Sitting of 24 January 1994

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

    Railway Lines (Ownership)
    Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the director of Railtrack about ownership of railway lines.
    The Minister for Public Transport.(Mr. Roger Freeman): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has regular meetings with Mr. Bob Horton, the chairman-designate of Railtrack to discuss a wide range of issues. I am glad to report that, as planned, Railtrack will become responsible for the railway network in April.
    Mr. Willetts: May I thank the Minister for that reply and ask him to confirm that it will be possible for Railtrack to sell railway lines to railway operators in certain circumstances?
    Mr. Freeman: The answer to that question is yes, but only in exceptional circumstances. We obviously wish to give Railtrack a national responsibility to maintain the rail network and invest in its improvement—particularly electrification schemes—and a national responsibility for safety. But within those parameters, in certain cases the answer will be yes.
    Mr. Foulkes: In the light of that answer, would it then be possible for Railtrack to sell all the track in Scotland to a privatised ScotRail?
    Mr. Freeman: In theory, it might be possible, but that would run counter to our policy, which is that there should be one body—Railtrack—responsible for the whole of the rail infrastructure in Great Britain. That will benefit ease of access to the rail network by different rail operators. In cases in which rail infrastructure is sold, not only will it be the responsibility of Railtrack to consider that, but there will have to be open competition to ensure that best value for money is obtained.
    Mr. Wilson: Not content with selling the family silver, it seems that the more zealous members of the Minister's party want to sell the table, too. Will the Minister confirm that within two and a half months—[Interruption.]The problem with the hon. Member's question is that members of the public remember the answer. With allegedly two and a half months to go before shadow franchises, the Government have still not come up with a system for charging for access to the tracks.
    Will the Minister confirm that the Government have now accepted that they will not manage to privatise even the Gatwick express in the current year? Will he further confirm that there is now minimal private sector interest in rail privatisation? Instead of taking on board daft ideas such as the one about which we have just heard and succumbing to the demands of the private sector in an effort to get the whole thing off the ground, it would be much better if the Government at least dropped this particular cross on which they are apparently intent on crucifying themselves.
    Mr. Freeman: Her Majesty's Government have no intention of withdrawing their proposals to improve the quality and quantity of our rail services. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, shadow running will commence on 1 April and sufficient progress has been made. I pay tribute to British Rail and Railtrack for ensuring that that could happen. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that sufficient progress has also been made on

    3
    access charges to permit shadow running to commence. As for his question about interest, there is substantial interest in the franchising of rail services.
    Mr. Wilson: Gatwick?
    Mr. Freeman: We would expect Gatwick to be among the first of the rail franchises to be franchised.
    Mr. Wilson: When?
    Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman had read the draft directive to the Franchising Director, he would know that my right hon. Friend has asked him to submit a specific plan within the next few weeks on the timing of the franchises. Our proposals will be a great success for the railways.

    United States Transportation Secretary
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the United States Transport Secretary; and what aviation matters were discussed.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I last met the United States Transportation Secretary on 14 September last year in Washington. We discussed the progress of the liberalisation negotiations and how we saw the way ahead. Since then, there have been many contacts between our officials and I have also spoken to Secretary Peña.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that American and British airlines share one common characteristic: they are free-enterprise rather than state-owned airlines? Does not that mean that we share an interest in confronting the massive Government subsidies that are paid to nationalised airlines, particularly by European Union countries? Those subsidies not only distort competition, but mean that liberalisation is far from creating free competition, even across the north Atlantic, and that air fares are still too high? Was that matter discussed in the recent talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade and will it be on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that those specific matters were discussed in the GATT talks, but I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. He is right to say that we have highly effective and competitive airlines in the private sector, which does not apply in most of the European Union. He is also right to say that state aids provide an unfair subsidy. He will know that we have fought extremely hard in the European Councils to ensure that state aids are given only in specific circumstances; we will continue to fight for that. It is one of the major matters that I take up on every possible occasion. The issue may arise in the report that the Commission has requested from its "wise men", which will be discussed, although not specifically, at the informal Council at the beginning of next month. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that I am very alert to those issues, which we frequently take up.
    Mr. Olner: The Minister will be aware of the representations about the opening of transatlantic routes that have been made to him by Birmingham international airport. I accept that the Secretary of State has had talks on the matter, but that is all that appears to have happened. The attempts of Birmingham airport to obtain transatlantic
    4
    routes have gone backwards. Those routes are vital to the economy of the west midlands. The infrastructure is in place and the airport is ready to take those airlines. When will the Government act to make the routes open to competition from Manchester and, in particular, Birmingham airports?
    Mr. MacGregor: It takes two to reach an agreement and we have put forward proposals for the liberalisation of air services on transatlantic routes to all our regional airports, including Luton and Stansted. That is one of the first items that should be carried through as a result of the current liberalisation agreements. In one or two other cases, smaller arrangements have been made on liberalisation before reaching a full agreement, which the American Administration have refused to accept. So far, therefore, we have not been able to reach agreement on that issue. The Americans are focusing particularly on Heathrow airport, but there are considerable capacity constraints there that I am drawing to their attention. I assure the hon. Gentleman that early liberalisation of services to our regional airports is very much our target.
    Mr. Mans: When my right hon. Friend next negotiates the various agreements with his counterpart in Washington, will he make the point strongly that the United States should honour the existing law on code sharing and on minority shares in their own airlines? Does my right hon. Friend agree that he should decide whether he reaches various future agreements with the United States on the basis of how they operate their existing system? Until the United States honour present agreements, will it not be difficult to reach an agreement over code sharing and other matters in the future?
    Mr. MacGregor: I think that the two things are separate. We clearly want to reach agreement on the wider liberalisation, but we also think it important that existing agreements should be honoured. To some extent, failure to achieve the second colours success on the first. I know that my hon. Friend is referring to the American Administration's decision to allow, as part of the BA/US Air deal, the code sharing with US Air to take place, not for 12 months, as should happen under existing agreements, but for a shorter period. We have made our protests known to the American Secretary of State about that, because we believe that it is important to honour existing agreements. I hope that, in March, the United States Administration will do so when they come to consider their next decision.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which English regions he expects to benefit most from rail traffic carried by the channel tunnel.
    Mr. Freeman: Services through the channel tunnel should provide social and commercial opportunities for all parts of Great Britain when they are fully operational.
    Mr. Bayley: Freight services are due to begin running through the channel tunnel in about six weeks' time. Why is it that seven years after the channel tunnel project was announced, when the French Government have managed to build a fast rail link from Paris to the channel tunnel, the British Government are only today publishing tentative proposals for the route, let alone introducing an Act of Parliament for that purpose? It will take until the end of the

    5
    century to provide direct links from the channel tunnel to serve the north of the country. Why are the Government spending billions on car routes in and around London and not a brass farthing on train routes around London to enable those trains to run direct to the north from the tunnel?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman does his constituency and his party a disservice by seeking to run down the substantial preparations for business and passenger services, once the channel tunnel is open. Freight will start to run through it on 14 March and passenger services will commence from Waterloo international station, which cost £200 million to build, as soon as the tunnel is officially opened. The country will then enjoy good travel connections, because it will then take three hours to travel by train from London to Paris. The construction of the channel tunnel rail link will be the subject of a statement that my right hon. Friend hopes to make shortly.
    Mrs. Lait: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the tourism industry of the south-east will benefit greatly from traffic from the channel tunnel? Does he accept, however, that the weak link in the south coast railway is the Hastings to Ashford line? What progress has been made towards its electrification?
    Mr. Freeman: The electrification of that particular line will be studied by Railtrack and we will ask it to produce a 10-year investment plan. Doubtless, it will reflect on the priority of electrification. I am glad that the local authorities have shown an interest in contributing to its cost.
    A new international station will be built at Ashford and I hope that it will be open by the end of next year.

    Passengers and Freight (Rail Transport)
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage the transfer of passengers and freight from road to rail transport.
    Mr. MacGregor: Government policies are designed to encourage passengers and freight to transfer from road to rail where that makes economic and environmental sense. Some 90 per cent. of passengers and inland freight traffic goes by road, but next year 40 per cent. of total transport expenditure will be used to improve public transport, so my Department's expenditure is positively skewed to public transport. The existing freight facilities grant scheme is also to be extended by the Railways Act 1993 and our new track access grant for freight services will start in April.
    Mr. Grocott: Is the Secretary of State aware that it would take some believing to accept that the Government have skewed their transport policy towards the railways? Let me catalogue for the right hon. Gentleman three simple examples from my constituency of the rundown in services in recent years. First, we have lost the rail link to Donnington for freight. Secondly, we have lost the InterCity service to London and, thirdly, Wellington station has been subject to a serious rundown. Those important issues are of particular concern to many people.
    May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take rail transport much more seriously and, more specifically, to agree to meet a delegation from my constituency?
    Mr. MacGregor: It is very noticeable that the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I am just trying to remember all the points that he raised, so that I can answer them in order.
    It is noticeable that the hon. Gentleman simply ignores the facts and makes a general statement that is far, far from the facts. Public transport accounts for 40 per cent. of my Department's expenditure and that affects about 10 per cent. of overall traffic. If that is not skewing expenditure towards public transport, I do not know what is. The hon. Gentleman likes to believe a myth and not the facts.
    As to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, there has been a problem not only in this country but in all countries concerning the transport of freight on rail, because rail is not so well suited to provide the service required by modern freight transport. That issue must be tackled. I believe that the combination of measures that we have introduced, including open access under our privatisation proposals, the new grants that I have announced and the opening of the channel tunnel, offers the best prospect of getting more freight onto rail.
    I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Wellington Telford West station faces no threat of closure. I understand that from next May the number of trains from that station will be increased—both the stopping service to Wolverhampton and the semi-fast service to Birmingham will be more frequent. It is therefore not necessary for me to receive a delegation.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the completion of the crossrail project would encourage many more passengers, including my constituents in Aylesbury, Wendover and Great Missenden, to switch from road to rail? Can he confirm, furthermore, that the project will now go ahead as originally planned?
    Mr. MacGregor: It is certainly true that, in London and the south-east, where commuters predominate, public transport is more important. That is why our ratio of expenditure is 3:1 in favour of public transport.
    As for crossrail, we have made the position clear. That means that the Bill will be able to go ahead tomorrow. It will be for the Committee to receive all the petitions, and for the Bill to make its progress through Parliament in the usual way. Earlier, we made it clear that crossrail will be a joint finance initiative.
    Mr. Harvey: Given the Secretary of State's recent conversion to the idea that road passenger traffic cannot grow unchecked, will he rethink his motorway policy, which his right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) says is so startling that it forces one to stand back and ask whether it makes sense, while his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) believes that there is a policy for cars but not a transport policy? Or is the right hon. Gentleman more interested in cutting embarrassing words out of the Government's Rio strategy paper than in cutting motorway building?
    Mr. MacGregor: It will be essential for environmental reasons, as well as for reasons of economic efficiency and competitiveness, that we continue to deploy considerable sums of public—and eventually, if motorway tolling is successful—motorists' money on improving our motorways. That is just as vital for environmental reasons. If we do not, with the growth of traffic there will be a great deal more diversion back to local roads, and there will be

    7
    environmental pollution, owing to congestion, and so on. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I are at one on the sustainable development policy, and we have worked together to produce it.
    There is no doubt that motorways will have an important part to play for many decades to come in ensuring that we have a competitive transport system—that is why we have a transport policy.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the very existence of the channel tunnel and of the proposed fast rail link—to which, thank God, we can at last look forward—will constitute a major factor in encouraging passengers and freight to switch from road to rail? Businesses throughout south Lincolnshire are of the view that if we are to enjoy the full benefit of these major infrastructural investments, we shall need a container terminal much closer than what is currently planned. Will my right hon. Friend therefore do everything he can to facilitate and encourage the construction of a container terminal at Peterborough to serve south Lincolnshire and large parts of East Anglia?
    Mr. MacGregor: It will be for Railtrack after April to consider that matter. But my hon. Friend will know that about £450 million of public expenditure has already been deployed in providing freight terminals throughout the country and improving infrastructure to serve them. That is a large amount of money.
    It is important to bear in mind that it is not only the channel tunnel high-speed link which is relevant to the channel tunnel. When it opens this year, the tunnel will be very competitive for both passengers and freight. This year, the journey from London to Paris and to Brussels will be competitive with air travel—about three hours and three and a quarter hours respectively.
    There will be a dramatic improvement in the amount of time spent by freight traffic on rail once the channel tunnel is opened. It takes 60 hours by road from Manchester to Milan, but more than double that by rail at present. After the channel tunnel opens, rail freight will take only half the time that road takes—that makes it very competitive.
    Ms. Walley: But why will not the Secretary of State tell us where the money is going to come from for crossrail? Is not all we have heard this afternoon mere hypocrisy? Why are not the Government prepared to tell the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) that the railways and public transport are not having the necessary money spent on them—
    Mr. MacGregor: I have answered that.
    Ms Walley: No, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered it. All we have heard from him is that public transport is safe in his hands. The men and women on the Clapham omnibus are beginning to rumble his policy. They know only too well that unless there is some sort of review of the decision to go ahead with the M25 widening, the Prime Minister will be unable to claim later this week that he has a sustainable transport policy in the aftermath of Rio.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear that the Government support the crossrail project. It is being promoted by British Rail and London Transport and it will be in Committee tomorrow. As I told my hon. Friend the
    8
    Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), we have also made it clear that it will be a joint finance initiative and we expect a substantial contribution from the private sector. It is certain that it will go ahead.
    The hon. Lady asked about public transport. Investment in the railways is way above what it was under the last Labour Government. It is currently at near record levels and will be about £3 billion in the next three years in the existing railway system. That is a substantial amount. If the hon. Lady is suggesting that Labour would spend more of taxpayers' money on the railways, where would she make the cuts, or is all this double talk about tax and the Labour party sheer hypocrisy?
    Mr. Ottaway: Will my right hon. Friend accept that while investment in motorways is welcome, people travel by road because they want to? Will he ensure that the road programme is not diminished? In particular, will he ensure that the Coulsdon bypass is not taken out of the programme?
    Mr. MacGregor: I cannot comment on any particular bypass project. I agree with my hon. Friend's general point that we believe in choice. The way in which the vast majority of our citizens exercise that choice when they reach the age of 17 is clear. They wish to be able to buy cars and to travel freely in them. It is necessary for any Government and any Secretary of State for Transport to ensure substantial investment in the roads system to enable that to happen and to avoid the disbenefits, environmental and otherwise, of congestion.

    East London River Crossing
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement about the proposed east London river crossing.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The relative priority for the east London crossing is being considered as part of the national review of the trunk road programme. I shall make a further announcement when the results of that review are known.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: In view of the Minister's failure to give an assurance that the east London river crossing will not go through, over or under Oxleas wood, what action does he propose to reduce the blight on properties in Plumstead and Abbey Wood along the line of the original proposal? Is he prepared to publish and place in the Library the specifications of the transportation study for the south-east for which he has recently invited tenders? Does he welcome the results of the rail study published last week showing the cost effectiveness of the Woolwich rail tunnel link?
    In view of the Secretary of State's earlier comments about the relative importance to London of public transport compared with roads, will the Minister now embrace the Woolwich rail tunnel link and the public transport alternative to the east London river crossing?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government rightly decided that the original proposals for the east London river crossing were inappropriate and withdrew them. That decision was widely welcomed. The hon. Gentleman is sensible enough to know that the underlying demand for improved transport, across the Thames in particular, still exists. In that context, it is

    9
    perfectly appropriate that the compulsory purchase orders should expire in November. The line orders will remain in place for a sensible reason. Much of the line of any proposed route in that area is, in a sense, self diagnosing and it would be quite unproductive to abandon the line orders. They also concentrate blight, such as there is, only on that line, rather than spreading it more widely, which would be the case if the formal line orders were abandoned.
    The studies on possible rail links about which the hon. Gentleman spoke are useful. One of my Department's aims over the next few weeks will be to make sure that we take account of all the available options to improve crossings of the river east of the town.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of road crossings of the Thames to the east of the city is inadequate and that the Blackwall tunnel is totally inadequate for the traffic currently using it? When my hon. Friend visited my constituency, he met many of my constituents in Thamesmead and Erith and many business people who were looking to him for proposals. Many local people would like to see another crossing of the Thames in our area.
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is right, but he will acknowledge that we now face propositions in relation to the docklands light railway extension to Lewisham, the Woolwich metro, the Blackwall third crossing, a full east London river crossing and a truncated river crossing. Rather than dealing with those on a piecemeal basis, it would be sensible to ensure that they are all evaluated so that the options that we pursue are the right ones to improve the infrastructure east of the town.
    Mr. Raynsford: What discussions, if any, has the Minister had with interested parties about the possibility of paying for the construction costs of an east London river crossing by means of a toll? What are the implications for other river crossings? Will there also be tolls at Blackwall, Rotherhithe and Tower bridge? Will we soon have to pay tolls to cross Westminster bridge? Does the Minister admit that Tory transport policy, like Tory taxation policy, means everyone paying more?
    Mr. Norris: As to the general proposition on tolling, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that either the taxpayer or the user pays. There is general and common consent that it can be a useful way to provide funding. For example, the Dartford crossing was completed at least 10 years earlier than it would otherwise have been because the private sector was able to finance the construction from tolls. I have discussed generally, with officials in the Department and others, the idea that one or other of the new crossings over the Thames should be tolled. I did that because it seems to me perfectly sensible that we should do so. If the hon. Gentleman is now saying on behalf of his party that the Labour party has decided to reject the notion of congestion charging in London, I must tell him that, first, that contradicts what he said at a public meeting that we were at only a week ago; and secondly, that is an unwise hook for his party to have got itself on.

    "Paying for Better Motorways"
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what responses he has had from motoring organisations to his Green Paper "Paying for Better Motorways".
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): The AA and RAC have publicly recognised the potential benefits that motorway charging could bring. Both organisations favoured electronic technology as the means by which charging should be implemented.
    Dr. Twinn: My hon. Friend will be aware from the representations that he has received that there remain concerns about tolling on existing motorways. He will be aware that the concerns are particularly strong in outer London, where the effects of tolling on the M25 could lead to diverting traffic back to London. In my constituency of Edmonton, and in Enfield, we do not wish to see the North Circular and the Great Cambridge road congested.
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. Diversion of traffic off tolled roads is a major problem that must be addressed sensibly, not hysterically. That is precisely why we suggested, in the Green Paper published last year, low tolls on tolled motorways, perhaps up to 1·5p a mile, which is about a quarter of the rate elsewhere. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that doing nothing is not an option. It is precisely because we are not doing enough to upgrade our motorways, including the M25, that we already have problems of diversion back to his constituency.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State for the Environment on the British strategy for sustainable development, in which he says that projected traffic increases will have unacceptable economic and environmental consequences? Is the Minister still insisting that the information that 55 per cent. of the schemes for motorway programmes will affect 50 sites of special scientific interest should be deleted?
    Mr. Key: I never comment on leaked documents. The hon. Lady will have to contain herself until later in the week. I can assure her that we keep traffic forecasts under constant review. She may recall that, as recently as November 1993, I answered a parliamentary question and said that we were reviewing the methodology of traffic forecasting. I wish that the hon. Lady and people who think like her about traffic forecasts would recognise, whenever they hear the figure of 1·5 million new cars a year being bandied about, that that is the gross or total figure. About 80 per cent. of new vehicle registrations are replacements for vehicles already scrapped.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my hon. Friend initiate immediate discussions with the motoring organisations about the severe traffic congestion that occurred last night on the eastbound carriageway of the M4 after 10 pm, and again this morning, when traffic was banked up as far as Reading?
    Is my hon. Friend aware that the works that he has authorised for the overlaying of the M4 are causing congestion throughout the western approaches to London? Why could they not have waited until the completion of the work on Western avenue at Long lane in Hillingdon, and the ending of the chaos caused by the Olympia bridge works? Does my hon. Friend realise that people coming into London simply cannot afford to be held up for so long? Will he extend the deadline from 10 pm to 11 pm, as that would make a great difference?
    Mr. Key: I apologise to drivers who are being held up by the roadworks. It is, however, essential to get them done. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London

    11
    has been at great pains to ensure that traffic management is optimised; he has discussed the matter with both the police and the motoring organisations.
    It is also essential for the work to be done concurrently. We are anxious to avoid a repetition of what happened last summer, when the M4 was closed because the 30-year-old section of road leading to the capital's major airport at Heathrow could not cope with the level of traffic or, indeed, with the hot weather. It is worth doing the work early so as not to have motorways that cannot stand the British summer.

    North Wales Coast Rail Line
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary for Transport what representations he has received concerning the need to improve railway services along the north Wales coast railway line; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeman: I have received a number of representations about the need to improve rail services on the north Wales coast line.
    Mr. Wigley: As the Minister will know, Professor Stuart Cole published today a report about transport in Wales, which mentions the need for advance investment in transport to avoid a build-up in the use of cars. In the context of the north Wales railway line, does the Minister accept that the medium-term objective must be the electrification of the line from Crewe to Holyhead, while there is an immediate need for the track to be upgraded to a 90 mph standard—not only for InterCity services, but for the 153 and 158 classes? Can he ensure that Railtrack is given a directive to proceed with that immediately?
    Mr. Freeman: Significant progress on line speeds has already been made, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to convey to the chairman of Railtrack his view that further improvement is necessary, I shall certainly do so.
    Electrification is a longer-term project. It is for Railtrack to decide the priorities. As for the west coast main line, I can confirm that I know of no proposals to terminate the InterCity services at Crewe; they will continue to run through to Holyhead. When the west coast main-line services are franchised, they will include services all the way to Holyhead.
    Mr. Brandreth: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the importance to the north-west of the electrification of the line from Crewe to Holyhead, especially in view of the advent of the channel tunnel? We need a high-speed link between Ireland and the continent, and the north-west is concerned about the speed at which that can be done.
    Mr. Freeman: I share my hon. Friend's desire to ensure that there are good transport links not only to connect the island of Ireland with the continent through this country but to serve the population in Wales, particularly along the north Wales coast line. Electrification in itself does not improve the running speeds of trains, although it makes services more efficient and provides electric services all the way from London. I shall, however, bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. As we all know, he has always been a great supporter of British Rail services in the north-west, especially those to Chester.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister accept that if there are to be decent through services on the north Wales coast line,
    12
    it will be necessary to get ahead with the modernisation and uprating of the west coast main line that leads to them? Can the Minister tell us when that modernisation and uprating will be completed just on the line as far as Crewe?
    Mr. Freeman: No, I cannot, but I tell the hon. Gentleman that Railtrack expects to announce very shortly the winning private sector consortium to assess the performance requirements of the line. I hope that, by the end of this calendar year, Railtrack will be able to let a contract to the private sector, so that the work to improve the west coast main line infrastructure—which may cost as much as £600 million—can begin. How long that takes will depend on the contract, but the improvement of the west coast main line is a priority, not only for Railtrack but for the Government.
    Mr. Garnier: My right hon. Friend will agree that improving the west coast main line will increase and improve traffic going to north Wales, but would not one of the best ways to encourage trade to go to north Wales and to the island of Ireland from Europe be to extend the A1-M1 link? When is that road likely to be completed?
    Mr. Freeman: Again, I cannot give my hon. Friend a completion date because he will know that the link comprises many different individual schemes. It is important that we develop multi-modal transport—that is, transport that comes partly by road, including by the A1-M1 link, to freight terminals including, for example, the proposed terminal in Doncaster and possibly one at Peterborough, which has already been mentioned. We need improvements to roads and railway lines if we are to speed freight.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State is spending £12 million on privatisation this year, all of which is going to bankers, accountants and anyone else who knows nothing about running railways. Would not it be an improvement, not only for the north Wales coast line but for all the lines running off the west coast main line, if the £12 million were spent on the railways instead of being handed to any firm that happens to contribute to Conservative party funds?
    Mr. Freeman: It is always nice to end Question Time on a truly partisan and irrelevant note. The £12 million being spent on preparations for privatisation is money well spent. It is being spent as a result of a competitive tender and is going to the best possible advisers. I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that we spend £1,000 million a year on investment and that this year another £500 million will be spent on subsidy to the railways. It is a small price to pay and it is well justified.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Freemasons
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure that freemasons in all Government Departments disclose their membership of such bodies; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): The existing conduct rules require staff to disclose any interests which conflict with their official duties.
    Mr. Skinner: How many freemasons are there in the Government? How many are there in the Cabinet? If the Prime Minister can give us a rough estimate of how many bastards there are in the Cabinet, even though I do not think that he can count, is it not about time that the Government came clean? If the Minister does not agree, does he accept that many of us would like membership of the freemasons to be noted in the Register of Members' Interests?
    Mr. Davis: Nothing in my notes will help with this one. No one could ever accuse the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) of understating his case. I cannot answer the first part of his question and I have no notion of whether there are any freemasons in the Cabinet, although I suspect not. As for the latter part of his question, it is a matter for him to take up with the Prime Minister, except for one point. The hon. Gentleman said that he thought that membership of the freemasons should be noted in the Register of Members' Interests, but that is a matter for the House, not the Government.

    Charters
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new charters he expects to promote in 1994 and in what areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Davis: Thirty-eight charters have been produced under the citizens charter initiative. Further and higher education charters for Northern Ireland will be published in the spring. An updated and improved edition of the employers charter was issued on 17 January; revised versions of the jobseekers charter and the parents charter are also planned for the spring.
    Mr. Greenway: Is the Minister aware of parents' increasing interest in their children's education following the introduction of the education charter? Can he tell the House of sectors in which standards are improving, such as reading across London, and in which children are clearly seen to be benefiting from Government's policy?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is correct to say that many parents—in fact, most parents—are showing great interest in the league tables that are published as a direct result of a promise made in the first charter White Paper. He is also correct to say that charters are helping to raise standards. Off the top of my head, I can think of many schools. In particular, there is one in Basildon whose deputy head teacher recently wrote in a newspaper about how his school had taken on board the need to improve academic standards as a result of its performance in the league tables. That we see throughout the country, with school heads and in school management, which is a good thing for parents and for pupils.
    Mr. Barnes: The original charter, drawn up by the chartists in the 19th century, was concerned with electoral registration and a fair franchise. As the franchise is now in a mess, with the names of up to 4 million people missing from electoral registers, should not the Minister turn his attention to electoral registration and improved methods of
    14
    updating it, such as a rolling register? That would have been something sensible to do with charters rather than some of the nonsense that we get.
    Mr. Davis: I am getting a lot of interesting questions today, not that too many of them have much to do with my Department. Electoral registration is not a matter for the Cabinet Office. I can, however, say that, although the hon. Gentleman may not think that charters do much, 70 per cent. of the population think that charters and the techniques used—league tables and competition—are worth while. He would do well, therefore, to pay attention to what his electors think.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: My hon. Friend must be aware that British Rail has recently tightened up on the number of minutes by which a train is deemed to be late. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the employees of British Rail who, with their own rail charter, which he has so enthusiastically championed, have successfully met the standards that they originally laid down and are now setting new standards, which we look forward to being met in the interests of the travelling public?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The theme of the charters this year is very much about tightening up standards across the board. In Network SouthEast, from memory, nine of the lines are tightening standards and six are improving reliability. That is happening across the board and it is a trend to be encouraged. As my hon. Friend says, British Rail is to be congratulated on it.
    Mr. Garrett: I read that the main performance indicator for the charter for the immigration service is a two or three-minute wait at passport control at Heathrow, whereas I guess that most hon. Members and most people are much more alarmed about the detention and incarceration of innocent visitors by the immigration service at Heathrow and other places. Does not that illustrate the profound vacuity of the entire charter effort?
    Mr. Davis: All it demonstrates is the profound vacuity of the hon. Gentleman. The Home Office has answered that question several times and each time demonstrated that every tenet of his questions is wrong. The hon. Gentleman ought to know the difference between the immigration service and Customs and Excise.

    Open Government
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on his White Paper on open government.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): I have received representations from about 100 organisations, which are now being reviewed. We will announce our conclusions shortly, after considering the representations. I am sure that the House will agree that it is important that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the ombudsman, should be properly resourced to oversee the code of practice. I am, therefore, pleased to announce that next year the resources available for the PCA will be £9·5 million—more than double the current level.
    Mr. Coombs: Am I right in thinking that in those representations there has been widespread support for the

    15
    idea of the code of practice being policed by the new commissioner? Would it not be sensible to wait until the new scheme has had plenty of opportunity to operate, so that we can judge it in practice, before my right hon. Friend chooses to introduce legislation on freedom of information?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend was a member of Standing Committee C, which considered the Right to Know Bill, and is expert on those matters. Many of the people who have doubted that we were going down that route said that we would not resource the ombudsman properly to do his job. We have done that now and I am pleased to be able to announce it. I think that the new system will work well and that it will be much easier for people to deal with than complicated court-based procedures.
    Mr. Meacher: How can the Tory Administration make any pretensions to open government when five Cabinet Ministers have secretly signed certificates that would have sent innocent men to jail rather than expose their duplicity in misleading the House about arms to Iraq, and when the Prime Minister—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may well wish to rephrase what he has just said about duplicity and misleading the House. Indeed, he must rephrase what he has said.
    Mr. Meacher: We are concerned that what we have been told is not the full truth. I wish to say no more than that. That is a matter with regard to open government. We are concerned when the Prime Minister has tried to pretend his total ignorance of Iraqgate for four whole years, when Westminster and Wandsworth councils have secretly pursued a policy of bribing residents to leave, not to provide homes for the homeless but to provide votes for themselves, and when the Prime Minister overrides a permanent secretary to force him to spend £200 million of aids moneys as a sweetener for an arms deal in Malaysia in statutory breach of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. When will this Tory Government ever learn that the first requirement of open government is to start telling the truth?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman was a junior member of a Government who failed even to tell their own Cabinet about Chevaline because they did not trust the left-wing Cabinet members—at that time, he was a fiery left-winger, but since then he has become more middle class—let alone announce it to the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman should give up doing his failed Presiley Baxendale act. He does it much more incompetently than that barrister—[Interruption.] If the hon. Members behind the Opposition Front Bench could have heard comments made by those on it, they would rightly have spoken of sexism. They should listen to the rubbish spoken by their own Front Bench.
    The hon. Gentleman had no other points to make today except one, which he made in The Times—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer him."] I am answering the hon. Gentleman's point. He made serious allegations against the Prime Minister in The Times. He did not even check the facts. He referred to a letter which he alleged had been written to the Prime Minister in June 1990. If he will recollect matters, he will find that the present Prime
    16
    Minister was not the Prime Minister in June 1990. That is about the level of accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's allegations.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Are not the recent Herr Mohnke disclosures good illustrations of the need for my right hon. Friend to keep encouraging and pushing his colleagues to release such information early, as it is important for the general public to understand such details so that they can start asking questions and we can put pressure on our allies and colleagues?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Ministry of Defence has made it clear that it was in relation to new, tougher criteria for the retention of documents that those papers were released. I think that the House has welcomed that.

    Intestacy
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for the latest year for which figures are available, what is the number of people who have died intestate and whose estates have transferred to the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. Waldegrave: There were 421 cases reported to the Duchy solicitor during the year ending 1992.
    After inquiries had failed to reveal next of kin and after ex-gratia payments had been made, the assets of 328 estates were vested in the Crown in the right of the Duchy.
    Mr. Prentice: I thank the Minister for that reply and for his personal intervention, which allowed a grant to be made to the Lancashire free legal advice centre which allowed it to buy updates for its law library. Is not it the case that, in this day and age, it is quite anomalous for the estates of people who die intestate in the county palatine and in the Duchy of Cornwall to be treated so differently from those of people who die intestate elsewhere in the country, where the money goes to the Exchequer? Is not it about time that we got rid of that throwback to medieval times?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is indeed an anomaly, but it is a worthwhile anomaly from which the people of Lancashire benefit. If the hon. Gentleman had been addressing his requests for help to the worthy charity of my right hon. Friends in Her Majesty's Treasury, doubtless, he would have got his money, but perhaps he would not. Hon. Members for Lancashire would do well to hang on to that anomalous piece of history. It does good for the people of Lancashire.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does it not astonish my right hon. Friend that an hon. Member purporting to represent Lancashire should be so unpatriotic about matters affecting that county's citizens? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the citizens of the county town of Lancaster have done extremely well out of the fund? The kids' club, the pre-school play group, the disablement centre and many others have benefited from that unique charity—and long may it survive.
    Mr. Waldegrave: On this occasion, my hon. Friend speaks with a more authentic voice of Lancashire than does the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).

    Equal Opportunities
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress of equal opportunities in the civil service.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Government actively pursue a policy aimed at achieving equality of opportunity in civil service employment. The latest reports on the position of women and ethnic minorities in the civil service were published last month and placed in the Library of the House. The report on disabled employees will be published in the spring.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I endorse the Government's determination to ensure that more women can make an active contribution in the civil service, but would not that policy be enhanced if women could get more help with provision for their domestic responsibilities? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we could jointly persuade our friends at the Treasury to make the costs of child care or of looking after elderly folk back home tax deductible, women who have acquired the necessary skills and talents could make a much larger contribution to our public life and also provide many more jobs?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is perfectly right that help with, for example, child care must be a high priority for the civil service if we are to get women into senior jobs. I am well aware of my hon. Friend's long-running campaign on that and I entirely share its objectives. We are making real progress. At first management grade level—executive officer—women now have 46 per cent. of the jobs, compared with 29 per cent. as recently as 1984. That is a considerable improvement.
    Dr. Moonie: How many under-secretaries?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The answer is not enough, but now that the figure in the management grades is 50 per cent., that position will rectify itself.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: While the Minister is considering equal opportunities, will he seek to ensure that the political background of ministerial appointees to the quangos and other bodies now running so much of the civil service is made public, so that we may see where those appointed by Ministers are coming from politically?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman knows, civil service appointments are made through the proper machinery of the Cabinet Office. In other sectors where appointments are made by Ministers, they are always made on the basis of who are the best people for the job.

    Chemical Industry (Graduates)
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many university graduates were recruited by the chemical industry in 1993.
    Mr. David Davis: The Chemical Industries Association carries out a survey of graduate recruitment annually, but I understand that firm figures for 1993 are not yet available. The latest survey showed recruitment of graduates by major employers in the United Kingdom chemical industry to be 856 in 1992, and the provisional prediction for 1993 was 652.
    Mr. Devlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the chemical industry is to maintain its position as Britain's second largest export earner, it must continue to recruit topflight scientists from our universities as they graduate? Is not the fall-off that occurred in 1993 a cause for concern? Should we not encourage the chemical industry to recruit as many people as possible so that it has the scientists to carry it forward into the next century?
    Mr. Davis: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's continued interest in these matters: he is a member of the all-party chemical industry group and has many chemical concerns in his constituency which he ably represents. Like him, I welcome the chemical industry's substantial contribution to research and development and, indeed, to the whole economy. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and with the president of the Chemical Industries Association that companies would do well to consider carefully the need to invest in highly trained staff and research and development as a factor in securing longer-term economic progress.
    Mr. Miller: British universities are clearly doing an excellent job in providing graduates to the chemical industry—despite the fact that they are under-resourced —but what conclusions does the Minister draw from the article recently published in Physics World about the acute shortage of physicists in British universities? Has the hon. Gentleman drawn any conclusions in respect of that shortage that extend into other disciplines?
    Mr. Davis: Let me set the matter straight for the hon. Gentleman. It is projected that between 1987–88 and 1995–96, the number of science, maths and engineering graduates will have risen from 40,000 to 67,000. The number of full-time postgraduates studying science, maths and engineering has risen by more than 30 per cent. since 1987–88, and it is projected that the intake of students into first-degree physical sciences, including chemistry and physics, will have grown by 40 per cent. between 1987–88 and 1995–96. In addition, postgraduate research has doubled over the past decade. It is difficult to see where the problem arises.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I should like, with permission, Madam Speaker, to make a statement about the proposed new channel tunnel rail link.
The House will recall that in March 1993 I announced a preferred route and asked Union Railways to lead the consultation on it. Union Railways carried out a huge consultation exercise, and reported to me in October. Its report is available in the Vote Office. I am now able to announce the Government's final conclusions on the route.
The report of Union Railways confirms that St. Pancras is preferable to King's Cross as the terminus on environmental, operational and commercial grounds. I therefore confirm the choice of St. Pancras as the London terminus. British Rail will no longer need to continue to seek powers to build the King's Cross low-level station and will be withdrawing the King's Cross Bill. I intend to remove the safeguarding of the land and property affected by that project. Links from St. Pancras will be provided to the east coast and west coast main lines to facilitate through services to the midlands, the north of England and Scotland, and midland main line services will be retained at St. Pancras.
I propose to seek powers in the hybrid Bill for the advance works for a new Thameslink station under St. Pancras, at Midland road. This would be the optimum location for any eventual new Thameslink station serving the King's Cross and St. Pancras area. It is our intention that further improvements to Thameslink would be carried forward by the private sector and financed entirely by the private sector. The use of any powers obtained will be a matter for the private sector promoters of the channel tunnel rail link and of Thameslink, and not for the Government.
I turn now to the route itself. The approach to St. Pancras has been one of the most contentious issues in London. The surface route along the north London line corridor would be difficult to construct and environmentally damaging. I considered the approach to St. Pancras in combination with three other options recommended by Union Railways for operational reasons. I have accepted a package that incorporates a tunnel, a grade-separated approach to the terminus, a short open concrete box at Stratford to allow for an emergency crossover, and advance works for a connection to Temple Mills.
In Kent, there is no easy choice at Pepper Hill. The tunnel under the electricity switching station has to be ruled out because of high cost and grave threat to the construction programme. The choice between a tunnel under Pepper Hill and an alignment around it cannot be made without more information. Before taking a final decision, I shall hold further consultations with those concerned.
I confirm that there will be a short tunnel under the north downs. I have accepted the proposal for a tunnel 240 m long at Hollingbourne in order to preserve the setting of the conservation area and to reduce noise impacts; and a 170 m long tunnel at Sandway under the Headcorn road so as to reduce the impact on the conservation area.
I have had to rule out the tunnel option to the west of Ashford on grounds of cost. However, as a consequence, and at the request of Ashford borough council, I have asked
20
Union Railways to consider urgently the relative merits of the present northerly preferred route and a central route through Ashford but then proceeding on the surface in a north-westerly direction. The new international station at Ashford is now proceeding and will serve passengers both before and after the construction of a new rail link.
At the Dollands Moor freight inspection facility adjacent to Eurotunnel's terminal, the Bill will allow for possible realignment to improve operations, with the further possibility of allowing international freight trains to have direct access to the rail link, thus removing the need for an additional freight inspection facility at Westenhanger. I shall also provide in the Bill for two freight passing loops in Kent, to keep open the option of taking more freight trains if demand justifies it in the future.
I turn now to intermediate stations. The decision in October 1991 to route the rail link on an easterly approach into London was based in large part on the opportunities for regeneration. With that objective in mind, the Government's view remains that, subject to satisfactory finance, there should be at least one intermediate station between Ashford and London. Four possible locations—Stratford, Rainham, Ebbsfleet and Nashenden"—have been looked at. The proposed domestic station at Nashenden has no private sector or local authority promoter or support. I have decided that it can be ruled out.
That leaves Stratford, Rainham and Ebbsfleet. Ebbsfleet and Rainham are in direct competition, both being M25 parkway stations. On present information, a combined international and domestic station at the northern site at Ebbsfleet seems the better parkway station option, but a final decision will depend upon the provision of satisfactory financing by the promoting group.
The economic case for a station at Stratford has yet to be fully made. If the justification for one—in particular the financial case—improves before the hybrid Bill is introduced, powers could be sought to build a longer box there than the one to which I referred earlier.
I intend to issue planning directions in the next few weeks to safeguard the route announced today and St. Pancras. These directions will replace all the existing safeguarding directions. I want to make it clear that the decisions on safeguarding the route announced today are final. Any changes which may be proposed by the private sector partner who will eventually build and operate the new link must be within the area safeguarded. Furthermore, any changes must not materially worsen the environmental impacts of the safeguarded route. The private sector will, however, have flexibility to decide on some operational features of the railway. I expect that the private sector will also want to consider carefully the phasing of the works.
I recognise that there is considerable concern about blight. Homes wholly or substantially required for building the railway, together with those seriously affected by the works or operation of the railway, will be included in the safeguarded zone and will be offered voluntary purchase. Any other homes that may be affected by operational noise above the proposed threshold for noise insulation will qualify for purchase in cases of hardship.
As I announced last November, the project will go ahead on the fastest possible timetable, with the private sector assuming full responsibility for construction and operation. The Government are willing in principle to provide substantial public sector support, in recognition

21
not only of the significant domestic transport and regeneration benefits from the new line, but also of some of the very large benefits to international passengers. Government assistance will be provided partly through the transfer of European passenger services to the private sector partner as soon as the partner has been chosen. The total Government assistance to be provided will depend on the outcome of the competition to select the private sector partner which will be launched very soon.
A hybrid Bill is being drafted on the basis of the safeguarded route. We aim to have it ready by this autumn for consideration by the private sector and for the Government to take forward thereafter. The precise timing of the Bill's introduction will depend on the parliamentary timetable and the private sector's views.
This solution will provide a fast rail link between London and the channel tunnel. It achieves all the Government's objectives. People who live in Kent will get further improved rail services to London. Rail travellers will receive the extra capacity when it is needed around the turn of the century. It provides a new railway which is sensitive to the land and townscapes through which it passes. It establishes a joint venture in which both the public and private sector play their roles.
It is a further demonstration, coming on top of the Dartford bridge, the second Severn crossing, Heathrow express and the Jubilee line extension, all of which have been built or are under construction, that the private finance initiative is now moving ahead fast.
Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. All the people and organisations affected by the channel tunnel were entitled to expect from the Government today a firm, once-for-all decision that the channel tunnel link would be built, that the route had been fixed, that proper environmental protection had been guaranteed, that decent compensation would be paid, that the blight would be lifted, and that the funds for the link had been found. The statement fails to meet all those legitimate demands.
All the route has not yet been fixed; there are still doubts about the intermediate stations, in particular the one proposed at Stratford; proper environmental protection has not been guaranteed to the satisfaction of the people affected; compensation terms are still not fair to all concerned; all the blight has not been lifted; and the necessary funds have not been found. Some aspects of the statement are welcome—for example, the choice of St. Pancras station as the London terminus, the commitment to some tunnelling through north London and Kent, and the firming up of most of the route—but those decisions do not go far enough, nor are they firm enough. The dither and the blight continue.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that his timetable for the building of the link means that it might not be operated for another nine or 10 years; that, for the next decade, goods and passengers from all over Britain will face a 70-mile bottleneck from London to the tunnel; that that will be an inconvenience for London but a disaster for people in the rest of the country who want to trade with and travel to Europe; that individuals and companies from the north, the midlands, the south-west, Wales and Scotland, will, for a decade, be denied the full benefits of fast, regular, reliable and direct services to Europe that the Government originally promised; that when the first Eurostar train leaves Paris it will travel at 185 mph to the
22
tunnel, pass through the tunnel at 85 mph and then trundle at about 50 mph through Kent to Waterloo; and that, on arriving at Waterloo, international travellers will have to lug their baggage across London to King's Cross, St. Pancras, Euston or Paddington? Is not that a national disgrace when the French link is already in place?
Surely the Government had a strategic duty to ensure that the whole of Britain received the maximum benefits from the tunnel as soon as possible, rather than those benefits being concentrated in the south-east.
Will the Secretary of State make clear what he really intends about Government funding for the link? For the past seven years, the Government have ruled out any public contribution to the international aspects of the link. We welcome his return to common sense. He knows now that there was no chance of private investment without a Government contribution. If the Government had accepted that from the start, the link might have been built by now and we could all benefit immediately the tunnel comes into operation.
Mr. MacGregor: I hope, after all that, that the hon. Gentleman will support the proposal, but let me reply to a number of his points.
On the question about how much this matter is an advance today, it is a very significant further improvement. The route has been fixed, subject to two very small remaining parts—Ashford and Pepper Hill. I have been around them once again since I received the Union Railways report to take a good look at them on the ground. I have received representations on them, and I believe that we can actually settle the route in both areas after some further fairly swift consultation, and well before the hybrid Bill comes before the House or the completion of the competition for the private sector partner.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that today the vast majority of the route has been fixed and that therefore the blight has been lifted, that the safeguarding will apply to all areas that I have mentioned and that, within the next three to four weeks, we shall make the safeguard announcements for all those parts of the route.
On the environmental assessment, the hon. Gentleman will know that an enormous amount of work has been done in relation to the Union Railways report on the environmental aspects. Indeed, a large number of expert consultancies have been deeply involved, but the proper environmental assessment comes at a later stage, and we shall certainly fulfil all the requirements of the European Community environmental directive.
As for stations, at the moment there is not sufficient private finance, which we have made clear throughout is required, for an additional station or two. Therefore, it must be right—no doubt it will involve the partner who is eventually selected as a result of the competition—that we do not make a decision about the stations, apart from the one that I have ruled out, until the financing is clear.
As far as funds are concerned, I made clear in my statement last March that we would be making a public sector contribution. Then, of course, we were prohibited from doing so via British Rail because of section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act. Developments since then have enabled me to widen the area in which public contributions can be made. One significant development was the Railways Act 1993, which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) opposed all the way through.

23
We cannot at this stage say what the precise split will be between private and public sector finance, and that will be a part of the contributions which are to come.
The hon. Gentleman referred to tunnelling. My announcement today means that 23 per cent. of the total route will be tunnelled. That is a substantial contribution, and clearly demonstrates the extent to which we are taking into account environmental aspects.
Mr. Dobson: Big deal.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, says that it is a big deal. I ask him to reflect on what the route might be like if there was to be something like 75 per cent. tunnelling. The route would not be as attractive as it will be in the way in which I have announced today. To respond to another point made by the hon. Gentleman, we have firmed up not only most of the route, but the vast majority of it.
The hon. Gentleman referred to goods and passengers and commented on a 70-mile bottleneck. It is worth restating clearly that, as a result not least of the £1·4 billion of public expenditure that has been devoted to the track, infrastructure and rolling stock to take advantage of the tunnel when it opens, the time taken for passengers from London to Paris will be down to three hours. The time to Brussels will be three and a quarter hours until the high-speed link is completed in Belgium. Those times will make the route very competitive with air now and for the rest of the 1990s.
I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop decrying the amount of expenditure which has already gone in to providing the infrastructure to achieve those benefits. I stated at Question Time that there will be significant improvements in the prospects for freight on rail as a result of the opening of the channel tunnel and the investment that has been made. In particular, that will be of benefit to the west midlands, the north of England and Scotland, where there will be significant improvements.
Through trains will go from Waterloo to Scotland and to the north of England, so the hon. Gentleman was wrong on that count. Therefore, he is quite wrong to say that the benefits of the scheme are confined mainly to the south east. That is not true.
As a result of the investment, there will be a substantial take-up of use of the channel tunnel in the 1990s. My announcement today means that we shall be able to have the high-speed link on stream at the time that the extra capacity which it provides is needed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members are seeking to put questions on the statement. After the initial exchanges, I must demand speedy questions and even speedier answers.
Sir Keith Speed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be disappointment in my area that he has not been able to provide a tunnel for the central route through Ashford? In view of the strong support for the central route—not least to ensure the long-term viability of the station, and on environmental grounds—we welcome the fact that he is prepared to look at alternative solutions. However, that means that communities such as Little Chart and Hothfield face an uncertain future. Will my right hon.
24
Friend guarantee that there will be full and speedy consultation and that there will be the maximum environmental protection possible for whatever route is finally chosen?
Mr. MacGregor: As we have said elsewhere, we are going for the maximum environmental protection and mitigation. I know that my hon. Friend is disappointed with the decision to rule out the tunnel alternative. However, it would have added £65 million to the cost and that would not have been justified, given the benefits which would have flowed from it. I assure him that the consultation on the additional route which was suggested to me by Ashford borough council will be speedy. I am as anxious as my hon. Friend to end the blight as quickly as possible.
Mr. Nick Harvey.: In welcoming the supposedly final announcement of St. Pancras as the central London route and the tunnelling of the approach to it, may I echo the disappointment that there will not be tunnelling at Ashford? May I ask the Secretary of State how much public money was wasted on the King's Cross project and the south London route? Would not that have helped towards the cost of the tunnels at Ashford?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question. I shall try to find out as much as possible, but he will know that part of the question cannot be answered yet because the properties are being resold. However, I want to make it clear that the St. Pancras decision is the final one: he seemed to cast doubt on that. I am sure that it is the right decision. The Union Railways report confirmed that, for a variety of reasons. It was right that we should have that additional look so that we could have the right answer for the long-term future.
Mr. Bob Dunn: While I welcome the Government's preferred option of an intermediate station at Ebbsfleet, will my right hon. Friend confirm that Ebbsfleet would benefit the local domestic commuter as well as the international passenger in a way that Rainham would not? Will he further confirm that, if the alignment goes round Pepper Hill, the rail link will go under the A2 rather than over it, thus avoiding impact on the communities of Southfleet and Betsham?
Mr. MacGregor: In answer to my hon. Friend's first point, I can confirm that Ebbsfield would benefit domestic passengers as well as international ones. As my hon. Friend knows, that is another great benefit that will arise from the project as a whole. Domestic passengers in Kent and parts of Essex will gain considerably in improved journey times.
On my hon. Friend's second point about whether the rail link goes under or over the A2, we are looking at two options. Again, as for Ashford, we want to take decisions speedily.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: In order not to sound curmudgeonly, may I say that we are pleased that the route through Hackney will be in a tunnel and that Stratford has not been chosen as an intermediate station? As far as we are concerned, the shorter the box the better. Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be proper compensation for homes affected by the operation of the tunnel?
Mr. MacGregor: Compensation will depend on how close the homes are to the surface route. Modern engineering and conditions mean that noise mitigation for those above a tunnel is well carried through.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about the tunnel in Hackney. I know that there is some division on his side about Stratford station. As he will have heard from my statement, the decision will depend on the reactions that we receive in the months ahead.
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): I welcome my right hon. Friend's modest improvement in the compensation arrangements, but is he aware that tying the voluntary acquisition arrangements to a proposed noise theshold which, in the opinion of every district council in Kent, is too severe will produce a result for individual blighted households that is neither reasonable not fair?
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, we are still consulting on the threshold. We have extended the consultation period until 28 February at the request of some of the consultees to enable them to put in their responses. We shall then have to look at the position. We seek to apply broadly the same principles in compensation for this project as for projects elsewhere in the transport sector.
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is probably on his own in being glad that there will not be an international station at Stratford. We in the east end are very disappointed that the Secretary of State has not been able to announce this afternoon that the station will be in Stratford. Long box or short box, it is better than a cardboard box, but it is certainly not better than an international station. The station is the key to the regeneration of the east Thames corridor and docklands.
The Secretary of State said that a case could be made before the hybrid Bill was placed. Will the private sector and the public sector in the east end have to persuade him or British Rail that we need an international station at Stratford?
On compensation—given that the route goes immediately under my house in Forest Gate—will there be compensation for people in the north of Newham for the tunnelling under the borough?
Mr. MacGregor: I would not want to comment on any particular compensation case. I did not think that it would be long before the hon. Gentleman bobbed up to dispute the point that his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) made. We have not taken the final decision on the matter; I have made that clear. The justification is not fully there yet.
Of course I accept the importance of the channel tunnel high-speed link to the regeneration of east London. Et is one of many contributory factors. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are doing a great deal with a large number of projects to achieve that regeneration. The financial case for Stratford station, however, has not yet been made out. It will be for the advocates of that station to continue to make that case, and I shall also listen to what they have to say before any decision is taken.
Dame Peggy Fenner: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we share his delight about the abandonment of the Nashenden proposal. He knows that there is a unique position over the River Medway: there is
26
the rail-link bridge, and a further road link is being proposed by the Department of Transport, which will mean that two enormous bridges will overlook my constituency at Borstal and Strood. I know that it is possible that joint approval can be given in a hybrid Bill to allow those two bridges to be constructed at the same time. Will he assure me that that can and will be done? My constituents do not want a decade of construction.
Mr. MacGregor: We certainly recognise the need to co-ordinate the design of the high-speed link and the widening of the M2 so that their combined effects are as sympathetic as possible to the environment. I am aware of the local people's and my hon. Friend's concern that the schemes should be constructed in a similar time scale to minimise construction disturbance in the region. I am also aware of her feeling that it would be helpful to include a scheme to widen the M2 in the hybrid Bill. It could be promoted either under Highways Act procedures or as part of the Bill. No decision has been taken yet on that, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be making further representations to me on the matter.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be dismay in most of east London that he is still dithering and that he has not announced that there will definitely be an international station at Stratford, despite all the support and co-operation that he has had from the London borough of Newham? Does he realise that it will be considered a stab in the back if that station is not built? The Government's pretence at partnership in the east Thames corridor and in docklands will lose all credibility unless that station is built. It is essential to kick-start the regeneration of that region.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to consider the full Union Railways report. As I have already stated, however, the financing case has not yet been made out. All through the discussions, we have made it clear that we would expect the promoters to finance the stations. The issue is still open and I have made it clear that I shall be prepared to consider the long box for the hybrid Bill. It is still open to the promoters to make a convincing case.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I very much welcome the promise of my right hon. Friend that the project will now be built as quickly as possible. My constituents have already lived in the shadow of blight for five years, and they are likely to live in it for another 10. He must know that the mere statement of where the route will go does not remove blight. Blight continues because people cannot sell their houses if a big construction project is going ahead. Despite the speed with which we want the project to progress, my right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that we will petition about the long tunnel in the Boxley valley.
Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that I fully understand the arguments about blight. That is why I have tried to move the project forward as quickly as possible. It is worth underlining the extent of last year's consultation exercise. Union Railways held 650 meetings in six months, and my Department received nearly 2,500 representations or petitions. There has been a massive amount of work done to reach the stage of my announcement today, which takes a singificant step forward in dealing with blight. Safeguarding the route is the key essential.

27
I understand my hon. Friend's point about the non-statutory blight that occurs as a result of the construction programme. I hope that we shall complete that construction as quickly as possible. We have to take into account, however, that the hybrid Bill will take some time to progress through the House, not least because of the number of petitioners, of whom my hon. Friend will be one. I hope, therefore, that he will co-operate to ensure that the Bill proceeds through the House as quickly as possible.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be much relief in my constituency that the route will go into deep tunnel under it? I hope that he will pay due tribute to the many campaigning organisations and the excellent document that they put together that obviously helped to persuade him to include the deep tunnel as part of the route.
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly what is meant by the "grade-separated" junction of the line at the St. Pancras end? Exactly how far will the route run above the ground within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)? Exactly how many properties will be affected by it? What compensation arrangements will be made? What will be the effect of blight on the community around King's Cross, which has already suffered so much blight because of the original King's Cross Railways Bill?
Mr. MacGregor: I hope that my announcement about removing the safeguarding of the King's Cross railway lands will remove much of the blight, particularly in relation to commercial and other developments.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the tunnel. I do not believe that the decision was reached solely because of all the representations; it was reached also as a result of the thorough work of Union Railways. I pay tribute to the tremendous efforts made by that company and its consultants. I hope that those consultants will not be castigated in the future, as they have been by the Opposition in the past, because their private-sector expertise has enabled a thorough job to be done.
That has enabled us to reach the best possible solution for north London, given that some people will always be affected by such a major scheme. I have no doubt, however, that the tunnel under Islington will make a significant difference to everyone in north London. The hon. Gentleman will see from the report that the tunnel will come out just east of the Caledonian road.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the grade-separated junction. I invite him to look at the report. It is required to ensure that there are no future capacity constraints on the number of services coming in to St. Pancras station.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I thank my right hon. Friend for acknowledging the concerns of my constituents at Pepper Hill and Northfleet by reopening the alternative option to skirt the housing estate—that option was closed far too early by Union Railways. When will it report on that option, because that blight will continue and it is a matter of great concern? Will my right hon. Friend also take note of the fact that all concerned wish to see the lowest possible route passing under the carriageway of the A2?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. All aspects of the further alternative must be considered thoroughly in terms of their impact and financial costs in relation to the tunnel under Pepper Hill. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary to reach conclusions on it quickly. Therefore, we will ask Union Railways to do so speedily so that we can take decisions and the extent of the blight is decided.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Is the Secretary of State totally unaware of the discourtesy that he has displayed to my constituents and the people of Essex? After he had explained and dealt with all the other objections and representations that he received, his statement completely ignored the legitimate claim of my constituents for tunnelling in the area that affects my constituency and splits the town of Thurrock. Is he blind to the security implications of having a surface channel tunnel rail link route crossing the M25 at the Queen Elizabeth II bridge? That is absurd. Surely that example alone presents an overwhelming case for tunnelling.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of people who live along the route in Kent and Essex will hold deep bitterness against him for the fact that he continues to blight their homes? The safeguarded route will provide compensation only for those people whose houses will be knocked down, but nothing will be done to help those who must live alongside and abut the line of route for the next decade. The right hon. Gentleman's statement is outrageous and one for which he should be condemned.
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware that it is not possible to please everyone when such a major scheme is decided. As the hon. Gentleman will see when he studies the report, we have not ignored the issue that he has raised. I had to choose only certain items for the statement to avoid it being too long.
Mr. MacKinlay: Tory seats.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that is true about north London and the lines going through it. The decisions were reached on the basis not of Tory seats but of the major changes announced. If I had tried to cover every aspect of the changes, I would have made a statement that was three times as long as today's statement.
I accept that the viaduct carrying the rail link past the Mardyke Park housing estate will have a noise and visual impact. There is scope for reducing the number of houses affected by means of revised mitigation proposals. The longer tunnel favoured by consultees simply could not be justified.
Sir Michael Neubert: Is my right hon. Friend aware that support for an international station at Rainham remains strong, and that every opportunity will be taken by the promoters to persuade him of the case for it during the extra time that he has allowed?
As for the route, has my right hon. Friend been able to accommodate the anxieties of the residents of Havering, expressed to us in the House of Commons and elsewhere? In particular, has he been able to respond to the points urged on him by our hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), advocating a more southerly route through Rainham?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said about Rainham. I have no doubt that the promoters will strengthen their case in the discussions that will take place in the months ahead.
It has not been possible to meet all the requests about Rainham, but there have been slight adjustment; to the route there.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: In respect of the possible Stratford international, boxed or unboxed. has the Secretary of State perused the memorandum that I sent him advocating such a station on strategic grounds? Can he deny the fact that more than 200 stations in Greater London and south-east England would be connected directly to Stratford, given current running and current plans? Would not such a facility for direct public transport to such a station complement the facilities in central London and reduce traffic in Newham, Hackney and even Norfolk as Liverpool street trains could stop at Stratford?
Mr. MacGregor: Stratford will be important in any case, irrespective of this decision, because there is a considerable number of links there. The problem is that the financial case has not yet been fully made out; the financial proposals that we must seek before we go ahead have not been forthcoming. I very much hope that the promoters will look further at that in the months ahead to see whether their case can be accepted.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister recall that on 5 June 1986, when some of us suggested that the rail link would inevitably involve considerable public funding, we were told that that was nonsense—rubbish —and that our fears were wholly unfounded? Given today's announcement and the fact that £2·6 billion has already been given to the project by the EC, has my right hon. Friend yet come to the conclusion that the channel tunnel is an outdated white elephant which will cost the taxpayers of Britain a fortune?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not recall the statement in 1986 because I was not present—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] I do not recall precisely the date and the terms. I have, however, been looking at the issues since becoming Secretary of State for Transport. I made the position clear in March last year, and I have developed it further today.
I do think that there is a case for a public sector contribution—a large one—to the high-speed link. I am astonished by the reaction of the Labour party, which has been urging on me a high-speed link all the way through but which now believes that I have arrived at a mistaken view—
Mr. Brian Wilson: Eight years late.
Mr. MacGregor: At the same time, the Labour party must recognise the fact that substantial public expenditure has gone into the existing route, which has the capacity to deal with the traffic at least until the turn of the century. Now we are discussing what we need to do for further capacity.
I believe-—I would not have made the statement otherwise—that the high-speed link is important. It is right to make a public sector contribution to it; and I do not believe the channel tunnel to be a white elephant. I think that there will be substantial take-up.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State referred in his statement to the St. Pancras link as facilitating through services to the midlands, the north of England and Scotland. Inadvertently or otherwise, he did not mention the possibility of through services to Holyhead, a matter regarded as important not only by north Wales but by the Irish Government. Can he give an assurance that the link has not been ruled out by the Government and that it can be facilitated as part of this package?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that nothing would be ruled out for the long term. One of the issues here is that of the electrification of the link to Holyhead, about which there was an exchange earlier today. That is relevant to my statement this afternoon.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it makes sense for people travelling from the eastern counties to be able to connect by rail to the channel tunnel railway? If, therefore, Stratford station is ruled out in the end, will he ensure careful investigation of the possibility of the Thameslink network being spread sufficiently far into East Anglia that there can be connection at the new station to which he referred—the Midland road station at St. Pancras?
Mr. MacGregor: That would be a matter for the Thameslink promoters to consider. Needless to say, as my hon. Friend knows, I am anxious to ensure that the links between East Anglia and the channel tunnel high-speed link and the channel tunnel generally are as good as they can be.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not recall that I was one of the very few Members who totally opposed the channel tunnel project on Second Reading. Is he aware that there is still a small number of us who see nothing in this ill-starred project but financial, ecological and, finally, physical disaster? But, in the interim, what archaeological investigations will be made into the effect of these developments on the recently discovered prehistoric walkways under various parts of east London, a very serious matter?
Mr. MacGregor: As so often happens, the hon. Gentleman speaks for himself. On the general point—
Mr. Faulds: And I am invariably right.
Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps frequently he speaks only for himself. Archaeological aspects will obviously be considered in the environmental assessment. As I have said, that will be carried out in full, complying with the European directive, at the appropriate time when the hybrid Bill comes forward.
Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend spoke about the benefit to local services in north Kent. Will he spell out whether there will be a junction at Ebbsfleet that will allow trains from north Kent to join the new line? If so, it will be good news for my commuter constituents.
Mr. MacGregor: I think that I confirmed that earlier to my hon. Friend, but I am happy to do so again. I repeat that the benefits to commuters and other passengers in north Kent and in Kent generally are certainly one of the advantages of the project.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Given the amount of consultation that the Secretary of State says he has had on this project, does not he think that it is about time that we had the final, final statement on this route? What comment does he make to my constituents, especially those between Grove Park and Hither Green, and, indeed, others in south-east London, who will have to bear the burden of extra freight trains but will have no benefit from extra commuter trains or the link, and will have to suffer blight on their homes for the next 10 years while the fast trains go through to Waterloo?
Mr. MacGregor: Of course there will be benefits to the hon. Lady's constituents in other ways. I re-emphasise that my announcement safeguards by far the vast majority of the route. There are only two stretches—and they are not significant in relation to the total route mileage—on which we are undertaking further consultations. Those consultations will be completed within a matter of months, well before the competition for the private sector partner is completed and well before the Bill is presented. By then, of course, the entire route will be safeguarded.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I welcome three matters in particular: the Secretary of State's emphasis on improvements to Thameslink, on keeping the freight options open, and on his commitment to substantial public sector support for the project. I have argued for that from a somewhat lonely position on these Benches ever since the project was mooted. I never thought that it would happen without such support, so I welcome it.
I should like an assurance on two matters. First, will my right hon. Friend's Department continue to keep a close eye on ensuring that the services for commuters using the existing lines in Kent are not downgraded when they are in competition with the international cross-channel services? Secondly, will he ensure that the Bill and the construction of the link are pushed forward with a great deal more urgency than there has been over the past eight years?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the three matters that he mentioned. On the first of his questions, there will be no downgrading by my Department—of course, the issue does not concern only my Department—of existing commuter services in Kent. My hon. Friend will know about the efforts that are being made with British Rail to improve existing services and about the substantial investment in rolling stock and in other matters.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I hope that he will accept that there has been a pretty speedy resolution of all the difficult issues on the route in the past 18 months. We moved quickly to the preferred route. Six months was the minimum time that we could have given Union Railways to carry out massive tasks—engineering, environmental and others. They did that well. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we took our decisions on the report as quickly as could possibly be expected, given the substantial implications. I hope that we can now proceed along the path that I have outlined, and with due speed. But, inevitably with a project of this nature, I suspect that there will be many petitions on the Bill.
Mr. John Gunnell: The Secretary of State knows well that not only the Thames corridor but much of the north of England is in need of regeneration. Will he assure me that links from the west
32
coast main line and the east coast main line, which will need to be constructed before St. Pancras becomes a viable option, will be in place before the rest of the line is completed so that the disadvantage already suffered by the north of England in channel tunnel links is not worsened by the changes that have been announced?
Mr. MacGregor: The two points that the hon. Gentleman has in mind—the connections with the west coast main line and the east coast main line to ensure that services coming out of St. Pancras go direct, as I have said, to the north of England, west midlands and Scotland—are an intrinsic part of the proposal.
Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, at the present time, the north of England and the rest of the United Kingdom are not disadvantaged and that the links to which he has referred will be adequate and proper? If he is able to give that assurance, does he agree that the channel tunnel rail link will benefit not only southern England but the whole of the United Kingdom?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend; he makes an important point. I am quite sure that, as with the Jubilee line, there will be construction jobs for firms all over the country. My hon. Friend will know that that is the case with the Jubilee line.
As for freight, a substantial part of the investment that has already been made is designed to benefit the north of England, Scotland, west midlands and other parts of the country apart from the south-east to gain the full benefits that long-distance freight can gain from having the channel tunnel. I repeat that there will be dramatic reductions in journey time for freight on rail compared to the present time—and, indeed, compared with road—when freight services open. There will be direct passenger services from the north of England through the channel tunnel in 1995.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Does not the Secretary of State understand that the upgrading that we all anticipated for the west coast main line is extremely important for the industrial heartlands of the west midlands, the north-west and the west coast of Scotland? Will not the lack of urgency in his statement confirm the suspicions of those of us who believe that he does not have a commitment to the fast rail links, without which there will be no regeneration in the industrial heartlands and regions along the west coast main line?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman obviously framed his question before I answered my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks). I dealt with some of those issues in that answer. We are proceeding with the greatest speed that we can get on the high speed link, because, as I have said repeatedly, it is a complex issue, involves a large number of organisations and people, and must be thoroughly argued through. We are proceeding with it with due speed.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we attach priority to the upgrading of the west coast main line generally and the southern sector, which is the sector most in need of improvement. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport said at Question Time, we expect Railtrack to announce shortly the results of the competition for the specification stage. That is moving ahead, too.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Secretary of State tell us what communications links there are between Ebbsfleet and the London Underground? What communications links are there with the potential crossrail link? Is it not ridiculous that, instead of taking advantage of linking the channel tunnel link to Stratford, the whole of the Central line and the rest of the underground system, he comes up with an announcement that will be seen as bitterly disappointing by my constituents in Ilford and other people near to the area who could have benefited so much from those proposals? Those of us in east London already have appalling conditions in travelling to this place and into central London generally, and the proposals do nothing to improve that situation.
Mr. MacGregor: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will talk again to the promoters of the Stratford station. I have made my position on that very clear.
The hon. Gentleman will know that a number of other improvements—unconnected with the high-speed link—are to go ahead. Improvements to the underground and other transport systems in the east end are being considered, and substantial improvements in all aspects of transport are taking place to assist the regeneration of east London.
I was not able to mention this in my statement, but the report makes it clear that Union Railways and the operators have decided that there are no operational benefits in a direct connection between crossrail and the high-speed link. We have therefore decided not to proceed with the direct link at Forest Gate, and at one other location. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read the report in that context.
Mr. William O'Brien: In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to the importance and significance of the link with the north. Can he give us some idea of when it will be completed? This concerns many of my constituents whose properties are blighted by the proposal for a terminal in my constituency. When will the Department of Transport or the Department of the Environment give the go-ahead for the Wakefield terminal? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the project any assistance?
Mr. MacGregor: I was not sure what link the hon. Gentleman meant, but I now understand that he is referring to the rail freight terminal. We hope to make a statement shortly; as the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been financing problems.
Mr. Brian Wilson: What should have been a great national project has been delayed to such an extent that it has taken eight years for it even to reach this stage. Does that not speak volumes about Tory government? The channel tunnel link has been seen as a holy grail into which not a penny of public money must go. Now that has been thrown away, and we are having to start all over again.
Is that the way in which great national infrastructure projects should be treated? Is it not astonishing that the Secretary of State should announce a route to us, while still being unable to tell us with any assurance where the money will come from? Why do not the Government get on with it, and end the national embarrassment that they have inflicted on Britain? Anyone can see the contrast between what has been done in France and what has been done in this country, under successive Tory Secretaries of State.
Mr. MacGregor: That reaction is typical of the hon. Gentleman. Let me make two points.
First, a substantial amount—about £1·4 billion—has been invested in transport infrastructure and rolling stock to enable the railway system and the passengers and freight involved to gain the full benefit when the channel tunnel opens. That will make a huge difference to the travelling time of both passengers and freight, and it will be possible to deal with all likely demand until the turn of the century.
Secondly, all aspects of the channel tunnel high-speed link must be examined very thoroughly. It must be engineered correctly; all the people and businesses likely to be affected must have an opportunity to be consulted, and we must ensure that their views are taken fully into account. There must be a sensible balance between securing value for money for the taxpayer and enabling the project to be financed partly by the private sector.
I believe that the way in which we are proceeding will produce considerable benefits. The capacity will be there when it is needed; the private sector will make its contribution, not only financially but by securing real value for money in the building of the link; and the taxpayer will be given value for money. The hon. Gentleman's answer to every question is simply to demand more and more of the taxpayers' money, irrespective of the merits of the case and irrespective of whether a private sector contribution can be made. That makes nonsense of the Labour party's claims about tax.

Orders of the Day

  Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.24 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  A year ago, I announced a long-term review of the social security system. The aims of the review are to improve the system, to safeguard the position of the most vulnerable and to ensure that the system does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay. I subsequently published my analysis of the growth of social security over the rest of this decade. That document showed that one of the three areas accounting for most of the likely growth in spending was invalidity and related benefits, so that has been the first sector that I have chosen to tackle.
  The Bill, together with the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, introduces a comprehensive reform of the system of benefits for those too unwell to work. The Bill has three objectives: first, to ensure that the huge and rising sums devoted to sickness benefits are properly focused on those who are genuinely too unwell to work; secondly, to ensure that the cost is affordable; and thirdly, to provide a more rational structure of benefits.
  The Bill replaces sickness and invalidity benefits with a new benefit called incapacity benefit. It introduces a new and more objective test of incapacity for work, and abolishes the lower rate of statutory sick pay.
  Before going into the detail of the Bill, let me knock one accusation firmly on the head. The Bill is not an attack on the sick and disabled; it is the very reverse. It is designed to protect their benefit against those who abuse it. As a result, it will make their benefits sustainable despite the other pressures on the social security system. That is a worthy objective, and one which the whole House should share.
  Invalidity benefit is the fastest growing contributory benefit, and it is already second in cost only to the basic pension. Spending on invalidity benefit has doubled in real terms in the past 10 years, from £2·7 billion to £6·1 billion last year. If we left it unchanged, it would grow by a further 50 per cent. or more in real terms by the end of the decade.
  It is working people who have to pay for it through their national insurance contributions. Already, on average, the cost for everyone who contributes is £275 a year, and the cost is rising because the number of claimants is growing. Over the past 10 years, the number of people on invalidity benefit has doubled. It has trebled over the past 15.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman may know that several thousand people in west Cumbria draw invalidity benefit. In his calculations, does he assume that, in the event that invalidity benefit is stopped and restrictions are introduced which mean that fewer people can draw incapacity benefit, many people will move on to the unemployment register? Does he believe that that will be the impact of the changes?
  Mr. Lilley: Clearly, many people who draw this benefit at present and who do not have jobs would initially draw
  36
  unemployment benefit or other benefits for the unemployed. I want those who are fit enough to work to be helped back to work by the benefits appropriate to them. It is wrong to give people who are able to work benefits which can eventually lead to their becoming unable to work because of unfamiliarity, lack of motivation and the staleness of skills caused by their being on benefits for some time.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On that point, how many—
  Mr. Lilley: I would rather make some progress. I answered the hon. Gentleman's question perfectly well.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: How many people—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask questions when someone else has the Floor.
  Mr. Lilley: I am sure that that issue will arise in due course.
  I pointed out that the number of people drawing this benefit has more than doubled in the past 10 years. Can it really be that Britain's health is getting so much worse? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is very important.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that it is very important, and if the hon. Gentleman catches my eye he can put it with even more conviction, but not from a sedentary position. Mr. Secretary Lilley.
  Mr. Lilley: I believe that, from those questions, the question arises whether we are becoming less healthy as a nation. Is there really an epidemic of incapacity? Of course there is not. The nation's health has been improving. Let me give a number of indicators of that.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: In a moment.
  There has been a dramatic reduction in incapacity caused by peptic ulcers. There has been a marked reduction in the number of strokes, roughly halving the number of people aged under 65 who have died from them since 1970. With developments of modern surgical techniques, long-standing painful and disabling conditions, such as osteoarthritis of the hip joint, can now be successfully cured. Moreover, the general household survey has shown that there was no increase in disability in the general population between 1976 and 1988. Therefore, we have to re-examine the way in which the benefit works.
  According to the statute, sickness and invalidity benefits were originally intended for those people who,
  "by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement",
  were unable to undertake work. However, successive commissioner rulings and court case law have resulted in non-medical factors being taken into account. As a result, the rules have been progressively widened and complicated.
  General practitioners have the job of assessing whether their patients are medically too unfit to work and are therefore entitled to the benefit. That has always put GPs in an invidious position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

  37
  On the one hand, they have an obligation to their patient; on the other, they have to act as gatekeeper for the social security system. That job has become harder as the definition of incapacity has become fuzzier.
  Our research has shown that GPs are far from sure about what the legal position is or whether their decisions conform with it. An independent study conducted by Weekly Monitor found that two thirds of the GPs surveyed had issued medical certificates to people who were either not sick at all or not sick enough to be incapable of work.
  We should not blame doctors for that situation. It is up to Parliament to resolve their conflict of interest and to clarify law. Until we do so, access to the benefit will remain haphazard, controls will be lax and the system will be open to abuse.
  The public at large resent that abuse. People who work for a modest wage resent seeing neighbours, apparently as fit as themselves, living on invalidity benefit. Too many people regard invalidity benefit as a readily available supplement to their occupational pensions when they take early retirement.
  Some employers are as much to blame as employees. It is not unknown for personnel departments to advise perfectly fit staff whom they are making redundant how they can claim invalidity benefit. There are well publicised cases of people on invalidity benefit earning money by cleaning windows at the very same office where they were claiming that benefit, enjoying cycling holidays and winning javelin contests.
  Mr. Matthew Banks: My right hon. Friend rightly draws attention to some of the abuses. He is aware that I had a very pleasant day close to my constituency last year, when I attended the grand national. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the man who waved the flag at the grand national was on invalidity benefit? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Lilley: Obviously, I cannot comment on individual cases, but I have to say that in that case there was come evidence of capacity to perform that task.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Before the Secretary of State plunges the entire nation into the chaos that the grand national suffered last year, will he take a tiny bit of blame himself and confess, before he scapegoats the sick in the way he is doing, that £8 billion was taken from the national insurance scheme by his predecessor's decision to withdraw the Treasury supplement from the national insurance scheme? That was left out for those three years, and that is the main reason for any shortfall in the national insurance scheme, not the problems of the sick.
  Mr. Lilley: I do not think that that is a telling point. We have agreed to top up the fund from taxpayers' money, and we are doing that significantly at present. In other words, the recipients of contributory benefits are receiving benefits of which the total value exceeds the current value of contributions going into that fund.
  Surely that is one reason why we should look closely at those benefits and ensure that they are going to people who are genuinely sick and disabled—people who are intended to receive them and on whose behalf those contributions have been paid. The hon. Gentleman thinks that is targeting the sick and disabled. It is targeting the benefit on the sick and disabled, which is what we want to achieve.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is ill and that otherwise he would be speaking on the matter in my place.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree with the general view, before he is selective in targeting, that the best way of reducing the number of those who honestly or dishonestly may seek to claim benefit is by maximising the opportunity for people to do a hard day's work and therefore minimising unemployment?
  There will never be a system in the world which somebody will not get round. It is important that the system, although tough, deals with individual circumstances and the individual applicant in every event. A strict medical test that does not take account of age or of history of medical illness or of environment or of work will never be able to take account of everybody's circumstances, all of which are different.
  Mr. Lilley: I strongly agree with both points. We want to help people back to work: that must be the most constructive thing for people who can work. A test must be sensitive enough to take into account the vast array of different conditions from which people suffer, and I shall be coming to the test and the way in which we are trying to ensure that it achieves that, while being objective and effective.
  We obviously need to restore the original policy intention of providing help only to those who cannot work because of their medical condition. I want to clear away the clutter of conditions and focus the benefit on fitness to work. That is why I am proposing a new test of incapacity for work. The test will be more objective, simpler to understand and easier to apply.
  Throughout the year, we have had extensive discussions with experts on disability and occupational medicine. As a result, we have developed a test based, first, on identifying the key faculties whose impairment can make people unable to work. The essential physical faculties include bending, lifting, walking, vision, hearing, reaching and so on. Following consultation, we have included climbing stairs and tinnitus as well. In addition, there are a number of measures on how mental health problems affect the ability to handle different situations.
  The second step is to calibrate the extent to which loss of any of those faculties impairs ability to work. A number of people have tried to mock that approach and the basic test, which we have spelt out in the consultation document. I regret to say that even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gaescadden (Mr. Dewar) has, rather uncharacteristically, joined in the mockery. That mockery is not appreciated by disabled people. The approach underlying the test is highly respected by disabled people and their representatives. It has the same basis as that used in the definitive study measuring the extent and severity of disability in Britian.
  Our new test has already been welcomed. Today I received a letter from the National Back Pain Association, welcoming a more objective test. If the hon. Member for Garscadden says that we should listen to the views of disability organisations, let me read him the NBPA's conclusion:
  "For some time now the Back Pain Association has been concerned with the issue of benefits of those disabled by back pain. The nature of the condition, with its invisibility, its many causes and often difficult diagnosis, has led both to some abuse by claimants and also to unfair views of the back pain sufferer as

