it relates to safeguards for natural justice.
The courts are always a little uneasy when they are sitting with assessors. If an assessor simply listens to the evidence and then privately tells the court what view he has formed of the issues, then, if the court is to make any use of the assessor's expertise, it will be relying on the assessment of someone who is not a member of the court. It will be forming a judgment al second hand. If the assessor's advice is not made known to the parties, it cannot be challenged or addressed in argument. In effect, a contribution which may be vital to the case has been made by someone who, like the court itself, cannot be challenged but who is not the person whom Parliament has charged with deciding the issue. If the assessor's advice is made known to the parties, then it is virtually essential that it should be open to be explored and challenged. The assessor in effect becomes a witness, although admittedly one called by the tour: and not by the parties. So there is an ambiguity in the position of an assessor which can create difficulties in ensuring that justice is done.
The pragmatic problem is that those who appear before a tribunal will find it difficult to understand just who this doctor is and what he is doing there. He is likely to be perceived as deciding the issue. All the reasons why the tribunal consists of three members disappear out of the window. The whole philosophy of the three-member tribunal, as the Department of Social Security frequently reminds us, is that the adjudicators should be lay adjudicators who form a cross-section of the community and whose role is to weigh the evidence. Admittedly, despite these advantages, some courts in dealing with specific questions do find on balance that it is better to have adjudicators. But that does not dispense with the disadvantages of adjudicators.
I say at once that I believe the best approach would be to provide proper medical evidence which can be heard by everyone concerned, tested and challenged. But I accept that that would entail providing advice and

343
assistance on a fairly substantial basis and that would probably be legal as well as medical advice. But if instead there is to be a medically qualified person involved in the adjudicative process, then the Council on Tribunals believes that it would be better if one member of the tribunal were a doctor. Then he could ask such questions as he considered necessary; the claimant would know who this doctor was and what he was doing there and the doctor could discuss the case with his colleagues and share responsibility for the decision.
It would of course be a separate question whether there would be provision to examine the claimant. I appreciate that there have been debates about whether claimants should be subjected to a further examination. I only make the point that if there is to be a medical examination it is probably better that it should be by a member of the tribunal who is going to participate in arriving at a decision.
There is already in existence a tribunal which includes medically qualified members—that is to say, the disability appeal tribunal. I suspect that at least one reason why the Government have preferred the social security appeal tribunal is because it is cheaper. The members do not require to be paid as members of disability appeal tribunals do, although I confess that I have never understood why members of some tribunals are paid and members of others are expected to give their services free.
I accept of course that saving resources is a perfectly legitimate reason for taking a decision. There is nothing wicked about trying to save money, particularly if the money saved is devoted to some of the causes which a number of us would suggest and which are suffering from a lack of resources. I take leave to doubt if having medical assessors is a way of achieving the savings, however. If, as I assume, doctors will be persuaded to act as assessors by a suitable fee on a case-by-case basis, and assuming that the list is going to contain, say, five cases in a morning, then a doctor's total receipts for his earnings will cost the Treasury certainly no less than if the same doctor were a member of the tribunal and were paid for his attendance and probably rather more than if the medical evidence were paid for in the first place and the question did not arise. If it is feared that to pay a medical member of the tribunal when the other members are not paid may lead to some resentment among the lay members of the tribunal, I doubt whether that resentment would be dissipated if they learnt that even more money was being paid to the medical assessor.
I do not claim that these are easy questions. I understand that the matter was debated briefly in committee in another place. I wanted to read that debate, but the printed version of the report is not available so I have not been able to read it. It may be that the noble Viscount can enlighten me.
I would be reluctant to say that this is simply a probing amendment. I hope that I have not simply asked a question, but rather have made a case, although that is not inconsistent with being open to persuasion if the noble Viscount can persuade us. In that spirit I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I support the case made by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. This is a very important point. The tribunal will be dealing with poor people who will not be represented. It is therefore reasonable that a member of the tribunal should have medical qualifications that would enable him to participate in the final decision, which is more likely to be medically justified than otherwise. I support what is being said.
Viscount Astor: When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, first stood up I thought that we were going to have a debate as to whether it was more difficult to read a doctor's note or a lawyer's handwriting. But with his expertise in the area of tribunals he quite rightly widened the argument and the case into this quite complex and extremely important area.
We intend that, in cases involving questions of incapacity, social security appeal tribunals will be assisted by a medical assessor. This amendment seeks to ensure that one member of the tribunal will also be medically qualified.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: If the amendment is misleading, the drafting of the amendment was entirely mine and I take full responsibility. I was not suggesting that there should be both an assessor and a member of the tribunal. I was suggesting that the assessor should be replaced by a member of the tribunal.
Viscount Astor: I take the noble and learned Lord's point. We are making provision for appeal tribunals to have access to medical expertise. Our intention is that appeals against decisions made by an adjudication officer on incapacity benefit shall go to social security appeal tribunals. These tribunals comprise a legally qualified chairman, who guides the proceedings and advises on the law, and two lay members. This arrangement reflects the existing provision in invalidity and sickness benefits.
We consider that the most sensitive appeals on incapacity benefit will be those which concern a dispute about the limiting effects of the medical condition on the claimant's capacity for work. In these cases we think that the tribunal should have access to independent medical expertise. Of course, the members of the tribunal will weigh and assess the evidence. They are trained in this and will make the decision. However, to assist and clarify technical medical questions, a medical assessor will sit with the tribunal in those cases where the appeal concerns the question of whether the claimant is capable of work on the "all work" test.
Existing legislation provides for the appointment of such medical assessors at the tribunal chairman's discretion. Our proposal will improve the current situation, in that it will require tribunals to appoint medical assessors in the cases I have described above.
When we were considering the arrangements for the adjudication of incapacity benefit, consideration was given to the merits of including a medically qualified member on a social security appeal tribunal. Some people have asked why we do not propose to have