  39
  a malingerer. A move towards a more 'objective' test would thus be welcomed. The NBPA is pleased to note that the added emphasis on self-assessment in the proposed process."
  The association adds:
  "However, this organisation feels that the ability to sit must be added to the list of functions assessed."
  We have duly added that function. [Interruption.] No, that is the only function that the association mentioned in its conclusions.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Let me just correct the record. I think that I am right in saying that the National Back Pain Association has also made it clear that it is deeply concerned about the present test, especially as it affects remission. Someone may be able to do the physical test satisfactorily on day A, but may pay a heavy price for it on subsequent days. The association has made strong representations and, as I understand it, remains unsatisfied on that point.
  Mr. Lilley: A number of organisations have stressed the important point that the test must not be merely a snapshot taken at one point in time. We have taken that on board—indeed, we had done so before we issued the consultation document. The test must take account of the fact that conditions come and go. That fact will be taken into account in the assessment; that is right and proper. I shall deal shortly with the consultation and evaluation procedures. We want to take such comments on board, and the National Back Pain Association's letter shows that we are doing so.
  The third step in developing our test is to establish how partial loss of two or more faculties may combine to make someone unable to work. The fourth step, which we have introduced as a direct result of our discussion with the expert panel, is to cross-check how the loss of faculty would influence ability to undertake the 100 most common occupations in this country. Together, those occupations account for three quarters of all people in work, so it will be a fairly comprehensive check.
  The fifth step is to establish a threshold of incapacity beyond which people will qualify for the benefit. Clearly, that is a crucial decision. The threshold must be set at a reasonable level and must not exclude the people whom we want to help—the genuinely unfit. I want to draw upon the widest possible expertise in setting it. That is why I have set in train a wide-ranging process of consultation and evaluation before bringing forward regulations to implement the test.
  I have published a consultation paper setting out our proposals in detail. I have sent more than 4,000 copies to individuals and organisations who expressed an interest in them. I have also formed a panel of some 80 experts, including disabled people, doctors, academics and representatives of disability organisations. I have asked those experts to help define the threshold of incapacity and to refine ways of measuring it. Their involvement will help to ensure that the threshold is set at a fair and reasonable level.
  In the spring, I will be carrying out a full trial to evaluate the new procedures. We will examine how the test would work if applied to a large number of specific individuals. We will check that the test gives results that are consistent with those from a direct medical examination of each individual. I hope that that will reveal any pressure points,
  40
  unforeseen problems and exceptional cases. Following that process, we can refine the test and the adjudication procedures.
  I intend to publish the results of both the consultation and the evaluation process before introducing forward secondary legislation to implement the test. Parliament will therefore be able to make an informed judgment on the effectiveness of the new test before considering the regulations.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State is trying to establish a definitive set of conditions —a level above which someone may be entitled to benefit and below which he or she will not be entitled to it. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that disability varies enormously from individual to individual—that it is not a homogeneous condition? It may be well-nigh impossible for people to operate such clinical rules unless there is a considerable degree of latitude. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give that latitude?
  Mr. Lilley: I have a great deal of respect for the expertise of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who has specialised in these matters, and I take to heart the point that he has made. I said earlier that we are trying to ensure that the test is sensitive and that it absorbs and incorporates the expertise of a whole range of different experts and groups.
  We want to get it right. We have an interest in doing so, because we want to get the benefit to those who are entitled to it and who have the underlying requirement for it. We seek only to exclude those who are not entitled to it—those who are fit enough to work and who ought to be helped back to work through the back-to-work benefits.
  We recognise that the test should not be a single snapshot of a particular point of time; that we must take into account the nature of the ailment or incapacity from which a person suffers; and that we must ensure that the test achieves that. That is why we are going through the evaluation and consultation process. I hope that the publication of the findings will enable Parliament to be sure when it comes to consider the detailed regulations that we have done precisely that.
  Clearly, however, any benefit must have a criterion attached to it and that criterion must be applied. Ultimately, the choice is between an objective criterion and a subjective one, and a subjective criterion relying on the simple opinion of an individual and his luck and good fortune in having a sympathetic local doctor can be much more unfair and unjust than an objective one. I hope that the procedure will result in something fair, reasonable and sensible that meets the complexities to which the hon. Member for Caernarfon referred.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have perhaps been hoist with our own petard? In our compassion, we tried to give a very generous benefit to those suffering from invalidity. We are now replacing that with something that is more fair because it is targeted on those who are genuine invalids. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House the difference between the rewards that someone enjoys who can get on to invalidity benefit—even if he or she is not really entitled to that benefit—and what he or she will get in future?
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Invalidity benefit is a more attractive benefit than the back-to-work benefits. [Interruption.] I am talking about the present, and at present invalidity benefit is more attractive than the back-to-work benefits and does not have the conditions attached to it that the benefits intended to encourage people back to work carry. There have therefore been attempts to get on to invalidity benefit when it is not the best or most suitable benefit.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman for the second time.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can the Secretary of State give me the figure that really interests me? How many tens of thousands—in the view of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), perhaps hundreds of thousands—of new people will be seeking work and want to register unemployed?
  Mr. Lilley: We estimate that it will be some 95,000 in the first year, rising in the second year to 190,000. That is working on the most pessimistic assumptions.
  Let me explain how the new test will be applied in practice. For the first 28 weeks of sickness, claimants will be entitled to statutory sick pay or the lower rate of incapacity benefit which replaces sickness benefit. During that first 28 weeks, the criterion for entitlement—normally inability through sickness to undertake one's current occupation—will be unchanged. So will the current reliance on a general practitioner's certificate. After 28 weeks, however, claimants will automatically move on to incapacity benefit at the middle rate.
  Those who could not be expected to handle a questionnaire on their fitness—because of severe mental illness or terminal illness—who will be identified from their records during the first 28 weeks, will be handled directly by the Benefits Agency medical service and their doctor. But most people will then be sent a copy of the incapacity benefit questionnaire to assess long-term incapacity for work. That will ask claimants to give details of how their sickness or disability affects each of the key faculties. The process will be similar to that required of people claiming disability living allowance.
  Their GP will then simply be asked to give his diagnosis of their illness and the principal disabling conditions to which it gives rise. He will not be asked to confirm the patient's self-assessment. Nor will the GP any longer be required to express a view of his patient's ability to undertake any kind of work.
  The Benefits Agency medical service will then examine the claim form. In straightforward cases—for example where the diagnosis is of an invariably serious disabling condition—the adjudication officer will accept the claim without medical advice. But we would expect the adjudication officer to seek advice from the Benefits Agency medical service in about 85 per cent. of cases.
  BAMS would then assess whether the questionnaire and diagnosis leave room for doubt. If so, it may seek further clarification from the GP and, if appropriate, invite the claimant for examination. We estimate that it will want to examine two thirds of cases referred to it. That means that just over half of all claimants may be called for examination.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I understand that the arrangements for passporting, for the purposes of the new incapacity benefit, people who are currently in receipt of invalidity benefit will mean, for example, that those on the higher-rate care component of disability living allowance will not be required to undergo a further medical test. Can my right hon. Friend say whether new claimants going straight on to incapacity benefit will be exempted similarly? That would be helpful to them. Such an assurance would be encouraging to the House and to people outside.
  Mr. Lilley: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The move has been widely welcomed. It is obviously sensible, in that it removes the need of those people to undergo an unnecessary second test, and it will save the time of Benefits Agency medical staff.
  As I have said, we expect that roughly half of all cases will involve an examination. The agency doctors will provide an assessment for the adjudication officer. Although the measure of incapacity given by the test will provide the main basis for the adjudication officer's decision, he will not be obliged to follow it mechanically if other evidence suggests a different conclusion.
  Claimants will, of course, have a right of appeal against decisions. As at present, appeals will be heard by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, but the Bill provides for a medical assessor to be present at any appeal where the degree of incapacity is in question.
  Under the present, admittedly inadequate, system, existing recipients of invalidity benefit are subject to periodic review by Benefits Agency doctors. This may involve no more than review of the claimant's case notes. If the notes indicate a condition that is not likely to have changed, no further action may be taken; if not, the claimant may be called in for examination.
  Each year, under the present system, about 900,000 people have their cases reviewed, and more than 300,000 cases involve an examination by Benefits Agency doctors. As a result of this review action, invalidity benefit was withdrawn in about 100,000 cases each year. Last year, 5,350 appeals against refusal or withdrawal of invalidity benefit were heard, and 2,856—a little over half—were upheld.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden has claimed that the results of appeals show that few people are on this benefit who should not be. The fact that, even in the absence of a rigorous and objective test, 100,000 people have benefit withdrawn and that, of these, less than 3 per cent. are reinstated on appeal disproves the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Naturally, when the new test is introduced, it will be used in the review of existing cases. To do otherwise would be inequitable. No existing recipient of invalidity benefit who is genuinely incapable of work need have any worry. The test is designed precisely to ensure that such people continue to receive this benefit. Indeed, we want to reduce as far as possible the number of claimants—particularly severely disabled claimants—who will even have to complete the test questionnaire. I do not want to waste their time, any more than I want to waste the time of Benefits Agency officials.
  So we have tried to identify the groups who we can tell a priori are clearly unable to work. None of these will undergo any review process at all in future. As I have just mentioned, they comprise: people who are receiving the highest-rate care component of disability living allowance;

  43
  people who are terminally ill; and people who are suffering from any of a number of specified severe and chronic conditions.
  I can give the House an up-to-date list of conditions that we propose to exempt from any review at all in future. The proposed list of serious chronic, degenerative conditions is as follows: tetraplegia, paraplegia, persistent vegetative state, registererd blindness, severe learning difficulties, severe and progressive neurological or muscle-wasting diseases or disorders—[Interruption.] Hon. Members find this humorous[Interruption.] Of course they should be exempt. I am saying that they are exempt. I imagined that Opposition Members would want to reassure their constituents that people in these categories will not have to go through even a review procedure.
  Examples of the severe and progressive neurological or muscle-wasting diseases or disorders that I have mentioned are the later stages of multiple sclerosis, Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease and motor neurone disease. Then there are active and progressive forms of inflammatory polyarthritis, impairment of the cardiorespiratory function—for example, as a result of a severe heart attack—dementia, dense paralysis of the upper limb, trunk and lower limb on one side of the body, such as occurs as the result of a severe stroke, and multiple effects of impairment of function of the brain and/or nervous system, such as a brain tumour. We are consulting leading disability organisations with a view to seeing whether the list can be extended.
  In addition, people who are 58 or older at the time of the change and have been continuously receiving invalidity benefit since I announced these proposals on 1 December will not have to go through the new test. In total, some 850,000 people will not be bothered by a review. I hope that Opposition Members are thus reassured that I am not talking about just one or two cases.
  This approach has been welcomed by the Disablement Income Group, which was particularly concerned that people on the higher rate of disability living allowance might have to undergo a second test. I believe that our approach demonstrates our determination to reassure severely ill and disabled people that they have nothing to fear from the sensible new procedures we are introducing. They certainly will not lose their benefit, and we want to cause them as little distress and bother as possible.
  Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State is telling us that this measure will save the Exchequer a considerable amount of money. The saving will result from the fact that fewer people will be able to claim benefit. Will the right hon. Gentleman set for the Benefits Agency a target number of people who, although they qualified for benefit hitherto, will now have to be refused?
  Mr. Lilley: Certainly not. If I were to do so, adjudication officers would, under the law, ignore my attempts. Adjudication officers are not allowed to work on that basis. They have to consider each person as an individual. That is what Parliament has rightly set down, and I would not try to interfere with it.
  Mr. Field: The Secretary of State is telling the House, as, presumably, he tells his Treasury colleagues, that these savings will be made, but there is no guarantee that they will be made.
  Mr. Lilley: That is quite correct. We have no savings target, but it is our intention to ensure that benefit goes only to those who are entitled to it. We cannot be absolutely sure how many people will be excluded. Following a dry run to see how things might work out, we have made an estimate by means of a case study of people who have applied for the benefit. If the actual figure turns out to be lower than the estimate, we shall certainly not change the severity of the test, which will have an objective rather than a financial basis.
  Mr. Field: So the Secretary of State has a target. Benefit will be targeted on those who are eligible, and those who are not eligible will have benefit withdrawn. The people working in the Benefits Agency know that there is a Chinese wall between what the Secretary of State says in the House about the potential savings and the actual delivery of those savings.
  Mr. Lilley: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. This is why we in the United Kingdom do not have cash-limited benefits and why, from time to time, I have to come to the House for supplementary provision for the amount by which demand has exceeded provision. We are of the opinion that benefit should be geared to the needs of the individual, and not cash-limited across the whole spectrum. It certainly will not be so cash-limited in this case.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: We have been provided with an explanatory memorandum giving a very strong indication of the savings that are expected. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, if such savings are not achieved, he will not seek even further tightening of the capacity tests?
  Mr. Lilley: Of course, one is required to give the best possible estimate of the financial implications of the Bill. This we have done. However, estimates and forecasts are often out, one way or the other. None the less, I repeat that we are not in the business of basing the severity of tests on financial targets. The threshold will be set after we have involved experts to ensure that it will really measure whether people are able to work. If they are able to work, clearly they should not be receiving that benefit. If they are not able to work, clearly they should receive it. In that case, we want them to receive it. That is what it is for.
  Mr. Frank Field: The heads of benefits agencies had their pay related to performance. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the performance-related pay of the head of the Benefits Agency is not linked to delivering the savings announced in the Bill?
  Mr. Lilley: That is quite correct. [Interruption.]There is no question of there being any flexibility in applying or disapplying the benefit. It relates only to the efficiency of providing and completing forms.
  Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley.: No, I want to make progress, as I have already given way at least half a dozen times.
  I want now to spell out the new benefits structure. The present invalidity benefit is not well focused on need. It is not means-tested or taxed. It continues five years after pension age, and it is earnings-related. We do not propose to means-test it, because that would reduce the incentive

  45
  for employees and employers to provide additional provision for long-term sickness, and penalise those who do so.
  However, it has always been our stated intention to bring invalidity benefit into tax, in the same way as all other benefits which replace earnings. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his Budget that new recipients will be liable to tax from April 1995 if they have sufficient other income to exceed their tax allowances.
  The new incapacity benefit will also cease for those who reach state pension age after April. There will no longer be an earnings-related additional pension element for those who come on to incapacity benefit from its inception in April 1995. That additional pension is somewhat of an anomaly. It is the last remaining earnings-related element in pre-pension benefits. By removing it, we are going back to Beveridge, who believed in a system of flat rate benefits.
  The additional pension is very poorly targeted, since it is highest for those who earned most and worked longest, yet they are the most likely to have private occupational sickness or early retirement schemes. Indeed, about half those who receive additional pension, which can amount to an extra £70 per week, also have some other income.
  Strangest of all, even though it is calculated on the basis of notional entitlement to the state earnings-related pension scheme, it goes to those who have opted out of SERPS. That can mean that some people who have opted out of SERPS can benefit three times over: they receive additional pension paid with invalidity benefit; they pay lower national insurance contributions; and they may also have an occupational pension as a result of opting out.
  It is wrong to continue paying such high amounts without any regard to need. The financial burden that this was storing up for the future was not anticipated at the time; nor was the growth in occupational pensions which has happily occurred. Additional pension alone would cost about £2 billion a year by the end of the decade, even after restrictions introduced in 1992. I shall listen with interest to hear whether Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen mount a rearguard action in defence of that somewhat anomalous element in the benefit structure.
  Of course, existing recipients of additional pension will continue to receive it, but, unlike the rest of their benefit, it will no longer be uprated for inflation. By contrast, there is a far better case for the age-related invalidity addition. That is the extra amount given to those who become incapacitated early in their careers, and therefore have less time to build up invalidity pension rights or savings.
  I propose to simplify and bring forward the dates of entitlement to that element. Those incapacitated before the age of 35 will receive an extra £12·15 a week on top of the basic benefit as long as they remain on incapacity benefit. Those incapacitated between the ages of 35 and 44 will receive a supplement of £6·10.
  The only other important change I propose in the structure of the long-term benefit is to restrict the allowance for dependent adults to those who are looking after children and therefore getting the child increment as well and to dependents over 60.
  The new benefit will be payable at three rates—the longer the period of sickness, the higher the benefit. I am also simplifying statutory sick pay, replacing the two existing rates with a single rate set at the present higher rate. That is implemented by the Bill. That will be worth an extra —3.70 a week for the lowest paid employees.
  46
  Most people receive statutory sick pay for the first 28 weeks of incapacity. For those who do not, incapacity benefit will be payable at the same rate as sickness benefit now. After 28 weeks, the middle rate of incapacity benefit will be payable at the same rate as statutory sick pay. At that point, the new benefit will be taxable.
  After a year of incapacity, the benefit will increase once again to the same rate as basic invalidity benefit. That restructuring will provide a basic income to those who cannot work. It will continue for as long as they remain incapable of work and can be supplemented by private provision and, if necessary, with income-related benefits. Existing recipients will be protected. There will be no cash losers when the scheme is introduced.
  Many people who receive incapacity benefits would prefer to work. I have four proposals to provide tangible help for them to go back to work. They can already receive a wide range of help and advice from the Employment Service in finding employment or appropriate training. People with particular needs, including those with disabilities and the long-term unemployed, are rightly given priority.
  First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be reviewing the measures necessary to help people who become unemployed after being disallowed incapacity benefit to get back to work. Secondly, I propose a change which has been sought and will be welcomed by many voluntary and charitable organisations. That is the proposal to allow people on incapacity benefit to carry out up to 16 hours voluntary work a week without losing their benefit.
  People will continue to be able to undertake therapeutic work, which is all they are allowed to do at present. That will also be subject to a limit of 16 hours. People who work for 16 hours or more can claim disability working allowance. In addition, I announced in my uprating statement that people who receive disability working allowance will automatically qualify for free prescriptions and free dental charges when incapacity benefit is introduced.
  A further change sought by disability organisations is to allow people to undergo a period of employment training between their final payment of incapacity benefit and starting a job and still qualify for disability working allowance. We intend to introduce that.
  The Bill brings in sensible and well thought out reforms to tackle undeniable problems in this area, while protecting the position of the sick and disabled. However, what have we heard from the Opposition on this subject? The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) dismissed the proposals as "a petty change" to make "minor savings". By contrast, his right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition described them as
  "continued and vicious assault upon the welfare state"—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 941.]
  He also said that they were odious and deplorable. Far be it from me to stir up discord between them, but it cannot be both a petty measure, making minor savings, and the end of civilisation and the welfare state as we know it.
  Both the hon. Member for Garscadden and his right hon. and learned Friend are wrong. The proposal is a major change, but it is a major improvement. It tackles with sensitivity a major problem. However, apart from those sniping and contradictory remarks, we have heard very little from the Opposition on the whole subject. They have come up with no coherent or penetrating criticisms of our

  47
  approach. They have offered no alternative of their own. Indeed, they seem to have given the subject no serious thought whatsoever. They just seem to have handed it to the Commission for Social Justice and dozed off.
  An aggressive Opposition would oppose. A constructive Opposition would propose. However, this lethargic Opposition just repose. The test of commitment in this area is a willingness to give it serious constructive thought. Anyone who really believes in the welfare state must have the courage to take the decisions necessary to make it sustainable. Anyone who is really concerned about the sick and disabled must be prepared to tackle the abuse of benefits which were meant for them.
  We believe in the welfare state. We are determined that it should survive and improve into the next century. We believe that everyone fortunate enough to be fit and able to work has a duty to help those who are incapable of working. That is why we have had the courage to undertake these reforms.
  The Bill will ensure that those who are not able to work through sickness receive appropriate help through an affordable system; that those who are able to work are helped to do so, and that resources are not diverted to those who are able to work but do not seek to do so. I commend it to the House.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: The Secretary of State, at the end of his speech, tried to stir things a little. I am not sure whether his taunts were very effective, although I suspect that they worried some Conservative Members who will have to serve on the Committee, as they sounded like an invitation to lengthy and stern Committee proceedings.
  Perhaps I should help the Secretary of State. I should at least admit my error in terms of the quotation that he gave from me. There is no doubt that, the more I have considered the measure, the more I have talked to people in the disability world, and the more I have considered the somewhat tardy trickle of information that has come from the Government, the less I like the measure. It has to be judged against the sweep of Government policy; it should not be seen in isolation. It is certainly not a measure by a Minister with a tidy mind putting his house in order, and, to be fair, I do not think that the Secretary of State saw it in that light.
  Everyone is conscious of the public anger about a Government who owe their office to specific promises not to raise taxes and who won the previous election not even by discreet silence about embarrassing facts but by deliberate misrepresentation.
  Undoubtedly, hypocrisy and cynicism are at large, and it is not difficult to see why. The Prime Minister has been arguing that "back to basics" has nothing to do with personal morality. I must say that we are fascinated to know that we owe it all to Barbara Cartland, according to today's papers. It certainly explains quite a lot. The Secretary of State, who has remained remarkably silent — I congratulate him on his good sense—during the "back to basics" argument, has missed that lady's splendid interviews, in which she explained that she cooked the whole thing up with the Prime Minister over a cup of tea, I think at Downing street.
  48
  In any event, if it is not personal morality, it is obviously public standards that the Prime Minister is stressing, and the public are entitled to ask what trust is to be put in an Administration whose own authority is built upon shaky and shabby foundations.
  I am coming to the specifics of the Bill because it fits very well into the general picture. It is not just the tax hike and the size of the tax hike—the £24 billion over three years; the pay-now, pay-later, pay-more-and-more Government—it is also where the burden is distributed. Where the burden is distributed is worrying people in Britain as much as the size of the tax increases.
  When we examine the measure as a whole—I include the taxation of incapacity benefit, the alteration in eligibility for the new benefit and the cuts in the new benefit as against invalidity benefit—we see a pretty vulnerable group by any standards—those who are struggling with the effects of long-term ill health and disability—being targeted with almost unerring accuracy by the Government. I do not think that it is a partisan point; there will be uncomfortable consciences among Conservative Members also. Very many people do not like what they are seeing.
  The charge is straightforward, and it is damaging. Eligibility for incapacity benefit is being artificially restricted. Payments for those who get over the hurdles, pass obstacles and pass the test at the end of the day are being significantly attacked. It is fair to say that it is a mean-minded measure and that it will be resented. It is right to protest that the Government's overriding priority has not been protection for the long-term sick, as has been suggested, but protection for the Treasury.
  The figures are impressive. I accept that they are estimates and not targets. The Secretary of State has given an assurance, and I will not challenge it, certainly at this stage. But, according to the best estimates, as he called them, in the financial memorandum, in 1995–96, the Government will save £550 million gross, and in 1996–97, they will save £1,450 million. That point might come out quite usefully in respect of the money resolution.
  The offsetting figure is £265 million in the second year. I cannot remember what it was in the first year. Anyway, the offsetting figure for income support increases is very low. I am slightly puzzled by that, as I would expect there to be quite an impact in terms of a knock-on to income support as a result of the measures. However, the gross figures are formidable. The savings—it is an important point—will escalate very substantially subsequently.
  We are talking about £1,450 million in the second year. However, as many people will still be on invalidity benefit and will be coming up for review—presumably they will then have to face the test for the new incapacity benefit —it is expected that a large number of them will fall out at that stage and, presumably, there will be additional savings to be added on to that. It will be interesting to see the projection continued from 1996–97 to 2000–01, as I suspect that the figure will be very much more substantial. I underline that point, because it emphasises the importance of what is being done and the number of people who are likely to be affected by it.
  There is an interesting comparison to make. I recognise that the Secretary of State will not want to comment on it. However, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that a document came into the public domain in June last year, which revealed with remarkable accuracy the discussions that were going on between the Treasury, the Prime

  49
  Minister's office and the right hon. Gentleman's office. They had an objective test written in, they had cuts in benefit, and they also took into account the savings in taxing invalidity benefit. They came up with expected savings of £180 million in 1995–96, £495 million in 1996–97, and £1·3 billion by the end of the century.
  I ask my hon. Friends to consider that escalation of cost and to start with the very much higher base that has been projected for this package of changes. They will see that, by the end of the century, it will be a very substantial sum indeed. I hope that we will have more information about that either in Committee or in the House when we debate the money resolution. I am concerned because those expected savings included an objective test, but one that seemed to us, when we read the papers which reached us, to be very tough indeed.
  I do not need to remind the Minister of the well-known example of the 55-year-old builder with angina, who gets chest pains after excessive bending, heavy lifting and carrying. He is unable to walk on the flat for more than 200 yd before he has to stop because of chest pains, and he has to climb stairs slowly. That is an example of someone who, under that package, which would save a substantially smaller sum than the present package, would be excluded from invalidity benefit. That suggests to me that the Government anticipate that the impact will be very considerable. That is certainly a matter of concern.
  I shall say a word or two about the so-called objective test. I do not want to have a long, convoluted argument with the Secretary of State about the view of the groups who represent people with disabilities. The other day, I had a meeting with about a dozen representative and well-known organisations, some of whom—I certainly do not want to particularise the reasons; I am sure that the Secretary of State will recognise why—are involved in the consultative process. Not one of them rested content. Not one of them was happy with the test. Everyone who spoke at length challenged the basis of the league table on which we are now building.
  Those organisations responsibly took the view that they had a duty to their members, to the people whom they represent and to their colleagues at least to take part in the consultative process and to try to bring about improvements. It would be an abuse of that responsibility —I say this seriously to the Secretary of State—if the right hon. Gentleman represented to the public that, because they are taking part, they are happy with what they are consulting about.
  My impression is that they would like to advise that the Secretary of State should go back to the drawing board and start again, but they know that that advice would not be heeded; therefore, they are reduced to arguments about important points—I do not belittle them—about whether a certain measure of disability should be worth three, five or seven points on the scale. I would be the last to mock that, but it would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether there are terms of reference within which working parties are operating.
  I will draw an analogy—perhaps one that is slightly far away—and I will do so quickly. There has been the most extraordinarily full consultation process on paper over trust hospital status in my area of Scotland. The trouble was that when one wrote to say that one wanted to make a representation against the concept of trust hospitals, one
  50
  received a smart reply saying that that was not open to consultation and that it was a fait accompli. One could merely make representations about minor details.
  I suspect that that is the situation that we face with the Bill. If I am wrong, I shall be glad to be reassured. If I am wrong and the Secretary of State says that he is prepared to listen to fundamental changes, I think that he will find that quite a few will be forthcoming.
  Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman reveal whether he is going to propose any fundamental changes or just sniping criticisms? If he has an alternative to the idea of an objective medical test, the Government would be interested to hear it. However, so far we have not.
  Mr. Dewar: I was dealing specifically with the right hon. Gentleman's claim that there was widespread support for the test among disability groups. That is something which he must recognise is open at least—I put it charitably—to serious doubt. My view is that the approach is too mechanical, and that measuring the loss of capacity in a rather absolute sense does not tell the whole story.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept that there is no necessary correlation between disability and ability to work. There are many examples—we all have them in our personal circle of acquaintances—of people who would score a high total in the test, but who are able fortunately to hold down demanding and responsible jobs. There are real concerns that the cut-off will be too arbitrary and hard-nosed, and that many who need help will be left outside.
  It is difficult to comment in detail on some of the matters that will be settled later by regulation. The Secretary of State will say that he wanted to leave the matter open, so there could be a wide expression of opinion. It is difficult for the House and it will be difficult for the Committee. We do not know how the threshold will work or what the final form of the test will be. The general feeling is that it under values pain, for example. There are general conditions that are debilitating but which are difficult to fit in the test even on a non-snapshot basis. These would be difficult to take account of even if there were one or two moving pictures over a period.
  I pointed out in an intervention that representations have been made from people who are interested in back pain, and also from who are concerned with arthritis. In those cases, people are often in a position to perform tasks, perhaps because of remission or because they can do the task on a one-off basis but are unable to repeat it for a period. It will be difficult to take account of that in the general range of the test. The remission point has been made to us by those who are interested in multiple sclerosis, for example. They are entitled to be concerned about the ability of the system to take account of special cases and circumstances.
  I remind the House of the June 1993 memorandum which referred to discussion about a continuous qualifying period for invalidity benefit. The memorandum said that that would have some disadvantage, particularly for those
  "who suffer from progressive diseases eg multiple sclerosis"
  The rather unfortunate conclusion that was drawn was that the principle of continuous and long-term sickness seemed right, and therefore it was suggested that the measure go ahead. Such an approach shows a certain lack of sensitivity. There are concerns about the way in which the whole thing has been envisaged.

  51
  There are understandable worries about how one fits mental health into the pattern. From reading the section on mental health—apart from one rather startling misprint, for which I blame no one—I find it difficult to envisage how some of the cases of which I have some personal contact would get the help that they need. The problem is that objectivity for one man may result in rough justice for others, particularly if the priorities are out of sync. I hope that there is progress on the monitoring panel, and we await keenly to hear whether the Minister of State has anything further to say about that. However, he must not take that as an endorsement of principle.
  I understand why that has been done. We know, because the Prime Minister told us, that the growth in the number of people on invalidity benefit beggars belief. It is well documented that the number has gone up substantially, from 600,000 to 1·5 million, since 1979. The Secretary of State is entitled to consider that fact, and to be concerned about it. He must not, of course, make a simplistic analysis. There is a great deal of evidence about the complexity of the reasons for that phenomenon, and there is no simple answer for it.
  With all respect to the Secretary of State, there is a tendency to suggest that the increase is due to malingerers, lead-swingers and people on the make; there was a touch of that in the right hon. Gentleman's presentation. It is not like that. The right hon. Gentleman will be probably more familiar than I with the evidence if he has been as thoroughly briefed as normal by the Department.
  I refer for example to the Policy Studies Institute report, of which the Secretary of State will certainly know. The report pointed out that 29 per cent. of the increase was accounted for by pensioners who were staying on invalidity benefit—presumably for the advantages of not being liable to tax. That 29 per cent. will not be an extra charge in terms of the public purse or in terms of the benefit paid by the Department, because those people will drop immediately to their retirement pension entitlement. In any event, that matter will come to an end as a result of the provisions of the Bill.
  I hope that we will not be told that there has been a substantial fall in the number of people in receipt of incapacity benefit as a result of the new test. That reduction will relate to the fact that a substantial part of the "problem"—I use that term in inverted commas, as that is the way in which it is presented—comes from pensioners who have stayed on invalidity benefit.
  The PSI suggests that 16 per cent. of the increase results from something that most of us would see as a hopeful phenomenon—the increase in the number of women in the labour market. Those women are now paying and running up a significant national insurance contribution record, and they are therefore entitled to invalidity benefit in a way in which they would not have been a few years ago. It may be embarrassing for the Secretary of State, but it seems to me that there is nothing to criticise there—that is something which we should broadly welcome.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for about a quarter of an hour. I have been trying to make note of any positive proposals he has, but I have still not heard any. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if an objective test were applied to the Opposition, all it would show would be an
  52
  instinctive knee-jerk reaction? That test would not show any positive mental processes at all. What are the Opposition's policies?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is showing advanced symptoms of knee-jerk reaction. I do not think that that was a particularly helpful intervention.
  The research has not just come from the PSI. Much has been commissioned by the Department, and has been published over recent times. That research makes it clear that there are complex reasons for the rise in numbers, and it must not be assumed that it has the sinister complexion which is sometimes put on it.
  I remember the evidence given by the permanent secretary at the Department of Social Security to the Public Accounts Committee in 1990. He distinctly linked the increase in numbers to demographic factors, and particularly to the rise in unemployment and the knock-on effect from the stress and anxiety of unemployment. The Secretary of State will, I have no doubt, have discussed the Department's position at that time with the permanent secretary.
  The Disablement Income Group, the Disability Alliance, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and a range of organisations—I will not delay the House by quoting them in detail—have looked at the Department's research and the available evidence and have reached a different conclusion from that of the Secretary of State.
  I rather deplored the Secretary of State's saying with a little coolness that he did not believe in commenting on individual cases. I suppose he meant naming names, but he went on to deal in a direct way with a rather odd collection of individual javelin throwers and window cleaners. I do not think that that is a sound basis on which to launch a defence of the measure. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was challenging, and no doubt we will pursue that later.
  If about 90,000 people, rising to 195,000 in the second year, will be put on the unemployment register and there is an inevitable swing from invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit, shedding more and more people over the next three, four, five or six years, it will be interesting to see the estimates for beyond the first two years. It will be interesting to see how many more than 195,000 we reach. That will also be a matter of considerable interest to the Department of Employment and worried Conservative Back Benchers.
  I accept that invalidity or incapacity benefit should not be an alternative to unemployment benefit in the long term. There may be a need to tighten up the arrangements and build in safeguards. The Minister has been doing that in the past year or so with the improvement of, as he put it, the medical control arrangements. He expects to save £240 million in the next two years.
  I do not quarrel with the assertion that a Department is entitled to examine safeguards. If there is genuine abuse at the edges, it should undoubtedly be stamped out. However, I hope that the Minister will persuade his colleagues to pursue the black economy—which is what he was talking about—as rigorously and enthusiastically in other areas.
  I do not accept what the Minister of State said on the radio this morning. I heard a brief snatch as he talked to Scotland—an uncharacteristic role for him. He said:

  53
  "Invalidity benefit is not being used for the purpose it was intended for in the first place."
  That was an overstatement. It may lie at the heart of some of the difficulties. If one believes that statement, one may well feel that there is a case for the changes that are being proposed. However, the statement cannot be substantiated on the evidence.
  The test should be not simply a test of disability but a test of capacity for work. That means that some other factors must be relevant. It is not the doctor who takes the final decision: it is the adjudication officer in the Department. With the proper training and framework, he should be in a position to hold the balance and ensure that the benefit is sensitive and helps those who most need and deserve help. I want to cut the £6 billion or so bill that is run up every year, but we should concentrate heavily not only on safeguards and eradicating abuse but on the positive action that is needed to give people a chance to get back to work. I welcome anything that the Government do in that direction.
  We all know, and certainly the Minister of State knows, that barriers to employment still exist for people with a disability or an illness record. We note the remarkable and persistent failure of the Government to give fair wind to anti-discrimination legislation, which is badly wanted by those who deal with people with disabilities. The decision that employers should pay up 50 per cent. of the equipment and services required for disabled people in employment after six months is deeply resented not only by the disability groups but by the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and employers in general. It is seen as a direct disincentive and it puts in some perspective what the Minister has said.
  As the Minister knows, the switch in who bears the cost of statutory sick pay may be another disincentive to employers to hire those who have a disability or people who, because of their previous record, may be thought to be liable to ill health. I accept entirely the point that the Minister of State makes about the enthusiasm and commitment to work of people with disabilities, which may result in a good attendance record. However, I am talking about perception and there is no doubt about the widespread perception of disabled people and the barriers that I fear may be built in.
  I commend to the Minister "An Evaluation Supported Employment Initiatives for Disabled People", which has been commissioned by the Department of Employment and was published in October 1993. The Minister may have studied the document. I must confess that I had not done so until recently. It says:
  "Supported Employment is the process of enabling a person with a disability to secure and maintain a paid job in a regular work environment, by supplying all appropriate training support to them in the workplace".
  According to that substantial piece of research, the general
  outcome is that
  "Agency clients are finding real jobs with real wages … Job retention is excellent".
  That is an encouraging report, although it is important to note that the number of people involved is still small.
  The conclusions of the report are:
  "overall agency provision is:
  fragile in terms of the scale and scope of funding it receives …. a long way from meeting the extent of need in the community."
  If the Minister turned his attention to the lack of funding for such projects and the apparent progress that has been made on the limited and occasional scale that has been possible until now, he would encourage people to look
  54
  more hopefully to the future and to the provision of jobs. I hope that the Minister of State will say a few words about the projects that I have described, although I recognise that they are Department of Employment led.
  Has any consideration been given to some form of partial incapacity benefit? I know that many people have argued strongly for an allowance not merely for 16 hours of voluntary work but for some sort of part-time work. Many people can manage perhaps one or two days a week. The trouble at present is that as soon as they do so, they sacrifice heavily on the benefits side.
  There might be a case for introducing on a phased basis, obviously with a taper, a partial incapacity benefit to encourage people to take the first steps back to work. They could mirror in their employment pattern their gradually increasing capacity for work. That could perhaps be considered positively. I am not in a position to do the technical and financial assessments, but in principle it seems a sound concept and one which the Minister ought to consider. I should be interested to know whether it has been considered; if it has been considered and rejected, on what grounds was the decision made?
  I noticed that, perhaps in unconscious humour or irony, the Secretary of State said that the changes were being made to protect the benefits of those who were entitled. An awful lot of recipients will think that that is an odd way of describing what is about to happen. We can argue about the objectivity of the test. I am sure that there will be subjective opinions about it. However, there is no doubt about the substantial cuts in benefit which will come with the transfer to incapacity benefit. I say that with some diffidence, because the arrangements are intensely complex. If the new benefit was intended to be a way of simplifying the position, it failed that test almost immediately.
  Many of the provisions have still to be embodied in regulations, so it is difficult to follow them. I understand that details of the age allowance will be spelt out in regulations. I am not clear to what extent they will be an improvement or otherwise on the present provision in section 34 of the 1992 Act. We shall have to consider that.
  I shall illustrate my fears with two examples. They are in the same area. Let us assume that a married man with two children has qualified for incapacity benefit and is within the 28-week and 52-week period. In other words, he is receiving the upper rate of the lower level—or is it the upper level of the lower rate? The Minister will follow what I mean.
  That man will receive a basic incapacity benefit of £52·50 compared with £56·10, which he would have received under invalidity benefit. He loses £3·60 a week. The adult dependency allowance was £33·70. It will now be £26·40. So he loses £7·30. He received £10·95 for each of his two children under the invalidity benefit system. Between the 28th and 52nd week he will receive no children's allowance, so he loses £21·90 a week.[Interruption.]
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) will pay some attention to my example. I know that she will have a warm and compassionate heart when it comes to the individual family. Leaving aside the additional pension, which normally averages about £13·40£I accept that that is a separate argument falling into a different category—that

  55
  family will be £32·80 poorer under the incapacity benefit system than it would have been under the invalidity benefit system between the 28th and 52nd week.
  The Minister may say that that is equivalent to throwing people off benefit to protect those who are on benefit, but he has chosen an odd way of doing that. It is the hair-shirt approach and I am particularly unsympathetic to such an approach when it is enforced on other people.
  The second example is that of a married man with no children. According to the same calculation, he will be £3·60 down on his basic benefit. He will lose his adult dependency allowance of £33·70, so he will be £37·30 worse off during those six months. Even after the 52 weeks, that man's adult dependency allowance will not be reinstated until his wife is 60. That is a long time to wait.
  Mr. Lilley: Not for someone with children.
  Mr. Dewar: My second example is a man without children. The right hon. Gentleman is correct that that allowance is reinstated after 52 weeks for a man with children. That difference is one of the complexities of the system.
  It is clear that people will lose almost £40 during those six months. If we went through the small print, we would find other hidden examples of substantial cuts. They will go towards making the substantial savings that are mentioned in the financial memorandum.
  The examples that I have cited are one reason why I am so certain that the Opposition are right to vote against the Bill tonight. I do not need to rely on the argument about additional pensions which are derived from SERPS. People have contributed over the years to that system, however, and they did so on the basis that they would receive a benefit. Now, that benefit will be taken from them. That raises a point of principle, although I accept that it is something of an anomaly when considered within the general pattern of benefit provision.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has still not told us what alternatives the Labour party has in mind.[Interruption.] He has referred repeatedly to cuts, but he knows that, even after the proposed changes, the real amount of expenditure on the benefit will not decline. If he proposed no changes to the system, there would be a substantial increase in that expenditure. If he has no alternatives to our proposals, the hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to tell us how much extra tax he would impose to finance that extra spending.
  Mr. Dewar: The loyal baying behind the right hon. Gentleman sounded rather tired. He must realise that the old tax card, always a solid friend in a tight corner, is not quite as effective as it once was.
  I have tried to outline some of the positive things that should be done to encourage people to go out to work and to remove the barriers to their doing so. I have made it clear that the test is not simply disability but incapacity for work. I concede that that means that the adjudication officer must take into account a wider gamut of circumstances than he is allowed to consider under this system.
  If the Government are looking for savings and tax increases, they should not start with this group of people. That may be something which the Secretary of State finds hard to comprehend, but most people would understand it.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is the Opposition spokesman on social security and he has just said that he would not start from here. That is exactly what every other Labour spokesman says. Where would the hon. Gentleman start in the search for savings in public spending?
  Mr. Dewar: I know that the hon. Gentleman would love, above almost anything else, not to be here as a representative of his Government, given the state of their fiscal and tax policy. We are therefore entitled to say that we would not make their daft mistakes.
  I have sought to make a kind remark to the hon. Gentleman. I am not challenging the fact that, due to mismanagement of our affairs, we are faced with a problem with the public sector borrowing requirement. I accept that the Government feel that they must take steps to deal with that. I have suggested, however, that one would not start with a group of people who are vulnerable. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that. Those people receive invalidity benefit and I am sure that many of them will receive incapacity benefit, because there is no doubt about their entitlement to it. They are struggling with the impact of long-term ill health.
  If the hon. Gentleman wanted to look around Britain for people who might shell out a little bit more to help the national effort, I should like to think that he would put that particular group rather low on his list. If I am wrong, I can only say that perhaps I am paying him a compliment that he does not deserve. I suspect, however, that he would agree with me.
  Problems lie ahead with the interrelated issue of taxation of incapacity benefit. It is not right to tax that group of people at this stage. It will lead to perceived inequality. I trust that the Minister of State will say something about that when he replies to the debate. I accept that this is a Treasury matter, but the right hon. Gentleman mentioned it and it knitted into the argument about incapacity benefit.
  My concern about the perceived inequality is that anomalies will arise for a considerable time. Perhaps two people in the same street, or certainly in the same district, who are in similar financial circumstances and who perhaps suffer from a similar disability or long-term ill health, will not be treated in the same way for tax purposes. Those on incapacity benefit will pay tax on it, while those who remain on invalidity benefit, although they will have passed the same test to retain that benefit, will not pay tax.
  The other day, someone asked me whether that meant that the Labour party is in favour of taxing invalidity benefit as well. The answer is no and I made that clear. Unless I have misunderstood the Bill—it is all too easy to misunderstand its technicalities—such differences in tax treatment will last for some time. I welcome the fact that 850,000 people will not be subject to the review process and will remain on invalidity benefit. I therefore presume that they will not be taxed. People who join the system and who will receive incapacity benefit, however, will be taxed. That will involve many people, once the cycle is run through. The House should consider that.
  On 21 June 1993, I asked a question about that matter. I was told that if one applied taxation to invalidity benefit, 900,000 people in receipt of it would pay, on average, another £500 a year in tax. Once the new system is operating, I presume that about that number of people, or slightly fewer, because fewer people will be on incapacity

  57
  benefit, will be taxed. Until the system has run its course, many people will be exempt, but an increasing number will be caught. Ministers have underestimated that figure.
  Can the Minister of State tell me what will happen to those people who will be liable to pay tax, but who have no other income apart from incapacity benefit? I was told that there would be 200,000 such cases under invalidity benefit. It may be that the take-up of incapacity benefit will be so much lower than that of invalidity benefit that those people will disappear.
  If the Government agree, that will be an expensive concession by them. If it is true, it is a clear illustration of how people will be prejudiced by the change. If that is not true, and a substantial number of people will still have to pay tax when they have no other income apart from incapacity benefit, how will that be managed under the pay-as-you-earn system? Who will be their employer? Will it be the Department of Social Security or will those people be considered to be outside the PAYE system, with all the complications that may ensue?
  I hope that the Minister of State will respond to some of the points that I have raised. I make no apology for saying that I do not believe that the Government should have started from here. They should not target the long-term sick and disabled. Even if they believe that charges in eligibility are needed, it does not follow that those who qualify should be hit by reduced benefit and taxation, We must remember that many of those people are already fearful about the impact of VAT on domestic fuel and are already suffering as a result of the freeze on personal allowances, which hits those who are just marginally above the tax barriers.
  The cumulative impact of the changes resulting from this Bill will be considerable. I have done rough and ready calculations—I am open to correction later—and it looks to me as though about 25 per cent. of the cost of invalidity benefit will rapidly disappear. [Interruption.] I can take the Minister through the figures if he wants. The figures that I have quoted already make my point about the substantial sums at stake.
  The saddest thing of all is that the Bill is creating, and will create, an enormous amount of anxiety, distress, frustration and fear among those who are on invalidity benefit. Evidence of that comes in from every side—the people we meet, the people who approach us, the people who write to hon. Members on the subject. Ministers are responsible and they should think again and not push through a Bill that is misconceived in principle and which will prejudice many people who have more problems than anyone in this House is ever likely to face.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I have always been proud of the fact that it was a Conservative Government who, in 1971, introduced invalidity benefit. I have often heard Ministers drawing attention, as grounds for satisfaction, to the large increase in spending on the long-term sick and disabled during the period of Conservative Government.
  However, it is right to review the operation of any benefit—certainly of one for which claimants and expenditure have increased so rapidly. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, no responsible Government could ignore the increase in expenditure on invalidity benefit from £1·5 billion 10 years ago to more
  58
  than £6 billion this year. It is right to ensure value for money, to see that the administrative means are appropriate to the purpose of the benefit, to see that the benefit is reaching the people for whom we intend it, to see that there is no abuse, and if there is, that it is suitably and sensibly dealt with, and to ensure that the benefit fulfils sensible purposes in terms of personal and social need and of the economy.
  Why has the number of recipients of invalidity benefit increased so much? Has there been, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested, an epidemic of invalidity in a nation that is getting healthier, or is that formulation perhaps based on some misconception of the issues?
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) drew attention to the study by the Institute for Policy Studies, which found that 29 per cent. of the increases had come from the increase in the number of people over pensionable age choosing to draw the benefit. Another 16 per cent. of the increase derived from the number of women in the labour market paying national insurance contributions and thus qualifying for invalidity benefit. A further 13 per cent. of the increase arose for a demographic reason, the increase in the number of disabled people in the relevant age groups. I do not think that we can complain about any of those features of the growth in numbers.
  Another 42 per cent. of the increase arose from the growth in numbers of disabled people claiming invalidity benefit. Why should that have been so? It does not appear to be on account of any increase in the number of new awards being made. The Department's research, carried out for it by Bob Erens and Deborah Ghate, found that new awards to men declined during the 1980s and new awards to women increased only slightly. That background factor was mentioned in the introductory section of the study. We need to look more closely to see who those people were and what were their characteristics.
  Erens and Ghate found that the great majority of all invalidity benefit recipients were over 50. They were poor. The vast majority of them earned, in the last job that they had had in 1991 or 1992, between £2 and £5 an hour. As the researchers say, they were much more likely than the working population in general to have worked in manual jobs.
  No evidence that I have seen suggests that their invalidity was not genuine. The most common causes of health problems were found by the survey to be accidents at work at 12 per cent., followed by industrial diseases and other work-related causes at another 12 per cent. So unless one supposes that doctors are signing bogus certificates wholesale, it is impossible to contend that there is large-scale abuse. In any case, in most of the cases referred to the Benefits Agency medical service, the claimants were still found to be incapable of work. A parliamentary answer on 13 July 1992 told us that in about eight out of 10 references, and six out of 10 of those actually examined, the claimants were found to be incapable of work. Moreover, over half of appeals in respect of invalidity benefit are decided in the claimant's favour.
  Other evidence also strongly suggests that claimants are most unlikely to be swinging the lead. The relationship of benefits to earnings, past and future, points to that judgment. As Erens and Ghate tell us, calculation of the backward-looking benefits-earnings ratio shows that the amount received in benefit replaced less than half of earnings for half of all respondents. Only 13 per cent. were

  59
  receiving more than 80 per cent. of their earnings in benefits. So there is no perverse structure of incentives there.
  Likewise, the forward-looking benefits-earning ratio shows that, of those returning to work, two in five earned twice as much in their jobs after returning to work as they had received in benefit, and 15 per cent. were earning less than a fifth more then they received on benefit, but they clearly wanted to be back in work.
  Interestingly, Erens and Ghate go on to observe that it is precisely those groups that are most likely to exhibit a higher ratio—women and the young—who are the most likely to return to work and to be attached to the labour market. A high proportion of people on invalidity benefit had a stable employment history before they went on to the benefit—half of them had been in their last job for 10 years or more. The vast majority of recipients under 50, including those most severely affected by health problems, were attached to the labour market—they wanted to return to work if they could.
  However, it is vastly more difficult for people over 50 to return to work. The age of 50, the research shows, is the real watershed. By their second round of interviews, Erens and Ghate found that, up to the age of 40, about two fifths of people had left invalidity benefit. That proportion decreased to about one quarter for 40 to 49-year-olds, and to one in seven for 50 to 64-year-olds.
  That diminished likelihood of getting off the benefit, which is what very many people over 50 want to do, is explained in part by motivational factors. We can easily understand the demoralisation and pessimism that can set in. It is also partly explained by the nearness of retirement age. But it is mainly explained by labour market conditions.
  It is hard for many people on invalidity benefit to get back into work. They tend to have poor educational qualifications. Only 17 per cent. of those surveyed by Erens and Ghate had remained in full-time education after 16, and 48 per cent. of them had no formal educational qualifications at all. Only 5 per cent. had A-levels and only 9 per cent. had higher educational qualifications below degree level. A further 14 per cent., only, had a recognised trade apprenticeship or had gained some commercial qualifications. So it is reasonable to suppose that those people lacked the skills and confidence necessary to re-enter work, and that employers did not see them as desirable recruits.
  By far their best hope has been to go back to their previous employer, and 64 per cent. of those returning to work did so. It is often not easy or possible for people to go back to their last employer, who may no longer be in business—the recession has eliminated the possibility of return in all too many cases. More broadly speaking, the decline of manual jobs in the economy has made it more difficult for a significant proportion of those on benefit to get back into work.
  Men over 50 with poor, or no, qualifications, are in deep difficulties in the labour market. Another problem that Erens and Ghate identified was the fact that employers were disappointingly inflexible in their attitude to the employment of people with sickness and disability problems. Three out of four respondents on benefit said
  60
  that their previous employers had not provided them with any assistance to help them carry on working, despite their ill health.
  Of those who returned to work, 81 per cent. went back to work hours similar to those of the last job. Half of those who were not able to stay in their return-to-work job said that their employers knew about their health condition but in only one case in five in which the employers knew did they provide any sort of assistance to help their employees to continue working.
  Another disappointing finding of the research was that only two in three respondents on IVB were aware of Government schemes designed to help them, and only 10 per cent. of respondents had direct experience of them.
  From all that, I conclude that the main reason for the growth in the number of people on invalidity benefit is the difficulty of returning to work.
  What will happen if my right hon. Friend's proposals are implemented? An unknown but considerable number of people who previously received IVB will not receive incapacity benefit. Some will go on to unemployment benefit. There is no precise estimate of the number, although there are some speculative estimates in circulation. The Secretary of State made it clear that he does not have any forecast of the number of people who will not receive incapacity benefit. However, he has advised us in the Bill that he estimates that savings of £1,450 million will be achieved by 1996–97.
  People, I am sorry to say, will become poorer as a result of the measure. They will be those who have a history of sickness and disability, who have been low earners when in work, who are poorly educated and skilled and who must be among the least fortunate and confident of our fellow citizens. It is estimated that those who fail the test and will no longer receive the benefit may be some £80 to £90—perhaps as much as £160—a week worse off. I do not think that that is what the Government want and it is not what I have understood the Conservative party to be about. Disraeli in his Crystal Palace speech in 1872, as you will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker—I mean from your deep knowledge of Conservative party history—said that one of the great objects of the Tory party was to improve the condition of the people, and he had a particular concern for those suffering from ill health.
  The Secretary of State has assured us that he is committed to the welfare state. In his Budget speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor similarly reassured us, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done so on many occasions. However, the freezing of the additional pension for existing claimants, and the decision that there should be no additional pension for new claimants, the reduction of the age allowance for women claimants aged between 45 and 55 and for men between 45 and 60, the lower level of benefit between the 28th and the 52nd week of benefit entitlement and the reduction in the dependant's allowance for people under 60 without children will mean that those who are among the least fortunate in our society are likely to experience still lower incomes. Low-paid workers are to contribute more through increased employees' national insurance contributions, only to receive less for their benefit.
  The income of those who go on to unemployment benefit followed by the job seeker's allowance is likely to fall. There will be tighter eligibility tests for the job seeker's allowance and it will be received later than would previously have been the case. I am concerned about the

  61
  danger that some people will be found too fit for incapacity benefit and not fit enough for the job seeker's allowance. Those who fail the new medical test for incapacity benefit will be disqualified from disability premiums for means-tested benefits—income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. We cannot assume that they will fall back from invalidity or incapacity benefit on to means-tested benefits, because invalidity and incapacity benefits are contributory, whereas entitlement to means-tested benefits is based on an assessment of family income.
  What conclusions might the Government draw from that analysis and an observation of those facts? They should conclude what my right hon. Friend says that he has concluded, that the strategy should be to do everything possible to get people who are on invalidity benefit and, in due course, those on incapacity benefit, into work. That means a macro-economic strategy to secure growth and a panoply of policies to ensure that jobs are generated.
  We need to look again at a number of relevant policies. If we want people to be in work and not on benefit, is it sensible to ask employers to bear a larger part of the costs of statutory sick pay? The Secretary of State argued that it will encourage them to promote the health of their work force. I fear that it may at least equally encourage them not to employ people with health problems.
  Will the Government look again at the proposed new access to work measures? Is it sensible to ask employers to pay 50 per cent. of the cost of equipment that enables disabled people to work? That has been raised with me with some emphasis by the Council for Disabled People, based at the Royal Midland Counties hospital in south Warwickshire.
  Will the Government consider the effect of taking people off incapacity benefit or making it harder for them to be on it, given that it is a passport to disability working allowance? I may have misunderstood that, in which case I shall be glad to be corrected. Disability working allowance has proved somewhat fragile and it has been difficult to ensure an extensive take-up. While I welcome the reforms and improvements that the Secretary of State was able to announce in the uprating statement at the end of last year, it would be unfortunate if other changes made it harder for people to move to disability working allowance.
  I hope that the Government will look positively at the case for anti-discrimination legislation to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against disabled people. That is the proper and decent thing to do: it is right in itself. The disabled have a great deal to contribute, much more than all too many employers recognise, and we should do all that we can, on humanitarian and economic grounds, to get them into the productive economy.
  I hope that the Government will draw from the analysis of DSS research the moral that we have to continue to make every effort to improve education and training. That includes an intensified emphasis on distance learning, credit accumulation and transfer and support for part-time students. We also need to do more to create awareness of Government schemes and their opportunities.
  We must be careful not to penalise disabled people who undertake education and training. The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation has expressed concern that disabled people undertaking a formal course of study at an educational establishment may lose benefit. I was
  62
  pleased to note my right hon. Friend's assurance that the Government intend to be positive about transitional training.
  We must ensure the continuing improvement of health and safety at work. As I said, 24 per cent. of people in the survey were on invalidity benefit following an experience at work that had damaged their health. I know that the Government do not intend in the new deregulation legislation to do anything to undermine genuine health and safety, but it is important to be careful.
  We must encourage employers to be flexible about the hours and conditions of work that they are prepared to offer disabled employees, just as they should be in helping single mothers to get back into work. The Government need to make a renewed effort, working with representatives of industry, to ensure that more and more employers are sensible in their own interests as well as in the interests of those who are on the margins of work, who want to work and are finding it difficult to find employment.
  I hope that the Government will look at the possibility of a more differentiated policy on incapacity benefit which will take account, sensitively and constructively, of the varying circumstances of claimants. We have found that the big divide among those who are on the benefit is between those who are under 50 and those who are over it. The Government should look at the case for more generous rules for people over 50.
  The research also shows that, naturally enough, there are problems for claimants in relation to travel to work. Erens and Ghate found that two thirds of their respondents said that it was important to find a job close to home. Can we examine the possibility of more flexible and generous rules for claimants in remote areas, where, with the best will in the world, there are few jobs to be found?
  More importantly, should we not look at more relaxed and generous rules in unemployment black spots, those unfortunate areas where we have endemic unemployment rates of 20, 30 and even 40 per cent.? Is it appropriate to apply the same stringency to the long-term sick and disabled when we know that, realistically, in areas where it is desperately hard for anybody, it is hardest of all for them to find work?
  I hope that, as has been argued, we shall think carefully about the principle of an objective medical test. When he announced this change in the uprating statement, my right hon. Friend said that it was his intention to have a "more objective" test. I hope that that means that he will be willing to recognise that a mechanistic set of scores related to bodily or mental capacities will tell adjudication officers very little that is useful to know about the capacity of an individual to work, relative to his or her education or skills, work experience, history of disability and so forth, and relative to the jobs that may be available. My right hon. Friend risks giving a new and unfortunate meaning to the Benthamite calculus of pain. I shall say nothing about pleasure, because I do not think that there is any pleasure involved in this set of calculations.
  I hope that the yellow consultation document—"A consultation on the medical assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—is not a tablet of stone and that discussions will lead to modifications. I appreciate my right hon. Friend's assurance that he wants to be flexible and is looking to ensure that the methodology really works. I fear that, as a matter of essential principle, it will not and cannot work.

  63
  We should recognise the impossibility of a medical officer who does not know the individual concerned making a worthwhile assessment not only of the whole variety of disabilities that disabled people have but of the fluctuating conditions that an individual disabled person may experience, such as varying degrees of pain and the varying impact of mental ill health.
  I feel that doctors should accept responsibility in that respect. I am sorry that some of the doctors consulted by the Department felt that it was not a proper part of their responsibility. The DSS sample was of only 40 doctors and they were not unanimous. For example, one is reported as saying:
  "Somebody's got to decide whether people are fit to work or not … who else could know, who else could do it … Because the GP knows more about the medical history of the patient than anybody else and he knows the patient well. He is the only medical person that knows the patient well."
  That is a sensible and important observation.
  The citizens advice bureau in Stratford-on-Avon, in my constituency, takes the view—I endorse its opinion—that local doctors feel that it is an appropriate part of their responsibility to make those assessments. We should look carefully at what self-assessment might mean. I may be wrong—perhaps this is not what is envisaged—but if it is the intention to ask people with learning difficulties to score their own cognitive impairments, that would not seem to me to be a sensible or proper policy.
  I welcome the provision that the Government are introducing to make it permissible for people to do 16 hours of voluntary work without forfeiting their benefit. However, let us again be careful in the practical administration of the system. I hope that, if people do do voluntary work for up to 16 hours, it will not be held on that account that they are fit for other work. I know that that is not my right hon. Friend's intention, but it is extremely important that we should be careful about that. That point has been put to me strongly by the council for disabled people at the Royal Midland Counties hospital in Warwickshire.
  I should like to make an allied point about therapeutic earnings, an issue that we should treat with great sensitivity. Often, the agreement that a claimant can have therapeutic earnings is an important halfway house, easing a person back to work and helping to build their confidence, particularly perhaps in relation to a new and unfamiliar job. That is a point about which the Warwickshire welfare rights service is particularly concerned.
  I ask my right hon. Friends to be willing to make rather less savings than is envisaged in their present policy. Of course I understand the need for control of public expenditure and I respect that motive. Of course we must be satisfied that the money being spent is going on proper purposes. In politics at the moment we are having a bit of a discussion on tax. There are good reasons and bad reasons to tax. The good reasons include helping the poor and the sick to live in less poverty, more dignity and more hope. Are these the people who should bear the costs of our economic difficulties of recent years? The good reasons also include enabling benefits claimants to have a better chance to get back into work. That would be the positive way to limit expenditure on that aspect, as others, of social security.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). I hope to develop one or two of the themes on which he commented. I hope also that I shall be able to make my criticisms no less effectively, if more robustly, than he has done. If there is a financial crisis surrounding the payment of the benefit, it is one largely engendered by the Government. That is one of the themes on which I wish to speak. The way in which the Government are arbitrarily going to disengage themselves from this financial crisis, which is largely of their own making, will disadvantage thousands of our poorer constituents. That is the second theme to which I wish to address my comments.
  The Secretary of State said that there was some puzzlement about why the numbers of people claiming invalidity benefit had increased. I suggest that there is no puzzle at all. There are two main reasons, one of which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). It pays people who are on benefit, once they have passed retirement age, to continue to draw invalidity benefit. It is to their advantage, for the obvious reason that retirement pension is taxable and invalidity benefit is not.
  The civilised way of dealing with that local difficulty would have been to bring invalidity benefit into tax, which the Bill does. I would claim that that is long overdue. Hon. Members should note that, although I am saying that it should be taxable, I am not necessarily saying that people should pay tax on it. People will pay tax depending where the tax threshold is. If I went down that path, I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would say that I was out of order, so I will leave that to one side.
  That is one reason why there has been an explosion in expenditure on invalidity benefit. People have not been taking their retirement pension; they have continued to draw invalidity benefit. There is another reason. If we look at the figures of claims, we see that they begin to rise steeply after 1986. We should devote some of our time this evening to the question why that happened after 1986.
  Again, I suggest that there is one simple reason for that: the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, thought that one could not win an election if unemployment totals were rising. One did not have to get it down to full employment to win; one had to get the total falling. Therefore, her Employment Minister, Lord Young, a Member of the other place, instructed his officials to persuade those people who were drawing unemployment benefit, or who were registered as unemployed and drawing the then means-tested support, wherever possible, to move over to invalidity benefit.
  In our surgeries, those of us who were Members of Parliament at the time were puzzled at first why the Government appeared to be suggesting that people should make themselves better off by moving from a lower-paid benefit to a higher-paid benefit. Of course, it did not take us long to rumble what the reason was. It was part of the massaging of the unemployment figures. It was important in the run-up to the next general election to see the total fall.
  Those are two of the main reasons for the escalation of expenditure on invalidity benefit. The Government have engaged in passive connivance with pensioners; they have also exercised passive discrimination, putting pressure on the unemployed to stop registering as unemployed and

  65
  start claiming invalidity benefit. Then they have the audacity to say that they have a financial crisis on their hands: they tell us that the number of people claiming benefit should be cut, and that the cost of putting the books in order should be borne by many of our constituents—people who are already disadvantaged, and are least able to fend for themselves in today's world.
  We must not allow the debate to continue without relating these changes to fundamental changes in the job market that have occurred, are occurring and will continue to occur. If we are favourably disposed to the Government's job creation record, we will exclude the first two years of Mrs. Thatcher's stewardship, and the current recession or slump. If we do that, the Government can say that the number of new jobs has increased considerably; but who secured those new jobs? They were secured, to an overwhelming extent, by women workers.
  Men have been increasingly disfranchised in regard to the job market, finding it more and more difficult to get and keep jobs. According to the most recent figures published in the Employment Gazette, twice as many men as women lost jobs in the latest batch of redundancies. This year—probably for the first time in our history—there will be more women than men in work.
  It could, of course, be said, in relation to the claiming of this benefit, that the Government have been helpful and thoughtful: that they have been anxious to soften the blows inflicted by a fundamental change in the job market, and to cushion the impact of the costs that the transition has imposed on male workers. The Government have worked themselves up into a panic over their mismanagement of the economy. Because of that, it will be largely the male workers who are disfranchised from benefit.
  Let me give some examples of the way in which low-paid households, with males claiming invalidity benefit, will be affected by the Bill. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden teased its consequences, out of the Government. Many people who currently claim benefit will not be eligible for the new benefit; they will be unable to draw income support, because they will be unable to work. If another member of the household is working, that will disqualify them from claiming income support.
  The financial savings, therefore, will be made at the cost of women workers who are managing to hold on to their jobs. They will not merely have to meet most of the bills, with their income supplemented by invalidity benefit; in future, they will have to meet the entire cost. That, too, will expose the vulnerability of males.
  Already, under the present Government, one in five prime-age males is unemployed. Giving the Bill a Second Reading will add to that total, as well as depriving those males of any benefit. While making these savings, we should ask what people from whom we take benefit are to do. In a previous Parliament, the House confidently took benefit from 16 to 17-year-olds. We were told that their families would look after them—as families do, of course, if they can. But what do families do if they are on their uppers, and a benefit package is taken away when there is already not enough money to go round?
  We do not have to be clever to answer that question. We are confronted with the answer every night when we leave the House after a Division to go back to our safe beds: we see people sleeping in doorways. That is one of the consequences of taking benefit away from people when there are no jobs.
  66
  What disturbs me so much about the Bill is the fact that the Government, sitting in their watertight compartment, have decided to ignore what is happening in the job market. More and more males are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain and hold down jobs. What will the Bill do to them and their families?
  I shall not make easy points about the "back to basics" approach, because I am a heretic in regard to that issue —among others. I think that it involves an important theme: the way in which we can support families and enable them to do a good job, and how we can minimise the pressures on them at a time of massive economic changes not only in this country, but throughout the world.
  Every hon. Member who holds surgeries knows of the near-violent tension in unemployed males who are desperate to receive invalidity benefit so that their wives can continue to work, or who face the prospect of losing it. The Bill will massively increase the pressure—violent pressure; breaking-up pressure—in many low-income families. For that reason, if for no other, I hope that the House will reject it.
  This is a financial crisis of the Government's own making, but the way in which they are disengaging themselves places the burden not on the broader shoulders, but on some of the narrowest. They will completely disfranchise some male claimants from benefit. We have already seen the consequences of denying young people benefit when no jobs are available. If the Bill had contained provisions designed to return prime-age males to work, it would have been received sympathetically, However, because the Government have failed to link it with employment measures to protect the most vulnerable group, I hope that the House will throw it out.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Dudley Fishburn: Stumbling into the debate this afternoon, I felt that I was part of a particularly close-knit fraternity—a group of people who had pondered social security issues for many years. Such people—for instance, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—are able to make the kind of speech that can be made only with the confidence that results from having dealt with such issues of a long time. Another example is my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who—on the other side of the House—has taken up a cause long espoused by my predecessor, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: the cause of the poorest and most disadvantaged in the land. That demonstrated that it takes time to become expert on such matters, and that he is fast on his way to becoming so.
  I am here partly to learn about some of the issues, and partly with a view to continuing in the same vein if I am selected to serve on the Standing Committee.
  The Secretary of State should be congratulated on highlighting this issue. The reform of the welfare system will be as important and painful a task in the years to come as it was over the years in the 1950s and 1960s, when hon. Members on both sides of the House built it up with Beveridge as their guide. There is no doubt that the system will need reform, and that reform will be the leitmotiv of politics over the next decade.
  Because it prompts so many emotions, the difficult issue of invalidity benefit is a good basis on which to consider how society is to retreat from a welfare system that we

  67
  know we shall not be able to afford in the years ahead as the population grows older and as those in work become fewer relative to that population.
  I feel comfortable with the fact that the Bill is the first step in a reform of the welfare system because of the Government's extraordinarily good record in recent years in dealing with those who are invalids or who are incapacitated. Their record bears all the hallmarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State who, perhaps more than any Minister, has systematically introduced measures to protect those people.
  For example, 2 million people now receive help for care and mobility, five times more than in 1979. Total spending on invalidity benefit and other benefits for invalids has increased by almost £10 billion in real terms since 1979. Care has become such an important element in the new understanding of how we can help invalids and, as a result, the invalid care allowance has gone from nothing a few years ago to about £360 million. In other less dry and less statistical terms, the Government have a good, sensitive and decent record in helping the very people for whom we are this evening once again, although in slightly different terms, trying to redress the balance by helping those most in need and pulling away from those who are less so.
  Members of the Government Front Bench have heard criticisms of the Bill from Conservative Members and, most tellingly, from the hon. Member for Birkenhead, but I hope that they will take succour from the Government's impeccable record in dealing with those who are incapacitated.
  Why have we, as a party, and why have the Government, made such an effort? First, the Government have recognised that it is the Government's duty to help those who are unable to work, a duty that Beveridge and the movement that followed him recognised later than some other reforms. Secondly, the Government have recognised the extra costs, needs and standards of care which have encouraged the caring industry that has come to the forefront in the past few years.
  Finally, and most important, we have recognised that in a society in which there is ever more free enterprise and in which, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, there is an ever freer labour force, more women workers and more part-timers, we have a greater responsibility to those who are left out and who cannot take advantage of the opportunities which, as the hon. Gentleman said with great force, put great strains on the family because they make it less easy for the man to find work while making it more possible for the woman to do so. The greatest strains are on those unable to find work at all because they are incapacitated.
  The Bill contains much that is to be welcomed. Attention has already been drawn to the 16 hours of work that people can do for voluntary organisations without losing invalidity benefit. Clauses 6 and 7 go a long way to making the system of payments more efficient and targeted more on those whom we seek to assist. We have heard how 850,000 people will not have to undergo tests and they are, of course, the very people who most need reassurance. I was therefore pleased to hear a categoric reassurance. It is also good news—I think that all hon. Members will
  68
  recognise it as such—that invalidity benefit will be brought into the tax net. All other benefits have gone the same way and invalidity benefit was an outsider in that respect.
  For the past 15 years, I have been a trustee of the Open university, which has done a great deal—perhaps more than any other institution of learning—to help people left at home either because they are permanently incapacitated or because they are ill for a short time and want to use that period of adversity to upgrade their skills, so that, when they re-enter the labour market, they can do so at a higher level and find a better job. I was pleased to hear the reassurance that those who embark on higher and further education will not have their benefits cut and will therefore not be discouraged in any way.
  In the years ahead, as all parties come to grips with what we need to do to reform the welfare state so that we are able to help those most in difficulty, we shall return time and again to the central fact that we shall need less welfare if we can educate people more. Higher standards of education will mean that more people can find and create jobs and the burden on the state will be less so that we can redirect welfare to those who need it most.
  Today's debate is part of a larger debate that will continue as long as most of us are in Parliament. It is also taking place in every western European country. As we have all become aware, regardless of party, it is not possible for our welfare systems and public expenditure to continue unaltered. In most European countries, they now account for about 50 per cent. of gross national product. If that were to continue, the next generation would lynch us and refuse to pay the bill.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: We have tonight heard the Conservative party speaking with a voice similar to that of Disraeli, whom the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) mentioned. Even the Secretary of State spoke in rather gentler terms than we are used to hearing from him, especially in view of the Nuremberg-style rallies that the Conservatives hold every year and at which he produced his little list.
  Perhaps the threat of crucifixion, real or imaginary, concentrates the mind, but the authentic voice of Toryism —the backroom, saloon-bar voice that we have frequently heard in the Chamber—is very much the inspiration behind the Bill. There is no doubt that the views of those who believe that we must crack down on scroungers and that the welfare state is being looted on a large scale were, in large measure, the inspiration for it.
  In a revealing intervention of which I made a note, the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) asked:
  "Is my right hon. Friend aware that the man who waved the flag at the grand national was on invalidity benefit?"
  It is worth underlining the fact that last year's grand national was not our greatest or most successful sporting occasion. Was the hon. Gentleman saying that the man who started the race should be fully employed, should start all the races or should quietly stay at home with a towel wrapped around his head and exist on invalidity benefit? I am baffled and do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) correctly identified the two main reasons for the increase in the number of claims for invalidity benefit. The first that he mentioned was the Government's desire to ensure that people were taken off the unemployment register in the

  69
  pre-election period. The second was the advantage that people see in staying on invalidity benefit rather than drawing a retirement pension. There is, however, another reason.
  If people question those reasons, as they well might, and if they do not believe that Government policy is skewed in a pre-election period, they need only consider what happened with the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance before the previous election. They were both ludicrously over-advertised, to the extent that 90 per cent. of the claimants of one of them had to be turned down because they were misled by the Government into believing that the claim applied to them.
  That advertising was done a matter of weeks before the last general election, as a feel-good campaign by the Conservative Government, to give the impression that they would care for the disabled. It was a massive, expensive deception, the bill for which should have been paid by Conservative central office.
  Invalidity benefit claims have increased especially sharply in Wales. One of the reasons—as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) recognises, because it is an area in which he has been much engaged throughout his parliamentary career—is that the people who claim invalidity benefit now are people in the 50 to 60 age group who, during the bulk of their working lives, worked in industry that was very much deregulated. We are returning to it now. It is another fashionable crusade on which the Government are embarking but which has its dangers.
  At the time when industry was so deregulated, many people who worked in the quarrying industry in north Wales or the mining industries of south Wales were exposed to dust and suffered from silicosis and pneumoconiosis, and also had their bodies exposed to risks that we would all find intolerable now. In the steel industries, men worked in front of baths of boiling sulphuric acid while the steel was being pickled, without wearing any type of mask. People were deafened by the noise of machinery. There is a famous poem by Gwenallt, who spoke in the Welsh language, about his father coughing up his life-blood into a bucket in the kitchen—a graphic account of what happened to that generation of people who worked until literally they dropped.
  That generation, especially in south Wales, is responsible for that increase in claims for invalidity benefit. Those people, now in their fifties and sixties, of which there is a greater concentration throughout Wales and in the industrial area of Wales than probably anywhere else working in those unhealthy industries, leave their work prematurely. The old compassionate practice was for them to go on to a light job; to continue in their occupations but to do something in which there was not much demand for physical effort, where they could carry on semi-invalided. In these hard days, that is no longer possible. They go on to sickness benefit and eventually on to invalidity benefit, which is absolutely just and light.
  The explanation which was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and that which I have just given, show why the increase has taken place. There has been no analysis by the Government that suggests that there is any other reason for it. It is nonsense that we can contemplate such a major piece of legislation without possessing firm evidence. The Government are motivated by anecdotal evidence only.
  There is one aspect about which I have attempted to question the Government, as has my hon. Friend the
  70
  Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). We asked the Government to name the 80 experts who will convene to consider the detail of the proposed medical test for incapacity benefit. It is crucial that all the organisations that wish to contribute to the discussion—we have been told that the Government's mind has not been entirely made up—know who those people are so that we, as Members of Parliament or outside organisations, can make a contribution.
  Today the Secretary of State mentioned one organisation that I do not think many of us had heard of. He quoted selectively from a letter. We know, however, that the mass of organisations for people with disabilities very much oppose the Bill and are highly critical of it.
  Instead of giving us the names of the panel members, the Government have said that the members have asked them to respect confidentiality until the exercise is completed. They intend to publish a report containing the names of the members of the panel, the summary of its work and findings and the results of the exercise, after the event. Why on earth should that be, and why should they reject the two parliamentary questions that have been tabled on that basis? It is crucial that the information is communicated to those people.
  The only possible reason that I can think of why the membership of the panel should be treated as confidential is that members are ashamed of what they are doing and do not want to be named. Perhaps the Minister can tell us at the end of the debate why that star chamber is meeting in secret to make those decisions and we will not know who the "guilty people" are until they have made their decisions. It seems an extraordinary situation.
  The Secretary of State looked a little puzzled at the amusement on the Opposition Benches when he mentioned certain categories of people who will be exempt. One of the categories that he mentioned was that of people in a permanent vegetative state. It is not much of a concession to say that someone who is in that state will not be asked to take a job down the nearest coal pit. That is our brave new world.
  Are the Government really saying that Opposition Members should receive that news with great gratitude —that the nation will be told that people who are permanently, hopelessly incapacitated should not be pressurised into doing an extra job?
  The Bill fails because the test that the Government are applying is not a test of incapacity for work—that would be the sensible course for them to take—but one of disability. It should be a test of incapacity. If the test is adopted, the result will inevitably be that many people who are incapable of work will be refused benefit because they are not disabled enough and presumably others who are capable of work will receive incapacity benefit because they pass the disability test.
  It is an irrational basis for a major piece of legislation, but we all know what it is about. It is about the Government again saying—the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) seems to have swallowed the myth entirely—that we cannot afford our welfare state, which we have afforded for many, many years. We afforded it in the 1940s and the 1950s when we were a very poor nation relative to our wealth now and relative to many other countries in the world. At that time we could afford a welfare state that was regarded generally as adequate. The Government are also saying that in 40 years' time

  71
  —when we shall be infinitely richer, by all forecasts, than we are now—we shall not be able to afford an adequate welfare state.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who never takes part in these debates but writes well about them, would disagree with that analysis. The Government have exaggerated the demographic trends because it suits their case and they have also exaggerated the burden that the welfare state is and is likely to be.
  The Bill, as so much of the Government's legislation at the moment, is designed to shift spending from the people who are in greatest need. They will make a case for it. Virtually every organisation representing people with disabilities has objected to the measure. It will mean a massive cut in the incomes of those people whose income is already very low. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has said that many of the people who now receive the present invalidity benefit will not qualify, and we have had the figure—95,000 in the first year, 195,000 in the next year. We know that virtually none of those people will qualify for the current unemployment benefit. We know that very few of them will qualify for income support if someone in their family works, so there will be a massive cut in the income of the great army of people who are already on low incomes.
  I will finish with a final argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead spoke about the people we see on our streets now. The fastest growing industry in Britain is drug trafficking. We know that the great attraction for young people, young or old, is not to take a job on dirt pay that they may get in McDonald's Hamburgers Ltd. or to take some other low-paid job where they work for pennies above the level of income support, but to recruit themselves into Britain's fastest growing industry where they can make huge moneys in the area of criminality: the business of trafficking drugs.
  The financial inducement of that industry will recieve its greatest boost from the Government's attempt to drive people into deeper poverty. The entire message of the Bill is an attempt by the Government to soak the sick.
  6.49 pm
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: In the health debate in the past week, we heard how sensitive Opposition Members are to any proposals to reform the welfare state. Today, to adopt the phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, "there is evidence that the Opposition are in repose". I have not the slightest doubt that, in due course, he shall have to endure ritual protest alleging that he has betrayed the memory and the ethos of Beveridge.
  What did Beveridge actually say? In establishing the concept of a safety net, he made it clear that the role of the state should be limited. He said:
  "The state, in organising security, should not stifle incentive, opportunity and responsibility. In establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than a minimum for himself and his family … The danger of providing benefits, which are both adequate in amount and indefinite in duration, is that men, as creations who adapt to circumstances, may settle down to them".
  In other words, the risk of people becoming dependent on welfare and flouting the original and worthy intentions of the legislation was recognised. The result would be, first,
  72
  a disincentive to work and secondly, his outlook on life would be damaging to the individual, his family and, also importantly, expensive to the taxpayer. It is precisely that problem which has arisen in relation to sickness benefits in the social security system.
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has clearly re-read the Beveridge report recently. Would he remind the House what Beveridge said about the giant idleness, by which he meant unemployment, and what Beveridge said about the need for Government to maintain full employment?
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I welcome that intervention from my near namesake. We can all quote selectively from Beveridge and I am trying not to do so. Even the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the concept of full employment is a worthy objective, which parties on both sides of the House, whenever in government, have failed to fulfil, yet I believe that it is still a worthy aim.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his courage in tackling what is bound to be an emotive issue. It cannot be right that the number of people who receive invalidity benefit has trebled over the past 15 years, which implies that almost 1·5 million people are unable to work when the health of the nation has been improving steadily. On the other hand, as the prosperity of the country improves, provision for those truly in need should be all the better, which partially covers the intervention of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West.
  The present system is bureaucractic, arbitrary and expensive. The transition from staututory sick pay and sickness benefit to invalidity benefit is wholly unsatisfactory. Problems occur because while statutory sick pay is taxed, invalidity benefit is free of tax. More importantly, while invalidity benefit is free of tax, unemployment benefit is taxed. It is these distortions which are clearly the major factors causing invalidity benefit to rise from £2 billion a year in 1979 to over £6 billion a year today. Some estimates are as high as £8 billion.
  The so-called gatekeeper to invalidity benefit is the general practitioner who is asked to issue a certificate. All hon. Members have heard representations about the invidious position in which the GP has found himself. Any doctor, acting on the best motives and knowing something of the personal, domestic and financial circumstances of his patient would find it difficult to deny him or her access to a higher system of benefits. Thus, the number of people on invalidity benefit has risen inexorably.
  That unsatisfactory state of affairs is compounded by other anomalies. For example, invalidity benefit, which is more generous than the state pension, may be received for five years after pension age. What an extraordinary state of affairs. Also, periods of receipt may be linked to include periods of unemployment during which claimants were not incapacitated. Perhaps most telling of all is the fact that, once people are on invalidity benefit, an infinitesimal number come off it. It has become a one-way track. That system flies in the face of common sense and the whole operation must be re-examined to ensure that only those who are genuinely disabled and those who are chronically ill qualify.
  Speaking as a physician myself, I have the greatest sympathy for GPs who are put in a near impossible situation.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I misunderstood the Minister. I thought that he said that 100,000 people a year came off invalidity benefit. Perhaps he would wish to confirm that.
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott)indicated assent.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister nodded, so when the hon. Gentleman said that it was one-way traffic, clearly, he did not get the record right. The Minister disagreed with him.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I accept that intervention. I did not have the exact statistics to hand. I accept that there is now a three-way communication and look forward to my right hon. Friend the Minister's elucidation. I correct myself on saying that it had become a one-way track. It has become a tendency.
  I have the greatest sympathy for GPs performing the difficult task which the regulations have imposed or, them. How can they dispute a claim for invalidity benefit without impairing the doctor-patient relationship? Why should they confront their patients over a dubious claim, when they often have neither the time nor the training to assess people's fitness for work? For example, a large proportion of claims are based on musculo-skeletal disorders, two thirds of which are associated with back pain, which is notoriously difficult to assess.
  It was thus with great interest that I heard from my right hon. Friend that the National Back Pain Association has made representations, which I am sure will be taken extremely seriously. The British Medical Association—here I part company with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)—says that GPs do not want to be cast in the role of policemen, making judgments which may be based as much on social factors as on medical factors.
  I welcome the proposed incapacity benefit, which while consolidating and simplifying the system, also introduces the medical incapacity test; an objective, medical yardstick. It involves the claimant, the claimant's GP and the Benefits Agency medical services. A simple questionnaire will be sent out before the end of 28 weeks, at least I hope that it will be simple.
  The general practitioner merely has to confirm the diagnosis and, after scrutiny by an adjudication officer on purely medical grounds, I understand that about 85 per cent. of cases will be referred to the Benefits Agency medical services, which has discretion over which claimants shall be examined. It is just as important that the case must be reviewed at intervals thereafter, to check that there has been no change in the medical condition.
  Let me give an example. We heard today about a patient suffering from angina. I do not know the circumstances of that particular case, although they sounded rather doubtful and perhaps worthy of re-examination. Clearly, a patient suffering from angina who subsequently has surgical treatment—a coronary artery by-pass—may well be fit to resume a normal way of life.[Interruption.] I hear a bit of jocular comment from the Opposition Front Bench. I happen to be a practising physician who deals with such problems daily. I have numerous patients who have gone back to an entirely normal way of life after the appropriate surgery.
  Mr. Dewar: There is no dispute about the efficacy of by-pass surgery. If someone has surgery and his or her
  74
  physical condition changes, that should clearly be taken into account at a review. My objection is that the Government were contemplating with satisfaction a state of affairs in which the person, before by-pass surgery—with all the disadvantages of constricted arteries and the pain that the condition brought—should not be on invalidity benefit.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I have already said that I should like to know more about the case. The hon. Gentleman has missed my point, which was that, before the introduction of the proposals, the patient who had had surgery did not automatically come back to be reassessed and could have stayed on invalidity benefit indefinitely and with no form of monitoring. The Bill is in part designed to remedy that situation.
  I am sure that those on the Opposition Front Bench will welcome the exemptions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has granted. Those near pensionable age, those with terminal illnesses and those in receipt of disability living allowance will be exempt from the tests proposed. Above all, those genuinely unable to work need have no fear about reassessment under the new scheme because hon. Members on both sides of the House will be monitoring their effectiveness in practice.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman said that, in the case to which he referred, the claimant would not be subject to review. Did he not hear the Minister refer in his opening speech to the fact that 300,000 cases annually were being reviewed, including cases of that nature?
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: The hon. Gentleman exhibits the phenomenon of the perfect being the enemy of the good. The ethos behind the Bill is to make absolutely certain that a mechanism exists and can be stringently applied to ensure that the system works properly.
  I welcome the concession enabling those on benefit to continue to do voluntary such work. Many hon. Members have espoused the concept of active citizenship. We have not heard much about that recently and I hope that the Government will again pick up that theme. The concession is certainly an example of their encouragement of voluntary work. I welcome, too, the undertaking that groups representing the disabled will be involved in advising on the setting of medical standards.
  The principle is undoubtedly right. The exact mechanism should be examined in Committee. We must be wary of having too many tiers of decision making and excessive bureaucracy. If 85 per cent. of cases examined by the adjudication officer are, indeed, to go to the Benefits Agency medical service, there will be a large element of double handling.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether the Benefits Agency medical service should not itself be the decision maker. Could we not cut out the role of the adjudication officer entirely? That may be a radical suggestion, but I invite my right hon. Friend to address it none the less. Whatever system we end up with must be backed up by an appropriate appeals procedure to protect aggrieved claimants.
  On a more positive note, I believe that nothing but good can come out of market-testing the Benefits Agency. Does my right hon. Friend see any scope for the independent sector to become active in this area? I assume that there

  75
  would have to be an appropriate governing body to ensure the maintenance of comparable standards and some uniformity across the country.
  When all the emotion is swept aside, we are left with a proper and overdue examination of the system, applied in a practical and humane way. Sadly, the abuses predicted by Beveridge have come about. They cause resentment to the beleaguered taxpayer and further deprive the most vulnerable in society. The balance must be restored. I am confident that my right hon. Friend will tackle the unfairness, protect those needing benefits and show a fair and feasible way forward.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I must say that I should have more confidence in the Bill if it did not come from this stable and at this time. We have heard so many attacks on scroungers and so much about the need to roll back the state in recent months that attempts to dress the Bill up as legislation designed to allow us more effectively to target disabled people leave me highly sceptical.
  I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes). He said that only genuinely disabled and chronically sick people should be entitled to invalidity benefit. I put it to him that there are many grey areas—that many people who would not be defined as chronically sick according to the definition in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 should, none the less, certainly be entitled to invalidity benefit and would qualify even under the new definitions that are to be applied.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I do not dispute that for a moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept, however, that the necessary flexibility has been built into the Bill to cover those in categories that he describes as grey areas and to ensure that those who need benefits are given them.
  Mr. Wigley: I shall be coming to that point. I do not believe that there is adequate flexibility, as I said in an intervention in the speech of the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Wimbledon has experience as a doctor. I can well understand the difficulty facing general practitioners, especially given that they must maintain their relationship with their patients. But if a GP is not in a position—either directly or through his or her access to specialists—to make a judgment on the validity or otherwise of an application, who on earth is?
  The danger is that the necessary flexibility will not be there and that we shall be unable to look at the needs of the individual in the light of all his or her circumstances—circumstances that are often not known to those on faceless boards and panels who make decisions.
  Hon. Members have sought to imply that it is a redeeming factor of the Bill that terminally ill people will not be subject to review. I do not suppose that they will; that is part of the tragedy. If such cases have to be invoked as a justification for the rationale behind a Bill, that Bill needs to be looked at very carefully indeed.
  I oppose what I believe to be a dishonest Bill. I do not believe that it is a Bill intended to target the existing cash resources of £6·1billion on those who need it. I might have some sympathy with the Bill if, rather than clawing back
  76
  money for the Treasury or other Departments, it retained that same sum within the broad ambit of the needs of disabled people who have been claiming invalidity benefit—either giving more money to the limited number of beneficiaries or replacing wrongful beneficiaries, as the Government see it, with the numerous people who should undoubtedly be receiving benefit but are missing out for a variety of reasons, including ignorance and lack of advice. In reality, however, the Bill is aimed at cutting expenditure by £1·5 billion, not at re-targeting that cash among the group from which it is being taken away.
  I do not accept the logic of taxing invalidity benefit— certainly not in its entirety. Part of the benefit has been regarded as intended to cover needs over and above the basic necessities of a person or a family; it has gone to meet exceptional requirements arising out of the circumstances of a person's invalidity. That part of the benefit should most certainly not be taxed any more than should specific disability provisions—which, indeed, they are not.
  The Bill acknowledges—and the Secretary of State acknowledged—that 195,000 people who fail to get work after losing their invalidity benefit will depend on income support or unemployment benefit if they are entitled to it. The cost will be £265 million—about £30 per person per week. That is an indication of what those people will lose.
  In fact, a Government document that was issued to the press last June indicated that the estimated average cost of failing the incapacity test was £87 a week and that, in some circumstances, the loss could be as high as £160 a week. The people concerned will at the very least have found themselves in circumstances which justified the payment and which, it could be argued, justify its continuation.
  There will be real difficulties. Many people will not qualify for income support. For example, a disabled man whose wife does some cleaning or cooking in the local school and makes a pittance in an effort to sustain her family will no doubt lose entitlement to full income support. Modest savings, too, will debar people.
  Is this what the Government mean when they talk about targeting resources towards those in need? It strikes me that we have here a pretty venomous piece of legislation whose intention is to take money from one of the many groups of have-nots of society—people who are in no position to do much to help themselves.
  The Secretary of State has laid great emphasis on people whose condition may render them fit for work and who should therefore be seeking work. The right hon. Gentleman defined medical and disablement conditions that would make a person unfit and would automatically entitle him to the new incapacity benefit. I think he said that the number of people in this category was 850,000.
  One is glad that those people are provided with a safeguard, so far as it goes, but 700,000 are left out. Although existing benefits may be safeguarded to some extent, such people will fail to receive help, and about 750,000 will be open to being tested and will run the risk of not succeeding. It remains to be seen how the figures will work out in practice.
  When the Secretary of State talked about people being fit for work; he did not define "work". The guidelines that the Government have given to benefit offices in recent months suggest that there is already a move towards tightening the interpretation of invalidity. The National

  77
  Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has drawn our attention to reports from its local offices. Let me mention some of the examples that it has given.
  Disabled people have been told that, if they are fit to sit as artists' models, they are fit to work. Are we really going down that ludicrous road? It may be technically true that a person who is acting as an artist's model should be paid. If that is the definition, and if people are to be refused benefit on such a basis, as is already beginning to happen under the existing system—the danger is that the regulations will be even tighter under the new system, since the whole objective is to cut back—the Government must be taken to task.
  It is totally demeaning for disabled people to be addressed in this way. In addition, there simply are not enough jobs as artists' models. It may be that a person could sit in a chair for a couple of hours, but if no job is available he should not lose benefit on that ground.
  NACAB reports that pressure has been put on Benefits Agency doctors. I quote from a recent document:
  "Recent CAB advice indicates that, despite the test for invalidity benefit remaining unchanged, regional medical officers are taking a much tougher line on capacity to work, and invalidity benefit is being inappropriately withdrawn from some people who are disabled and incapable of work. Many CABs have reported their concern that Benefits Agency doctors appear to be responding to administrative pressures and declaring more people fit for work."
  That is based on the experience of a cross-section of CAB offices the length and breadth of these islands.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the "artist's model" test is being applied generally. I imagine that if it were, there would be no one at all drawing invalidity benefit.
  Mr. Wigley: In the context in which I am bringing these reports to the attention of the House, the question is whether modelling for an artist, as well as other occupations to which I shall come in a moment, is a job that the benefit assessors are being told to regard as suitable for disabled people. There is evidence from more than one CAB that this is what has been suggested. The hint is that such guidelines have gone out.
  If that is the road that we are taking under the existing rules, and given that the whole intention is to tighten up with regard to the definition of disability, I have some misgivings, as no doubt does the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen). I am sure that if this is the Government's intention the hon. Gentleman will be unhappy. Indeed, he indicates assent.
  I should like to refer to several more CAB examples. A bureau in Wiltshire reports on a client who has been off work for three years as a result of chronic back problems and has been claiming invalidity benefit. That person has been told by the Benefits Agency that he should be a van loader.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: How could he do that?
  Mr. Wigley: Well, he could not do it. However, his refusal would be deemed to be unwarranted. This underlines the crisis that will be faced by some of the most vulnerable people in society.
  A citizens advice bureau in Humberside reports on a client appealing against disallowance of invalidity benefit. The client's GP wrote:
  "Any interference leading the client to accept any form of occupation may even lead to his death."
  78
  If that is the degree of sensitivity among those addressing this question, people deemed to be unfit for work will be forced to take jobs and could die as a consequence. As they go down the path that they are starting to tread, the Government will have to face up to this problem.
  A CAB in Yorkshire, reporting on a client who suffers from severe depression and has had two nervous breakdowns, says:
  "His doctor maintains he cannot work and he is covered by a medical certificate until next January. The DSS has decided he is capable of doing some form of work and has stopped his benefit accordingly."
  In other words, Big Brother knows best. It is the disabled person who suffers.
  A CAB in Wales reports on two cases in which general practitioners admitted that they felt that they had little alternative to signing clients off the sick, despite their own opinions, in the light of the decisions of the regional medical officer.
  All these cases highlight the problems that are being faced at present. If such situations are arising now, what on earth will happen when the new legislation is enacted?
  We have seen in recent months the emergence of a consistent pattern in the jobs being suggested for the recipients of invalidity benefit. I was about to refer to some others when the hon. Member for Shoreham intervened a few moments ago.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The cases to which the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) refers ought to be commented on specifically in the Minister's winding-up speech. I am not suggesting that individuals should be named, but if modelling for an artist is regarded as an acceptable occupation in this context, the Minister ought to address the matter at the Dispatch Box. We are entitled to hear his view on the proposition. All the cases to which the hon. Member for Caernarfon has referred are of great interest. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about them.
  Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. We need such a response. We need to know whether the Department has issued guidance with regard to cases such as those that I have mentioned.
  Let me refer to the other occupations that have been reported to more than one citizens advice bureau. We are seeing the emergence of a pattern which suggests that local authorities have been provided with guidance generally.
  It has been suggested that a disabled person could become an embalmer. If a disabled person could find a job as an embalmer, he would be considered fit for work. Other suggested jobs include swimming pool attendant, petrol pump attendant, van loader, radio telephone operator, repetitive assembler, checker and packer. Those suggested jobs appear to be part of a pattern of guidance issued by the Department under current legislation.
  As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, the Government should come clean and tell us whether guidance has been issued along those lines, describing the jobs to which I have referred. If that is the case, how on earth can the Government justify their position? If that is the basis on which they are building the background for the new legislation, my goodness, disabled and sick people have a lot to fear.
  Mr. Dewar: I am listening with great interest to, and have much sympathy with, what the hon. Gentleman is

  79
  saying. I do not mean to belittle what he has said, but perhaps he would like to address a more mainstream difficulty.
  What happens to someone who has no special skill or training, who has been a manual worker all his life and who is told that he must come off invalidity benefit—and presumably may not qualify for incapacity benefit—because, theoretically, that person could get an office job which, at the age of 52, he has absolutely no chance of obtaining? That is where the really damaging moral dilemma arises and where the danger signals fly in respect of the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Wigley: It seems that the hon. Members for Workington and for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) have read my mind. The hon. Member for Garscadden has referred to the category that I was just about to raise.
  What happens if a labourer who has broken his back is deemed to be fit to work as a computer programmer although he does not have the skills to perform that job and cannot reasonably be expected to have those skills? What happens if a teacher has had a nervous breakdown and cannot face a class of children? What happens if a person is told that he is fit to be a labourer, even if he is 50 years old and may never have worked as a labourer? Are those the questions that we will have to face as a result of the redefinition in the Bill?
  We have often heard of people being told by tribunals that they are fit for light work and, in that respect, I refer to a point raised by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). A former slate quarryman in my constituency has a chest infection as a result of dust diseases—but, as we hear on so many occasions, "only a little dust, not amounting to pneumoconiosis". However, he is incapacitated in the same way that coal miners are incapacitated. Such people may be told that they are fit for light work, but what if there is no light work available? Are they expected to perform heavier work which may endanger their health?
  A CAB in Berkshire stated:
  "Many clients we see suffer from fatigue or exhaustion on the slightest effort and although they may be physically able to carry out the tests would suffer a severe deterioration in their health as a result."
  Is it to be an acceptable definition of "fit for work" that someone can actually do the work, although the consequences may not be acceptable?
  To what extent is the question of the type of work available in an area relevant? That is not a medical consideration and, given the way that we are going, it will not be taken into account. There may be no work available, but a disabled person may be capable of undertaking work which might possibly be available in a handful of instances somewhere scattered around these islands. If he or she does not try for that work, that person is deemed not to be seriously going after work. Is that the road that we are going down?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the critical issue the fact that, once that decision has been taken, within months that person will be drawing social security benefit and, therefore, his assets will be taken into account? That might lead to the depletion of someone's assets when that person is deemed fit for work, although he could not work anyway.
  Mr. Wigley: Inevitably, if such a person had assets over and above the threshold for income support, they would be eroded until they came down to that threshold. Many people have worked hard in difficult industries and, by their fifties, have saved a certain amount of money. People are proud and want to look after themselves in their old age. They will lose their money in the way that the hon. Member for Workington has described.
  To what extent are the general capabilities of an applicant before he or she became sick or disabled to be considered relevant? In other words, what consideration will be given to an applicant's ability to work as a computer programmer or labourer if that person's background is completely different?
  If such factors are not taken into account, we will have a right pig's ear of a situation and there will be many cases infinitely more harrowing than those I have quoted from citizens advice bureaux. There are also problems in rural areas involving difficulties in travelling great distances to work and the costs involved. There are also problems in areas of high unemployment, such as the old industrial areas and the valleys of south Wales and other coal-mining areas. In those areas, there are high levels of unemployment and also a high level of invalidity benefit claimants.
  In the context of the definitions about which I was asking a moment ago, it is worth considering the way in which case law has developed over the years. In order to deliver some kind of justice, case law has found it necessary to ensure that there is a more flexible definition of incapacity for work. In 1951, a tribunal of commissioners explained:
  "a person is incapable of work within the meaning of the National Insurance Act 1946 … if, having regard to his age, education, experience, state of health and other personal factors, there is no type of work which he can reasonably be expected to do."
  That kind of definition is broad enough to assuage our worries. It is the kind of definition that is being cut out as a result of the Bill. That is an extremely worrying development.
  Another difficulty facing a disabled or sick person when trying to obtain a job arises from the danger of the possibility of recurring sickness being in the employer's mind when considering whether to employ that sick or disabled person. Such an employer might steer clear of someone who has a history of sickness, because of the danger of absenteeism. We are all aware of the prejudice that often exists against a person who has suffered disability.
  The Bill underlines even more the need for anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people. When the private Member's Bill is introduced in March, I hope that the Government will give it their wholehearted support, because many disabled people will need the provisions of that Bill when they have to face up to the implications of this Bill.
  The Government's assessment of the potential for work for disabled people has been shown to be woefully inadequate by the experience of the disability working allowance. In 1990, the Government thought that 50,000 people might be entitled to claim DWA. Just before Christmas, it was revealed that the number of people claiming that benefit was 3,178. I fear that the Government's assessment in relation to the Bill will be just as misleading and erroneous.

  81
  In conclusion, I can do no better than to draw to the attention of the House the words of Ann Robinson, the chief executive of the Spastics Society:
  "The Government claims to be scrapping Invalidity Benefit on the basis that many people who can work are claiming it, but we've yet to see any evidence of this. This legislation is about reducing public expenditure, not ensuring the right benefits reach the right people. Once again, disabled people seem to be getting a rough deal as a result of Government cost-cutting. This new benefit will not meet the needs of disabled people who cannot work."
  7.27 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: The Bill is extremely important and we must abide by two guiding principles. First, we must have a realistic appraisal of the level of invalidity. It is inconceivable that, with the improvement in the health of the nation over the past 15 years and before, we have seen such an increase in the number of people qualifying for invalidity benefit.
  There have been massive health improvements. Many hon. Members have referred to angina. When I think of the improvements over recent years in coronary artery bypass grafts, in angioplasty, in the introduction of long-acting nitrates and in the benefits that they have had in terms of reduced morbidity, if not improved life expectancy, for patients, I find it inconceivable that a large number of such people should be entering the invalidity category. That is simply not credible.
  Likewise, the improved control and management of diabetics at hospital and general practice levels over recent years must have contributed to the much greater ability of diabetics to be able to continue working during their normal working lives.
  Again, I find it rather difficult to accept that, as the Opposition would have it, the figures show that the population are becoming less healthy. An increased number of patients have been treated in hospital in recent years, and there has been increased productivity among GPs, especially in health promotion. All that has contributed to increased health of the nation, yet, paradoxically, more people are on invalidity benefit.
  The second principle is that we must target benefits on those who need them. Opposition Members have said that that will mean that some people will not receive the benefits that they are receiving at present. That might be the case, but there is a strong case for honesty in our public policy. If that means that more people are seen to be on the unemployment register, for example, I will not flinch from that, but I do not want people to be given invalidity benefit, with all that that entails and implies, when they are not invalids. Giving somebody invalidity benefit undermines their sense of self-worth in many respects. Hon. Members have not taken account of that point.
  As somebody who practised as a general practitioner before coming to the House in 1992, I know that GPs do not like the current system of invalidity certification. GPs and other doctors should not act as unpaid agents of the Department and Social Security. That is not what they were trained to do, and it is not a suitable role for people who have been trained to have a neutral and objective relationship with their patients.
  Far from providing flexibility in dealing with certification, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned, doctors are not qualified to deal with many of those matters, as I shall show later, and their relationship with their patients has been undermined by a
  82
  system which asks them to be judge and jury on state benefit. That is not what medical practitioners are trained to do, nor what they take their medical oaths for.
  All GPs find difficulty with the complexity of the system. I am sure that all hon. Members would accept that. We have self-certification for a week, then we have F Med 3, which is issued after that, with the diagnosis causing incapacity for work, and a time limit put on that. For the first six months, doctors must decide whether the patient can do his normal job, after which they must decide whether the patient can do any sort of work.
  That is an important practical point. We must consider what is actually involved in this job, that job and the other job. If one has spent one's life at university, at medical school, in hospital or in general practice, one has precious little knowledge of what many specific jobs require. It is much easier in the first six months to determine what the patient might require for his own job, because one can ask the patient what is involved, but it is difficult to determine whether the patient would be fit for work in one type of industry or another when one has no experience of it. As a GP, I found that decision difficult, if not impossible.
  Off the case goes to the adjudication officer, who will decide whether one of the Benefits Agency doctors should see the patient. If it goes to the Benefits Agency doctor, he will decide whether the original doctor should give a statement. In fact, he may require the original doctor to give a statement about why the patient was put on benefit. That, plus other information, will decide whether the patient should be examined by the Benefits Agency medical service doctor at home or at the medical centre. When all that is done, the case goes back to the adjudication officer to decide whether the patient should be put on invalidity benefit.
  That is a cumbersome process, which puts patients who are suffering from genuine invalidity under great pressure. It is an unsatisfactory system from the point of view of patients and general practitioners.
  However, for a new system to work, several points must be fulfilled. There has to be a proper scientific assessment procedure. That must be very detailed and exact, and its field trials have to be very thorough before we can introduce it into the system. It must deal not with the nature but with the effect of pathology. There is a grave danger that we will introduce categories of illness and categorise patients by the nature of their illness rather than the effect that their illness has upon them. That can be deeply undermining for some patients.
  For example, I refer to certain types of physical disability or blindness. Patients might be willing and able to carry out many types of work, but, if we introduced categories for those patients automatically to receive invalidity benefit, there would be a danger of reducing the self-worth that those patients feel. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note of that point.
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: As a person who learned to walk in plaster and was considered disabled for much of his childhood, I certainly take great issue with some Opposition Members who implied that, because a person is deemed disabled for one type of work, it does not mean that he is perfectly able to perform service to the community or service to his own family by taking a totally different job. The medical assessment should be only on the basis of his condition as

  83
  it affects him at the time. That should not become a way of saying that such and such a disability or disease precludes him from work, full stop.
  Dr. Fox: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. Although I readily agree, as with most things in life, there is a balance to be struck. We must not expect people to do more categories of work than they are able to do. That is why the specificity and sensitivity of the test will become extremely important.
  Patients who suffer from diabetes can have a wide range of capability for work. For example, early-onset diabetics may be perfectly controlled, and late-onset diabetics increasingly have a longer life expectancy nowadays and will therefore have more complications, especially renal complications, which now cause the second largest bed occupancy in the national health service. We must be very sensitive with the tests and make sure that we do not exclude groups who should be on invalidity benefit; but, likewise, we should not go too far in the other direction.
  When we bring in the tests, we must consider not only mechanical function—many Opposition Members tend to be obsessed with mechanical function—but cognitive function, which is extremely important. Although it is right to consider many categories, such as walking, standing, rising from sitting, manual dexterity and so on, it is extremely important to recognise the importance of cognitive function—learning difficulty, for example—and especially psychiatric morbidity.
  It will be extremely difficult for my right hon. and hon. Friends to make sure that psychiatric morbidity is dealt with in a deeply sensitive way. It is always very difficult to assess, because of its fluctuating nature. Full credit to the Government for making sure that, at the very outset, that is one of the main categories that will be considered. In many debates on the subject, mental health issues have not been adequately addressed.
  The test, however, must score not only individual specific limitations but combinations of limitations. Perhaps that is where the greatest difficulty of all will arise. Previous studies in other subjects have shown how difficult that will be. For example, the Oregon study was flawed because of the difficulty of taking comorbidity into account when dealing with health rationing. That will be a matter of some difficulty. We will require secondary regulations. I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends well in that matter.
  Again I plead with my right hon. and hon. Friends to shy away a little from including specific disease entities as categories. We all know what our mailbags would be like. The more specific pathology groups that we include in such a Bill, the more we will encourage specific interest groups to try to have their particular pathology or disease entity included in legislation for automatic eligibility for benefit at a later stage. That is not a healthy attitude. As I have said, we must look at the effects of a disease upon patients and not at diseases themselves.
  With all due respect to them, for far too long hospital doctors have regarded patients as pathology with a name. We must now regard patients as individuals. Of course, we GPs have regarded patients as such for a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear my hon. Friends who have had the same experience. My files will be available to the Whips Office for a six-figure sum after the debate.
  84
  Under the new system, GPs will still issue certificates for the first 28 weeks. The hon. Member for Caernarfon mentioned that matter. It is right that GPs should continue to do that. First, in that 28-week period, the conditions are usually relatively minor, or ones of which the GPs have had full experience, or the patient is recuperating from surgery or so on. The GP is the best person. The GP will have more information than a hospital about how an illness is affecting the patient.
  There is also the issue which I mentioned earlier—that of a patient's own job. Incapacity should mean physical or mental impairment, causing a medical incapacity for all, or almost all, work. I thank the Secretary of State for recognising that some groups will not require to be reassessed. That is an important principle.
  The Opposition were, as ever, relatively small-minded in pointing out one or two cases to which my right hon. Friend referred during his speech. My right hon. Friend went through a large number of conditions which will not require to be reassessed. That is important if we are not to frighten patients about the change.
  If there is one charge of which the Opposition are certainly guilty, it is that of frightening patients. The groups who will not be required to be reassessed include those who are near to pension age, those who are aged 58 and over on the day the new scheme is introduced, those who were receiving invalidity benefit on 1 December 1993 and those suffering from certain serious, specified, long-term or terminal conditions. Also included, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, are those receiving the highest rate care component of disabled living allowance.
  It is right that we should remove the element of fear from the debate, and get back to the basic issues involved. It is right that others who are not included in those groups should be reassessed if the system is to be fair and just, not only to all those involved in the benefit system, but importantly to those who are contributing to keep the welfare system afloat—all this country's taxpayers.
  I was a little confused by the opening speech from the Opposition today. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—I am sorry that he is not in his place—said that he rejected the charge that the benefit was not being used to help those for whom it was intended. Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman believes that the trebling of the numbers receiving benefit does not include some people who could be working?
  Were it not for the oath of confidentiality, I could give the hon. Gentleman a good number of cases of people who are receiving invalidity benefit but who could certainly be out working. Those people are getting through the system in a way which was not intended. There are a number of people on invalidity benefit who are quite clearly capable of a wide range of work. I am sure that all hon. Members know of such cases, and for the Opposition to pretend that it does not happen is quite ludicrous. Well might the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) smile—I know that he must know of a couple of such cases, too.
  The Opposition have been small-minded and confusing. We heard that we would be driving youngsters into drug dealing, rather than taking jobs in McDonald's, because of the wicked legislation which we are bringing in. The Opposition have been cynical because, as with many pieces of recent legislation, they have tried to frighten those currently in the system.
  The current system provides excess work for GPs. Colleagues whom I phoned this morning to see what was

  85
  happening in their surgeries today say that up to 30 per cent. of patients had come for certification, and certification only. That not only demoralises GPs and provides unnecessary paperwork. It means that they have less time to spend with patients who are genuinely ill and who need to see them. We must welcome the deregulation for GPs, and were I still working, I would find it an extremely pleasant change that that was one burden that would be taken away.
  Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman expressed concern at a high level of certification applications which were taking up the time of GPs. Does he accept that, if hundreds of thousands of people who are in receipt of invalidity benefit come off that benefit, a large proportion will go to their GPs more often to get certification for the illness, as they will not be covered under invalidity benefit?
  Dr. Fox: The objection of GPs is not simply to the amount of work that they have to do. They object to being the gatekeeper for the Department of Social Security and to carrying out duties for which they are not trained. A great burden will be removed from them, because their real problem is their difficulty in maintaining relationships with their patients.
  There are huge pressures, and even threats, from patients who are demanding to be kept on in validity benefit. Those pressures come not only from patients, but from patients' families and relatives, all of whom can put an intolerable burden on the GP. The GP feels that he must give in, although he knows that it is not the right thing to do because of its adverse effect, not only on the patient directly, but on other patients in his care. Surely that cannot be right, and we have to change the system for that reason.
  GPs will tell us of a patient in his late forties who has a bit of back pain and who may be facing redundancy. The GP knows all the social pressures which exist, but it is not the place of the GP to determine what effect that will have on the DSS. A doctor's job is to make sure that the patient is getting the correct treatment and that, if the patient is eligible for genuine invalidity benefit, he gets it. The problem of the current system is that GPs are under duress to get a settlement for a patient which is financial and not medical.
  The Bill at long last brings something to the House which will better target benefits, and will reduce the abuse which is relatively widespread in the system. There will be a diminished burden on doctors, which will give them more time to spend with patients who genuinely need their time. The Bill will remove from GPs the odious job of being gatekeeper for the DSS, and will give better value for money for the taxpayers. For all those reasons, I urge my hon. Friends to support the Bill.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Terry Rooney: The background to the Bill has been well trailed over probably three years now. We have heard tonight many of the comments and clichés which we have heard many times from the Dispatch Box. For example, there is the talk of the trebling of the numbers receiving invalidity benefit at a time when the health of the nation is increasing. That, of course, has much to do with the use of preventive, rather than curative, medicine.
  There is also a contradiction in the words of the Minister of State, who has said that we recently celebrated reaching
  86
  a total of 1 million people who are receiving disabled living allowance, which presumably gives some evidence of incapacity. It is rather strange that self-certification is deemed to be a good thing for a benefit as significant as DLA in terms of providing a passport to other benefits, and yet this is not the case in terms of invalidity and sickness benefit.
  The aim of the Bill is to reduce the invalidity benefit bill by whatever means possible. We have heard it said many times—usually at the time of a Budget—that it has always been the Government's intention to bring invalidity benefit into the tax net. There is something of an anomaly in the fact that statutory sick pay, which is payable at a much lower rate, is taxable but invalidity benefit is not. However, surely that is a separate issue from whether people qualify or not. It is significant that statutory sick pay is subject to national insurance, and we have not heard whether invalidity benefit will be subject to a national insurance charge also.
  Against that backcloth, the Bill brings forward a principle. However, as usual with social security, the regulations are to follow. Too often the principle turns out to be far worse when the regulations are up and running and in effect. If people need reminding, they should read the debates on the Child Support Agency, which bore no relation to what came into being by way of the regulations.
  There is a wide continuum between full and able capacity to work and total incapacity to work. Some Government Members recognised that by way of referring to the definition of grey areas. Within them, the Bill makes a tacit attempt to address that issue by talking about a period when one is unable to follow a normal occupation, and a period when one is unable to follow any occupation, but even that has its drawbacks and flaws.
  Where, for instance, does one categorise somebody with a mental illness which is not severe enough to be classed as permanent? The illness may be such that, at different times of the day or week, the person can be absolutely incapable of work, whereas an hour later the situation may be different. Where does one place myalgic encephalomyelitis, an illness which is slowly getting recognition, although not at Richmond house? People suffering from ME can be severely incapacitated in the morning, feel better in the afternoon and be almost bedridden by the early evening.
  Such cases cannot be dealt with adequately by the principle of a Bill such as this. I am afraid that, when we see the regulations, we will find that such circumstances will not have received full recognition or been given sufficient weight. In the not-too-distant future, Conservative Members will be protesting about how their individual constituents have been mistreated by the Bill that they seem to welcome so much.
  In the continuum of work, there is a point at which people can be declared fit for some work. Let us examine the type of work that is suggested. I shall not repeat stories of officers who suggested work as an artist's model. That was a stupid one-off and I hope that the person has been suitably and permanently disciplined. Often people are told that two types of work are suitable for them. One is work as a swimming pool attendant and the other is work as a car park attendant. In the great and glorious private sector, National Car Parks may have attendants, but I know of no local authority car park that has attendants; such car parks

  87
  are mechanised. The system is called pay and display. So that is one type of job that is not available, certainly in the public sector.
  It is ludicrous to suggest that someone who has been disabled or sick for a considerable time should find work as a swimming pool attendant. Such work is a form of emergency service. Certain degrees of fitness and capability are required. Life-saving abilities are needed. Nevertheless, adjudication officers recommend such employment as suitable work.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend is right in everything he says. Indeed, in Bradford at one stage the alternative job offered to people in this circumstance was work as a lift attendant. Such work was recommended for several years as an alternative job to justify not paying a person invalidity benefit, until it was pointed out that there was only one lift in the whole of Bradford in which an attendant was employed and that, as there was only one job and it was occupied, it was unlikely to be available.
  Mr. Rooney: The days are long gone when we could wander into a lift and be escorted to the floor that we wanted.
  The role of GPs has been championed a great deal tonight. Most illness and sickness lasts less than four weeks and certainly less than 28 weeks. Up to 28 weeks, it seems that it is all right for the GP to judge a person unfit for work. Suddenly, at 28 weeks, it becomes a major problem—a crisis of conscience, almost.
  Dr. Liam Fox: The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that there is a significant difference in the position before and after the 28-week watershed. Before then, the doctor is asked to say whether the patient is fit for his own job. After 28 weeks he is asked to say whether the patient is fit for any work. That is much more difficult for a doctor to determine.
  Mr. Rooney: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is a former GP, but he glosses over the point. I am not aware of any point at which GPs are informed that 28 weeks are up and from then on they must specify whether the person is unfit for any work.
  It is a proper role for an adjudication officer to adjudicate on the capacity of the person to do work. That is what they are there to do. The GP will continue to fulfil that role—it has been called the role of the gatekeeper. They will still be expected to issue medical certificates stating the health of the individual concerned. The only difference will be the people will be subject much earlier and more often to medical examination by the Benefits Agency.
  The Bill may be a wonderful job-creation wheeze. Certainly the regional medical officer service could not cope with the numbers who currently receive invalidity benefit. The Bill is a fundamental breach of the contributory insurance principle. It is not the first that we have seen, especially in recent weeks. According to that principle, the benefit is not targeted, but one pays a contributory insurance premium in return for specified and given benefits. Targeting means nothing less than means
  88
  testing. If that is what the Government want, they should abolish national insurance, full stop. That was never the intention of the contributory insurance system.
  There has been much maligning of the words of intent of Beveridge. It is a tragedy that, in this 50th anniversary year of Beveridge, his memory has been so polluted by the statements of Conservative Members. The issue is not the number of people who qualify for invalidity benefit each year; it is the method and the appropriateness of exit from the benefit.
  Proper research, debate and discussion might find an avenue to deal with the issue. We have not had that proper research, debate or discussion. The Bill is a finance-led measure and a Treasury-driven initiative. The real damage will come later in the regulations. That is when Conservative Members will, as usual, start screaming and squealing about the implications. The Bill should be rejected tonight.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Michael Stephen: In Britain today we give more help to the sick and disabled than we have at any time in our history. That is fully consistent with the traditions of the Conservative party established by Disraeli and even before. In Britain we spend no less than £6·1 billion on invalidity benefit. Let me tell Opposition Members that in the constituency that I represent, £6·1 billion is a very large sum of money.
  The health of the nation is undoubtedly improving. Any of us who look at it—as I am sure we all do when we go to our hospitals and talk to our GPs—realise that. Spending on the national health service is up by almost 50 per cent. since the Conservatives came to office. More people are being treated and receiving better treatment than ever before. More money and more effort is being put into preventive medicine, particularly child vaccination. Yet the number of people claiming invalidity benefit is rising inexorably—by a factor of three, we are told. Clearly, there is something wrong.
  Opposition Members have sought to explain the increase by suggesting that it is something to do with the fact that it is difficult to find work at present or that the people are really retired. Yet those who are fit for work and cannot find it should be on unemployment benefit. Those who are retired should receive their pension. Neither of those two categories of person should receive a benefit intended for a person who suffers from invalidity, if they do not have an invalidity.
  Opposition Members tend to forget, not only in this context but in almost everything else that we discuss in this place, that benefits are paid by working people—by our working constituents—many of whom live on modest incomes and some who support a sick or elderly relative themselves. I suggest to the socialist parties—both of them, or perhaps I should say all three of them—that they should care a little more about those people.
  The socialist parties frequently tell us that this or that item is Treasury-driven, and that all that the Government are trying to do is save money for the Treasury. I should hope that the Government are trying to save money for the Treasury. As I said a moment ago, it is our constituents who fund the Treasury. Opposition Members seem to think that there is a crop of gold out of which all state schemes can be financed. I shall let them into a secret: there is not.

  89
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to a matter which was not relevant to a debate on this subject, but as he did so, let me say a few words about it. At present we are paying rather more tax than any of my hon. Friends or I would like. The difference is that the Conservatives tax because they have to, but the socialists tax because they want to. Everyone knows that socialists believe that our constituents cannot be trusted to spend their own money. Socialists wish to take money from them and spend it themselves. That is the difference between the socialists and us.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he said that Conservative Governments tax because they have to—because they get the economy into such awful difficulties —but Labour Governments tax because they want to—in order to provide decent services for the people that we represent?
  Mr. Stephen: Labour Governments tax because they do not believe that people can be trusted to spend their own money. Liberal Democrat Governments would to the same if they were ever in a position to do so. Conservative Members have voted for higher taxation than we would have wished because of something called the world recession, which has been obvious to us, but seems to have escaped the notice of Opposition Members. It is the worst recession in the western world since 1929. I know it is inconvenient for Opposition Members to recognise that; they would much prefer it if the present recession were the fault of the Conservative Government. But the world recession is much more likely to have been made in Washington and Tokyo than in London.
  Mr. Dewar: I wonder whether the hon. Member can help me. He claims that it was self-evident that high taxation was necessary because of the world recession. Was that obvious to him in May 1992?
  Mr. Stephen: The world recession has been obvious to me for quite a long time. It has not, apparently, been noticed by Opposition Members. It is remarkable that, during the worst recession since 1929, the Conservative Government have been able to maintain spending on the national health service, on social security and generally on our welfare state.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Stephen: I shall not give way; I have given way enough.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that, at the last election, it was not obvious to any Member, Conservative or Opposition, that the recession would continue as long as it did? No one could have forecast the length of the recession, and that made an enormous difference.
  Mr. Stephen: My hon. Friend is right. As Groucho Marx said, it is dangerous to make predictions, especially about the future.
  One reason why the Conservative Government have been able to maintain spending on the health service and on the Department of Social Security is that, during the good
  90
  times of the 1980s, we repaid so much of our national debt that we were able to borrow to tide us over the difficult times.
  Notwithstanding that we pay more tax than any Conservative Member would like, living standards have increased dramatically since 1979, and the great majority of people have a much greater disposable income than ever before. Our constituents often say that they have paid into the system, so they should have the money. However, when I considered the figures, I discovered that the amount of money collected in national insurance contributions was just about enough to pay the old-age pensions, and precious little was left to pay for all the other benefits. Essentially, all those other benefits are paid for out of general taxation.
  The Bill seeks to resolve another difficulty. If benefit goes to the wrong people—as it does in some cases—there is less money for the right people. Opposition Members should think more about the right people, who are not getting as much money as they should.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stephen: No, I have given way already to the hon. Gentleman.
  There is some debate on whether we should tax incapacity benefit. We should consider the matter from the view of somebody who is a low earner, but pays some tax. Is it fair that another person, who receives the same amount of money and has the same amount of disposable income, but receives money through invalidity benefit, should not pay tax? I do not think that many constituents would think that fair.
  The issue of the general practitioner's role as gatekeeper has been raised. I was grateful for the contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), both of whom are doctors and know what they are talking about. It occurred to me as a layman that a doctor with a long-standing relationship with a patient and his family might find it embarrassing to refuse a sick note. I appreciate my hon. Friends' confirmation that that is a source of embarrassment for doctors. They also mentioned something that should be obvious to all of us: doctors have enough administration to do without acting as unpaid officials for the DSS.
  Clearly, we need a proper objective medical test. Now is not the time or the place to debate that test. I hope that my hon. Friends who are doctors will be involved when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State devises the test and the regulations that the House will be called upon to consider later.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does not my hon. Friend find it embarrassing that Opposition Members, who know that the amount of money for incapacity benefit has risen to £6·1 billion and is expected to rise to £8 billion in 1994–95, are not prepared to confront that issue? All they say is that we should carry on with the current system. There is something wrong with the Labour party, which is prepared for his constituents and mine to continue to pay such money.
  Mr. Stephen: My hon. Friend is right. As I have said, the Labour party does not care about the people who have

  91
  to pay for those benefits. It does not care about the people who are not receiving as much as they should because the money is going to the wrong people.
  Opposition Members have had their fun commenting on categories such as the terminally ill and people who are human vegetables who will not be required to submit to the test. Of course, we would expect the Minister to say that those people would not be required to submit to a test and he has done so. It is ridiculous to suggest, as Opposition Members seem to do, that it is a concession given by a Government who really think that human vegetables should earn a living. That shows the standard of debate of which Opposition Members are constantly showing themselves to be capable.
  While at the Bar, I was for some time a personal injuries practitioner and I know that if there is a financial incentive, people sometimes tend to be economical with the truth when it comes to their physical and mental condition. There are malingerers—I was amazed when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told us that a man who had been claiming invalidity benefit had won a cycle race. That is quite remarkable.
  There is nothing dishonourable or demeaning about being an artist's model, or a swimming pool or petrol pump attendant. Opposition Members should think of the reaction of a swimming pool attendant. How would they like to ask him, "You are earning your money and paying taxes?"? The attendant will answer, "Yes and why should I pay tax to support someone who is capable of doing my job but prefers to sit at home and draw invalidity benefit?"
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said that a considerable number of people will lose benefit if the Bill is passed, as I hope it will be. The Labour party cannot have it both ways. It accuses us of massaging the employment figures. The Bill is a gift for it—we are going to do something to reveal those people who are unemployed. We will take off invalidity benefit, those who are not invalids and put them where they belong—on the employment register.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the unemployment figures, which are issued by the Government, are deliberately lower than they should be because of people on invalidity benefit and that the real level of unemployment is above 3 million?
  Mr. Stephen: I am not saying anything of the kind. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman was present for the earlier part of the debate, but if he reads Hansard, he will see that that issue has been discussed.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead drew attention to the extremely worrying problem of male unemployment. All Conservative Members have male constituents who have been unemployed for a long time and we are extremely worried about them. Most hon. Members have factories in our constituencies. If we visit them, we see that the roaring factories are no longer roaring. That has not happened because the Conservative Government have decided to close down manufacturing industries. Anyone who visits a factory will see not hundreds of people scurrying round or engaged over the work bench, but row upon row of gleaming robots doing their meticulous tasks, with the
  92
  assistance of very few people. It is the inexorable march of technology that has caused so much male unemployment, and if they were honest, the Opposition would accept that.
  To put the debate in an international context, the House may be interested to know that the Netherlands, a country renowned for the most generous welfare system in the world, now expects higher contributions from employees with a long sickness record. Employers are fined up to one year's salary for each employee discharged into the disability scheme. Legislation has been passed to reduce the level and duration of benefits for new disability claimants, and the regulations governing the examination of claimants have also been tightened. All people over the age of 65 must contribute to the social security general disability insurance scheme.
  As I listened to the hon. Member for Garscadden, I was reminded of the farmer in a remote part of Ireland who was asked by a tourist the way to Ballymena. He thought for a moment and replied, "If I were going to Ballymena, I would not start from here." Anyone with any sense, and I would have thought that the hon. Member for Garscadden had a little bit of it, would realise that we must start from where we are, not from where we would like to be. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, in attempting to reduce the burden upon our taxpaying constituents, we are starting with the people who are drawing invalidity benefit, he has obviously not listened to the debates in the House, because the whole range of public spending is being closely examined to cut waste and to reduce the tax burden.
  What is the Labour party's policy? Opposition Members have been asked endless times by my hon. Friends to explain their policies, but all they can do is yell, "You're in the dock". Nobody here is in the dock. We are trying to work out what should be done in the best interests of our constituents. I would have expected, and the people expect, some kind of constructive opposition from the Labour party, but all we get is yah-boo politics.
  The Labour party cannot cope with the burdens of opposition, and it is totally unfit to be trusted with the responsibility of office.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: This debate is about an important aspect of social security policy but, not surprisingly, many hon. Members have returned to the theme of employment and employment policy. The interface between those policies is one of the most crucial issues to take into account when deciding whether to support the Bill.
  We must decide what the prospects will be for those who are denied benefit in the future. How many of them will join the labour market and find jobs?
  The Secretary of State said that he has evidence to suggest that malingerers are cleaning windows, apparently at their own offices. I am not sure whether he witnessed that act. When he mentioned cleaning windows, I wondered whether he was about to go through the George Formby song book. I thought that he was about to talk about witnessing a scrounger leaning on a lampost at the corner of the street, but he did not go that far.
  The Secretary of State obviously believes that many in receipt of benefit are in employment. We must ask ourselves serious questions about the prospects of those who will lose benefit, at a time of mass unemployment, should the Bill survive the House. Will they find

  93
  employment? We all know that evidence suggests that many people with disabilities find it extremely difficult to secure employment.
  One survey carried out in 1990 by Social and Community Planning Research, SCPR—I am bound to say that official data are sparse—found that, among those with disabilities who were actively seeking work, 22 per cent. were unemployed. Today, experts estimate that those with disabilities who are seeking work are two and a half times more unlikely to find jobs than those without disabilities. That survey is one indicator of the scale of the problem.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman has quoted from a survey. How does he react to the survey of GPs, in which two thirds of them admitted that they had signed people off for sickness benefit who were not sick and were able to work?
  Mr. Wicks: I was talking about people with disabilities and unemployment. The hon. Gentleman is talking about another survey.
  Another survey conducted by the Spastics Society—the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is obviously interested in surveys—found that employers are six times more likely to turn down a person with disabilities for an interview, even if that person had the same qualifications and experience as a person without disabilities. That survey suggests that, if we believe that those who will be denied benefit as a result of the Bill will easily find work at a time of mass unemployment, we are being naive.
  Public policy has long sought to enable those with disabilities to find work. Back in 1944, shortly after the publication of the Beveridge report, an Act of Parliament was passed that stated that employers with more than 20 workers had to have a 3 per cent. quota of employees with disabilities. That was a decent and vintage Act of Parliament. In practice, three quarters of employers have failed to meet that quota and, since 1944, only 10 prosecutions have been brought. That suggests that public policy is not working.
  At a time when the Government are seeking to restrict the social security benefit entitlement of people with disabilities, another Department of State, the Department of Employment, recently introduced a programme—in June 1993—called access to work. That programme is a move backwards in terms of the ability of people with disabilities to find employment, because four schemes have been wound up as a result of it.
  The adaptation of premises and equipment scheme, which provided grants of up to £6,000 to enable workplaces to be adapted to accommodate people with disabilities, has been wound up. Special aids to employment and a personal reader service, which enables sight-impaired people to find employment, have also gone, along with the fares to work scheme.
  As a result, and not surprisingly, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, RADAR, has commented:
  "There is absolutely no evidence that employers will be prepared to pay extra money to retain disabled staff … on the contrary, there is extensive evidence that workers tend to lose their jobs when they are disabled."
  How can the policy that the Secretary of State has outlined square with that of another Department, which is actively discriminating against people with disabilities entering the
  94
  labour market by withdrawing such useful schemes? We need to examine the impact of two Departments on a particular scheme.
  The difficulty is that Governments inevitably seek to cut public spending on social security at a time of mass unemployment. They indulge in rhetoric and pursue policies designed to push people into the labour market at the precise time in the economic cycle when jobs are not available. That is what they are seeking to do under the Bill.
  It is therefore incumbent on Government to go back to basics of a kind and to try to pursue again policies of full employment, which are vital to many groups, not least those with disabilities. It is only when we begin radically to cut unemployment and provide people with decent jobs —not any old jobs—that people with disabilities and others who suffer from discrimination will have a fairer chance of getting good jobs. So far that has not happened.
  A key theme for the future, illustrated by this Bill, will be the following choice: will more and more people become victims of the dependency culture, forced to go on benefits—if not decent invalidity benefits, then income support? That will drive up social security costs and encourage the Government to be mean-minded and introduce mean, and usually means-tested, benefits.
  Or will there be another sort of future? Conservative Members have challenged the Opposition to discuss alternatives. The alternatives are clear: instead of a dependency culture we must encourage the active society. We must have public social and employment policies which enable people to be active, drawing more of them into the labour market by means of training schemes, schemes for the disabled, child care support and so on. That is the alternative, but it is not pursued by the Government, who merely encourage dependence on the state.
  We need a vigorous employment policy that includes training and positive policies towards people with disabilities. That should replace the negativism that we have heard today—and recently from the Department of Employment. The Government have the cheek to introduce an incapacity for work Bill while showing themselves incapable of providing work for our people.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I had some difficulty following the points made by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), who appeared to be saying that the Government are cutting social security at a time when unemployment is rising. In fact, unemployment is falling; the whole point of the review is that social security spending is rising—the very opposite of what the hon. Gentleman said.
  I apologise for having left the Chamber for part of the debate, but I took the opportunity to obtain a copy of the report on supported employment initiatives which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) kindly drew to the attention of the House. I was not aware of it before; it looks interesting; I have only had a chance to glance at the summary and conclusions.
  The report refers to 1,600 supported employment places, and to the need for much more research into, and understanding of, what can be done. There is a great deal of common ground in this debate in this area—there are many unanswered questions about how we can best help

  95
  people with disabilities to find employment. There is indeed a need for more research and understanding, and for greater awareness by the public, and by public and private employers, of what can be done.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden tried to say that he would not start from here with a review of social security spending, but it is to the credit of the Secretary of State that he has started from here. There are difficult issues that need dealing with, and my right hon. Friend has dealt with them sensitively.
  The consultation paper on the new medical tests lists about 200 organisations that have been consulted, and doubtless more of them will respond before the consultation period expires early next month. I understand that the United Kingdom has one of the worst sickness records and absenteeism rates in the European Community. The number of invalidity beneficiaries has soared from 500,000 to 1,500,000 in the past 15 years, and the cost, which has risen to £6 billion, could rise to £8 billion in 1995ߝ96 if this reform is not put into effect.
  The Secretary of State is right to bring the Bill to the House. He said that his primary aim is to help people back into work if they are fit for work, and that is what I should like to talk about this evening.
  It is vital that businesses and organisations be helped to provide opportunities for people to work, both for people's own fulfilment and for the benefit of society. That is much better than leaving people to live on benefit. It is impossible to assess with a medical test alone whether someone will be able to get a job—Professor Hawking, on any test, would rate as severely disabled, yet he has proved perfectly capable of employing himself, to his own benefit and the benefit of the rest of society.
  I have been struck by some of the points made about voluntary workers by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. It has pressed strongly for allowing the concession due to take effect in April 1995 to apply now. I do not know whether the Minister can tell me that there is a possibility of allowing the concession to apply now. The argument advanced by NACAB is that the concession would not incur any cost, and it would at least benefit some people. My local paper has reported that some disabled volunteers feel that they cannot volunteer for charitable work at the moment.
  The Government are reviewing the disability working allowance at the moment. Before I became a member of it, the Social Security Select Committee reported on the need to look at aspects of the allowance that are not working well—for instance, the poverty trap problem, the disincentive to work, and the high failure rate of claims. It is disappointing that only 3,000 or so people have got jobs with the disability working allowance, given that the Government's own target was 50,000 and that more than that could, in my view, have benefited had its application been wider. After all, 300,000 people with disabilities are thought to be seeking work.
  Many Opposition Members have pressed for antidiscrimination legislation, but the Government are wise to keep an open mind on that—indeed, to be sceptical about it. A recent report by the TUC—it is undated, but I believe that it came out last autumn—on the number of disabled people working in the public sector highlighted the remarkable fact that many organisations in the public
  96
  sector—30 health authorities and trusts and 12 local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland—employ no registered disabled people at all. The report considers the various sectors of public employment and shows that about 100,000 jobs could be provided for disabled people if the public sector approached the quota of 3 per cent.
  I query the usefulness of anti-discrimination legislation for the private sector while the public sector—presumably it should set an example and can be given directions—falls so far short itself. Overall, the report shows that only 0·8 per cent. of workers in the public sector are registered disabled. Only the Department of Employment meets the 3 per cent. quota.
  Even an organisation such as the BBC, which one might imagine could set a better example, employs only 0·3 per cent. The usual argument is that these organisations employ people who are disabled, but not registered disabled. Given that that probably applies generally, there is a great deal of scope for parts of the public sector to improve—without worrying about legislation for the private sector.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden said that he has not yet had an opportunity to read all the conclusions of the report. He should certainly study it, and study it in connection with the excellent work done by the Shaw Trust, whose director general, Tim Papé, was in Central Lobby just now—which is why I had to slip out to see him for a prearranged appointment. I have with me the latest —last year's—annual report of the Shaw trust. The trust was set up 10 or 15 years ago and provides sheltered placement employment for 2,200 people. It provides training for about 1,000 a year and seeks 700 extra placement positions every year.
  Despite current employment difficulties, the trust is to be commended for increasing its number of places last year. In the report, Mr. Papé states:
  "Within the United Kingdom today, over 300,000 people of working age have some form of disability, and are unemployed. One in four families has someone with a permanent or temporary disability or knows a close friend in that position.
  Disability is widespread, yet it is a subject that is still surrounded by misunderstanding and fear.>
  This lack of understanding is based on a deep-rooted belief that disability means 'no ability' and that the only suitable response is sympathy and segregation.
  More often than not, this kind of well-meaning attitude is the single biggest impediment for people with disabilities.
  By focusing on what these people cannot do, to the exclusion of what they can do, society hopelessly overlooks their huge potential for education, training and for work.
  Shaw Trust performs a vital role for people with disabilities in the United Kingdom.
  Our commitment to them is a commitment to the varied and invaluable abilities which they have to offer.
  If a person can work and wants to work, the Trust is dedicated to finding them an opportunity to make the best use of their talents, whatever their disability.
  Shaw Trust prepares people for work and ensures that they have the skills and training that they need to realise their full potential."
  I should be glad to make a copy of that report available to any hon. Member who would like to know more about the trust. When I met Mr. Papeé, he gave me the outline of a discussion paper that he is preparing, on which I hope to work with him. It lists two and a half pages of questions, the answers to which will make evident the right way forward to develop employment opportunities for the disabled.
  The striking fact about the sheltered placement scheme is that it costs less than £5,000 a year to help people to gain

  97
  jobs. Workshop provision through Remploy and workshops elsewhere costs double that—about £10,000 a year per job. If we could redirect the money that is currently devoted to sheltered workshops, we could provide twice as many employment opportunities for the amount that is available.
  I support the Bill and I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister on tackling difficult issues in a constructive and positive way. I wish the Bill good progress through both Houses. If we have an opportunity to amend it and to provide for volunteers, I hope that amendments will be considered and that there will be a chance to review further the provision for increased sheltered placements and the improved working of the disability working allowance.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Second Reading of another social security Bill, although the proliferation of such Bills is not at all welcome. They bring bad news and are followed by bad news. I spoke in the debate on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill when the Government rushed it through on an unwise, guillotine motion—one of the causes of the breakdown in co-operation between the Government and the Opposition. I am pleased to note that that Bill, which was rushed through with unseemly haste in a day, is now hurtling slowly through the House of Lords.
  Mr. Stephen: The hon. Gentleman complains about Bills being guillotined. Is not he shedding crocodile tears because when he and his hon. Friends had time to debate the issues about which they said they were concerned, they wasted it on procedural wrangles?
  Mr. Foulkes: That argument does not stand. I am glad that I am not in court being defended by the hon. Gentleman, because if I were, I would feel very vulnerable.
  We should prefer much more time to discuss all these measures because, given the opportunity, we could examine them in detail and show where they are wanting. That was evident in the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr Dewar). I used to sit through debates on the Scottish rate support grant and was constantly amazed by the way in which my hon. Friend mastered the intricate detail in a most fantastic way. He has been suddenly transformed to our Front Bench as the Opposition spokesman on social security, a subject that is even more complicated, if anything can be, than the Scottish rate support grant, and he has mastered it with equal facility. I look forward to the day when he and all other Opposition Members are on the other side of the Chamber and he is dealing with the matter substantively rather than as the shadow spokesman.
  I think that the proposal was first leaked in June 1993 in a memorandum from the Secretary of State for Social Security to the Prime Minister. There were all sorts of denials at the time, but, of course, there always are. We were told, "Don't get worried, don't fear, the Government would never think of that kind of thing." But, inevitably, it materialised and here we are again.
  There is genuine fear and alarm in my constituency. It is one of our most beautiful constituencies, but it has one of the highest levels of unemployment. Some 5,000 people who were in mining have lost their jobs and are desperately
  98
  looking for alternative work, and it is a calumny, an insult, to suggest that they are not. They are, and many of them are severely handicapped.
  It is strange that, again and again, Conservative Members, and especially Ministers, speak about a world recession causing everything. Exactly the same people used to tell us that Thatcherism was so successful that it was being exported all over the world. Perhaps that is why there is a world recession. Everybody has adopted Thatcherism and countries are following Britain down the stank. That is a good Scots word. The English version is down the drain, in purely economic terms.
  It ill behoves the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) and other Conservative Members to talk about world recession as if it did not have its roots here in the Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Shoreham also spoke about saving money by preventing it from going to the wrong people and giving it to the right people. I note that he said, "right people". I cannot see any provision in the Bill for redistributing the money to anybody.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: We have heard much rhetoric from the Government about re-targeting resources, but on page 2 of the Bill under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill", it is made absolutely clear that the Bill will produce estimated gross savings of £550 million in 1995ߝ96 and £1,450 million in 1996ߝ97. The Bill has nothing to do with targeting.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but, to be fair, it also says that those will be offset by
  "additional expenditure on income support and unemployment benefit of around £135 million in 1995ߝ96 and £265 million in 1996ߝ97."
  That tells us two things. First, there has been a cover-up on the level of unemployment: there is no doubt about that. Part of this is a consequence of the massaging of the unemployment figures by the Government. We heard from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), a retired general practitioner, about the experience of GPs. GPs in my constituency have told me that people have been sent from the Benefits Agency to their doctors to get off unemployment and on to invalidity benefit, to keep the unemployment statistics down. Now they are facing the consequences of their actions.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my Friend not agree that, as a result of Government measures, many people who possibly are in ill health may be made redundant? That will mean another general shake-out of industry as a result of the Bill, because employers will not foot the total bill for sick payment.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the point that he makes was made in a speech in an earlier debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) made a point in relation to the money saved. More than £1 billion is to be saved off people who are currently on invalidity benefit. That means that they will be more than £1 billion less well off, or £1 billion poorer. That means that there will be greater poverty. That money will be no longer available for those people. They are not getting money from anywhere else. The theory is that they will be forced into some suitable kind of employment. Could Conservative Members tell me where in Cumnock,

  99
  Auchinleck, Muirkirk, Dalemellington and Rankinston are they going to find that kind of employment? What kind of jobs? There is no McDonald's.
  Mr. Stephen: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is, if a person is fit for work and cannot find it, the proper place for him to be is on the unemployment register, not drawing invalidity benefit.
  Mr. Foulkes: We have already taken account of that. We are talking about encouraging people who are invalids and are trying to get some work, who are interested in working. There are people who are interested in working, but where are they? Where can they find work? There is no possibility of employment whatever.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foulkes: No. The hon Lady is the last person I would want to give way to.
  I shall quote, because I need to look at exactly why the number of claims has gone up. A very good study carried out by the Policy Studies Institute says:
  "29 per cent of the extra cases have been people over pensionable age, drawing IVB rather than their pension for tax reasons. This increase hardly matters for public expenditure, because they would instantly become pensioners if they lost their IVB.
  16 per cent of the extra cases have been due to the increasing number of women in the labour market, paying national insurance contributions, who qualify for IVB if they have to give up work."
  That is a sensible reason; new people properly qualify because of a demographic change or a qualitative change in the employment arrangements.
  It continues:
  "13 per cent of the extra cases may have been due to a gradual increase over the years in the number of disabled people in the relevant age-groups."
  That is a fact. There is a real increase in the number of disabled people in the relevant age groups. Are they going to be denied? Surely even Conservative Members would not suggest that.
  "42 per cent. of the extra cases arise from genuine growth in the rate of claiming invalidity benefit among a stable population of disabled people."
  In other words, they have become more aware of the invalidity benefit and have taken advantage of that. I do not think that any of those people can be described as undeserving. I do not think that any of them deserves to be squeezed out by the actions of the Government and by the consequences of the Bill.
  Invalidity benefit was introduced by a Tory Government in 1971, in the days when Tory Governments were a little more understanding, a little more realistic, a little less harsh, a little less bitter than the present Tory Government. It was brought in to provide income for people who were unable to continue working as a result of long-term sickness or disability. That is an entirely sensible and understandable purpose. We are now getting a new incapacity test that is wrong in principle and unworkable in practice. The principle of it is completely wrong. It does not relate to the reality of the situation and it will be unworkable.
  There will be a cut-off point. My hon. Friends have seen cut-off points work in other areas and know the problems that arise when people come just below the level. The
  100
  proposal is unrealistic and unworkable. It is being introduced for disabled people at a time when they are being hammered again and again by the Government.
  I know that the Minister, for whom personally I have great respect, sometimes finds it embarrassing to be the Minister for the Disabled. He is forced by the Treasury to save £1 billion here and £1 billion there. It is being imposed at a time when vehicle excise duty exemption is being abolished for disabled passengers, we are getting VAT on fuel, or perhaps we are not. Perhaps tomorrow the eight Members of Parliament who have said that they oppose VAT, the four Members of Parliament—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are certainly not having it tonight.
  Mr. Foulkes: I look forward to it tomorrow. If we get the rebels that we are promised, we will not have VAT on fuel. Let us see whether they have the courage of their convictions.
  When one is making the test in relation to whether people are capable of work, other factors must enter into it, such as age, work history, educational ability and personal skills. After all, it is not a homogeneous group of people, but a varied group, as I know from my constituency, which has miners with chronic bronchitis and emphysema. All those disabilities come in a mining area, but not necessarily in other areas.
  I think that I have made most of my points. I know that some of my hon. Friends want to get in. I find the Bill detestable. I hope that the House will reject it.
  Mr. McMaster: Before my hon. Friend concludes, I congratulate him on his splendid speech. I shall be rushing back to the Whips Office to put a gold star on his jotter for it. Can he shed any light on why, in the preparation of the Bill, the Government have made particular provision to deal with councillors' allowances? Why have they singled out councillors? Is it, as we all suspect, another part of the attack on local democracy?
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is, of course, the Scottish Whip, so I have a particular respect for him. He is also an officer of the all-party disabled group and does an extremely good job, and I am grateful to him. He has made a good point. Like me, he used to be a councillor. Both of us are getting sick and fed up with the attacks on locally elected representatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has raised, on a number of occasions, the issue of the growth of quangos as opposed to elected representatives. He has pointed to yet another way in which they are being disadvantaged.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Can the hon. Gentleman say why, over the past 15 years, the health of the nation has improved, yet the number of people claiming invalidity benefit has trebled?
  Mr. Foulkes: I do not think that there is evidence that the health of the nation is improving. We have a much older population. I used to work for Age Concern Scotland. I know for a fact that there is a large increase in the number of old people, particularly the very old. There are many more disabled people. I do not think that the health of the population has improved substantially. If more people stopped smoking regularly, we might see a substantial increase.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I am sure that I do not need to remind my hon. Friend, but it was the policy of the Government to take people off the unemployment register and put them on invalidity benefit when they were fibbing the figures on unemployment. It is a little bit rich coming from them that they are now seeking to take from the poor, to punish the poor, the elderly and disabled.
  Mr. Foulkes: I hope that at some time in this debate, in the debate on the money resolution, or on some other occasion, my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He is a particular expert on Ways and Means resolutions. 'Those of us who were in on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill will know that he made an excellent contribution to the Ways and Means resolution. I know that he is good on that as well as on money resolutions.
  I am fed up with the way in which the Government treat sick and disabled people like embarrassing statistics. It is about time that they were treated individually, as people; it is about time that the Government dealt with them properly and sympathetically. The Bill does the opposite.
  Only the other day, the Secretary of State for Employment said that Members of Parliament ought to be subject to market testing. I agree. The best kind of market testing, in this instance, is a general election. Let us have a general election now: we shall see how many Conservative Members are returned. I can guarantee that Conservative Members will be found wanting.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. David Congdon: The debate began on a thoughtful note, and I am sorry that the speech of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) deviated from that path. If he cannot even face the fact that the health of the nation has improved dramatically over the past 14 years, there is not much point in his debating this important issue.
  Since the general election, there has been a good deal of debate about social security—about the need for reform and the growth in expenditure. I was interested in the failure of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to mention the Social Justice Commission, which his party set up but which seems to have been buried. That suggests that Labour recognised the need for a reform of the social security system; but, although the patty may recognise the need in principle, in practice it will fight every sensible step towards reform of what has become a complex and costly arrangement.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on launching a review of the system, and on introducing the Bill. It did not come as a surprise; it was well trailed. One thing, however, did come as a surprise. When I listened to the Chancellor's autumn statement—his second Budget speech—I thought that we were finally tackling the enormous growth in social security spending, but when I turned to the Red Book I found that, despite the Bill and the other measures outlined in the Budget, the increase in spending would go on inexorably. I stress that I am not taking into account the cyclical side of social security.
  In 1988ߝ89, in real terms—excluding cyclical expenditure—social security accounted for £54·6 billion of public spending. Last year, the figure was £61·8 billion; in the current year, it will rise to £65.2 billion, and by
  102
  1996–97, when the measures in the Bill will have been implemented, it will be £66·7 billion. Those figures in themselves demonstrate the need for change.
  I was surprised to hear Opposition Members complain that the Bill would save £1·5 billion. Would they prefer that money to be spent, with taxes becoming ever higher? No; I suspect that they want spending to increase, while pretending that taxes need not be raised to pay for that increased spending.
  Mr. Dewar: I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously. I accept that the figures require some study, and that the long-term trends must be taken into account. However, it is not a case of our objecting to the saving of £1·5 billion. Most of that money must come out of the pockets of those receiving incapacity benefit; these changes will almost inevitably result in a cut in those people's income. Does the hon. Gentleman approve of that? How would he feel if he were asked to accept a cut in his very low, almost subsistence wages, to save money for someone else?
  Mr. Congdon: The hon. Gentleman should ask himself whether some of the people currently receiving invalidity benefit are strictly entitled to it.
  Mr. Dewar: That is not the point.
  Mr. Congdon: Yes, it is. What this means is that some people who have played the game fairly, and are unemployed, are receiving unemployment benefit, while others have manipulated the system to ensure that they receive a higher benefit. I can understand that, but I am not prepared to condone it. Labour Members know, from their surgeries and from letters that they have received, that some people have manipulated the system in the way that I have described.
  Mr. Dewar: I made it clear that, if the system was being abused, that abuse should be tackled. I also made it clear that I did not think that invalidity benefit, or incapacity benefit, should become a substitute for unemployment benefit. That, however, is a different point from the one that I raised just now.
  There is a second string to the Minister's bow: he is deliberately cutting the income of people who are not malingering—people who fully and genuinely pass the incapacity benefit test. They will receive at least £30 or £40 a week less than they would have received under the old system. Does the hon. Gentleman defend that?
  Mr. Congdon: I defend the Secretary of State's proposals in the Bill. I do not accept all the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given. I entirely agree that the new benefit should be taxed: other benefits are taxed, after all. The challenge is presented by the need to ensure that resources are better targeted—I know that that is a much-abused word—on those who really need them. One of the ironies of the social security system is the fact that, for every one of the cases reported in the newspapers involving people who receive excessive state benefits, there are several other cases in which not enough help has been provided.
  It is a bit rich for hon. Members to attack the Bill as an assault on the disabled and those in need, when the Government are spending well over £80 billion on the welfare state. If what has been done over the past 14 years constitutes an assault on the welfare state, it has been a

  103
  pretty ineffective assault. Although I support the welfare state, I believe that it has become over-complicated and has begun to bring about a regrettable dependency culture. We need to attack that.
  Let me deal specifically with invalidity benefit. I was very impressed by the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field): I listened to both carefully, and I appreciated what they said about the needs of the disabled. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to tread carefully, especially on the proposals in the consultation document about medical assessment for incapacity benefit.
  It is terribly easy to get something like that wrong, and I am sure that none of us wants to be wondering in a few years what regulations we had passed. Although I understand some of the concerns expressed, I do not accept that the Bill is an attack on the disabled, or that the Government would ever attack the disabled. Indeed, we have a very good record of providing extra support for the disabled—
  Mr. McMaster: Clearly, I would argue the contrary on political grounds, but let us leave politics aside for a moment. Why have not the Government asked voluntary organisations and charities such as the Spastics Society, the Disability Alliance and RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—which are adamant that the Government have cut benefits and taken no account of their wishes or of the need for a comprehensive strategy to deal with disability?
  Mr. Congdon: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I find it very hard to equate it with the fact that, over the past 15 years, benefits to the disabled have increased threefold in real terms to just under £15 billion. I accept that there is always room for improvement, but it would be a little more helpful if some of the lobby groups which genuinely try to represent the interests of the disabled would give credit where credit is due—to the Government. We should then be able to view some of their submissions with greater sympathy.
  It is an inescapable fact that there has been an enormous growth in invalidity benefit over the past 14 or 15 years. We have heard that spending has more than doubled in real terms to £6·1 billion in the past 10 years, and that the number receiving it has trebled.
  Great play has been made of the Library document which analyses a report by the Policy Studies Institute on the cause of the growth. I can accept the part of the report's explanation which refers to those who have reached pensionable age but who are still claiming invalidity benefit. With all due respect, I should have thought that that fact alone was evidence of the need for reform. It is nonsense that people can carry on claiming invalidity benefit once they have reached pensionable age.
  I accept what has been said about more women being in the labour market and therefore being able to claim invalidity benefit, but the report states that 42 per cent. of the cases
  "arise from genuine growth in the rate of claiming invalidity benefit among a stable population of disabled people."
  I stress the second part of that sentence, because I do not fully understand what it means. It appears to be saying that there has been a growth in the numbers claiming invalidity
  104
  benefit, but it does not provide a jusitification or a reason for that growth. Based on surgery cases and other evidence, I should have thought that there was at least a case to be made for saying that part of the growth must be due to people manipulating the system in the way I described earlier.
  Some hon. Members have stressed the link with unemployment. I am not going to get into that argument, but Labour Members are surely not arguing that, because there might or might not have been a link in the past, it is wrong to break that link now and ensure that people get the appropriate benefit and do not receive invalidity benefit if unemployment benefit would be more appropriate. On those grounds alone, we should support the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) spoke of his experience. I always bow to a doctor's experience, especially when I am ill. He outlined the issues raised by doctors across the country.
  The Bill is long overdue, and my only caution is that we ensure that we do not hit the genuinely disabled—that is the last thing I would want. I am sure that we can avoid that problem as the Bill passes through its various stages.
  It is a pity that the Opposition have not been prepared to face the problems. We all thought that they were going to do so when they established the Commission for Social Justice but it seems that they are prepared to funk the issue. That is a great pity, because we need a debate about social security support. The debate is not about long-term trends in terms of the working population but about the trends in the growth of social security and to what extent a modern economy can legitimately support an ever increasing public expenditure burden. The Bill is a modest step in the right direction, and I am pleased to support it.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: I wish that we were discussing real measures to help people who receive invalidity benefit, people who have suffered for years under this miserable Government. The debate makes me think of tax avoidance and abuses in the City and the financial institutions, where people seem to get away with the prize.
  The other evening, we discussed training. The Government are frightened to put money into creativity or something that could generate income for the country but, lo and behold, they have once again suggested proposals that attack people who can hardly defend themselves, people who live in the hope that they might just see out tomorrow.
  Not that long ago, in the House I told Ministers about a man who was called by his doctor and so on to find out whether he was fit. The doctors came and met him. They said, "We now have to try to find out whether you are eligible to claim the money. We will do a wee test on you." The wee test consisted of his going outside his house and walking 100 yards. The man managed 100 yards. He was dead and buried within a month. His wife asks, "What type of inhuman society are we that we put our menfolk through tests such as that?"
  I have suffered my period in invalidity, and I have had the indignity of going through the test. It is not a pleasant thing when one is being accused of being a malingerer, of not being ill when one is ill, and one sits there with doctors, academics and people who have been through university. One just sits there as a Joe Bloggs—just an ordinary punter

  105
  —and one wants to tell the truth and will not dodge with the lies that they think we will all tell. What an indignity we are placing on mankind in this country!
  I remember that the Prime Minister said that it "beggars belief' that the increase in numbers is due entirely to health-related reasons.
  I live in Linwood, which is not a beautiful town. It is a hard-working town, where, years ago, thousands of men and women worked in the car plant and made a living. If one goes to that town now, one will find an incredible increase in the number of people living on invalidity benefit. If one checks the reasons why, it will come through that the serious depression that confronts them, with under-employment—the lack of job opportunities and so on—destroys the morale. It lowers one's resistance to illness and diseases. It plays a major part in the deterioration of people's health. If there is no hope and we do not give folk hope, their health will suffer.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Is he arguing that there ought to be no tests whatever?
  Mr. Graham: I wish that we could have a good system. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I wish that the Government could have listened to some of the organisations that have put forward many ideas for schemes. If the Government had taken on board some of the ideas for a comprehensive benefit system, we might not be in the mud hole that we are in.
  Mr. Evans indicated dissent.
  Mr. Graham: In 1980, I was on Strathclyde regional council. I was a member of a group that was examining the problems of disabled people. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security at the time was Lady Chalker. We discussed with her the problems that people on low income suffered. The "low income" that we were talking about was the money that people received on sickness benefit and invalidity benefit.
  Does the Minister honestly think that the folk are laughing all the way to the bank with the pittance that we give them to live on, with disability and invalidity benefit? Do the Government believe that they can drink a bottle of champagne a week? Do they think that those people are living on caviare and steak? There is no way that they are living on that.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the nub of the problem, which is that the Secretary of State, who conceived the Bill, has based it on an assumption that most people who are on invalidity benefit are malingerers. That has been half the problem, and that is the problem with the philosophy behind it. Did not the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) betray it when he asked the question about the tests?
  The problem is that existing tests are pretty tough, as my hon. Friend has outlined, but the new test will be ten times tougher. Does that not point the finger at the Secretary of State? It is a malicious attempt to penalise people on benefit.
  Mr. Graham: I am most grateful for that telling intervention. I do not have a lot of time, and I do not need notes. I can tell the Minister that I know of many doctors who issue sick lines in the sincere belief that their patient is ill and against their professional experience that they
  106
  know when folk are not fit for work. They issue those notes with the care and maintenance of patients in mind. They offer that sick line because they sincerely believe that their patients are ill. Are we therefore accusing every doctor of getting it wrong? Are we saying that the system is wrong?
  I question the system, but I also question the Government. They have one of the worst records imaginable in trying to help the sick, the poor, the disabled and the unemployed. We have seen their income savaged and reduced to barely nothing because of the Government's constant and unbelievable mismanagement of our economy. We are struggling because the Government cannot see a way in which to create revenue-raising power.
  As they once again bail out their friends in the City, they take £1·5 billion from the ill and the disabled. It makes me disgusted to be a Member of Parliament. We are speaking to a Government who are not prepared to listen, but are only prepared to keep trundling along and taking everybody, like lemmings, over the cliff. I do not think that the people of Britain will accept that and, at the general election, they will show the Government the door so that we can take heart, look after the future of disabled people and give them the quality of life to which they are entitled, not the poverty-driven chaos created by Government.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful to be given an opportunity to participate in the debate.
  I find it amazing that in the time that I have been in the Chamber, and while I believe that everyone in the Chamber would agree that it is an important debate, not one Liberal Democrat Member has been present. At such an important time, when we are approaching the climax of the debate, I find that amazing. There is no doubt that, as we come towards elections of any kind, the Liberal Democrats will say how dreadful the Government's social security policy is.
  Having listened to hon. Members on both sides of the House, I believe that we desperately need to improve the current system. I agree with my hon. Friends that we desperately need to protect the most vulnerable in our society. At the same time, having heard the comments of Opposition Members about helping the disabled, it is rich that they have not been able to come up with anything concrete that they would put in place of what the Government are suggesting. We have all heard about the Opposition's current commission, but we are yet to hear anything concrete from the Opposition Members about social security.
  We need a system which will operate, which will protect the vulnerable and which will be sustainable.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Which will save money.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman may say "save money", but one should consider the present system and the way in which the number of claimants has trebled.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who said that the health of the nation has not improved. It has improved. At the same time, the number of people claiming benefit has trebled, so that the amount paid is £6·1 billion, which is projected to rise to more than £8 billion in the near future. Yet Opposition Members are not prepared to confront that fact. They criticise and chastise Conservative Members for

  107
  trying to save money. With this Bill, the Government are trying to ensure that the money that is spent in vast sums will go to those people who need it and that those who are not eligible for invalidity benefit do not sign up to it.
  I referred earlier to a survey of general practitioners in which two thirds of those questioned indicated that they had signed sickness benefit notes for people who simply were not sick. We must address that problem. Opposition Members have said, "If anyone is claiming invalidity benefit who is not entitled to it, something should be done about it." But yet again they have failed to suggest any concrete policies that would correct that imbalance. We need to hear something concrete—
  Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evans: I will gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will say how Labour proposes to clamp down on those who are claiming invalidity benefit when they ought not to be.
  Mr. Flynn: We are all touched to hear the hon. Gentleman, in his deep-seated favour, explaining how people must not loot the public purse. Will he urge his hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) to return to the public purse the money that they made out of buying council houses and the £200,000 that they had from the public purse—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that he should not make criticisms of other hon. Members unless he has given them notice. I greatly deplore that practice.
  Mr. Evans: I held out the challenge to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), but I did not get an answer to my question—just a cheap attack on my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in this country, we live under the rule of law by which everyone is innocent until proved guilty?
  Mr. Evans: Conservative Members are more than happy to accept that. Clearly, however, Opposition Members do not share our view.
  We must accept that the health of the nation has been improving over the past 15 years. Moreover, expenditure on invalidity benefit represents one of the largest and most rapidly growing areas of expenditure in the whole system. If money is going where it is not supposed to go, it must be checked. If that flow is not checked, and if money is not targeted on those who really need it, either taxes will have to go up and up to ensure that the bill is met or those in real need will be denied access to proper benefits—[HON. MEMBERS: "Taxes are going up."]
  It is amazing to hear Opposition Members say that taxation is going up anyway. They decry the Government for seeking to tackle a problem by reducing the amount of money going to people who should not be getting it. They tell the public that the Government are wrong to raise taxes, but they are not prepared to back the Government when they seek to do something about the problem of benefits going to people who are not entitled to them.
  Opposition Members would prefer to see taxes increased. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor
  108
  told David Frost on Sunday that, if the Labour party were in government, taxes would be far higher than they are. Opposition Members have proved that point admirably.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Evans: I have only three minutes left. Opposition Members have had a fine opportunity to answer the questions that we have put to them but have refused to do so. I have the hon. Member for Newport, West an opportunity to come back with an answer; instead he made a cheap attack on my hon. Friends. Given that sort of attitude, I am not prepared to give way to Opposition Members again.
  Those who are capable of work should not be encouraged to sign on for invalidity benefit; they should be encouraged to go into the world of work. At the moment, as the GP survey showed, too few people are being encouraged to do that. The onus on GPs is unfair. In many ways, the guidelines were too loose and allowed too many people to sign on for invalidity benefit. The criteria for eligibility for incapacity benefit will be far stricter. That will ensure that those who receive the benefit are those in need of it and that those who are able to work are helped to get back into work. Funds will be focused on those who need benefit because of incapacity—something that ought to be welcomed by every hon. Gentleman.
  I have not heard any hon. Member refer to the voluntary work sector. People who are claiming incapacity benefit will be able to do 16 hours' voluntary work a week. This is excellent news to anyone who, like myself and, I am sure, most other hon. Members, is involved with several constituency charities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) referred to the fact that the question of medical assessment is currently out to consultation. I hope that there will be widespread discussion with general practitioners, charities and anyone else who wants to make a contribution. We must get the system right, so we shall have to listen very carefully to comments about some of the possible pitfalls. In this regard, however, I am confident.
  Having listened to Opposition Members, I am not sure that they agree with any type of testing whatsoever. I believe that we shall get the question of medical assessment right—that people who are incapable of working will be entitled to claim incapacity benefit and will receive it at the appropriate rates and that those who are able to work will be helped into employment.
  This is the right system, and it is a great shame that Opposition Members are unable to support it. What I have heard today reveals the real Labour party—the tax-andspend party that my constituents, having listened to its case, will recognise as the one that lost the last four general elections and will lose the next one.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Keith Bradley: In general, this has been a very thoughtful and well-ordered debate. We have heard important contributions from several hon. Members—in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and for Croydon North-West (Mr. Wicks), as well as several of my hon Friends from Scottish

  109
  constituencies. We have heard some interesting contributions from Conservative Members too. In particular, I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). Conservative Members brought several specific points to the Minister's attention.
  The debate was enhanced considerably by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who clearly stated the Labour party's position on the Bill. It is very important that we should recognise the real purpose behind the measure, which constitutes a fundamental attack on the interests of disabled people. The Government are yet again looking for a way out of the economic mess caused by their mismanagement and their policies. Yet again, disabled people are being used as the scapegoat for Conservative incompetence. That is something of which we ought not to lose sight, however often we hear reference to Disraeli, the one-nation Tory. The country knows very well the current position of the Tory party. Bringing Disraeli back from the dead will not get the Government out of their mess.
  The Minister of State shakes his head vigorously in denial of the claim that the disabled are being used as a scapegoat for economic incompetence. However, we have only to look at recent history to see how these people have been targeted. It gives me no pleasure to refer yet again to the question of the independent living fund. Exactly what we predicted during the passage of the legislation dealing with that fund has come to pass.
  There has been a massive cut in the amount of money available for disabled people in the independent living fund. We said that very few people would benefit from the fund as a result of the way in which it was structured. It gives me no pleasure to see that in the 1993–94 budget of £4 million, to date only £500,000 has been allocatd and £3·5 million remains to be spent. Although there have been 700 applicants, only 104 payments have been received.
  Mr. Scott: When we introduced community care, and when the new arrangements for the independent living fund came into being, it was inevitable that it would take time for the caseload to build up. The cases that the ILF has taken on and which have incurred the £500,000 expenditure represent between £5 million and £6 million of full-year expenditure.
  Mr. Bradley: I listened with interest to the Minister's defence. Unfortunately, the evidence does not bear that out. There has been criticism from the local authorities. The authorities confirm what we claimed during the passage of the legislation. They believe that it is ridiculous to have limits of £200 and £500. They also believe that it is ridiculous that no one over 65 can receive benefit from the fund. It is also ridiculous that the terminally ill cannot receive anything from the fund and that the provision was limited to people on income support and those with savings of less than £8,000. Those limitations have seriously curtailed the ability of disabled people to benefit in the way that they so desperately need to.
  Even before today's Bill, there has been evidence of the way in which the Government are targeting disabled people. We have heard much about the way in which invalidity benefit has been administered. However, it is clear that there is a range of ways in which the Government are focusing on invalidity benefit and also making real cuts in the amount of money that will be available in future to disabled people.
  110
  We have already heard that the Government intend to make savings of
  £550 million in 1995–96 and a staggering saving of £1,450 million in 1996–97. I must stress that those savings will arise not from the introduction of a new benefit to deal with people with disabilities, but from the replacement of benefits such as sickness benefit and invalidity benefit. Those cuts, or savings as the Government call them, will be achieved through a series of measures.
  We must be clear where those savings will be made. Crucially, the Government are changing the rates for the new incapacity benefit. Two new rates will be introduced for the first 28 weeks. In current circumstances, someone would receive £42·70 and then a higher rate for 29 to 52 weeks. That person would then move on to £52·50, the same rate as statutory sick pay. Only after 52 weeks would that person move on to current invalidity benefit rate of £56·10. Between 28 weeks and 52 weeks, there will be a real cut in the rate paid to disabled people even if they get through the hoop of the new test.
  The Government cannot claim that they are not making a real cut in the amount of income available to people with disabilities as a result of the introduction of this new benefit. Not only are they making a cut, they are also introducing a greater delay before people with the same disabilities achieve the same rate as those who currently receive invalidity benefit of £56·10. There will be a cut in the rate and a delay before one receives the current full rate of invalidity benefit.
  The new proposals also make crucial structural changes to the new benefit. That also applies to some of the changes that are to be made in respect of people who continue to receive invalidity benefit. The most crucial point is that, after the introduction of the new rules in April 1995, there will be no additional pension.
  Much has been made of the increased payments to people on invalidity benefit. It has been said that, when they reach retirement age, they should go back on to the basic state retirement pension. Most of them receive an additional amount only because they have contributed to an additional pension. Under the new rules, that allowance will not be permitted, and, for those currently in receipt of it, the amount will be frozen.
  That flies in the face of what the Government announced previously. It gives me no pleasure to quote the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. As many of my hon. Friends have said, we have great respect for the way in which he has championed the needs of disabled people. However, talking about the additional pension, he said:
  "The clause does not affect existing rights to additional pension. All the rights built up in the years up to and including the 1990–91 tax year will be preserved, whenever the claim for invalidity pension is made, however far in the future that may be. Moreover, such additional pension will continue to be subject to revaluation uprating in exactly the same way as at present."—[Official Report, 3 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 1115.]
  Under the new rules that he is introducing tonight, the Minister will renege on that promise. The additional pension will be frozen, it will not be uprated.
  Mr. Scott indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bradley: The Minister shakes his head. If he wishes to refute what I am saying, I should be pleased to give way. He cannot refute the allegations.
  In addition, there will be further cuts. There will be no age allowance for claimants between 45 and 55. There will

  111
  be a lower benefit between the 28th and 52nd week, as I have said. Also, there will be no dependants' allowance for people under 60 without children. All that means cuts in payments for disabled people. For the no additional pension category, there will be cuts of £20 million in 1995–96 and £130 million in 1996–97, £5 million in respect of the no allowance for claimants between 45 and 55 in 1995–96, and £15 million in 1996–97. In the case of the dependants' allowance, that is a saving of £110 million in 1995–96 and £150 million in 1996–97.
  That is the issue—cuts in basic rights to benefit and income for disabled people. That is why we oppose the Bill so strongly.
  We must also consider the way in which the new medical assessment will be undertaken. Several points must be reinforced. It surprised me greatly that, when we asked to be consulted on the new medical test, we were eventually told by written answer to my question that a group of 80 experts had been brought together to comment on the medical assessment. I asked the Minister exactly who were representing the interests of disabled people and making an assessment. In his first answer, he just gave me a list of the groups that would be represented, so I asked again, because I believed the Prime Minister's words and those of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I thought that we had open government. When asked who the 80 experts were, the Minister said:
  "We have asked that panel members respect confidentiality until the exercise is completed".
  Opposition Members believe in open government. If Conservative Members want to list the 80 names, we shall be happy to publish them so that we know who is representing our interests in that medical test.
  Our next major concern is that we will not know the details of the test before the Bill is considered in Committee—in fact, we will not know the details even after the Bill has been considered in Committee. I shall be surprised if we know the details of the medical test when we come to Third Reading or beyond.
  Yet again, the Government are using regulations to prop up the Bill. Instead of having a proper consultation process, coming to decisions and bringing them to the Floor of the House at the appropriate time, the Government are hiding behind regulations and trying to slip the new test in through the back door. We will vigorously be opposing their method in Committee, and I can assure the House that there will be a full-blown debate when the regulations come back, to ensure that the interests of disabled people are properly represented.
  We have heard much tonight about the medical test. Our greatest concern has also been stated by some Conservative Members—I welcome their comments as well as those of my hon. Friends—in relation to the difficulty in setting up an objective test. A number of illnesses and disabilities have various elements that cannot be assessed by one snapshot. The Secretary of State said that he was not looking for a snapshot, and that there would be scope for variation. What is not clear, and why it is so difficult to debate the measures, is how much discretion will be brought into the system.
  Clearly, the way in which the document has been drawn up means that there will be a storing of points which will come to a threshold. On one side of that threshold, the person concerned is okay—on the other side, he is not. We
  112
  have heard many cases of disabled people who would score heavily on the criteria as they are laid down who are holding down competent jobs. On those criteria, they would be eligible for incapacity benefit. Equally, people who would not score—
  Mr. Lilley: Is the test not stringent enough?
  Mr. Bradley: That is not the point that we are making. We are asking how there can be an objective, one-off test where people on either side of the divide may score totally differently in different situations.
  We have had many representations from disabled groups throughout the country. The Secretary of State mentioned merely one organisation, but we have heard from the Disability Alliance, the Disablement Income Group, citizens advice bureaux, the Spastics Society, the National Association for Mental Health, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Arthritis Care, and other organisations up and down the country. All of them say that they do not accept the criteria which have been laid down.
  The problem with the Secretary of State saying that the criteria will be stretched to include moving targets is that those organisations have been asked to consult on the details. They have not had an opportunity—and, from what I understand, although I hope to be corrected, they will not have a new opportunity—to be re-consulted once the 80 experts have come up with a new assessment for medical conditions. There are conditions, such as arthritis and MS, which change over time and from day to day. Pain be managed on one day and people may be able to undertake tasks, but the mere fact that they have undertaken those tasks disables them again in the future.
  For example, the MS Society has said that disability in general, and MS in particular, takes many different forms and levels of severity. Therefore, the society feels that it is impossible to set a cut-off point or a threshold between capacity and incapacity. That is supported by the fact that many people with relatively minor disabilities are unable to work, and yet some people can work even though they have a severe disability.
  That sort of assessment and wide-ranging discretion are crucial when determining people's incapacity. They are also crucial in determining not only a person's incapacity for their occupation—we will return to that point on Committee—but a definition of all work. We have heard tonight that many people may be able to undertake work from their previous occupation, but certainly will not be able to take on any occupation that the Employment Service throws at them. Those jobs could include manual or clerical work, and administrative and technical tasks. That wide range of considerations, as well as the current economic and unemployment situation, must be taken into account when there is a proper assessment about people's incapacity.
  The Government's sole motive is to save money. We have seen from the research, and the Government have said, that there are thousands of people on invalidity benefit now who should not be. Opposition Members do not defend people who illegitimately receive invalidity benefit. However, all the research that has been done, including research commissioned by the Department of Social Security such as "Why are there so many long-term sick in Britain?" by Disney and Webb's research in 1991

  113
  and "An analysis of the growth in invalidity benefit claims" by Holmos, Lynch and Molho in 1991 show that the cause of the extra claims is not limited to people who, in the Government's terms, are simply swinging the lead. There is a range of complicated factors which must be taken into consideration before draconian measures such as the Bill are introduced.
  As we have heard, even the permanent secretary to the Department of Social Security, Sir Michael Partridge, said in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee:
  "the theory of increased numbers due to fraud is not borne out by research."
  He said that the principal reasons were prolonged unemployment and the move to community care. That was the reason that the Department's own permanent secretary gave for the increase in invalidity benefit. The reason is not the other factors that Conservative Members have used so dubiously without attaching figures to their arguments.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said that a survey of GPs had come up with a reason for opposing invalidity benefit. However, he could not tell us how many GPs were surveyed in that report. Would he like to give us that figure now? He cannot. We know that only 40 GPs were surveyed. They were probably all fundholding GPs too busy drawing up contracts to sign sickness certificates.
  We are short of time and we must bring the debate to a conclusion. I assure the Secretary of State that, whatever he believes, the Labour party will oppose the Bill line by line vigorously in Parliament and throughout the country. We have the support of the people of Britain. They know that economic mismanagement has brought the measure before the House. They know and disability groups throughout the country know. The press knows. Today, we saw in The Times the headlines "Back-door benefit cuts for severely disabled" and "Benefits curb may create more jobless". We have heard tonight that that is the fact. There will be 200,000 extra people on the unemployment register as a result of the Bill alone.
  I warn the Minister that an article in The Times today said that the measure was more controversial than the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill or the Finance Bill. We shall ensure that that controversy goes from the House back into the country. We will oppose the Bill vigorously every step of the way.
  9.42 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): In concluding the debate, shall endeavour to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). I am sure that we shall have a few weeks of energetic activity in which we shall go into all the points in greater detail. I look forward with relish to that time.
  I begin by reiterating the fundamental aims of the Bill. There has been a great deal of distortion and misrepresentation during our debate today. The Bill aims to ensure, and I believe that it will do so, that those who are not able to work through sickness or disability receive appropriate help through an affordable system, that those who are able to work are helped so to do and that resources are not squandered on those who are able to work but do not seek to work. I should have thought that few would challenge those principles. I am grateful to several of my hon. Friends who have expressed their strong support for those principles during the debate.
  114
  I dispute the assertion of the hon. Member for Withington that those principles do not have support in the country. As I have gone round the country discussing the Bill, I have found that few have challenged them. In essence, the Bill seeks to return the benefit presently called invalidity benefit, to be called incapacity benefit under the new system, to its original purpose.
  It will ensure that those who are genuinely incapable of work due to long-term sickness or disability will be helped. Those who are unemployed or who are not working for other reasons will be able to turn to other benefits for support.
  Given that the Government had witnessed the growth in the take-up of invalidity benefit over a number of years, it was right for us to consider the reasons behind that and to decide on the priorities that we should set for the future. I totally dispute the point made by the hon. Member for Withington about a gap between the approach of my right hon. Friend, myself and the permanent secretary to the Department of Social Security. The evidence that he gave before the Public Accounts Committee was exactly in accordance with the arguments that my right hon. Friend and I have put forward in support of the Bill.
  The original purpose of the benefit has been altered, sometimes gradually and sometimes dramatically, by alterations over years in case law. Its purpose has been changed not by legislation passed by the House but by judgments in case law and commissioners' decisions. Those decisions have altered the background against which the benefit has existed and the way in which it has been administered.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: It is a question not of changing over the years, but of changing over the weeks. A new trend and fashion of "back to basics" has meant back to basics for the most vulnerable in our society. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks are a gloss on a crude and unacceptable philosophy.
  Mr. Scott: I suppose that there is safety in numbers for the members of the Opposition Front Bench if they can intervene, seriatim, on such matters. I do not accept for a single moment what the hon. Gentleman said. Any responsible Government, having seen the growth in take-up of invalidity benefit, would want to look back to the origins of the legislation and ensure that it was still doing the job for which it was designed. That benefit is the second largest and fastest growing benefit in the social security system. It is absolutely right that we should take a fresh look at it.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is something strange about an Opposition who one day say that the taxation is too high and then the next day say that public expenditure is too low?
  Mr. Scott: I agree totally with my hon. Friend.
  A number of points were raised in the debate about the structure and shape of the benefit and whether the way in which it is targeted—or focused, as I would prefer to call it—is being properly undertaken.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said that any change in the benefit should be subject to further debate. We have had such a debate today and I am certain that we will have further debates in Committee. The Labour party has been very active in

  115
  criticising the existing social security system, but it is silent about any alternative that it is prepared to put forward. If we were to take every item of the Opposition's criticism and imagined that they would translate that into legislative action once they got back into office, the shadow Chancellor might be in need of receipt of the benefit himself.
  Mr. Wigley: The right hon. Gentleman referred to people being fit for work. Can he confirm that the Government or the Benefits Agency sent out guidelines during 1993 to local officers defining the sort of work that might be appropriate for people currently receiving invalidity benefit, including categories such as artist's model? Was that the Government's intention? Will they now withdraw those guidelines if they issued them?
  Mr. Scott: The guidance was given to local officers about the administration of the benefit. It has been suggested that individuals were advised to try for particular jobs. If someone is found fit for work, he is given a list of jobs that he might consider. No one tells him to take a specific job.
  The agency is doing its best, rightly, I believe, to give guidance to individuals who are found fit for work about the sort of employment that they might seek. I believe that that guidance is absolutely right and in accordance with the agency's commitment to help those who come to it for help.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) spoke of a loss of benefit. Many people listening to our debate or reading about it in the newspapers may fear that current claimants will have their benefits undermined or altered. It is worth reiterating, therefore, that all existing invalidity benefit claimants will get the rate of pay that they are receiving at the time of the change.
  The hon. Member for Worthington also referred to the additional pension. I have not identified the quotation that he read out, but since then I have made it explicitly clear that existing claimants would have their benefits uprated, except for the additional pension, which would be frozen at the rate applying when the change came.
  We estimate that about 70 per cent. of claimants at the time of the changeover will not qualify in future for help from income support because they have other resources and help to which they will be able to turn.
  Mr. McMaster: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: No. I was given only 20 minutes to wind up —or rather less than that—and I have already given way twice. It is only fair that I should be allowed to press on.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden also mentioned the taxation of incapacity benefit. It is common knowledge in this House that the Government's policy for a number of years has been that invalidity benefit should be brought into tax. The principle is simple; it was the practice that frustrated the Government's intention. A benefit paid as a replacement for earnings, as invalidity benefit manifestly is, should be subject to tax in the same way as earned income. This will bring the tax treatment of the new benefit into line with retirement pensions and unemployment benefit—the two other main contributory benefits.
  As I have already said, existing invalidity benefit will not be taxed. The few beneficiaries who pay tax at the
  116
  moment will do so only because they have other taxable income, such as an occupational pension or permanent health insurance.
  Mr. Alan Howarth rose—
  Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend made a long speech.
  Mr. Howarth: I am therefore extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. Although the principle of taxing invalidity benefit is likely to be right"—after all, it replaces earnings—does my right hon. Friend accept that it is also worth considering that the vast majority of the recipients of incapacity benefits will be people on relatively low incomes who face additional costs because of their incapacity? Will he therefore be willing to argue the case for a disability tax allowance analogous to the elderly person's tax allowance or the blind person's tax allowance —and I welcome the fact that the Government have increased the latter? Such an allowance would provide an acceptable basis for the introduction of taxation of the benefit.
  Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that matters of taxation are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor—so are allowances. It will be perfectly possible to ensure that tax of the new benefit is properly collected.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden said that it was inequitable that a tax should apply only to the new benefit, not to current benefits. Ever since I became a Minister in the Department it has been a principle that people receiving a benefit should not in general have their expectations changed when new arrangements are introduced. That is to say that people receiving invalidity benefit have adjusted to that income, and I do not believe that it would be right to change that by making them pay tax. Of course, over the years an increasing percentage of those who are on the new benefit will come within the tax system.
  With his usual commitment and interest in this matter, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asked whether a claimant's general practitioner is the best placed person to decide whether a claimant is medically incapable of work. That issue was raised by other hon. Members, some of whom held the opposite view. It has been impressed on me that GPs have expressed increasing reluctance to act as gatekeepers for this benefit. They perceive it as inimical to the patient-doctor relationship. Expecting GPs to certify patients as sick, let alone to apply complex social security rules, has been a considerable and, many GPs believe, an unreasonable burden upon them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said that some general practitioners might be the better people to make these decisions, but there is a danger that GPs, who develop a close relationship with many of their patients, could be under pressures quite distinct from the independence of judgment that is required to decide whether somebody is entitled to the benefit.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked whether the test had enough personalised input from the GP who knows the patient. The GP will still be asked to provide the claimant's diagnosis and principal disabling conditions. In some cases, the GP may be asked to supply further information or an opinion, but he will not be asked for an opinion on the capacity for work. That relieves GPs from their gatekeeper role, and they greatly welcome that change.