345
medical appeal tribunals or disability appeal tribunals for appeals on incapacity. We concluded that we should not do so. Medical appeal tribunals are specialised tribunals. They are made up of one lawyer and two medical consultants. The test of capacity for work does not require the degree of clinical specialty offered by medical appeal tribunals and needed for assessing awards in industrial injury benefit and severe disablement allowance. A specialist consultant is not necessarily the best person to judge general incapacity for work.
Disability appeal tribunals have been specifically constituted to consider the range of issues that can arise in disability benefits. Throughout the development of incapacity benefit, we have been careful to draw the distinction between the conditions of entitlement to disability and incapacity benefits. Entitlement to incapacity benefit will depend on the effects of disability on capacity for work.
The intention is that the tribunal will assess all the evidence presented. This will be provided by the claimant and/or their representative, their GP or hospital doctor, and a departmental doctor. The tribunal will reach a decision on that evidence of whether a claimant is incapable of work.
The question before the tribunal is whether, on the evidence before it, the claimant is incapable of work. It is not intended that the tribunal should reach its own decision on the claimant's medical condition. Neither the tribunal members nor the medical assessor have powers to examine the claimant. This is the situation that applies when social security appeal tribunals determine whether a person is incapable of work for the purposes of sickness benefit and invalidity benefit. It is very different from the medical appeal tribunals where the specialist doctors are members of the tribunal, bring their own expertise to bear on the case before them and reach their own conclusions on the claimant's condition, often as a result of examining the claimant. The noble and learned Lord asked me about fees. I can assure him that the question of fees had no impact on our choice of the proposed adjudication system.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for answering at least that question. I hope he will not take offence if I say that two-thirds of what he said was simply setting out what your Lordships know already because it is in the Bill. I never suggested for a moment that the appropriate tribunal was the medical appeal tribunal. If it will help to narrow this discussion, I say at once publicly that I do not think a medical appeal tribunal would be the appropriate tribunal. I am not sure I understood the reasons given by the noble Viscount for eliminating the disablement appeal tribunal, but I promise that I shall read what he said. In fact, if I may, I shall do a deal with the noble Viscount. I appreciate that his briefing was prepared before he heard what I had to say. I shall read very carefully what he said on the basis that he will read what I said; and then possibly there may be a greater meeting of minds if we return to this matter at Report stage. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again at eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Road Traffic Regulation (Special Events) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Insolvency Bill
7.14 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill, which amends the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, is to enable certain transfers of property, made in good faith and for value, but with knowledge on the part of the purchaser that there has previously been a transaction at an undervalue or a preference, within defined time limits, to be proceeded with more safely than at present. Under the present law, those who receive the property under such transfer may find themselves in jeopardy because of wording first used in the sections of the Insolvency Act 1986 which allow trustees in bankruptcy and administrators and liquidators of companies to apply to the court for an order to recover property which has been given away or otherwise parted with.
In a typical case, a prospective house purchaser discovers that there has been, within the previous five years, what is referred to in Section 339 of the 1986 Act as a transaction at an undervalue. Such a transaction may be an outright gift, or a gift in consideration of marriage, or a sale at a price significantly less than the value of the house. Anyone buying the house within five years after such a transaction, and with knowledge of it, is at risk for the remainder of the five-year period. That is because, where there has been a transaction at an undervalue and the initiator, for want of a better word, of the transaction goes bankrupt within five years, his trustee in bankruptcy can make an application to the court. Such an application might result in an order being made for the transfer of the house to the trustee for the benefit of the creditors. Section 342 provides that such an order cannot be made against a third party purchaser who has acquired the property in good faith, for value and without notice of the relevant circumstances. The phrase "without notice of the relevant circumstances" is taken to mean "without notice that there has been the transaction at an undervalue or a preference within the relevant previous period", and this is what creates the difficulty. Many innocent third party purchasers will inevitably have this notice.
Where land is registered at the Land Registry, the fact that a sale at an undervalue has taken place in the past is not normally recorded in the registers of the title Therefore, a purchaser will not normally acquire knowledge of an earlier transaction at an undervalue. On

347
the other hand, where the land is unregistered, and the seller has normally to show his title for at least 15 years, the purchaser will acquire knowledge of the relevant circumstances once the title has been examined. I understand that several million houses are still unregistered, although registration is now compulsory throughout England and Wales whenever a sale takes place. It is self-evidently unsatisfactory that whether a third-party purchaser is affected by knowledge of an undervalue transaction may depend on whether or not the land has a registered title.
Transactions at an undervalue frequently take place within families, passing property between husband and wife (including transfers when a marriage is dissolved) and between the generations of a family. There are many occasions when the provisions of the 1986 Act can cause problems for subsequent purchasers. Where a purchaser has knowledge of the earlier transaction at an undervalue he will be advised, and almost certainly required where he is taking out a mortgage loan, to insure against the risk of the subsequent bankruptcy and what may follow from it. It has to be said at once that the likelihood of a sale to a bona fide purchaser being upset in favour of a trustee in bankruptcy is in fact very remote, and so far as is known there have been no attempts by trustees in bankruptcy to enforce their rights under the 1986 Act. But the premiums charged by insurance companies may run to a thousand pounds and more. Also, the need to obtain insurance will involve inquiries as to the circumstances in which the original transaction at an undervalue came to be made, and the financial circumstances of the person who initiated it. And information may not be easy to come by. This inevitably causes unwelcome delay in conveyancing which may affect not only the seller and purchaser concerned but also other sellers and purchasers in a chain. Quite apart from that, no house purchaser wants to be told that there is a chance, however remote, that he may lose his home and that if that happens he will be compensated by insurance.
I have been speaking until now in the context of the application of the Bill to purchases of land. The Bill applies to undervalue transactions and preferences affecting all forms of property, not just to land transactions. It is nevertheless largely in the case of unregistered land transactions that a third party purchaser may acquire notice of an earlier transaction at an undervalue. So the beneficiaries of this Bill are expected, for the most part, to be such purchasers.
Turning now to examine the Bill, Clause 2 provides for the usual and typical case which I have been describing. The clause provides for the amendment of Section 342 of the 1986 Act so that if the Bill becomes law, the saving in that section for a third party purchaser for value and in good faith will no longer be negatived merely by the purchaser's knowledge of an earlier transaction at an undervalue or preference. It is only if the purchaser was an associate of the person initiating the transaction at an undervalue or preference, or of the person benefiting under it, or if he also had knowledge of the bankruptcy or pending bankruptcy of the person initiating the transaction or preference, that there will be
348
a presumption that he did not buy in good faith. That resumption will be rebuttable. The result of that will be, for example, that a third party purchaser buying in good faith and for value, say two years after a gift, will not have to wait a further three years to be certain that he is safe, if he has had no knowledge or notice of a pending or actual bankruptcy of the initiator. Moreover, even if a petition or bankruptcy has been registered, almost every third party purchaser in good faith will not know the bankrupt or anything about him and may well therefore be able to rebut the presumption that he did not purchase in good faith. The effect of the clause should be to speed conveyancing and greatly reduce the need for insurance in the cases where problems arise.
The 1986 Act contains similar but less severe provisions in Sections 238 to 241, allowing administrators or liquidators of companies to recover property transferred at an undervalue or given in preference. Clause 1 of the Bill makes similar amendments to the 1986 Act for the protection of third party purchasers in such cases. I should say that I am advised that the administration and liquidation provisions have proved far less troublesome to subsequent purchasers than have the bankruptcy provisions.
Clauses 3 and 4 make similar amendments to the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 to those contained in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, which apply only to England and Wales.
Clause 5 provides that the amendments made by the Bill to the Insolvency Act 1986 bind the Crown, and that the amendments made by it to the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 bind the Crown in accordance with Article 378 of that order.
Clause 6 provides that the Bill will come into effect two months after it has received Royal Assent. Clause 6 also provides, most importantly, that the Bill will apply only to interests acquired and benefits received after the Bill has come into force. I am advised that that means that the Bill will cover all third party transactions taking place after the Bill comes into force.
I have personal pleasure rising today to commend this Bill to the House, both because I have been associated intermittently since 1988 with the Law Society's efforts to secure a change in the law, and because only last year I found myself counselling and advising friends who had found just the house they wanted, only to discover that the title included a recent property transfer arising out of a matrimonial breakdown. It took the best part of six months of frustration to both parties while an acceptable indemnity was negotiated.
Gratitude is owned to the Insolvency Service, an executive agency within the Department of Trade and Industry, for readily recognising the problem affecting innocent purchasers of property, for proposing the solution contained in this Bill and for advice and assistance with its drafting. It has taken some time to bring it before the House, but it has been necessary to work out a fair balance between the interests of the creditors of a bankrupt, and the interests of third parties who have acquired property which might otherwise

349
have been available for the satisfaction of those creditors. I believe that such a fair balance has been struck in this Bill.
Finally, I would like to mention my honourable colleague, Mr. John Butterfill MP, who introduced the Bill in another place and whose efforts secured all-party support for it there, as well as a speedy passage. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Coleraine.)
7.24 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the Title of this Bill is the Insolvency Bill and it is with the same rapidity as Mr. Micawber continually found himself insolvent that this measure was dealt with in another place. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, my admiration for the way in which the matter was speeded up in the other place, thereby showing unanimous agreement. I should like to recite to the House Col. No. 1297 in the annals of the other place, which reads as follows:

INSOLVENCY BILL
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Butterfill.)
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed."—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/94; col. 1297.]
It is for that reason that I express the gratitude of this House to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, for the very detailed way in which, with great clarity, he told us the purpose of the Bill, the Second Reading of which he moved. We have listened to him with great respect.
We in this House know what the Bill is about and that it is a good Bill. The Law Society, of which I am proud to be a member, as is the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, did a great job of work for ordinary people in this country who, when they purchased their houses, were put in great difficulty, especially when the land was unregistered, as the noble Lord mentioned. The Law Society hated the idea of such purchasers being burdened by questions from mortgagees which meant that a lot of further investigation of the title and satisfaction of those requests had to be carried out.
This is a good Bill which will, I am sure, have the Government's support. In those circumstances, although it may not be passed in this House with the rapidity with which it passed through the other House, I hope that it will have a very swift passage.
7.26 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I too would like to extend thanks to my noble friend Lord Coleraine for taking this important Bill through this House, and to my honourable friend the Member for Bournemouth, West for taking the Bill through another place.
As has been said, the Insolvency Act 1986 rightly enables assets transferred at an undervalue, or given in preference before an insolvency, to be recovered for the benefit of creditors. However, members of the ordinary house-buying public are, at the moment, being put to unnecessary expense and inconvenience because of these provisions. In many of the cases, they are being
350
required to take out insurance against title if they become aware of a previous transaction at an undervalue.
The Bill gives additional protection to innocent third party purchasers and will greatly reduce this burden, while maintaining safeguards for creditors.
The Government welcome the Bill and are pleased to give it their support.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful for the unstinting support that has been given to the Bill by my noble friend Lord Goschen and by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, speaking from the Dispatch Box opposite. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.28 to 8 p.m.]

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 6.
Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 14, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4) below,").
The noble Earl said:
"The eyes of men,
After a well-graced actor leaves the stage,
Are idly bent upon him that enters next".
Even so, one feels, if one is asked to move the first amendment after dinner, that one is facing competition which one cannot possibly match. Nevertheless, I am glad to see that there are at least a few people present in the Chamber.
I rise to move Amendment No. 53 and with it to speak to Amendment No. 60, which is consequential upon it. The point of the amendment is to give us power to approve the medical test by vote before it actually comes into force.
Of course I know that we already have a procedure for affirmative resolution. Voting on that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has pointed out, can happen, and has happened. The point was made on the 13th of this month by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in the debate on the role of this place; but, nevertheless, that is on occasion a procedure which gives rise to a certain amount of debate, whereas voting on a resolution precedent to the moving of the affirmative instrument is more widely recognised in this place to be a normal procedure, and has been used constantly.
The point is, where we are having parliamentary authority invoked on something which is extremely controversial, there must at some stage be a chance far this place to vote to decide whether it approves it or not. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has already argued today on the first amendment that the tests are not yet in a complete state. In fact, I think her exact

351
words were, "They are not ready". So, if they are not ready, it seems a pity if our last chance to give or withhold approval were to be at a stage where we are voting on something which is at best provisional because, however deep our objections are, it is possible —all things are possible—that future changes might make our objections less fundamental. So, forcing us to vote at this stage, when we could vote when we have the completed product to vote on—possibly after further consultation—might lead more people to vote against the Government than would otherwise do so in different circumstances.
I am, as I think I have made fairly clear today, fundamentally opposed in principle to the tests as they presently stand; but I should be reluctant to have to vote out Clause 5 as the only means of expressing that. It seems to me that by leaving the decision until we have the thing properly before us is a more orderly form of procedure. When I had the privilege of listening to the doctors from the Benefits Agency Medical Service I was taken aback because I suddenly recognised, in almost all the details, the same procedure which is being used at the moment to assess my teaching. It seemed quite painfully familiar. So much so that I wondered whether perhaps in this debate I should declare an interest. The only difference was that this procedure leaves out by the skin of its teeth the one thing which made that proposal acceptable to us.
There was there, as there is here, a form to be filled in to which there were set right answers, and any department that scored highly on that form should be ashamed of itself. But the one saving grace there was the opportunity for professional judgment: that the teaching was actually observed by competent people who then had to pronounce practically—the Government might say subjectively—on how good it was. That is the feature which is missing from these tests in restricting both the GP and the Benefits Agency Medical Service doctor from expressing an opinion on whether the patient is capable of work.
There is here a constitutional question upon which I should like to ask for some advice from the Minister, if he is capable of giving it. Where one has, in effect, an identical policy put forward in a large number of departments—and it is not just two, because what is attempted to be done to the magistrates in the current Bill is very similar—whom does one hold responsible? It is all very well to say that the Secretary of State is responsible for the policy of his own department. That is clearly the case, but who is responsible for a policy like this which stretches across the scope of a great many departments?
If I were to put down a Question asking the Government to cease the policy of relying upon these allegedly objective quantifiable tests for assessments, which department would answer that Question?
Though I am implacably opposed to the use of this allegedly objective test, there are certain things which could be done which might make the opposition less implacable. I recognise that I speak from the Opposition side of a Chamber whose powers are limited. I am not asking for the moon. There are certain things which
352
could be done before we reach the final stage which might make it easier for me not to vote against these tests. One is the introduction of a greater element of professional judgment, and with professional judgment must necessarily come a greater awareness of an individual case, because cases are individual. I shall take one, if I may, out of Sherlock Holmes: a man who never completed a meal without taking out his false teeth and throwing them at the person opposite. Since that was a compulsion, it might have rendered him fit to be classified as incapable of work. But I do not think that the tests we have now would in any way show that up.
I shall not say any more about the all-work question. I have said enough about that already; but it would help me if the Government were prepared to undertake to leave mental health out of the allegedly objective test. We have a note which is a study in careful drafting at the bottom of page 27 of the consultation paper. It states:
"Measuring mental health problems presents particular difficulties. As in the OPCS surveys the questions on mental health problems have been devised in a different fashion from the other categories. This set of experimental descriptions will attempt to build a composite picture of the impact of mental health on capacity for work".
Of course, it will not succeed. I asked the Government to take a little more notice of that warning note in their consultation document.
I suggest to the Government that, in considering the tests and making what is intended to be an exhaustive list, they may have forgotten something. There may be some condition—possibly a rare one but even minorities have rights—which renders people incapable of work but which does not show up in the test. If I could get a move towards compromise on those points I should find that helpful.
Before leaving the issue, I wish to probe what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said about cases in which the House had divided on regulations. I know that such events have occurred but until recently the Government have frowned on the practice. Was the noble Baroness telling me that the Government would no longer frown on a Division in respect of regulations? If she were to tell me that and to put it in the record, that really would make my amendment unnecessary, and I should be glad to hear it. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I entirely understand the purpose of the two amendments. I wish to confirm their effect and to put a point to the Government. The effect appears to be that the five provisions in this clause of the Bill will be dealt with differently. The first group of provisions—that is Section 171A—would be permanently subject to the affirmative procedure. That is to say, anything which arose under Section 171A would have to come to both Houses of Parliament, and therefore be subject to debate and to a possible vote.
As the Committee knows, I am a member of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. In our debates on Tuesday a change was made to the Bill as a consequence of paragraphs 7 to 11 of the Select Committee's fifth report; that is, to extend the number of years from three to four. The Select Committee suggested that the period should begin after the commencement of this part of the Bill rather than from