  117
  I shall now deal with the medical test. I sometimes despair of Opposition arguments. If the Government had blithely presented a fixed medical test without any consultation or the involvement of outsiders or professionals, there would have been an outcry from the Opposition that we were not listening. Some 4,000 copies of the document have been circulated to organisations of and for disabled people, to experts of one sort or another and others who are properly interested in the matter. The Government should be given credit for that and not criticised.
  The 80 experts on the committee were recruited not to sign up to the details of the test, but to give their expert opinion of the way in which the Government were tackling this matter.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Madam Speaker: Order. Is the Minister giving way? Mr. Scott: No, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Right. Hon. Members should sit down.
  Mr. Scott: Already it has been possible to react to a number of suggestions by the experts and we shall seriously consider any further suggestions.
  Some Opposition Members have derided the Bill as a narrow, cost-cutting exercise. I utterly refute that charge. As a Social Security Minister since 1987, I recognise a widespread acceptance by all Governments in the developed world that, if expenditure on social protection programmes is not controlled, we shall end un..like the last Labour Government, unable to pay even a Christmas bonus or to uprate benefits as they promised. We have no intention of going down that road.
  We must recognise the imperative of ensuring that our system focuses help on those who really need it, thus ensuring that social security costs are sustainable for future generations. We must plan for a modern, realistic system that is attuned to the concept of a society that cares for those who need help and can provide it in an affordable way. Such an approach needs nerve, vision and courage
  —qualities notably lacking on the Opposition Benches. But we are determined to carry this work forward. The Bill is an earnest of our intent to do just that. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes, 313, Noes 272.

  Division No. 87]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bates, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amess, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Ashby, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert

  Booth, Hartley

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Baldry, Tony

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  118

  Bowden, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Bowis, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bright, Graham

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorst, John

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Burt, Alistair

  Hague, William

  Butler, Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Harris, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Churchill, Mr

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hendry, Charles

  Colvin, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Congdon, David

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Conway, Derek

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Horam, John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cran, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jack, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dicks, Terry

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B. W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dunn, Bob

  Key, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eggar, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Elletson, Harold

  Knapman, Roger

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

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

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evennett, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Faber, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Legg, Barry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lidington, David

  Forth, Eric

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Luff, Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Maclean, David

  Gale, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Madel, Sir David

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  119

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Malone, Gerald

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Mans, Keith

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Marlow, Tony

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spring, Richard

  Mates, Michael

  Sproat, Iain

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Merchant, Piers

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Milligan, Stephen

  Steen, Anthony

  Mills, Iain

  Stephen, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stern, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Stewart, Allan

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Streeter, Gary

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Sumberg, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Sweeney, Walter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Sykes, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thomason, Roy

  Norris, Steve

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Paice, James

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

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tracey, Richard

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Trend, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pickles, Eric

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Walden, George

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Waller, Gary

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Ward, John

  Richards, Rod

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Riddick, Graham

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Watts, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wells, Bowen

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Whitney, Ray

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Willetts, David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Sackville, Tom

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shersby, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bayley, Hugh

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ainger, Nick

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Allen, Graham

  Benton, Joe

  Alton, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Betts, Clive

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Blair, Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Blunkett, David

  Austin-Walker, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Boyes, Roland

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradley, Keith

  Barron, Kevin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Battle, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  120

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

  Hain, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hall, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Caborn, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoey, Kate

  Cann, Jamie

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Home Robertson, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Coffey, Ann

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hutton, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ingram, Adam

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jamieson, David

  Cummings, John

  Janner, Greville

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

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

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Denham, John

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dewar, Donald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Dixon, Don

  Leighton, Ron

  Dobson, Frank

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lewis, Terry

  Dowd, Jim

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eastham, Ken

  McAllion, John

  Enright, Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Etherington, Bill

  McCartney, Ian

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McFall, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McLeish, Henry

  Fisher, Mark

  McMaster, Gordon

  Flynn, Paul

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Madden, Max

  Foulkes, George

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Fraser, John

  Mahon, Alice

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mandelson, Peter

  Galloway, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Gapes, Mike

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Garrett, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  George, Bruce

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Martlew, Eric

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Maxton, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Meacher, Michael

  Godsiff, Roger

  Meale, Alan

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michael, Alun

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gould, Bryan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Graham, Thomas

  Milburn, Alan

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Miller, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gunnell, John

  Morley, Elliot

  121

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Short, Clare

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Simpson, Alan

  Mudie, George

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Murphy, Paul

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

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Snape, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Soley, Clive

  Olner, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Neill, Martin

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Parry, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Patchett, Terry

  Stevenson, George

  Pendry, Tom

  Stott, Roger

  Pickthall, Colin

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Pike, Peter L.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pope, Greg

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Turner, Dennis

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Prescott, John

  Walley, Joan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Purchase, Ken

  Wareing, Robert N

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Watson, Mike

  Randall, Stuart

  Welsh, Andrew

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Redmond, Martin

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Reid, Dr John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Richardson, Jo

  Wilson, Brian

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Winnick, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wise, Audrey

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Worthington, Tony

  Rogers, Allan

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Rooney, Terry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Peter Kilfoyfe.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a standing Committee, pursuant to standing Order No.61(Committal of Bills).

  Brian Redhead
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the number of comments in the House today following the death of Brian Redhead yesterday, would it be possible for you to give some thought to finding a way for the House to express its views about people who, in a way, become honorary Members although they are not honourable Members? I think that there are people out there who are, as it were, additions to the House of Parliament. I would ask you to give us some advice and perhaps to say something on our behalf that records how much we value those people outside the place who have served the political process as well as, if not better than, we do.
  Madam Speaker: Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not a point of order, but there is no one anywhere who had greater respect for Mr. Brian Redhead's professionalism than I have. I felt all day very sad about it. I made a resolution that when there is a memorial service I shall certainly attend it as Speaker. Quite apart from his professionalism, Mr. Redhead was a lovely man. I felt that he was a human being with sunshine in his voice.

  Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  10.10 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled Persons (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of that Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable
  out of money so provided under any other enactment.

  The resolution is in the form which will be familiar to the House. I do not propose to give an especially lengthy explanation of it as we have had a long and wide-ranging debate on the purpose of the Bill. Suffice to say that a money resolution is required for three reasons. The first is because of the abolition of the lower rate of statutory sick pay a single rate of SSP will increase the expenses of the Government as an employer. Secondly, the proposals widen access to disability working allowance and severe disablement allowance so that people undertaking training work after receiving incapacity benefit would be able to qualify for both benefits on completion of their training. That will increase expenditure on those two benefits. There will also be some increase in expenditure on the income-related benefits. Finally, the Bill will increase administrative expenses. The financial details are in the normal note on the financial effects of the Bill.
  I commend the resolution to the House.
  10.11 pm
  Mr. Adam Ingram: That was a very brief explanation. Many contributions were made and questions asked on Second Reading which were not answered in the summing-up and have not been properly discussed in the Minister's short contribution. My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and other hon. Friends asked many interesting and probing questions. We had hoped that the Minister would respond to them.
  It is useful to refer to the financial implications of the Bill. There are more people on the Government Benches at this stage of the deliberation of the Bill than there were during the debate. If they only cared to consider that aspect of the measure, they would see that it is proposed that the Bill will achieve gross savings of £550 million in the first year, increasing to £1,450 million in 1996–97.
  Those are interesting figures if we take them in relation to their offset costs, which are also set out in the Bill. The offset costs are, as stated, £135 million in 1995–96 and £265 million in 1996–97. There are very significant differences between what the offset costs will be as opposed to the original savings. If one considers those figures in percentage terms, it is interesting to note that in the first year the offset costs are in the region of 25 per cent. of the savings, but in year two they drop to 18 per cent. I would be interested to know why there is a change in that relationship. What is changing in terms of those two years' costs against gross savings?
  That also raises a question about the breakdown of those figures—the £135 million in year one and the £265 million
  124
  in year two. To what do they relate? In the financial effects of the Bill, it tells us that those figures are because of additional expenditure on income support and unemployment benefit. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us the breakdown of income support and unemployment benefit in year one and in year two and it would be interesting to know how many people will be affected by those sums of money. It is important to consider not only those sums of money—£135 million and £265 million—but the fact that many claimants fall into each of those categories which make up the costs. I am sure that that would be of interest to the House and to the many people who are likely to be affected.
  It would also be useful to consider the gross savings —£550 million in year one and £1·45 billion in year two. It would be useful if the Minister gave a breakdown of those savings. What is the make-up of those savings? How much will arise from the cut in benefit? I use that terminology because, undoubtedly, many people will see the new benefit as a cut, as opposed to existing benefits. What proportion of those savings will arise as a result of changes in eligibility?
  As my hon. Friends said on Second Reading, there are many specialist organisations with an interest in the Bill. Of course, it is not appropriate to go over all the arguments again, but I am sure that those organisations would be interested in answers to those points, so that they are in a position to understand better what the Government are doing to the people who they represent.
  More interestingly, why does the projection stop at year two? For instance, why has not the longer term projection been shown? Since 2000 is not that far away, why cannot the Government give a reasonable projection of what they have in mind for those categories at risk in our society? It would not be too difficullt to make that projection, at least I would not think so, because in June of the past year, a famous leaked document gave figures in a slightly different combination on the changes to the benefit and gross savings were projected into year 2000. If it was good enough at that time to speculate on legislation and to deal with proposals between the Departments of Social Security and the Treasury, it would be right to have that projection laid out now that we are discussing the Bill.
  It is worth pointing out that the figures in that leaked document showed that there would be a projected saving of £180 million in year one and £495 million in year two, rising to savings of £1·3 billion in 2000. If one sets that against the current year two saving of £1·45 billion, something radical has happened in the meantime and even greater savings are being imposed as a consequence. If it was good enough and proper enough at that time to try to arrive at savings projections, in terms of discussions that I assume took place as a result of Treasury pressure on the Department of Social Security to come up with savings, why not tell us about the long-term projections of savings now?
  I know that some of my hon. Friends want to raise other points as extensions of those questions and may want to comment on the financial effects of the Bill. Those are important issues which require answers and I hope that the Minister will be properly briefed by his Parliamentary Private Secretary so that he is able to answer them when the time comes.
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The Bill is terribly important. There is something wrong somewhere. In 1953, the year in which she came to the throne, Her Majesty the Queen sent out 210 telegrams to 100-year-old people. Last year she sent out nearly 3,000. That is encouraging for us all because it means that we are all living longer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Your turn soon, Geoffrey."' I have a few years to go yet. How does that increase square with the increase in invalidity benefit? With people living very much longer, and with a national health service which we are all told—and which we believe—is the best in the world, how can it be right that so many people are claiming invalidity benefit?
  The number of people in receipt of the benefit has almost trebled in the past 15 years. When it was first introduced, there were 550,000 claimants. Last year, 1·5 million people were claiming it. Given that this is a nation whose health is improving, something is wrong somewhere.
  Expenditure on invalidity benefit has almost doubled in the past 10 years, even allowing for inflation. In cash terms, it has more than trebled—from £1·6 billion in 1982–83 to £6·1 billion in 1992–93. Those figures are astounding. Suppose that the benefit remained unreformed. Projections tell us that if the benefit were left as it is, spending on it would rise to £8 billion in 1995–96. That money has to be found. The Government do not have any money. I am sure that Opposition Members will be amazed to learn that it is all taxpayers' money and the money of those who pay contributions. It is because we have been so compassionate and have wanted to support people who are genuine invalids that invalidity benefit has been so attractive when compared with other benefits.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dickens: I will give way to the learned doctor.
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. May I remind him that invalidity benefit is a contributory benefit and point out that all those of my constituents who [know to be in receipt of invalidity benefit are fine, decent and honourable people who in no way can be described as scroungers.
  Mr. Dickens: The hon. Gentleman used the word "scroungers"; I did not, and I hope that those concerned remember who used the word. The Government seek to ensure that those in genuine need get the help that they richly deserve. That is what compassionate caring Governments are all about. We must bring home to the Opposition the fact that they do not have a monopoly on caring and compassion, although they like to tell the nation that they do. That is unfair. We care just as deeply as they do.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: But more intelligently.
  Mr. Dickens: We are not all as intelligent, but some of us are.
  Something is wrong when people tell me that someone they have seen walking past their house on a crutch all week has suddenly put his crutch under his arm and run for the bus. Those people would love to be on the benefit that he is on, but that cannot be. Take the hon. Member for
  126
  Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He comes limping in on a stick. I myself have arrived on crutches on occasion. I have had a trapped nerve from time to time—[Interruption.] No, not between the ears. I am sure that my doctor would show great compassion for me and give me a certificate if I needed invalidity benefit. Ah, here is the hon. Member for Workington. I was giving him great praise. He is a man who has not claimed benefit but struggles on at work. There are a lot of people like him around the country.
  It is so easy. But what are we doing? We are making it absolutely impossible for the GP to act as our gatekeeper and say who should receive that benefit, which is much higher than other benefits. General practitioners say that it is difficult because they have to put the patients' interests first and foremost. The GP sometimes knows that a patient is out of work or when he is going to retire. I understand that a GP can be placed in an impossible position when he or she has built up a relationship with a patient.
  The system that we are to adopt will be much better. Patients can fill in the forms themselves. I am hoping that we shall produce a shopping list of afflictions that will almost automatically warrant the benefit. There must be many such afflictions about which there would be no dispute. The vast majority—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We are no longer on Second Reading, but on the money resolution, to which the hon. Gentleman must relate his comments.
  Mr. Dickens: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You always remind me of such matters. However, had you been in the Chair a little earlier you would have known that I was replying to some figures given by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). I felt entitled to do so, but, having done so and having received your guidance, I shall now move on.
  I was talking about the person who walks by with a crutch and then suddenly tucks it under his arm and runs for the bus. Others have reported to me that they sometimes see people who receive invalidity benefit kicking a football with their children or grandchildren at weekends. Other people struggle with arthritis and various conditions, but do not claim invalidity benefit; even were they to do so, they probably would not receive it.
  Mr. Derek Enright: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people should not cheat to obtain money. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in condemning companies such as Unicorn which, assisted by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), received £200,000 from a Government organisation and was then completely forgiven and did not have to repay the money?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was not relevant to the subject under discussion.
  Mr. Dickens: I shall not respond to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have ruled it out of order.
  With the health service and the—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Money resolution.
  Mr. Dickens: Yes, it is the money resolution—I am most obliged. We need the money to ensure that the Bill can be successfully drafted and we can deal with

  127
  amendments. It is important to the nation—to the taxpayers and those who pay contributions. We cannot allow such people to be bled by others who are not genuine claimants. By the same token, it is important that those who are in genuine need of the support, receive it, which is what government is all about.
  The vast majority of people on invalidity benefit have nothing to fear. If they are genuinely in need—they know whether they are—they have nothing to fear. We owe it to the nation—to those who pay contributions and tax—to ensure that the money goes where it is due. Therefore, we need a money resolution to complete the terms of the important legislation. We can no longer allow such extravagant expenditure; we must control waste, which includes giving benefits to those who are not entitled to them.
  People can contribute by filling in a form listing all their ailments. If the Department's doctors wish to see such claimants, they will be seen. Most cases will involve genuine claimants whose ailments and diseases will be included on the shopping list so that they qualify for benefit virtually automatically. I am sure that the Minister can clarify that.
  Other hon. Members are dying to contribute to the debate. I know the sparkling contributions that are made night after night, particularly at this time, to keep us all happy and up so late. Therefore, I shall now allow those other hon. Members to contribute.
  10.34 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Following the series of prejudices that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) has just advertised, I should like to direct the attention of the House back to the Bill's possible financial effects on communities such as mine. I refer not just to individuals but to whole communities. Putting aside the argument about the tests, I want to make the point that this measure envisages the withdrawal of the purchasing power of about £550 million in 1995–96 and the removal of £1·4 billion from communities such as mine. Collective purchasing power will be affected quite seriously.
  That is a very important point. Most of the expenditure that is generated by a benefit of this kind is quickly recycled into the local community in one way or another. That is why I say that in constituencies such as mine the Bill will result in a considerable reduction in purchasing power.
  I have been working on a study of Whitehall's reaction to the economic crisis that communities such as mine faced in the 1930s. There are some very interesting and eerie parallels between the 1930s and the 1980s. Let me mention one of the most interesting differences. The purchasing power of people in communities such as the one that I represent survived the recession of the 1980s, despite the fact that, in many ways, it was just as bad as that of the 1930s. In constituencies such as Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, 40 per cent. of men of working age are now economically inactive. More than 20 per cent. of them are unemployed, and the rest are otherwise economically inactive.
  The difference between the recession of the 1930s and that of the 1980s is accounted for by the post-war pattern
  128
  of regular employment, during which people accumulated contributory rights and benefits. Forty years of reasonably regular full employment, with occupational and contribution schemes, have rendered the recession of the 1980s recession far less disastrous than that of the 1930s. In the past decade, and more, some of the money deriving from those rights and benefits was drawn upon.
  In the mid-1980s, many disabled people took the small copper handshake that was available to them, together with the benefits to which they were entitled—in particular, invalidity benefit. A combination of those benefits and occupational pensions sustained purchasing power that would otherwise have collapsed disastrously. That was the major difference between the 1930s and the 1980s.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the people to whom he has referred had to stop work early because of ill health? The nature of the work done by people in constituencies such as his and mine, as well as those of many other Opposition Members, renders them unfit to continue to work until the normal retirement age. Only the protection that they have at present has enabled them to get by.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has just described the situation in my constituency. Many people suffering from some form of disability carried on while they were in long-standing employment. When that employment was broken, they accepted early retirement with modest redundancy compensation in addition to their invalidity benefit. My hon. Friend was right to remind people that we are talking about a contributory benefit. One qualifies for it only by working and building up contributions.
  I am drawing attention to the qualitive difference between the recession of the 1980s and that of the 1930s. In my constituency, regular employment, as opposed to casual labour, enabled people to build up a series of benefits, which have been drawn upon in the 1980s and the early 1990s. Thus, people have been able to sustain a certain amount of purchasing power. We have not seen the collapse that was so evident and led to mass unemployment in the 1930s. People have somehow been able to sustain a reasonably decent standard of living—nothing great, but at least different from the position in the 1930s. Invalidity benefit has played a significant role in that, because it is not means-tested. It is a benefit as of right. In addition, it is a valuable benefit for so many people who have disabilities.
  What will be the impact in communities such as mine of the large-scale and substantial withdrawal of potential purchasing power, as set out in the financial effects of the Bill? The removal of £ 550 million worth of purchasing power from a significant group of society will have a significant effect. In the Merthyr, Cynon and Rhymney valleys social security area, 28,000 people receive benefit. One must assume that a fair percentage of those people will not qualify for the new benefit. In addition, a large percentage of claimants who would normally have had justified claims, will not receive benefit. That would have to happen or the savings could not be made. What will happen to a significant element of the purchasing power in our societies as a result of the financial effects of the Bill? Has anyone thought the point through?
  I would not call it connivance, but we are all aware that invalidity benefit played a major role in some people's decisions to retire early in the 1980s and not to fight for their jobs to the bitter end. That benefit was one of the

  129
  reasons why the miners left their jobs voluntarily. They knew that they could carry with them their redundancy payments and, if they had the appropriate disabilities, they would also receive invalidity benefit.
  Invalidity benefit has played a role in the restructuring of employment in many of our communities. It has led to the high inactivity rates of the kind to which I have referred. As I said, 40 per cent. of men of working age in my community are inactive. The notion that people in their mid-50s will be able to return suddenly to the labour market is wrong.
  An absurd example was brought to my attention recently. A person appealed against the board's decision to remove invalidity benefit. It was accepted that he could scarcely walk or stand. However, it was suggested that he might find a job as a security officer in a masonic lodge. That is the kind of unbelievable and curious proposal that is already being made under the existing system to deny people from benefiting from rights of that kind.
  Mr. Dickens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rowlands: No, I will not give way as the hon. Gentleman has already had a fair crack of the whip.
  I wanted to draw to the attention of the House the rather broader context in which the figures should be seen and express concern, which I hope the House shares, about the impact of the financial effects of the Bill on communities such as mine.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: This money resolution is the consequence of the "back to basics" policy referred to at the Tory party conference. Let there be no mistake about that. The Secretary of State for Social Security has been accused by the Prime Minister of hijacking the Prime Minister's policy and we are now discussing the financial consequences of that theft of the Prime Minister's policy.
  I should like to think that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) did not mean some of the things that he said. He was truly insulting to the weakest, poorest and least advantaged in our country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said earlier, in two years we will take £1·4 billion of purchasing power from the poorest and the people who can least afford to lose that money from their spending power. Those people and the local economies will suffer drastically.
  The Minister said that part of the reason for the money resolution is to finance an increase in expenditure to implement the new formula for removing 400,000, 500,000, or 600,000 from invalidity benefit.
  Conservative Members are attacking people whom they say are receiving the benefit when they should not be in receipt of it. They said, literally, that they are defrauding the state by claiming benefit to which they are not entitled.
  Mr. Dickens: Did the hon. Gentleman listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who said that coal miners were made redundant and that they came out of the mines—fit to be coal miners—and claimed invalidity benefit? By the hon. Gentleman's own admission, there are people who are playing the system.
  Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Nothing that I said could be interpreted in that way, and I ask the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) to withdraw that comment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of what is said.
  Mr. Hood: As a former miner and a former union secretary, I will explain just how that happened in the coal industry. When pits were being closed and people were being made redundant, a sizeable proportion of the work force were off work, sick and disabled. People were not on invalidity benefit just because they were working one day and not the next. That is nonsense and it proves that that is the Government's thinking. They do not understand how the system works. I do not see many people on invalidity benefit who are not entitled to be on it. Hon. Members will be receiving letters from constituents who are on low incomes through invalidity benefit and who will lose more than £30 a week. We are talking of perhaps as much as 30 to 40 per cent. of income. If Conservative Members lost 30 or 40 per cent. of their incomes, we would hear one or two noises.
  There is nothing to be proud of when the Minister tells us that the money resolution allows extra expenditure to work out a system that deprives the sick and disabled from what they have been receiving, which at present is not a lot of money. We are not talking about massive amounts of money. All too often, we are talking about the difference between surviving and not surviving. We should be aware of what we are doing.
  The Bill has nothing to do with providing better management of our social security system; it is about false savings. When we take from the least advantaged—the sick and the disabled—something else has to give. Something else has to provide for them. It might be hospitals or nursing homes. When we cannot sustain people in the community after cutting their incomes, they have to be institutionalised, which puts further burdens on the public purse.
  The measure will prove not to be a saving in real terms. It is harsh and—dare I use the word in these times—truly immoral. There is nothing to be proud of in the money resolution. I ask Conservative Members not to mock those who are least able to defend themselves. I remind them that there is a duty on the Government to seek to improve the quality of life of their poorest citizen. Any Government who seek not to do that are immoral. Conservative Members should think of that as they walk through the Lobby tonight.
  10.48 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister introduced the money resolution by suggesting that there are three aspects involved, two of which involved increased expenditure on benefits and one which he dismissed in a sentence—"increased costs of administration." That administration, which involves a staff increase of approximately 1,100, is designed to replace doctors who have been accepted as people of integrity and honesty. The administration will get people away from doctors, so that the hand of Whitehall can transfer people from benefits such as invalidity benefit and put them on reduced income support, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) has said.

  131
  There is a rich air of hypocrisy about the Government. Most Conservative Members receive their income as Members of Parliament and supplement it with outside earnings and speculation, and they talk about discipline. When anybody talks about discipline in this place, it is never meant for themselves. It is always about other people, and it is always about other people who are in a much inferior financial position. The Minister, for example, dismissed in a sentence the administration and the costs which will be incurred. That administration will bear down on ordinary people and will knock a few quid a week off their expenditure to get the Government out of the economic hole in which they have got themselves by their incompetence. The poor—yet again—will pay.
  The system introduced by the Minister tonight is extremely unfair and incompetent in a parliamentary sense. Parliament has been told that there will be administrative costs estimated at £40 million, which will certainly involve the employment of 1,100 people. What would be the normal response of the Tories when they were told that 1,100 extra civil servants were to be taken on? They would look askance. However, they will not do so in this case because those 1,100 people will be applying regulations to oppress the poor, sick and needy.
  The Minister has not included the outline of the way in which the legislation will be presented. It is not in the Bill, and it will be brought before the House by regulations and by statutory instruments. In some cases, they will be affirmative statutory instruments and we will have a chance to debate the issue in a debate just twice the length of tonight's debate—an hour and a half instead of 45 minutes. We will have no chance of making amendments. All Government Members who troop through the Lobby tonight will have no chance to amend the legislation which will be brought forward by the Minister and his civil servants and by nobody else. It will be a fait accompli.
  Some of the legislation will be put forward under the negative procedure, so unless there is a prayer there will be no debate at all. That is how £40 million and 1,100 people will be administered—they will be simply handed over to a ministerial fiat. The Tories will go on accepting that, and then they will go outside and talk about democracy. Their actions will in effect hand over important powers to a Minister who will then administer enormous sums of money.
  My hon. Friends have made it clear that the Minister will exercise significant powers through the negative procedure, as the Leader of the House rarely concedes time for the Opposition to debate prayers. The Minister's powers may also wreck the recovery in several areas, particularly in industrial areas, where many people on invalidity benefit are concentrated by virtue of the work that they have undertaken.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend consider the points which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) about the consequences for my area? I estimate that, in west Cumbria, we receive £16 million per annum in invalidity benefit. If the Government were to cut benefits on the scale that they proposed today and tightened the criteria, as much as half of that money, depending on how heavy the cuts were, would no longer go into west
  132
  Cumbria. That would take £8 million out of the local economy. It would have a major impact on small businesses, retailers and shopkeepers.
  It one takes the turnover of a good shop to be about £100,000, simply reducing a single benefit on which a community has become reliant might affect 40, 50, 60, 70 or 80 shops. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was making. The reductions will have a considerable impact on many of our areas.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. The impact is not in question. The financial effects of the Bill are outlined in the introductory paragaphs, which say that the Bill is designed to save £550 million in 1995–96 and one and a half billion pounds the following year. That is £2 billion in two years. Those are significant sums of money. The money resolution is designed to authorise expenditure on the Whitehall bureaucrats who will oppress the poor and sick on invalidity benefit to produce those savings. There are other savings elsewhere, but by and large that is a reasonable example to use.
  The proposed changes to invalidity benefit, together with the taxes that the Tory Government have increased more than any Labour Government ever did, will mean that the so-called recovery, which Tory Members—[Interruptioni]—including the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who is babbling on at the moment—proclaimed will certainly not move much further. Indeed, we shall move back into recession. I see that the Minister is getting slightly restless; he is raising his eyebrows. His usual attitude to oppressing the poor is one of studied indifference.
  I shall complete my remarks by saying that the money resolution is not needed and not wanted. We want to employ more people, we do not want them to oppress people on benefit. We do not want to attack doctors, as the Bill does. Conservative Members have given hints, nods and winks that there are people on invalidity benefit who are dodging the column: no names, no doctor has been mentioned. There has been a general smear of people in the worst position of all—those on low incomes, and invalids to boot. We should vote against the money resolution, thus demonstrating our protest against a wicked, evil, uncaring Government.
  10.57 pm
  Mr. Scott: I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and reinforced by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). It was overstated because one must remember that all existing beneficiaries of invalidity benefit will continue to receive it. Everything apart from the additional pension will be uprated year by year. So the purchasing power only of those who failed the new test for one reason or another would be removed. If they failed the test, they would go back into work or on to other benefits. The impact on purchasing power in local areas has been overstated.
  I promise the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that I understand the impact that invalidity benefit had when large-scale redundancies took place.
  Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: With the greatest respect, I do not have time.

  133
  I understand that invalidity benefit helped to massage the process of redundancies and probably did a good job. But it was not the purpose for which invalidity benefit was established. Nor should we retain that approach to the new incapacity benefit. It is worth reminding ourselves that existing beneficiaries will not be affected by the change.
  The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) asked why no long-term projections, beyond the next two years, had been offered. The figures given in the money resolution relate to the remainder of the public expenditure survey period, which is up to and including 1996–97. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the split between total savings and the savings that would result from the application of the new medical test in 1995–96. I estimate that savings of £200 million will be made.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about ratio costs and the savings changes to be made in the next two years. That interaction is a complex one, and to try to explain it in the remaining moments of the debate would be a mistake. I will write to the hon. Gentleman to make the position clear.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 139.

  Division No. 88]

  [11pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Churchill, Mr

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clappison, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Amess, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Congdon, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Conway, Derek

  Ashby, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyro For'st)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Atkins, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Couchman, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Cran, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

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

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Day, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Devlin, Tim

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dicks, Terry

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Booth, Hartley

  Dover, Den

  Boswell, Tim

  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

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Butler, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Butterfill, John

  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

  Cash, William

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  134

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Maclean, David

  French, Douglas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fry, Sir Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Madel, Sir David

  Gallie, Phil

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Malone, Gerald

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mans, Keith

  Garnier, Edward

  Marlow, Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mates, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gorst, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hague, William

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Norris, Steve

  Hawkins, Nick

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hawksley, Warren

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayes, Jerry

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Page, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Paice, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hicks, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pawsey, James

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sackville, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sims, Roger

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

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knox, Sir David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Legg, Barry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Sproat, Iain

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lidington, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lightbown, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Stern, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Stewart, Allan

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Streeter, Gary

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sumberg, David

  135

  Sweeney, Walter

  Waller, Gary

  Sykes, John

  Ward, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wells, Bowen

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Thomason, Roy

  Whittingdale, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Willetts, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wilshire, David

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

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Tredinnick, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trend, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Trotter, Neville

  Yeo, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Viggers, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Walden, George

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Enright, Derek

  Allen, Graham

  Etherington, Bill

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Austin-Walker, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barnes, Harry

  Fisher, Mark

  Barron, Kevin

  Flynn, Paul

  Battle, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bayley, Hugh

  Foulkes, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fraser, John

  Betts, Clive

  Fyfe, Maria

  Boateng, Paul

  George, Bruce

  Bradley, Keith

  Gerrard, Neil

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

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Burden, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caborn, Richard

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hall, Mike

  Cann, Jamie

  Hanson, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cohen, Harry

  Home Robertson, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cox, Tom

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunningham, Jim (CovySE)

  Hutton, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  Darling, Alistair

  Ingram, Adam

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

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

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dixon, Don

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  136

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Purchase, Ken

  Lewis, Terry

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Redmond, Martin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Reid, Dr John

  McCartney, Ian

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rogers, Allan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rowlands, Ted

  McWilliam, John

  Salmond, Alex

  Madden, Max

  Short, Clare

  Mahon, Alice

  Simpson, Alan

  Mandelson, Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Snape, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Martlew, Eric

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Meale, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michael, Alun

  Stevenson, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Stott, Roger

  Milbum, Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Miller, Andrew

  Turner, Dennis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Walley, Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mudie, George

  Watson, Mike

  Murphy, Paul

  Welsh, Andrew

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Olner, William

  Wise, Audrey

  Parry, Robert

  Wray, Jimmy

  Patchett, Terry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Prescott, John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of that Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.

  SUNDAY TRADING BILL
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the Order [29th November] relating to committal, Standing Committee A be discharged from considering any new Clause or new Schedule relating to the employment of shop workers in respect of the Sunday Trading Bill and that any such new Clause or new Schedule be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

  HEALTH
  Ordered,
  That Mr. James Clappison be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. lain Duncan Smith be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Ambulance Service (Staffordshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this. House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  11.13 pm
  Ms Joan Walley: I welcome and am grateful for this opportunity to raise a most pressing matter for the people of north Staffordshire. It is the issue of why the non-emergency patient transport services contract has been let unfairly and in such a way that not only will the current level of provision for the people of north Staffordshire be cut, but the entire ambulance service in Staffordshire will be undermined, including accident and emergency, and our excellent trauma centre.
  It is a bit like a "Casualty" script. I first learned of the position just before Christmas, when a constituent wrote to me:
  "It not only degrades our jobs—which we do with pride and dignity—but also degrades the National Health Service for which our fathers and forefathers fought hard and long."
  Along with other hon. Members representing, north Staffordshire, who are present this evening, I have gone into the matter in considerable detail. We have met ambulance workers in Kidsgrove and Stoke; we have tabled an early-day motion; we have raised the matter in business questions; we have met the leader of Stoke-on-Trent city council, and members of the community health council; we have met representatives of North Staffordshire district health authority and the West Midlands ambulance trust.
  We have met Staffordshire people who are 'worried about the future of our ambulance service. Last Thursday, we accompanied ambulance workers who had come down —in their ambulance—to present the Prime Minister with a petition bearing thousands of signatures. I raised the matter in a debate on waste and bureaucracy in the national health service, while eight workers lobbied Parliament in an attempt to retain the present level of ambulance 'work in Staffordshire.
  So far, however, all that has been to no avail. That is why I particularly welcome this opportunity to put the details of the case to the Minister, together with my colleagues from north Staffordshire.
  Last week, Parliament was lobbied by eight of the lowest-paid workers. They simply want to continue providing the level of service that they currently provide, and to keep their jobs without having their wages cut from £4·86 an hour to £3·26. That says it all. They care—not just about their jobs, but about the people who depend on their service. They do not want that service to be cut.
  Mr. George Stevenson: Does not the crazy system of tendering on which the Government insist have one inevitable result? It drives down pay and conditions, and in this instance it will lead to a reduction in the excellent service that Staffordshire ambulance people have provided until now.
  Ms Walley: Absolutely: my hon. Friend has put it in a nutshell.
  I hope that the Minister will take full account of what has been said. It has been pointed out that the ambulance workers could end up earning nothing at all, because pay rates will be cut more and more. Why on earth, for the sake of market forces dogma, should any Government in their
  138
  right mind risk dismantling a quality ambulance service like ours in Staffordshire, which has been built up over the years by local people?
  Has the Minister taken the trouble to visit Staffordshire and see the high standard of work for himself—and, equally important, the current level of service? Who was invited by the Secretary of State to advise the Department of Health on quality service? Why did the Department turn to Staffordshire for advice if it does not recognise Staffordshire's excellent standards?
  Is the Minister aware that the Staffordshire ambulance trust prides itself on its training, its progressive career structure for both men and women and the interrelationship between non-emergency and accident and emergency services, which complement each other? When we met the chairman of North Staffordshire district health authority, he expressed his concern about the possible implications for Staffordshire's accident and emergency services.
  Why is not just the non-emergency but the accident and emergency service now under threat? Is it now deliberate Government policy to subject every part of the national health service to compulsory competitive tendering, or are there certain aspects, such as clinical services, which the Government can guarantee will not be privatised? Will the Minister give me an undertaking that in Staffordshire the accident and emergency contracts will not be put out to tender?
  Where does the Minister draw the line? There is a very thin dividing line between accident and emergency work and non-emergency work, and we need to be aware of where that line is. That is why what is being done to the Staffordshire ambulance service is so important for the rest of the country, not just for people in Staffordshire.
  I deal now with the details of the decision taken by the North Staffordshire hospital trust and the North Staffordshire district health authority, as the shadow combined health care trust was when the tendering process first began, to award the patient transport services contract to the West Midlands ambulance trust.
  The decision means that the Staffordshire ambulance trust, which provides the service now and which also competed for the tender, is having to make redundant 72 of the most dedicated, hard-working and loyal staff anywhere in the country. I and my constituents know that. There is a sense of farce about every non-emergency worker being made redundant and 42 of the 72 being re-employed on reduced pay.
  It could be said that the issue is entirely a matter for the trade unions, and that that which relates to employment legislation is a matter for Unison. I agree, and I hope that Unison, in which I have a declared interest, will be able to proceed with a legal challenge so that the transfer of undertakings safeguards, so reluctantly incorporated in last year's employment legislation, would apply. That, however, is not my concern now. My concern now is one of accountability and the way in which the specification for the patient contract service has been drawn up, handled and upheld by what I can only call bungling bureaucrats.
  We should at least let the Minister satisfy himself that the patient transfer service contract has been market-tested fairly. Let him give us an assurance—later, if necessary, and at a separate meeting in Richmond house, if necessary —that what has been done was not in breach of NHS guidance, his own NHS guidance, which was modified only as recently as last November.

  139
  I believe that, once the Minister has had the opportunity to examine in detail exactly what has happened, he will not come to any conclusion other than that the contract will have to be drawn up again.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: Does my hon. Friend share my concern, which I hope the Minister will share, that, as the new trust is getting rid of the ambulance stations, ambulance staff will be required to take home their ambulances and park them outside their houses at night? They will have to take personal responsibility for their safety and care. If the ambulances are damaged, the staff will be personally responsible for any excess on the insurance policies. It seems an extraordinary element of a contract. I hope that the Minister will agree with my hon. Friend, our colleagues and me that it is not standard practice in the national health service, and is in breach of various staff conditions and assurances.
  Ms Walley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. In our discussions with ambulance workers, it has been clear that it is expected that, on certain days, it will be necessary for workers to take their ambulances home with them after 8 pm.
  When that was mentioned on BBC Radio Stoke, it caused an uproar among people listening to the radio. Like us, our constituents understand that, if an ambulance is parked outside someone's home at the moment, when there is an awful lot of car theft, there may be ambulance theft. What will happen on cold mornings or cold nights when it is not possible to start the ambulance because it has not been properly kept and maintained in a depot?
  When we saw the new contract of employment, and when we had discussed it with the West Midlands ambulance trust, we were not satisfied with it. I do not think that the Minister can have any confidence that the new contract that has been drawn up will satisfactorily provide the patient services contract in north Staffordshire.
  What has happened is lengthy, complex and technical. I know that the Minister comes from Bolton; like us, Bolton has a very good football team, although in Stoke-on-Trent we have two very good football teams. I am sure that he knows all about fair play, because he is a football supporter. I would like to ask him this evening about fair play.
  Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why the EC services directive, which came into force on 1 July, does not apply in our case? Why do the Treasury guidance notes to that directive suggest otherwise? Does the Minister agree or disagree with the Treasury? Not everyone can get away with not following Treasury guidelines. Why does the regional health authority appear to be at odds with the Treasury? Why is it that the guidance notes updating those of June 1993, "Competing for Quality", endorsed by the Management Executive, have not been applied? How can there be any accountability when the Minister approves rules and regulations but they are not followed by the west midlands region and then the regional health authority and management outpost, acting as arbiter, say that the rules did not apply anyway?
  140
  There are many players in this casualty farce, which is fast becoming a tragedy in north Staffordshire. I see that the Minister is listening attentively, and I hope that he will reply to my arguments.
  Just as my constituents and the constituents of my hon. Friends had no opportunity to voice their views to the national health service locally, so the Staffordshire ambulance trust has not been provided with an opportunity for a real hearing with real independent arbitration at the false arbitration which was organised recently.
  There has not even been any natural justice as far as I can see, but we are asking for it through this debate. There is no way that Staffordshire ambulance trust would have been beaten by West Midlands in a fair match. Why was there insufficient detail in the original specification drawn up by the North Staffordshire hospital trust and the district health authority, subsequently to have been taken over by the shadow combined health care trust? That is bound to lead to cuts in service and quality.
  Why, when Staffordshire ambulance trust offered to provide the relevant information, was that offer rejected? As a result, the Staffordshire ambulance trust had to cost its bid on the basis of actual activity levels, whereas the competing tenderers were free to make their own assumptions about the requirements. Why did a major player in the contract—Combined Health Care—appear to play no part at all?
  I have recently had a letter from the chief executive of the North Staffordshire district health authority, telling me that I can expect a reply by the end of the month, but by the end of the month it will be too late to do anything about the quality of service and the jobs that we are talking about. The result, as I understand it, is that the contract will be varied to take into account mistakes made earlier. That is of no use to the Staffordshire ambulance trust, because it has lost the contract and been kicked out of play.
  The result is that the hospital trust will be able to show a paper saving, a result of market testing, of about £250,000 when is comes to filling in the balance sheets on 1 April, but we say that that excludes the cost of redundancies. How can the Minister justify those redundancies? How much will the redundancies cost—about £100,000?
  Nor does that clean balance sheet take any account whatever of the cost of setting up a new contract, which I guess will be about £75,000. Nor does that balance sheet take any account of the disposal of 37 good ambulances. How much will that cost? Will it cost about £500,000? How can we throw 37 good ambulances, which have been properly maintained in north Staffordshire, on the scrap heap? What kind of a health policy is that?
  All those points do not even consider the demoralisation of staff, who are required to work longer hours for less money and to take their vehicles home, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has already said, and to provide their own insurance cover. What kind of a contract is that?
  What about women and equal opportunities? We have heard a lot from the Minister and from the Prime Minister about Opportunity 2000 and women in the national health service. Indeed, a campaign was launched by the Prime Minister himself in October 1991. He was clearly talking about football again when he said:
  "The NHS goal is to realise the potential of the female workforce within the Health Service so that we might effectively meet the healthcare needs of the population".

  141
  We have a working party in north Staffordshire, of which I am proud, which considers that undertaking to bring more women into the health service and how that can be achieved. In that Opportunity 2000 document, there is even a commitment to flexible working practice. How does the Minister square that with the women who currently work part-time for the ambulance service trust in Staffordshire? Those jobs fit in with their child care responsibilities, but they are being told that, under the new contract, there will no longer be any part-time work or further flexibility.
  There is a sense of deep outrage in Staffordshire, as the quick collection of thousands of names on the petition so readily showed, and especially because our community has no means of challenging the bureaucrats who have made the decision. There does not seem to be any local accountability in the national health service any more and it is time that the Minister listened to the views and wishes of local people.
  I have a feeling that, somehow, the people in the NHS think that the issue of the Staffordshire ambulance service will go away. I offer the Minister an opportunity to tell us, not necessarily in the remainder of the Adjournment debate, but through a subsequent meeting, how he can work with us, understand the sense of outrage and do something about it.
  11.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to some of the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). First, I shall recap on precisely what has happened. The hon. Lady is aware that there is a system in the health service of purchasers and providers under which purchasers—health authorities—have to make their own judgments of what services they can contract for the good of patients. They make judgments based on what they perceive to be the best value for patients.
  For many years now, hospitals have been able to market-test services that are provided to them. They are required to market-test certain services, such as cleaning, catering and laundry, and they can, if they so wish, put out other services to tender to see whether there are providers other than their own staff, or whoever is already providing that service, who may be able to provide a better service. That has happened in the case to which the hon. Lady has referred.
  As the hon. Lady rightly said, North Staffordshire hospital's NHS trust and North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare saw an advantage in looking for better value and quality of service by putting the passenger transport service out to tender. As she has rightly said, they have awarded the contract to West Midlands. That is a perfectly normal procedure in the health service.
  The hon. Lady may remember that Staffordshire won an ambulance contract from West Midlands and now operates the service in Wolverhampton. That is because a decision was taken that the service worked better in that way. I repeat that that is a perfectly normal procedure. Every hospital has to decide who should provide the various services for it, and it must decide on the basis of how it perceives the value of that service to patients.
  Ms Walley: Can the Minister tell us why there was no lesser quality of service in Wolverhampton but we will have a lesser quality of service in Staffordshire?
  Mr. Sackville: I would certainly dispute that. I have looked into the matter. As the hon. Lady is aware, officials of the region and of my Department have looked into the question whether the contract was properly let, and have concluded that both ambulance services were bidding on the same basis and against the same specification. There is no evidence that I have found—if I had found any evidence, I should be most concerned—that there was some inequity of specification in the basis on which they were bidding.
  Clearly there are points to be made about wage structure. The hon. Lady has told the House that the wages offered are a quarter less than those currently being offered. She should be aware, however, that, although the basic wage is lower, there are allowances that make up the total remuneration to a figure above what is now being paid. [Interruption.]I am assured of that, and I have no reason to think otherwise.
  If the hon. Lady cares to investigate the wages under the Wolverhampton contract, she will find that that is exactly the difference between the wage structure of Staffordshire and the wage structure of the West Midlands ambulance service. The hon. Lady will also be aware that, as of now, some 49 of the Staffordshire employees have applied for jobs with West Midlands in relation to the contract.
  The hon. Lady asked me certain specific questions, some of which I shall try to deal with now, and others of which I shall deal with in writing or at a subsequent meeting if she wishes. She asked whether I have visited to find out what an excellent service is being offered. The Staffordshire service is one of the very few ambulance services that I have not visited in the past 18 months. I am sure that I shall have an opportunity to do so soon. I have no reason to believe that the service was defective. I am well aware that there is an excellent accident and emergency service in Staffordshire, and I have no reason to suppose that that is undermined or threatened by the arrangements. I certainly have no evidence of that.
  The hon. Lady asked me whether I could draw a line under what is capable of being put out to tender. The answer is that there is no line of which I am aware. If, in the opinion of any hospital, a service would be better provided for the benefit of patients by some other provider, the hospital has the opportunity to explore that possibility. It is also possible for emergency services to be put out to tender.
  The hon. Lady may be aware that the contract for the Coventry accident and emergency service is now out to tender, and I am told that Warwickshire is bidding for it. I do not know whether it will be successful, but the local authorities have decided that they think that it may be possible for someone else to do a better job. That is the reason why they are there. The Secretary of State appoints chairmen of health authorities precisely to make such decisions.
  The hon. Lady asked whether I was satisfied that the contract had been properly let—whether it breached any guidelines or rules. I am assured that it does not breach EC directives. It does not breach other rules. I am told that the proposal is that it should come into force a month later,

  143
  subject to the arbitration that took place at the region because there was a technical breach of the six-month rule in the original arrangements.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) asked me about insurance and responsibility for vehicles. I cannot answer his question now, but shall do so in writing. Clearly, it is important that, if there are such changes, they should be separately negotiated. I am afraid that I have no knowledge of that at present.
  Staffordshire ambulance service provides an excellent accident and emergency service. The figures suggest that it has a high Orcon response level. I have no reason to suppose that the service is being undermined by the arrangements. Such a change obviously produces unwelcome disruption. I hope that everyone involved will
  144
  take the trouble to ensure that as many staff as possible can be redeployed, and disruption and problems are kept to a minimum.
  I am afraid that, after investigation, I am unable to say that the contract is in breach of the rules.
  Ms Walley: What sort of inquiry has the Minister carried out? On what basis has he said what he has just said to the House?
  Mr. Sackville: As always in such cases, following the hon. Lady's intervention, I asked the officials in my Department to look carefully at the arbitration to find out exactly what was said and agreed. and to look into the allegations that the contract was breached. The answer that I have come up with is that it was not. Therefore, I have no reason to accede to the hon. Lady's request to intervene.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve midnight.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Property Investment Advisers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners who are the current property investment advisers to the Church Commissioners; and for how long they have been retained in that position.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners' assets committee is advised on property matters by a group comprising Mr. J. H. M. Newsum, BSc., FRICS, Mr. G. E. Richardson, FRICS, and Sir Christopher Wates, FCA, which was set up last year. DTZ Debenham Thorpe were also appointed last year to provide independent valuations of, and strategic advice on, commercial property investments. The committee also receives advice from the following firms of chartered surveyors, to which properties have been entrusted for day-to-day management:

  Since:

  Chestertons

  1954

  Cluttons

  1948

  Donaldsons

  1988

  Hillier Parker May and Rowden

  1983

  Smith Gore

  1948

  Victor Behrens, Sandhurst and Co

  1973

  Wardell Armstrong

  1982

NATIONAL FINANCE

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics" policy for his Department during 1994.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what working definition of "back to basics" is used by his Department; and what his Department has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 January at column 849.

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will quantify the cost of the factors which led to an increase in the cost of cars for Ministers in his Department since 1990–91.

  Mr. Nelson
  There are two main factors which have led to an increase in the cost per Government car service car 2
  for Ministers in my Department. The first is the effect of inflation which, since 1990–91, has added some 12 per cent. to GCS costs, particularly pay, vehicles and fuel. The second factor is that during the period the GCS restructured its charge to reflect the fact that it had been under-recovering its costs by some 15 per cent.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Government Departments have had responsibility for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise Department since 1979.

  Sir John Cope
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is a separate Department of Government managed by commissioners appointed by the Queen. Treasury Ministers have, for the period from 1979—and long before —had responsibility for the Department.

  Value Added Tax (Service Charges)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent and in what circumstances VAT will be added to service charges in respect of the supply of energy.

  Sir John Cope
  Certain services associated with the supply of energy, for example maintenance of appliances and pipes on the consumer's side of the meter, are already subject to the standard rate of VAT. Other services which are currently seen as an integral part of the supply of energy, such as meter rental and disconnection and reconnection services, will continue to follow the liability of the fuel and for domestic consumers will therefore be subject to 8 per cent. VAT from 1 April 1994 and the standard rate from 1 April 1995. First-time connection to the gas and electricity mains will, however, continue to be relieved for VAT.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, columns 357–58, what estimate he has made of the additional costs, net of any reduction in employer's national insurance contributions, to his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95 resulting from the changes in statutory sick pay provision.

  Mr. Nelson
  I estimate that there will be no net extra cost.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the organisation of executive offices in the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue has today announced further moves towards a smaller number of larger executive offices.

  With effect from 1 April 1994 the controller of claims branch will assume responsibility for the office of the inspector of foreign dividends and the two executive offices will be managed as one.

  Also with effect from 1 April 1994 the controller of the capital taxes offices—England, Wales and Northern Ireland—will assume responsibility for the capital taxes office—Scotland—and the two offices will be managed as one.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the additional costs, net of any reduction in employer's national insurance contributions, to his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95 resulting from the changes in statutory sick pay provision.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The provision for statutory sick pay is included within the Department's existing running costs baseline. The cost to the Department of statutory sick pay is notional. Any additional cost to the Department arising from the need to cover sick absence would be absorbed within the baseline.

  Patient S
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department why the case of Patient S which was heard on Friday 14 January was heard in camera; and why the patient was not named.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In accordance with rule 36 of the Court of Protection Rules 1984 all patients' cases are heard in chambers to which the public have no access unless the judge otherwise directs. This rule is designed to protect the anonymity of mentally inacapable patients should they ever recover.

  Liverpool Legal Aid Board
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his latest estimate for 1993–94 of the percentage of legal aid applications processed by(a) the Merseyside area office and (b) the Liverpool legal aid board within (i) two weeks and (ii) six weeks.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is only one legal aid area office in Liverpool, which serves the Merseyside area. The targets set by the Legal Aid Board nationally for processing legal aid applications in 1993–94 are 70 per cent. within two weeks and 90 per cent. within six weeks. The performance of the Liverpool area office in the year to date—from 1 April 1993 to November 1993, the most recent month for which figures are available—has been 70·3 per cent. of applications within two weeks and 93·5 per cent. within six weeks. It is estimated that for the year as a whole Liverpool area office will more than meet the national performance targets.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects the Liverpool legal aid board will achieve BS5750 accreditation; what the cost is of gaining accreditation; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for seeking BS5750 accreditation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Board as a whole, including the Liverpool area office, received accreditation

  Amount sent

  Purchase price

  Postage cost

  Cost in staff time

  Lord Chancellor

  201

  Own purchase

  £53

  £72

  Parliamentary Secretary

  50

  £13

  £6

  £44

  4
  under BS5750 from Lloyd's register quality assurance in November 1993. The cost attributable to accrediting the Liverpool area office was approximately £20,000.

  The board's purpose in adopting BS5750 was to become more efficient throughout the organisation by adopting, so far as possible, common, documented, working systems; to demonstrate a commitment to quality; and to provide assurance that the improved systems of control it had introduced and would be introducing in the future would be applied throughout the organisation on a consistent and correct basis.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of legal aid applications between 1992–93 were processed by the Liverpool legal aid board within(a) two weeks and (b) six weeks.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The targets set by the Legal Aid Board for processing legal aid applications in 1992–93 were 60 per cent. within two weeks and 85 per cent. within six weeks. The performance of the Liverpool area office was 73 per cent. of applications within two weeks and 92 per cent. within six weeks, both above the national average.

  Small Claims Court
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to reform the small claims court.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Significant changes were made to procedures in this forum in October 1992, including an increased responsibility for the judge to assist unrepresented parties in putting their case and provision for litigants to be assisted by lay representatives.

  Public consultation has recently taken place on proposals for the automatic reference of unliquidated claims falling below the small claims limit into this forum, and for a new procedure for small personal injury claims. My Department is currently analysing the response to his consultation.

  In the light of these changes, the Lord Chancellor does not currently have any intention of "reforming" the small claims arbitration procedure in any more extensive way, although he has been open about his intention to keep the small claims limit under review and to raise it in due course.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of Government agencies working in or to his Department, and how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is as follows:
  5

  Amount sent

  Purchase price

  Postage cost

  Cost in staff time

  Civil Servants

  1,168

  £1,028

  £226

  £155

  Agencies

  689

  £423

  £127

  £227

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make it his policy to publish the level of Export Credits Guarantee Department claims payments in regard to Iraq for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  The amounts paid out by year on ECGD's top claims markets are now detailed in the Department's annual report, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Since 1990–91 Iraq has featured in the list. ECGD's 1992–93 report will be presented to Parliament later this month.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Export Credits Guarantee Department loans were outstanding to Iraq at(a) 2 August 1990 and (b) 15 January 1991.

  Mr. Needham
  At the 2 August 1990 there were 28 ECGD-backed loans outstanding on Iraq. This total remained unchanged as at 15 January 1991.

  Allivane Group
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information his Department holds regarding the trading activities of(a) Allivane International Group and (b) Allivane International Ltd., respectively, with (i) Saudi Arabia, (ii) Jordan, (iii) Yugoslavia, (iv) Portugal, (v) Iran and (vi) Iraq since 1983.

  Mr. Needham
  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to disclose information supplied in confidence by or about applicants for export licences.

  Export Licence Applications
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under what conditions he is prepared to reveal details of particular export licensing applications.

  Mr. Needham
  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to disclose information supplied in confidence by or about applicants for export licences. However, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is prepared to disclose information in circumstances where he considers that the public interest overrides considerations of confidentiality. One such consideration is the need to avoid helping those who seek to evade export controls.

  Electric Cars
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department has given to the PSA (Peugeot)/City of Coventry Electric car project research into the viability of a pay-as-you-drive electric car hire scheme.
  6
  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Instruments of Torture (Export)
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's policy on the export of instruments of torture.

  Mr. Needham
  As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) on 12 January,Official Report, column 168, the Government deeply deprecate the export of any equipment knowingly to be used as an instrument of torture. The difficulty in this area lies in the fact that many perfectly innocuous goods may be misused for such purposes overseas and it is not practical to control the export of such items. However, if any such cases are brought to the Government's attention we shall make the strongest possible representations to those involved; if they are ignored, we will examine what steps could be taken to prevent export taking place. When realistic, enforceable controls are possible we can act urgently to impose them.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Renewable Energy Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Eggar
  The renewable Energy Advisory Committee consists of DTI and other Government officials and independent members. The independent members are as follows:

  Member

  Mr. Gerald Leach

  Consultant to the Stockholm Environment Institute

  Mr. Richard Morris

  Portlea Ltd.

  Mr. Alan Tweedale

  Energy Supplies Ltd.

  Dr. Gordon Walker

  SERC, Rutherford Appleton laboratory

  Dr. Ann Wheldon

  Department of Engineering, university of Reading

  Mr. J. Paul White

  Norweb plc

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Overseas Projects Board.

  Mr. Needham
  The members currently appointed to the Overseas Projects Board are:

  Overseas Projects Board

  Members

  Sir Alan Cockshaw

  Chairman

  AMEC plc

  Mr. C. H. Brown

  Chief Executive, British Gas plc

  Mr. B. P. Dewe Mathews

  Director, J. Henry Schroder Wagg and Co. Ltd.

  Professor G. Fleming BSc PhD

  Department of Civil Engineering

  University of Strathclyde

  7

  Mr. R. T. Fox CBE

  Vice Chairman, Kleinwort Benson Group plc

  Mr. S. Gillibrand CBE

  Vice Chairman, British Aerospace plc

  Mr. D. O. Lloyd

  Director, Sir William Halcrow and Partners Ltd.

  Mr. I. W. Reeves

  Chairman, High Point plc

  Mr. A. White CBE

  Chairman, Biwater Ltd.

  Mr. P. Hills

  Executive Director

  Samuel Montagu

  Mr. F. Kennedy

  Executive Board Director

  George Wimpey plc

  Sir Wilfrid Newton

  Chairman

  London Regional Transport

  Mr. D. Jefferies

  Chairman, National Grid Company

  Sir Desmond Pitcher

  Chairman

  North West Water Group

  Mr. P. L. Lockton CBE

  Managing Director

  Rolls-Royce India Ltd.

  Mr. K. A. Bray

  Managing Director

  GEC Asthom

  Mr. R. Beresford

  Managing Director

  Mott McDonald

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Export Guarantees Advisory Council.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:

  R. T. Fox, Esq, CBE (Chairman)

  A. G. Gormly, Esq, CBE (Deputy Chairman)

  Sir Robert Davidson

  B. P. Dewe Mathews, Esq

  T. M. Evans, Esq, CBE

  Sir Frank Lampl

  G. W. Lynch, Esq

  J. W. Melbourn, Esq, CBE

  D. B. Newlands, Esq

  C. R. Smallwood, Esq

  Sir Derek Thomas, KCMG

  Viscount Weir

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Council on Research and Development.

  Mr. Eggar
  ACORD has been dissolved. I announced this to the House at the same time as the membership of the new energy advisory panel on 27 October 1993,Official Report, columns 645–47.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal.
  8
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The chairmen and members currently appointed to the Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal are as follows:

  Chairmen:

  J. M. Bowers

  Retired solicitor

  J. P. Brooks

  Retired QC

  N. A. Halton

  Legal counsel, ESSO

  W. S. James

  Registrar in bankruptcy

  J. H. Vallat

  Barrister and solicitor

  Members:

  M. Clark

  Retired inspector general

  G. B. Duffin

  Retired accountant

  J. W. Dyson

  N/K

  P. W. Farmery

  Barrister

  A. D. Gwyther

  Retired inspector general

  M. G. M. Haines

  Chartered accountant

  E. G. Harper

  Retired inspector general

  Mrs. B. Kalisch-Brodkin

  Solicitor

  E. W. McDowell

  Retired accountant

  E. P. Morris

  Consultant on information systems

  B. Phillips

  Retired accountant

  M. Prior

  Solicitor

  J. A. Simmonds

  Registrar in bankruptcy

  D. G. Slidders

  Retired accountant

  Mrs. E. M. Stanton

  N/K

  EI Walker-Arnott

  Solicitor

  I. G. Watt

  Chartered accountant

  G. A. Weiss

  Chartered accountant

  Mrs. Moira Black

  Chartered accountant

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Policyholders Protection Board.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The current members of the Policyholders Protection Board are:

  Sir Roger Neville—Chairman

  Group chief executive of the Sun Alliance group

  Mr. Richard Gamble

  Group chief executive of Royal Insurance

  Mr. Michael Willett

  Chairman of Britannic Assurance plc

  Mr. Roy Adkins

  A member of the Insolvency Steering Board

  Ms Helena Wiesner

  An independent consumer affairs consultant

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law are:

  The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Steyn—Chairman

  Martin Hunter, Esq.—Vice-Chairman

  A W. S. Bunch. Esq.

  S. C. Boyd, Esq, QC

  Dr. K. G. Chrystie

  Lord Dervaird

  J. B. Garrett, Esq.

  Professor R. M. Goode, CBE, QC, FBA

  Mrs. P. Kirby-Johnson

  R. A. MacCrindle, Esq, QC

  A. L. Marriott, Esq.

  K. S. Rokison, Esq, QC

  D. A. G. Sarre, Esq.

  J. H. M. Sims, Esq.

  Professor D. R. Thomas

  Professor John Uff, QC

  V. V. Veeder, Esq, QC

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The current members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are:
  9

  Chairman

  Graeme Odgers

  Deputy Chairmen

  Peter Dean, CBE

  Dan Goyder

  Hans Liesner, CB

  Other members

  Alan Armstrong

  Ian Barter

  Professor Michael Beesley, CBE

  Catherine M. Blight

  Patrick Brenan

  John S. Bridgeman

  Roger Davies

  Professor Sam Eilon

  James Evans

  Alexander Ferry, MBE

  Nicholas Finney, OBE

  Sir Archibald Forster

  Sir Ronald Halstead, CBE

  Patricia Hodgson

  Michael Hoffman

  David Jenkins, MBE

  Leonard Kingshott

  Graham Mather

  Nigel Matthews

  Professor Stanley Metcalfe, CBE

  Professor Patrick Minford

  John Montgomery, JP

  Dr. Derek Morris

  Professor John Pickering

  Leslie Priestley

  M. Richard Prosser

  Ann Robinson

  James Roe

  Lynda Rouse

  David Thomson

  Clare Tritton, QC

  Professor Geoffrey Whittington

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the electricity consumers committee for each region.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under the Electricity Act 1989 the Director General of Electricity Supply must consult the Secretary of State on the appointment of chairmen to the regional electricity consumers committees. A list of chairmen was published in the Office of Electricity Regulation's annual report of 1992, which has been presented to Parliament in pursuance of section 50 of the Act. Other members of the committees are appointed by the director general in consultation with the individual chairmen. I have asked the director general to send the hon. Member a list of all current consumer committee members.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the advisory panel on deregulation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The eight members of the advisory panel on deregulation are:

  Company

  Chairman

  Sir Nigel Mobbs, DL

  Slough Estates plc

  Members

  Stephen Moss

  Grosvenor Securities Ltd.

  Richard Ellis

  TSB Bank plc

  Dan Wright

  Albion Automotive Ltd.

  John Hoare, BSc, FCA

  J. R. Hoare and Co.

  Tim Brooks

  In Shops plc

  Alan Hudson

  Hudson Administration

  Lewis Goodman

  Norwest Consultants Ltd.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Ms Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made as to the effect of the GATT on employment.

  Mr. Needham
  Studies by the OECD, the World bank and a number of other independent bodies have forecast substantial gains in world income as a result of the completion of the Uruguay round.

  I am therefore confident that the success of the round will bring significant increases in United Kingdom output and employment over the next decade, as well as boosting business confidence in the short term.

  Coal Authority
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans to make available documents relating to the Coal Authority and the proposed licensing regime for the privatised coal industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Coal Industry Bill provides for the establishment of a new public sector body, the Coal Authority, to carry out a number of functions, including the licensing of coal mining.

  I am today making available to the House copies of an explanatory note describing how it is envisaged that the Coal Authority will carry out those functions, and draft model licensing documents. We shall also be using those documents as the basis for a consultation exercise.

  The proposed regime has been carefully designed to provide a flexible and impartial means of access to coal reserves in a way that facilitates the development of the industry, promotes competition and gives proper protection to third parties.

  Renewable Energy Sources
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current annual level of expenditure by his Department into investigation of potential renewable energy sources in(a) wind power, (b) off-shore wave power, (c) on-shore wave power and (d) solar power; and if he will list the current expenditure patterns by (i) EU countries and (ii) European Free Trade Area countries.

  Mr. Eggar
  The annual level of research and development expenditure on these programmes over the previous three financial years—1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93—has averaged £6,630,000 for wind power, £189,000 for shoreline wave power, plus £206,000 for wave power more generally, including off-shore wave power, and £2,260,000 for solar power. My Department does not maintain records on the current expenditure patterns of either EU or EFTA countries.

  Aluminium Imports
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is his policy towards imports into the EC of aluminium from Russia;

  (2) if it is his policy to (a) extend and/or (b) increase EC quotas for aluminium from Russia;

  (3) what assessment he has made of whether Russia is dumping aluminium in the EC.

  Mr. Needham
  Imports of aluminium from the former Soviet Union, and quota measures affecting them, fall
  11
  within the European Community's common commercial policy. Since August 1993 there have been Community-wide quotas on FSU aluminium, which were extended for three months at the end of November 1993. It is not yet known whether there will be a further extension. The problems facing aluminium producers in the European Community and in other countries have complex origins going well beyond imports from the FSU. The United Kingdom and other EC member states have therefore agreed that the Commission should, on behalf of the Community and together with other countries, seek appropriate multilateral solutions for the longer term.

  The responsibility for making a dumping complaint would lie with the Community's domestic industry. The Government are not aware of any such complaint, which would be for the Commission to investigate.

  Tours Direct
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will investigate the collapse of Tours Direct and New Vista travel companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Tours Direct Ltd. was dissolved in October 1993 and could not be subject to Companies Act inquiries.

  Such inquiries are confidential and I cannot comment on whether or not New Vista Travel Ltd. is being, or has been, investigated. Nevertheless, I am prepared to consider any information the hon. Member may provide in the usual way.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the organisations he intends to contact for his further consultations on deregulation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The views of all interested parties will be considered on proposals for deregulation.

  Business Sector Representatives
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made in identifying one representative from each business sector to facilitate dialogue with his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade established a range of business sector divisions in the Department in 1992 and successfully recruited a business secondee into each of them to help facilitate an informed dialogue between Government and business.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 379, what estimate he has made of the additional costs, net of any reduction in employer's national insurance contributions, to his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95 resulting from the changes in statutory sick pay provision.

  Mr. Eggar
  I estimate that no additional costs will arise from the changes in statutory sick pay provision and employer's national insurance contributions, as I explained in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 17 January,Official Report, column 379.

  Nora Heeren
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement regarding the consignment of arms on board the ship Nora Heeren currently anchored in the River Tamar.

  Mr. Needham
  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to disclose information supplied in confidence by or about applications for export licences.

  Textile Quotas
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list all east and central European countries subject to European Union textile quotas, giving the per capita income of each country and the date upon which textile quotas on each will be fully lifted;

  (2) what percentage of quotas will be lifted in each of the 10 years of the phasing out of the European Union multi-fibre arrangement;

  (3) if he will list all countries subject to European Union textile and clothing quotas, giving th per capita income levels of each and the dates, under the new general agreement on tariffs and trade, when such quotas will be lifted.

  Mr. Needham
  The recently concluded GATT provides for a phase-out of the multi-fibre arrangement over a 10-year period commencing from the date of implementation of the total GATT package. The phase-out will consist of four stages for which the following minimal levels have been set:

  Stage 1:

  From start of year 1: 16 per cent. of total volume of textile trade based on 1990 figures will be returned to normal GATT rules and any quota restrictions in force on tariff lines included in the 16 per cent. will be removed.

  Quotas not liberalised will have their levels increased by 116 per cent. of the prescribed MFA growth factor.

  Stage 2:

  From start of year 4: a further 17 per cent. of total volume of textile trade based on 1990 figures will be returned to normal GATT rules.

  Quotas not liberalised will have their levels increased by 125 per cent. of the prescribed MFA growth factor.

  Stage 3:

  From start of year 7: a further 18 per cent. of total volume of textile trade based on 1990 figures will he returned to normal GATT rules.

  Quotas not liberalised will have their levels increased by 127 per cent. of the prescribed MFA growth factor.

  Stage 4:

  All remaining quotas will be liberalised.

  The product content of each stage of the phase-out is yet to be agreed.

  Following is a list of countries currently subject to European Union textile quotas—under the MFA and other arrangements. The figures indicate per capita gross domestic product in US dollars, in 1991, which is the latest year for which directly comparable figures are available:

  US$

  Argentina

  2,790

  Belarus

  13,110

  Brazil

  2,940

  Bulgaria

  1,840

  China

  370

  Czech Republic

  2—

  Hong Kong

  1,430

  Hungary

  2,720

  India

  330

  13

  US$

  Indonesia

  610

  Macao

  2—

  Malaysia

  2,520

  Mongolia

  2—

  Pakistan

  400

  Peru

  1,070

  Philippines

  730

  Poland

  1,790

  Romania

  1,390

  Russia

  13,220

  Singapore

  14,210

  Slovak Republic

  2—

  South Korea

  6,330

  Sri Lanka

  500

  Taiwan

  2—

  Thailand

  1,570

  Ukraine

  12,340

  Uzbekistan

  11,350

  1 Estimated figures.

  2 No figure available.

  Source: The World bank world development report.

  Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Task Force
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the terms of reference and membership of the chemicals and pharmaceuticals task force; and when it will report.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: The terms of reference and membership of all the business deregulation task forces was set out in the report "Deregulation Task Forces: Proposals for Reform", which was published on 19 January.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), of 12 January,Official Report, column 167, if he will set out how THORP will reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the context of reducing the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide emissions, my hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade underlined the very important contribution made by the nuclear power generating industry. The thermal oxide reprocessing plant provides a service to that industry, which is valued by the customers, from the United Kingdom and overseas, who have placed more than £9 billion of orders.

  Mines (Accidents)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what were the numbers of serious accidents and fatalities per 100 miners employed in(a) British Coal pits and (b) private licensed mines in each year since 1964;

  (2) what were the numbers of serious accidents and fatalities in (a) British Coal pits and (b) private licensed mines in each year since 1964.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the hon. Member may wish to consult figures given in the report "The Framework for Health and Safety in Britain's Coal Mines", which was placed in the Library last October.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics" policy for his Department during 1994.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 January at column 849.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what working definition of "back to basics" is used by his Department; and what his Department has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply. given to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Friday 21 January at column 849.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average weekly level of housing benefit paid to individuals to subsidise private sector rents during the period 1982–83 to 1992–93, inclusive.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table:

  Average amount—£/week—of housing benefit for private sector rents in Great Britain.

  Year2

  Amount of Housing Benefit (Income Support cases)

  Amount of Housing Benefit (Non-Income Support cases)

  All Cases

  1983

  12·70

  1—

  1—

  1984

  15·00

  1—

  1—

  1985

  17·20

  1—

  1—

  1986

  19·50

  1—

  1—

  1987

  20·90

  1—

  1—

  1988

  21·88

  14·47

  18·78

  1989

  25·14

  15·42

  21·06

  1990

  30·88

  18·72

  25·45

  1991

  37·20

  24·98

  32·57

  1992

  43·20

  29·66

  38·45

  Notes

  1 Information for housing benefit without income support cases before 1988 is not available.

  2 Figures for 1983 to 1987 inclusive are from samples taken in November or December of each year and from 1988 to 1992 from samples taken in May of each year.

  Child Support Agency
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the projected running cost for the Child Support Agency in 1993–94.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency's allocated budget for 1993–94 is £119·8 million.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases have now been dealt with in total by the Child Support Agency; and of that total how many were(a) cases where no form of agreed maintenance was

  15
  in payment before the Child Support Agency became involved and (b) cases where a form of maintenance was in payment before the Child Support Agency became involved.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mrs. Margaret Beckett, dated 24 January 1994:

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking for various details on the cases dealt with by the Child Support Agency.

  Up to 30 November 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, the Agency had processed 157,000 cases, of which 89,600 had resulted in the arrangement of maintenance. Figures are not kept on the number of cases in which a prior maintenance agreement existed. It is estimated however, that 50 per cent. of clients will have an existing arrangement.

  I hope you will find this reply helpful.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) letters and (b) telephone calls on the special hotline from hon. Members have been received to date by the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  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 Dr. Tony Wright, dated 21 January 1994:

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many letters and telephone calls on the special hotline had been received by the Child Support Agency from Members of Parliament.