353
Royal Assent. That matter was dealt with earlier. The five series of provisions with which we are dealing are therefore subject to affirmative resolution for four years. The noble Earl appears to be seeking that one group of the provisions shall continue after that.
I may be wrong about that and, if so, perhaps the noble Earl will correct me. However, we must ask the Government whether it will be four years from Royal Assent before the provisions relating to the test and the matters raised by the noble Earl will be before us. If the Minister can guarantee that the matter will come before us within four years, the affirmative procedure will in any case be used in both Houses of Parliament.
Am I right in the effects of the two amendments? If so, will the Government assure the Committee that we will be dealing with this subject within four years of Royal Assent and that therefore we shall automatically deal with it by affirmative procedure?
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for a helpful speech. It was not my intention to make the amendment apply for the scope of four years. I simply want us to be able to vote on the first introduction of the test, without which the Bill as a whole cannot operate. If it will make the amendment more acceptable to the Government, I am ready to amend that point before we come to Report. I thank the noble Lord for pointing that out.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I wish to add only that as regards the substance, I agree with everything that the noble Earl has said about mental health and schizophrenia. That is a difficult subject. I am patron of the Schizophrenia Fellowship in Scotland and unfortunately have personal knowledge of that dread disease. I agree with everything that the noble Earl said on the substance but am merely concerned with the effect of the amendments and with understanding when the affirmative procedure will be used.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: It is not often that one's intervention or support for an amendment can be summed up in two words: "Why not?". I shall be interested to hear the Government's explanation of why we cannot have an approach along the lines proposed by the noble Earl.
I was struck by the noble Earl's analogy in saying that he recognised the tests because he had to use them as a teacher. I quickly pulled out two or three. In order to underline what some of us considered to be the doubtful validity of the test, one could substitute the word "teacher" for the curious word "customer", which is used in the DSS draft. It would then read:
"Assuming no language barrier, can the teacher's speech be understood without difficulty? Do the teacher's thoughts tend to be muddled or slow? Does the teacher often lose track of what is being said in the middle of a conversation? Does the teacher often forget what he or she was doing in the middle of doing something? Does the teacher display any disturbance in normal behaviour? Does the teacher find it difficult to stir himself or herself to do things?".
When that substitution is applied to the test one can understand why some of us doubt its validity.
354
I have asked the Government to give reasons why this approach should not be adopted. Furthermore, it would be extremely helpful if the Minister could give us the precedent for the proposal. I have been a Member for only eight years but I cannot remember a major social security Bill—and I have been involved with most of them—in which so many provisions have been left to regulations which are not in draft and have not yet seen the light of day. Will the Minister say whether there are precedents or whether, as we fear, we are embarking on new ground? If so, what is the justification?
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I support the amendment. I have been quiet, sitting beside my noble friend Lord Russell all afternoon. It has become blatantly obvious that the regulations relating to the test concern Members on all sides of the Committee. I should welcome the chance of having a full debate and being able to vote on the regulations before they come here as an affirmative resolution.
We were told that we vote on affirmative resolutions. I was always under the impression that we did not do so and therefore I have learnt something today. However, the chances of properly debating the matter, or amending it in a small degree, would be most important to this Chamber. I agree with my noble friend Lord Russell that if we could vote on the regulations, that would go a long way towards enabling us to accept the future business of the Bill.
Lord Carter: It would be helpful if the Minister would confirm that the rules of the House mean that we cannot amend a regulation and that it is only convention that we do not vote against it. As regards this Bill, the Government are straining our patience with the convention a very long way.
Lord Swinfen: If regulations are introduced first into this House rather than the other place—and on this Bill I think that would be a good idea—can we vote against them or even pray against them? I am not quite sure what is the technical term.
Viscount Astor: I looked at the footnote to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred, which he equated to education. One could equate it with trying to take a Bill through this House. If one were frequently muddled or confused, one would receive a severity score of 21.5; but if one got so upset that one broke or ripped things up, one would only receive a score of 18.
Lord Carter: If the Minister is trying to prove that government Ministers are incapable of work, we are entirely prepared to agree with him.
Viscount Astor: I am not trying to prove that. I am. merely pointing out to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that one can take parts of the test and apply them to anything one wishes. But the whole point about the test is that it must be taken in its totality.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raises an important matter. I realised that he was particularly interested in this issue and I read the memorandum which he wrote in his evidence to the Select Committee on regulations and his feelings about them. I believe I am right to say that his amendment would require the passing of a.

355
Motion by both Houses of Parliament before regulations could be made under the provisions of Clauses 5 to 7. That is how I understand the amendment.
I do not believe that it is right that we should have a further debate on the details of the medical test. I understand the points which the noble Earl made. There is a special test for people with severe mental illness to ensure that they are not subject to unnecessary medical examinations. A doctor will use his clinical judgment in forming an opinion on an individual basis which will take account of the claimant's mental and physical health, any disabilities that he suffers and the effects of pain, stress or fatigue because many effects can vary from day to day and, indeed, from hour to hour. The doctor will form an assessment of those effects over time.
The noble Earl asked who is responsible for the tests. This is a Social Security Bill. The Secretary of State for Social Security has policy responsibility for social security matters. Therefore, he is responsible for policy and provisions relating to incapacity for work, obtaining social security benefit and so on. If the noble Earl asks questions in the future and I am still answering on behalf of the Department of Social Security, I shall be answering his questions.
Perhaps I may use this opportunity to clarify a matter for my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Although he is not in his place at the moment, I am sure that he will read what has been said. When my noble friend Lady Cumberlege pointed out that the House has voted against regulations, she did not mean necessarily that the vote had succeeded. She merely meant that regulations had been voted against on 26 occasions since 1979, and in particular on three occasions in which the Department of Social Security was involved.
The noble Earl asked me whether the Government frowned upon that. That is a matter for the House as a whole. Indeed, there is a convention but that obviously does not preclude your Lordships voting or attempting to vote down regulations if that is the wish of this House. It is that wish that matters.
Earl Russell: I quite accept that it is the will of this House which matters, but I should like to know what advice the Government would give to the House.
Viscount Astor: The Government can only give the House advice on the issues that are before it at the time. I realise that discussions about our procedures take place in your Lordships' House to which I am not necessarily party. I do not believe that it is right to go into them now. I note what the noble Earl says.
We have developed other methods of opposing delegated legislation. Motions can be moved calling on the Government to amend an order in a specific way. We had an example of that on Tuesday. There is no better example of that than the Motion which will be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on 3rd May to amend the Maternity Allowance and Statutory Maternity Pay Regulations 1994. The effect of such a Motion, if it is carried, is to force the withdrawal of the order. If the Government lost the vote, they would have to consider what changes they would feel proper to bring forward.
356
They would then produce an amended order as in the case of the Income Support (General) Amendment No. 4 Regulations 1988.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right to say that your Lordships cannot amend an order but it can be thrown out. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy pointed out quite rightly that I brought forward an amendment to address his anxieties and we have now made a change from three to four years. I assure the Committee that we intend to bring forward the Bill as soon as possible. After Royal Assent, regulations will be made under the clauses specified and will be subject to affirmative resolution. We extended that period to four years.
I understand the noble Earl's anxieties about the procedures with regard to regulations in this House. But we must achieve a balance. I am sure that if we look back, we could all think of occasions on which, had we had a crystal ball, we should have included more in primary legislation. There may be occasions when it would have been better to have included less. Such decisions can be extremely difficult.
We have consulted widely on the medical test. We continue to do so. We are publishing a consultation document in August and we shall take note of all the representations made to us. We want the medical test to have the widest possible acceptance and we shall listen carefully to the comments of your Lordships, as we listened to comments of Members in another place. We wish to have an open debate on the medical test and to produce a test which works. There will be an opportunity to debate the regulations when they come before this House.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Viscount warmly for the careful, considered and thoughtful reply, which has engaged with the main points of the argument that I was trying to put.
I am particularly grateful for what he said about the use of the Motion to resolve. If a convention were to develop—not necessarily an unbreakable convention but a convention of what happens in normal circumstances—that Motions to resolve were responded to, that might remove a great many of our difficulties.
In that context, perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount that that argument would be more persuasive to me if some action had been taken as a result of the Motion moved in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on 6th July 1992 which was carried. Several constructive meetings have taken place with the department on that. I admit that there were some technical problems but I understood that they had been overcome. Nevertheless, I see a great deal of encouragement, which I welcome, in the noble Viscount's remarks.
However, I am not quite sure that the noble Viscount has, even now, taken on board quite how fundamental the objections are that some of us are making to the proposed tests. It is not just the detail of the tests but the principle of the tests and their detail. However, we are not actually in office at present. Were there to be significant concessions on the details, that might enable us to be a little more tolerant to objections of principle than we have been so far.

357
I was not quite so happy with what the Minister said about the difficulty of going into detail. It is a regular parliamentary point. In fact, it is just like what happened when the 39 Articles were put into statute in 1571. Certain Members of another place wanted some of the articles to be amended. The Bishops said, "No, you will refer yourselves wholly to us herein", to which one of them replied, "No, by the faith that I bear to God, we will pass nothing until we understand what it is; for that were but to make you Popes: make you Popes who list, for we will make you none". They succeeded on that occasion in giving statutory approval to 36 out of 39 of the articles, thereby protecting a great many things from prosecution in court of common law. It is a significant power. It is one that I believe neither House should let go of lightly.
I did not really expect an answer to the question about policy. However, I should like to know how I may some time obtain an answer. I refer to the policy of objective tests which has come late to the Department of Social Security, having travelled through many other departments on the way. I should like to find out where it is coming from, because then we could have a more effective dialogue. As I said, I did not really expect an answer tonight. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 14, line 1, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 23. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 56 to 59:
Page 14, line 7, leave out ("(4),").
Page 14. line 7, leave out ("(5), (6)") and insert ("or (5)").
Page 14, line 7, leave out ("or (7)").
Page 14, line 10, after ("171D,") insert ("section 171DA(1), (2) or (3).").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to these amendments when dealing with Amendments Nos. 18 and 29. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Power to provide for the transition to the new test of incapacity for work]:
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 14, line 41, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 23. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Severe disablement allowance]:
Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 15, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) In subsection (1), leave out paragraph (b).
( ) In subsection (2) (b), leave out sub-paragraph (i).
358
( ) Leave out subsections (3) and (6).").
The noble Lord said: It is somewhat to my surprise that I find myself rising to speak in the Committee stage of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill. In my previous existence, social security was quite simple: it was a question of no play, no pay. However, I am happy to say that those days are now over. Indeed, an ancestor of a Member of your Lordships' House—an actress called Mrs. Dorothy Jordan who was. shall we say, friendly with the Duke of Clarence—once gave a full performance of Rosalind in "As You Like It" and then gave birth to a child before taking the curtain call. I believe that she was rather late, but she was performing, the following night. That was the kind of social security that we used to enjoy. I am happy to say that things have now changed for the better.
In moving Amendment No. 63, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 64. However, I must first point out that there is a mistake in Amendment No. 63 to which I draw the attention of the Committee. The third line should read:
"In subsection (2) (b), leave out sub-paragraph (i)",
and not sub-paragraph (ii). I regret to say that the drafting error was made by us and we would like to amend it. Obviously, because of that mistake I shall certainly not press the amendment to a Division.
The purpose of the two amendments is simple. It is to remove the additional test which would otherwise be imposed on top of the new incapacity lest for people claiming the severe disablement allowance. In reply to a letter from me, I recently received a letter from the Minister covering that point, among others, which I copied to my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale and the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The Minister said:
"While I understand your concern that there will now be an additional test to establish entitlement to SDA, I should explain that right from the start when SDA was introduced it was never a viable option to make incapacity for work the sole qualifying condition".
I fear that that rather oversimplifies matters. I am grateful for the Minister's reply, but it comes nowhere near to disposing of the issue raised by the amendments.
When, some 20 years ago, it was decided to give people who were long-term sick or disabled a benefit which did not require contributions or call for a means test, the benefit was called non-contributory invalidity pension and the incapacity test was precisely the same as for contributors; namely, a medical certificate from a doctor saying that the person could not work. There then followed a housewives non-contributory invalidity pension. That did have an extra test of incapacity for household duties for fear that, otherwise, women with minor ailments and no recent work record might qualify too easily if all that was needed was a medical certificate.
However, European equal treatment provisions then caught up. The two pensions were rolled up into the severe disablement allowance and an additional test of 80 per cent. disability was imposed on all non-contributors. There is no doubt that a principal reason was the continued fear about married women qualifying too easily just on a medical certificate—an assumption which is not inconsistent with the fact that the extra test was not imposed on those under 20 years of age. The

359
justification for the additional test for non-contributors was never strong and rested solely on the weakness of medical certification by the general practitioner.
Now that we are to have a much tougher incapacity test, the case for imposing an additional test disappears. I see no reason at all for forcing through a second entitlement hoop for people who, after that indignity, will be getting a lower rate of benefit.
I have spoken at rather greater length than I intended. However, in the light of the Minister's rather limited exploration of previous history, I thought it right to explain as briefly as possible how we had reached the present position. Now, having the Bill, I can only conclude by saying that if the new test cannot be relied upon to keep out of benefit those without a contribution record, it presumably cannot be relied upon to keep out sufficient contributors and we have all been wasting our time. There may be occasions on which making an assurance doubly sure has something to commend it. This is not one of those occasions. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I rise to express my support for the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. In a Written Answer in another place my right honourable friend Mr. Nicholas Scott made clear that new claimants will have to fulfil the requirements of the new objective medical incapacity test. However, in practice I suspect that there will be sufficient evidence in the majority of cases to show that the claimant fulfils the requirement of the new test without any further investigation. In my view, the role of the 80 per cent. test, especially for the groups which have to prove percentage disablement, becomes questionable in the light of a functional test.
If the new medical incapacity test is able to exclude all people who are not incapacitated, then why, in order to receive a lower paid benefit, do claimants of severe disability allowance also have to pass the 80 per cent. test if they happen to be over 20 years of age? To undertake two tests to receive this one benefit makes administrative nonsense. I question the necessity of this over-fervent approach.
Lord Carter: I was extremely pleased to add my name to this amendment. I think the case has been made extremely well by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
The only other point to make is about the cost. It would be interesting to hear the Minister comment on that when he replies. We have not attempted to put a cost on the two amendments because we feel the cost should be nil. It is very hard to understand why the Government have introduced this second hurdle. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's explanation.
Viscount Astor: The purpose of the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is to remove the 80 per cent. disability qualifying test for severe disablement allowance. The amendments would, if brought into effect, remove a vital element in deciding the qualifying criteria and go against the original intention of the benefit. SDA is designed as a non-means
360
tested benefit for those who are severely disabled and have not been able to pay sufficient national insurance contributions to qualify for the contributory benefit when needed during periods of incapacity. Limited resources must be targeted at those with the strongest claim. The disability test ensures that that is the case.
The Committee has argued that this is an additional test targeted on the most severely disabled. However, SDA recipients—unlike incapacity benefit recipients —do not have to satisfy a test of their contribution record. It has never been a viable option to pay a non-contributory incapacity benefit for the severely disabled solely on grounds of incapacity for work. It was for this reason that the disability test was originally introduced for those over 20. Disability and incapacity are two different concepts.
I should remind the Committee that SDA was introduced in 1984 as a replacement for noncontributory invalidity pension. This benefit had been originally introduced in 1975 as a benefit for men and single women. Married women were excluded at that time because they were not then perceived as the breadwinners. The benefit, as I have said, was aimed at those who were denied contributory benefits which were available to those who had paid sufficient contributions while in work. Making the benefit available to all solely on the grounds that someone was incapable of work would have greatly increased the costs.
In 1977 it was decided to extend the benefit to married women but only on the grounds that they satisfied an additional household duties test. Again it was recognised that, because of its non-contributory nature, there was a need to target limited resources on those who had the most legitimate claim to benefit. However, because of concerns raised that the household duties test was flawed—and could be challenged as being discriminatory under the EC Equal Treatment Directive—SDA was introduced in November 1984.
The Committee has argued that without the disability test claimants need only have one medical to qualify for SDA. The incapacity test will test someone's ability to perform work but the disability test has a different role. There is a widespread acceptance, which I am sure is shared by many Members of the Committee, that incapacity for work and disability are not the same thing. In practice, many over-20s will not have to pass the disability test anyway. Provisions already exist for those who have proved they have a disability. This means that someone who has shown he is, for example, entitled to the higher rates of disability living allowance need not be tested again on his disability if he claims SDA. And, as I said earlier, those under 20 need not take the disability test at all.
A great deal of thought has been given to the incapacity test that will apply to SDA from April next year, and we concluded that the most logical way forward is to apply the same test as for incapacity benefit. Indeed it would be illogical and indefensible to continue the current arrangements retaining two different definitions of incapacity and two approaches to testing. We believe it is right that there should be one definition of incapacity which is common throughout the social security system and one test. That ensures that