  To 7 January 1994, the Agency had received more than 3,200 letters from Members of Parliament and had taken 180 telephone calls on the Hotline.

  I hope you will find this reply helpful.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will disqualify any firm that flouts his Department's guidelines over privatisation bids from taking part in the bidding process and from being involved in any way with the eventual contract.

  Mr. Hague
  All invitations to tender issued by this Department include specific details of the basis on which tenders must be submitted and require tenderers to produce a declaration of compliance with the stipulated conditions. If, prior to the award of the contract, we become aware that these procedures have been flouted, we will not proceed further with that tenderer.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the annual contribution, for each year since 1979, of the Treasury to the national insurance fund.

  Year

  Sum paid into NI Fund (£ million)

  1979–80

  12,343

  1980–81

  12,848

  1981–82

  12,433

  16

  Year

  Sum paid into NI Fund (£ million)

  align="right"1982–83

  12,591

  1983–84

  12,807

  1984–85

  12,597

  1985–86

  12,163

  1986–87

  12,412

  1987–88

  12,135

  1988–89

  11,653

  1989–90

  2nil

  1990–91

  3nil

  1991–92

  3nil

  1992–93

  3nil

  1993–94

  3 47,589

  1 Treasury supplement.

  2 Treasury supplement was abolished from 1989.

  3 From 1990–91 the NI fund has been reimbursed for the costs of statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay recovered by employers, but these amounts have been excluded because they are a reimbursement rather than a contribution to the NI fund.

  4 Treasury grant.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to prevent industrial espionage in the privatisation competition for the computer processing of national insurance records, currently carried out in-house at Longbenton, Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of national insurance is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Nicholas Brown, dated 21 January 1994:

  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency I am responsible for answering questions about relevant operational matters. I have been asked to reply to your question about the steps taken to prevent industrial espionage in the competitive tendering for the computer processing of National Insurance records.

  The work of the Data Entry operation at the Contributions Agency's Longbenton site falls within the Agency's Market Testing programme. The objective of Market Testing is to provide better value for money for the taxpayer through a very structured purchasing process which entails inviting bids from the private sector as well as the current civil service provider.

  The Market Test of our Data Entry service is being carried out in accordance with the procurement policy as laid down by HM Treasury which observes EC Directives on the subject. As part of that process, an intensive set of tender documents which set out the Agency's business requirements has been issued to each prospective bidder. All bidders, including the In-House team, are likely to seek further information in support of their bids. To ensure equal treatment for all, an independent team deals with all enquiries and ensures that responses are copied to everyone involved in the competition. Enquiries can be made in writing, by site visit or exceptionally by telephone. When a site visit has been requested, the company concerned is met by a member of the independent team who escorts the visitors at all times. Questions are restricted to clarifying aspects of tender documentation. In no circumstances will replies be given to questions concerning how competitors' proposals to carry out the work are being developed.

  The Agency has strict guidelines for staff on how to deal with any telephone enquiries. In brief, a response will not be given until the bona fides of the enquirer have been established, and in any case of doubt about the propriety of a question staff must refer the matter to a senior officer before a response is given.

  The Agency treats very seriously any attempt by a competitor to obtain information which they are not entitled to receive. Any report of such activity would be thoroughly investigated and, if proven, could result in the exclusion of the offender from the bidding process.
  17
  I hope that I have clearly explained the very serious view that the Agency takes of an exercise of this nature, and that I have been able to reassure you that measures are in place to prevent any competitor gaining an unfair advantage in the tender process. If you have any further queries on the matter I would be only too pleased to discuss them with you.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many investigations were carried out for benefit fraud in each year since 1978–79; and what was the success rate in each of those investigations.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of benefit fraud is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the right hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mrs. Margaret Beckett, dated 21 January 1994:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about benefit fraud.

  I regret that I am unable to provide all the information you requested but I hope that the following is helpful.

  The sector fraud organisation was set up in its present form only in January 1991 and although it is constantly refining the way in which statistics are maintained, figures for the period you requested are not available. Figures for the year ending 31 March 1992 are incomplete. However, from the information that is available, it is estimated that approximately 526,000 investigations were undertaken. Of these, approximately 250,000 had a positive outcome. In the year ending 31 March 1993 investigations were undertaken in approximately 560,000 cases of which 270,000 had a positive result.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Disability Claimants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards of the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance were made(a) between February 1992 and March 1993 and (b) between April 1993 to the present; and how many were made (i) on the grounds that the person was severely mentally impaired and displayed severe behavioural problems and (ii) under the deaf-blind provisions.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the table:

  February 1992 to March 1993

  April 1993 to November 1993

  Deaf/blind provision

  136

  30

  Severely mentally impaired

  11,911

  1308

  All higher rate mobility components2

  235,500

  90,800

  1 New claims awards only—does not include awards made following review or appeal.

  2 The source for these figures is a 5 per cent, sample.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) requests for reviews and (b) appeals to a disability appeal tribunal concerning disability living allowance have been received by his Department.

  Mr. Scott
  There have been 292,404 reviews and 29,221 appeals registered from the introduction of disability living allowance to the month ending December 1993.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been received by his 18
  Department since May 1993 for (a) compensation and (b) ex-gratia payments resulting from delays in (i) disability living allowances and (ii) attendance allowance; and what was the number and percentage of successful applications and the total amounts awarded by each benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many payments have been made under the special compensation scheme for claimants who claimed(a) disability living allowance or (b) attendance allowance after February 1993; and what is the total amount paid.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disability working allowance claimants are expected to benefit from the child care allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Around 5 per cent. of the current disability working allowance case load is expected to gain from the new child care allowance.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what weekly increases will be made to recipients of(a) invalid care allowance, (b) industrial injuries benefit and (c) war pensions unemployability supplement from April specifically in respect of compensation for VAT on fuel.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 30 November 1993 at columns 437–50 his proposals for the uprating of benefits from April 1994. Included in the proposed rates of benefit is extra help, over price indexation, for costs arising from the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel, as follows:

  Weekly amount/single person rate

  Pence

  (a) Invalid Care Allowance

  20

  (b) Industrial Injuries:

  disablement benefit

  —

  death benefit—higher rate

  50

  lower rate

  15

  unemployability supplement

  50

  Workmen's Compensation—Supplementation—Scheme—maximum rate of lesser incapacity allowance

  20

  Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme—partial disablement allowance

  20

  (c) War Pensions unemployability supplement

  50

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will name the 80 experts convened to consider the details of the proposed medical test for incapacity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on 20 January at col.802.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disability living allowance claims are being paid to parents on behalf of disabled children under the age of 16 years where the parents do not receive arty social security benefit by types of other income.
  19
  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number and percentage of the recipients of disability living allowance who are also in receipt of income support.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest information available is for 28 February 1993. Twenty-one per cent.—236,000—of the 1,145,000 people in receipt of disability living allowance were also receiving income support.

  Note: The source for these figures is a 5 per cent. sample.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the reasons for paying severe disablement allowance, invalid care allowance and severe disability premium at different levels from April 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Severe disablement allowance, invalid care allowance and severe disability premium have all been uprated from April 1994 in line with the increase of 1·8 per cent. in the retail prices index. In addition, in line with our promise to provide help with the cost of VAT on fuel for certain groups, such as disabled people, 50p has been added to the weekly amount of severe disablement allowance, and 20p to the weekly amount of invalid care allowance. Anyone who is entitled to the severe disability premium will also be entitled to either the disability premium or the higher pensioner premium, both of which include an additional amount intended to help with the extra cost of fuel bills. To increase the severe disability premium as well would provide this help twice over.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number and percentage of disability living allowance recipients are not in receipt of any social security benefit, by type of other income.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available.

  Benefits
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated savings of increasing the level of deductions made to claimants of housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  The estimated savings for 1994–95 across income-related benefits—housing benefit, council tax benefit and income support—are £60 million1.

  Source:

  1 1989–90–91 family expenditure survey. At 1993–94 levels of prices, incomes and benefit rates.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the numbers of former supplementary benefit claimants who are expected to continue to receive transitional additions in 1994–95; and if he will break the figure down by pensioners, couples with children, lone parents and disabled people.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 21 January 1994]: Due to the small numbers currently in receipt of transitional additions, it is difficult to give accurate forecasts of those likely to be in receipt of them in 1994–95. Our best estimate is that there will be fewer than 6,000 in receipt in 1994–95. The small number involved makes it impossible to provide a reliable forecast of the numbers in the various groups.

  The latest information available is for February 1993 and is set out in the table.
  20

  Number of cases

  Pensioners

  500

  Couples with children

  *—

  Lone parents

  500

  Disabled

  1,000

  Others

  4,000

  Total

  6,500

  Notes:

  1. Source: Income support statistics quarterly inquiry, February 1993.

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 500. "*" indicates fewer than 250 cases.

  3. As some people appear in more than one group, the figures will not necessarily sum to the total given.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement concerning the implications of the decision of the European Court of Justice, in case C-338/91 Steenhorst-Neerings, 27 October 1993, for the claims for back payment of benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  This case concerned a claim for Dutch invalidity benefit which was made in 1988 at a time when the Dutch Government had not properly implemented their obligations under directive 79/7/EEC on equal treatment in social security. Benefit was awarded under domestic law from one year before the date of claim but was not backdated to December 1984, the date by which the directive had to be implemented.

  The court held that, where claims are made in such circumstances a member state is not prevented from applying national rules which limit the retroactive effect of a claim.

  The United Kingdom's time limits on claims for benefit are consistent with this ruling. There will, therefore, be no implications for claims for arrears of benefit.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated savings to his Department in 1994–95 of freezing(a) the earnings disregards for income-related benefits and (b) the savings limit for income-related benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  None. The level of earnings disregards and the capital limits are kept under review but are not uprated annually. There are no plans to increase them at the present time.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 424, what are the additional costs, net of any reduction in employer's national insurance contributions, to his Departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95 as a result of the changes in statutory sick pay provision.

  Mr. Scott
  There is no net cost. The additional costs to this Department resulting from the changes in statutory sick pay provision are fully offset by the savings from the reduction in employers' national insurance contributions.

  Age-related Benefits
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, columns 424–25, if he will list the organisations and individuals which have been issued with a copy of the consultation document on age-related benefits.

  Mr. Hague
  The organisations which have received copies of the consultation document on age-related rebates direct, either through the initial distribution or as a result of requesting a copy, are as follows:

  Abundance Management Services

  Association of Pensions Lawyers

  Association of Corporate Trustees

  Association of British Chambers of Commerce

  Bacon and Woodrow

  Bain Clarkson Financial Services

  Bank of England

  Bar Council

  British Payroll Managers Association

  British Coal Corporation

  Charter for Pension Fund Democracy

  Chessington Computer Centre

  CIS Ltd.

  Clay and Partners

  Confederation Life

  CONNECTION

  Conservative Trade Unionist

  Consumers Association

  Council on Tribunals

  Cyborg Systems

  Engineering Employers' Federation

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Federation of Small Businesses

  FIMBRA

  Forum for Private Business

  Godwins Ltd

  Hoare Govett Ltd.

  Hundred Group of Finance Directors

  IMRO

  Independent Pensions Research group

  Institute of Directors

  Institute of Actuaries

  Institute of Chartered Accountants

  Institutional Fund Managers Association

  J Sainsbury plc

  Joint Working Group on Occupational Pensions—National Association of Pension Funds, Association of Consulting Actuaries, Association of British Insurers, Society of Pensions Consultants

  Lane Clark Peacock

  LAUTRO

  Law Debenture Trust Corporation

  Law Society

  Legal and General

  Lovell White Durrant

  Ludgate Laud

  Maxwell Pensioners Action Group

  Metal Colours Ltd.

  National Westminster Life Assurance

  Noble Lowndes

  Northern Pensions Resource Group

  Occupational Pensions Advisory Service

  Occupational Pensions Board

  Over Fifties Association

  Payroll Alliance

  Pearl Assurance

  Pension Trustee Forum

  Pension Research Accountants Group

  Pensions Management Institute

  Peterborough Software

  Provident Life

  Prudential Corporation

  R. Watson and Sons

  Randolph Parliamentary Service

  Royal London Insurance

  Securities and Investments Board

  Shannda Life

  22

  Smith New Court

  Social Security Advisory Committee

  Soterlou Banerji Chartered Accountants

  Sun Life Assurance

  Towers Perrin

  Trades Union Congress

  United Distillers

  William M. Mercer Ltd.

  The document has also been issued to a number of private individuals.

  Child Care Costs
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of families currently on family credit could receive the maximum amount for child care costs as announced in the Budget, assuming that their income remained the same and their child care costs were £40 or more a week.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 21 January 1994]: Families who could receive the maximum amount of help with child care costs in family credit are those with earnings of £109 or more. Lone parents and two-earner couples with a child under 11 who have earnings of £109 or more represent 10 per cent. of the family credit case load—May 1993. Figures for couples where one partner works and the other is incapacitated are not available.

  The number of people currently receiving family credit is not a good guide to the number of people who will gain from the disregard of earnings which will extend the range of families eligible for the benefit. The projected numbers receiving the benefit for future years are also higher.

  The estimates from the Department's policy simulation model are that 150,000 families will benefit from the child care disregard. Those families who do not benefit from the full value of the child care disregard in family credit may get extra help through the parallel disregard in housing benefit-council tax benefit.

PRIME MINISTER

  Life-supporting Treatment
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister if the letter of 22 December from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on the withdrawal of life-supporting treatment following receipt of an advance directive from a patient represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health sought to explain the current legal position on advance directives.

  Her Majesty's Government acknowledge the right of individuals to draw up advance directives. People have a right, emphasised in the patients charter, to consent, or withhold consent, to treatment. Advance directives assist patients in the exercise of their legal rights and so ensure their lawful treatment.

  The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics is examining this area, and is due to report soon. The Government will consider the Committee's findings very carefully.

  Downing Street Dinner
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if the invitations extended to political journalists to attend dinner at 10 Downing street on 13 January stated that the proceedings would be on lobby terms.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my practice to discuss the nature of invitations to private events.

  Engagements
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Wednesday 19 January; and if he will name the individuals he met.

  The Prime Minister
  I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

  Jetstream Aircraft Ltd.
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received personally on the future of Jetstream Aircraft Ltd.; what action he has taken; and if he will now agree to meet hon. Members with Ayrshire constituencies to discuss the aircraft.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 January 1994]: I have received representations from several hon. Members about Jetstream. The points raised are being pursued by the Departments responsible. Ministers at the DTI and I have discussed such matters with right hon. and hon. Members on a number of occasions. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry met a group of hon. Members to discuss Jetstream in November. I am generally willing to consider requests for meetings from hon. Members on departmental issues if and when they have exhausted contacts with the responsible Ministers.

  Local authorities1

  Management vacants2

  Other vacants

  Total vacants

  Total as a per cent. of all local authorities dwellings

  North

  3,161

  3,686

  6,847

  2·1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,658

  3,331

  7,989

  1·7

  East Midlands

  2,803

  1,262

  4,065

  1·3

  East Midlands

  2,803

  1,262

  4,065

  1·3

  Eastern

  3,224

  1,244

  4,468

  1·2

  London

  9,663

  8,108

  17,771

  2·7

  South East

  2,947

  1,108

  4,055

  1·2

  South West

  2,067

  747

  2,814

  1·1

  West Midlands

  4,428

  2,961

  7,389

  1·6

  North West

  6,759

  8,752

  15,511

  2·7

  England

  39,710

  31,199

  70,909

  1·9

  1 Includes dwellings owned outside local authorities' own areas.

  2 Available for letting immediately or after minor repairs.

  Source: Annual HIP1 return.

  Housing Associations1

  Management vacants2

  Other vacants

  Total vacants

  Total as a percentage of all Housing Association dwellings

  North

  581

  271

  852

  2·0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,237

  701

  1,938

  3·9

  East Midlands

  1,328

  418

  1,746

  4·6

  Eastern

  2,495

  274

  2,769

  3·6

  London

  4,869

  4,524

  9,393

  5·4

  South East

  2,634

  630

  3,264

  3·3

  South West

  707

  319

  1,026

  2·6

  24

ENVIRONMENT

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics" policy for his Department during the current year.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Friday 21 January 1994.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what working definition of "back to basics" is used by his Department; and what his Department has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on Friday 21 January 1994.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the numbers and percentage of empty dwellings in the(a) private sector, (b) public sector, (c) those owned and controlled by Her Majesty's Government and (d) housing associations in each region of England.

  Sir George Young
  The numbers of dwellings that local authorities and housing associations reported as vacant on 1 April 1993 are:
  25

  Housing Associations1

  Management vacants2

  Other vacants

  Total vacants

  Total as a percentage of all Housing Association dwellings

  West Midlands

  988

  1,046

  2,034

  3·2

  North West

  1,886

  1,775

  3,661

  3·1

  England

  16,725

  9,958

  26,683

  3·8

  1 Includes some 10,500 dwellings within management vacants that were purchased as a result of the measures to boost the housing market announced in the 1992 autumn statement.

  2 Available for letting immediately or after minor repairs.

  Source: Annual HAR 10 returns.

  In addition to providing information on those of their own dwellings that are vacant, local authorities in England are also asked to provide estimates of the number of private sector and other public sector vacant dwellings in their area on their annual housing investment programme—HIP1—returns. Regional totals based on these data including estimates for missing data are set out.

  Private sector (other than housing associations)

  Public sector (other than local authorities)

  Number vacant

  Percentage of dwellings

  Number vacant

  Percentage of dwellings

  North

  33,000

  4·6

  1,200

  20·9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  68,000

  4·5

  600

  4·7

  East Midlands

  69,000

  5·3

  1,500

  15·1

  Eastern

  91,000

  4·7

  1,400

  4·0

  London

  134,000

  6·4

  1,200

  4·8

  South East

  111,000

  4·6

  3,300

  7·9

  South West

  84,000

  5·0

  2,400

  12·2

  West Midlands

  69,000

  4·4

  400

  3·3

  North West

  105,100

  4·9

  400

  2·0

  England

  765,000

  5·0

  12,400

  6·8

  Source: Annual HIP1 returns.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of Government agencies working in or to his Department; and how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of cards purchased centrally was 11,250. The cost of purchasing these cards was £4,781·25—ex VAT—of which £4,183·59—87·5 per cent.—went to the charity Crisis.

  Any further information is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who are the members currently appointed to the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Atkins
  The members of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council are:

  Mr. G. H. Baker

  Mr. I. F. Blomfield OBE.

  Dr. J. W. Eaton

  Mrs. C. J. Elvy

  Mr. J. R. Hume

  Miss A. M. Lees

  26
  There are doubts about the quality of some of the estimates provided by authorities. Information from the 1991 English house condition survey suggests that the England total for the private sector may be an overestimate, and data from central Government Departments on their own vacant dwellings, for which no regional breakdown is readily available, indicate that there is under-reporting of public sector vacant dwellings.

  Mr. R. H. B. Neame

  Professor J. A. Patmore

  Dr. A. M. Powell

  Mrs. A. C. Roberts

  Mr. A. T. Smith

  Mr. D. A. Stevenson

  Mr. P. V. Wagstaffe

  Dr. M. E. Witherick

  I have today announced the appointment of Audrey Lees as chairman.

  Loans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for each scheme operated by his Department under which loans are available, the objectives of the scheme, the number of unrecovered loans, the total value of unrecovered loans, the average number of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990, the average value of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990 and the annual cost of recovering loans.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department currently operates three schemes under which loans are available. Details of these and of unrecoverable loans since 1990 are set out.1 Information is not available on costs of action to recover loans.

  Scheme
  Season ticket advances to departmental staff.

  Objective
  To assist departmental staff with the purchase of public transport

  27
  season tickets for travel between their homes and places of work.

  Unrecoverable Loans
  One loan, of £546·64 made in 1993 has become unrecoverable.

  Scheme
  House purchase loans for departmental staff on compulsory transfer.

  Objective
  To assist departmental staff with the purchase of comparable accommodation following permanent and compulsory transfer, where such accommodation is more expensive.

  Unrecoverable Loans
  None.

  Scheme
  Valuation tribunal employees' car loans and season ticket advances.

  Objective
  To assist with the purchase of cars where employees are required to be independently mobile; or to assist with the purchase of public transport season tickets for travel between employees' homes and places of work.

  Unrecoverable Loans
  None.

  1 Details exclude PSA Services.

  Council Tenants (Repairs)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improving the right-to-repair scheme for local authority tenants.

  Sir George Young
  Regulations will be brought before Parliament shortly introducing an improved right-to-repair scheme from 1 April 1994. The scheme will ensure that council tenants have a simple and reliable way of getting urgent repairs carried out promptly and paid for by the council.

  House Building
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses and how many housing association houses were built in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Sir George Young
  Estimates of housebuilding completions by sector for England are shown in the publication "Housing and Construction Statistics". Figures for 1979 are in table 6.1(a) of the annual edition for 1979 to 1989. Figures for 1992 and for the first three quarters of 1993 are in table 1.2(a) of the quarterly edition for September 1993. Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received alleging a shortage of affordable rented accommodation.

  Sir George Young
  I have received a number of representations suggesting that the reduction in Housing Corporation's planned expenditure announced in November's Budget will result in a reduction in the number of affordable rented homes to be provided.

  Despite the cuts, the Housing Corporation's gross capital expenditure in 1994–95 will amount to almost £1,520 million, the corporation's fourth largest budget since housing association grant was introduced in 1974. This will enable at least 58,000 new homes to be provided in 1994–95, bringing the total over the three years to 1994–95 to 178,000. Furthermore, the corporation believes that, because of reductions in procurement and borrowing
  28
  costs, and greater emphasis on cost-effective home ownership schemes, it should still provide 154,000 homes, over the three years 1993–94 to 1995–96, as it forecast last January.

  House Building
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of housing starts in the Greater Manchester area in each year since 1987 by(a) the local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) private companies.

  Sir George Young
  Estimates of housebuilding starts by sector for local authority areas in Greater Manchester are shown in the publication "Local Housing Statistics". Figures for each year from 1987 to 1992 are in these issues:

  Year(s)

  Issue

  Number and date

  Tables

  1987–1990

  103

  October 1992

  1(c)-l(f)

  1991

  105

  December quarter 1992

  1(b)

  1992

  106

  March quarter 1993

  1(b)

  19931

  107

  June quarter 1993

  1

  1 First six months of 1993, provisional figures.

  Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the impact on standard spending assessments of(a) the special transitional grant in relation to responsibilities arising from community care policies, (b) the area cost adjustments policy, (c) the interest receipts assumed in comparison to those received and (d) the allowance made in the standard spending assessment in relation to provision of nursery education for the under-fives education.

  Mr. Baldry
  During the recent period of consultation on the provisional revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95 we received representations on a wide range of issues from 142 local authorities. My right hon. Friend will consider carefully all of these representations and any other relevant information before taking his final decisions on the revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95.

  Council Flats (Service Charges)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the findings of the research into service charges on former council leasehold flats.

  Sir George Young
  The full report is expected to be finalised for publication in the autumn. However, preliminary data due shortly will inform an assessment of the overall scale and nature of current problems.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the amount of council house sales receipts held by local authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities held £1 billion of usable capital receipts at 1 April 1993. Authorities are not
  29
  required to account separately for the spending of usable capital receipts derived from council house sales. No separate figures for the amount of usable housing receipts held are therefore available.

  As regards the reserved part of capital receipts, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 1 December 1993, Official Report, column 554.

  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names of the commissioners of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, giving in each case details of their remuneration and number of days worked each month.

  Mr. Baldry
  A list of the current members of the Local Government Commission, together with their present annual rate of remuneration, appears in the table. Members' time inputs vary from month to month, according to the demands of the reviews for which they have been allocated specific responsibilities.

  £

  Sir John Banham—Chairman

  33,170

  David Ansbro

  6,950

  Professor Michael Chisholm

  30,110

  Christopher Chope OBE

  20,070

  Sir Kenneth Couzens KCB

  20,070

  Ken Ennals CB

  40,140

  Professor Malcolm Grant

  13,890

  Brian Hill CBE DL

  40,140

  Margaret Hodge MBE

  20,070

  Mary Leigh

  35,120

  Ann Levick

  35,120

  Robert Scruton

  20,070

  David Thomas

  40,140

  Clive Wilkinson

  20,070

  Lady Wilcox

  9,260

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many officials were employed by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England; and in what capacity.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission currently employs 80 staff, including those on temporary secondment from local government and elsewhere. Of these, 62 staff are employed on the commission's reviews and the remaining 18 on administrative duties.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all meetings in 1993 between ministers and officials in his Department and representatives of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England; and what subjects were discussed at each meeting.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the then Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), met the chairman or members of the Local Government Commission on the following occasions: 12 January, 27 January, 15 March, 5 May, 29 July, and 27 October. In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning or the then Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood),30
  had similar meetings on 20 January, 22 February, 29 March, 19 April, 26 May, 8 June, 30 September, 12 October, 15 December and 21 December. These meetings covered a broad range of issues relevant to the work of the Commission.

  There were also many meetings between officials of my Department and the staff of the commission, primarily to discuss issues connected with the day-to-day running of the commission.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the total cost so far and estimated future cost of the current review of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission incurred expenditure of £2·056 million in 1992–93. We are making available £5·124 million to fund the commission's activities in 1993–94 and have announced provision of £8·3 million, £2·5 million and £1·5 million for the years 1994–95 to 1996–97.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend the community charge grant scheme in order to provide further compensation to local authorities for the £140 reduction in community charges which occurred in 1991.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to extend the close end date for community charge grant beyond 31 March.

  Mr. Curry
  The community charge grant compensates local authorities for income forgone as a result of the £140 general reduction in community charges for 1991–92. The existing grant rules provide for grant to be paid in relation to 1991–92 charges collected up to 31 March 1994.

  The Government have considered a number of representations for local authorities and the local authority associations about this matter. It has concluded that an extension of one year of the grant scheme would he justified. The extension will apply in England, Wales and Scotland. There will be no further extension.

  The Government attach great importance to local authorities' continuing efforts to bring in the balance of their community charge arrears. The extension of the community charge grant scheme for a further, and final, year will allow authorities to receive compensation in respect of charges collected during this period.

  Final payments of grant will be made in 1995–96 on the basis of audited claims showing income forgone by local authorities on 1991–92 charges collected by 31 March 1995. Repayment of grant in respect of community charge transitional relief in England is also to be delayed for a further year.

  Flood Damage
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to provide financial assistance to those local authorities which have been caused financial loss by the January floods.

  Mr. Baldry
  No applications have been received from local authorities for assistance in connection with the
  31
  recent floods. Authorities have been informed that they should apply individually to the Department for assistance under the Bellwin scheme if they have incurred an undue financial burden as a result of dealing with an emergency. Each application which is received will be considered on its merits.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the area cost adjustment factor as a percentage of the standard spending assessment for each year from 1990–91.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total amounts allocated on the basis of the area cost adjustment factors as a percentage of standard spending assessments for each year since 1990–91 are as follows:

  Total SSA £ million

  Total allocated on area cost factors £ million

  Percentage allocated on area cost factors Per cent.

  1990–91

  29,805·3

  836·8

  2·8

  1991–92

  35,586·7

  1,152·1

  3·2

  1992–93

  37,992·7

  1,314·5

  3·5

  1993–94

  36,622·2

  1,332·4

  3·6

  11994–95

  37,847·7

  1,536·4

  4·1

  1 Provisional.

  The 1994–95 figures are based on the Secretary of State's proposals announced on 2 December 1993. Final SSAs for 1994–95 will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities have benefited from the area cost adjustment factor, and by how much as(a) a total, (b) a percentage of the overall standard spending assessment and (c) an amount per resident in each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have placed tables in the Library showing the requested information. The 1994–95 figures have been calculated on the basis of the provisional SSAs announced by the Secretary of State on 2 December 1993. Final SSAs for 1994–95 will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the change in the area cost adjustment factor compared to the overall change in standard spending assessment for each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Baldry
  The annual percentage changes since 1990–91 in the total of SSAs and in the amounts allocated on the area cost adjustment have been as follows:

  Year

  Increase in SSAs

  Increase in amount allocated on area cost adjustment

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1990–91 to 1991–92

  19·4

  37·7

  1991–92 to 1992–93

  6·8

  14·1

  1992–93 (adj) to 1993–94

  2·9

  8·9

  1993–94 to 1994–95 (prov)

  3·3

  15·3

  Notes:

  1. For the purposes of comparison with 1993–94, the 1992–93 figures have been adjusted to allow for the transfer of certain local authority responsibilities, most notably for further education. These calculations
  32
  have been revised and now show an increase in the area cost factor contribution of 8·9 per cent. between 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  2. The 1994–95 increases have been calculated on the basis of the provisional SSAs announced by the Secretary of State on 2 December 1993. After adjustment to allow for the impact of extra money for community care and other changes of function, the overall increase in SSA between 1993–94 and 1994–95 would be 2·2 per cent. Final SSAs for 1994–95 will be announced shortly.

  Industrial and Commercial Assets (Transfers)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the value of industrial and commercial assets transferring over the last five years from(a) Milton Keynes development corporation to Milton Keynes borough council, (b) Peterborough development corporation to Peterborough city council and (c) Telford development corporation to The Wrekin council.

  Mr. Baldry
  During the last five years, the former Milton Keynes development corporation has transferred industrial and commercial assets with an estimated open market value of £16,661,000 to Milton Keynes borough council and the former Telford development corporation has transferred industrial and commercial assets with an estimated open market value of £26,184,000 to The Wrekin council. In both cases, these transfers took place in order to generate the rental income streams required to cover the maintenance costs of the community facilities, open spaces, and other community related assets being transferred to the respective councils at the same time. There have been no subsequent transfers of industrial or commercial assets to these local authorities from the Commission for the New Towns.

  The Peterborough development corporation was wound up in September 1988, since when there have been no transfers of industrial or commercial assets to Peterborough city council from the Commission for the New Towns.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to assess the effectiveness of planning controls over hazardous substances introduced in June 1993.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has recently commissioned research into the operation of hazardous substances consents under the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. The research is designed to establish how effective these controls are in preventing unacceptable risks to the public from storage and use of hazardous substances at least cost to industry.

  It will look at all aspects of the system by means of survey, case studies and interview.

  Langbaurgh Council
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered the response by Langbaurgh on Tees borough council to the notice served on the authority on 10 September 1993 under section 19A of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has considered carefully the response which Langbaurgh on Tees borough council has made to the notice served in the authority, and
  33
  has today given the authority a direction under section 19B of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. The effect of the direction is to require the authority to retender the work which was the subject of the notice when the current arrangement comes to an end and to seek my right hon. Friend's consent should it wish to reassign the work to the direct service organisation.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  BBC Board
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the membership of the board of the BBC, together with their salaries.

  Mr. Brooke
  The members of the board of the BBC and their salaries are as follows:

  £

  Chairman

  Mr. Marmaduke Hussey

  59,015

  Vice Chairman

  Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

  15,140

  National governor (Scotland)

  Sir Graham Hills

  15,140

  National governor (Wales)

  Dr. Gwyn Jones

  15,140

  National governor (Northern Ireland)

  Sir Kenneth Percy Bloomfield

  15,140

  Members

  Lord Nicholas Gordon Lennox KCMG KCVO

  7,570

  Miss Jane Glover

  7,570

  Mrs. Shahwar Sadeque

  7,570

  Mr. Bill Jordan

  7,570

  Mrs. Margaret Spurr

  7,570

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to introduce a special concessionary television licence for all chronically sick persons, including those who do not live in residential nursing homes and similar sheltered housing schemes.

  Mr. Brooke
  No. As the Government have repeatedly stated, they have no plans to extend the scope of the existing concessionary television licence scheme, under which concessionary licences are available only to retirement pensioners and disabled people living in residential homes or in comparable sheltered housing schemes.

  Tourism (Safety Regulations)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress he has made to equalise fire, safety and health regulations faced by the tourist industry in the European Union.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have held a series of meetings with ministerial colleagues with a view to reducing the impact of legislative and bureaucratic burdens on tourism, and discussions are continuing between Department and a number of other Departments. The areas of regulation under discussion include fire precautions, food hygiene and some elements of health and safety at work legislation. The implementation and enforcement of regulations in these 34
  areas in other European Union member states is not within the Government's control, but I am concerned to ensure that the tourism industry in the United Kingdom is not put at a disadvantage because regulations are enforced in more rigorous manner here than in other member states.

  Uniform Business Rates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the six-bed rule for exemption from uniform business rates.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has received many representations expressing different points of view on the six-bedspace rule, which was introduced in April 1991 after very wide consultation with interested parties. Ministers at the Department of Environment, who are responsible for policy on non-domestic rates, are also aware of the tourism industry's opinions.

  Sportsmatch Scheme
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the grants awarded by the Sportsmatch scheme in 1993 indicating the amounts, the recipients and the commercial sponsors and which grants have gone to private schools.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have arranged for a list of all the Sportsmatch scheme awards approved in 1993 to be made available in the Library. Only non-profit distributing bodies are eligible to receive awards, and priority is given to those schemes which increase participation and are considered to benefit young people, the disabled and ethnic minorities, or deprived urban or rural areas. As far as we are aware, no awards were made to private schools.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Private Bills
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to alter the restrictions on the drafting of private bills.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Privy Council
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the precise wording of the oath administered to persons appointed to the Privy Council.

  Mr. Newton
  By convention, the terms of the Privy Counsellor's oath are confidential to members of the Privy Council.

EDUCATION

  Discipline
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to introduce new measures to improve discipline in schools.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has recently issued for consultation a number of draft circulars providing guidance on a range of issues relating to discipline in
  35
  schools and pupils with problems. We look forward to positive and constructive responses which will strengthen and improve the guidance in those circulars.

  Food Technology
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will review the status of food technology in the national curriculum at key stage 3 following the Dearing report.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No decisions have yet been made about the new requirements for national curriculum technology to be introduced in 1995. The responsibility for continuing the review of the existing requirements, so as to take account of the Dearing report, rests currently with the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. My right hon. Friend expects to receive the authority's recommendations for revision in April.

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics" policy for his Department during 1994.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member on 21 January at column 849.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what working definition of "back to basics" is used by his Department; and what his Department has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 21 January at column 849.

  School Transport
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will make a statement on the rules and regulations governing concessionary school transport for pupils attending secondary schools;

  (2) what powers county councils have to discriminate against one secondary school with regard to concessionary school transport without adopting a similar policy for all other similar secondary schools in the county; what representations he has had from Essex on this matter; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many non-Church comprehensive schools in Essex benefit from the policy of concessionary school transport from Essex county council; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will make a statement on Essex county council's proposed policy towards discretionary school transport.

  Mr. Forth
  A local education authority must provide free transport if it considers it necessary to facilitate a pupil's school attendance. Authorities have considerable discretion to tailor this provision to meet pupils' individual needs. They also have power to help other pupils with their travelling expenses, and to carry them at a charge in any spare seats on school buses provided by the authority to carry pupils who do qualify for free transport. Data on local education authorities' school transport provision are not collected centrally.
  36
  LEAs must treat pupils at grant-maintained schools no less favourably than comparable pupils at schools maintained by an LEA. The Department has had three representations from Essex about the authority's proposal to phase out discretionary transport for pupils at the Ingatestone Anglo-European and Davenant Foundation grant-maintained schools, but has seen no evidence that would justify my right hon. Friend's intervention.

  Chief Inspector of Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will place in the Library a copy of every letter to hon. Members from her Majesty's chief inspector of schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I am consulting Professor Sutherland and will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Fitzherbert School, Brighton
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the guidance given by his Department to the estate agent responsible for the sale of the former Fitzherbert school site, Brighton.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  As owner of the site the CTC trust instructed agents for sale.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if the former Fitzherbert school site Brighton was sold to the organisation submitting the highest offer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  After taking professional advice, the Department was satisfied that sale of the former Fitzherbert school site was achieved on the most favourable terms available.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on how many occasions(a) he, (b) his civil servants or (c) the city technology college trust met with Mr. John Spiers to discuss the future use of the former Fitzherbert school site, Brighton.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I understand that the then Secretary of State met Mr. Spiers on 19 May 1989, together with Mr. Ivor Revere who was the principal potential sponsor, to discuss the proposal to establish a CTC in Brighton. I am not aware of any other meeting with Ministers, but officials and staff of the CTC trust met Mr. Spiers and others interested in the project on various occasions before the Government withdrew their support in April 1990.

  City Technology College, Brighton
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those individuals and industrial sponsors who had indicated an interest in supporting the proposed city technology college in Brighton.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The principal potential sponsor was Mr. Ivor Revere chairman and managing director of South Weald Properties Ltd.—trading as Greenleaf Planters. Mr. Revere had made a firm written pledge of £1 million which he withdrew on 13 April 1990. In consequence, the Secretary of State announced to Parliament on 24 April 1990 that the Government were withdrawing their financial support. Other potential sponsors had expressed interest but had not submitted firm pledges to the Department.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 414, what are the additional costs., net of any reduction in employer's national insurance contributions, to his Departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95 of the changes in statutory sick pay provision.

  Mr Boswell
  The information requested will not be available until after the end of the financial year requested.

  LEA

  Total Primary

  GM Primary

  Percentage GM

  Total Secondary

  GM Secondary

  Percentage GM

  Avon

  369

  —

  0·0

  60

  2

  3·3

  Barking

  55

  —

  0·0

  8

  —

  0·0

  Barnet

  89

  2

  2·2

  21

  9

  42·9

  Barnsley

  96

  —

  0·0

  15

  —

  0·0

  Bedfordshire

  218

  3

  1·4

  71

  10

  114·1

  Berkshire

  275

  7

  2·5

  59

  10

  16·9

  Bexley

  64

  2

  3·1

  17

  4

  23·5

  Birmingham

  336

  4

  1·2

  79

  16

  20·3

  Bolton

  105

  1

  1·0

  16

  3

  18·8

  Bradford

  167

  3

  1·8

  88

  6

  6·8

  Brent

  64

  1

  1·6

  13

  8

  61·5

  Bromley

  78

  2

  2·6

  17

  11

  64·7

  Buckinghamshire

  290

  6

  2·1

  45

  10

  22·2

  Bury

  71

  1

  1·4

  14

  —

  0·0

  Calderdale

  91

  2

  2·2

  16

  6

  37·5

  Cambridge

  267

  6

  2·2

  44

  16

  36·4

  Camden

  41

  —

  0·0

  11

  2

  18·2

  Cheshire

  454

  3

  0·7

  68

  3

  4·4

  Cleveland

  203

  —

  0·0

  44

  —

  0·0

  Cornwall

  249

  —

  0·0

  31

  —

  0·0

  Corp. of London

  1

  —

  0·0

  0

  —

  0·0

  Coventry

  109

  —

  0·0

  19

  —

  0·0

  Croydon

  98

  2

  2·0

  20

  6

  30·0

  Cumbria

  306

  14

  4·6

  42

  11

  26·2

  Derbyshire

  450

  7

  1·6

  61

  14

  23·0

  Devon

  442

  1

  0·2

  64

  6

  9·4

  Doncaster

  127

  —

  0·0

  34

  —

  0·0

  Dorset

  200

  1

  0·5

  56

  9

  16·1

  Dudley

  83

  1

  1·2

  22

  6

  27·3

  Durham

  298

  —

  0·0

  43

  —

  0·0

  Ealing

  92

  4

  4·3

  13

  5

  38·5

  East Sussex

  219

  —

  0·0

  34

  —

  0·0

  Enfield

  70

  1

  1·4

  17

  5

  29·4

  Essex

  581

  66

  11·4

  105

  66

  62·9

  Gateshead

  82

  —

  0·0

  13

  —

  0·0

  Gloucestershire

  262

  7

  2·7

  43

  24

  55·8

  Greenwich

  79

  —

  0·0

  15

  —

  0·0

  Hackney

  70

  —

  0·0

  10

  —

  0·0

  Hammersmith

  38

  —

  0·0

  10

  1

  10·0

  Hampshire

  580

  13

  2·2

  94

  17

  18·1

  Haringey

  77

  —

  0·0

  9

  —

  0·0

  Harrow

  54

  —

  0·0

  10

  1

  10·0

  Havering

  74

  —

  0·0

  19

  4

  21·1

  Hereford and Worcester

  288

  —

  0·0

  76

  5

  6·6

  Hertfordshire

  432

  6

  1·4

  88

  20

  22·7

  Hillingdon

  72

  11

  15·3

  15

  12

  80·0

  Hounslow

  62

  —

  0·0

  14

  2

  14·3

  Humberside

  354

  2

  0·6

  60

  —

  0·0

  Isle of Scilly

  4

  —

  0·0

  1

  —

  0·0

  Isle of Wight

  46

  —

  0·0

  21

  —

  0·0

  Islington

  57

  —

  0·0

  9

  —

  0·0

  Kensington

  27

  1

  3·7

  4

  1

  25·0

  Kent

  570

  17

  3·0

  136

  57

  41·9

  Kingston

  36

  1

  2·8

  10

  4

  40·0

  Kirklees

  158

  —

  0·0

  34

  2

  5·9

  Knowsley

  68

  —

  0·0

  11

  1

  9·1

  Lambeth

  77

  5

  6·5

  19

  5

  50·0

  Lancashire

  605

  1

  0·2

  106

  8

  7·5

  Leeds

  249

  1

  0·4

  46

  1

  2·2

  Leicester

  334

  —

  0·0

  79

  5

  6·3

  Lewisham

  72

  1

  1·4

  13

  —

  0·0

  Lincolnshire

  293

  22

  7·5

  63

  24

  38·1

  38

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 73, what is the total number of schools in each local education authority and the percentage thereof which have opted for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows total numbers of maintained schools and the numbers and percentages of schools operating with or approved for grant-maintained status in each local education authority area.
  39

  LEA

  Total Primary

  GM Primary

  Percentage GM

  Total Secondary

  GM Secondary

  Percentage GM

  Liverpool

  198

  —

  0·0

  36

  3

  8·3

  Manchester

  174

  —

  0·0

  28

  —

  0·0

  Merton

  49

  —

  0·0

  11

  —

  0·0

  Newcastle

  82

  —

  0·0

  22

  —

  0·0

  Newham

  67

  —

  0·0

  14

  1

  7·1

  Norfolk

  397

  13

  3·3

  52

  12

  23·1

  North Tyneside

  61

  —

  0·0

  26

  —

  0·0

  North Yorkshire

  394

  —

  0·0

  59

  —

  0·0

  Northamptonshire

  270

  9

  3·3

  65

  12

  18·5

  Northumberland

  143

  —

  0·0

  61

  1

  1·6

  Nottinghamshire

  426

  —

  0·0

  82

  3

  3·7

  Oldham

  104

  —

  0·0

  15

  —

  0·0

  Oxfordshire

  241

  1

  0·4

  44

  —

  0·0

  Redbridge

  56

  —

  0·0

  14

  1

  7·1

  Richmond

  39

  —

  0·0

  8

  —

  0·0

  Rochdale

  76

  3

  3·9

  14

  1

  7·1

  Rotherham

  115

  —

  0·0

  18

  —

  0·0

  Salford

  88

  —

  0·0

  18

  1

  5·6

  Sandwell

  112

  —

  0·0

  20

  1

  5·0

  Sefton

  94

  —

  0·0

  22

  —

  0·0

  Sheffield

  164

  4

  2·4

  32

  2

  6·3

  Shropshire

  214

  1

  0·5

  37

  5

  13·5

  Solihull

  70

  1

  1·4

  13

  —

  0·0

  Somerset

  229

  2

  0·9

  39

  1

  2·6

  South Tyneside

  58

  —

  0·0

  11

  —

  0·0

  Southwark

  75

  4

  5·3

  14

  5

  35·7

  St Helens

  72

  —

  0·0

  12

  —

  0·0

  Staffordshire

  414

  2

  0·5

  85

  5

  5·9

  Stockport

  110

  —

  0·0

  14

  —

  0·0

  Suffolk

  255

  —

  0·0

  77

  —

  0·0

  Sunderland

  105

  —

  0·0

  17

  —

  0·0

  Surrey

  372

  11

  3·0

  51

  13

  25·5

  Sutton

  43

  3

  7·0

  14

  8

  57·1

  Tameside

  82

  —

  0·0

  18

  3

  16·7

  Tower Hamlets

  73

  —

  0·0

  15

  1

  6·7

  Trafford

  78

  —

  0·0

  16

  4

  25·0

  Wakefield

  130

  —

  0·0

  38

  —

  0·0

  Walsall

  106

  2

  1·9

  21

  6

  28·6

  Waltham Forest

  61

  —

  0·0

  16

  2

  12·5

  Wandsworth

  72

  2

  2·8

  10

  6

  60·0

  Warwickshire

  244

  —

  0·0

  37

  8

  21·6

  West Sussex

  246

  —

  0·0

  41

  —

  0·0

  Westminster

  42

  —

  0·0

  8

  —

  0·0

  Wigan

  125

  —

  0·0

  21

  —

  0·0

  Wiltshire

  294

  9

  3·1

  44

  13

  29·5

  Wirral

  106

  —

  0·0

  21

  2

  9·5

  Wolverhampton

  101

  —

  0·0

  20

  3

  15·0

  TOTALS

  18,905

  295

  1·6

  3,657

  561

  15·3

  Note: Numbers and percentages of operating and approved GM schools are as at 20 January 1994.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Consultancies
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the(a) accountancy firms and (b) merchant banks to which her Department awarded private consultancy work in 1992 and 1993, together with a list of the consultancies concerned and the amount paid.

  Mr. Jack
  During the years 1992 and 1993, the following firms, including one merchant bank, offering accountancy services were awarded consultancy contracts by my core Department.

  Amtec Consulting

  BDO Binder-Hamlyn

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Ernst & Young

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Leopold Joseph

  PA Consulting

  40

  Price Waterhouse

  Stoy Hayward

  Touche Ross Management Consultants

  Consultancies given to the above firms included various areas of work other than accountancy and the total cost was in the region of £950,000 individual contract figures cannot be given as this information is classified commercial in confidence. This answer excludes contracts made by agencies.

  Kent Woods
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the number and names of Forestry Commission woods in Kent(a) sold in the last two years and (b) to be sold in the next 12 months, showing the hectarage of each and how much money was or will be received for each wood.

  Mr. Jack
  The Forestry Commission has sold one woodland in Kent in the last two years—Rogley hop garden—3 hectares. The new owner did not agree to the purchase price being made public.
  41
  The commission is currently selling or considering the sale of the following woodlands in Kent in the next 12 months:

  Woodland

  Area (hectares)

  Post Wood

  26

  Stone Wood

  11

  Cole Wood

  22

  Penfold Wood

  7

  West Wood

  176

  The price received for these woodlands will depend on the state of the market at the time.

  Food Labelling
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the regulations currently implemented by Her Majest's Government and the European Commission relating to food labelling; what implications these have for the production and export of traditional Scottish fare, including haggis; and if she will ensure that no regulations will prevent the use of traditional recipes.

  Mr. Jack
  Food labelling rules are set out principally in EC directive 79/112 and these are implemented in Great Britain by the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 and the Food Labelling (Scotland) Regulations 1984, both of which have been subject to some amendment and both of which are currently being reviewed and updated. I know of nothing in any of these regulations which has a particular effect on either Scottish fare or any other traditional receipe and I have no plans to make regulations that will. If any applications are received under the EC schemes for the registration of specific characteristics of food or of geographic names, which are separate from the labelling rules, which appear to affect adversly the interests of Scottish, or any other UK producers, then I would wish to give them every opportunity to comment on issues which concern them.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate she has made of the effect the liberalisation of trade under the new GATT regime will have on the amount of fruit and vegetables entering the United Kingdom contaminated with pesticide residues.

  Mr. Jack
  We expect imports of fruit and vegetables to continue to comply with our pesticide residues requirements. The food industry has been reminded of the need to ensure that residues comply with our statutory requirements.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many consignments of fruit and vegetables were refused entry at United Kingdom ports in 1993 because they contain excess levels of pesticides and preservatives.

  Mr. Jack
  In 1993, our monitoring of imported fruit and vegetables, including enforcement monitoring of imported oranges, indicated that residue levels were sufficiently low and that the imports were acceptable. Consequently, none were refused entry.
  42
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps her Department is taking to ensure that imports of fruit do not contain levels of pesticides and preservatives exceeding the maximum residue level.

  Mr. Jack
  One of the purposes of the surveillance monitoring programme which is carried out by the Government's working party on pesticide residues is to check that imported food complies with statutory maximum residue levels contained in the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Food) Regulations 1988. The latest results, which are made available in full each year, were published on 18 January. Where surveillance shows that imported food does not comply with statutory limits, enforcement action may be taken at ports or within the UK.

  Rift Valley Fever
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the number of incidents of Rift Valley fever in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Jack
  There have been no outbreaks of Rift Valley fever since 1985.

  Coastal Erosion, Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what advice she can give the Isle of Wight local authorities following the recent extensive coastal problems; and what moneys may be available to help with the problems;

  (2) if she will ensure her advisers visit the Isle of Wight to assess the extent of coastal erosion and landslip and to advise the local authorities.

  Mr. Jack
  I understand that the earth slip on the southern coast of the Isle of Wight was caused by excess water in the coastal slope rather than erosion by the sea. The coastal defences around the Isle of Wight have not been affected but, if the council wishes to undertake any works to protect against erosion by the sea in the area, its proposals will be considered by MAFF for grant aid in the normal way. So far as the present landslip is concerned, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would be willing to consider any application for assistance under the Bellwin scheme.

  Engineers from South Wight borough council have been in contact with the Ministry's regional engineer but have not yet felt it necessary to invite him to visit the area.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which special advisers in his Department are seconded from other organisations; and what are the organisations and the lengths and terms of the secondments.

  Mr. Howard
  Neither of the special advisers employed by the Home Office is seconded from other organisations.
  43

  Visas
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the European Commission proposal for a regulation determining the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the member states;

  (2) if he will list those countries which are indicated on the European Commission list as countries which will require a visa for entry to the European Union.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In accordance with the procedures for Parliamentary scrutiny of European Community documents, the Commission's proposal was deposited on 18 January. An explanatory memorandum is in preparation.

  Addictive Diseases Trust
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contribution his Department makes towards the Addictive Diseases Trust.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Addictive Diseases Trust receives a grant of £18,000 towards the provision of drug counselling services at HM prison Downview for the period 1 September 1993 to 30 August 1994.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons which make available the services of the Addictive Diseases Trust to combat drug and alcohol abuse.

  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 Lady Olga Maitland, dated 24 January 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prisons which make available the services of the Addictive Diseases Trust.

  Table A

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police, cautions and defendants prosecuted at the magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for specific offences involving children under 16 years of age in (a) England and (b) Wales 1988

  England

  Wales

  Offence

  Recorded offences

  Cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  1Total found guilty

  Recorded offences

  Cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  1Total found guilty

  INDICTABLE OFFENCES

  Violence against the person

  Murder of infant under 1 year of age

  N/a

  N/a

  13

  1

  N/a

  N/a

  —

  —

  Infanticide

  N/a

  N/a

  1

  3

  N/a

  N/a

  —

  1

  Child destruction

  8

  N/a

  2

  —

  —

  N/a

  —

  —

  Cruelty to, or neglect of, children

  N/a

  53

  187

  140

  N/a

  7

  42

  25

  Abandoning children under 2 years

  19

  11

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Child abduction

  152

  17

  54

  23

  4

  1

  2

  3

  Sexual offences

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  N/a

  N/a

  300

  219

  N/a

  N/a

  20

  13

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  N/a

  N/a

  26

  29

  N/a

  N/a

  2

  2

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  N/a

  N/a

  537

  447

  N/a

  N/a

  22

  13

  Indecent assault on a female person under 16 years

  N/a

  N/a

  2,038

  1,563

  N/a

  N/a

  121

  87

  44
  Currently, one prison, HMP Downview, makes the services of this organisation available to prisoners.

  Police Co-operation
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he will take to improve police co-operation and the sharing of evidence with local housing authorities where their tenants are behaving in a criminal and anti-social manner.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This is entirely a matter for the chief officer of the police force concerned.

  Joseph Kasser
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the co-operation between the Customs and Excise and No. 2—north-east—regional crime squad in relation to the case which resulted in the conviction on drugs charges of Joseph Kasser in January at Newcastle Crown court.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Two defendants in this case are still awaiting trial and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment while the case is sub judice.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported cases of child abuse there have been in each year since 1988 in(a) England and (b) Wales; how many prosecutions there have been in each of those years; and how many convictions have been obtained in each of those years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is given in the tables. It is not possible from the information held centrally to identify all offences where the victim is aged under 16 years; children may also have been the victim of other offences—such as murder—which are not defined by reference to the victim's age.
  45

  England

  Wales

  Offence

  Recorded offences

  Cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  1Total found guilty

  Recorded offences

  Cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  1Total found guilty

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  264

  76

  150

  127

  19

  3

  15

  8

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  2,360

  1,146

  318

  319

  192

  69

  27

  21

  Incest with girl under 13

  N/a

  N/a

  96

  99

  N/a

  N/a

  9

  5

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  N/a

  N/a

  2

  1

  N/a

  N/a

  1

  1

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  N/a

  N/a

  10

  7

  N/a

  N/a

  —

  —

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution, etc.

  N/a

  N/a

  —

  1

  N/a

  N/a

  —

  —

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  N/a

  N/a

  18

  8

  N/a

  N/a

  2

  —

  Gross indecency with children

  803

  83

  208

  232

  68

  5

  18

  14

  SUMMARY OFFENCES

  Violence against the person

  Cruelty to, or neglect of, children

  N/a

  3

  2

  2

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  1 Will include persons proceeded against in earlier years.

  N/a—Not available.

  Table B

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police, cautions and defendants prosecuted at the magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for specific offences involving children under 16 years of age in (a) England and (b) Wales 1989

  England

  Wales

  Offence

  Recorded offences

  Cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  1Total found guilty

  Recorded offences

  Cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  1Total found guilty

  INDICTABLE OFFENCES

  Violence against the person

  Murder of infant under 1 year of age

  N/a

  —

  10

  2

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Infanticide

  N/a

  1

  —

  3

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Child destruction

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cruelty to, or neglect of, children

  N/a

  74

  344

  195

  N/a

  4

  32

  17

  Abandoning children under 2 years

  29

  1

  3

  3

  5

  2

  —

  —

  Child abduction

  136

  23

  63

  40

  4

  1

  4

  2

  Sexual offences

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  N/a

  36

  275

  177

  N/a

  3

  6

  6

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  N/a

  10

  30

  26

  N/a

  —

  2

  —

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  N/a

  149

  521

  384

  N/a

  8

  32

  22

  Indecent assault on a female person under 16 years

  N/a

  1,055

  2,041

  1,570

  N/a

  66

  128

  87

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  273

  72

  128

  92

  27

  11

  11

  4

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  2,338

  1,066

  268

  247

  133

  56

  22

  15

  Incest with girl under 13

  N/a

  11

  80

  93

  N/a

  —

  8

  7

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  N/a

  —

  2

  4

  N/a

  —

  1

  1

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  N/a

  3

  6

  3

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution, etc.

  N/a

  —

  2

  1

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  N/a

  3

  13

  11

  N/a

  —

  3

  2

  Gross indecency with children

  992

  68

  260

  205

  286

  10

  17

  14

  SUMMARY OFFENCES

  Violence against the person

  Cruelty to, or neglect of, children

  N/a

  1

  4

  2

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  1 Will include persons proceeded against in earlier years.

  N/a—Not available.

  46

  47

  Table C

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police, cautions and defendants prosecuted at the magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for specific offences involving children under 16 years of age in (a) England and (b) Wales 1990

  England

  Wales

  Offence

  Recorded offences

  Cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  1Total found guilty

  Recorded offences

  Cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  1Total found guilty

  INDICTABLE OFFENCES

  Violence against the person

  Murder of infant under 1 year of age

  N/a

  —

  9

  —

  N/a

  —

  1

  1

  Infanticide

  N/a

  —

  —

  3

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Child destruction

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cruelty to, or neglect of, children

  N/a

  96

  392

  225

  N/a

  6

  48

  22

  Abandoning children under 2 years

  21

  9

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Child abduction

  195

  9

  62

  31

  13

  —

  4

  2

  Sexual offences

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  N/a

  54

  302

  175

  N/a

  5

  25

  14

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  N/a

  7

  23

  17

  N/a

  —

  2

  1

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  N/a

  214

  537

  399

  N/a

  7

  33

  22

  Indecent assault on a female person under 16 years

  N/a

  1,062

  2,159

  1,442

  N/a

  55

  126

  95

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  284

  68

  132

  103

  20

  4

  14

  7

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  2,033

  937

  277

  291

  107

  47

  15

  13

  Incest with girl under 13

  N/a

  16

  106

  81

  N/a

  —

  5

  3

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  N/a

  1

  1

  3

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  N/a

  —

  7

  5

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution, etc.

  N/a

  —

  —

  2

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  N/a

  4

  12

  7

  N/a

  3

  —

  1

  Gross indecency with children

  991

  87

  304

  266

  72

  7

  13

  10

  SUMMARY OFFENCES

  Violence against the person

  Cruelty to, or neglect of, children

  N/a

  2

  25

  23

  N/a

  1

  1

  1

  1 Will include persons proceeded against in earlier years.

  N/a—Not available.

  Table D

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police, cautions and defendants prosecuted at the magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for specific offences involving children under 16 years of age in (a) England and (b) Wales 1991

  England

  Wales

  Offence

  Recorded offences

  Cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  1Total found guilty

  Recorded offences

  Cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  1Total found guilty

  INDICTABLE OFFENCES

  Violence against the person

  Murder of infant under 1 year of age

  N/a

  —

  3

  1

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Infanticide

  N/a

  —

  1

  7

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Child destruction

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cruelty to, or neglect of, children

  N/a

  103

  373

  208

  N/a

  4

  54

  28

  Abandoning children under 2 years

  40

  11

  6

  2

  7

  5

  —

  —

  Child abduction

  188

  16

  83

  41

  8

  —

  6

  4

  Sexual offences

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  N/a

  46

  280

  157

  N/a

  3

  20

  11

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy und the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  N/a

  5

  21

  26

  N/a

  —

  3

  —

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  N/a

  194

  493

  326

  N/a

  5

  29

  25

  Indecent assault on a female person under 16 years

  N/a

  971

  1,999

  1,366

  N/a

  52

  139

  103

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  291

  54

  145

  98

  24

  9

  10

  7

  48 49

  England

  Wales

  Offence

  Recorded offences

  Cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  1Total found guilty

  Recorded offences

  Cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  1Total found guilty

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  1,834

  801

  239

  208

  115

  49

  15

  15

  Incest with girl under 13

  N/a

  13

  79

  63

  N/a

  —

  1

  5

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  N/a

  —

  1

  3

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  N/a

  —

  3

  1

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution, etc.

  N/a

  —

  2

  1

  N/a

  —

  —

  1

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  N/a

  3

  19

  7

  N/a

  —

  1

  1

  Gross indecency with children

  1,055

  74

  225

  205

  92

  7

  14

  14

  SUMMARY OFFENCES

  Violence against the person

  Cruelty to, or neglect of, children

  N/a

  3

  7

  5

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  1 Will include persons proceeded against in earlier years.

  N/a—Not available.

  Table E

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police, cautions and defendants prosecuted at the magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for specific offences involving children under 16 years of age in (a) England and (b) Wales 1992

  England

  Wales

  Offence

  Recorded offences

  Cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  1Total found guilty

  Recorded offences

  Cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  1Total found guilty

  INDICTABLE OFFENCES

  Violence against the person

  Murder of infant under 1 year of age

  N/a

  —

  12

  1

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Infanticide

  N/a

  1

  3

  5

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Child destruction

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cruelty to, or neglect of, children

  N/a

  135

  402

  191

  N/a

  13

  48

  21

  Abandoning children under 2 years

  38

  10

  3

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Child abduction

  199

  15

  62

  29

  7

  —

  11

  5

  Sexual offences

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  N/a

  25

  305

  156

  N/a

  5

  24

  7

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  N/a

  7

  24

  17

  N/a

  1

  3

  —

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  N/a

  202

  422

  336

  N/a

  7

  35

  27

  Indecent assault on a female person under 16 years

  N/a

  1,036

  1,856

  1,235

  N/a

  45

  149

  96

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  233

  46

  99

  83

  20

  13

  13

  6

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  1,464

  681

  237

  206

  99

  25

  17

  12

  Incest with girl under 13

  N/a

  9

  46

  49

  N/a

  3

  4

  3

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  N/a

  5

  2

  3

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  N/a

  2

  9

  3

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution, etc.

  N/a

  1

  —

  —

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  N/a

  3

  23

  11

  N/a

  —

  1

  1

  Gross indecency with children

  1,048

  94

  239

  216

  110

  4

  22

  12

  SUMMARY OFFENCES

  Violence against the person

  Cruelty to, or neglect of, children

  N/a

  2

  4

  1

  N/a

  —

  —

  —

  1 Will include persons proceeded against in earlier years.

  N/a—Not available.

  50 51

  Stolen Horses
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by county, the number of reported incidents of horses being stolen in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Loans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each scheme operated by his Department under which loans are available, the objectives of the scheme, the number of unrecovered loans, the total value of unrecovered loans, the average number of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990, the average value of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990 and the annual cost of recovering loans.

  Mr. Howard
  Long-term loans have been made by my Department to the Fire Service College, a trading fund, for capital expenditure in 1992–93 and 1993–94. All proper repayments have been made when due.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has made an assessment of the value of and applicability of citizens charter type principles to electoral registration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Electoral registration officers have a statutory duty to compile a comprehensive electoral register. Electors' rights are enshrined in statute and remedies are available through the courts in cases where rights have been denied. My right hon. and learned Friend therefore has no plans to introduce a charter covering this area.

  North Wales Police Helicopter
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often the North Wales police helicopter is used for transporting accident victims to hospitals or transferring patients from one hospital to another; how much has been reclaimed from the health authorities for this service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Between 1 October 1992 and 31 December 1993 a total of 65 casualties were conveyed to hospital by helicopter—3 per cent. of the helicopter's total usage. No payment has been requested from health authorities in respect of casualty evacuations in this financial year. Negotiations are taking place with the North Wales ambulance trust about charges in the next financial year when the helicopter is used at the trust's request.

  The use of the helicopter in medical emergencies is confined to cases where the casualty's life is at risk, or where the use of a land vehicle would be impractical. The police helicopter may also be used to move patients between one hospital and another where such assistance is likely to save life. The sum of £4,900 has been received from hospitals for three such flights in the current financial year.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the monthly operating cost of 52
  the North Wales constabulary's helicopter; what is the helicopter's total mileage since being brought into service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The average monthly cost of the North Wales police helicopter in 1993–94 is expected to be about £59,000. This includes an element of cost involved in establishing the air support unit, and therefore should reduce next year.

  Helicopter usage is measured in flying hours rather than by distance covered. From the start of the operation on 1 October 1992 up to 31 December 1993, the helicopter recorded 795 flying hours.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Hammersmith may expect an answer to his letters of 11 October and 22 November 1993 concerning the effectiveness of the 27 points he announced to deal with crime.

  Mr. Maclean
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 20 January 1994.

  Search Warrants
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department grants the power to execute a search warrant to anyone other than police officers where inquiries are being made into the immigration status of someone who is known or suspected to be in breach of immigration laws.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Paragraph 17(2) of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 provides for a warrant granted by a justice of the peace to enter premises to search for a person liable to detention, to be executed only by a constable.

  Section 16(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that such a warrant may authorise persons to accompany any constable who is executing it.

  Dorothy Nwokedi
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the aircraft commander on the plane in which Dorothy Nwokedi was deported had given explicit authorisation for the use of the restraints used upon her;

  (2) if he will publish the record of the reasons for the use of restraints used on Dorothy Nwokedi and of the aircraft commander's authority.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Measures were taken to restrain Mrs. Nwokedi on board the aircraft in order to avoid endangering the safety of others on board. The captain's authorisation was not explicitly sought, but he was fully aware of the measures taken and has confirmed that he was satisfied that they were necessary for the safety of other passengers.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 375, what estimate he has made of the additional costs, net of any reduction in employer's national insurance contributions, to his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95 resulting from the changes in statutory sick pay provision.
  53
  Mr. Howard
  No precise estimate has been made, but the additional costs are expected to be approximately £1·4 million.

  Local Government Grants
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total grant allocation made under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95; and if he will list the individual allocations for each local authority for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Total provision for section 11 grant in 1993–94 is currently £130·8 million. The corresponding figure for 1994–95 amounts to £111·5 million. This includes funding transferred to the new single regeneration budget. I shall write to the hon. Member on the second part of his question.

  Early Release Prisoners
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in each of the last six months have been released from prison on parole, licence or any other scheme for the early or temporary release of prisoners; how many committed offences or have been charged with committing offences while released under these schemes; and what were the offences concerned.

  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 Mr. Win Griffiths, dated 24 January 1994:

  EARLY OR TEMPORARY RELEASE OF PRISONERS

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many prisoners in each of the last six

  Establishments

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Escapers

  Still UAL

  Escapers

  Still UAL

  Escapers

  Still UAL

  Escapers

  Still UAL

  Escapers

  Still UAL

  Acklington

  6

  —

  11

  —

  6

  —

  2

  —

  3

  —

  Aldington

  6

  1

  6

  —

  16

  3

  14

  3

  1

  1

  Ashwell

  3

  —

  2

  —

  6

  —

  1

  —

  4

  —

  Bedford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belmarsh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Blakenhurst

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Blantyre House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  —

  Blundeston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Brinsford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Bristol

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Brockhill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buckley Hall

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bullwood Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camp Hill

  1

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  4

  —

  1

  1

  Canterbury

  2

  2

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cardiff

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  5

  1

  —

  —

  Castington

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Channings Wood

  5

  —

  3

  —

  9

  —

  8

  2

  2

  2

  Chelmsford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Dartmoor

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deerbolt

  12

  —

  5

  —

  5

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Dorchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dover

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Downview

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  4

  2

  6

  1

  Durham

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eastwood Park

  1

  —

  5

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  54
  months have been released from prison on parole, licence or any other scheme for the early or temporary release of prisoners; how many committed offences or have been charged with committing offences whilst released under these schemes; and what were the offences concerned.

  I regret that there is currently no accurate information available for the numbers released from prison in recent months. however, all those discharged from determinate sentences are released early either under the 1991 CJA or, for those sentenced before 1 october 1992, previous legislation. The average number discharged is about 4,000 a month. At present we have no central information on the numbers released on temporary absence nor on those committing or charged with committing offences whilst released, either temporarily or otherwise. We are considering whether and if so how such information can be made available in the future.

  Escaped Prisoners
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons from which there have been escapes in each of the last five years; how many prisoners were involved in each escape; how long it was before they were recaptured; and what further offences, if any, were committed during the escape period.

  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 Mr. Win Griffiths, dated 24 January 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for details of the prisons from which there have been escapes in each of the last five years; the number of prisoners involved in each escape; the period before recapture; and any further offences committed during the escape period.

  I attach a table which lists the prisons from which prisoners have escaped, the number of prisoners involved and the number of escapees still unlawfully at large, as recorded by the Incident Management Support Unit.

  The further offences committed by escaped prisoners is not recorded centrally, and the time spent unlawfully at large could only be calculated at disproportionate cost.
  55

  Establishments

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Escapers

  Still UAL

  Escapers

  Still UAL

  Escapers

  Still UAL

  Escapers

  Still UAL

  Escapers

  Still UAL

  Elmley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Erlestoke

  4

  —

  7

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1

  Everthorpe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  12

  —

  4

  —

  Exeter

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Featherstone

  4

  —

  5

  —

  5

  —

  3

  1

  10

  3

  Feltham

  3

  1

  —

  —

  14

  —

  18

  1

  3

  3

  Frankland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Glen Parva

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  8

  —

  2

  —

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  9

  —

  3

  —

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Guys Marsh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  18

  —

  Haslar

  5

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  7

  5

  4

  Haverigg

  1

  —

  6

  —

  4

  —

  3

  —

  10

  1

  Hewell Grange

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highdown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Highpoint

  28

  —

  11

  —

  15

  —

  17

  5

  2

  1

  Hindley

  6

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Holloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Huntercombe

  —

  —

  7

  —

  3

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Hull

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kingston

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kirklevington

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Latchmere House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancaster

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancaster Farms

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Leeds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicester

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lewes

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Leyhill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Lincoln

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Lindholme

  4

  —

  7

  —

  29

  —

  9

  —

  8

  2

  Littlehey

  —

  —

  5

  2

  1

  —

  5

  —

  7

  —

  Maidstone

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  The Mount

  2

  —

  1

  —

  12

  3

  2

  —

  4

  —

  New Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  9

  —

  1

  1

  Northeye

  3

  1

  4

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norwich

  4

  —

  9

  —

  7

  1

  5

  —

  2

  —

  Onley

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  9

  2

  Oxford

  2

  1

  3

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Parkhurst

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pentonville

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Portland

  3

  —

  4

  —

  24

  —

  10

  —

  20

  3

  Preston

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Pucklechurch

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ranby

  11

  —

  29

  1

  11

  —

  14

  —

  20

  5

  Risley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  Rochester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  2

  —

  3

  —

  Send

  —

  —

  4

  1

  4

  —

  3

  —

  3

  —

  Shepton Mallet

  —

  —

  4

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Stafford

  5

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Stocken

  3

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Stoke Heath

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  Styal

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sudbury

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Swaleside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Swansea

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Thorn Cross

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thorp Arch

  2

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  USK

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  The Verne

  5

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  6

  —

  8

  1

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Wayland

  —

  —

  7

  —

  7

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Wellingborough

  —

  —

  2

  —

  4

  —

  5

  2

  7

  3

  Werrington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  7

  —

  8

  —

  Wetherby

  3

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  —

  5

  —

  Whatton

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Winchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  The Wolds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Wormwood Scrubs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wymott

  11

  —

  5

  —

  18

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  162

  8

  195

  4

  303

  12

  254

  30

  204

  40

  56 57

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have died in British prisons as a result of the use of unlawful drugs in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 21 January 1994]: 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 Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 24 January 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of people who have died in British prisons as a result of the use of unlawful drugs in each year since 1988.

  Information from the outcome of post mortem examinations does not always provide details of the drugs which may be implicated in deaths. In England and Wales the information available centrally, which may not be complete, on deaths in prison which were attributable to illicit drugs which are not pharmaceutical preparations is as follows:

  Number

  1988

  0

  1989

  0

  1990

  0

  1991

  2

  1992

  2

  Data are not yet available for 1993.

  Directorate of Telecommunications
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to the request from the three civil service unions for a meeting to discuss the directorate of telecommunications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have agreed to the meeting.

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what would be the annual saving arising from the closure of bail hostels in the west midlands area.

  Mr. Maclean
  We expect the savings to be in the order of £200,000 in 1994–95 and £400,000 for 1995–96.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the average cost of a place in a bail hostel in the west midlands, (b) the average length of stay and (c) the average cost of a prison remand place in the west midlands; and if he will give weekly figures from the latest available information.

  Mr. Maclean
  (a) The average weekly cost in 1993–94 is £243; (b) this information is not readily available in the form requested; (c) costs for remand prisoners are not kept separately. For 1992–93, the average weekly net operating cost per prisoner at Birmingham prison—the only prison in the west midlands—was £383. Remand prisoners represent just over 40 per cent. of these prisoners.
  58
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of persons who will be remanded into custody as a result of the closure of bail hostels in the west midlands.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for the courts to decide who should be remanded in custody. There are approved hostel facilities available to them in the same or neighbouring probation areas.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what alternative arrangements are planned following the proposed closure of bail hostels in the west midlands.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are alternative hostel facilities in the west midlands and in neighbouring probation areas and it will be for the probation service there to bring them to the attention of the courts.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whom he plans to consult about the proposed closure of bail hostels in the west midlands.

  Mr. Maclean
  West midlands probation service was notified on 1 December of our closure proposals and given the opportunity to comment.

  Dover Bail Hostel
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for each of the last three years for which figures are available, how many residents of Dover bail hostel were(a) aged under 17 years, (b) aged 17 to 21 years and (c) aged 21 years and over.

  Mr. Maclean
  The figures for individual years are not readily available. However, the total number in each category over the last three years is (a) 0, (b) 134, (c) 146.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what capital and revenue expenditure will be available for hostel provision in the Kent area for 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Maclean
  Revenue grant for 1994–95 and 1995–96 will be about £200,000 a year. Capital grant will depend on the scrutiny of spending proposals submitted by all probation areas.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for the latest year available, how many people were remanded in Dover bail hostel; and how many were(a) black males and (b) black females.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not held centrally and is not readily available.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are likely to be made redundant in the event of the closure of the Dover bail hostel; and what would be the financial costs.

  Mr. Maclean
  It will be for the Kent probation committee as employer to decide how to handle the consequences of closure in terms of redeployment or redundancies; we have not yet received a full account of its conclusions.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people might be remanded into custody per annum as a result of the closure of Dover bail hostel in Kent.
  59
  Mr. Maclean
  It is for the courts to decide who should be remanded in custody. There are approved hostel facilities available to them in the same or neighbouring probation areas.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what would be the annual saving as a result of the closure of the Dover bail hostel in Kent.

  Mr. Maclean
  We expect the saving to be in the order of £100,000 in 1994–95 and £200,000 in 1995–96.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were either rearrested and charged or breached for failure to comply with requirements at the Dover bail hostel for the last 10 quarters for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  The quarterly figures are not readily available. However, over the last three years a total of 16 residents were rearrested and charged with other offences; and breach proceedings were taken against 94 residents for failure to comply with hostel requirements.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the average cost of a weekly place in the Dover bail hostel, (b) the average length of stay and (c) what was the average cost of a person remand place in the Kent area.

  Mr. Maclean
  (a) The current weekly cost is £269. (b) This information is not readily available in the form requested. (c) Figures showing the average cost of a prison remand place alone are not available. The current average cost of a place at the three local prison establishments that cover a multi-functional role, of which remand is a part, is £398 per place per week.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the occupancy rate of the Dover bail hostel for each of the last 10 quarters.

  Mr. Maclean
  The occupancy figures for the period April 1991 to March 1992 are not available in a quarterly form. The figures from April 1992 to September 1993 are detailed:

  Per cent.

  April 1992 to June 1992

  61

  July 1992 to September 1992

  68

  October 1992 to December 1992

  55

  January 1993 to March 1993

  57

  April 1993 to June 1993

  52

  July 1993 to September 1993

  50

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will be consulted about the proposed closure of the Dover bail hostel in Kent.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Kent probation service was notified on 1 December of our closure proposals and given the opportunity to comment.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what capital expenditure was planned for the Dover bail hostel prior to the Home Office statement of 30 November.

  Mr. Maclean
  A proposal for capital expenditure on the Dover bail hostel was under consideration by my officials prior to the 30 November statement, but it was not formally approved.
  60
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the event of the closure of the Dover bail hostel, what advice would be given to the magistrates courts regarding any future bail hostel remands.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for the Kent probation service to bring to the attention of magistrates courts the facilities offered by approved hostels in its own or in neighbouring areas.

  Charity Commission Investigation
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, columns 947–48, how many people were interviewed by the Charity Commission during the investigation; and if Dame Shirley Porter, Michael Ivens, or members of Marketforce Communications Ltd. were interviewed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  One person, Sir Nigel Mobbs, the chairman of the charity's trustees, was interviewed during the investigation.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, columns 947–48, in what months the Charity Commission's investigations into the payments from the Foundation for Business Responsibilities of Marketforce Communications Ltd. were carried out.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The investigation was carried out between November 1991 and May 1992.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, columns 947–48, who repaid the money to the Foundation for Business Responsibilities following the Charity Commission's investigation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Michael Ivens repaid the money to the foundation.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, columns 947–48, what considerations underlay the Charity Commission's decision not to interview the donors to the Foundation for Business Responsibilties; and which of the foundation's trustees were interviewed during the Charity Commission's investigations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It was not necessary for the purposes of the investigation to interview the donors to the Foundation for Business Responsibilities.

  Sir Nigel Mobbs, chairman of the trustees, was interviewed during the investigation.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, columns 947–48, how many companies and individuals made donations to the Foundation for Business Responsibilities during 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Charities are not required to identify donors or donations in their accounts and these details are not separately identified in the published accounts of the Foundation for Business Responsibilities.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,
  61
  Official Report, columns 947–48, who has been the director of the Foundation for Business Responsibilities following Michael Ivens' resignation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There has been no director of the Foundation for Business Responsibilities since the resignation of Mr. Ivens. Any further appointment is a matter for the trustees.

  Deportation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which destinations are considered to pose a greater risk to a police officer's safety than to that of the employees of private companies when escorting detainees; and what criteria are used in arriving at these decisions.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There is no comprehensive list of such destinations and the position may change from time to time. Assessments are made on the basis of all relevant information available to my Department and to the police.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the planned use of standard request forms to private security firms as well as to police in requests for assistance in deportation cases.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Yes.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account the Home Office and police review of removal procedures in immigration cases took of the standard of training carried out by private contractors before concluding that the use of a private contractor is undesirable where there is a known propensity to violence on the part of the detainee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The conclusion was based on considerations related to the powers and resources of the police rather than the standard of training provided by private contractors.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the improvements in training of police officers involved in escorting deportees announced in the recent Home Office/police review will be extended to the employees of private security firms involved in this work.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The companies which provide escorts are selected carefully, and their staff are expected to be fully trained. In considering the adequacy of that training the immigration service will take full account of the Home Office/police review of removal procedures.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which other European countries use(a) gags, (b) handcuffs, (c) bodybelts, (d) arm restraints and (e) leg restraints during deportations; and what discussions he has had with Ministers of other EC countries about the use of such restraints.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It would not be possible to provide this information without detailed inquiries of other European countries. I have had no discussions with Ministers of other European Union countries about the use of restraints.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what proportion of escorted deportations carried out by private security firms restraining equipment is used;
  62
  (2) in how many cases where deportees were escorted any sort of restraint was used in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of the total number of escorted deportations this represents.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information in the form requested is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Available information on the use of restraints by the police relates to the Metropolitan police deportation group. I understand that during the period January 1992 to July 1993, 139 escorts abroad were undertaken by officers from the group, and that restraints were used in 37 of these cases.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to compensate deportees or their families who have been injured by the use of a gag during attempted deportation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  If it were established that the Home Department had been responsible for any injury, my right hon. and learned Friend would consider any claim for compensation.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what independent element there was in the joint immigration and nationality department/Metropolitan police review of deportations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The review was conducted by senior immigration and nationality department officials and senior officers of the Metropolitan police. A representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers was also involved. There was no independent element, but the fact that the review was being conducted was made known publicly. It was open to anyone to comment on the issues involved and comments on the review's conclusions would still be welcome.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment the joint Home Office and police review made of same day removals in deportation cases; and if he will now make it his policy not to carry out such removals.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The review concluded that removal direct from the home to the airport can raise the overall level of anxiety in what is already a difficult process. Whilst the review did not rule out "same day" removals altogether, it concluded that there should be a strong presumption against them, and that they should occur only in highly exceptional circumstances and with the authority of a senior member of the immigration service.

  As he made clear in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on 12 January, columns 212–13, my right hon. and learned Friend has accepted the recommendations in the review as a sensible basis for continued co-operation between the police and the immigration service in this sensitive area.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the standard request form for police assistance in deportations to be ready; and what elements it will contain.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  As recommended in the joint review of removal procedures in immigration cases, it is intended to provide the police with all information relevant
  63
  to them for planning purposes. The precise format has not yet been settled but is likely to include a brief case summary of the immigration history including the reason for removal; a reference to any known propensity to violence; any relevant medical history of which the immigration service is aware; and details of family members or others who may be expected to be on the premises. It is not yet possible to say precisely when the new arrangements will be introduced, but work is already in hand.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much notice immigration officers give to police divisions that they require police assistance in deporting someone.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Normally, a minimum of 24 hours' notice.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the detailed rules and supporting guidance for claimants of the new scheme proposed in the White Paper "Compensating Victims of Violent Crime".

  Mr. Maclean
  We hope to be able to publish the detailed rules and supporting guidance by early March.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nominations he has received for the proposed criminal injuries compensation appeals panel; and which organisations have made these nominations.