361
all benefits which are paid in respect of incapacity are paid on a consistent basis. It would be extremely difficult and confusing to operate otherwise when entitlement can arise to more than one incapacity benefit at a time.
The genuinely sick and disabled have nothing to fear from the changes. They will still be able to prove their claim to the benefit under the revised arrangements. And those under 20 will continue to be passported to the benefit without the need to satisfy the disability test. Nor will existing recipients be tested for their incapacity or disability.
I hope that that explanation was perhaps clearer, and certainly went into more detail, than the letter I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I hope he feels my explanation has answered many of the questions he has raised. I hope I have also shown the Committee that the application of the disability test is still very much a vital part in the qualification for SDA.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Lord, Lord Rix, decides what to do with the amendment, is the Minister really saying that it is the administrative coherence of the scheme that is the concern of the department rather than the people who are actually receiving the benefit? I believe we should know that. I should correct myself. I said that I thought the cost of these amendments would be nil. In fact it should be a minus cost and represent a saving to the department because they would save the costs of the tests.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I should answer the point about the two tests. In practice, we are saying that the two tests will be rolled up into one, so the process will not be an administrative nightmare as my noble friend described it. It is difficult to assess the cost of an amendment as one tends to assess the costs of the Bill in front of one. However, I believe that the net cost of the amendment— would not want to give the impression that this would not be subject to change or alteration—could be about£20 million a year, and that is based on the number receiving income support with disability premium and no qualifying benefit, because most would continue to receive income support in any case.
Lord Carter: It would be extremely helpful if the noble Viscount could write to us and leave a copy of the letter in the Library to show how that cost is arrived at.
Viscount Astor: I will see what I can do but I must say that it is difficult to assess the costs of an amendment.
Lord Carter: You just did!
Viscount Astor: I made an attempt at assessing the costs, but I am not sure that I can go any further. However, if I can go further on that, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
Lord Rix: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for the density of his reply. I am sure he will allow me the privilege of reading his reply in some detail at my leisure. Then I will respond to his earlier letter to me of
362
this week and to this debate. I also wish to place it on record that I shall also refer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in regard to the carers in the same letter. I hope that I may receive clarification on that point as well. In view of the fact that the amendment is incorrect in the first place, I certainly could not press it to a Division and therefore I shall withdraw it. Perhaps I shall return to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Disability working allowance]:
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 72 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 16 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments]:
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 22, leave out lines 18 to 20 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 specified;").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 27, line 30, leave out ("Omit") and insert ("In").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No 74, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 75. These are important amendments. Their purpose is to preserve the non-contributory access to incapacity benefit for people who are industrially injured.
The Bill abolishes the access to contributory sickness benefit for people with an industrial injury who have not otherwise paid sufficient national insurance contributions to qualify. The amendment seeks to restore the status quo and to allow people in these circumstances to retain the right to claim sickness and invalidity benefit.
The provision was originally introduced as a result of the abolition of industrial injury benefit in 1983. As the abolition of industrial injury benefit would have meant that there was no payment except for people who had paid enough national insurance contributions to qualify for sickness benefit, the no-contribution access to sickness benefit was introduced. People who remain incapable of work because of the effects of an industrial accident or prescribed disease after 196 days can go on to IVB on the same no-contribution basis.
This has affected only a small minority of people. In the year 1991–92 only 3,000 spells of sickness benefit began that way when total numbers claiming sickness benefit in that year amounted to 485,000—in other words, such claims amounted to less than one per cent. of the total. Even fewer carried on to receive IVB. In the same year 2,000 people did so. Yet, to the few people concerned, the opportunity to qualify for benefit in this way is very important. This is particularly so when one considers the way in which for many years the Government have been chipping away at the industrial injury scheme. Had we still had the original scheme, the special provisions would not have been necessary.
The Government may claim that this provision is now unnecessary and that other benefits are available. But severe disablement allowance is not really an option since the conditions of entitlement are that the claimant has to be assessed as 85 per cent. disabled as well as incapable of work, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rix. A person assessed at a lower percentage would simply not qualify.
Nor can it seriously be argued that injured employees often receive compensation payments. In fact, only about 10 per cent. of those who suffer industrial injury succeed in the courts with common law claims. In the past the Government have argued that there was nothing special about industrial injury, but there is a case for treating such injuries differently, in my view. Some working environments are inherently hazardous no matter what is done in the name of health and safety. In my opinion it is quite unacceptable that the Government should seek, under cover of this Bill, to strike another blow at those injured in the course of their employment. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, is right. This is an important amendment. The problem of people with defective national insurance contributions is always with us and likely to cause difficulties. As a result of several current trends the amendment is likely to become more important in the future than it is now.
One of those developments is the increasingly rapid trend towards part-time work, often involving pay for a short week which is below the lower earnings limit of national insurance and therefore does not create the necessary contributions record.
The second is the tendency to depress wages, which again may tend to put people below the lower earnings limit. In-work benefits may meet some of those problems but they will not necessarily meet the problem of the contributions record.
The third reason why the amendment is likely to be more important in the future than it is now is the whittling down of safety regulations which we are liable to see as a consequence of the deregulation Bill.
If people do not receive any incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance, they will have to think how they can live. The first thing they are likely to think of doing if they have anything approaching a quarter of a case is to sue their employer. By definition, these are among the very few people in the country who will still be legally aided. That could add severely to the costs to public funds. In fact, the Government may find that it is a great deal more expensive not to accept the amendment than it would be to accept it.
Viscount Astor: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, put forward an interesting argument and suggested that accepting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, would produce savings for the Government. I am not sure about that. The noble Earl uses a complex argument, bringing in various different elements to try to sustain it. I shall try to address the amendment of the noble Baroness and explain the Government's view on it.
364
The noble Baroness explained that the purpose of the amendment is to maintain provision for people who are incapable of work because of the effects of an industrial accident or disease, even though they do not satisfy the normal contribution conditions.
Preferential treatment has been afforded to this group since 1948. But the scope of the social security system has increased greatly since that time. It is right to consider whether that preferential treatment should be carried forward to the new benefit. In Committee in another place we agreed to consider whether such a provision should be included in incapacity benefit.
We have come to the conclusion that the preferential treatment for the industrially injured has become anachronistic. That is particularly so when one considers the other benefits which are now available to those who are incapable of work and who have not paid enough national insurance contributions. Severe disablement allowance was introduced in 1984 as a non-contributory equivalent to invalidity benefit. It is available to the severely disabled and those whose incapacity began before the age of 20 and who are unable to work. There is also a much greater range of income-related benefits—income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit—which provide help to those who do not have adequate resources.
It is difficult to see why people injured at work should be treated any differently from, say, people injured in a road accident. We have not heard a convincing argument as to why this small group—we estimate that there are some 1,500 new claims each year —should receive preferential treatment.
The provision's abolition will be a simplification of the complex social security scheme. Existing cases will, of course, be protected. We have considered the matter since the Bill went through another place and I am afraid that I am not able to accept the arguments of the noble Baroness tonight.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, can he say whether his department has been in touch with the Lord Chancellor's Department on the question of legal aid and whether there would be a saving, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Russell? I often feel that when Bills are prepared and brought before Parliament they are drawn up by one department with little or no consultation with any other department as to the cost implications. I do not include the Treasury, because it tries to cut everything, but often, from talking to other spending departments, it would be learnt that something being done by department A was raising costs in department D.
Viscount Astor: My noble friend suggested earlier in the Committee stage that this was a Treasury Bill and not a social security Bill. I pointed out to him then that he was not right, and he is not right now. I can tell my noble friend that in reaching our decision we took note of what was said in Committee in another place. Of course we always consult with other government departments if we feel that that is the right thing to do.
Lord Carter: In relation to what the Minister has just said, at the front of the Bill it is shown that the

365
financial effects of the Bill will he to produce gross savings of £550 million in 1995–96 and £1,450 million in 1996–97. Did that come as a complete shock to the Treasury?
Viscount Astor: It may have come as a surprise to the Treasury but I do not think that it came as a shock. I am sure that the Treasury was delighted to hear the good news.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am not entirely surprised by the Minister's response to my amendment; but I am rather appalled because I find offensive reference to this group as having preferential treatment. I have always been a supporter of the industrial injuries scheme ever since I have been in the House. There has been a series of attempts by the Government—successful of course because they had the majority—gradually to whittle away and to chip away at the industrial injuries scheme until there is almost nothing left of it.
There is a case for an industrial injuries scheme. As I said when introducing my amendment, many working environments are inherently hazardous, no matter what health and safety precautions are taken. The people who work in those environments have an entitlement to some special consideration. I do not regard it as preferential. We need people to work in unsafe environments in many instances for the sake of the remainder of us. It seems to me only right that there should be a special scheme.
It is the only system we have of no-fault compensation. We have no other scheme under which no-fault compensation existed. As the noble Earl rightly points out, injured workers will now look closely at whether they may effectively sue their employers because their possibility of obtaining any payments out of the social security system eventually will have been severely damaged.
I know that there is no point in dividing the House at this late stage. However, I believe that the Government's attitude to the industrially injured is quite unacceptable. Having said that, I am afraid that I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 75A:
Page 27, line 43, at end insert:
(". In section 130 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (Housing benefits), at the end of subsection (5) (power to limit payments by reference to determinations by rent officers) insert:—

"so, however, that any power which the Secretary of State gives to an appropriate housing authority so as to limit benefit shall only be exercisable in relation to a person incapable of work within the meaning of this Act if suitable alternative accommodation is actually available and the authority considers that it is reasonable to expect him to move from his present accommodation; and for the purposes of this subsection a person who is not incapable of work shall be treated as though he were so incapable for a period of 2 years from the commencement of this Act if, but for the passing of the Act, he would have been regarded as so incapable." ").

The noble Earl said: I seem to have drawn two short straws tonight: not only did I move the first amendment after dinner, but I also move the last non-government amendment. It is a highly technical and complex amendment. I am sorry for that; I shall seek to make it as simple as I can.
The point of the amendment is transitional protection. It is transitional protection for the consequences of incapacity for work on housing benefit. Perhaps I may begin with Regulation 11 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 1987. Regulation 11(2) provides that where,
"a claimant occupies a dwelling larger than is reasonably required … [or] that the rent payable for his dwelling is unreasonably high",
the authority may treat the rent as reduced by such amount that it considers appropriate. We hear quite a lot about the effect of that regulation, meaning that housing benefit falls short of the rent. It is a matter that I hope will be considered in the course of the homelessness review.
However, the real point of the amendment arises from Regulation 11(3) which exempts from the operation of that reduced direction anyone who is found incapable of work. If you are found incapable of work, then you are not liable for these directions reducing the amount of housing benefit you receive.
The Government expect that the effect of the Bill will be that a large number of people at present thought incapable of work will be found to be capable of work. I do not know whether the Government are right in that. But we must at least entertain the hypothesis that they might be right. That could mean that a large number of people having been deprived of invalidity benefit will be hit by the proverbial double whammy. They will almost immediately receive a letter reducing their housing benefit and increasing the demand for rent. Those people will have made all the appropriate arrangements on the assumption, and in the belief, that they enjoyed a certain level of income. When they find that belief to be mistaken, and their income suddenly reduced, it will take them a little time to make the necessary appropriate arrangements for accommodation which they can afford. Cheap, rented accommodation is not in extremely large supply these days.
The amendment seeks a transitional protection of two years. It is by no means significantly different from the traditional transitional protection which the Government considered in relation to the community charge. In fact, the thinking underlying the amendment, so far as I can see, is not opposed to the basic consideration by Government of transitional protection. I hope that they will not find objection to the amendment in principle. If the Government find objections in detail, I shall listen to them carefully. If I were able to meet the Government before Report stage, I shall attempt to do so. However, I do not envisage that it would be useful for the Government to do nothing. If people are not given the transitional protection, they will find that they have to move out of their houses. They may not find anything else. They may become homeless. We know

367
what Sir George Young thinks about the effect of the homeless on the housing waiting list: he finds it extremely inconvenient.
Even if those people do not become homeless, especially if they are getting on in years, they might well become a charge on care in the community; and we do not want any more pressure there, either. The Government might therefore find that this provision is the most practical and economic way of dealing with the situation. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Earl for bringing a matter to our attention which had not occurred to me until he explained the provision. Something ought to be done otherwise we shall simply have more people rendered homeless and more people having to be looked after in the community. It is an important issue and I hope that the Government respond sympathetically.
Lord Swinfen: Even if my noble friend is not able to accept the amendment this evening, I hope that he will give it extremely careful consideration. I am a chartered surveyor by profession. In my time I have managed residential property for various clients. Tenants of residential property in the private sector, caught in the situation described, will not find themselves able to remain in the property for long.
The landlord must maintain the income of the property in order to maintain that property, because maintenance costs are high. The courts will give possession to the landlord when the tenant falls behind with the rent, which is likely to happen. Now that the rules have changed, should this be a housing association tenant, the housing association has a duty to the Housing Corporation, which is government-funded, to maintain the rental income of the properties that it has built with government funds so that it can keep up the regular payment of interest to the Housing Corporation and to any other body from which it has had to borrow money and it would be forced, as would housing associations generally, once again to go for possession of residential properties.
This means that people will be out on the street—with luck possibly in bed and breakfast accommodation; possibly not. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in our society and I feel that for a caring government not to look at the point that has been so ably raised this evening by the noble Earl would be quite wrong, not just from a political point of view but, far more importantly, from a moral point of view.
Viscount Astor: Local authorities are required to restrict the level of housing benefit payable if they consider that a claimant's accommodation is either too large for his purposes or the rent charged is particularly high. I believe that that is fair, since housing benefit is designed to meet no more than the cost of reasonable rent. It is not designed for any other purpose.
Nevertheless, some claimants are more vulnerable than others and the housing benefit scheme provides protection against rent restriction for certain tenants. Those include people aged over 60; those with
368
dependent children and people who are incapable of work. In those circumstances, a rent restriction will only apply if there is suitable cheaper alternative accommodation available or it is reasonable to expect a claimant to move.
Of course, people often move in and out of vulnerable group status, perhaps because children leave the household. In that case, a rent restriction may be applied where previously it was not or it may be removed if it ceases to apply.
From April 1995, when the provisions of the Bill come into force, claimants who are protected from a rent restriction will continue to be so as long as they remain incapable of work. Those claimants will also benefit from the transitional arrangements being introduced to protect existing invalidity benefit claimants from any cash loss at the point of change. If they remain incapable of work, they will continue to receive their old rate of benefit and have most of it uprated annually. Many will also be treated as incapable of work for the duration of their claim, without being subject to the new medical test of incapacity.
But I believe it would be inequitable to treat people who are found capable of work after 1995 any differently from other people who are able to work. If these claimants are judged by the local authority to have an unreasonably high rent, then their rent for housing benefit purposes may be restricted to that of suitable alternative accommodation. This in fact is exactly the position of people who are found capable of work under the present incapacity provisions.
I should point out, however, that many claimants will continue to be protected by virtue of their age or their dependent children. Similarly, local authorities do have discretion to pay housing benefit above the level of the rent restriction if they consider the individual circumstances of the case warrant it.
I hope that my explanation of the somewhat complex point which the noble Earl raised and the description of the transitional arrangements which I gave will satisfy the noble Earl's anxieties on the matter.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Viscount for that reply, which is at least lucid and careful. I cannot say that I am entirely persuaded by it. I had noticed the point on the situation where suitable cheaper accommodation is available, but that can be, and very often is, a matter of opinion. I have known cases where it was said that suitable cheaper accommodation was available but on search it did not turn out to be immediately visible to the naked eye. Further, occasionally when people moved into it, it transpired that the previous tenants had broken up the bath. That is quite a regular problem in Brent and it may take up to a year to persuade Brent Council to repair a bath. That too is a normal problem in Brent. So the idea of suitable cheaper accommodation being available is not entirely persuasive. If such accommodation is available, the person may not succeed in finding it within the requisite time.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may intervene. I accept what the noble Earl says about the difficulties in regard to accommodation. I think I am right in saying that in the vast majority of cases in relation to rent, it is not rent