  Mr. Maclean
  To date, 85 nominations have been received. Fifteen of these have been made by friends or associates of the nominee or by the nominees themselves. The remainder have come from the Trades Union Congress, the Cabinet Office—Office of Public Service and Science—and the Department of Health.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the 1993 annual report of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will be published.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that publication of the board's 29th annual report has been delayed as a result of

  Employees by Department in Council areas

  District council

  DFP

  DED

  DOE

  DHSS

  DANI

  DENl

  NIO (including PANI)

  Antrim

  —

  24

  146

  100

  190

  —

  31

  Ards

  —

  15

  126

  59

  51

  —

  54

  Armagh

  —

  19

  214

  66

  232

  —

  76

  Ballymena

  20

  78

  501

  78

  136

  —

  46

  Ballymoney

  —

  9

  58

  53

  9

  —

  17

  Banbridge

  —

  21

  75

  51

  10

  —

  26

  Belfast

  1,122

  1,621

  4,188

  5,070

  1,812

  —

  2,475

  Carrickfergus

  18

  14

  72

  53

  —

  —

  99

  Castlereagh

  —

  96

  27

  —

  36

  —

  430

  Coleraine

  17

  20

  532

  96

  181

  —

  47

  Cookstown

  11

  9

  104

  45

  171

  —

  22

  Craigavon

  32

  75

  563

  147

  51

  —

  87

  Down

  —

  25

  452

  116

  102

  —

  39

  Dungannon

  —

  19

  139

  85

  141

  —

  35

  Fermanagh

  11

  48

  292

  87

  233

  —

  77

  Lame

  —

  11

  66

  58

  49

  —

  17

  Limavady

  —

  10

  72

  53

  48

  —

  40

  Lisburn

  37

  172

  233

  85

  58

  —

  95

  Derry City

  63

  127

  414

  593

  24

  110

  86

  64
  a query raised by the board's auditors in connection with final approval of the financial accounts for 1992–93. The report will be published as soon as the auditors provide the necessary certification.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Abortion
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he received the report on abortion law from the Standing Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  My right hon. Friend received the 18th annual report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights on 24 May 1993. The report includes a paper on Northern Ireland abortion law, which was subsequently published by the commission for consulta-tion which ended on 1 December. The commission is considering the replies.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions in each of the last five years an abortion ruled to be legal has not been performed because no doctor was available to carry out the operation; and if he will set out the circumstances of each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  I am aware of one such case in which an application by "K", a minor, was heard by Mr. Justice Sheil in the High Court in October 1993. If she so wishes, the hon. Member may apply for details of the case to the family division of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants, by Department, are employed in each council area in Northern Ireland; and what is his estimate of total salaries paid in respect of those employees in each council area.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested in respect of civil servants employed by the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:
  65

  District council

  DFP

  DED

  DOE

  DHSS

  DANI

  DENI

  NIO (including PANI)

  Magherafelt

  —

  15

  89

  71

  21

  —

  18

  Moyle

  —

  —

  47

  —

  33

  —

  1

  Newry and Mourne

  —

  77

  237

  175

  72

  —

  35

  Newtownabbey

  —

  142

  74

  82

  17

  —

  26

  North Down

  29

  16

  138

  74

  —

  510

  58

  Omagh

  13

  53

  408

  85

  219

  —

  44

  Strabane

  —

  13

  81

  72

  43

  —

  19

  District Council

  Estimated total salaries (£)

  Antrim

  7,126,390

  Ards

  4,176,401

  Armagh

  8,232,233

  Ballymena

  12,748,861

  Ballymoney

  1,907,594

  Banbridge

  2,278,365

  Belfast

  222,160,030

  Carrickfergus

  3,418,744

  Castlereagh

  8,349,002

  Coleraine

  12,700,635

  Cookstown

  5,252,903

  Craigavon

  14,254,904

  Down

  10,075,777

  Dungannon

  6,256,413

  Fermanagh

  10,372,301

  Larne

  2,730,642

  Limavady

  2,756,806

  Lisburn

  12,204,910

  Derry City

  12,913,559

  Magherafelt

  2,787,368

  Moyle

  1,050,692

  Newry and Mourne

  8,287,133

  Newtownabbey

  7,086,151

  North Down

  13,880,000

  Omagh

  12,437,926

  Strabane

  2,906,877

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of civil service jobs(a) created and (b) transferred to each location within Northern Ireland and to Northern Ireland from elsewhere in the United Kingdom; and if he will show for each such movement the location from which they were moved and the type of employment and grades of civil servants involved and the cost of the movement in payments to personnel and for buildings, equipment and furnishings.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of jobs created and detailed information on the movement of civil service jobs could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the number of civil service jobs in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments transferred within Northern Ireland since 1990 were as follows:

  Number

  From

  To

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  664

  Stormont

  Belfast city centre

  18

  Belfast

  Londonderry

  Performance Markings

  Grade

  Total

  Box 1

  Per cent.

  Box 2

  Per cent.

  Box 3

  Per cent.

  Box 4/5

  Per cent.

  Analysis of year ending 31 December 1991

  Grade 5 and Analogous

  21

  1

  4·8

  17

  80·9

  3

  14·3

  —

  —

  Grade 6 and Analogous

  46

  6

  13·0

  31

  67·4

  8

  17·4

  1

  2·2

  Grade 7 and Analogous

  91

  12

  13·2

  65

  71·4

  14

  15·4

  —

  —

  Deputy Principal and Analogous

  173

  19

  11·0

  101

  58·4

  52

  30·1

  1

  0·5

  Staff Office and Analogous

  169

  15

  8·9

  100

  59·2

  53

  31·3

  1

  0·6

  66

  Number

  From

  To

  24

  Hydebank

  Belfast city centre

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  62

  Stormont

  Londonderry

  98

  Bangor

  Londonderry

  364

  Stormont

  Belfast city centre

  11

  Coleraine

  Belfast

  13

  Antrim

  Belfast

  Although no jobs in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments were transferred to Northern Ireland from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the following new jobs were attracted to Northern Ireland from Great Britain:

  580 social security benefit processing jobs to deal with claims from areas of central London have been created in a Belfast benefit centre since June 1990;

  211 jobs relating to accounting work on encashed books were created at a paid order unit in Lisahally, County Londonderry in 1991. This work was formerly carried out by the Post Office on the mainland; and

  455 jobs have been created in Belfast since 1993 to assess, collect and enforce child maintenance on behalf of the Great Britain Child Support Agency.

  Civil Service (Performance Pay)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evidence he has as to the extent to which performance-related pay policy in the Northern Ireland civil service is achieving its objectives.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The present scheme has been in existence for less than two years and the extent to which performance related pay policy in the Northern Ireland civil service is achieving its objectives has not yet been subject to formal review.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out the breakdowns of numbers and percentages for the years 1991–92 and 1992–93 of the overall performance appraisal ratings for non-industrial staff in the Department of Finance and Personnel; and whether this breakdown is consistent with the original predictions.

  Sir John Wheeler
  When the present performance appraisal system was introduced, no predictions were made as to the anticipated performance levels of staff.

  The annual statistics on performance appraisal ratings are as follows:
  67

  Grade

  Total

  Box 1

  Per cent.

  Box 2

  Per cent.

  Box 3

  Per cent.

  Box 4/5

  Per cent.

  Executive Officer and Analogous

  128

  15

  11·7

  71

  55·5

  41

  32·0

  1

  0·8

  Executive Office II and Analogous

  111

  12

  10·8

  53

  47·8

  44

  39·6

  2

  1·8

  Administrative Officer and Analogous

  339

  41

  12·1

  213

  62·8

  82

  24·2

  3

  0·9

  Administrative Assistant

  122

  9

  7·4

  66

  54·1

  45

  36·9

  2

  1·6

  Total

  1,200

  130

  10·8

  717

  59·8

  342

  28·5

  11

  0·9

  Analysis of year ending 31 December 1992

  Grade 5 and Analogous

  26

  5

  19·2

  20

  76·9

  1

  3·9

  —

  —

  Grade 6 and Analogous

  36

  4

  11·1

  25

  69·4

  7

  19·5

  —

  —

  Grade 7 and Analogous

  94

  13

  13·8

  63

  67·0

  18

  19·2

  —

  —

  Deputy Principal and Analogous

  178

  21

  11·8

  108

  60·7

  47

  26·4

  2

  1·1

  Staff Office and Analogous

  181

  26

  14·4

  108

  59·6

  45

  24·9

  2

  1·1

  Executive officer and Analogous

  104

  14

  13·5

  65

  62·5

  25

  24·0

  —

  —

  Executive Office II and Analogous

  96

  13

  13·5

  53

  55·2

  29

  30·2

  1

  1·1

  Administrative Officer and Analogous

  285

  45

  15·8

  178

  62·4

  60

  21·1

  2

  0·1

  Administrative Assistant

  124

  11

  8·9

  68

  54·8

  45

  36·3

  —

  —

  Total

  1,124

  152

  13·5

  688

  61·2

  277

  24·7

  7

  0·1

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which special advisers in his Department are seconded from other organisations; and what are the organisations and the lengths and terms of the secondments.

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

  Cardiac Operations
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many private cardiac operations were carried out in the period from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993 and 1 April 1993 to 31 May 1993 in each of the health and social services boards;

  (2) how many NHS cardiac operations were carried out in the period from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993 and 1 April 1993 to 31 May 1993 in each of the health and social services boards.

  Mr. Ancram
  The provisional number of finished consultant episodes in the cardiac surgery specialty for HPSS and private patients are as follows:

  Finished consultant episodes

  HPSS

  Private

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  798

  95

  1 April 1993 to 31 May 1993

  113

  14

  Cardiac surgery in Northern Ireland is only available at the Royal Victoria hospital.

  Most cases in the cardiac surgery specialty will have had only one operation, but information on the total number of operations is not available.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 404, what are the additional costs, net of any reduction in employer's national insurance contribu-tions, to his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95 of the changes in statutory sick pay provision.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Approximately £2 million.
  68

  Strip Searches
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what purpose strip searches are carried out in prison institutions in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  As elsewhere in the United Kingdom, strip searches of male prisoners in Northern Ireland are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the policy operated in Northern Ireland is broadly in line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Owing to the small number of female prisoners, the statistics are readily available. During the period 1 January 1989 to 9 January 1994, 1,992 full searches were carried out on female prisoners. This figure is due to the diverse status of the prisoners held at Her Majesty's prison, Maghabery and their associated movements to and from the prison.

  Full strip searches of female prisoners are generally restricted to prisoners re-entering the prison and are not routinely carried out as part of cell searches.

WALES

  Consultancies
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the(a) accountancy firms and (b) merchant banks to which his Department awarded private consultancy work in 1992 and 1993, together with a list of the consultancies concerned and the amount paid.

  Mr. Redwood
  In the calendar years 1992 and 1993 the Welsh Office awarded 30 consultancy contracts to six firms of consultants which also have an accountancy practice within the same group. The total value of these contracts was £1·1 million. The firms involved were Coopers and Lybrand, CSL Group, KPMG Peat Marwick, Pannell Kerr Forster Associates, Price Waterhouse and Touche Ross. The Welsh Office did not award any consultancy contracts to merchant banks during this period.

  Loans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for each scheme operated by his Department under which loans are available, the objectives
  69
  of the scheme, the number of unrecovered loans, the total value of unrecovered loans, the average number of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990, the average value of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990 and the annual cost of recovering loans.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department does not operate any loan schemes available to the public or bodies corporate other than advances from the national loans fund to certain non-departmental public bodies. The annual accounts for those advances are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before Parliament.

  Ysbyty Gwynedd Bangor
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement regarding the incident on 27 December 1993 at Ysbyty Gwynedd Bangor in which there was a delay before an accident victim was transferred from a helipad to the casualty department at the hospital.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Responsibility for the ambulance service and its performance rests with Gwynedd health authority which has called for a full report.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of jobs held by(a) men and (b) women in Wales for each year from 1987 to the present; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information on employees in employ-ment is shown in the table.

  Employees in employment Wales

  Year

  Male

  Female

  1987

  498

  409

  1988

  513

  440

  1989

  517

  465

  1990

  520

  470

  1991

  490

  466

  1992

  477

  464

  1993

  472

  464

  Source: Employment Department, quarterly estimates series.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many women were employed by his Department in each year since 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of women employed in the Welsh Office

  Year (December)

  Number

  1987

  1,128

  1988

  1,165

  1989

  1,212

  1990

  1,274

  1991

  1,349

  1992

  1,306

  1993

  1,304

  The figures show the number of individuals employed. They include staff seconded to other organisations and exclude casual staff.
  70
  The Welsh Office is an equal opportunities employer and seeks to employ and promote staff on ability. Women comprise approximately half the staff in the Department and are encouraged to develop their potential through the Department's positive action programme for women.

  Llandudno General Hospital
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement regarding the proposed rheumatology unit to be based at Llandudno general hospital.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for Gwynedd health authority.

  County Council Smallholdings
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement regarding the future of county council smallholdings in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Subject to the provisions of the Agriculture Act 1970, it is for county councils in Wales to manage and run their smallholdings. The Local Government (Wales) Bill will transfer these functions to the new unitary authorities.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 402, what estimate he has made of the additional costs, net of any reduction in employer's national insurance contributions, to his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95 resulting from the changes in statutory sick pay provision.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There should be no additional net cost.

SCOTLAND

  Loans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each scheme operated by his Department under which loans are available, the objectives of the scheme, the number of unrecovered loans, the total value of unrecovered loans, the average number of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990, the average value of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990 and the annual cost of recovering loans.

  Mr. Lang
  The table sets out details of the outstanding balances for loan schemes for the private sector operated by my Department. Only one such scheme, crofters building grants and loans, has incidences of repayment arrears; these details are included.

  My Department also provides loans from the national loans fund to public corporations. The annual accounts for these are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and are laid before Parliament.
  71

  Average number of outstanding loans

  Average value of outstanding loans

  Schemes and objectives

  Number of outstanding loans January 1994

  Value of outstanding loans January 1994 £000

  Year ending 31 March 1991

  Year ending 31 March 1992

  Year ending 31 March 1993

  Year ending 31 March 1991 £000

  Year ending 31 March 1992 £000

  Year ending 31 March 1993 £000

  Annual cost to Department recovering loans £000

  Home purchase assistance1 To offer first time house buyers an interest free loan of £600 for up to five years

  9

  7

  9

  9

  9

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  Nil

  Improvement and construction of piers and harbours1 Loans to independent harbour authorities which provide a transport service

  5

  112

  5

  5

  5

  25

  24

  23

  0·2

  Forth Bridge and Tay Bridge Schemes1 To facilitate construction, maintenance and operation of river crossings

  2

  3,339

  2

  2

  2

  7,249

  5,589

  3,800

  —2

  Scottish Enterprise To provide finance for industrial investment

  7

  16,673

  Nil

  4

  7

  Nil

  2,093

  2,298

  —2

  Loans to incoming tenants of crofts To allow tenants of re-let crofts to pay the compensation due for permanent improvements carried out by previous tenant

  6

  3

  15

  10

  8

  0·3

  0·3

  0·4

  —3

  Fisheries Act 1955 To assist independent harbour authorities for harbour repair and development to increase the safety of vessels and crews

  17

  809

  30

  23

  19

  28

  36

  43

  1

  Crofters building grants and loans scheme Loans to crofters for new house building and improvements, including gas and electricity supplies

  6,717

  25,826

  6,753 of which 412 in arrears

  6,776 of which 409 in arrears

  6,700 of which 414 in arrears

  3·1 average value of 0·5

  3·3 average value of 0·7

  3·6 average value of 0·8

  —3

  1Scheme no longer open to new loans.

  2Figures cannot be separately identified.

  3Figures cannot be separately identified: total annual cost for the 2 schemes estimated at £120,000.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which agencies are employed by the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust, the South Ayrshire NHS trust, and the Community Health Care NHS trust to deal with their public relations; and if he will make a statement about the costs of this service to each of the trusts.

  Mr. Stewart
  The agencies employed are as follows: North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust Rex Stewart Grayling South Ayrshire NHS trust Alan Clark Associates Ayrshire and Arran community healthcare NHS trust Alan Clark Associates.

  The cost of the service, which is an essential part of providing an efficient service to patients and the community, represents only a minute amount—between 0·02 per cent. and 0·05 per cent.—of the revenue of the trusts concerned.

  Telephone Information Line
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the Scottish Office's telephone information line; and what are the costs involved in running the service, the total numbers of staff employed, the numbers of inquiries dealt with and the number of inquiries passed on to other agencies.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office information line, 0345 741 741 was launched on 30 September 1993. Calls on the information line to the Scottish Office central inquiry unit in Edinburgh from public phones anywhere in Scotland are charged at local rate. In addition members of the public may make calls to the unit from over 20 local information points throughout Scotland at no cost.

  Since the launch, the information line has received over 1,900 calls. It is estimated that more than 90 per cent. Of
  72
  them have been for the Scottish Office and its associated departments or agencies to deal with. The cost of operating the information line is estimated to be £28,500 per annum. This excludes start up and initial publicity costs of £175,000. The staff of the central inquiry unit was augmented by one to handle the initiative.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of Government agencies working in or to his Department; and how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

  Mr. Lang
  In 1993 Ministers in my Department sent 770 official Christmas cards, officials sent 6,208 and agencies sent 1,715.

  The cost of the cards was £2,875 including VAT; it is not possible to identify the postal costs and staff time devoted to the dispatch of the cards.

  Consultancies
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) accountancy firms and (b) merchant banks to which his Department awarded private consultancy work in 1992 and 1993, together with a list of the consultancies concerned and the amount paid.

  Mr. Lang
  During the financial year 1992–93, 14 consultancy contracts costing more than £20,000 per contract were awarded by the Scottish Office to four firms of consultants, which also have an accountancy practice within the same group. The total value of these contracts was £1,031,400. The firms were Coopers and Lybrand, KPMG, Price Waterhouse and Touche Ross. No consultancy business was awarded by the Scottish Office to merchant banks during this period.
  73

  NHS (Cars)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cars have been allocated to NHS managers, advisers, administrators and clerical staff in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  NHS Trust Hospitals
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cars have been allocated to the managers, advisers and administrators employed by the national health service trust hospitals in each of the last two financial years.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  Freight on Ferry Services
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of subsidy concerning freight on ferry services to island communities in the United Kingdom since 1992.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1992–93 deficit grant subsidy of £6.1 million was paid to Caledonian MacBrayne to meet the operating deficit incurred in providing ferry services to the inner and outer Hebrides and islands in the Firth of Clyde. Because the subsidy paid to Caledonian MacBrayne is paid to meet the overall deficit incurred in providing ferry services for commercial vehicles, loose freight, cars and passengers, it is not possible to disaggregate the amount of subsidy paid specifically in relation to the carriage of freight.

  In 1992–93 tariff rebate subsidy of £2·8 million was paid to P and O Scottish ferries in respect of carriage of freight to Orkney and Shetland in 1992–93. In addition, tariff rebate subsidy of £2·2 million was made available in 1992–93 to nine bulk shipping operators providing freight services to the northern and western isles. Subsidy paid under the tariff rebate subsidy scheme is paid in respect of different categories of traffic carried by shipping operators.

  Outturn information in respect of 1993–94 is not yet available.

  Yorkhill Hospital, Glasgow
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which grades of employee at Yorkhill national health service trust hospital, Glasgow, are to lose entitlement to sick pay scheme benefits higher than those of the statutory scheme.

  Mr. Stewart
  Terms and conditions of service are a matter for the trust.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much in the next financial year will be the reduction in sick pay paid out to employees of Yorkhill national health service trust hospital, Glasgow, following adoption of the statutory minimum entitlements.

  Mr. Stewart
  Such information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult medical authorities on their assessment of risk to sick children's health if low-paid employees at 74
  Yorkhill national health service trust hospital, Glasgow change their attendance patterns as a result of the abolition of their sick pay scheme and the introduction of minimum statutory entitlements.

  Mr. Stewart
  The work pattern of staff is a matter for the trust concerned.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what indication Yorkhill national health service trust gave in its application for trust status, on its intentions as to(a) reducing its employees' sick pay to the statutory minimum and (b) putting their jobs out to tender if they rejected these terms.

  Mr. Stewart
  The application referred to differences in various primary conditions of service, including sick leave, and declared an intention to review these over time.

  National Health Service Trusts (Pay)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the percentage by which national health service trust chief executives' pay rose between 1992 and 1993; and what is the current salary of each.

  Mr. Stewart
  In November 1992, chairmen of trusts were asked to ensure that average settlements for staff on trust terms and conditions did not exceed 1·5 per cent. In March 1993, trust chief executives were asked to ensure that their annual reports show total emoluments of senior staff with that of the chief executive separately identified.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the percentage by which national health service unit general managers' pay rose between 1992 and 1993; and the current salaries of each.

  Mr. Stewart
  The annual uplift for unit general managers pay has been from 1 September of each year. The uplift as from 1 September 1992 was 3·9 per cent. Information on the salaries of each unit general manager is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy that each national health service trust will publish annually the emoluments of the chairman and the chief executive.

  Mr. Stewart
  In March 1993, trust chief executives were asked to ensure that their annual reports show total emoluments of senior staff, including board members, in broad bandings with chairman and chief executive separately identified.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the highest possible remuneration for(a) a national health service unit general manager and (b) a trust chief executive including any bonuses.

  Mr. Stewart
  Under new arrangements introduced as from 1 September 1993, the maximum possible pay of a unit general manager could be in the range £61,721 to £77,150 and that of a trust chief executive the range £66,944 to £83,681. A non-consolidated bonus of up to an additional 20 per cent. can be paid by the employing body to a unit general manager or trust chief executive at the top of the range who demonstrates outstanding performance.

  Lung Cancer
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women died of lung cancer in 1992 in each health board area.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is available in table C2.16 on pages 70–81 of the 1992 annual report of the registrar general for Scotland, a copy of which was sent to the hon. Member in July 1993. A copy was also placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much he spent in 1992 and 1993 on publicising the rise in mortality amongst women from lung cancer; and how much will be spent for this purpose in 1994.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 January 1994]: The mortality rates from lung cancer in women are published in the annual reports of the registrar general for Scotland. No sums are specifically allocated to publicising these data.

  The trends in mortality have been taken into account in the Government's health strategy for Scotland. A national target to reduce cancers by 15 per cent. by 2000 was adopted in 1991 and smoking, as the major cause of lung cancer, was identified as a priority for health education. By March this year, the Health Education Board for Scotland, which was established in 1991, will have spent nearly £3·7 million on anti-smoking campaigns, much of it aimed at women. The board plans to spend £500,000 on further measures during the next financial year.

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics" policy for his Department during 1994.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on Friday 21 January by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what working definition of "back to basics" is used by his Department; and what his Department has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 21 January at column 849.

  Samaritan Hospital, Glasgow
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Samaritan hospital, Glasgow, is to close; and what arrangements are in hand for the transfer of patients and the staff employed in that hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 January 1994]: Greater Glasgow health board has yet to conclude its review of acute services. The Royal Samaritan hospital features is part of that review. The Secretary of State looks forward to receiving the health board's recommendations in due course.
  76

  Casualty Departments
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those casualty departments where patients have had to wait overnight for beds during the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 January 1994]: This information is not held centrally.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of revenue forgone as a result of the extension of the channel tunnel concession by 10 years.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It is not possible to say with any precision what the value to Eurotunnel or the cost to the Government of the extension of the concession will be.

  Newly Qualified Drivers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce stricter standards in driving tests and for newly qualified drivers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  This proposal was considered in our recent consultation document on new driver safety, on which my right hon. Friend will shortly be making an announcement.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all organisations to which his Department sent, and from which it has received responses, regarding the consultation paper on measures to reduce accidents involving newly qualified drivers, together with the addresses of each such organisation.

  Mr. Key
  The Department issued over 5,200 copies of the consultation paper to road safey and motoring organisations, local authorities and all MPs, also to all individuals who asked for a copy. We received 203 responses from organisations and 195 from individuals. It is not our practice to identify those organisations or individuals who respond to consultation exercises.

  Public Transport, London
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of London Transport to discuss improvements to public transport in London.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the chairman of London Transport regularly to discuss progress in meeting the Government's objective of securing continuing improvements in London's public transport.

  Car Ownership
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the best estimate of the increase in United Kingdom car ownership by the turn of the century.
  77
  Mr. Key
  The Department of Transport's forecasts are for Great Britain. Growth in the number of cars between 1994 and the year 2000 is expected to be in the range of 11 per cent. to 16 per cent.

  New Roads
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public money he proposes to spend on new roads during the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  In 1994–95, I plan to spend around £1·3 billion on new construction of national roads in England. For each of the following two years, the figure is about £1·2 billion.

  London Lorry Ban
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the London night-time and weekend lorry ban.

  Mr. Norris
  The Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill was introduced in the House last Wednesday. This contains proposals for the Secretary of State to take powers to vary traffic orders imposing permit-based restrictions on heavy lorries in London where an undue burden is imposed on business. The London night-time and weekend ban is such a restriction and the Government will be consulting shortly on proposals to amend the ban. It is not our intention to abolish the ban, contrary to some newspaper reports. However, we do intend to dispense with the bureaucratic permit system.

  Ebbsfleet International Station
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the positioning of an international station at Ebbsfleet, Kent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I have received representations from the promoter of the station at Ebbsfleet, from the "Kent Thames-side" Group, from Kent County Council and from a number of other organisations, individuals and hon. Members. We are considering those representations, together with Union Railways' October report, and will announce our decisions shortly.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that British firms gain contracts to build the Jubilee line.

  Mr. Norris
  The award of contracts for the Jubilee line extension is entirely a matter for London Underground Ltd. LUL has a duty to secure competitive tenders in a proper legal fashion, having regard to EC directives, and to secure best value for money.

  M1, West Yorkshire
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to widen the M1 motorway in west Yorkshire.

  Mr. Key
  As part of the Department's proposals for the M1-A1 link road east of Leeds, it is planned to widen the 78
  M1 motorway over a one-mile length between Lofthouse interchange and Belle Isle. This local widening is needed to accommodate the major traffic flows between the M1, M62 and A1.

  M11 Extension
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the social and environmental consequence of the M11 extension.

  Mr. Norris
  Representations received about construc-tion of the A12 link road between Hackney Wick and the M11 have largely focused on the impact of the new road on the local community.

  Rail Services, Barnsley
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about rail services from Barnsley to neighbouring areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received various representations from time to time about rail services in the Barnsley area.

  Road Pricing
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the effects of motorway tolls/road pricing, on the economies of the English regions and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Motorway charging will provide another source of finance for expanding the inter-urban road network more quickly. This will prevent congestion that would otherwise occur and so benefit the economies of all parts of the United Kingdom.

  Open Shipping Register
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about a British open shipping register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 11 January,Official Report, column 124. A proposal for a British open register was received from the Baltic exchange on 3 December 1993. The complex issues which it raises require careful study. That remains the position.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the crossrail project.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Having considered the report of the consultants appointed to review crossrail, the Government continue to support the project. It remains the Government's view that crossrail should be taken forward as a joint venture, with a substantial private sector financial contribution. Accordingly, the promoters will be seeking to progress the crossrail Bill when the Committee stage resumes on 25 January.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has drawn on the respective
  79
  roles of public and private finance in crossrail following the report of the consultants commissioned by his Department to evaluate the project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris>
  [holding answer 21 January 1994]: It remains the intention of Ministers that crossrail should be taken forward as a joint venture with the private sector.

  Travelcards
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now introduce legislation to guarantee the retention of the travelcard following privatisation of London Buses and British Rail.

  Mr. Norris
  No new legislation is needed to ensure the continued availability of travelcard on the London public transport network. The Railways Act 1993 gives the franchising director power to require franchisees to participate in multi-modal ticketing schemes. After privatisation of London Buses Ltd., London Transport will remain responsible for the overall structure of fares and ticketing on London's buses and can thus ensure that travelcard will continue to be available on its bus services.

  "Paying for Better Motorways"
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish comparative figures for the level of motorway charges in other European countries compared with the levels mentioned in his Green Paper "Paying for Better Motorways".

  Mr. Key
  Average tolls for cars on motorways in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal are between about 5p and 10p per mile. In Greece, they are up to 4p per mile. The levels of electronic tolls for cars discussed in the Green Paper were between 0·5p and 1·5p per mile.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all organisations to which his Department sent, and from which it has received responses, regarding the Green Paper "Paying for Better Motorways", together with the addresses of each such organisation.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: My Department issued copies of the Green Paper to all the motoring organisations, organisations representing industry and local government, and to others who contacted the Department following reports in the media. We received a total of 204 responses from organisations. It is not our practice to identify those who respond to consultation exercises.

  Chronic Oil Pollution
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve United Kingdom port reception facilities to combat chronic oil pollution.

  Mr. Norris
  Recent research commissioned by the Department indicates that the provision of reception facilities for oily wastes in United Kingdom ports is adequate. The provision of such facilities is kept under review.
  80

  Railways (Noise)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his final decision about the compensation and protection arrangements relating to noise on(a) existing railway lines in Kent and (b) proposed new railway lines in Kent.

  Mr. Freeman
  On(a), I agreed during the Adjournment debate initiated on 13 January by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), Official Report, column 432, to reflect on the legal opinion which he had received, through the local authorities concerned, on the subject of compensation for those with properties alongside existing rail routes to the channel tunnel. I shall clarify the position to the House as soon as possible.

  On (b), Union Railways has incorporated extensive noise mitigation measures in the design of the channel tunnel link and it will be for Parliament to decide, when considering a hybrid Bill to approve the project, on the adequacy of the measures. Meanwhile, the Department of Transport is currently consulting on draft regulations which will bring the arrangements for noise insulation for new railways in line with those for new highways, by making properties alongside eligible for insulation where noise exceeds certain levels. All comments received, including comments on the coverage of the regulations, will be considered carefully before regulations are laid before Parliament.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all organisations to whom his Department sent, and from whom it has received responses, regarding the consultation letter on noise insulation regulations for new railways and other guided systems, together with the addresses of each such organisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: The Department issued 210 copies of the consultation papers to local authorities, professional institutions, railway operators, local action groups and others. A list of the original addressees for the consultation letter of 11 October 1993 was placed in the Library of the House at the time, with a set of the consultation documents. Some 200 further copies have since been issued in response to inquiries. The consultation period has therefore been extended by two months and responses will now be accepted until 28 February. I shall subsequently inform the House of the Government's conclusions on the response to the consultation. However, it is not our practice to identify those organisations or individuals who respond to consultation exercises.

  M4, West Drayton
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about proposals to widen the M4 motorway at West Drayton.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has received some 300 representations about the proposals to widen the M4 between junctions 3 and 4B. They are mainly opposed on grounds of increased noise, air pollution and environmental impact; some also suggest alternative proposals.
  81

  M6, Birmingham
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of a dedicated junction on the M6 motorway in Birmingham to service the inland container point and the Holford industrial estate taking into account the effect upon local roads of such a junction.

  Mr. Key
  Undertaking such an assessment would serve no useful purpose in view of the Department's firm policy not to permit dedicated accesses from motorways to serve private developments.

  Trans-European Rail Network
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to discuss with his counterparts within the European Union progress towards a trans-European railway network.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport meets the Transport Ministers of the European Union from time to time at meetings of the Transport Council. Meetings will be held on 18 April and 20 and 21 June this year, but it is not yet known whether the trans-European railway network will be on the agenda. We understand that the Greek presidency is keen to make progress with those networks, including rail, for which proposals have not yet been adopted.

  Rail Assets, Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to offer British Rail assets on the Isle of Wight for sale.

  Mr. Freeman
  We intend to franchise rail services on the Isle of Wight on a vertically integrated basis. The timetable for the sale of franchises is a matter for the Office of the Passenger Rail Franchiser, who will be formulating a franchising programme and submitting it to the Secretary of State.

  Railways (Assaults)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents of violent crime and sexual assault were recorded at British Rail stations in Yorkshire and Humberside in each year since 1988; what is the national figure; and what are the figures expressed as percentages of the numbers of passengers.

  Mr. Freeman
  The figures for violent crime and sexual assaults before 1992, and the overall numbers of passengers are not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Figures for violent crime and sexual assault for 1992 and 1993 are as follows:

  1992–118 Yorkshire and Humberside, 2,521 nationally

  1993–84 Yorkshire and Humberside, 2,720 nationally.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were the victims of assault on a Network SouthEast train for each year from 1975; and how many of them were women.

  Mr. Freeman
  Figures are not readily available before 1992 and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. Figures for assaults on Network SouthEast trains during 1992 and 1993 are as follows:82

  Number

  Women

  1992

  843

  164

  1993

  894

  157

  Total

  1,737

  321

  Motorway Training
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage the development of extra motorway training at an affordable price.

  Mr. Key
  One of the proposals in the Department's recent consultation paper "New Driver Safety" was to develop post-test driver training schemes, including motorway tuition, in collaboration with the insurance industry. Tuition fees would not be regulated, but the aim would be to secure insurance discounts to offset the cost of the training. My right hon. Friend will be making a statement shortly on the outcome of the consultation.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce compulsory motorway tuition for all drivers.

  Mr. Key
  We have no such plans. Motorways are our safest roads: only 3 per cent. of accidents occur on them, though they carry 15 per cent. of traffic. Learners who live several miles from a motorway would face great inconvenience and cost if such tuition were made compulsory.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received regarding compulsory motorway tuition for drivers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  About 12 per cent. of over 400 responses to the "New Driver Safety" consultation document included representations of various kinds on motorway tuition, either for learners or for newly qualified drivers. Other representations on this, as on many other road safety issues, have been made at various times by organisations or individuals, including the hon. Member.

  Bus Routes, London
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many London Transport bus routes have been put out to tender; and what is the latest estimate of the consequential savings.

  Mr. Norris
  London Transport operates some 650 bus routes. Of these, 279 have been competitively tendered. LT estimates that tendering has produced average cost savings, net of administrative costs, of 15 to 20 per cent.

  Aylesbury to Wing Bypass
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of public consultation on his Department's initial proposals for the west of Aylesbury to Wing bypass.

  Mr. Key
  In response to the views expressed on proposals for a southern bypass of Aylesbury, my Department is today withdrawing from consultation. I have
  83
  decided to look again at this issue, not ruling out the possibility of a northern corridor along the A41 towards the M40. Now that Buckinghamshire county council's southern bypass of Wing will not proceed as planned, I will commission a new and strategic study of the route between the A5 near Leighton Buzzard in the east and the M40 in the Oxford area in the West. This will be an early priority for the new Highways Agency.

  London Underground
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual cost of regular maintenance undertaken of each major technical aspect of London Underground; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The distribution of maintenance expen-diture is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd.

  Toxic Loads
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make it illegal for toxic loads to be transported through toll tunnels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  None. A list of restrictions is published and applied by companies operating as British Toll Tunnels under relevant tunnel byelaws. These restrictions are based on the UN recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods. Taken together with appropriate tunnel manage-ment systems, they ensure that any risks in transporting dangerous goods are kept to a minimum and such tunnels have operated safely for many years.

  Aberystwyth to Machynlleth Rail Line
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the return to full service of the Aberystwyth to Machynlleth rail line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that rail services have now been restored between Aberystwyth and Machynlleth; and that British Rail hopes to restore through services to Shrewsbury during March, following repairs to the damaged bridge south of Welshpool.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, columns 419–20, what are the additional costs, net of any reduction in employers' national insurance contributions, to his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95 of the changes in statutory sick pay provision.

  Mr. Norris
  The separate effects of the change in statutory sick pay provision and the reduction in employers' national insurance contribution rates cannot be estimated accurately, except at disproportionate cost. Reimbursements of national insurance contributions under the statutory sick pay arrangements currently run at approximately £1 million per annum and the reduction in the percentage contribution rates is expected to offer savings of approximately £1 million, so the overall effect of the changes in 1994–95 will be approximately neutral.
  84

  Cycles (Statistics)
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to oblige rail service providers to collate statistics on the number of cycles carried; and if he will make it a condition of the public service obligation grant or franchise agreement to do so.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have no plans to oblige rail service providers to collate such statistics.

  We have, however, invited the cyclist public affairs group to produce guidance for rail service operators explaining how they can make their services more attractive to the growing number of cyclists. I shall ensure that copies of this guidance are sent to all bidders for rail franchises.

  Railway Lines (Fox Hounds)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many reported incidents of fox hounds on railway lines there have been in the last three years; and how many resulted in prosecutions.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 14 January 1994]: In the three years up to 31 December 1993, there were 24 reported incidents of fox hounds on railway lines and no prosecutions.

  Taxi Services
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all organisations to which his Department sent and from which it has received responses, regarding the consultation paper on the future of taxi and private hire services in England and Wales, together with the addresses of each such organisation.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: My Department has issued about 4,500 copies of this consultation paper to organisations and individuals who have an interest in the subject. These include local authority associations and all individual county and district councils, local and national taxi and private hire vehicle organisations, the licensing officers organisation, the police, organisations concerned with people who have mobility problems and vulnerable members of society, consumer groups, transport interests, the press, car, taxi and taximeter manufacturers and those concerned with tourists. Copies were available in the Lobby of the House and in another place. The paper was also published in a trade newspaper.

  It is not our practice to identify those organisations or individuals who respond to consultation exercises, and, in any event, the consultation period lasts until 1 March 1994.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all organisations to which his Department sent and from which it has received responses regarding the consultation paper on "Railway Privatisation: Passenger Rolling Stock", together with the addresses of each such organisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: My Department issued 349 copies of the consultation paper to

  85
  potential lessors and franchisees, rolling stock manufacturers, financial institutions, local authority associations, and other interested parties, and we received 31 responses from a similar range of organisations.

  It is not our practice to identify those organisations or individuals who respond to consultation exercises.

  Road/Rail Transport
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all organisations to which his Department sent and from which it has received responses regarding the consultation paper on heavier lorries for combined road/rail transport, together with the addresses of each such organisation.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: My Department issued over 3,000 copies of the consultation paper to more than 400 organisations, companies and individuals. These included transport industry associations, the local authority associations and many individual local authorities, transport and distribution companies and agents, user of freight services, environmental groups, the police associations and various institutes and universities with interests in transport. We received 48 responses from associations, 136 from individual organisations and five from individuals. It is not our practice to identify those organisations or individuals who respond to consultation exercises.

  Buses
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all organisations to whom his Department sent, and from whom his Department has received responses, regarding the consultation paper on the operation of local bus services outside London, together with the addresses of each such organisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: My Department initially issued 56 copies of the consultation paper to individual bus operators, local authorities and to their associations and to bus user groups. We issued copies subsequently to all, including individuals, who requested it. We received 135 responses from organisations and 27 responses from individuals. It is not our practice to identify those organisations or individuals who respond to consultation exercises.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Know-how Fund
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent on the know-how fund 1992–93; how much has been spent in the current financial year; what projects were undertaken; and which consultancy companies were in receipt of know-how fund moneys in 1992–93 and in the current financial year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A total of £47,249,000 was disbursed through the know-how fund in the financial year 1992–93. Approximately £28,437,000 has been disbursed in the current financial year. A list of projects undertaken 86
  from the beginning of 1992–93 onwards, using know-how fund moneys, has been placed in the Library. This list also contains the names of the consultancy companies, other organisations and individuals contracted to carry out these projects.

  Overseas Aid
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what considerations underlay the decision not to include details of United Kingdom overseas aid as a percentage of United Kingdom gross domestic product in "British Overseas Aid, Annual Review 1993" or in the statistical appendix forming part of the review.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British overseas aid annual review 1993 is intended to provide a broad overview of our aid activities in 1992–93. Comprehensive statistics including the United Kingdom's aid-GNP ratio are contained in British aid statistics 1988–89 to 1992–93, section D, which has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Eastern Europe (Aid)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring provision exists in regard to multilateral aid to former east European nations within the European Union framework; what are the comparable procedures for monitoring of bilateral aid given to developing nations in other parts of the world; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  European Commission procedures for monitoring EC aid financed activities in countries in central and eastern Europe under the Poland, Hungary Aid for Reconstruction of the Economy programme include regular reports from project managers and visits to projects by both EC staff and EC consultants. EC project staff and recipient Governments are both involved in monitoring physical and financial progress.

  Arrangements for monitoring bilateral aid projects involve a combination of visits by ODA staff and embassy and high commission officials, together with reports from project personnel and recipient authorities. When the project implementation nears its conclusion, a completion report is prepared. The precise arrangements vary according to the needs of individual projects.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Attorney-General how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of Government agencies working in or to his Department; and how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

  The Attorney-General
  In 1993,(a) 150 Christmas cards were sent by Ministers, (b) 1,190 by civil servants in the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Serious Fraud Office and the legal secretariat to the Law Officers and (c) 196 by staff of the Government Property Lawyers Agency. The approximate cost of these cards was (i) £1,100 to buy and (ii) approximately £255 to post. Figures are not

  87
  available for the cost of staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes. Figures for the Crown Prosecution Service are not included and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if it is Government policy to consider directly privatising departmental activities before giving considera-tion to market testing them.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Where an activity does not need to be managed by Government, we will consider whether it needs to be carried out at all or whether it should be privatised.

  Where we consider that ultimate responsibility for a function should remain within Government, its delivery may be contracted out or market tested in order to see whether value for money can be improved.

  Science Budget
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the size of the science budget in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The science budget was £930 million in 1991–92 and £1,051 million in 1992–93 and the outturn for 1993–94 is estimated at £1,164 million.

  Civil Service (Outside Recruitment)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what opportunities exist within the civil service for recruiting specialists from private industry and the professions.

  Mr. David Davis
  There are opportunities at all levels of the civil service for recruits from a wide range of specialisms and professional backgrounds, from actuaries to zoologists. Government Departments and agencies are particularly interested in recruits with relevant outside experience.

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the public policy objectives of the Government's "back-to-basics" campaign are monitored already by citizens charter standards.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The citizens charter is based on fundamental principles which should underlie all good organisations—explicit standards of service, consultation with customers and a proper response if standards are not met. The charter is seeking to ensure that the basic public services on which we all depend—our schools, hospitals, local authorities, railways, utilities—are run in accordance with these principles.

  Scientific Inventions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new proposals he has to support scientific inventions.
  88
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government set out their policies for the support of science and technology in the White Paper "Realising our Potential"—Cm 2250—issued in May last year.

  Charters
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what system is used by his Department to judge whether the standards set by individual charters can be tightened.

  Mr. David Davis
  Under the citizens charter, public services are required to publish their standards and their performance against these standards. As standards are met, so they are being raised.

  My right hon. Friend regularly reviews progress in raising standards of service across the whole public sector.

  Science Research
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of Government spending on science is distributed to research undertaken outside of universities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In 1991–92, the latest year for which data on the destination of Government R and D spending is available, 73 per cent. of the total was spent in non-university sectors.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to ensure that an adequate number of science lecturers will be available to undertake research in universities.

  Mr. David Davis
  It is primarily for the universities, as autonomous institutions, to determine how best to meet their future staffing needs. The research councils have a responsibility to help ensure the supply of highly-qualified scientists and engineers who might undertake research in universities or elsewhere.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 369, what estimate he has made of the additional costs, net of any reduction in employer's national insurance contributions, to his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95 resulting from the changes in statutory sick pay provision.

  Mr. David Davis
  The additional cost to my departmental budget resulting from the change in statutory sick pay provision, net of any reduction in employer's national insurance contributions, is estimated to be £5,000 a year. The precise figure will, in any one year, depend on a number of factors including the level of sickness absence and the distribution of salaries across the national insurance bands.

  Psychometric Testing
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement regarding the use of psychometric testing in the civil service and United Kingdom businesses in the assessment of individual employee performance ability and the removal from employment.
  89
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Following the delegation of responsibility for personal review and promotion to Departments and agencies, information is not held centrally on the use of psychometric testing in the civil service. Neither is information held on the use of psychometric tests in United Kingdom businesses. However, the Recruitment and Assessment Services agency acts on behalf of some Departments and agencies, and uses psychometric tests when appropriate. This is always done under the direction of a chartered psychologist and in conformity with the Institute of Personnel Management and the British Psychological Society guidelines.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics" policy for his Department during the current year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to him on 21 January at col.849.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what working definition of "back to basics" is used by his Department; and what his Department has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 21 January at col. 849.

  Subject

  Voting record

  Item 57

  New Types of Weapons of Mass Destruction

  consensus

  Item 58(B)

  Transparency of Military Expenditures

  consensus

  Item 59

  Compliance with Arms Limitation and Disarmament Agreements

  consensus

  Item 60

  Education and Information for Disarmament

  consensus

  Item 61(B)

  Biological Weapons Convention: Verification Experts' Report

  consensus

  Item 62

  Science and Technology (India)

  against

  Item 63

  Science and Technology (Germany/Brazil)

  abstention

  Item 64

  Verification in all its Aspects

  abstention

  Operative Paragraph 2

  against

  Item 65

  Partial Test Ban Treaty Conference

  against

  Item 66

  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

  consensus

  Item 67

  Middle East Nuclear Weapon Free Zone

  consensus

  Item 68

  South Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone

  for

  Item 69

  Negative Security Assurances

  abstention

  Item 70

  Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space

  for

  Preambular Paragraph 18

  abstention

  Operative Paragraph 8

  abstention

  Operative Paragraph 10

  abstention

  Item 70

  Study of Confidence Building Measures in Outer Space

  consensus

  Item 71C

  Study on Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

  against

  Item 71

  Bilateral Nuclear Arms Negotiations

  consensus

  Item 71J

  Conventional Arms Control

  for

  Item 71(C)

  Prohibition of Production of Fissile Material

  consensus

  Item 71(D)

  Dumping of Radioactive Waste

  consensus

  Item 71(E)

  Disarmament and Development

  consensus

  Item 71(F)

  Regional Disarmament (Germany)

  consensus

  Item 71(F)I

  Regional Disarmament (Pakistan)

  for

  Inhumane Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects Her Majesty's Government to ratify the 1981 inhumane weapons convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom hopes to ratify the convention later this year.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the effect on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the export of anti-personnel mines of ratification of the 1981 inhumane weapons convention by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Ratification of the convention will not have any direct effects on our policy regarding mine exports. The convention relates to the use of mines, booby traps and other devices as defined, not to their export.

  The United Kingdom already adheres strictly to the principles of the convention. We also adopt a responsible approach to the export of defence equipment, and have one of the most rigorous systems for scrutinising licence applications. The United Kingdom has not produced or exported anti-personnel mines for some time.

  United Nations First Committee
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list Her Majesty's Government's voting record for each measure, and amendments thereto, on the agenda of the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly in 1993.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The voting record is as follows:
  91

  Subject

  Voting record

  Item 71(G)

  Transparency in Armaments

  consensus

  Item 71(H)

  International Arms Transfers (Colombia)

  consensus

  Item 71(H)

  International Arms Transfers (Afghanistan)

  for

  Item 71 (J)

  Moratorium on Export of Anti-Personnel Mines

  consensus

  Item 72(A)

  UN Disarmament Fellowship

  consensus

  Item 72(B)B

  Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons

  against

  Item 72(C)

  UN Disarmament Information Programme

  consensus

  Item 72(E)A

  Regional Confidence Building Measures

  abstention

  Item 72(F)

  Regional Centres for Peace

  consensus

  Item 73(A)

  UN Disarmament Commission Report

  consensus

  Item 73(B)

  Conference on Disarmament Report

  consensus

  Item 74

  Israeli Nuclear Armament

  against

  Item 75

  Inhumane Weapons Convention

  for

  Preambular Paragraph 5

  abstention

  Item 76

  Question of Antarctica

  did not participate

  Item 77

  Security and Cooperation in the Mediterranean Region

  consensus

  Item 78

  Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace

  against

  Item 79

  Implementation of the Declaration on International Security

  abstention

  Item 80

  Maintenance of International Security

  for

  Item 80

  Maintenance of International Security (Balkan States)

  consensus

  Item 81

  Treaty of Tlatelolco

  consensus

  Item 82

  Denuclearisation of Africa

  consensus

  Item 156

  Rationalisation of the First Committee

  consensus

  Agenda

  Copies of the statements and explanations of vote which we made with reference to the above have been sent to the House of Commons Library.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects have been appointed to the provisional technical secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, formed under the chemical weapons convention; and what posts they have filled.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Three British citizens have been appointed to professional posts in the provisional technical secretariat. They occupy the posts of executive secretary, head of the chemical weapons branch of the verification division and head of the general services branch of the administration division. A further three British citizens are employed in the general services branch.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's time scale for the ratification of the chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We intend to ratify the chemical weapons convention as soon as the necessary implementing legislation is in place. The legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time becomes available.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many papers were presented by the United Kingdom Government to the disarmament negotiations for the chemical weapons convention disclosing details of its past chemical weapons programme; and when these papers were presented.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has presented two papers disclosing details of its past chemical 92
  weapons programme. On 24 April 1979 the United Kingdom presented a paper titled "Visit to Britain by Chemical Weapons Experts" to the committee on disarmament, now known as the conference on disarmament. The second paper, titled "Past Production of Chemical Warfare Agents in the United Kingdom" was presented to the conference on disarmament on 17 August 1988.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the status of the British subjects who have been appointed to the provisional technical secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, formed under the chemical weapons convention, will change if the United Kingdom has not ratified the convention by the time it enters into force.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Only citizens of states which have ratified the chemical weapons convention will be eligible to work at the technical secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons after the treaty enters into force. The technical secretariat will replace the provisional technical secretariat on entry into force of the convention.

  Cyprus
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he will use to promote the implementation of the United Nations Secretary-General's confidence-building measures in Cyprus.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We continue to encourage all parties to make progress on the package of confidence building measures proposed by the United Nations Secretary-General. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs stressed the urgency of progress during his trip to Ankara on
  93
  19–20 January, and will do so when he meets the Cypriot Minister of Foreign Affairs, Alecos Michaelides, on 2 February.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the number of Turkish citizens who have moved into the north of Cyprus since 1974; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There is dispute and uncer-tainty about the number of Turkish settlers in northern Cyprus. A range of figures are quoted, usually by partisan groups. We have no means to compile our own statistics. Security Council resolution 789 of 25 November 1992 urged the parties to commit themselves to a number of confidence-building measures, including a Cyprus-wide census under the auspices of the United Nations.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he intends to give the United Nations regarding the continued movement into the north of Cyprus of citizens of Turkey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The issue of residence rights is intrinsic to the UN-sponsored talks on Cyprus and would be an important element in any negotiated settlement.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the research projects in universities which have been funded by the Government Communications Headquarters since 1989, including the duration, titles and value of each project; and what security classification applied to each such university project.

  Mr. Hurd
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:

  Year

  University and title

  Cost £

  Duration

  1989

  Cambridge

  Max Newman Fellowship

  109,683

  4 years

  1990

  Leicester

  Testing and integration of direction finding sub-system

  1,700

  2 months

  1991

  Leicester

  Analysis of high frequency radio propagation measurements

  35,392

  3½4 years

  Leicester

  Data collection and processing for analysis of high frequency radio propagation measurements

  64,849

  2 years

  York

  Screened room measurements

  101,823

  2 years

  Oxford

  Mathematical Research Fellowship

  109,000

  3 years

  Leicester

  Development and construction of data collection and processing unit for high frequency radio propagation measurements

  33,151

  2 years

  1992

  York

  Characterisation of facsimile

  5,000

  18 months

  York

  Research support in field of communications simulation and modelling

  14,547

  1 year

  1993

  Leicester

  Direction finding data analysis

  67,075

  1 year

  Cambridge

  Max Newman Fellowship

  99,000

  3 years

  94
  In addition to the two university research projects listed for 1992 there was a project with Cheltenham and Gloucester college of higher education—cost £10,000, duration one year—on fax image orientation.

  As I told the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on 21 July 1993 at column 236, the research commissioned is confined to unclassified subjects. We retain proprietary rights over the research, but the results may be published by the relevant academic institution, if it wishes.

  Major General Mohnke
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 458, what requests were received from the German authorities for co-operation in their investigation into Major General Mohnke's involvement in the murder of more than 80 British service men; and what was the response.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In 1988 we offered the German authorities full co-operation in this matter, including access to the British records. The offer was accepted. The German authorities' subsequent requests to visit the United Kingdom to interview survivors and others with relevant information and to have statements taken from them were granted. Full facilities were given by the relevant British authorities while the German prosecutor was in this country.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 356, what estimate he has made of the additional costs, net of any reduction in employer's national insurance contributions, to his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95 resulting from the changes in statutory sick pay provision.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In 1992–93 the Department of Social Security reimbursed the Foreign and Commonwealth office a sum of £167,586 in respect of statutory sick pay provision. The projected sum for 1994–95 is £148,089. The DSS have yet to advise what reduction is to be made to national insurance contributions. But it is clear that the overall cost to the FCO of the new arrangements will be relatively small and will be able to be absorbed within the Department's running costs.

  Serbia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to raise with the Greek presidency of the European Union allegations of breaking of European Union-backed sanctions by Greek companies in providing oil and military equipment to Serbia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since the imposition of sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro we have been in close contact with the Greek Government over alleged sanctions breaches by Greek companies. As a result of our representations the Greek authorities have initiated a number of prosecutions against sanctions violators.
  95
  We shall continue to make representations where we receive reports of alleged breaches. We have seen no evidence of Greek involvement in the supply of military equipment to Serbia.

EMPLOYMENT

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics" policy for his Department during the current year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 January 1994 at col.849.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what working definition of "back to basics" is used by his Department; and what his Department has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 21 January 1994 at col. 849.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list job losses in each year since 1973 in the Houghton and Washington constituency and give the level of youth unemployment in the same years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested. Comparable employment information for parliamentary constituencies is available only form the periodic censuses of employment, held between 1984 and 1991. This can be used to estimate the net change in the number of employees in employment.

  Claimant unemployment statistics for local areas are available from July 1983. Statistics for particular age bands are available quarterly for the months of January, April, July and October.

  Employment and unemployment statistics for parliamentary constituencies can be obtained from the NOMIS database available in the Library.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs have been created in the Houghton and Washington constituency in each year since 1973.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested. Comparable employment information for parliamentary constituencies is available only from the periodic censuses of employment, held between 1984 and 1991. This can be used to estimate the net change in the number of employees in employment, and is given in the following table:

  Employees in employment in Houghton and Washington constituency, September of each year

  Year

  Number

  1984

  28,400

  1987

  27,400

  1989

  27,800

  1991

  29,100

  96
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of full-time manual workers, full-time non-manual workers and all full-time workers earned, including overtime, less than £203·07 per week in(a) the west midlands region and (b) Great Britain for (i) males, (ii) females and (iii) all adults in 1993.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is provided in the following table:

  Full-time employees on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence Proportion with gross weekly earnings below £203 07: April 1993

  Per cent.

  West midlands region

  Great Britain

  Manual men

  26·2

  25·9

  Non-manual men

  13·9

  11·6

  All men

  20·2

  18·1

  Manual women

  76·8

  73·9

  Non-manual women

  44·0

  35·1

  All women

  51·1

  42·0

  Manual adults

  35·4

  34·7

  Non-manual adults

  27·7

  22·4

  All adults

  30·8

  26·7

  Source: "New Earnings Survey".

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of part-time female manual workers, part-time female non-manual workers and all part-time female workers earned, excluding overtime, less than £5.42 per hour in(a) the west midlands region and (b) Great Britain in 1993.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is provided in the table:

  Part-time employees on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence Proportion with gross hourly earnings, excluding overtime, below £5·42: April 1993Per cent.

  Per cent.

  West midlands region

  Great Britain

  Manual women

  93·0

  91·2

  Non-manual women

  66·7

  64·2

  All women

  77·2

  73·8

  Source: "New Earnings Survey".

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which special advisers in his Department are seconded from other organisations; and what are the organisations and the lengths and terms of the secondments.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of(a) long-term unemployed people and (b) young jobseekers who have benefited, in each year since its establishment, from the European social fund's employment and training grants, giving each figure for (i) the northern region and (ii) the United Kingdom as a whole.
  97
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures show the numbers in Great Britain and Northern region of long-term unemployed and young people supported by the European social fund, for each calendar application year:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Great Britain

  long-term unemployed

  —

  763,829

  1,241,328

  young people

  333,773

  589,946

  810,410

  Northern region

  long-term unemployed

  —

  43,552

  53,364

  young people

  40,690

  47,579

  66,921

  1. Figures for 1990 are not available, and disaggregated figures for long-term unemployed are only available from 1992 onwards.

  2. The European social fund in Northern Ireland is administered separately by the Department of Economic Development.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total budget awarded to the EC's European social fund in each year since its establishment; and what proportion of this was granted to (i) the northern region and (ii) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures set out below show the total value of European social fund payments across the Community. The figures are drawn from the published EC budget for each year since 1990, when the current arrangements for devolved management of the fund by member states came fully into operation:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  mecu

  3,322

  3,869

  4,505

  5,061

  The following figures show the level of spend in Great Britain and northern region for each calendar application year:

  Year

  Great Britain

  Northern region £ million

  1990

  269·2

  —

  1991

  367·0

  26·0

  1992

  374·0

  26·5

  1993

  595·0

  45·0

  Notes:

  1. Regional data is only readily available for 1991 onwards.

  2. Final figures of spend for 1993 are not yet available, so figures for committed spend have been provided.

  3. The European social fund in Northern Ireland is administered by the Department of Economic Development.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total value of the budgets provided by the European Community under the European social fund for(a) vocational training and guidance and (b) job creation in each year since its establishment; and what was the total allocation of each to (i) the Northern Region and (ii) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Figures for the EC budget are not available separately for vocational training and job creation. However, the total value of the European social fund across the Community since 1990 is set out in the table. The figures are drawn from the published EC budget for each year since 1990, when the current arrangements for devolved management of the fund by member states came fully into operation.
  98

  Year

  Mecu

  1990

  3,322

  1991

  3,869

  1992

  4,505

  1993

  5,061

  The following figures show the level of spend in Great Britain and northern region for vocational training and guidance, and job creation for each calendar application year, where data is readily available, since the time when management of the fund by member states came fully into operation:

  £ million

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Great Britain

  Vocational training

  350·0

  355·4

  576·2

  Job creation

  15·9

  17·0

  16·5

  Northern region

  Vocational training

  22·6

  24·7

  43·3

  Job creation

  3·4

  1·7

  2·0

  Notes:

  1. Regional data is only readily available for 1991 onwards.

  2. Final figures of spend for 1993 are not yet available, so figures for committed spend have been provided.

  3. The European social fund in Northern Ireland is administered separately by the Department of Economic Development.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is planning to take to ensure that the modern apprenticeship scheme will promote equal opportunities; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he wants to see modern apprenticeships open equally to young women and young men. We shall be asking industry training organisations to take into account all aspects of equal opportunities in apprenticeship models they develop, and shall continue to place a contractual requirement on training and enterprise councils to ensure equality of opportunity in all their activities.

  Sikh Workers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to grant a general exemption to the British Sikh community from the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have given careful consideration to the representations that have been made for a complete exemption for Sikhs from health and safety requirements to wear head protection. Any exemption would be contrary to the EC directive on personal protective equipment, which the 1992 regulations implement. Attempts to secure a derogation from the directive failed in 1989 as the United Kingdom was unable to obtain the support of other member states. Now this directive is in force, the only way an exemption could be granted would be if the European Commission were to put forward an amending directive. This seems unlikely given the earlier lack of support from other member states.

  Agism
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to bring forward proposals for legislation preventing companies from putting age limits on job vacancy advertisements; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 4 November 1993,Official Report, columns. 433–34.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 695, what are the additional costs, net of any reduction in employer's national insurance contributions, to his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95 of the changes in statutory sick pay provision.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As indicated in my reply of 19 January 1994 to the hon. Member,Official Report, column 695, the Department anticipates no net additional costs.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will make a statement on(a) the level of the ceiling for employer contributions and (b) the level
  100
  of ceiling on allocations for individual employees within the new access to work scheme; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of employer contributions towards the purchase of specialist equipment and services for disabled employees upon (a) self-employed disabled people, (b) part-time disabled employees, (c) disabled employees working at home, (d) disabled employees on temporary contracts of one year or less and (e) disabled people contracted to work concurrently for two or more separate employers; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) who will own equipment jointly purchased by employers and the Government for disabled employees under the access to work proposals; what advice will be issued to companies by his Department on (a) the declaration of equipment purchasing within the audited accounts of companies and (b) arrangements for insuring equipment; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will make it his policy to establish a mechanism enabling disabled employees to lodge appeals against capping limits set under the new access to work scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: In reaching final decisions about the details of the access to work scheme, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend Lord Henley are considering carefully all the representations made by the disability and employer groups that we have met. My right hon. Friend hopes to announce decisions soon.

DEFENCE

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of Government agencies working in or to his Department; and how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information as requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Loans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, for each scheme operated by his Department under which loans are available, the objectives of the scheme, the number of unrecovered loans, the total value of unrecovered loans, the average number of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990, the average value of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990 and the annual cost of recovering loans.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department operates a number of schemes whereby loans may be made available to its civilian staff. These are normally in the form of advances of salary, which are repayable. The schemes are:Season Ticket Advance
  To assist staff purchase a quarterly or longer season ticket for travel between home and office.
  Advances for Staff Posted Overseas
  An advance of up to three months' gross salary may be paid to assist staff with settling-in expenses on arrival overseas.
  Holiday Advances
  A salary advance of up to £300 may be made to staff once each year prior to taking annual leave to assist with holiday expenses.
  House Purchase
  Where all other means of funding have been exhausted up to six months gross pay may be advanced to assist staff purchase property following transfer.
  Similarly in cases of 'negative equity" and where an out-standing bridging loan exceeds the value of the sale property, advances of up to 12 months' gross salary may be made.

  The information for 1990 to 1992 is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The number of advances in operation at December 1993 for the current financial year for each scheme and the balance still to be recovered was:

  Number of advances

  Balance outstanding (£)

  Season ticket advance

  6,219

  4,083,525

  Advances for staff posted overseas

  738

  1,565,699

  Holiday advances

  12

  3,600

  House purchase

  1,704

  7,069,805

  The annual cost of administering the schemes is £35,000 at present price levels.

  On duty murder cases involving armed forces

  Year

  Personnel involved

  Charge date

  Trial date

  Delay from charging to trial

  Finding

  1974

  1 soldier

  1974

  March 1975

  Not available

  Acquitted

  1978

  2 soldiers

  Not available

  Not available

  Not available

  Both acquitted

  Porton Down Officials (US Visits)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when officials from the Ministry of Defence or the chemical and biological establishment at Porton Down visited or were stationed at(a) Pine Bluff arsenal in Arkansas and (b) at the M687 binary metal parts facility at the Louisiana army ammunition plant in Shreveport, Louisiana, United States of America; what was the aim of these visits; and under which defence agreement they were organised.

  Mr. Hanley
  This matter is for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 24 January 1994:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when officials from the Ministry of Defence or the chemical and biological establishment at Porton Down visited or were stationed at (a) Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas and (b) at the M687 binary metal parts facility at the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant in Shreveport, Louisiana, United States of America; what was the aim of these visits; and under which defence agreement they were organised (Question 2, Order Paper 18 January 1994) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. No collated records are kept of the visitors from the Ministry of Defence or the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment to these US defence facilities. I have consulted my staff and we are not aware of any visits to or staff stationed at the M687 binary metal parts facility at the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant in Shreveport, USA. We are aware that there have been occasional infrequent visits to the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas. We are not aware of any staff being stationed at Pine Bluff Arsenal. It is probable that these visits would have taken place under one of the defence agreements referred to by the right hon. Archie Hamilton, MP, in his reply of 21 May 1992, Official Report, columns 255–256.

  Northern Ireland (Murders)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many members of the armed forces serving in Northern Ireland have been(a) charged with and (b) convicted of murder in the Province in each of the last 10 years;

  (2) what was the interval between date of charge and date of trial in respect of each member of the armed forces serving in Northern Ireland charged with murder in the Province in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1974, 11 members of the armed forces have been charged with murder while on duty in Northern Ireland. Two service men have been found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, while two service men are still awaiting trial.

  The table shows those charged with murder in the last 10 years and the interval between the date of the charge and the date of the trial:
  103

  Year

  Personnel involved

  Charge date

  Trial date

  Delay from charging to trial

  Finding

  1982

  2 soldiers

  Not available

  6 September 1983

  Not available

  Both acquitted

  1983

  1 soldier

  10 August 1983

  11 November 1984

  408 days

  Sentenced to life imprisonment —released on parole 27 February 1987

  1990

  1 soldier

  31 July 1991

  9 March 1993

  588 days

  Sentenced to life imprisonment —appeal to be heard 1994

  1990

  2 service men

  5 February 1992

  8 November 1993

  643 days

  Not guilty

  1992

  2 soldiers

  5 September 1992

  Set for April 1994

  503 days as at 20 January 1994

  —

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, columns 445–46, what are the additional costs, net of any reduction in employer's national insurance contributions, to his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95 of the changes in statutory sick pay provision.

  Mr. Aitken
  Any assessment of the net effect of the changes to statutory sick pay provision and the reduction in employer's national insurance contributions for the financial year 1994–95 could be provided only at disproporationate cost.

  Name

  Type

  Flag

  GRT

  Antje

  GC

  Antigua and Barbuda

  7,639

  Antje, B.

  GC

  Antigua and Barbuda

  4,134

  Askania

  RR/GC

  Antigua and Barbuda

  3,580

  Calypso

  GC

  Antigua and Barbuda

  4,145

  Charlotta

  GC

  Antigua and Barbuda

  12,710

  Conro Trader

  DCS

  Antigua and Barbuda

  3,000

  Hove

  GC

  Antigua and Barbuda

  2,560

  Justine

  GC

  Antigua and Barbuda

  3,065

  Lena

  GC

  Antigua and Barbuda

  7,286

  Petra

  RR/GC

  Antigua and Barbuda

  3,550

  Running Bear

  GC

  Antigua and Barbuda

  2,493

  Sprante Rubin

  GC

  Antigua and Barbuda

  6,550

  Stevnsland

  GC

  Antigua and Barbuda

  2,510

  Tinto

  GC

  Antigua and Barbuda

  4,100

  Fremo Sirius

  RR/GC

  Bahamas

  18,257

  Hansa Link

  RR

  Bahamas

  6,752

  Hyde Park

  GC

  Bahamas

  2,501

  Merchant Princess

  GC

  Bahamas

  19,035

  Mango

  GC

  Bahamas

  15,599

  Phoenix

  GC

  Bahamas

  7,900

  Ravel

  RR

  Bahamas

  3,884

  Satmars

  GC

  Bahamas

  15,765

  Sea Pearl

  GC

  Bahamas

  3,600

  Super Eight

  GC

  Bahamas

  2,780

  Clervaux

  RR

  Belgium

  5,064

  Ahlers Baltic

  RR

  Cyprus

  13,772

  Atlantic Cape

  GC

  Cyprus

  2,537

  Atlantic Rainbow

  GC

  Cyprus

  2,535

  Bayard

  GC

  Cyprus

  3,600

  Beaulieu

  GC

  Cyprus

  3,600

  Brabo

  GC

  Cyprus

  3,600

  Cape Blanche

  GC

  Cyprus

  4,400

  Cape Maleas

  GC

  Cyprus

  16,023

  Cape Patricia

  GC

  Cyprus

  4,400

  Evening Star

  RR/GC

  Cyprus

  15,922

  Guyane

  RR/GC

  Cyprus

  15,922

  Makiri

  GC

  Cyprus

  3,777

  Margaretha

  GC

  Cyprus

  3,676

  Mirach

  GC

  Cyprus

  4,878

  Roseanne

  RR

  Cyprus

  4,106

  Sea Intrepid

  GC

  Cyprus

  6,208

  Arktis Breeze

  GC

  Denmark

  2,671

  Arktis Carrier

  GC

  Denmark

  2,671

  Arktis Moon

  GC

  Denmark

  1,630

  Arktis Star

  GC

  Denmark

  1,630

  Chartered Vessels
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the name, type, country of registration and gross registered tonnage of each vessel chartered for use by the British Government in(a) the Falkland campaign and (b) Operation Granby.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information for the Falklands campaign is not held in the form requested and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. The name, type, country and registration and gross tonnage of the vessels chartered by the British Government during Operation Granby is as follows:
  105

  Name

  Type

  Flag

  GRT

  Arktis Sun

  GC

  Denmark

  1,710

  Arktis Trader

  GC

  Denmark

  2,470

  Dana Cimbria

  RR

  Denmark

  7,057

  Dana Corona

  RR

  Denmark

  8,946

  Dancia Violet

  GC

  Denmark

  1,100

  Elisabeth Boye

  GC

  Denmark

  2,657

  Greenland Saga

  CR/RF

  Denmark

  3,200

  Ice Flower

  RF

  Denmark

  2,489

  Jens Monk

  GC

  Denmark

  1,742

  Kathe Sif

  GC

  Denmark

  4,446

  Lottelith

  GC

  Denmark

  1,630

  Mercandian Duke

  RR

  Denmark

  7,230

  Mercandian Prince

  RR

  Denmark

  7,200

  Mercandian Queen

  RR

  Denmark

  7,200

  Mercandian Senator

  RR

  Denmark

  7,200

  Mercandian Trader

  RR

  Denmark

  3,290

  Nordland Saga

  RF

  Denmark

  3,200

  Pegasus

  GC

  Denmark

  1,275

  Sea Bird

  GC

  Denmark

  4,270

  Skodsborg

  RR

  Denmark

  8,002

  Stena Dan

  RR

  Denmark

  13,925

  Tor Caledonia

  RR

  Denmark

  12,200

  Senior M

  GC

  Egypt

  3,910

  Bore Song

  RR

  Finland

  6,100

  Degroe

  RR

  Finland

  9,334

  Paimpolaise

  CT

  France

  3,458

  Saint Gildas

  GC

  France

  3,778

  Ariana

  GC/RR

  Germany

  7,190

  Blue Bird

  CR

  Germany

  4,000

  Blue Sky

  CR

  Germany

  4,000

  Conti Britannia

  GC

  Germany

  7,751

  Fichtelberg

  RR

  Germany

  7,597

  Frauke

  GC

  Germany

  4,145

  Godewind

  GC/RR

  Germany

  3,693

  Regine

  GC

  Germany

  7,765

  Sylt

  GC

  Germany

  3,050

  Werner

  GC

  Germany

  3,055

  Aetos

  RR/GC

  Greece

  4,700

  St. Lucia

  CR

  Honduras

  7,090

  Merchant Promise

  GC

  Hong Kong (British)

  21,215

  Jokufell

  RF

  Iceland

  3,068

  Jolly Grigio

  RR

  Italy

  10,665

  Jolly Rosso

  RR

  Italy

  27,720

  Jolly Rubino

  RR/GC

  Italy

  31,262

  Jolly Turchese

  RR/GC

  Italy

  31,262

  African Wave

  GC

  Malta

  13,750

  Sea Lift

  CR

  Malta

  3,500

  Achtergracht

  GC

  Netherlands

  12,150

  Admiralengracht

  GC

  Netherlands

  12,150

  Alysta Smits

  GC

  Netherlands

  6,100

  Ankercracht

  GC

  Netherlands

  12,150

  Archangelgracht

  GC

  Netherlands

  12,150

  Artiscracht

  GC

  Netherlands

  11,300

  Bakengracht

  GC

  Netherlands

  3,489

  Barentzgracht

  GC

  Netherlands

  3,444

  Bataagratch

  GC

  Netherlands

  3,444

  Beurscratch

  GC

  Netherlands

  3,448

  Bouwerscratch

  GC

  Netherlands

  3,445

  Heemskerkcratch

  GC

  Netherlands

  4,553

  Houtmangratch

  GC

  Netherlands

  4,553

  Hudsongratch

  GC

  Netherlands

  4,510

  Kaapgracht

  GC

  Netherlands

  8,038

  Koggecratch

  GC

  Netherlands

  5,022

  Lee Francis

  GC

  Netherlands

  3,980

  Pijlgratch

  GC

  Netherlands

  9,650

  Prinsengratch

  GC

  Netherlands

  9,498

  Slotergratch

  GC

  Netherlands

  3,482

  Suglegratch

  GC

  Netherlands

  3,482

  Snoekgratch

  GC

  Netherlands

  3,482

  Stadiongratch

  GC

  Netherlands

  3,414

  Swallow

  GC

  Netherlands

  4,816

  Swan

  GC

  Netherlands Netherlands, Antibes

  4,792

  Jessica

  RR/GC

  and Aruba Netherlands, Antibes

  3,502

  Moon Bird

  GC

  and Aruba Netherlands, Antibes

  3,787

  Sky Bird

  GC

  and Aruba

  4,305

  106 107

  Name

  Type

  Flag

  GRT

  Netherlands, Antibes

  Atlantica

  RR/GC

  and Aruba

  3,548

  Arcade Falcon

  RR

  Norway

  6,670

  Canis

  RR

  Norway

  4,380

  Euro Nor

  RR

  Norway

  3,940

  Geroro

  RR/GC

  Norway

  4,514

  Hual Margarita

  RR

  Norway

  16,317

  Kas Christina

  RR

  Norway

  6,870

  Kas Marianne

  RR

  Norway

  6,871

  Liftmar

  GC

  Norway

  2,896

  Nomadic Patria

  GC

  Norway

  17,160

  Nomadic Pollux

  GC

  Norway

  7,161

  Nornews Service

  RR

  Norway

  3,927

  Seahorse

  RR

  Norway

  5,710

  Beeco America

  GC

  Panama

  9,292

  Gala Atlantica

  GC

  Panama

  12,628

  Cecilia

  GC

  Panama

  6,293

  Hual Traveller

  VEH

  Panama

  15,370

  Hual Tribute

  RR

  Panama

  16,317

  Mizar

  GC

  Panama

  3,610

  Roro Runner

  RR

  Panama

  4,838

  Q I A Fuja's

  CT

  Qatar

  35,615

  Arroyo Frio Dos

  RR

  Spain St. Vincent and

  5,080

  Conti Blue

  GC

  Grenadines St. Vincent and

  3,510

  Scheldemond

  GC

  Grenadines

  4,940

  Bore Gothica

  RR

  Sweden

  8,672

  Nordic Pride

  RR

  Sweden

  5,200

  Salar

  RR

  Sweden

  5,000

  Skane Link

  RR

  Sweden

  9,000

  Stig Gorthon

  RR/GC

  Sweden

  6,382

  Tender

  RR

  Sweden

  5,000

  Atlantic Conveyor

  RR/CT/VEH

  United Kingdom

  44,988

  Baltic Eagle

  RR

  United Kingdom

  9,450

  Baltic Rider

  RR

  United Kingdom

  12,830

  Baltic Progress

  RR

  United Kingdom

  5,615

  Wolfsburg

  RR

  Union of Myanmar

  9,600

  Koh Jin

  VEH

  Vanatu

  19,422

  ship type key:

  RR = Roll on Roll off, GC = General Cargo, DCS = Deck Cargo Ship, CR = Cargo, RF =Refrigerated Cargo, VEH = Vehicle Carriers, CT = Containers.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost in today's prices, of chartering(a) British and (b) foreign merchant vessels for (i) the Falklands campaign and (ii) Operation Granby.

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost at today's prices of chartering British and foreign merchant ships during Operation Granby was £15,303,925 and £122,516,169 respectively. The information for the Falklands campaign is not held and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  "Options for Change"
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel, as defined in table 2·4 of "UK Defence Statistics 1993", will be retained by each of the services following the completion of the "Options for Change" force restructuring programme.

  Mr. Hanley
  On current plans, in 1995 the forecast requirement for service manpower will be around 52,500 in the Royal Navy, up to 122,000 in the Army—including Gurkhas and up to an additional 3,000 announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 1 December 1993—and around 70,000 in the Royal Air Force.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vessels, including those in refit and on standby, will be operated by the Royal Navy following the
  108
  completion of the "Options for Change" force restructuring programme in the classes (a) offshore patrol, (b) patrol craft and (c) Royal Fleet auxiliaries, as defined in annex B of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  On current plans, the Royal Navy will, by the mid-1990s, operate eight offshore patrol vessels, 22 patrol craft—including the three Hong Kong patrol craft —and 21 ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The total given for patrol craft includes the five River class minesweepers which have been re-roled as patrol craft since the publication of the 1993 Statement on the Defence Estimates.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many squadrons will be operated by the Royal Air Force following the completion of the "Options for Change" force restructuring programme in each of the(a) strike/attack, (b) offensive support, (c) air defence, (d) maritime patrol, (e) reconnaissance, (f) airborne early warning, (g) transport, (h) tankers, (i) search and rescue, (j) surface to air missiles and (k) ground defence roles, as defined in table 3.1 of "UK Defence Statistics 1993".

  Mr. Hanley
  On current plans the RAF will, by the mid-1990s, operate six strike/attack, five offensive support, six air defence, three maritime patrol, five reconnaise, one airborne early warning, 14 transport, two tanker, two search and rescue, five surface to air missile and four ground defence squadrons.

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics" policy for his Department during 1994.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what working definition of "back to basics" is used by his Department; and what his Department has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 21 January at col. 849.

HEALTH

  Entertainment Budget
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will itemise under heads of expenditure how the budget for entertainment within her Department was expended in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health does not have a budget for entertainment. The nearest equivalent is hospitality, on which £246,374 was spent in 1992–93. A breakdown of this figure is shown in the table. Hospitality expenditure includes costs of refreshments for meetings of working groups and advisory committees and the high level of expenditure in some areas reflects activity on areas of work such as the Tomlinson review, specialist medical training, mental health, diet and nutrition, and the Warner report on the selection and recruitment of staff working in children's homes.

  Department of Health hospitality expenditure 1992–93

  Budget £

  Expenditure £

  Ministers' Offices

  40,000

  31,178

  Departmental Management

  10,164

  9,152

  Economics and Operational Research

  0

  747

  Finance—CFS, FHS, Admin.

  795

  1,043

  Information Systems

  2,600

  1,259

  Statistics

  1,205

  1,928

  Community Services

  2,717

  13,833

  Dental Services

  400

  1,120

  Family Health Services

  5,500

  5,377

  Health Care—Policy

  15,021

  16,661

  Environment and Food

  30,860

  22,469

  Health Promotion

  8,571

  19,088

  Health and Social Services Coordination

  2,090

  751

  International Relations

  2,496

  3,697

  Medical Devices

  4,462

  4,318

  Medical Support

  2,570

  5,754

  Medicines Control

  208

  683

  Pharmaceuticals

  950

  477

  Information and Publicity

  5,000

  2,478

  Research and Development

  3,389

  10,249

  Nursing

  0

  6,661

  Social Services Inspectorate

  8,000

  6,972

  Corporate Affairs

  26,359

  29,571

  HPSS Finance and Corporate Information

  16,000

  12,103

  Health Authority Personnel

  0

  8,338

  Health Care—Management

  14,199

  16,001

  NHS Performance Management

  7,555

  12,703

  Health Advisory Service

  0

  1,023

  Mental Health Advisory Commission

  500

  611

  Mental Health Review Tribunals

  0

  131

  110

  Budget £

  Expenditure £

  Departmental total

  211,531

  246,374

  Notes

  1. These titles represent the organisational groups which deal with the subjects concerned.

  2. Hospitality expenditure tends to consist of a large number of small payments—for example, refreshments for meetings of advisory committees, working groups etcetera.

  3. Managers are required to balance increased requirements in one area —such as hospitality—against reduced requirements in other areas.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the hospitality budget for her Department, the management executive and each regional health authority for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the hospitality budget for regional health authorities is not available centrally. Figures for the Department of Health are shown in the table.

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  Department of Health

  121,579

  163,670

  211,531

  National Health Service Management Executive

  36,906

  32,460

  64,735

  Notes:

  1. Figures are not available prior to 1990–91.

  2. Figures have not been adjusted for inflation.

  3. Departmental figures include the NHS management executive figures.

  4. Management executive figures are not directly comparable from year to year because of organisational changes.

  GPs (Misconduct)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the procedures for determining allegations of professional misconduct against general practitioners were last subject to review.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Professor Alan Wilson of Leeds university is chairing a full review of national health service complaints systems. We will consider the need to review the current NHS disciplinary arrangements for general practitioners in the light of Professor Wilson's recommendations on complaints.

  The General Medical Council's preliminary proceed-ings committee and professional conduct committees operate disciplinary procedures under powers contained in the Medical Act 1983. Subject to that Act, the procedural rules under which these committees operate are the responsibility of the GMC, an independent statutory body, and are subject to periodic review. From time to time proposals for more substantial changes to the disciplinary machinery of the council are put forward, such as the recent GMC proposal for new performance procedures to extend its disciplinary remit beyond cases of serious professional misconduct to lesser offences of persistently poor performance. Changes in the underlying structure of the GMC's disciplinary powers would require an amendment to the Medical Act.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons she considers it to be appropriate
  111
  and in the public interest for a general practitioner who has been struck off the register by the General Medical Council to be able to continue to practice pending an appeal.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is for the General Medical Council's professional conduct committee to decide whether to order the immediate suspension of a doctor's registration where it has found the doctor guilty of serious professional misconduct and directed that his or her name should be erased from the register. Under the Medical Act 1983, this committee can order the immediate suspension of a doctor's registration only where it is satisfied that to do so is necessary to protect the public or is in the best interests of the doctor concerned. Unless such an order is made, the doctor can continue to practice until the erasure takes effect 28 days after the doctor is served with a notice of erasure, or a longer period if an appeal is lodged. Only where the committee orders an immediate suspension do family health services authorities have the power to remove the doctor's name from their list immediately.

  The professional conduct committee decides whether to order an immediate suspension on the basis of the evidence put before it in each individual case. The General Medical Council is an independent statutory body charged under the Medical Act 1983 with responsibility for the registration of doctors and the regulation of the medical profession. It would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to intervene in the way it carries out its responsibilities under the Act. Any change in the General Medical Council's powers described above would require primary legislation and would be a matter for Parliament to decide.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will review the procedures for suspension of general practitioners from the provision of national health service services in the light of the recent case raised with her by the hon. Member for Woolwich; on what date she became aware of the medical service committee hearing of the Greenwich and Bexley family health services authority held in July 1989; on what date she communicated the findings of that hearing to the General Medical Council; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment she has made of the propriety of general practitioners continuing to practise in the NHS following findings of misconduct by a local medical service committee and by the professional conduct committee of the General Medical Council and the decision by the judical committee of the Privy Council on the merits of an appeal against such findings; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: The General Medical Council's professional conduct committee has the power under the Medical Act 1983, where it finds a doctor to be guilty of serious professional misconduct and directs that he or she should be struck off or suspended from the medical register, to order an immediate suspension of that doctor's registration. The exercise of this power is a matter for the professional conduct committee which may only use it where it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the protection of members of the public or would be in the best interests of the doctor concerned.

  We are giving urgent consideration to the need for legislation to provide, in extreme cases, for a power of immediate suspension of general practitioners from
  112
  provision of national health service services pending the outcome of investigations into allegations of serious misconduct.

  In the case to which the hon. Member refers, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State became aware of a decision of Greenwich and Bexley family health services authority on 4 July 1989 when a copy of the decision was sent to the Department in accordance with regulation 10 of the National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations 1974. The practitioner appealed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend's decision on the appeal, together with the family health services authority decision and its service committee's recommendations, were passed on to the General Medical Council on 10 May 1991.

  Redundancy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the redundancy entitlement of an officer of the national health service made redundant after 40 years service whilst on sick leave and having accumulated 6 per cent. performance-related pay.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Redundancy payments for national health service staff employed on national terms and conditions of service are governed by section 45 of the General Whitley Council handbook, a copy of which is available in the Library. The amount to be paid will be calculated according to age, length of service and whether there is entitlement to early payment of superannuation benefits. The calculation may take account of performance-related pay when it is consolidated in annual salary; it is not affected by sick leave.

  Dr. Kabir
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date the case of Dr. Kabir was referred to the Privy Council; when a final decision was made to strike him off the register of general practitioners; what investigation she is making into the length of time it has taken for this case to be resolved; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The professional conduct registrar committee of the General Medical Council directed the register to erase Dr. Kabir's name from the medical register on 19 March 1993. Dr. Kabir lodged a petition of appeal with the Privy Council, within the statutory 28 days, on 16 April 1993. After two adjournments, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissed his appeal on 12 January 1994. This decision remains subject to formal approval of Her Majesty in Council. We have asked the family health services authority and officials to report to us on the handling of this case.

  Surveillance Cameras
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance has been issued by her Department to health authorities and national health service trusts regarding the use of hidden surveillance cameras to detect staff misdemeanours; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what data has been collected by her Department regarding the number of national health service trusts and directly managed units which currently use hidden surveillance cameras on their premises.
  113
  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) who are the members currently appointed to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment;

  2. who are the members currently appointed to the Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment;

  3. who are the members currently appointed to the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment;

  4. who are the members currently appointed to the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.

  Mr. Sackville
  The members of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment currently serving are:

  Chairman

  Professor B. Bridges, PhD FIBiol

  Members

  Professor E. Alberman MD FFCM FRCP

  Professor V. Beral MB BS FRCP

  Professor K. Boddy OBE PhD DSc FinstP FRSE

  Professor R. Cartwright PhD MA MB BChir MFCM FFPHM

  Professor K. Clayton CBE MSc PhD

  Professor J. Denekamp BSc PhD DSc

  Professor T. Dexter FRS PhD MRCPath DSc

  Dr. G. Draper MA DPhil

  Professor O. Eden MB BS DRCOG MRCP FRCP

  Professor J. Evans BSc PhD FIBiol FRSE FRCPE

  Dr. D. Goodhead MSc DPhil

  Dr. J. Hendry PhD MSc BSc

  Professor P. Jacobs BSc DSc FRSE FRCPath FRS

  Professor P. Smith BSc DSc MSPHM

  Dr. M. Spittle MSc MRCP FRCR

  Dr. T. Wheldon PhD FinstP

  Professor J. Whitehouse BA LRCP MRCS MA MB MRCP MD FRCP

  The members of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment currently serving are:

  Chairman

  Professor H. F. Woods BSc MB BCh MRCP D Phil FRCP(Lon) FFPM FRCP(Edin)

  Members

  P. Aggett MB ChB FRCP MSc DCH

  V. Beral MB BS FRCP

  Professor A. D. Dayan BSc MD FRCPath FFPM CBiol FIBiol

  Professor G. G. Gibson BSc PhD

  G. Hawksworth BSc PhD

  I. Kimber BSc MSc PhD FIMLS CBiol MIBiol

  D. E. Prentice MA VetMB MVsc MRCPath MRCVS

  A. G. Renwick BSc PhD DSc

  F. M. Sullivan BSc

  A. Thomas MB ChB MRCP PhD

  Professor D. Walker BVSc FRCVS CBiol FIBiol

  Professor R. Walker PhD FRSC CChem FIFST

  The members of the Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment currently serving are:

  Chairman

  R. L. Carter, MA, DM, DSc, FRCPath

  Members

  Professor P. G. Blain, BMedSci, MB, PhD, FRCP(Lond), FRCP(Edin), MFOM, CBiol, FIBiol

  Professor R. A. Cartwright, MA, MB, PhD, FFPHM

  Professor C. E. D. Chilvers, BSc(Econ), MSc Hon, MFPHM

  C. Cooper, BSc, PhD, DSc

  Professor A. D. Dayan, BSc, MD, FRCP, FRCPath, FFPM,
  114
  CBiol, FIBiol

  P. B. Farmer, MA, DPhil, CChem, FRSC

  Professor R. F. Newbold, BSc, PhD

  Professor J. M. Parry, BSc, PhD, DSc

  I. F. H. Purchase, BVSc, MRCVs, PhD, FRCPath, CBiol, FIBiol

  A. G. Renwick, BSc, PhD, DSc

  S. Venitt, BSc, PhD

  Professor G. T. Williams, BSc, MD, FRCP, FRCPath

  The members of the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment currently serving are:

  Chairman

  Professor J. M. Parry, BSc, PhD, DSc

  Members

  Professor J. Ashby, BSc, PhD, CChem, FRCS

  R. L. Carter, MA, DM, DSc, FRCPath

  J. Cole, BSc, DPhil

  C. Cooper, BSc, PhD, DSc

  Professor D. S. Davies, BSc, PhD, CChem, FRCS, MRCPath

  Professor H. J. Evans, PhD, FRSE, CBiol, FIBiol, FRCPE,

  FRCCSE

  Professor R. F. Newbold, BSc, PhD

  S. Venitt, BSc, PhD

  R. M. Winter, BSc, MB, BS, FRCP

  The membership of the committees on toxicity, mutagenicity and carcinogenicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment are published annually in their joint report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who are the members currently appointed to the Health Advisory Service.

  Mr. Bowis
  The responsibility for running the Health Advisory Service falls to Dr. Richard Williams, who is accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Health Advisory Service has no membership as such, but relies on secondments from the national health service and elsewhere to carry forward its work programme. Details are contained in the annual report of the director of the HAS for 1992–93 "A Unique Window on Change", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Young People (Rent)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take steps to ensure that local authority social services departments pay the rent of young persons being helped by the local authority under the terms of section 17 or section 20 of the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Bowis
  Young persons may be entitled to housing benefit if they have a legal liability to pay rent. Section 17 of the Children Act is about the provision of services for children in need, their families and others by local authorities, and does not have a bearing on the liability of a young person to pay rent. Section 20 of the Children Act sets out the duties and powers of local authorities to provide accommodation for those children or young persons in need who require it. The Departments of Health and of Social Security are jointly considering going out to consultation on guidance to clarify the responsibilities of local authority social services departments and the benefit position when a young person is helped by an authority under the Children Act.
  115

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those general practitioners who will become fundholders in each region on 1 April.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. Regional health authorities manage the general practitioner fundholding scheme and are responsible for admitting practices to the scheme.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the procedure for the continuing treatment of patients when a GP fundholder has overspent his budget and therefore run out of funds.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Patients of general practitioner fundholders will not suffer because a fundholder overspends his budget. Any overspending will be met from regional health authority contingencies, but where overspending is the result of mismanagement the GP fundholder may have fundholding status withdrawn.

  Community Care (Transitional Grants)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations she has had, and what representations she has received, regarding the implications and operation of the special transitional grant to local authorities in respect of responsibilities arising under the community care policy; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have had discussions with, or received representations from, various people, including the local authority associations and representatives of private and voluntary sector community care service providers.

  Standard Spending Assessment, Dorset
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be(a) the social service standard spending assessment for Dorset and (b) its mental health specific grant; and what it was in 1993–94.

  Mr. Bowis
  The personal social services standard spending assessments for Dorset for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are £59·481 million and, provisionally, £68·429 million respectively. The mental illness specific grant is £427,000 for 1993–94; the grant for 1994–95 has not yet been decided.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental domiciliary visits involving a dental chair anaesthetist have been made in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Health Authorities
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the proceeds of health authority land are held at central, regional or local health authority level; and what changes are proposed when the regional authorities are reorganised;

  (2) what are the rules governing the use of proceeds from the sale of health authority land;
  116
  (3) what restrictions are placed on health authorities with regard to the use of capital receipts in their area;

  (4) what changes are proposed within the national health service reorganisation to the guidelines for the control of capital receipts;

  (5) when health authority land or assets are sold, if the capital receipts are held centrally, regionally or at a local health authority level.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regional health authorities retain capital receipts as additions to their cash limits. Deployment of this resource to support RHA and trust capital programmes is agreed between RHAs and management executive outposts. In the case of assets which provided services for mentally ill people and people with learning disabilities, regions are expected to make sure that priority in the use of such proceeds is given to the development of services for these groups.

  No decision has yet been taken on the handling of capital receipts following the proposed abolition of RHAs.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what capital receipts were realised from the sale of health authority land and buildings in the Trent region in 1992–93;

  (2) what capital receipts have been raised in the Trent region over the last five years from the sale of land, buildings and assets.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information on capital receipts that have been raised/realised is:

  Year

  £ million

  1988–89

  13·9

  1989–90

  18·7

  1990–91

  25·9

  1991–92

  4·8

  1992–93

  2·9

  No breakdown of these figures into land, buildings and other assets is available centrally.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will happen to any surplus moneys not spent by district health authorities in the course of the current financial year; and what effect the fact of the DHA being in surplus will have on the calculation of funding allocation for future years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Surpluses at regional health authorities are carried forward. They are not taken into account when subsequent allocations are calculated.

  Allocations to district health authorities are made by RHAs and there are some variations in the approaches adopted. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of the RHAs for further information.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who are those people currently appointed to serve on district health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The names of district health authority chairmen are listed in the table. Regional health authorities are responsible for the appointment of non-executive members. The appointment of executive members is a matter for individual district health authorities.

  East Anglian regional health authority

  Cambridge

  Mrs. M. Hardiment

  Suffolk

  Mr. N. Ridley

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  Mr. R. Duncan

  117

  Huntingdon

  Mr. I. Langworthy

  North West

  Mr. J. Durance

  Anglia Norwich

  Mr. M. Falcon

  Mersey regional health authority

  Liverpool

  Mr. D. Tod

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  Mr. G. Murray

  Wirral

  Mr. R. Gordon

  Sefton

  Mr. F. Ludlow

  Chester

  Mr. J. Ross

  South and East Cheshire

  Mr. S. Cussons

  North Cheshire

  Mr. C. Hamer

  North East Thames regional health authority

  Camden and Islington

  Mr. R. Everington

  Barking and Havering

  Mr. B. Littlewood

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  Miss D. Patman

  South Essex

  Mr. D. Micklem

  North Essex

  Mr. A. Sexton

  East London and The City

  Mrs. F. Heidensohn

  New River

  Mr. D. G. Kleeman

  Northern regional health authority

  Northumberland

  Mr. J. Baker

  South Tees

  Mr. P. A. Marsden

  North Durham

  Professor John Clarke

  East Cumbria

  Mr. I. Carr

  Gateshead

  (Vacancy)

  South Cumbria

  Mrs. A. Graham

  Hartlepool

  (Vacancy)

  North Tees

  Mr. D. Otter

  North Tyneside

  Mrs. S. Murray

  Newcastle

  Mr. A. Crute

  Sunderland

  Mr. G. Bedell

  South Durham

  Dr. John Marshall

  South Tyneside

  Mr. W. Darling

  West Cumbria

  (Vacancy)

  North Western regional health authority

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  (Vacancy)

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  Mr. R. Parkinson

  Bolton

  Mr. T. Taylor

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  Mr. W. Ashworth

  Bury

  (Vacancy)

  Central Manchester

  Mr. E. Parker

  Chorley and South Ribble

  (Vacancy)

  Lancaster

  Professor Alwyn Smith

  North Manchester

  (Vacancy)

  Oldham

  Mr. J. Downs

  Preston

  (Vacancy)

  Rochdale

  Mrs. P. Hawton

  Salford

  Dr. Frederick Beswick

  South Manchester

  (Vacancy)

  Stockport

  Mr. F. Russell

  Tameside and Glossop

  Mr. B. Leek

  Trafford

  Mrs. S. Alexander

  West Lancashire

  Dr. Kathleen Rowsell

  Wigan

  Mr. J. McDonald

  North West Thames regional health authority

  Barnet

  Mr. A. Jacobs

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  Baroness Eccles of Moulton

  North and East Hertfordshire

  Mrs. C. Quest

  Hillingdon

  Mr. D. Evans

  South Bedfordshire

  Mr. A. Hendry

  North Bedfordshire

  Mrs. J. Swift

  South West Hertfordshire

  Mr. D. Rawlings

  North West Hertfordshire

  Mr. D. Bucknall

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  Mrs. J. Hughes

  Oxford regional health authority

  Berkshire

  Mr. R. Eassie

  Kettering

  Mr. R. Button

  Northampton

  Mr. S. Schanschieff

  Oxfordshire

  Dr. P. Iredale

  Buckinghamshire

  Sir Norman King

  118

  South East Thames regional health authority

  Bexley

  Dr. Norbert Singer

  Bromley

  (Vacancy)

  Canterbury and Thanet

  Mr. H. Bragg

  Dartford and Gravesham

  Mr. C. Thornton

  East Sussex

  Mr. J. Wellesley

  Maidstone

  Mrs. A. Nelson

  Medway

  (Vacancy)

  South East Kent

  (Vacancy)

  Tunbridge Wells

  Mr. P. Edgley

  South East London

  Mr. I. Mills

  Greenwich

  Mr. P. Prior

  South Western regional health authority

  Plymouth and Torbay

  Mrs. J. Leverton

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  Mr. J. Askham

  Gloucestershire

  Miss J. Trotter

  Exeter and North Devon

  Mrs. R. Day

  Somerset

  Mr. T. Ward

  Bristol and District

  Mr. M. Crowson

  South West Thames regional health authority

  Chichester

  Mr. J. Hooley

  East Surrey

  Mr. J. Poole

  Kingston and Richmond

  Mr. R. Galley

  Merton and Sutton

  Mr. H. Cowd

  Mid Downs

  Mr. M. Long

  Mid Surrey

  Professor A. Holmes

  South West Surrey

  Sir Nicholas Hunt

  Wandsworth

  Dr. E. Vincent

  North West Surrey

  Professor J. Kennerley

  Worthing

  Mr. P. Lawson

  Croydon

  Mrs. A. Fresko

  Trent regional health authority

  North Nottinghamshire

  Mr. A. Tolhurst

  Barnsley

  Mrs. A. Cook

  Doncaster

  Mr. J. Smith

  Leicestershire

  Mr. N. Townsend

  North Derbyshire

  Mr. R. Robinson

  North Lincolnshire

  Mrs. K. Hall

  Nottingham

  Sir David White

  Sheffield

  Mr. J. Neill

  South Derbyshire

  Mr. J. Rudd

  South Lincolnshire

  Dr. J. Brackenridge

  Rotherham

  Mr. D. Clark

  Wessex regional health authority

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  Mrs. A. Sealey

  Bath

  (Vacancy)

  Dorset

  Major General R. Keightley

  Isle of Wight

  Mrs. A. Clarke

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  Dr. T. Taylor

  Salisbury

  (Vacancy)

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  Professor J. Howell

  Swindon

  Mr. D. Hulme

  Winchester

  (Vacancy)

  West Midlands regional health authority

  Coventry

  Mr. A. Guy

  East Birmingham

  (Vacancy)

  Herefordshire

  Mr. J. E. Bulmer

  North Worcestershire

  Mr. M. Cooper

  Mid Staffordshire

  Mr. B. Liss

  North Birmingham

  Mr. M. Skillicorn

  North Staffordshire

  Mr. M. Procter

  Warwickshire

  Mr. G. Jackson

  Sandwell

  Mr. C. Wilkinson

  Shropshire

  Mr. D. Lloyd

  Solihull

  Mr. R. Fordham

  South Birmingham

  Mr. B. Stoten

  South East Staffordshire

  Mrs. M. Stanhope

  West Birmingham

  Mr. G. Coghlan

  Wolverhampton

  Mr. R. Carver

  Worcester and District

  Mr. A. Prescott

  119

  Walsall

  Mr. M. Wolverson

  Dudley

  Mrs. M. Fenton

  Yorkshire regional health authority

  East Riding

  (Vacancy)

  West Yorkshire

  Mr. P. Wood

  Leeds

  Mrs. P. Smith

  Wakefield

  Mr. B. Hay ward

  Bradford

  Mrs. Z. Manzoor

  North Yorkshire

  Mrs. S. Wrigley

  Grimsby and Scunthorpe

  Mrs. V. Pettifer

  Confidentiality
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements she has made to replace circular LAC(88)17 on social services confidentiality, which expired on 31 December.

  Mr. Bowis
  Circular LAC(88)17 was continued in force by virtue of local authority social services letter—LASSL —(92)9 issued to authorities in November 1992. I am arranging for copies of both circulars to be placed in the Library.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost of extending remission of national health service charges to disability working allowance claimants.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The estimated cost of providing automatic remission of national health service charges for disability working allowance recipients with capital of £8,000 or less from 1 April 1995 is about £1 million in the first year.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people United Kingdom have been registered as suffering from ME.

  Mr. Sackville
  As there is no agreed case definition, accurate figures cannot be collected.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding has been allocated by Her Majesty's Government for research into the causes and treatment of ME.

  Mr. Sackville
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The MRC has been funding a study at the Institute of Psychiatry for four years where researchers are attempting to find ways to help myalgic encephalomyelitis sufferers to cope with their disease and regain their health. The estimated cost of this project is £91,000. The Department and the MRC are always willing to receive and consider soundly based research proposals in competition with other applications.

  Clinicians
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance or advice has been issued on the activity rates to be undertaken by clinicians working within the NHS; and if she will make a statement.
  120
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Guidance from the Department is issued to ensure that the national health service provides high quality, effective and efficient health care. Locally agreed contracts between purchasers and providers specify the level, quality and cost of services. Guidance stresses that clinicians should be involved in this process.

  Working Parties
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many working parties she has set up since becoming Secretary of State; if she will list them; and if she will provide a breakdown of their cost.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Collective discussion involving officials and outside experts, either in a formal or in an ad hoc meeting or series of meetings is an integral part of the way the Department conducts its business.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what visits she has made over the last 12 months; and what has been the cost of each visit.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information to this level of detail could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Health Sheffield NHS Trust
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which land and buildings, currently in health authority ownership, will pass to the ownership of the new trust, on the formation of Community Health Sheffield NHS trust.

  Mr. Sackville
  A final decision on the land and buildings that will transfer to the Community Health Sheffield trust has not yet been made.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer on 17 January,Official Report, column 393, what estimates he has made of the additional costs, net of any reduction in employer's national insurance contributions, to her departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95 resulting from the changes in statutory sick pay provision.

  Mr. Sackville
  Current estimates suggest that the changes in statutory sick pay provision, offset by reductions in employer's national insurance contributions, will result in a net additional cost within the Department of some £50,000 in 1994–95. This additional cost will be absorbed within the Department's running costs of £253 million.

  Organ Donations
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to bring forward legislation to increase the number of organ transplant donors by requiring individuals and their families to opt out of organ donation rather than opt in; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Increasing the organ donation rate is a Government priority. We do not believe that
  121
  opt-out legislation would achieve this. We believe that the decision to donate should continue to be a positive choice made by individuals rather than a presumed statutory right.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to increase the number of organ transplant donors; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government actively and con-tinuously pursue the promotion of organ donation; more resources are being devoted to publicity than ever before. Examples of current initiatives are:The scheme for reimbursing costs to donor hospitals which has proved effective.
  A programme of information and training for doctors and nurses developed by the European donor hospital education programme which is being piloted in two regions with the co-operation of the professions concerned.
  Multi-organ retrieval teams which were introduced in October 1993 to speed up and increase the recovery of organs.
  The survey into reasons why some relatives refuse permission
  to use organs; the results are expected this summer.
  Consideration is being given to a computerised register of organ donors.

  Patient S
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which hospitals Patient S, who recently died in Cossham hospital, Bristol, previously received care; and why he was transferred from those hospitals.
  122
  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not hold confidential personal information of this nature.

  Nuffield Trust Hospital
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions she or her Ministers or officials have discussed with the Brighton health care trust the role to be played in health care provision in the Brighton area by the new Nuffield trust hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are aware of no such discussions.

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics" policy for her Department during 1994.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what working definition of "back to basics" is used by her Department; and what her Department has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Members to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 21 January at col. 849.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Air Transport Duty
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the introduction of air passenger duty will distort competition between the airlines, the cross-Channel ferries, the Channel Tunnel and British Rail InterCity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the choice to fly rather than use a train, ferry or the Channel Tunnel depends on a variety of factors, including price. The Government do not consider that an extra £5 on the price of an airline ticket will materially affect these decisions.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I should perhaps declare an interest with an airline, although it is one that will not have to pay this duty. But can my noble friend tell me why someone who chooses to travel to Edinburgh or Glasgow by InterCity, or to Paris or Brussels by the new Channel Tunnel, should pay no tax, whereas somebody who chooses to make exactly the same journey by air has to pay the new duty of £5 or £10?
Secondly, will my noble friend say why my right honourable friend the Chancellor in his Budget Statement on 30th November said that,
"air travel is under-taxed compared to other sectors of the economy. It benefits not only from a zero rate of VAT; in addition, the fuel used in international air travel, and nearly all domestic flights, is entirely free of tax".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/93; col. 932.]
Can my noble friend tell me what taxes and duties the airlines do not pay which railways and the Channel Tunnel do pay?
Lord Henley: My Lords, while it is true that there are no taxes as such on trains, we believe that taxing the railways would create other, more significant distortions. It would also mean taking into account some very short journeys where such tax would be disproportionate. We therefore believe that it is appropriate on these occasions to tax flights but not railways.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we support him in his desire to eliminate distortions in transport pricing; and is it not clear that the greatest distortion in British transport pricing is the unlimited access which the road transport industry has to the roads, while, bizarrely, British Rail is forced to fund out of current income investment in the permanent way? Is that distortion not set to increase with the folly of privatising British Rail?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is another question. This Question relates to taxation on air flights.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, at every overseas airport that I have departed from the tax is 20 US dollars a head, so does the Minister have a comparison with other countries? Is their tax not considerably more than the tax that Britain will levy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I could give my noble friend details at some length of all the duties charged by a number of different countries. For example, Denmark charges £6.50 on all international departures. That is the closest parallel to the United Kingdom tax. Belgium charges up to £9. Ireland adds £5 on passenger tickets in the Republic for sea and air travel to foreign destinations. I could go on. Some levies are a great deal more but, as I said earlier, we believe that £5 will not unnaturally distort the market.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that of the airports that he has just listed, virtually none has significant internal transport? The air transport system within the United Kingdom is an intense daily service used by a very large number of people. It competes with InterCity.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we believe that it is right that we should tax internal as well as external flights. That is in line with our commitment to the Community. As I said earlier, we do not believe that it will necessarily distort the market.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is this not another case of something that will grow like Topsy? Does the noble Lord not remember that Mr. Gladstone introduced income tax at a very small amount at one time, and now this Government are pushing it higher and higher? Is this not genuinely a serious distortion, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said, and something which will damage the workings of the market, which I thought the Government were in favour of?
Lord Henley: My Lords, how this grows is obviously a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can only repeat that we do not believe that the levy will have any serious distortionary effect.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of the Treasury's forecast, given in a Written Answer elsewhere last Wednesday, that this tax will lead to a 2½ per cent. fall in the demand for air travel. What estimates have the Government made of the impact on tourism, and in particular on short-stay tourism—where the penalty is quite a high element in the fare—off-season tourism and out-of-London tourism?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware of any estimates of the effect that this will have on tourism. As I said in my opening Answer, people make a number of decisions as to how they choose any appropriate form of transport. We do not believe that the £5 tax on flights out

803
of this country will seriously distort their decision as to whether they choose to go by air, rail or the Channel Tunnel.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the Government are not aware of the effect on tourism, is it not about time that they found out?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the Government are aware of any such effect, I shall certainly let the noble Lord know. I was saying that I was not aware of there being any serious distortionary effect. I do not believe that there can be any distortionary effect on tourism. After all, the tax applies only to flights out of the United Kingdom.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would have been better for the Government to have had a different rate of taxation depending upon the class of travel, with business class paying more than tourist class or charter passengers? Does he further agree that it is obviously more equitable to have the rich pay more than the poor?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a very interesting suggestion. We believed that it was necessary to keep the system as cheap as possible. We do not believe that the tax will be an unnecessary burden on any individual. In fact the tax burden will comprise a higher share of both income and expenditure for the higher income groups.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's Answer, will he confirm that this is another form of poll tax?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not another form of poll tax. I am not aware of any other forms of poll tax.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this is yet another Tory tax which would not have been, and was not, introduced by a Labour Government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, fortunately it is a long time since we have had a Labour Government. We are all unaware of exactly the taxes that a Labour Government would impose. No doubt they would continue to tax spending just as they always have done.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Question on the Order Paper refers to the distortion of competition between British Rail InterCity, the Channel Tunnel and Channel ferries, which are used by road transportation? In the light of that Question, will he be so kind as to answer my earlier question?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no, I believe that the noble Lord's earlier question was wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is another sort of tax without representation? Can he tell us the principle on which it was introduced?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not a form of taxation without representation. It was introduced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement. He is answerable to another, elected House.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how much revenue it is likely to raise?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in the first year, which will be a half year as it does not come into effect until October of this year, it will be £115 million; in 1995–96 it will be £330 million; and in 1996–97 it will be £355 million.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that obviously a £10 tax on a first-class ticket to Australia will not make a huge amount of difference but it could be as much as 16 per cent. on, for example, a cheap fare from London to Dublin?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously the percentage involved will depend on the price of the ticket. But we believed that it was important to keep this duty as simple as possible and therefore that £5 was a fair rate to charge.

Dahuk: Electricity Supply
2.45 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to persuade Iraq to turn on the electricity in Dahuk.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we remain concerned at the plight of civilians in Dahuk. We, France, Russia and the United States made a dè marche to the Iraqi Government on 5th January at the United Nations, protesting about Iraq's continued repression of the civilian population. The dè marche called on Iraq to restore the electricity supply to the Dahuk governate. We will continue to press Iraq to fulfil this and all other obligations under Security Council resolutions.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. May I remind her that Dahuk, a city of some 700,000 people, has been without electricity for five months and 10 days? It is a city 10 times the size of Glasgow Hillhead. Will the Foreign Office be kind enough to advise parliamentarians visiting Baghdad not to salute Saddam Hussein for his courage but to tell him to turn the lights on in Dahuk and save Kurdish lives?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the British Government are deeply concerned about the lack of electricity supplies to Dahuk. I believe that it was more effective when we, together with other permanent members of the Security Council, made a very strong protest to the Iraqis. However, I am not hopeful that the supplies will be resumed by the Iraqis. We have also

805
taken action with the Turkish Government. I understand that the Turks have now discussed the issue with Iraq. I hope very much that the Turks will be willing to supply electricity from across the border to the people of Dahuk, who, quite apart from their other needs, deserve it. We have to work at it. I believe that that is the best way forward.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is surely a story of antipathy—if that is the right word—towards Saddam Hussein and all that he stands for and represents? I believe that I speak for everyone in this House when I suggest that it is about time France, America and ourselves said to Saddam Hussein, "Put that electricity back or else!"
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe I heard my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone and others say sotto voce, "What else can be done?" The responsibility for the suffering lies with Saddam Hussein. But who can force the man to do what my noble friend Lord Archer asked? The people of Dahuk need the electricity. Perhaps we can find another way to provide it. At the same time we shall not cease to seek to bring Saddam Hussein's iniquities to the notice of all, including Members of another place.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, is the Minister aware that cutting off the electricity in Dahuk is a minor example of the terrible maltreatment of the Kurds throughout Iraq?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Compared with what has happened so far as the people in southern Iraq are concerned —the marsh Arabs—and what has happened to the Kurds in northern Iraq, it is perhaps a lesser evil. But there is no doubt that if the people of Dahuk had electricity, a lot of their other problems would pale into insignificance because they might then have clean water. Clean water is the basis of better health for all those people.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister accept that we on these Benches entirely dissociate ourselves from the visit made by the honourable Member for Glasgow Hillhead to Iraq and from the rather foolish remarks he made in his interview with Saddam Hussein? However, can the Minister tell the House what happened to the report by UNSCOM which is investigating the use of chemical warfare against the Shia Moslems in southern Iraq? It is some time since that investigation was initiated. We have as yet had no results.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her initial remarks. With regard to the investigative report on the use of chemical weapons on the marsh Arabs, the initial evidence shows no immediate grounds for believing that chemical weapons have been used. The detailed evidence is still being worked upon.

Second-Hand Vehicles: Mileages
2.50 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are contemplating strengthening the law in relation to the "clocking" of second-hand vehicles and the resale of insurance write-offs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the practice of falsifying odometer readings is already a criminal offence and we do not consider that further statutory provision is necessary. There is no law preventing the resale of vehicles which have previously been written off by insurance companies. Many are capable of being repaired to the required safety standards.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord may recall that in 1990 I introduced a Bill to deal with those matters. It passed through this House but failed in another place. Will the Minister accept that in the meantime the situation has worsened? Purchasers of second-hand cars are being defrauded of more than £100 million a year through the falsifying of speedometer readings; many also face possible injury through poor reconditioning of written-off cars. Is the noble Lord aware that, due to the increased number of complaints in relation to second-hand car sales, the Office of Fair Trading is now looking into the matter?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord introduced a Bill. It was before my time and therefore I cannot recall it, but if have read the exchanges which took place at the time. It is an infringement of the Trades Description Act 1968 to falsify odometer readings and many hundreds of successful prosecutions are carried out by trading standards officers each year. I cannot see therefore what another piece of legislation would do that the existing law does not do perfectly adequately.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, why should it not be made obligatory for mileages to be recorded with the vehicle licensing office at certain times in the, vehicle's life, such as at the annual renewal of licences or change of ownership? That seems to be the only practical way of making any real impact on this widespread offence.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to say that that would be the only practical step we could take. However, it would add hugely to the bureaucracy of the vehicle licensing body. There are other complications. For example, a remarkable number of people manage to lose their registration forms in the course of a car's life. The amount of bureaucracy required to deal with that would be enormous. In addition, we would need a system for checking that the correct figures had been entered: a whole army of inspectors would be required.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on the assumption that the law is adequate to deal with the situation—that is the impression given by the

807
Minister—is it not clear that steps should be taken to increase the rate of detection and to ensure a more rigid enforcement of the law? To say that it would need an increase in bureaucracy invites a value-for-money assessment as to whether the amount of bureaucracy needed would cost less than the vast sums lost at the present time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the amount of bureaucracy would be considerable, as would be the number of inspections necessary to ensure that the figures given by an individual on the registration document were reliable. At present many hundreds of cases are brought each year to the magistrates' courts. The magistrates can impose fines of up to £5,000; that is the standard scale level at which they are allowed to impose punishment.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on an annual basis the MoT test certificate requires the recording of the mileage and the validation of that recording by the tester? Are the Government aware also that with modern computer techniques the problems of a rise in bureaucracy would be minimal? Do the Government realise that in the modern age in which we live the suggested proposals are extremely sensible?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am aware that the MoT certificate shows the mileage. However, some of my earlier points relate to that as well. I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that very often the existence of computer technology increases bureaucracy because more figures can be collected.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this all too prevalent crime effectively robs the unsuspecting purchaser of a great deal of money—possibly hundreds of pounds? Is it only a fine that can be imposed on conviction of the offence or is imprisonment also available? If so, can the Minister say how many people each year on average are imprisoned for the offence?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I cannot say how many people are imprisoned. In the magistrates' courts, where the level 5 fine of £5,000 is the top level, there is no alternative of imprisonment. Should the individual elect to go to Crown Court, an unlimited fine or a custodial sentence of up to two years can be imposed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that since 1992 a mileage box is included on vehicle registration forms—V5s—but it is not compulsory to fill it in? Perhaps it should now be made compulsory. Is my noble friend further aware that one of the difficulties is that 50 per cent. of motorists do not bother to return the form when they change their car, although it is a legal requirement so to do?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I alluded to the fact that many documents are lost. Even if that has not happened, many motorists do not return the form. If one insists that the mileage is recorded and the form returned, there is the difficulty of checking.
808
Dare I say that if somebody is going to cheat on the issue, then they are likely to cheat just as much with the filling in of the form as they are with the odometer.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the Minister consider the introduction of a licensing system for car auctions? That is where the majority of fiddles now take place. Secondly, will he consider a requirement that purchasers of vehicles at car auctions provide proof of identity when they make their purchase? As the Minister said, trading standards officers have done exceedingly well on what we call the "car lots" in towns and cities. But fraud is taking place with "M. Mouse" and "D. Duck" appearing on some documents as the name of the person purchasing the vehicle.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, car auctions are a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I understand the point made by the noble Baroness that car auctions may be places where some infringements take place. I shall certainly consider the possibility of solving the problem by licensing car auctions.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to consider giving trading standards officers more powers? Their extensive knowledge may help to prevent some of the frauds by cheats and rogues. The officers have a great deal of knowledge but require more authority. Can that proposal be considered?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not aware that trading standards officers are looking for more authority. Nothing that I have read in preparation for today leads me to that conclusion. However, I shall look into the specific aspect mentioned by the noble Lord and see whether the officers are satisfied with their current powers.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not clear that far too many lotteries are involved in the purchase of second-hand vehicles? Is it not clear also, from questions asked of the Minister, that further action is required not only in dealing with the two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, but also in dealing with the serious matter of "cut and shut" cars? I refer to the situation where two vehicle bodies are welded together. Is it not plain that many frauds are practised and that the Government are turning their eyes away from reality if they say that something ought not to be done about them?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government are not turning their eyes away from the reality of these problems. That is why there are two laws on the statute book—one which we have addressed in this Question and the other which particularly pertains to unroadworthy vehicles. It is an absolute offence to offer for sale or supply or expose for sale a vehicle deemed to be unroadworthy or altered so as to be rendered unroadworthy. Both the problems raised this afternoon are already the subject of offences, and trading standards officers are already active. My problem with the noble Lord's question is that it is easy

809
to say that something must be done, but it is sometimes very difficult to translate that into meaningful legislation which can be properly enforced.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps it is because the inspection of these matters is grossly inadequate, particularly as the Government seem to have their mind on deregulation and virtually nothing else.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the fact that the Government have laws in this regard illustrates that we do take the matter seriously and are not looking at deregulating this issue. But what we are sure about is that there is absolutely no point in passing laws if they cannot be properly enforced in an efficient and effective way.

The Civil Service Catering Organisation
3.1 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assurances have been given by the Treasury in advance of privatisation to the staff of the Civil Service Catering Organisation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the staff of Forward—formerly the Civil Service Catering Organisation—have been assured, first, that their terms and conditions of employment will be protected at the point of transfer by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations; secondly, that the Government will seek to sell the business to a purchaser who can demonstrate the competence and financial strength to assure its future; and thirdly, that if the purchasing company should fail within three years, the Government will guarantee the staff's redundancy payments earned during their time in the Civil Service to the extent that the company is unable to meet those commitments.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that very informative reply. Would I be right in assuming that the Treasury, having behaved in such a very proper manner itself, would not stand in the way of other departments giving similar assurances to staff of similar organisations?
Lord Henley: My Lords, each case obviously has to be considered on its merits. It was felt appropriate in this case to give the guarantees that I have repeated on this occasion. I understand that my noble friend has a Question down in some two weeks' time relating to the Telecommunications Directorate. I am sure that he will look forward to getting a full and proper answer on that occasion.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister enlarge on his Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton? He said that the staff have been given assurances that they will be fully protected. In the light of some of the occurrences in areas that have been privatised in terms of the diminution of protection, can the Minister tell us what he means when he says that the staff will be given
810
full protection? Does that include wages and conditions right across the board, and how long will such protection last? Those are very important aspects of the matter.
Lord Henley: My Lords, at the point of transfer they will be protected by the TUPE regulations which are applicable in this case. Thereafter it is a matter for negotiation between the new owners and the new staff as to what applies. It is important that I stress, as regards pension rights, that it is a requirement that for future service the purchaser in this case should offer a pension scheme which is broadly comparable with the principal Civil Service pension scheme. The precise details, including any adjustments for marginal detriment, will be subject to the approval of the Government Actuary acting independently in this matter.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is there net a possibility of entrenchment of these rights? We have seen in the case of certain organisations such as APEX that staff have been browbeaten into signing away their rights within a very short period of the transfer of responsibility. is there no way in which these people can be protected against that kind of chicanery?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have given a number of assurances and, as I have said, the TUPE regulations are applicable. Thereafter it is a matter for negotiation between employer and employees.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister address the way in which the Government are conducting what would likely be described as negotiations with a series of pension funds which involve hundreds of thousands of people? They are doing so on the basis of using their powers to an extent which the late Robert Maxwell would have gone green with envy over—I am quite serious about that—and in a way which would not be tolerated in the private sector by the Government. Is it not high time that they produced and published consistent principles for dealing with all these public pension funds?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I reject allegations that we are browbeating the pension companies. The assurance I was trying to give is that in this particular case, as regards their pensions, the purchaser will offer a pension scheme which is broadly comparable to their existing arrangements. That will be subject to the approval of the Government Actuary—I stress this point—acting independently in the matter.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the National Audit Office found last year that the catering service was characterised by,
"mismanagement, irregularity and fraud"?
Can he further confirm that the main form of fraud was tax evasion, no doubt induced by the record rates of taxation imposed by this Government? Will he tell us who was the Minister responsible for the department committing this massive fraud, and when can we expect a resignation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was not aware of those allegations. I shall certainly take them on board and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, if I may go back to the original Question and my noble friend's first supplementary answer, does he realise just how right he was when he said that I would await with some eagerness and great interest the reply to my next question on this subject?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am very grateful that my noble friend awaits these answers with eagerness.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, governments of all political complexions have acknowledged in situations like this the civilised assistance they have received from the Civil Service unions. Would the Minister be prepared to consider contacting in particular the CSU, as I am sure that it would be prepared to help him.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have had negotiations in this matter with all the relevant unions. I am not sure whether the union that the noble Lord has mentioned is one of those, but there have been full and frank discussions with them, and since the announcement was made.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Channel Tunnel rail link.

Social Security (Contributions) Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Increase in primary Class 1 contributions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on this side of the Committee propose that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill. Clause 1 is the heart of a very short Bill. By opposing the Question that Clause 1 should stand part, we want to register our anger at and distaste for the regressive and deeply unfair way the Government are structuring our public finances. I appreciate that many of these points were made at Second Reading. I can only apologise to your Lordships for my absence then on parliamentary work for the CPA in South Africa.
812
Under this Bill and in this clause let us see who pays and who gains. It is now undeniable, given yesterday's and today's newspapers telling us of the Treasury answers in response to the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer's questions, that the Conservative Party is the party of high taxation. In the past 14 years taxes have risen from 32.2 per cent. to 35 per cent. on average earnings. When next year the Treasury forecast is that they will reach 34.9 per cent. on average earnings it will, according to the Treasury report,
"be the highest ever level".
I quote from that noted friend of the Labour Party, the Sunday Times, that,
"Taxes will be at their highest level ever on average earnings".
The average family will be paying £50 a month more. The Government may say that this is an increase on average earnings over the 14 years of some 35 per cent. But again, the Treasury have pointed out that earnings grew by more than that in the previous 14, mainly Labour, years—that is, by 38 per cent. and by 47 per cent. in the 14 years before that.
So, on the highest levels of taxation ever on average earnings and on the lowest growth in real income, we have nonetheless seen, after housing costs, the bottom 10 per cent. about 14 per cent. worse off in real terms. It gets worse. It is part of an increase in taxation from a Government who are already taxing us more than any previous government. We at least know that income tax is a fairer tax than others because it relates more proportionately to people's ability to pay. We know also that flat rate taxes like, for example, VAT on fuel are regressive because they take up more of the income of those who have less income. What we now know is that since 1979 income tax and direct duties have fallen by £10 per week in real terms, but the moneys levelled by national insurance, VAT and regressive duties have risen by more than £20 a week in real terms. So not only are we exposed to the highest level of taxation ever, but that while progressive taxes have fallen, indirect, flat rate and regressive taxes have actually more than doubled in percentage terms.
There is worse still even than that. Within the structuring of national insurance and within Clause 1 of the Bill, not only is national insurance not progressive, not only is it not even neutral that one pays the same proportion whatever one's earnings, but it is actually regressive and made more so. Save for those earning less than £57 per week, which is the equivalent of the old age pension, the more one earns, then for national insurance proportionately the less one pays. For example, on average earnings of around £19,465 a year, national insurance will take 8.8 per cent. of pay, but if one earns 1.5 times the average earnings (£29,000) that takes only 6.8 per cent. of pay.
At the bottom end, 500,000 people are too poor even to pay income tax but they have to pay national insurance. They are mainly women. At the upper end, those earning over £23,000 a year have their contributions proportionately capped. That is why putting a penny on income tax raises less than putting a penny on national insurance. The difference is that that

813
penny is raised from different people—that is to say, the low paid, part-time workers, women, the disabled and those with the least ability to afford it.
In other words, taxes on average incomes are at the highest levels ever. Within that, the burden of taxation has been shifting quite deliberately from a fairer income tax to the less fair national insurance and VAT. Within national insurance itself and perpetrated by this Bill, the provisions are structured so that those who earn less pay proportionately more while those who earn more pay proportionately less.
Is this fair? What other blows are still to come? This is a point eloquently and forcefully made by my noble friend Lady Turner at Second Reading; namely, while national insurance contributions rise, what they buy falls. As we have seen, pensions are now detached from a rise in earnings which means that it has already cost the elderly a drop of £19 per week. Unemployment benefit, which is to become a job seeker's allowance, is soon to be means tested after six months instead of after 12 months. It will probably be removed from 240,000 people who are unemployed. As regards invalidity benefit, which is about to become an incapacity benefit, that is to be liable to tax, to tougher medical tests and will be lost to about 70,000 to 100,000 more people.
All these changes especially hurt women because they are especially the low paid part-time workers. In future women will see their pensions postponed for another five years. As regards the job seeker's allowance, women will be hurt as spouses because their partners will lose the adult dependency allowance; and it will hurt them in work as well. The invalidity benefit has grown in part precisely because women contribute to the fund and are drawing from it, but it is just at the point when women are drawing from it that their entitlement will be sharply curtailed.
No one denies that the national insurance scheme has to be funded but in the Exchequer contribution the Government are already recognising that it is not a fully-funded scheme but a pay-as-you-go scheme. Why, then, is there a deficit? First, as the Government Auditor himself said, it is due to the recession. Fewer people are paying in and therefore contributions are falling. In addition, those in work have lower earnings and therefore their contributions are falling. Together they represent a deficit of over £1 billion.
Secondly, the payments out are rising—about £2 billion—in part for pensions and uprating but, significantly, also for the unemployed. Thirdly, we have a deficit because the Government have made a quite conscious decision to use public money, rebates and bribes to switch people out of SERPS into the disastrous private schemes which will cost in bribes nearly £3 billion over any putative future savings. So the need to raise national insurance contributions, and the way in which that is falling disproportionately on the poorest people, is a direct consequence of Government folly and policies. In addition, it is their failure to build the economy and their folly in pushing people into private pensions with rebates.
Therefore, we oppose that this clause—which is, in fact, the Bill—stand part of the Bill because on every account we believe that it is deeply unfair. It represents
814
a further switch from income tax to national insurance as a way of raising funds and therefore from a more fair to a less fair method of finance. It takes proportionately more from the poorer than it does from the better off, while at the same time it pays out less to the poorest than in the past when they most need it—that is, the sick, elderly or unemployed. Above all, it is because the Government have so damaged our economy that they are now seeking to float their finances, not by calling on the better off who can retreat (and do) into private arrangements, but by hurting those on average and below average earnings and incomes. We oppose that this clause stand part of the Bill.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: The effect of the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, would be to deprive the national insurance scheme of an extra £2.2 billion in a full year. I do not believe any Members of the Committee would argue that this additional money is needed to meet the cost of benefits. We do not have to take the word of a political Minister for that because it is clear from the various reports of the Government Actuary. For example, in 1990, in his quinquennial review, the Government Actuary said,
"it would seem advisable to maintain a minimum balance of about one-sixth of a year's benefit expenditure".
I do not believe that anyone argued against that at the time. It is clear from subsequent reports from the Government Actuary that expenditure is exceeding income and therefore that additional resources are necessary if the benefits are to be adequately met.
So the question arises: if the money is not going to be met by increases in contributions, what are the alternatives? In recent years there has been recourse to the Exchequer grant, but I believe that that is an undesirable principle to pursue. If we go too far down that road it could easily undermine the fundamental concept of benefits as of right in return for contributions. That is an immensely important principle and the only way in which we can contain it effectively is if the bulk of benefits are paid for out of contributions.
If the noble Baroness denies that, I hope that she will be able to suggest some other ways in which money could be raised to meet the shortfall in the fund. She could, for example, suggest doubling the rate of VAT on fuel bills. That would cause a major political row, but it would be a very good money spinner. She could also suggest putting VAT on books, children's shoes or even on foodstuffs. Again, a major political row would result, but at least there would have been the additional revenue that is required.
Therefore, with great respect, I find it difficult to take the noble Baroness's suggestion seriously in default of any alternative suggestion as to the way in which the additional money could be raised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It was rather entertaining to me to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, objecting to increased payments of this kind. Indeed, her diatribe against increased taxation came entertainingly from the Opposition Front Bench because for years the Labour Party has been an advocate of increased taxation. To see the noble Baroness saying what a

815
terrible thing it was to increase this contribution because it was increasing taxation was very entertaining because one knows perfectly well that the Labour Party favours higher taxation and that it is simply trying to make some political capital out of what is inevitably a somewhat unpopular decision. It is, however, the right decision.
My noble friend has pointed out that we are dealing with a contributory benefit. Where the funds are obviously not adequate to pay for benefits under the scheme, it is absolutely right to increase the contributions so that they should balance. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will firmly resist this unhelpful Motion.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I did not speak on Second Reading and desire to intervene on only one point—and that is to consider how far this is a matter of taxation. The question of increased taxation is of considerable political moment as of now so obviously the noble Baroness said that this is taxation, that taxation has been increased and that this Bill increases it further.
On Second Reading, the noble Viscount—I fully share the pleasure that all your Lordships have had at his promotion —said that this is not taxation because it is a hypothecated charge; in other words, it is devoted to one single class of recipient. However, the fact that a charge is hypothecated certainly does not make it cease to be taxation. After all, all charges were hypothecated until the introduction of the Consolidated Fund in 1787. The most famous tax case in our history was the case of ship money, which was certainly a hypothecated charge, but nobody has ever pretended that it was not a tax.
The truth is that one can regard this charge (even though it is hypothecated) only in the total fiscal context. It is extremely misleading to isolate it from the general fiscal context. That means that in a sense we are premature—certainly in considering whether or not this is taxation.
I agreed with the sophisticated and clear exposition of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, on Second Reading that from one aspect this is taxation but from another aspect it is not taxation or, as it was put very wittily by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, it is rather like Berwick-upon-Tweed in relation to England: you either attach it or detach it according to taste and your line of argument.
The other argument which was put forward for not regarding this as taxation was that this is not a money Bill. That is true, but that is by no means conclusive and takes one only a very little way. Very few Finance Bills these days are money Bills. The famous Finance Bill of 1909 would not have been certified as a money Bill in accordance with the terms of the subsequent Parliament Act, so the mere fact that a Bill is not a money Bill does not mean that it does not deal with with taxation. In my respectful submission, it would be quite unreal (when the time comes for the total conspectus of the fiscal regime) not to take into account this extra charge.
Having said that, I certainly do not oppose it. This charge has been hypothecated from the outset and for the reasons stated by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who preceded me. It is hypothecated because it is a contributory pay-as-you-go scheme and,
816
under those circumstances, it is certainly necessary to treat it as it has been treated by successive governments. That being so, the only question is: within the narrow circumstances of this charge, is it necessary to increase it? As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, gave cogent reasons why it is, there is only one further thing to be said. If, as the noble Baroness desired, we treat this as a matter of general taxation, it is extremely misleading to say, "The present Government are taking a higher proportion of average earnings than the preceding Labour Government—in fact, a higher proportion than ever before". That is quite misleading because it does not take into account the very considerable increase in average earnings. What matters is how much is left in the way of take-home pay.
Therefore, although I trust that in due course we shall regard this as a matter of taxation when we come to consider the Finance Bill and although at the moment it seems to me that the increase in the charge under this Bill is abundantly justified, I hope that, for the reasons that I have given, the Motion will be carried. I hope also that we shall not embark on these wide questions of whether taxation has increased without considering whether average earnings have increased and whether the taxpayer is, on balance, better off.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: Whatever the theoretical arguments about whether this is a tax, the practical aspect of this matter is that, if this were a tax, your Lordships would not be having a Committee stage on the Bill and we would have been spared the pleasure of listening to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, a few minutes ago. We have had this argument ever since I became a Member of your Lordships' House. We certainly had it when it was my dubious pleasure to take corresponding measures through the House 10, 12, 14 years ago. The argument goes on. It is an unproductive one.
The other point I want to make is one which is just touched upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble Baroness brought into the argument the question of the average rate of tax on average earnings. She quoted certain figures showing that the average rate has gone up. Of course it has gone up. The one thing that she has overlooked is that, ever since Mr. Lloyd George introduced his Budget of 1910–11—I admit it is before the time of the noble Baroness, but of course it should be very much in the Committee's mind because it was that Budget which led to the Parliament Act—we have had a progressive tax system in this country.
It follows as a matter of simple arithmetic—it has nothing to do with political views; nothing to do with prejudices or anguish or any of the other matters that the noble Baroness introduced—that if average earnings go up the rate of tax on those earnings must equally go up. Indeed, the fact that the average rate has gone up is something in which, in a sense, we should take satisfaction because it demonstrates and proves how much average incomes have gone up under the present Government. For that, we should be grateful to the noble Baroness.
Lord Peston: Did I hear the noble Lord aright, and that he said that he believed that we still had a progressive tax system?
Lord Cockfield: Yes.
Lord Peston: Is it his view that if we looked at total taxes in this country that would show that the marginal rate of tax rises right across the income scale, from the very bottom to the very top? Is that his view?
Lord Cockfield: If we look at the average rate on average earnings, it will go up if the average earnings go up. Strangely enough, even in the case of VAT that is a progressive tax over a considerable part of the range. That is because the total of consumer expenditure which comes within the charge to VAT in this country is about 50 per cent. only. Most of what are exempted or zero-rated are items upon which people with smaller incomes spend a larger proportion of their income.
Lord Peston: I hate to come back to this point, but it is an interesting technical point to anyone who is interested in taxation. The noble Lord is looking at average taxes and not marginal rates, which is the correct definition of progressive taxation. Secondly, I ask him again: is it his view that over the whole of the income range, taking all taxes into account, the tax system is progressive? Is that his view?
Lord Cockfield: The noble Lord raises an interesting arithmetical point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is a real point.
Lord Cockfield: I shall come to it in a moment. A little patience on the part of the noble Baroness would not come amiss. Again, it is a matter of simple arithmetic: if the marginal rate goes up, the average rate must also go up. That is how average and marginal rates are related to each other.
The other point is this. If one goes to the extreme top of the income scale one may find that the tax is no longer progressive; but that is looking at a particular sector and that is not what I am talking about. If one looks at average earnings, which are not at the very top of the income scale—I believe that the noble Lord will accept that that statement is correct—then if average earnings increase, then with stable rates the average rate of tax must increase as a matter of simple arithmetic.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I tried to follow the argument that went backwards and forwards, but I must confess that I was not convinced by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. My impression is that for a long time—certainly over the past 14 years—taxes, over the whole of the range of taxation, have not become more progressive; they have become less progressive as the amount of expenditure tax has increased. It is part of government policy, and has been for a long time, to transfer the financing of the Budget from direct to indirect taxation. I should have thought that that was bound to be less progressive. However, I do not have any figures, and I do not believe that the noble Lord has any figures, to prove that at the moment.
818
The other speech I was intrigued by was that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He said that it was an incontrovertible fact that Labour always increases taxes, and taxes more than Tories. We all know that that is not true. We know that when Labour left office in 1979, 35.25 per cent. of GDP was taken in taxation. From April this year the percentage tax under a Conservative Government will be 38.5 per cent. Therefore it is proved beyond doubt, and from government sources, that taxation is not just higher under a Tory Administration, but very significantly higher, so I hope that we shall not hear any more about high taxes under a Labour Government from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, or the Government.
We are dealing with an important Motion and an important Bill. I have been worried, as I have listened to the debate, about whether the insurance principle is maintained or whether national insurance contributions represent taxation of one form or another. It is imperative for the protection of people at work that the insurance principle is maintained and is seen to be maintained because there are altogether too many people at the moment who seem to want to rob existing pensioners of the benefits for which they have paid for a long time. I hope sincerely therefore that we shall all maintain that the NIF is, always has been and will continue to be a separate fund, properly administered, and not subject to raids by any government, whether a Tory Government, a Labour Government or any other form of government for that matter.
I would go much further than my noble friend on the Front Bench. I believe that what we need, and have needed for a long time, is a national superannuation scheme—a scheme into which people pay according to their income and from which they draw out in pensions also according to their income, so that it will be patently obvious that those who pay into the scheme pay in according to their ability to pay and draw out in pensions an amount related to the contributions that they have made, although of course we should nave to ensure that those at the lower end had a pension which was commensurate with their being able to live a decent life in retirement. My noble friend has put forward a useful Motion. I shall support it, and I hope that the Committee will do so also.
Viscount Astor: There should be no doubt that, if agreed, the proposal to delete Clause 1 will wreck the Bill. We have had an interesting diversion. We have even heard from the noble Lord, Lord Peston. His question was perhaps the most interesting we have heard from the Opposition. Of course, we did not hear their alternative proposals.
Clause 1 represents the main substance of the Bill by raising the primary percentage rate of national insurance contributions for employees by 1 per cent. to 10 per cent. from next April. The main primary percentage applies to earnings between the lower earnings limit, which will be £57 a week from next April, and the upper earnings limit for which the corresponding figure will be £430.
Following the speech made on Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I should have been

819
surprised if she had not sought to change the way in which Clause 1 operates to increase the rate of national insurance contributions payable by employees. I am, however, slightly surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, simply opposes the Question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill and has not come forward with an alternative.
I hope, therefore, that I do not do the noble Baroness an injustice if I take it that the Labour Party recognises the need to ensure that the National Insurance Fund has sufficient resources to meet its commitments to the sick, to pensioners and to others in need. That is recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It remains far from clear how the Opposition would ensure the fund is able to do so.
It is self evident that if unemployment were lower and more contributions were flowing in the fund would be more buoyant and these measures to keep inflow and outflow in step would be less likely to be needed. That is the position we ought to get to. For the immediate future, however, practical means of preserving the fund's income are needed and the Government's judgment is that a modest contribution increase is necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, expressed concern about the effect of the increase on low-paid workers. But the initial percentage rate of 2 per cent. on earnings up to £57 a week is not being increased. The change will therefore affect lower paid workers proportionately less. The structure of contributions we now have is especially favourable to the lower paid—so much so that even after the increase from April people earning up to £130 a week will still be paying less than they would have done under Labour's single percentage system. Our system is much fairer to the low paid than is the Opposition's.
On Second Reading we spent some time debating the need for the proposed increase in contributions and I shall not repeat all the arguments today. I simply remind Members of the Committee, as did my noble friend Lord Cockfield, that we are dealing not with general taxation but with the National Insurance Fund. This is a separate pool of money under the control of my right honourable friend and is the principal source of finance for the full range of contributory benefits available to those who have paid in.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his kind words and for giving me notice of the points that he wished to raise. The noble and learned Lord is an authority on legal matters and has a keen eye for points of detail. He focused upon one such point of detail that I made on Second Reading. I am happy to say that I agree with what the noble and learned Lord said about a charge, once hypothecated, not necessarily ceasing to be taxation. Hypothecation simply means in relation to a tax or charge that the money so raised is to be used for a specified purpose rather than going into a general pool of money out of which various costs are met. Members of the Committee can therefore envisage a specific tax being levied for a specific purpose.
I hope that Members of the Committee were not misled by what I said on Second Reading. Having
820
looked again at my speech I accept that in the strictest sense it contained a non sequitur. In explaining the nature of the National Insurance Fund, I said that, unlike general taxation, which goes into the Consolidated Fund, national insurance contributions are a hypothecated charge. That means that they cannot be used to fund items paid for out of general taxation.
National insurance contributions cannot, indeed, be used to funds items paid for out of general taxation. The social security Acts specifically provide for contributions to be payable to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who must in turn pay them into the National Insurance Fund. Aside from certain rebates to persons contracted out of SERPS, the fund may be used only to pay for specific benefits and their administration. Thus contributions are hypothecated to specific expenditure. The reason that they cannot be used to fund items met from taxation is that they are hypothecated to specific purposes provided by the social security Acts—not that they are a hypothecated charge as such. Perhaps the matter would have been clearer had I said that national insurance contributions are hypothecated to specific items of expenditure as provided by the social security Acts. That means that they cannot be used to fund items paid for out of general taxation. I trust that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will accept that lengthy explanation. I move to the second point that the noble and learned Lord raised. He submitted that a proposal to increase the contributions payable by employees can be properly judged only in the total context of fiscal taxation. I have no difficulty with that proposition. As several Members of the Committee pointed out earlier, the deduction from an employee's pay is real whether or not it is on account of national insurance or income tax. The common terminology for deductions is "stoppages". Of course, Members of the Committee will wish to look at the totality of the effect of various changes in the Budget on the pay packets of wage earners. There is a real practical and legal difference between contributions and tax, which I hope I drew out adequately on Second Reading.
The Government know that the only way to keep taxes as low as possible is to cut borrowing. The Budget presented by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer tackled that once and for all. It did so without putting up the basic or higher rates of income tax. Indeed, since the last election we have extended the lower 20p. band by £1,000. Next year more than 4.5 million income tax payers will be paying tax at only 20p. It is absurd to imply that taxes would be lower under Labour, as has been said. At the last election the Labour Party promised spending increases which would cost every family in the land an extra £1,000 a year—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That was invented by Chris Patten.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: Under this Government the basic rate of income tax has come down from 33p. to 25p. I was not aware that Chris Patten wrote the Labour Party manifesto. Obviously, Labour could not find anyone to

821
write it so it had to ask a member of our party. He appears to have succeeded, but the Labour Party did not win the election—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not know about Chris Patten, who seems to be having his own difficulties. I believe, however, that the Minister is trying to fool the Committee and the public by sleight of hand. He knows perfectly well that because allowances have not been raised in the past two years the amount of direct taxation that people pay has increased. Indeed, if the arithmetic is done a different way it is easy to prove that the rate of tax has increased because allowances have not been increased.
Viscount Astor: I believe that what matters is not the level of taxation but real take-home pay. That has increased sharply. It is a fact that most people are far better off than they were under the last Labour government of the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Healey. A couple with two children in receipt of average earnings are in real terms £80 per week better off than they were in 1979. That is an increase of 40 per cent. For many people take-home pay fell under the last Labour government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, used emotive language but offered no alternative policy. She failed to explain how the Labour Party could fund the National Insurance Fund—a fund which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, cares about—and meet the needs of those who are entitled to benefits. I urge Members of the Committee to listen to the wise words of my noble friend Lord Cockfield and to reject the noble Baroness's proposal.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. Most of us, despite saying that it was not a debate on general taxation, were tempted to enter into that subject. The debate has been valuable, given the current controversies.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, challenged the notion that there should be Treasury subvention to a contributory scheme based on relationships of funds between the employer and the employee. I am sure that he does not need me to remind him that Beveridge anticipated a tripartite fund. As the noble Lord will know from the Commons research documents, there have been Treasury subventions in all but three of the years since 1979. Indeed, there have been Treasury subventions of over £2 billion for all but three years of the Government's past 14 years. In the light of that, I am not sure whether the noble Lords, Lord Dean and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, are saying that the actions of Conservative Governments in 11 of those 14 years were improper, misguided or illegal, but they certainly occurred.
What is more, the Government have now restored that Treasury subvention in order to return to the original concept of the Beveridge tripartite fund. Therefore, I suggest that the notion that there was not a Treasury subvention was a minor aberration by this
822
Government, who have now seen the error of their ways. May we hope that they take the noble Lords, Lord Dean and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with them.
The second matter was the problem of balancing the fund. I take the point that the fund needs balancing. However, we have three criticisms. First, there has been an inadequate contribution from Treasury funds between the years 1989 and 1991–92 which has now been corrected. That is primarily because those years—in particular 1991–92—were pre-election years.
However, we have two further criticisms. First, the Government are reducing the benefits which flow so that a contribution fund, in which contributions go up while the participants have no guarantee that contributions will remain in real terms—
Viscount Astor: Will the noble Baroness say which benefits the Government are seeking to cut in the year 1994–95?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am saying that benefits are falling. In the next month an incapacity benefit is to replace invalidity benefit. That will certainly represent a cut. I believe that 74,000 people will no longer be eligible for it, it will be taxable and access to it will be tightened. The year after that we shall see the replacement of unemployment benefit.
Viscount Astor: We are talking about the raising of funds for next year. We are not talking about the year after that. The new incapacity benefit involves new rules rather than a reduction in benefits.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Did the noble Viscount really mean what he said? This Bill will raise national insurance contributions by 1 per cent. That is a rise in general taxation for all but the very wealthiest, while at the same time in the Government's current legislative programme the contributory benefits that are funded by that fund will be worth less to more people in real terms. That is undeniable and I am genuinely amazed at the position which the noble Viscount takes. We may argue as to whether the benefits need to be cut, but that they are being cut is challenged by no one except the noble Viscount today. I am surprised by that.
Thirdly, I come to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, about progressive and proportional taxation and the rise in earnings. It would be impertinent for me to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, to the differences between progressive and proportional taxation. I do not believe that anyone would deny that there can be proportional taxation—the same percentage is taken from people's income all the way up the scale—but that is not the same, in my understanding, as progressive taxation, which means that more is taken from people who have a greater capacity to pay.
The argument that has been made by this side of the Committee is that the Government are abandoning progressive taxation in favour of proportional taxation while at the same time increasing the amount of taxes which come from flat rate levies like VAT. That creates a taxation level on average earnings which the Treasury is alleged to have said is the highest ever. Moreover, it

823
is drawn from sources that are increasingly less progressive, less proportional, more flat rate and, therefore, more regressive.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, suggested that the increase in earnings was the reason for the increase in incidence. I repeat what I thought I had said when I moved the Motion opposing the clause. On this side of the Committee we accept that average earnings have increased by 35 per cent. in the past 14 years. We are pleased for everyone. Except for the bottom 10 per cent., we have all enjoyed that increase. However, before we become too complacent about that we should remind ourselves that the bottom 10 per cent. are, after housing costs, 14 per cent. worse off in real terms. Therefore, the national wealth has certainly not trickled down to them.
Apart from that 35 per cent. in the past 14 years, in the 14 years before that, mostly under Labour Governments, there was an increase in wealth not of 35 per cent. but of 38 per cent. And in the 14 years before that, there was an increase of 47 per cent. In other words, while we have certainly seen an increase in wealth and equality, that wealth has not grown by as much as it did in the previous 14 years, and certainly not by as much as it did in the 14 years before that. At the same time, both the levels and incidence of taxation have risen more than at any previous time.
According to the Treasury, taxes have risen to the highest level ever. That is undeniable. Within taxation, the amount carried by regressive taxes, including national insurance, has risen; and that is undeniable. The benefits which will flow from that, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, notwithstanding, are being cut; and that is undeniable. This Government's current financial strategy has got us into this mess. We do not believe that it is right and proper to raise national insurance by 1 per cent. in order to get us out of it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked from where else we could find that money. I remind the Committee that in the past few years the Government have spent £12.6 billion on bribing the better off into private pension schemes, with incentives and rebates. That £12.6 billion would have met many years' deficit of the National Insurance Fund had the Government been so minded.
In the light of increased taxation and an increased burden borne by those affected through the less fair form of taxation, brigaded with a cut in prospective benefits, we believe that Clause 1—the heart of the Bill—should not stand part of the Bill.
3.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131; Not-Contents, 58.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Arran, E.

Acton, L.

Astor, V.

Addison, V.

Beloff, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Blatch, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Blyth, L.

824

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Burnham, L.

McNair, L.

Cadman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Manton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marsh, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Melville, V.

Carnock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cayzer, L.

Mersey, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cockfield, L.

Morris, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Mountevans, L.

Constantine of Stantnore, L.

Moyne, L.

Courtown, E.

Munster, E.

Cox, B.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cranborne, V.

Orkney, E.

Crathorne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

De Freyne, L.

Pender, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denham, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Polwarth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pym, L.

Elles, B.

Quinton, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ezra, L.

Reay, L.

Faithfull, B.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Rennell, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Flather, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gainford, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goschen, V.

Skidelsky, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Spens, L.

Grey, E.

Strange, B.

Haig, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Swansea, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Teynham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L.

Henley, L.

Torrington, V.

Holderness, L

Trumpington, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Vivian, L.

Hood, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Howe, E.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Ironside, L.

Westbury, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kimball, L.

Wynford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Leigh, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Barnett, L.

Fitt, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gallacher, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller.]

Bottomley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gregson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L.

Healey, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hughes, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

825

Kilbracken, L.

Serota, B.

Loveli-Davis, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Stallard, L.

Mar, C.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mishcon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Parry, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Peston, L.

White, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Richard, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 1 agreed to accordingly.
4.5 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the proposed new Channel Tunnel rail link.
"The House will recall that in March 1993 I announced a preferred route and asked Union Railways to lead the consultation on it. Union Railways carried out a huge consultation exercise, and reported to me in October. Its report is available in the Vote Office. I am now able to announce the Government's final conclusions on the route.
"Union Railways' report confirms that St. Pancras is preferable to King's Cross as the terminus on environmental, operational and commercial grounds. I therefore confirm the choice of St. Pancras as the London terminus. BR will no longer need to continue seeking powers to build the King's Cross low level station and will be withdrawing the King's Cross Bill. I intend to remove the safeguarding of the land and property affected by that project. Links from St. Pancras will be provided to the east and west coast main lines to facilitate through services to the Midlands, the north of England and Scotland; and Midland main line services will be retained at St. Pancras.
"I propose to seek powers in the hybrid Bill for the advance works for a new Thameslink station under St. Pancras, at Midland Road. This would be the optimum location for any eventual new Thameslink station serving the King's Cross and St. Pancras area. It is our intention that further improvements to Thameslink would be carried forward by the private sector. The use of any powers obtained will be a matter for the private sector promoters of the Channel Tunnel rail link, and of Thameslink, not the Government.
826
"I now turn to the route itself. The approach to St. Pancras has been one of the most contentious issues in London. The surface route along the north London line corridor would be difficult to construct and environmentally damaging. I considered the approach to St. Pancras in combination with three other options recommended by Union Railways for operational reasons. I have accepted a package which incorporates a tunnel, a grade-separated approach to the terminus, a short open concrete box at Stratford to allow for an emergency crossover, and advance works for a connection to Temple Mills.
"In Kent, there is no easy choice at Pepper Hill. The tunnel under the electricity switching station has to be ruled out because of high cost and grave threat to the construction programme. The choice between a tunnel under Pepper Hill and an alignment around it cannot be made without more information. Before taking a final decision I shall hold further consultations with those concerned.
"I confirm that there will be a short tunnel under the North Downs. I have accepted a 240 metre long tunnel at Hollingbourne to preserve the setting of the conservation area and reduce noise impacts; and a 170 metre long tunnel at Sandway under the Headcorn Road so as to reduce the impact on the conservation area.
"At Ashford, I have had to rule out the tunnel option to the west of Ashford on grounds of cost; but, as a consequence, and at the request of Ashford Borough Council, I have asked Union Railways to consider urgently the relative merits of the present northerly preferred route and a central route through Ashford but then proceeding on the surface in a north-westerly direction. The new international station at Ashford is now proceeding and will serve passengers both before and after the construction of a new rail link.
"At the Dollands Moor freight inspection facility adjacent to Eurotunnel's terminal, the Bill will allow for possible realignment to improve operations, with the further possibility of allowing international freight trains to have direct access to the rail link, thus removing the need for an additional freight inspection facility at Westenhanger. I shall also provide in the Bill for two freight passing loops in Kent, to keep open the option of taking more freight trains if demand justifies it in the future.
"I turn now to intermediate stations. The decision in October 1991 to route the rail link on an easterly approach into London was based in large part on the opportunities for regeneration. With that objective in mind, the Government's view remains that, subject to satisfactory finance, there should be at least one intermediate station between Ashford and London. Four possible locations—Stratford, Rainham, Ebbsfleet and Nashenden—have been looked at. The proposed domestic station at Nashenden has no private sector or local authority promoter or support. I have decided that it can be ruled out.
"That leaves Stratford, Rainharn and Ebbsfleet. Ebbsflett and Rainham are in direct competition, both

827
being M.25 parkway stations. On present information, a combined international and domestic station at the northern site at Ebbsfleet seems the better parkway station option, but a final decision will depend upon the provision of satisfactory financing by the promoting group.
"The economic case for a station at Stratford has yet to be fully made. If the justification for one—in particular, the financial case—improves before the hybrid Bill is introduced, powers could be sought to build a longer box there than the one to which I referred earlier.
"I intend to issue planning directions in the next few weeks to safeguard the route announced today and St. Pancras. These directions will replace all of the existing safeguarding directions. I want to make it clear that the decisions on safeguarding the route announced today are final. Any changes which may be proposed by the private sector partner who will eventually build and operate the new link must be within the area safeguarded. Furthermore, any changes must not materially worsen the environmental impacts of the safeguarded route. The private sector will, however, have flexibility to decide on some operational features of the railway. I expect that the private sector will also want to consider carefully the phasing of the works.
"I recognise that there is considerable concern about blight. Homes wholly or substantially required for building the railway, together with those seriously affected by the works or operation of the railway, will be included in the safeguarded zone and will be offered voluntary purchase. Any other homes that may be affected by operational noise above the proposed threshold for noise insulation will qualify for purchase in cases of hardship.
"As I announced last November, the project will go ahead on the fastest possible timetable, with the private sector assuming full responsibility for construction and operation. The Government are willing in principle to provide substantial public sector support, in recognition not only of the significant domestic transport and regeneration benefits from the new line, but also of some of the very large benefits to international passengers. Government assistance will be provided partly through the transfer of European passenger services to the private sector partner as soon as the partner has been chosen. The total Government assistance to be provided will depend on the outcome of the competition to select the private sector partner, which will be launched very soon.
"A hybrid Bill is being drafted on the basis of the safeguarded route. We aim to have it ready by this autumn for consideration by the private sector and for the Government to take forward thereafter. The precise timing of the Bill's introduction will depend on the parliamentary timetable and the private sector's views.
"This solution will provide a fast rail link between London and the Channel Tunnel. It achieves all the Government's objectives. People who live in Kent
828
will get further improved rail services to London. Rail travellers will receive the extra capacity when it is needed around the turn of the century. It provides a new railway which is sensitive to the land and townscapes through which it passes. It establishes a joint venture in which both the public and private sector play their roles.
"It is a further demonstration, coming on top of Dartford Bridge, the second Severn crossing, Heathrow express and the Jubilee Line extension, all of which have been built or are under construction, that the private finance initiative is now moving ahead fast".
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. We welcome the Statement. However, it has taken something like six years of vacillation on the part of the Government to come to a decision. As from May of this year trains from Paris to Calais will travel at 180 miles an hour but will be obliged to complete the journey from Dover to London at an escargot pace of about 47 miles an hour—a true case of a two-speed Europe.
Was it not palpably clear years ago that a substantial non-user grant would be needed to make private investment viable for what is clearly a large and complex development? Equally, was it not ideological fantasy on the part of Conservative governments to believe that it was impossible to make public provision? That was the underlying commitment of the Channel Tunnel Act. Is it not clear that one of the difficulties was insufficient enthusiasm from the private sector for investment in the project? I hope the Minister will say what is meant by substantial public sector support from the Government. I refer to the paragraph of the Statement which states:
"The total Government assistance to be provided will depend on the outcome of the competition to select the private sector partner, which will be launched very soon".
Is it not clear those bodies will be reluctant to come forward until they know what substantial public sector support is likely to be forthcoming from the Government? Vagueness is the enemy of progress in this matter.
Under Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 funding for British Rail was restricted to domestic rail services. International services were excluded. Why could the same criteria being applied on the basis of the Statement not have been introduced long ago? What the Government have introduced is a red herring as regards privatisation because even under the Channel Tunnel Act public money could have helped fund the link on the basis that it also improved domestic services. However, the Government stood in the way of that interpretation. Is the Government's contribution likely to include investment by the Government in Eurostar's new train sets and the upgrading of existing rail lines?
I turn to the question of safeguarding routes. It seems that the Government have agreed that there is to be a safeguarded route, subject, however, to some relatively

829
minor areas in respect of which further consultation is said to be required. Does that qualification mean that the route is properly safeguarded in law? Is there not a risk that a partially safeguarded route is not protected and that today's Statement may simply amount to a preferred route as a matter of law? I do not know the answer to that question as I am not a planning lawyer. Perhaps the Minister will cast some light on the position.
I turn next to the environmental consequences. The Statement says:
"The surface route along the North London Line corridor would be difficult to construct and environmentally damaging".
Is that not in marked contrast to the assertion made by the Secretary of State in another place on 22nd March 1993 when he said:
"In all but one case, the environmental impact of going for tunnelling would be worse or no better than not going for tunnelling"?—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/93; col. 614.]
So what is the truth of the matter concerning the environmental consequences?
Perhaps the Minister will cast some light on the costs thrown away by the Government's pusillanimous approach. I hope that he will make a better fist of it than his predecessor did on 24th March last year when I asked him precisely that question. What will be the effect on Waterloo station of the operations to be carried out on the Channel Tunnel link?
Finally, can we have some assessment of the completion date which the Government have in mind? We have heard so many different estimates from the Government. On 18th May 1990 Mr. Roger Freeman said that it would be the year 2000; on 9th October 1991, Malcolm Rifkind, the then Secretary of State, said that it would be 2005; on 14th October 1991 the same Minister said again that it would be 2005; yet on 22nd March 1993 the present Secretary of State said that it would be the year 2000. We have heard a number of conflicting guesses from the Secretaries of State concerned. Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on the matter.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House. Those of us, unlike the Minister, who have been through the process of considering the Channel Tunnel Bill and all the addenda attached to it over the years feel a modest sense of relief that something seems finally to have been decided, even though some aspects are shrouded in mystery, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested.
First, we were told that Waterloo was adequate and there was no need for a further terminal. Then we were told that there was need for a further terminal, that the terminal would be King's Cross and that there would be tunnelling and people around Warwick Road would be compensated. All those phases proceeded like peeling the skin off an onion. I hope that now we have reached the core of the onion we can begin to make some progress.
Are the Government really satisfied that St. Pancras is the right option? I accept that that is what has been decided, and thank heavens for a decision. However, when your Lordships' Select Committee looked at the
830
King's Cross Bill there seemed to be some question as to whether the structure of St. Pancras was adequate to deal with the heavyweight trains that would be required to go north-west and north-east from the station.
I am glad that the Thameslink station under St. Pancras is to be built because that seems to be a sensible connection. However, I wonder why it has to be built by the private sector. That is another example of piecemeal development. I fear that the pieces of the jigsaw will not fit together into a picture that we can recognise as a comprehensive rail service when the work is finished.
As regards the route itself I profess no expertise. I simply hope that those people affected will be properly compensated and that such planning blight as there will undoubtedly be does not continue for a minute longer than is absolutely necessary.
I am glad that the international station at Ashford is beginning to take shape. However, I wonder what Ashford council says about the decision to rule out the tunnel option. Does it have any views on either of the other options which were available or does it consider both to be unsatisfactory in relation to the tunnel option?
I am glad that there will be a passing loop for freight in Kent. It sounds rather like an old-fashioned single line railway where people exchanged sticks. It hardly seems part of 20th century technology, but it is better than having no proper freight link to the Channel Tunnel. A separate freight line is what is really required but I do not suppose that we shall get that out of this Government, even though the shipment of freight from our industries into the markets of Europe is probably the only serious reason for having a Channel tunnel in the first place.
I turn to the question of the station en route. The choice apparently now comes down to Stratford, Rainham, Ebbsfleet and Nashenden. I heard of Ebbsfleet only today. No doubt it is a very worthy place and a useful parkway. However, is that really part of any transport strategy? Presumably it is possible to drive round the M.25 to get to Ebbsfleet in order to catch a train to Paris. The question is whether it is possible to drive round the M.25 in the first place. I should have thought Stratford a much better option. I never supported the option of Stratford as the terminal for the route but it has connections with the Jubilee Line and the other metropolitan lines. One hopes that one of these days it will have connections with CrossRail. It is interesting that when the Government congratulate themselves on the wonderful decisions they have made on the Dartford bridge, the Severn crossing, the Heathrow express and the Jubilee Line extension, which they apparently see as the pinnacle of their success—although it has been difficult to get any of those routes accepted by the Government—they omit CrossRail. I should have thought that that was a vital part of the strategy, although I dare say that a number of people living in London under whose houses the railway would run do not agree with me. It seems to me that the proposals are still extremely piecemeal.
When the Government talk of environmental considerations they mean noise and disturbance from passing trains. That is important. But environmental

831
considerations go wider. The Government should be providing a transport strategy which will get people out of their motor cars and on to public transport as often as possible. I should have thought that Stratford was a much better option in that respect than this place, Ebbsfleet, to which we shall all no doubt be taken at some stage. The Statement indicates that the financial case for Stratford has yet to be fully made—not the environmental or transport case. I wonder whether there is a danger that when the decision is finally made on the station en route the financial case for Ebbsfleet may be the most promising because it is a cheap site. I hope that the Government will not fall into the trap of accepting Ebbsfleet simply because it is a cheap site if it does not provide the connections to the transport network of the Greater London area which are so necessary.
We welcome the fact that a number of issues have now been cleared up and this important project can at last proceed, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis said, the timing considerations are still obscure. To say that the scheme can now move ahead as fast as possible is an ironic statement. We should have been able to travel on the railway from May this year.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for the welcome they gave to the Statement. I hope that that is an indication of a good start to the Statements that I may have to make in your Lordships' House. I am also pleased that I have brought relief to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and other noble Lords who have perhaps already been down this track on a number of occasions.
It is only fair to point out to both noble Lords that this is an extremely important decision. It is important in terms of the size of the project. It is also important because the route passes through an extremely busy part of our country. I am told that Kent is one of the most densely populated parts of the country. It is an area where a great many people live; it also has a number of areas of outstanding natural beauty which one naturally wants to try to protect as far as possible.
I do not accept the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about six years of vacillation. If we get the decision right, as I believe we have today, that is of great importance.
I should like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in case he gave some of your Lordships the idea that trains in France will travel at an average speed of 180 miles per hour. I was rather intrigued by the suggestion the first time I read it in the press. I have checked up. They will not. Trains may reach that speed on sections of the line but their average speed will be considerably less. When the whole project is finished and the rail link from London to the Channel Tunnel is open the journey time will be shortened by approximately half an hour. That is important. It is wrong to leave your Lordships with the belief that the trains on the other side of the channel will travel at 180 m.p.h. almost all the time. Engineers among your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that that is not the case.
832
I was asked in particular about the safeguarding position at Pepper Hill and Ashford. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that nothing is safeguarded at those two sites until the further studies have been completed and a decision made.
I believe that Waterloo will have an important part to play in the system in the future. Journey times from Waterloo, of course, will take a little longer than from St. Pancras, but there will be great advantages for those people who come from locations to the south and west of London. We believe that Waterloo will play an important part in the future operations of this line.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked me whether we were sure that St. Pancras was the correct site. Once he has had the opportunity to digest the enormous report, he will see the arguments that have been brought to bear and I believe that he will come to the same conclusions.
With regard to Ashford, as the Statement points out, at the request of Ashford Borough Council Union Railways has been asked to consider the relative merits of the two routes. Clearly it is involved. Ebbsfleet and Rainham are possible stations. Their attraction is that they are on the M.25. However, I made it clear that one site will be chosen, and we are at present looking more favourably at Ebbsfleet.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive my intervention, I had the impression from the Statement, although it is not clear, that there were three options, Stratford being one. Is the Minister now saying that the choice is in fact only between Ebbsfleet and Rainham?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. Ebbsfleet and Rainham have the same attraction—they are on the M.25. Different arguments apply for Stratford. That is my point. I hope that it satisfies the noble Lord.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, contrary to what was said earlier, the Statement indicates that there will be substantial public expenditure in support of these developments. I appreciate that my noble friend is probably not in a position to give any precision to that announcement. However, knowing the way in which governments work, presumably the Government have in mind a maximum expenditure for this project beyond which they are not prepared to go. Could we know what that sum is?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend reminds me that I did not answer one of the questions posed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He has given me an opportunity to do so.
How much money the Government are prepared to provide will depend on what comes out of the competition for the private sector promoter, which will start shortly. I cannot anticipate at this time the balance of the total sum of money between private and public capital.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, first, is the noble Lord aware that in the King's Cross area the local authorities and local amenity groups have spent thousands of

833
pounds with regard to the King's Cross Bill. The Government are now withdrawing the Bill. What compensation will he made to the local authorities and others who have spent so much of local taxpayers' money in pursuing a Bill which the Government, on a whim, are withdrawing? Secondly, will the noble Lord tell the House how many homes and businesses will be involved in the scheme? Who will rehouse the people and relocate the businesses?
Lastly, did I hear the Minister correctly saying that in areas of blight people would be offered voluntary purchase? Does that mean purchase out of their own pockets? Let us suppose that already people are being made distraught by their mortgages and that businesses are going down the drain. What does the Minister mean by voluntary purchase? Are the Government taking any account of the human problems involved in the plans?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness's last question first. Referring to the houses at the edge of the safeguarded direct route—not those which will have to be taken over and knocked down—by voluntary purchase I mean that the person who owns the house has the option of deciding whether or not he should take up a purchase offer from the private sector company which will be doing the work. It is not the owner's money. He will be given the money in exchange for his house, so to speak. It is the other way round from the way in which the noble Baroness considered the matter.
It is difficult to quantify the number of houses and businesses directly affected. However, it will affect few dwelling houses on the line of the safeguarded route. There will be more business consequences but we hope that the general improvements in the area brought about by the project, especially in east London, will more than compensate.
The noble Baroness referred to the King's Cross Bill. It is not the Government who are withdrawing it but British Rail. Whether people are paid something is a matter for British Rail.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there will be a great sigh of relief from those of us who live in Kent that this six year tale of dithering, indecision and blight is at last coming to an end? However, for Ashford it has not yet come to an end. Will the Minister give some indication as to when a final decision will be taken that will produce the safeguarded line through Ashford?
On a more general point, given the folly of the previous Prime Minister with regard to the financing of the project, is the Minister aware that there will be a great welcome for the fact that there will now be a substantial public sector involvement in providing a decent rail service through Kent? Is that result probably not the most spectacular U-turn in the history of railways in Britain?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord ought to know that trains do not make U-turns. However, I am glad to note from his accent that I seem to be an honorary Kentish man, if he indeed lives in Kent.
834
Clearly we wish the Ashford route to be resolved as quickly as possible. We shall certainly move to settle the matter with the parties involved and with the borough council as soon as possible. Obviously we have to do so in time to have a hybrid Bill ready for the autumn.
Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on having finally settled on a route from St. Pancras, in particular if it involves the restoration of that splendid hotel next to the station. However, will the noble Lord tell us how the route will improve freight movements? I have always believed, as I think many people who support the Channel Tunnel project do, that freight rather than passenger traffic will make or break the Channel Tunnel project. How will the route help long distance freight from Glasgow, Birmingham, the Midlands generally and West Wales? I have in mind Milford Haven, which has a marvellous, under-used port for transatlantic traffic. How does St. Pancras fit into that pattern?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the freight situation is a little complicated. The line we are discussing today is primarily for passenger traffic. However, as I mentioned in my Statement, if it is thought necessary, there will be provision for some freight movement. The important aspect about the link so far as concerns freight, is that as pressure on current lines in Kent builds up towards the end of the decade and into the next, and as the passenger link comes in, that will relieve some of the pressure on those lines to make room for what we trust will be an increasing amount of freight traffic, preferably exports going from the United Kingdom to the Continent.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I, too, welcome my noble friend repeating the Statement. Does my noble friend agree that although Her Majesty's Government have been accused by the Opposition of dithering and blight, if they had not gone through, most responsibly, a very lengthy consultation exercise, noble Lords opposite would have complained even further? One bears in mind that Her Majesty's Government saw that considerable report in October. It is a remarkable achievement that they came to a decision so expeditiously. I congratulate my noble friend on so doing.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks. He is absolutely right. If the Government had come to a hurried decision about this whole issue, the Opposition would have complained that they should have taken their time. The Government having taken their time, the Opposition complain about that. That is their way, and I would not expect otherwise.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, having taken part in the King's Cross Select Committee, I was rather surprised to hear that St. Pancras is such a worthy station. The evidence that was produced in front of the committee was that King's Cross was very much the preferred option. One of the issues brought up in the Select Committee was that the underground system which is to service that station will be overcrowded, given the

835
introduction of so many passengers from the channel service. Is the Minister aware of that, and are there any plans to improve the underground system?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, obviously the noble Lord has a point about the way in which passengers come in to the new terminus at St. Pancras and fan out once they have arrived. On the present analysis, we believe that the underground station at King's Cross may have sufficient capacity to cater for passengers for the domestic services. Above that level we have to look at further dispersal methods and at improving the way in which passengers come to and from the station. Although my geography of London is not terrific, I would not have thought that there is too much difference between King's Cross and St. Pancras in that respect.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, further to my noble friend's question, does this not again bear on the Stratford situation? If the trains stop at Stratford rather than the other places in Essex or Kent, there will be a considerable siphoning off of passengers onto the Jubilee Line and onto the Docklands Light Railway to go down to Canary Wharf and on, we hope, to CrossRail. That will relieve congestion at St. Pancras. Should that not be a very weighty consideration when deciding which of the stations we should choose?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord puts a good case, and one which is no doubt part of the argument in favour of a stop at Stratford. Equally, there is a similar argument for a stop at either Rainham or Ebbsfleet to allow for access onto the M.25. People will want to use their motor cars to get to the railhead in order to go to the Continent.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, is the Minister as concerned as I am, along with many other people in the north west, about the link with the west coast mainline? I understand from the department that if that link is to be achieved major works have to be carried out in the direction of Hampstead. I understand that the link is called the "Hampstead cord". Can the Minister give an assurance that the same level of urgency will be applied to doing those works in order to establish the link between the west coast mainline and the tunnel as seems to be attached to all the other railway projects that we are to have in and out of London?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is not just the importance of getting in and out of London which makes the Channel Tunnel so important. It is the links to the rest of the country—even further north perhaps than those in which the noble Lord is interested. I am not a railway man, but my understanding is that there is a link to the west of London which allows for freight and other traffic to make the loop from the Channel Tunnel out, round London and in a northerly direction.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, will the Minister be so kind as to check with the department? I have a letter telling me that work has to be done.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course I will check on that point.
Baroness White: My Lords, can the noble Lord say anything about the link with the ports in Wales, in the west?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my understanding is that there are links in the complicated rail system round London that enable links not just with the north of the country—which of course the noble Lord and I believe to be important—but also with Wales, which the noble Baroness thinks is important.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before we move on perhaps I may come back to the matter of Stratford, Rainham and Ebbsfleet about which the Minister was questioned earlier. How long is the investigation likely to take? What happens if satisfactory financing by the promoting group is not forthcoming?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are perfectly confident that there will be satisfactory finance from the private sector for the whole project, if that is the noble Lord's question. So far as the three stations that we discussed are concerned, we feel that it is too soon to make a final decision now. As I mentioned earlier, a key factor will be what the private sector puts up by way of finance and also by way of argument, so far as those stations are concerned. I can assure the noble Lord that those decisions will be taken before the introduction of a Bill.