369
in local authority (council) accommodation that is assessed as being too high; it is rent in the private sector —which is rather a different matter. I think that the noble Earl implied that, in effect, local authorities could charge a high rent and then deem themselves to have charged a high rent. I do not believe that in practice that is the case.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: But it is in practice the case that sometimes, if people are required to move out, council accommodation may turn out to be the only option. I mentioned cases from council accommodation because those are in my mind and have been mentioned in the local paper recently. But the cases that I was talking about can occur in private sector accommodation as well.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said in a very effective speech; namely, that the landlord may require the person to move out quickly. In those circumstances he may well become homeless before this alleged cheaper accommodation is found.
I take the point that the noble Viscount made about transitional protection within the invalidity benefit itself. But of course that does not apply to housing, which for most people on low incomes is by far the biggest single item in their costs.
The key point that the noble Viscount made lay in the argument that it is inequitable to give transitional protection to people who were once on invalidity benefit that does not go to others. I do not think that he is right about that. The key to the argument for transitional protection is that the old law created a reasonable expectation—a reasonable expectation that was based on the past actions of this Government. Of course I accept that no Parliament can bind its successors and that all governments have a right to change their mind. But governments, including this one, have in the past accepted that when they change their mind and deprive people of rights which they have previously used as a basis of expectation, they do provide a transitional protection. The community charge and council tax arrangements are very clear examples of that. So this Government do not see anything improper about providing a transitional protection.
I think that the noble Viscount should look very carefully at his argument about inequitability to see whether it goes too far and in fact criticises recent actions that this Government have taken. When he does that, and accepts that transitional protection is proper in principle, then he will have to consider its convenience. We have had from every quarter of the House arguments about convenience which are very powerful—from the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in particular. I hope that there is time before Report stage for those arguments to be given a hearing. I would be extremely grateful to the Minister if, before I withdraw this amendment, he could agree to meet me before Report stage and discuss whether anything along those lines can be done. I would be very grateful indeed for an answer.
Viscount Astor: Of course I will be extremely happy to meet the noble Earl before Report stage; and obviously before that meeting I will consider carefully what has been said this evening.
Lord Swinfen: I do not want to delay the Committee but if someone with severe physical disabilities is forced to move from one house to another, or from one living accommodation to another, he may be moving from a house that is properly adapted for his needs to a house that has no adaptions at all. There is no need for us to discuss the matter now, but that point should be borne in mind in regard to the additional costs when my noble friend discusses the matter with the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Lord for that contribution. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 30, line 27, leave out paragraph 44 and insert:
("44. In section 20(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (questions to be submitted to adjudication officer), for paragraph (c) (disqualification) substitute—

"(c) any question whether, if he otherwise had a right to it, a person would be disqualified under or by virtue of any provision of the Contributions and Benefits Act for receiving a benefit to which this section applies.''.").

The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendments Nos. 18 and 23. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The purpose of Amendment No. 77 was not discussed, although the amendment was taken in a large group at the very end of our proceedings on Tuesday. We were discussing the main point, which resulted in the period of three years being extended to four years.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will forgive me for interrupting him; but if he is to discuss Amendment No. 77, we should perhaps cope first with Amendment No. 76. The Question is that Amendment No. 76 be agreed to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 31, line 21, leave out paragraph 52.
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendments Nos. 18 and 23. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful. I wanted to indicate why I thought that further discussion was necessary on Amendment No. 77. It had had none. It was taken at the end of a group. It was intended to meet quite a different point; namely, the point made in the last paragraph, paragraph 16, of the report of the Select Committee on delegated powers. It pointed out that paragraph 52 of Schedule 1, which this government amendment deletes, had the effect of enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations without consulting the Social Security Advisory Committee in this case, although in other cases where regulations were being made, that committee was consulted. The Select

371
Committee, of which I am a member, recommended that the House should consider whether that provision should remain.
I should like to applaud the Government and give them credit for having acted first and having tabled this amendment to delete that part of the Bill in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee.
Lord Swinfen: That is the second time in the two days of the Committee stage that my noble friend has had anything said in his support in the whole Bill. I should just like to congratulate him for standing up to the battering that he has received from all around the Chamber.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to my noble friend. It is not an onerous task when one believes in the validity of one's arguments. I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, who was quite right to point out that the reason that we had the provision was because originally we thought that the issue would just be about rates and therefore did not have to go to the Social Security Advisory Committee. Because it will now be about other matters as well, it seemed proper that it should be deleted.
In fact I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was the first person to table the amendment. We were almost neck and neck. He allowed me, as it were, to add my name to it, for which I am extremely grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 31, line 28, leave out ("4(1) (a)") and insert ("4(1) (b)").
The noble Viscount said: This is a technical amendment which changes a reference made to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. This appears at paragraph 53 of Schedule 1 to the Bill and should read "paragraph 4(1) (b) of Schedule 3" and not "paragraph 4(1) (a)". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 33, column 3, leave out lines 44 to 48.
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill
Reported from the Joint Committee with an amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past nine o'clock.

  BOSNIA: NATO SECRETARY GENERAL'S STATEMENTS
  BOSNIA: NATO SECRETARY GENERAL'S STATEMENTS
  BOSNIA: UNPROFOR AUTHORITY TO CALL UP AIR SUPPORT
  BOSNIA: UNPROFOR AUTHORITY TO CALL UP AIR SUPPORT
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: CONTROLS ON NATO OPERATIONS
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: CONTROLS ON NATO OPERATIONS
  SAUDI ARABIA: PURCHASE OF BOEING AIRCRAFT
  SAUDI ARABIA: PURCHASE OF BOEING AIRCRAFT
  BOSPHORUS/DARDANELLES: TURKISH REGULATIONS
  BOSPHORUS/DARDANELLES: TURKISH REGULATIONS
  GORAZDE: TURKISH ALLEGATION
  GORAZDE: TURKISH ALLEGATION
  GORAZDE: CHEMICAL WEAPONS ALLEGATION
  GORAZDE: CHEMICAL WEAPONS ALLEGATION
  MR. WILLIAM EAGLETON
  MR. WILLIAM EAGLETON
  ALKYL NITRITES
  ALKYL NITRITES
  IMMIGRATION ACTS: INFORMATION TO DETAINEES
  IMMIGRATION ACTS: INFORMATION TO DETAINEES
  EXPORTS TO THE EC
  EXPORTS TO THE EC