Social Security (Contributions) Bill
4.45 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Statement of change in contributions and entitlement
.—The Secretary of State shall annually supply every contributor to the National Insurance Fund with a statement of the increase (as against the level at 5th April 1994) in the value of his annual contributions consequent upon section 1 of this Act and of any change (as against the level at 5th April 1994) in the value of the benefits from the National Insurance Fund to which that contributor is entitled.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been carefully drafted to ensure that all the contributors to the National Insurance Fund receive that information which they would receive if they were in a private insurance fund.
Perhaps I may deal immediately with the question that has been discussed; namely, whether this is a contributory insurance fund or a tax. I refer the Committee to what was said by the Minister for Social Security, Mr. Nicholas Scott, on 16th December:
"The House will be aware that the Bill concerns the national insurance fund, which provides finance for the range of contributory benefits, the most notable of which is the retirement pension, but which also includes widows' benefits, sickness, maternity and unemployment benefits". —[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/93; col. 1301.]
Mr. Scott went on to say:
"The increase in employees' national insurance contributions requires social security legislation separate from the Finance Bill,

837
because it is not a taxation measure, but a national insurance fund income measure under the care and management of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State".—[col. 1302.].
Incidentally, I should say that, the Minister having said that in the Commons, his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he spoke at the Conservative Party Conference, said with his usual disarming frankness that he did regard it as a tax. After all, he is only the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is important that, if we are to contribute to the National Insurance Fund, there should be a clear statement of what goes in and what comes out so far as the individual is concerned.
I took the trouble to look at the information that I receive annually, which I can have whenever I want it through the year from any insurance company which provides me with a pension. I receive an estimate of the total and the capital value of the fund; the basic guaranteed sum; the sum for death before retirement; the amount of a level annual pension; the level of a dynamic annual pension; the level of the reversionary bonus; the level of additional bonus; and the total value of the fund. The same information would be provided if I were insuring for permanent health insurance, mortgage protection policies or against injury or accidental death. For all the normal insurance cover in the private sector a very full statement will be provided to show what I have contributed and what the levels consequent on the benefits are. As I said, that information is obtained annually automatically, but I can have it all through the year and when I want it. At the same time, in the area of local government we all now receive an annual statement which shows exactly how the council tax and the unified business rate is spent.
It is clear therefore that the public sector should be trying to match the private sector in that respect in this era of open government and the Citizen's Charter. We should also remember that half a million people do not pay income tax but they pay national insurance. The Government seem to be in something of a quandary as to whether this is a tax. But there is an actuarial valuation in the scheme, so for this purpose we can regard it as a funded insurance scheme. In reference to the scheme, there have been a number of references to an increase of 1 per cent. It is not an increase of 1 per cent. but an increase of one percentage point. An increase of 1 per cent. on 9 per cent. is an actual increase of 11.1 per cent., which I believe is about eight times the current level of inflation.
As I said, we feel that the contributors to the state and national insurance scheme should have exactly the same information as the contributors to a private insurance scheme. That is borne out by the excellent ninth report of the Social Security Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Barclay, who is now retiring. He has done a first-class job as chairman of that committee. In summary the report says:
"The social security system in the United Kingdom is extremely complex and changes in one area have to be considered carefully in terms of their ramifications for other parts of the system and for possible impact on the policy of other Government Departments … the contributory system provides accrued rights for contributors which the Government has a moral duty to sustain; social security is everyone's business. Almost without
838
exception, everyone will be a recipient as well as a contributor at some point in their lives; the maintenance of an adequate social security system which is perceived by the population as fair is, in our view, a necessary factor in maintaining the social cohesion of the nation".
Therefore for all those reasons—the demands of equity, the importance of the social security budget (about which we never tire of hearing from the Government) and the very important fact that individuals are contributors to a fund which we are continually assured is a funded insurance fund —we argue that contributors should have the sort of statements sought in the amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord wants a clear statement. That is a laudable aim. However, I do not believe that his amendment achieves that aim. It may be helpful for me to explain a little about the contribution conditions that people must satisfy in any year in order to qualify for benefit.
Contributors must pay contributions on a prescribed level of earnings in a particular year in order for that year to be a qualifying year. For retirement pensions this will be £2,964 in the year 1994–95, which is 52 times earnings at the weekly lower earnings limit of £57. The requirement for sickness and unemployment benefits is slightly less, at 50 times earnings at the weekly lower earnings limit. Thus, although Clause 1 seeks to increase the contribution rate for employees, this does not affect the way in which people qualify for benefits. That will continue to be based on contributions paid on a set level of earnings, and that remains unchanged.
Although we are proposing to increase the rate of contributions paid by employees, the increase will not in itself result in any change to personal entitlements. Benefit entitlements remain assessable under the rules relating to those benefits. The increase simply alters the level of contributions paid on a given level of earnings. In view of that, there seems little point in establishing a statutory arrangement to advise contributors of how much or how much extra they are paying. They can already obtain that information from their payslips and P60s, supplied by their employer.
There are already existing measures to advise contributors of their entitlements under the national insurance scheme. The Contributions Agency issues over 3 million annual notices following the end of any year to those contributors whose contribution record is insufficient to count towards their basic retirement pension. The statement provides details of contributions paid and gives contributors the opportunity to pay voluntary contributions to bring the year up to the qualifying level and thus secure benefit entitlement. In addition to that administrative arrangement, the Benefits Agency also provides a retirement pension forecast service to contributors. They can request a forecast by completing an application form obtainable at local social security offices. The forecast gives details of the pension entitlement based on the national insurance record held. It states the number of qualifying years required in the future to obtain the maximum pension which can be achieved and offers advice on the payment of additional contributions, if required.

839
The Committee may also be aware that all changes to contributions and benefits are reflected in departmental publications which are widely available. I do not think there can be any doubt that individuals already have wide access to information about their likely entitlements.
Moreover, published Bills, including those which deal with the structure of specific benefits, have to have a financial memorandum which sets out the financial effects of the provisions in the Bill. Additionally, from April last year, they have to include a compliance cost assessment which assesses the cost to the business community of the proposals. All this information is in the public domain and can of course be discussed and debated during the normal passage of the Bill through Parliament.
It is of course quite proper that people should be able to get information about their entitlements and that we should inform them where there is a risk that they will lose out on qualifying for benefits. We already have substantial administrative arrangements towards meeting those aims.
For the future, the Contributions Agency is considering the possible issue of a fuller statement to a wider range of people but has not fully evaluated the costs or benefits of such a move. The current computer system would not permit such a change and it would take some years to provide such flexibility within the new system which is being planned for the future. Early indications are that the costs of moving to such a system would be very considerable. Postage costs alone at current rates would be in excess of £6 million per annum. In addition there would be development, maintenance and staff costs and also the cost of dealing with additional inquiries generated as a result of such a move. All those costs would need to be borne by the National Insurance Fund out of money otherwise available for paying benefits.
The new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, does not attempt to give the recipient a full statement of his contribution record but a rather narrow and, I believe, unhelpful set of figures which could even be misleading to the recipient. With that explanation of our intentions for the future and of why I feel that the noble Lord's amendment is not suitable, I hope that he might feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the noble Viscount but not surprised by his answer. I wish I had a pound for every time that I have heard a Minister say that the computer system will not allow them to change the system. I am very pleased that the noble Viscount has put it firmly on record as a statement from a Minister that an increase in contributions produces no increase in assessable benefits. That is exactly what we have been saying when we opposed the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
We are continually told that there is a funded insurance fund, but the Minister is in fact saying that an increase in contributions does not produce a corresponding increase in assessable benefits. In a private insurance fund that would be automatic.
840
I was interested to hear that the Benefits Agency is considering a fuller statement of the wider range of benefits. I should be pleased if the Minister could keep the Chamber informed of how that is progressing. It would be helpful. We are all aware of the complexity of the social insurance system. It is all very well to say that the information is available and tucked away in various departmental documents. It would be extremely helpful if every contributor to the fund had information of the kind that he set out so clearly on the pensions forecast and the statement of pension entitlement as one approaches retirement age. For all those reasons I believe that this is an idea that has to be followed up.
The Minister said that the way in which the amendment is drafted might not be the right way to provide even the information that we feel is necessary. We shall take that point on board. No doubt we shall wish to come back on Report with a similar but more helpful amendment.
Viscount Astor: It might be helpful to tell the noble Lord that one of the problems with the computer system is that it is 17 years old. I understand that it is one of the oldest large working systems in this country. Therefore the ability to access information about individuals and produce it is a problem. I agree that the noble Lord's aims are laudable in the long term. But there are certain practical difficulties. That is the argument against the amendment.
Lord Carter: It is another failure by this Conservative Government over 14 years to invest in up-to-date technology.
Viscount Astor: We are making sure that we get the best value out of the technology that we have.
Lord Carter: Obviously I intend to withdraw the amendment but I believe that we shall wish to come back to the matter at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Report by Secretary of State
.—The Secretary of State shall publish and lay before Parliament a report on the impact of the increase in the main primary percentage under section 1 of this Act upon—

(a) contributors to the National Insurance Fund who pay primary Class 1 contributions but who do not pay income tax;

(b) the level of Home Responsibilities Credits and those persons who qualify for such credits.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment asks for a report to be made by the Secretary of State,
"on the impact of the increase in the main primary percentage under … this Act",
upon two groups: those contributing to the National Insurance Fund who pay contributions but who do not pay income tax, and those who are currently receiving home responsibility credits.
The amendment may appear to be somewhat technical. I would be the first to admit that it was tabled partly as a probing amendment so that the Minister can give us a fuller explanation than we have been able to

841
obtain from the various organisations and his department in relation to the effect of the Act on those people at the lowest levels of income.
The amendment refers to two groups of people. The first group is made up of the 500,000 people—400,000 of whom are women—who do not pay income tax but will see their national insurance contribution rise by 1 per cent. I refer to the hairdresser, the nursing auxiliary staff member, the shop assistant earning £6,000 a year and others who are earning perhaps one-third of the national average earnings and are therefore too poor to pay tax but face not only increases of VAT on fuel but also a 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions. The Minister may say that it represents a good deal for them notwithstanding. However, given that it is a pay-as-you-go scheme rather than a fully-funded scheme, one might argue that their benefits should come from general taxation and not from an additional levy on already low earnings. The amendment therefore asks the Secretary of State to report the effects of such changes on their real income over time.
The second group to which the amendment refers is even more invisible. The implications of the national insurance changes for those people are even more obscure. I refer to those women who are in low paid, usually part-time, work; those who are earning even below the national insurance level—the lower earnings level—of £57 a week. The people in the first group earn between £57 and income tax levels; those in the second earn even less than that. There are 2.25 million women who earn less than £56–£57 per week. Such women may be care assistants earning £1.80 an hour; a travel agency worker earning £1.79 an hour; a bingo-hall worker earning £1.50 an hour; a cleaner earning £2 or £2.20 an hour; a switchboard operator earning £2 an hour or a state registered chiropodist earning £1.75 an hour, among others.
Jobs like that mean that if a woman—they are usually women—works between 15 and 25 hours a week her income is likely to be below the lower earnings level of £56–£57 a week on which one pays contribution. Such women may be married and that income is often a modest but welcome addition to the household. They may be the sole income earner in their family, particularly if they are single parents on benefit, and that benefit may be reduced accordingly. On either count it is surely welcome that such women are in the labour force. It keeps those marginal to the labour force attached to it with the opportunity later to increase their hours and qualifications. It helps to reduce their entire dependence on benefit and, if it does not sound too moralistic, it encourages children of such families with a model of a working adult often combining that work with home care.
Such women will usually have children; alternatively, they may be carers offering large numbers of hours of care to an elderly person. If they earn above £57 a week and pay national insurance contributions, they are fully entitled to SERPS; that is, an earnings addition to their old-age pension. However, at the other extreme, if they do not work but have such home responsibilities as dependent children or are carers working over 35 hours
842
a week, since 1978 that has counted as work for the purposes of pension and SERPS entitlements; that is to say, the number of years one is required to contribute in order to be eligible for SERPS is proportionately reduced by the number of full tax years in which one is receiving child benefit or, alternatively, being a full-time carer.
In other words, home responsibilities give women at home with legitimate caring responsibilities an entitlement to SERPS in the same way as though they were paying national insurance contributions. Therefore, though such women may be penalised by losing income during their working years, they are not doubly penalised when it comes to pensions. The problem is for the women who are in the labour market; they are not now at home and therefore apparently entitled to home responsibility protection but are still not earning enough to pay a national insurance contribution. If they were at either extreme they would have an entitlement to SERPS; between the two it appears they do not.
As I understand it, a woman earning under £56 a week might be in one of two categories, depending on the number of hours she works. If she works more than 16 hours a week she is deemed by the DSS to be working full time. But she may be receiving only £2 an hour and earning therefore under the £56 a week limit. Nonetheless, her 16 hours a week and, say, £50 income would be topped up by family credit. Will she retain her entitlement to her home responsibility protection or will she lose it by going into the market place, not having regained it by earning enough to pay national insurance contributions? If a woman works under 16 hours a week and is therefore on income support with perhaps, as a single parent, a £15 disregard and thereby reducing her benefit, what then happens to her home responsibility payments?
We fear that if a woman moves out of the home into low-paid work and begins to enter the labour market she will lose her right to an adequate pension in old age. Precisely because of her domestic responsibilities-child care or caring—she will not earn enough to pay national insurance contributions in her own right and will therefore lose her build-up entitlement to SERPS. By doing what the Government urge her to do—moving into the labour market consistent with her home responsibilities—she appears to be punishing herself with a promise of greater poverty in old age.
We believe that to be the situation. I would be delighted to have misstated it and hope that the Minister can assure us that such women, who lose their home responsibility credits by not being at home but nonetheless are not earning enough to pay national insurance and regain their entitlement benefit, are fully protected when it comes to their pensions. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendment. It is obvious that a rise in the national insurance contribution will affect far more people than would a similar rise in income tax, simply because the national insurance contribution bites at a lower level of income. As was pointed out, 500,000 people who pay national insurance

843
contributions are earning below the income tax threshold. The people who will be hit by the tax will be the poorest members of our society. To scrutinise the damage that the tax will do can only be a good thing.
Lord Astor: The noble Baroness is concerned about the effect on low-paid workers of the Government's proposal to increase the main rate of national insurance contributions for employees. It may be helpful for me to explain that the way in which we restructured national insurance in 1989 provided a system which cushions the effect of changes for the low paid.
The system we took over from the Labour Party in 1979 had a single percentage rate which became payable once a person's earnings exceeded the lower earnings limit. People therefore paid a fixed percentage on all their earnings up to a maximum. That meant that an increase in the contribution rate was applied to the whole of people's earnings—again up to the maximum. Low-paid workers would therefore find all their pay subject to any change in the rate.
The present system—which I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale is better—is in two tiers. Earnings up to the lower-earnings limit of £57 a week are assessed for national insurance at just 2 per cent. That is not changing as a result of the Bill before the Committee. It is only the main rate due on earnings over £57 a week which is due to rise. It will be obvious therefore that for people earning not much more than £57 a week, the increase in contributions will be very small compared to what it would have been had it applied to all their earnings.
Members of the Committee may find it helpful for me to explain the exact effect upon people who do not pay tax. For a single person, we are talking essentially about someone earning under the single person's allowance of £3,445 a year or about £66 a week. For a married man or single parent the figure is £5,165 or just under £100 a week.
For a single person beneath the tax threshold the maximum increase in national insurance contributions will be 2p; that comprises 9p from the 1 per cent. increase on pay of £9 above the lower earnings limit, offset by 7p caused by the raising of the lower earnings limit as a result of which a further £1 of pay is assessed at 2 per cent. instead of 10 per cent. For a person earning £99 a week, that is just below the married couple's allowance. The maximum increase will be 35p a week.
I now turn to the second item which the noble Baroness wishes to be covered in the report proposed by the new clause—the impact of the increase in contributions on the provision of home responsibilities protection, or HRP for short. There would in my view be no effect whatsoever and I fear that the noble Baroness has perhaps misunderstood the way in which HRP and contributions interact. I hope to be able to explain to her why that is the case. It may help the Committee if I say a little about how HRP operates to help people maintain their entitlement to a retirement pension when they have to stay at home due to caring responsibilities.
As the Committee will be aware, the retirement pension builds up over the working life of contributors
844
through the payment of national insurance contributions. Broadly speaking, nine-tenths of the working life needs to be covered by qualifying years of contributions to give entitlement to a full basic pension. A qualifying year is one in which contributions have been paid on earnings equal to 52 times the lower earnings limit in force for that year. The Committee should note that it is not the amount of contributions that count, rather the earnings on which they were paid. Thus an increase or decrease in the percentage rate of contributions has no effect whatever on potential benefit rights.
People who are unable to work and maintain their record of qualifying years may be given a credit of sorts by means of HRP if they are undertaking the role of carer. The most common example is looking after children. Thus the main payee for child benefit automatically has potential title to HRP for the years child benefit is in payment. Carers of sick or disabled people receiving attendance or certain disability benefits can also get HRP. The effect of each year of HRP is to reduce the length of the working life and hence the number of qualifying years of contributions needed to get a full pension.
If higher contributions meant that people attained qualifying years more readily, there would indeed be an effect upon the level of HRP, because HRP and qualifying years are mutually exclusive—one cannot get HRP for a qualifying year because it is not needed. However, as I explained earlier, qualifying years are based not on amounts of contributions but on the earnings underlying them. As these will remain a constant factor in calculating qualifying years, there will be no discernible effect upon awards of HRP.
I hope that I have answered the noble Baroness's questions. I shall study in Hansard what she said and will write to her if there are any points which I have not covered in my reply.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As we are in Committee perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount for clarification. I have before me a document from the DSS dated 24th January 1994. It states:
"From April 1978 a man or woman who stays at home and satisfies one of the conditions outlined in paragraph 2 can have their retirement pension entitlement protected".
I would draw attention to the words,
"who stays at home and satisfies one of the conditions".
The question I was putting to the Minister—I do not think I have yet had an answer—is: if they are not staying at home (in other words, they are in work but receiving below £57) will they still get HRP?
Viscount Astor: Nothing is changing. Those earning under £57 who enjoy the protection of HRP will be completely unaffected by the Bill because they pay no national insurance. Any woman with appropriate responsibilities gets HRP for any year in which she does not pay enough national insurance to make the year count for pension. She does not need to stay at home. The point is that she must earn under £57.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I want this to be very clear because everyone else's understanding is different. A woman who is in the labour market earning up to £57 a week will continue to receive HRP.
Viscount Astor: Yes, that is correct.
Perhaps I may return to the general thrust of the noble Baroness's amendment. We already publish a report by the Government Actuary on the financial effects of any changes to national insurance contributions. The proposed clause requires a separate report on the coming into force of this Act. That would be an additional burden on Parliament and one which is unnecessary and indeed of limited vale.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister very much for that reply. We shall want to study it. It is at odds with the extract from the White Paper but it may just be that the wording there was casual and informal and does not have the degree of accuracy that the Minister has offered today. In the context of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Annual Report to Parliament
.—The Secretary of State shall publish annually a report to Parliament setting out the yield from the increase in primary Class 1 contributions payable as a consequence of the provisions of section 1 of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment stipulates that the Secretary of State should publish annually a report to Parliament setting out the yield from the increase provided for in the Bill. We on this side of the Committee do not like the Bill but we acknowledge that revenue must be raised by any government to meet the social security obligations appropriate in a civilised society. However, we view the Bill as part of a social security package designed by the Government under which everyone—or almost everyone—will be expected to pay more for a declining level of benefit. I still hold that view despite the exchanges we have had on the point this afternoon.
The notion behind the amendment is that Parliament should have the opportunity of overseeing regularly what the Government are doing. Our concern stems from our suspicion that the Government do not really care very much for the welfare state. There have been frequent references to dependency and derisory statements by some Conservative supporters about the so-called "nanny state". There have been alarmist prognostications about the demographic time-bomb awaiting us in the year 2030 when those in employment will have to support a much larger retired population. I find that a little surprising since the equalisation of the state retirement age at 65 for women could be expected to reduce the numbers involved rather than the reverse, and that change alone is likely to produce savings of £5 billion a year at today's prices.
We are told also that European countries face the same problem as we do. That may well be true. Although many are having to review social security spending, they are doing so from a much higher base than the UK. According to a table I have, the UK is seventh in the league of EC countries in social security
846
spending per capita and the benefits in the UK are relatively low compared with those in many EC countries. I cannot help feeling therefore that much of the Government's concern about social security spending, and thus their concern to increase contributions, is ideologically motivated. They would prefer a society in which almost everyone provided for themselves through the private market—"private" in their terms being good and "public" bad—and that despite the fact that poorer people are simply not a commercial proposition for the private sector and their only hope of being protected is via a socially motivated public sector.
For these and many other reasons we believe that Parliament should have a positive duty of monitoring what the Government are doing. The annual report to which the amendment refers would provide the opportunity for doing that. Moreover, this is an argument for open government which I thought the Government were supposed to favour. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It seems to me that the amendment is wholly unnecessary. The information it seeks is relevant and interesting but it is information which could be obtained simply by tabling a Question either in this House or in another place—a perfectly simple, straightforward Question which would produce the answer. Therefore, to load the statute book with a solemn provision of this kind seems wholly unnecessary and really rather bad draftsmanship.
Perhaps I may comment a little further on what the noble Baroness said as regards the suggestion that there was no great anxiety on this side of the Committee concerning the beneficiaries of social security. As one who was actually in charge of social security for a longer period than any other Minister, I resent that. On the contrary, on this side of the House, as on the other, there has been great anxiety about the working of our national insurance system. The fact that it seems to me to be quite unnecessary to put an annual report into the Bill when the information can be obtained by any noble Lord or Member of another place tabling a Question in either House, is not inconsistent with that.
Baroness Elles: I support my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, particularly as the noble Baroness referred to figures from the EC comparing our benefits with those of other member states. As she will know only too well, statistics can be read in all sorts of ways. The benefits in the United Kingdom compare more than favourably with those of any other community country otherwise I would wonder why so many Community citizens come to this country and, under the obligations of the Community, benefit very fully under the social security scheme, particularly under the national health scheme. I know that the noble Baroness is very knowledgeable about these matters, but I suggest that she looks at these figures with a certain amount of fairness.
As regards benefits for women, no one more than her party has been seeking equality for men and women. Unfortunately, in seeking equality for men and women what has happened is one of the results of that policy. The pensions are then paid at the same age which was

847
the result of a case which came before the European Court of Justice. Therefore, whether one likes it or not, 65 is the age which has been chosen.
I suggest that the Government have pursued very fair and active measures to benefit the country, and particularly those who are least advantaged. The one method which I thought was extremely helpful was introduced by the Conservative Government. That was the home responsibilities credit which allowed women to stay at home and to draw benefit despite the fact that they were not actually in work. I know that this is slightly off the purpose of the Bill itself, but in view of the noble Baroness's comments I felt obliged to support what my Government have been doing all these years and particularly to support the words of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Viscount Astor: To put this amendment into context, it might be helpful if I summarise the current arrangements for reports of this sort. The Committee will be aware of the requirement that a report by the Government Actuary must be laid with the annual orders that set the rates of benefits and contributions for the coming year. These reports give details of expected contribution income and benefit expenditure in considerable detail, highlighting any changes in structure or rates.
The Committee will also be aware that a Bill includes a financial memorandum which sets out the financial effects of the provisions in the Bill. Additionally, a compliance cost assessment, which assesses the cost to business of the proposals, is now required. All this information is in the public domain and can, of course, be discussed and debated in the course of the Bill's parliamentary stages.
I should make brief mention of the requirement for the Government Actuary to undertake a five-yearly examination of the National Insurance Fund and report on the extent to which it may be expected in the longer term to bear a proper relation to demands in respect of benefit. This review typically looks 50 or 60 years ahead.
From what I have said I am sure your Lordships will recognise that there is already a substantial body of published material dealing with the workings of the National Insurance Fund and legislation which affects it. The report by the Government Actuary will be laid before your Lordships in connection with the benefits and contributions orders next month. It will need to recite changes which have occurred to the contributions system and will set out the yield deriving from them. This will include the financial effect of the 1 per cent. increase and is, I believe, exactly what the noble Baroness is seeking.
The noble Baroness's amendment would also require reports in respect of the 1995–96 and each subsequent year to he made to Parliament separately identifying the yield deriving from the 1 per cent. increase. I believe that that would be an unnecessary burden. Once contribution rates have been changed with the agreement of Parliament, those rates become the new
848
base rates, which are then subject to periodic review and further amendment up or down, again with Parliament's approval.
I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to monitor on an ongoing basis the effect of a simple change in rates. The Committee is fully aware of the financial effect of the provision and this will not vary year on year. Obviously, the yield will increase slightly with the general tendency for earnings to rise, but this is a feature of the contributions scheme.
The function of reports to Parliament about the National Insurance Fund is to look ahead and to assess the ability of the fund to meet its prospective expenditure. The proposed addition by this amendment to the report does not aid that function. I agree with both my noble friends Lady Elles and Lord Boyd-Carpenter that this amendment is not helpful. Therefore, with that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I note what the Minister has said this afternoon. We shall look at it very carefully in Hansard tomorrow. As regards the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, what we were after is not replies by individuals to questions, but a regular opportunity for Parliament as a whole to look at the situation, which is very different from tabling a Question and receiving an answer from an individual Member of this House or in the other place.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. If, as she accepts, the information can be obtained simply by tabling a Question; if the information as produced seems to be debatable, then she or any of her colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench would very easily find an opportunity to debate it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I still do not accept what the noble Lord has said. If there is a regular obligation to publish a report, that is an item which comes before both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, the opportunity is made available, through legislation, for the Secretary of State to be questioned about it. That is very different from an individual taking the initiative and putting down a Question. There are no similarities between the two situations.
As regards what the noble Baroness said, I am not objecting to the notion that there should be equality for women at the age of 65. I simply mentioned that because there we are talking about a monetary yield as a result of that alteration. My information is that there would be a substantial yield as the result of women being required to work to the age of 65 before receiving the state pension. I am not arguing about the benefits as regards ourselves and other countries in the EC. I have had a lot of information on that score. Concerning the NHS, in this amendment we are not talking about that body, but about contributions on the social insurance side and the contributory benefits being achieved thereby.
It is not my intention to press this amendment to a vote this afternoon. We shall look carefully at what has been said because it is our intention to try to ensure that

849
the Government are entirely accountable as to what happens as a result of the passage of this Bill. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Report by Social Security Advisory Committee
.—Before the coming into effect of the provisions of section 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit such proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee whose report shall be laid before Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that all Members of the Committee are aware of the excellent work which is done by the Social Security Advisory Committee. I suggest that it is probably one of the most effective committees which regularly reports to government. Because of the ramifications of the National Insurance Fund, we feel it important that that body should be in this Bill. We have touched on this matter in a number of the amendments today. We should ask the SSAC to report on the impact of an increase in contributions and the effect on the level of benefits although, as I have said, we did hear from the Minister as regards a previous amendment that the increase in contributions is not matched by an increase in assessable benefit. It is important that the SSAC should be able to point that out.
Perhaps I could give an example of the excellent work that is done by the SSAC in this area. There is now a great myth being peddled by the "militant tendency" on the Tory Right regarding the ability to pay for the welfare state. The myth is that we cannot afford the welfare state as it presently exists. A number of recent reports have shown that that is not so. With a reasonable level of economic growth, we can certainly support a proper level of provision for the welfare state as we know it.
The argument was memorably advanced by the late Anthony Crosland in the 1950s and early 1960s and has been brought up to date by the SSAC's most recent report, its ninth, which points out, with some calculations, that if we assume a real growth in GDP of 3 per cent. per annum and unemployment of 1.5 million, by the year 2000 social security benefit expenditure as a percentage of GDP will be less than it is now. I imagine that the present Government will try to attain a level of growth of between 2.5 and 3 per cent.—the next Labour government will certainly seek to attain that—and we all wish to see a substantial reduction in unemployment. If that comes about, the evidence of the SSAC (which is a fine and objective committee) shows that the percentage of GDP taken by social security benefit expenditure will decrease from the present level of 12.3 per cent. to 11.3 per cent. That is a reduction of one percentage point—not of 1 per cent. as is often said—and in the order of 10 per cent. of actual expenditure. That is an example of the excellent work of the SSAC.
At the more detailed level, an annual report on these proposals by the SSAC would provide an independent and objective comment on the relationship between benefits, entitlements and contributions. The committee would be able to comment on such matters as "reforming", which means reducing, the unemployment
850
benefit, which is what the Government intend; changing the criteria for unemployment and incapacity benefits; changing the pension age, which has been mentioned; and rebates to bribe people to leave SERPS, which have amounted to £12.5 billion since they were introduced a few years ago.
We are continually told that national insurance is not a tax but a fund income measure. Well then, let the SSAC report on how the insurance fund is performing in relation to contributions and benefits. As I mentioned the National Insurance Fund, perhaps I may refer in passing to the statistical correlation that has not so far been discussed in debates on the Bill in either House. I refer to the correlation (which is marked when one looks at the table of the history of the fund) between the state of the National Insurance Fund and the years in which there have been general elections.
As I said, the SSAC is one of the most effective of the committees which report annually to government. I conclude with a quotation from the foreword to its ninth report:
"We live in a complex society and the social security system is correspondingly complex. It is therefore not surprising that the effect of changes on small but possibly significant groups at the front line of benefits will not always have been foreseen by policy makers. We believe that the Committee acts as a useful check before changes are made".
That is the reason for the drafting of the amendment which asks that,
"the Secretary of State shall submit such proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee"
before the provisions come into effect. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the Social Security Advisory Committee has since November 1980 performed art invaluable function. In accordance with laid down statutory requirements, the Secretary of State is required to submit for the committee's consideration a significant proportion of the proposals for changes in social security benefits and certain contribution rates that are put into effect by regulations. It is then open to the committee, if it chooses, to have the proposals formally referred; that is, the committee will conduct with outside interested organisations a consultation exercise and will produce a report on the proposals for the Secretary of State's consideration. Even where the committee agrees that the proposals need not be formally referred, it may well ask questions or express views on what is suggested. Either way a process of advice or consultation will take place and an independent view provided of the changes proposed.
Historically, neither the committee nor its predecessors—the National Insurance Advisory Committee and the Supplementary Benefits Commission—have had referred to them that legislation which is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. Included in this category is the provision in the primary legislation before the House that the noble Lord would like the committee to consider before it can come into effect. The proposals for regulations that are considered by the committee are those which for the most part are not subject to full parliamentary scrutiny; that is, those which are subject

851
only to the negative resolution procedure. It is therefore appropriate that someone else, in this case the committee, should have a chance to give a view that is independent of that of the government of the day. The enactment of primary legislation is, as your Lordships are well aware, handled in an entirely different way, with an opportunity given for debate in this House where your Lordships can make your views known.
With that explanation of the committee's important role in dealing with regulations and not with primary legislation, which is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny by both Houses, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I think that the real answer as to why the Government do not want the SSAC to comment on their proposals before they come into law is that they dare not ask it to do so in a number of cases because they know what sort of answer they would get.
The Minister correctly pointed out the SSAC's valuable function and the fact that the committee reports on a significant proportion of changes which are required to be introduced through regulations. However, there have been examples of changes being made to benefits in the past—usually a worsening in the benefit level or a change in the rules to make the benefit harder to get—without the SSAC being given a chance to comment.
I was a little surprised by the weight that the Minister attached to the opportunity to debate primary legislation as if the SSAC had no role in that and it was all left to Parliament. The contents of the SSAC's ninth report show the matters on which the committee reported in the past year. They include the Benefits Agency, the situation in Northern Ireland, the Child Support Agency, the Contributions Agency, students, hardship payments, community care, mortgage interest, non-dependant deductions from housing benefit, the state pension age, VAT on fuel, housing benefit, the social fund and the invalid care allowance. All those things have been discussed by Parliament in the past but the SSAC has seen a need to report on them—and it has reported extremely well, but with hindsight.
All that we are asking for in the amendment is that the committee should have a chance to comment on such changes before they are put into effect. We feel that it would improve the operation of the benefit system if the committee were able to make its critical but constructive comments before provisions have the force of law. I am disappointed by the Minister's answer which we shall need to reflect on. We may wish to return to the matter on Report because this is an important suggestion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Report by Government Actuary
.—The Secretary of State shall publish a report by the Government Actuary setting out the consequences to the National
852
Insurance Fund and the Treasury subvention to that fund of the increase in primary Class 1 contributions under section 1 of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report by the Government Actuary setting out the consequences to the National Insurance Fund and the Treasury subvention to that fund of the increase referred to in the Bill. I know that we shall be told that the fund is simply a notional one, but when the present welfare system was devised Beveridge intended that there should be contributions on a tripartite basis from employees, employers and the state. He originally intended that all three should make equal contributions but, as we know, that notion has fallen by the wayside. Employees' contributions have increased, employers' contributions have decreased, and the Treasury subvention at one time disappeared altogether. We have been over this ground to some extent already today.
Back in 1979, the subvention was regarded as being of the order of 18 per cent. It was gradually eroded until it disappeared. It is now back again. It will be recalled that individuals who opted out of SERPS into private pensions were allowed a national insurance rebate for doing so. I have no doubt that that bribe—for that is what it was, although the Government do not like it being called that—was responsible for many people, who were badly advised, opting into the private market. That was as a result of some hard selling by the insurance industry. I well remember the posters on the Underground:
"When did the Government ever give you any money?".
The advertisement continued, "Well, they are now". People were told that they could obtain £1,200 from the Government merely by taking out personal pensions by the approved date. It has now been found that large numbers of people have taken out personal pensions when they would have been better advised to stay in their firms' pension schemes or with SERPS. The SIB is to conduct an inquiry, and has talked in terms of compensation for people who were inappropriately advised. But, as I said, I do not blame the insurance industry for that. Still less do I blame the salesmen, who have a living to earn in a highly competitive market and are just as scared of unemployment as the rest of the labour force. The blame must rest with the Government, whose brilliant idea it was.
As it is, the revenue which might have come to public funds has been forgone and people are receiving less for their money in terms of security for old age than if they had stayed with SERPS or their firms' occupational scheme. As I understand it, £12.6 billion has been lost to the NIF which might otherwise have come to it. It is follies of that kind to which we on this side of the Committee take exception. Of course, the amendment will not stop the Government from embarking upon further follies induced by their obsession with private provision, but it will enable Parliament to look at what is happening at regular intervals. Again, this is an argument for open government which, as I said earlier, I believe the Government claim to support. I hope to hear from the Minister that he has decided to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: The proposal to increase by 1 per cent. the national insurance contributions for employees has been in the public domain since the Budget last March, and its effect on the income to the National Insurance Fund is set out in the Financial Memorandum and notes on Clauses to the Bill. The Committee is well aware that the amount to be raised for the National Insurance Fund by the proposed increase is some £1.9 billion. That sum can be placed in context by my right honourable friend's Statement at the time of the Budget that he proposed to seek a Treasury grant of some £6.4 billion in 1994–95 in order to ensure the stability of the National Insurance Fund in that year. Thus it is quite clear that, even with the proposed increase in national insurance contributions, expenditure on benefits is still significantly outstripping income from contributions. There can be no question of the Government withholding details of the financial effect of the proposed increase.
There is of course no pre-existing requirement for a report by the Government Actuary to go hand in hand with primary legislation, as applies with secondary legislation. We shall of course be laying a report as usual setting out the effects of all the changes to contributions and benefits in time for the debate on the benefit uprating and contribution re-rating orders which I expect will take place next month. That report will, I am sure, set out the consequences to the National Insurance Fund of the 1 per cent. increase in contributions. In effect therefore it will meet the noble Baroness's wishes.
The Committee will remember that we published a report with the Bill which provided for the Treasury grant last year. We felt it was necessary for the Committee to have available full details of the National Insurance Fund's finances when debating a structural change to the fund's finances which would affect it for years to come by providing a further and separate source of income. The position this year is quite different. We are dealing with a simple change in contribution rates. Therefore, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
There will still be a Government Actuary's report this year which will be laid as usual with the uprating and re-rating orders. I am satisfied that, generally speaking, that is the right and proper method of advising this place about the effect of various changes on the fund's finances. It would be superfluous, I think, to provide in this Bill for a further report, and in view of my explanation I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation and for pointing out that we shall have a further opportunity to look at the way in which contributions and benefits are being dealt with by the Government when we have the actuarial report. I am not certain that that satisfies entirely what we had in mind with Amendment No. 5, but it is not my intention to press it this afternoon. In a sense, it was a probing amendment to see what the Government's intentions were in this connection. Having listened to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
In the Title:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 6:
Line 2, after ("1992") insert ("and to require information on such increase;").
The noble Baroness said: This is an attempt to amend the Bill's title by the insertion after "1992" of the words,
"and to require information on such increase".
The intention of the amendment is to expand the Bill's title to make it clear that it is not just a question of putting up the contribution rates, but that there is also the question of proper accountability as to how the contributions are utilised and to see what are the Government's intention in that connection.
We believe, as we have said repeatedly in discussions on the Bill, that, although it is a short, small Bill, it is an important and significant one and will mean a good deal to large numbers of people who will find suddenly that they will have to pay more in their national insurance contributions and may later, when they come to look at what they receive for those contributions, feel that they are not receiving as much as they had originally thought that they would. It is so important that we believe that there should be written into the Bill's title the requirement that information should also be made available, and we have used the wording,
"and to require information on such increase".
Again, it is a question of accountability. It is a question of saying to the Government, "We want to know what you are doing and we want arrangements for monitoring made". If we put that wording into the title, it will give us the opportunity to come back on Report with other amendments based upon the discussion that we have had this afternoon. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: If the Committee had accepted any of the amendments tabled by Members of the Committee opposite which sought reports to be provided either by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State or by the Government Actuary, it might well have been appropriate to amend the Bill's title in the way provided for by the amendment. However, that has not been the case and the amendment to the title is therefore unnecessary. In fact the title can, as I understand it, be amended only if the Bill has been altered so as to necessitate such an amendment. That is not the case here as the title as it stands is entirely adequate in relation to the scope and content of the Bill.
Baroness Turner of Camden: As I understand it, the Committee has not rejected the amendments about having reports; we have withdrawn the amendments on the basis that we would want to consider between now and Report what the Minister has said. If he does not want us to consider what he has said, that is a different matter. Presumably he gave us full explanations so that we could consider the matters between now and Report.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness. The point is that none of the amendments has been accepted and therefore there is no reason to change

855
the long title of the Bill. If any of the amendments had been accepted, there would be good reason to change it, but they have not. So I am afraid that the noble Baroness will have to contain the amendment until she manages to persuade this place to accept one of her other amendments.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I still claim that this place has not had the opportunity to decide for or against the amendments because we decided not to take the Committee's opinion. In any event, my understanding is that if we want to amend a Bill's title that always comes last. It is one of those unfortunate things. One cannot amend the title before one starts on the Bill; one has to amend it at the end. So we have no alternative but to do it in that way.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. It is the practice of this Chamber to deal with the title at the end of the proceedings because it has to be dealt with only if the Bill has been altered. For that reason it is dealt with at the end, not at the beginning.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am certain that we should not persuade the Committee to accept the amendment, but if we had, it would be impossible for us to amend the Bill on Report. I shall not press the amendment at this stage—I think that it would be most unwise to do so—and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Insider Dealing (Securities and Regulated Markets) Order 1993
5.50 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee 1993–94].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The order is required to enable the insider dealing legislation contained within the Criminal Justice Act 1993—which repeals and restates the law on insider dealing—to be brought into force. The Government plan to commence the Act's insider dealing provisions on 1st March. Noble Lords will know that during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act the House considered at length the broad question of how to prevent insider dealing. It is not the function of the order to address this question. Instead, the issues with which it deals are much more specific, and I intend to confine my remarks to them during the course of this debate.
The order has three functions. First, it specifies the securities to which the Criminal Justice Act is to apply. The effect of the order is to apply the law to securities which are "market" related, reflecting the fact that the legislation is designed to protect the integrity of the market in its broadest sense.
The second function of the order is to specify what is meant by the term "regulated market", which is important for determining whether a transaction in a
856
particular security is covered by the legislation. Transactions in "securities" will be covered if they occur on regulated markets or if they are done off-market in reliance on a professional intermediary. Regulated markets are stock exchanges within the European Economic Area, relevant domestic derivatives exchanges (LIFFE and OMLX) and the Recognised Overseas Investment Exchange (NASDAQ).
Finally, the order specifies what is meant by the term "market regulated in the UK". This is important because it is the Government's intention that all dealing which occurs on securities markets operating within the UK should fall within the ambit of the legislation, regardless of the whereabouts of the dealer. A UK regulated market is any market which is established under the rules of the London Stock Exchange, and LIFFE and OMLX.
The effect of the order, in combination with the Act passed by the House last year, is to provide a sensible reform of our legislation against insider dealing. The new legislation will tighten the law against insider dealing and thus play its part in protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom's financial services industry, to the benefit of the industry, those who use the markets to raise capital, and the investing public.
I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee 1993–94].—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order. It was debated at some length in the other place and I do not propose to repeat the argument. We all agree that insider dealing is a serious issue and that an order of this kind is an inevitable consequence of the Criminal Justice Act. One hopes that as a consequence what will happen will be precisely what was described by the Minister; that it will make control of insider trading more effective. The questions that one has are not for debate this evening; one is interested in how many more dealers will be caught and prosecuted and how tough the sentencing will be for those who are found guilty. I agree that we cannot talk about the matter in detail tonight but I should like to know how powerful the legislation will be. We on these Benches believe that it must become abundantly obvious that the game of insider dealing is not worth the candle and that it is an activity that should not be risked.
I hope that the legislation will work not only in order to catch the fraudulent traders but also for the sake of the good name of the City of London and for the good name of the overwhelming majority of financial operators who are honest. I echo the Minister in saying that what is involved is the integrity of the financial services industry. If we were debating the matter I should express my fears. However, I hope that the measure will be effective and that we shall read more of people being caught and severely sentenced.
I wish to ask one question about the order. The schedule lists the regulated markets but there appears to be no power to add a new stock exchange. If a new stock market or stock exchange were created would we have to agree a new order adding that to the list? That is a purely hypothetical question because it is unlikely that

857
a new stock exchange will come into existence. However, as the measure does not contain words such as, "and such other stock exchanges as come into existence", will the noble Lord confirm that if that were the case we should have to have a new order?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I do not propose to pursue a debate about the detail of the order, which was discussed in another place. However, the order enables us to express our anxieties about the effectiveness to date of the insider dealing provisions. I too sincerely hope that it will enhance confidence in the City, which has been shaken a little by some of the recent fraud cases and the relative ineffectiveness of the insider dealing provisions.
The financial services industry is important not only to the City of London but also to the economy of Edinburgh, which is a major financial centre. The City is prosperous only if people have confidence in its integrity. Anything which damages that integrity can affect this important industry. About 2 million people are employed in the financial services industry, whose earnings represent 18 per cent. of our gross domestic product. Let there be no mistake about it; if confidence in the City is in any way undermined, many countries in Europe which are jealous of the efficiency and innovativeness of the City will be pleased to assume some of the responsibilities which are important to our economy.
My noble friend Lord Peston expressed anxiety about the effectiveness of the existing legislation, which we have had since 1980. There has been surveillance by the SIB since that time. The Stock Exchange has referred 104 cases to the criminal courts for prosecution since that time. Twenty-two people have been prosecuted since the beginning. Since 1987, which was a very lively period in mergers and acquisitions, only 17 people were prosecuted in cases referred for prosecution by the Stock Exchange. That must give rise to some anxiety. The recent case of Roger Levitt indicates that the offences that those perpetrators of fraudulent acts are committing are not taken seriously. Account is not taken of the fact that they undermine the integrity of the City of London.
Roger Levitt received a sentence of community service following his prosecution. In the case of Terry Randall, £90 million of fraud was proved. He was not sent to prison as a result of that fraud. Incidentally, it was pointed out in the other place that a poacher in Scotland who had been poaching salmon received a sentence of three months' imprisonment, whereas Terry Randall suffered no serious punishment following a £90 million fraud.
Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that if we are to pass this order, as I suspect we shall do, the Minister and his department should look seriously at the effectiveness and operation of legislation in connection with insider dealing. It is a crime against the City and is a crime against this country if insider dealing is not dealt with and punished as it should be.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and what I took to be a degree of support from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. We all support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in which he said that anything which damages the integrity of the industry could damage its prosperity. We accept that that would be to the detriment of us all.
As my honourable friend the Economic Secretary made clear in the debate in another place, no system will ever be absolutely perfect but it is important to achieve the right balance between the various forms of regulation.
I do not wish to comment on specific criminal charges that have arisen as a result of existing legislation, but I can confirm some of the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, gave. Since insider dealing was made illegal in 1980, there have been 33 cases, of which 18 have resulted in convictions. The cases involve some 52 individuals, of whom 24 were found guilty. Those figures include a case that was concluded on 17th January—that is, last week.
However, I believe that it is wrong to judge the success of any legislation merely by the number of successful prosecutions. The deterrent effect of both the existing legislation and this order is important. We believe that legislation has played an essential part in convincing people that insider dealing is wrong.
I can give the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, an assurance as regards looking at the effectiveness of the legislation. My right honourable and honourable friends will always bear that in mind and keep it under review for the very reasons which the noble Lord gave. This is a major industry in this country and it brings to it a great deal of prosperity. We believe that it is extremely important that that prosperity should remain within the industry to the benefit of the whole country. Therefore, it is important that we should ensure its continued integrity.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked a specific question about whether we should need a new order if a new stock exchange were to be quoted. Regretfully I must inform him that we should need another order in the unlikely event of another stock exchange being set up. I am sure that the noble Lord would welcome the opportunity to have yet another discussion on an amendment order. Perhaps we should wait until such a situation arises.
I hope that I have reassured both noble Lords. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1993
6.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe) rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 30th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee 1993–94].
The noble Earl said: This instrument which came into effect on 1st December 1993, reduces the rates of grant for various investments provided for in the principal scheme as a consequence of the decisions on public expenditure announced in the Chancellor's Budget Statement. But we have also taken the opportunity to make some other minor changes to the grant arrangements which we think are desirable.
The changes to the rates of grant offered under the scheme are as follows. The rate of grant for facilities for handling, storing and treating farm waste is reduced from 50 per cent. to 25 per cent. Grants for the provision, replacement or improvement of hedges, traditional walls and banks, shelter belts, the enclosure of heather moorland and grazed woodland, the burning of heather and the control of bracken are reduced from 50 per cent. in the less-favoured areas and 40 per cent. outside to 30 per cent. and 25 per cent respectively. Grants for the repair or reinstatement of traditional farm buildings are reduced from 35 per cent. in all areas to 25 per cent. in the less favoured areas and 20 per cent. outside them.
But we have not made these reductions in isolation or purely in response to pressures on public expenditure. They have been made against the background of strengthened markets and much improved returns to producers. And we have also taken into account the progress which has been made in reducing the incidence of pollution from farm waste and the development of other, more specifically targeted, vehicles for delivering environmental aids.
Since the F&CGS opened in 1989, more than £149 million has been paid to farmers in the UK, £119 million of which has been for the installation or improvement of waste handling facilities. In Great Britain, around 11,000 farmers (9,000 in England) have benefited from grant on farm waste facilities.
The exceptionally high rate of grant on these facilities, which exceeded normal EC maxima but which we were able to persuade the EC Commission to accept when the F&CGS was introduced, has fulfilled its purpose of stimulating farmers' investment in pollution control. And we have seen the result in a significant decrease in the number of major agricultural pollution incidents.
For those reasons, we think that the time is now right to reduce the 50 per cent. grant rate. However, we are not complacent about the job that remains to be done in tackling water pollution, which is why we are continuing to pay grant on farm waste facilities. In addition to continuing to provide grant aid, we are also providing, through ADAS, free advice to farmers on pollution control and help with drawing up farm waste management plans. Also in selected catchments with particular problems we have asked ADAS to undertake a campaign to promote the use of farm waste management plans.
Since the F&CGS was introduced in 1989, we have significantly developed the theme of assistance to farmers for investing in looking after the countryside. We have done so by putting in place schemes targeted at the specific needs of areas of particular significance.
860
For example, under our environmentally sensitive areas programme we have now designated nearly 30 areas in Great Britain. Moreover, subject to the approval of the European Commission, during 1994 we plan to launch a number of additional measures, including further ESAs, as part of the agri-environment package accompanying reform of the CAP. All ESA schemes offer the opportunity of grant aid to assist in conservation plans at rates which range between 30 per cent. and 80 per cent. Other agencies such as the Countryside Commission, English Nature and the National Park authorities also have in place considerable, and increasing, budgets for grants from which farmers are able to benefit. Against that background, assistance generally at high rates of grant is no longer appropriate. But we have maintained the range of conservation grants originally offered under the F&CGS, albeit at lower rates of grant.
Finally, we have decided to provide additional assistance under the farm and conservation grant scheme in three ways. First, we have extended for a further year the life of the special package of grants available under the F&CGS to growers on the Scilly Isles to deal with the particular problems of bulb and flower production there. Essentially this is a short-term solution while we consider longer-term arrangements for dealing with those problems. Secondly, we have put in place grants to help farmers with the cost of capital works needed to open up new access to farm land by the public. The grants will underpin further assistance for that purpose, for which we will shortly be seeking the approval of the House. Thirdly, we have put grant aid for dealing with poultry waste on the same footing as that for dealing with other livestock wastes.
In summary, the instrument before the House results from a considered review of the F&CGS. We have concluded that the range of grants the scheme offers should be maintained. We are making some extensions to the scheme. But, in recognition of trends in pollution incidents and progress in introducing targeted assistance for conservation, we believe that it is now right to reduce the rates of grant offered under the scheme for such types of investment. I commend the instrument to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 30th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee 1993–94].—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the scheme so clearly. As regards the aspects to which he referred at the end of his speech, I can say that they are certainly most welcomed by these Benches. I have in mind the increased access provisions, the proposals for dealing with poultry waste and the one-year extension for the Scilly Isles. However, having said that, we are disappointed at the level of reduction in the grants because such grants deal with conservation, the environment, and pollution.
Whenever I speak to farming audiences on the subject of environmentally friendly farming or related matters, I am always anxious to congratulate the Government on the imaginative proposals for the environmentally sensitive areas that they were the first

861
in Europe to introduce. However, they are limited in area. I believe I am correct in saying that 85 per cent. of the country's farmland is outside ESAs.
As a matter of principle, we feel that the capital grant system should be available to encourage farmers to undertake environmental work wherever they farm, and not just in the limited designated areas. Indeed, we had proposals, contained in our manifesto for the last election and still Labour Party policy, for green premia to be available to all farmers wherever they farm so as to encourage them to farm in an environmentally friendly way. Naturally, we are disappointed to see the Government reducing the grant available for conservation and for dealing with the environment and pollution.
I believe that the total cost of the grant scheme is in the order of £74 million. That is less than 10 per cent. of the cost of the set-aside and the arable area payments scheme. Can the Minister confirm that the savings for the first year will be £12 million and that, thereafter, the savings will build up to over £25 million which will represent about one-third of the cost of the scheme? The Minister implied in his opening remarks that this is a Treasury response and one that is not driven by concern for the environment.
On the matter of hedges, the loss of grant for reinstatement is most disappointing. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that there was a pledge in the Conservative manifesto at the last election to protect hedgerows. I should like to know how the proposed change can be reconciled with such a pledge.
It is a shame that we are debating the matter tonight. I understand that later this week—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—the Government's proposed biodiversity plans will be published. I believe that such plans will be in the hands of the Department of the Environment. It will be most interesting to see how the approach from the Ministry of Agriculture—that is, cutting grants for conservation to deal with the environment and pollution—marches with the biodiversity plan.
There was a quotation in yesterday's Observer as regards the targets for the biodiversity system and the various plans to be produced to fulfil the pledges made at the Rio Earth Summit. The article stated:
"'How these targets will work within the planning system remains to be worked out by Ministers,' one senior Whitehall source said. 'They could either turn out to be the most significant development in nature conservation for over a decade or a largely unfulfilled wish list'".
If the approach to the present grant scheme is anything to go by, it is much more likely that the biodiversity proposal will be that largely "unfulfilled wish list" rather than real improvements in nature conservation.
It would be most helpful if the Minister could say how the farm conservation grant relates to the agri-environmental package. Is it a reduction overall in the total? We all know about the agri-environmental package, but is there any way in which that can make up for the reductions in the farm conservation grant? It would be odd if the Government, on the one hand, under the agri-environmental package, were introducing certain measures but, on the other hand, were reducing
862
the grant on similar measures through the present scheme. How do the changes in this grant scheme relate to the agri-environmental package?
I believe that the variation sends the wrong signal to livestock producers and to conservation generally. It is a pity to reduce at such a severe level the environmental grants which, as we know, have been of great value to farmers who have carried out such work. For individual farmers who wish to install effluent disposal facilities, the extra financial burden could have a very serious effect on the viability of their businesses.
I have long said that pollution is one of the major problems facing British agriculture, especially as regards intensive livestock keeping. It is a pity that such grants should be reduced when this is such an important and expensive matter for farmers to put right. As I said, I believe that the reductions will eventually represent a one-third cut in the grant scheme. That is a great disappointment. Although we will not be dividing the House, I nevertheless express the disappointment that we all feel on these Benches. It is a disappointment that I know farmers also share.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I welcome the way in which the Minister explained the proposed variation to the scheme, although I cannot welcome its effect. He explained it very fully and frankly, but there was one statement he made that I slightly beg leave to doubt. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I see the hand of the Treasury behind the variation to the scheme more than any other department. In my view, the victim is not so much the farmer. To a certain extent I accept the explanations given by the Minister and in another place that perhaps overall and taking everything into consideration the farmer may be better off. However, the countryside and the environment will suffer. That is what the Minister should be defending, not the issue that his honourable friend in another place defended, namely, whether or not the farmer will be worse off. He should be concentrating on whether or not the countryside will be better or worse off. I believe that it will be considerably worse off. The wrong targets have been chosen. It is possible that the variation to the scheme was prepared in a hurry. A botched up solution has been found.
The problems posed by the CAP are, as we all know, absolutely enormous, and set-aside is a botched up solution just this side of a disaster. The cuts in the agricultural support which are embodied in this provision, and carried out in other measures by the Government, should be made against the arable area compensation for rotational set-aside, which is an extremely expensive way of achieving not very much. Instead of that, the target which has been chosen tonight will embarrass the Department of the Environment when it publishes its biodiversity plan. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in that I too look. forward very much to seeing what will emerge in public about what will undoubtedly be a major. interdepartmental wrangle. But the moral of the departmental wrangle is that we would be better off with a straight one between agriculture and the environment and not one which was governed by the Treasury.

863
The Government have declared their support for enhancing conservation and fighting pollution. Where, I ask them, is that support tonight? Of course we welcome the measure which applies to the Scilly Isles. We find nothing to be excited about in the measures dealing with poultry waste and we would be more excited about access if it had not already been pledged as part of the commitment to the European agricultural environment programme in August. It is difficult to see whether this is just a repetition of that or whether it involves something separate. We certainly join with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and his Benches in thinking that this is a fairly disastrous provision and that it is a great pity that it is not seemly that we should divide against it. However, there are certain questions which both the noble Lord and I have asked and which I hope the Minister will feel he can answer.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I hope that I shall be in order in saying a few words about the subject of the conversion of existing farmland, particularly corn-growing land, to organic methods. I say that because this has a strong bearing on both the conservation of soil and the conservation of wildlife. I have in the past declared in your Lordships' House my interest as a farmer and I do so again today. Perhaps I should add that I happen to be a symbol holder for cereals of the Soil Association.
I wish to draw the Government's attention to what happens when a given acreage now producing corn grain by conventional methods is converted to organic methods. When looking at this question it is important to take into consideration a four or six-year period, or indeed a longer period if anyone wishes to do so. I say that for rotational reasons. Let us assume that a given acreage at the present time is producing continuous cereals. If that is the case and if organic methods are then adopted, there will, over a four or six-year period, be an immediate reduction in production of 50 per cent. That arises because half the land will be taken out of cereal production and will be turned over to grass crops or other break crops. That is what happens in phase one, as it were.
Over the same period of time there will also be a very marked reduction in cereal yields. There will probably be a change from an annual production of three or four tonnes on the old conventional methods to a new production of one-and-a-half or two tonnes per year on that part of the organic system devoted to the cereals. If one takes these two kinds of reduction together, one finds that, over time, they amount to a reduction of the order of 75 per cent. of the grain that was being produced on the land affected. I believe anyone would recognise that as being significant. If we compare that position with a slightly different situation where, at the present time, cereals are being produced in conjunction with other break crops such as potatoes, sugar beet, oilseed rape or legumes—all of which occupy quite considerable acreages—we shall discover that these break crops are often used only at rare intervals during the long course of production of cereals—perhaps one year in five, two years in 12 or sometimes even for a smaller fraction of the total time.
864
Let us assume that 10 acres were producing 40 tonnes a year under the conventional methods involving considerable inputs of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, and sometimes growth regulators. When the conversion to the organic system has taken its full effect, those same 10 acres will be found to be producing something of the order of 10 tonnes per year. In addition to the reduction in output there is a quality gain in the cereals produced that is perhaps particularly noticeable in the nutritional value of the organically produced cereals. Therefore there is a great deal to commend this kind of conversion to the Government and to the European Union generally as regards their desire to reduce surpluses of cereals, grain mountains and other such phenomena.
I ask the Government to think rather more seriously about this process than they have in the past. I hope that by what I have said I may have been able to dispel a little ignorance which may exist in the minds of certain Ministers, and which I am fairly sure exists in the minds of a good many of their official advisers. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on what I have said tonight. I am well aware that he and I have been in correspondence on this subject in the past and he has been helpful. However, I believe there is still a way further to go.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his welcome for the enhancements that I outlined in the farm and conservation grant scheme. It is something of a disappointment, however, bearing in mind some of our recent exchanges across this Table, not to find the noble Lord arguing the Government's case throughout. Somehow, though, the alliance seemed too good to last. Notwithstanding that, I think it is appropriate that I should expand a little on my earlier remarks.
Five or six years ago the instruments available to the Government for delivering our environmental policy in the sphere of agriculture were limited in number. We were really only just beginning. However, we have now reached the point where our policy—although in many important respects still delivered to the generality of farmers—can also be delivered in a much more refined and targeted way where the need is greatest, across several government departments and within a much larger overall budget. In a very real sense, therefore, the order we are debating this evening reflects not a diminution of government support for the environment but the exact opposite. It is part of a much broader picture.
I think, too, that it would be wrong if schemes like the farm and conservation grant scheme were not reviewed in this way from time to time in response to actual events. Even a 25 per cent. grant represents a considerable measure of assistance. As I outlined, we are building enhancements into the scheme.
Grant aid is, of course, only one means of delivering the Government's environmental policy. Advice and regulation are the other two prongs of the policy. The Government's commitment to the countryside should. not be doubted.

865
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned a figure of £74 million as the cost of the farm and conservation grant scheme. I do not recognise that figure. The true figures are as I mentioned in my earlier speech. The budget for 1994–95 throughout Great Britain is £40.6 million, compared with £39.7 million in the current year, reducing in the subsequent two years to £31.7 million and £31.4 million respectively. To answer another question posed by the noble Lord, that represents a reduction from the previously planned totals across Great Britain of £9.02 million in 1994–95 and £20.67 million and £21.17 million in the following two years.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, mentioned the Government's biodiversity plan. Naturally I would not wish to anticipate tomorrow's announcement of that plan. I believe that both noble Lords will find much in it to welcome, but I should like to emphasise that it is but the start of a process. It represents an important new initiative.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about hedgerows. The problem of hedgerow neglect has already been tackled in part through the hedgerow incentive scheme which we launched in July 1992. That scheme is administered by the Countryside Commission. The Government have allocated £5.3 million in the three years ending 1995–96 to provide grants for the management of important hedgerows. In 1992–93, the first year of the scheme, 411 agreements were made, resulting in grant aid over the next five years for the management of 602 kilometres of hedgerow. The scheme is closely co-ordinated with the MAFF farm and conservation grant scheme. The Government are committed to legislating to protect hedgerows when parliamentary time permits. There is no question of dropping our commitment to legislate unless new data of which I am not aware show that the need to legislate has now receded.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the funds available for the agri-environment package as a whole. In Great Britain, the figure—which is the more helpful figure to give rather than that for England alone—for the current financial year is £33 million. The figures for the following two financial years are £58 million and £93 million respectively. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who advanced some detailed arguments in favour of organic farming, that nothing in this evening's order should be taken as a diminution of the Government's commitment to the agri-environment package. As he will know, we had a useful debate on the subject of organic farming just before Christmas. I take note of the points he made this evening.
I believe that that covers most of the questions posed this evening. I hope that the House will be able to approve the order, which should be looked at in the context of a commitment to the environment throughout the Government which is rising, in financial as well as other terms.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scottish Administrative Systems
6.34 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take further action to assist the media and the public to distinguish within the United Kingdom the separate administrative bodies and the different systems which operate in Scotland.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my object is to inquire what is being done by the Government to help the media and the public to recognise that separate systems and institutions operate in Scotland in many fields of life and activity. At present misunderstandings often occur and the public are unintentionally misled.
I shall give an illustration. Three weeks ago the leading news item on British television and radio was about proposals by the Secretary of State for Education concerning discipline in schools. During the following two or three days when meeting acquaintances in the street and elsewhere, including former constituents who are inclined to engage me in conversation about current events, this subject was raised. They were surprised to learn that these proposals did not apply to Scotland. Some did not realise that my right honourable friend Mr. John Patten, whom they had seen speaking on television, had no responsibilities for our schools in Scotland. I had happened to see the television evening news and heard the radio that day and nothing had been said to indicate that the proposals concerned England and Wales.
I raise this question because I hope that more can be done to avoid situations where families in Scotland watching the main news on television think that an item like that involves their children and their schools. To complete that episode, I ought to make clear that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office Education Department were not inactive on discipline in Scottish schools and that their initiative, dealing with discipline in schools had taken place earlier, in November, in different circumstances, including consultation with the main Scottish teachers' union, the EIS, which does not operate south of the Border.
I am glad to see that a Scottish Office Minister is to reply this evening—my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser, the Minister of State. The matters which I am raising are mainly for the attention of other government departments, particularly those dealing with England and Wales. I hope, therefore, that my noble and learned friend will do his best to influence his colleagues in other parts of the Government. This is needed to give practical support to the admirable White Paper Scotland and the Union, which was issued by the Government in March. Among other things that White Paper sets out clearly in Annexe C the departments of the Scottish Office and their functions. That annexe contains a store of information with which the public in the United Kingdom as a whole, including Scotland, is unfamiliar.
Moreover, because the Scottish Office administers so much in the domestic field there are some government departments in Whitehall which have no functions in Scotland. Other Whitehall departments exercise only some of their functions in Scotland. For example, the

867
Department of Health and the Department of the Environment have no functions in Scotland. They are the lead departments in the United Kingdom, formulating general policy and handling international aspects, but the administration of the National Health Service, dealing with health authorities and other health functions, are in Scotland the business of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Similarly, the subjects dealt with by the Department of the Environment in London for England and Wales are all handled separately in Scotland by the Scottish Office: for example, housing, planning and local government.
In home affairs the Scottish Office has to deal with crime. That is not unexpected because Scots law is different and Scottish courts are separate. For example, the Secretary of State signs warrants to authorise telephone tapping, like the Home Secretary, and has other similar functions, including prisons and the fire service. A Scottish Office department administers agriculture and fisheries within Scotland working closely with MAFF. Education has already been cited. Schools, teachers and their unions are the concern of the Scottish Office not the Department for Education.
I hope that those examples are enough for noble Lords to appreciate that it is not easy for most people, unless they are involved, to carry in their heads these divisions of functions. They are also unlikely to have Annexe C, to which I have referred—valuable document though it is—on their persons. Nor are the representatives of the media. Those closely reporting Parliament will be well informed but will not have the details at their fingertips. They should not be expected to do so. They deserve one helpful, simple addition of a few words in prepared announcements. I suggest that procedures should be in place in the departments based in London to identify, in government announcements, those parts of the United Kingdom to which they apply. Otherwise news items and broadcasts received in Scotland will from time to time continue to mislead, unintentionally, and to confuse.
I give two examples of what can happen. On the evening of 2nd March, families in Scotland watching the lengthy first item on television news learnt that new secure training centres were to be established for juvenile offenders. Only later, and by chance, were they to discover that that was not proposed for their communities in Scotland. Few members of the public know that the functions of the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary in these matters are limited to England and Wales. The announcement in Parliament made no reference to that, presumably because MPs and Peers are expected to know. A better way would have been to state clearly at the beginning that the proposals applied only to England and Wales, and to add that Scotland's different system was also being considered for possible changes or innovations. Unless care is exercised in that way, some of those Scottish families will regard such an announcement as another example of Scotland being forgotten or, worse, thought not to matter.
The other incident also illustrates how misunderstandings and confusions arise. On 4th February, a
868
Statement was made by the Secretary of State for Transport. It was described as applying to the national road network of motorways and trunk roads. National, my Lords? The proposal applied only to England, but nowhere was that stated. The Scottish office is responsible for roads in Scotland. When the Statement was repeated in this House, halfway through the subsequent questions an inquiry about a road in Wales prompted the Minister to declare, to gasps of surprise, that the whole Statement applied only to England. The lack of identification, together with the use of the word "national", led newspapers on the following day to present the proposal as for Great Britain. Readers in Scotland searched the accompanying maps and list of projects in vain to find anything proposed for north of the Border. Their conclusion was likely to have been that Scotland had missed out again.
The irony is that motorways and trunk road improvements are popular in Scotland whereas such schemes have been opposed and delayed by objectors in England—and the announcement to which I referred was immediately criticised by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. Furthermore, expenditure on roads in Scotland has been continuously more per head than in England. Therefore, unwittingly, a completely false impression was given in Scotland.
Those situations could be greatly reduced before announcements are made or documents issued by determined efforts to identify in the headings or at the beginning of texts what application, if any, they have north or south of the Border. It would then be clear that a particular proposal applied to England only and that another applied to the whole of the United Kingdom. That would help the media which, I believe, would welcome the guidance especially as they normally have to work at speed to meet deadlines. They do not have time to check Annexe C or its equivalent.
I mentioned that Wales was being dealt with separately with regard to the road programme. I believe that everything that I point out this evening can be helpful to the Welsh Office—and increasingly so as I am sure that the Welsh office will continue to take over more functions from Whitehall. I remember when it was established nearly 30 years ago. It was five years old when I started my term as Secretary of State for Scotland. I have followed its progress with special interest. The Scottish Office is 109 years old.
It must be borne in mind also that Scots law is different from that in the rest of the country. I was glad to see a letter in The Times on 30th November from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, a Law Lord in this House, commenting on a leading article and pointing out that a pronouncement about the status of confessions in the British legal system did not apply in Scotland. I hasten to assure noble Lords that I also write and telephone to the media when the way in which news is presented is likely to lead to misunderstandings; and I have received grateful acknowledgements. But there is a limit to how much an individual can do without the risk of being regarded as an eccentric.
Historically, Scotland has also had its own education system resulting in different examinations at different stages and a separate curriculum for schools. When the

869
name "national curriculum" was adopted for England and Wales a few years ago, it led to much confusion in Scotland—and still does for the public there. I protested in this House about the name, but it was too late. "Curriculum for England and Wales" may be clumsy, but in future cases in other fields the importance of accurate descriptions and of avoiding the impression that Scotland has been overlooked should be considered. Confusion on the subject continues today in Scotland. It is not realised by many people that Sir Ron Dearing's recent recommendations have no application north of the Border.
There can be significant differences in practice in Scotland arising from past customs and traditions. A topical example is Sunday trading. The Shops Act has not applied in Scotland and shops are free to open on Sunday. There have been no restrictions. Only about 23 per cent. of the shops in Scotland open on Sundays at present. The factors which apply are local opinion in different areas, and demand, but not legislation. I have been disappointed to observe that most of the media, most of the time during the controversy in recent months on the subject, have overlooked that fact. Knowledge of the Scottish experience in recent years might be helpful to England and Wales in finding a solution.
The names of bodies and institutions can cause ambiguity. Annexe C will not help in that regard. I mention a few which have Scottish counterparts: the National Trust; the Parole Board; the Law Society; and the Sports and Arts Councils. For example, the Parole Board has an equivalent —the Scottish Parole Board—but that is not widely known. So far as concerns the Scottish bodies, the words "Scottish" or "of Scotland" are always included in the titles.
When it comes to new bodies and names for them, I ask the Government to take special care. Only a few years ago a new body was brought into existence—the National Rivers Authority—although it was to have no functions in Scotland. The press thought that it covered the whole of Britain; and who can blame them? The misconception continues today. It is especially unfortunate because Scotland is over one-third the area of Britain, land and water, although containing only one-tenth of the population. It has about half the coastline of Britain. So a large proportion of Britain's rivers and coasts are not within the NRA's ambit, despite its name.
Confusing also for the media and public are references to "the Roads Minister", "the Housing Minister" or "the Local Government Minister" when his functions are only in England or England and Wales and he has an equivalent in Scotland. They are all Ministers of State or junior Ministers. I am sure that such considerations apply to the Welsh Office. They will have their equivalent Ministers for Wales, if not there already.
The Scottish Office also has several groups of inspectors reporting to the Secretary of State on pollution, education and other subjects. The titles of the equivalent officers south of the Border can be confusing. For example, the Government Chief Medical Officer and Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools and
870
Prisons have no functions in Scotland. The picture is even more confusing—I am sure that noble Lords will understand the difficulties for the media—when the "chief" concerned is a Scot, although he does not deal with Scotland.
A major benefit of the Union is that its flexibility provides opportunities for the English to excel in Scotland and Scots to excel in England. That is happening at the moment. Particular abilities are used in appropriate positions to everyone's advantage. The Government's Chief Medical Officer and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools are at present both Scots: Dr. Calman and Professor Sutherland. In neither case does their work involve Scotland. We should have pity on the media having to meet deadlines at short notice in those areas.
There is another example which is very close to us here; namely, that of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, whose functions do not extend to Scotland. The appointment of judges, the administration of the courts and associated subjects in Scotland are the responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate. My noble and learned friend has been Lord Advocate, and I have been Secretary of State, so we are well aware of that situation. But we must be in a very small minority in the country. In many fields there are fruitful exchanges between England and Scotland. They make it less easy, however, for the media and the public to sort out who does what in which parts of the United Kingdom.
I add to my message this evening a brighter note. I believe that in the past two years or so there has been an improvement. More often than in the past, media news items have included at the beginning the words "in England and Wales", so that viewers, readers and listeners in Scotland know immediately that it does not apply to them. However, there is still a very long way to go, though I do not ask for very much. I ask only for a small addition to procedures followed by vigilance and alertness. In the spirit of the Citizen's Charter, I ask the Government to do more to help the media, and through the media, the public. The extra trouble needed in Whitehall departments is small and the good effects attainable are very worthwhile.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for raising this debate. To people who do not go home to Scotland every week, the matter may seem rather petty. But those of us who live in Scotland and who are involved in Scottish affairs are very aware of the way in which Scotland is frequently lumped together with the rest of the UK when, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, a Scottish Minister may have no function in England or an English Minister in Scotland, and the same is true of an establishment or an organisation. That becomes an annoyance to most of us in Scotland.
The saddest part of the matter, and another side of the argument that the noble Lord put, is that it becomes a very serious irritation to many Scots. Sometimes a cheap and aggressive chauvinism shows itself. It is a

871
quality that most of us do not like. I find it extremely unpleasant. Perhaps down here we are so familiar with what is Scottish and what is UK business, or what is solely English or Welsh business, that we may ourselves become a bit careless, and when we speak it is to people who understand the distinction. There is no doubt that south of the Border the importance of the Scottish dimension is sometimes ignored.
The Government should make many of the changes that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, suggested. Change will not be brought about overnight. It will take some time. It may perhaps merely be a matter of sending a letter every now and again. When a statement comes out or a Bill or report is produced, it would not do any harm if someone in the Scottish Office were given the job of dropping a little note to the relevant UK department to say that the department had it wrong. It is a small matter, but it would save a great deal of trouble.
Those south of the Border should realise that there is that Scottish dimension and they should clearly distinguish between Scotland, England and Wales. When the United Kingdom is discussed, it would be a very small matter, again, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell said, to add to the procedures simply to put that point in. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the problem. He has been in the same position as all of us have in company in Scotland, and he will know what a silly effect it has when referring to matters such as football and Murrayfield etc. It perhaps gives us all a wee tingle. But it is unnecessary. It annoys me when sometimes it becomes a maudlin, if not aggressive, chauvinism. I hope that the Minister will pay a great deal of attention to the debate tonight and carry it with him back to Whitehall.
6.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I very much welcome the debate initiated by my noble friend. I was of course aware of his concerns, but I should like to say immediately that I share his views that the distinctive nature and features of those bodies and systems which operate exclusively in Scotland should so far as possible be recognised throughout the United Kingdom. I am most grateful to my noble friend for his very clear exposition of the issues. He provided some particularly telling examples. I hope that there will be Whitehall departments that will follow his words very carefully.
Scotland must always be seen in the context of the Union, and we are committed to maintaining and strengthening Scotland's role in that Union. One of the Union's great strengths is its ability to accommodate different approaches in different parts of the United Kingdom. What is appropriate for Scotland may not suit Northern Ireland, for instance; and English institutions may not fit Scottish circumstances. The Union is, however, sufficiently flexible to allow distinctive solutions to emerge in all four parts of the United Kingdom. It is not a straitjacket of rigid constitutional prescription, but rather a subtle instrument able to move with the times and meet the needs of its citizens in different ways in different places.
872
The existence of these different arrangements can however be confusing, and my noble friend has put his finger on a substantial difficulty: how to ensure that the media and the public can better distinguish the different systems in the different parts of the United Kingdom. Like him, I have felt that sense of frustration when, for example, newspapers and the broadcasting media refer to developments south of the Border in terms which imply they are equally applicable in Scotland. As my noble friend said, that is usually unintentional. Sometimes, frankly, it is just a matter of sloppy reporting. However, it is not unknown for it to be deliberately, mischievously confusing.
In answer to my noble friend I acknowledge that the Government have an important part to play here. We must ensure that government statements properly reflect their territorial scope. My noble friend may regard some Whitehall departments with responsibilities exclusively relating to England and Wales as the worst offenders. But it is correct that we too should recognise that, while my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland naturally announces policy for Scotland only, in respect of forestry his statements cover the whole of Great Britain. For our part, that ought always to be made clear.
I think that our White Paper, Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good, published last March, to which my noble friend referred, will help meet some of the concerns of my noble friend. The paper stresses not only the benefits which Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole have derived from the Union, but also the importance of bringing the Union alive. In that context the paper points out that,
"The Union is not something which affects just one Department of Government, the Scottish Office. If new life is to be breathed into the Union its existence must permeate every area of Government. Account must be taken of the Union by all Government Departments, at all itmes".
I do not think that even my noble friend would look for a more ringing declaration.
Naturally I acknowledge that there may be occasions when we fall short of our own laudable targets, and I will indeed consider further with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the points which my noble friend has so persuasively made. However, I hope that he accepts that the Government's heart is in the right place. The commitment in our White Paper is both comprehensive and clear.
Acknowledgement of Scotland's position within the United Kingdom—and, conversely, that of the Kingdom's other constituent parts—may be made not only in the narrow context of government statements and media reporting. The Union operates at many levels and consequently there are many aspects of Scottish life where Scotland's status as a nation may be recognised.
For instance, there might be more acknowledgement from all parts of the United Kingdom of the significance of the major institutions of Scottish life: the legal system, the professions, the Church, the universities, the learned societies and the financial institutions. Likewise, more might be done to acknowledge Scottish cultural excellence and the revival in Scottish arts, of which no doubt much more will be said on Wednesday.

873
We do not want to come across as prickly and lacking in self-confidence about the intrinsic worth of these aspects of Scottish life. But we wish to avoid unhappy or uncomfortable strains that too easily arise and are as easily exploited by that minority in Scotland which has no concern for the continued existence of the Union and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, indicated, was indeed an undesirable feature. In the parliamentary field, Parliament should be seen as a fully United Kingdom Parliament, reflecting in its composition, institutions and ceremonial the diversity of the Kingdom's constituent parts.
Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to take the opportunity of this debate to bring the House up to date on the implementation of the proposals which we made in the White Paper. All the major proposals are now implemented or are well in hand. The list is too long to give noble Lords a comprehensive account, and in any event this is not the occasion. But perhaps I may briefly single out a few of the most significant changes.
The White Paper placed particular importance on Scotland's relationship with Europe and we have achieved substantial representation for Scotland on the Committee of the Regions. We want to bring to Scotland more decisions affecting Scotland, and much has been done to take forward the White Paper's proposals to transfer certain functions and powers to the Scottish Office: for instance, responsibility for training policy and for the Scottish Arts Council, to which the noble Lord made reference.
To make the Scottish Office more accessible to the public we have established a Central Enquiry Unit which can be reached from all parts of Scotland through a special telephone link. We have also opened 22 information points throughout the country, with another four in the pipeline. Perhaps we ought to have one in England too. Indeed, one significant feature of the
874
experience in Scotland is the number of inquiries received about the responsibilities of Whitehall departments.
Constitutionally, the most significant proposals in the White Paper relate to improvements in the parliamentary arrangements for handling Scottish business. We intend that there will be several changes to procedures in another place and greater use of existing procedures. Most will focus on an extended role for the Scottish Grand Committee.
For example, the committee will be able to debate the Second Reading of a Bill, including major government programme Bills. The committee will have the opportunity of up to 12 sessions each year for general debates; an additional opportunity to question Scottish Office Ministers, with an oral question time similar to that already held in another place; short adjournment debates initiated by MPs; and rather more formal evidence-taking sessions.
We intend that those sessions will hear not only from Scottish Ministers who are members of the committee, but also, as is the case with Select Committees, that Scottish Office Ministers or Law Officers who, like me, are Members of your Lordships' House may give evidence if they agree to do so. The parliamentary proposals have been the subject of consultation with Opposition parties and we anticipate that they will be implemented before long.
This has been a short but useful debate. The noble Lord indicated where the problem lies. I am grateful to have had the opportunity as a Scottish Office Minister to respond. Undoubtedly, I share his view that if we are to continue to make progress, this is a debate which should concern not only Members of your Lordships' House from Scotland or Scottish MPs but every department in Whitehall. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the matter.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.