Sitting of 4 July 1994

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

    Social Fund
    Mr. Bell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the costs of administering the social fund expressed as a percentage of the money disbursed in the last year for which figures are available.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): In 1992–93, the overall cost of administering the social fund was equivalent to 52 per cent. of the money paid out.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He might have continued and said that if one takes into account loans made to claimants, the figure is 35p in the pound. Is he satisfied with both figures? The Social Security Advisory Committee clearly is not—and if it is not satisfied, why is the Minister satisfied? Is there value for money or is money going into bureaucracy? Why does not the Minister give us a full report and undertake a full review so that we can all debate the issue?
    Mr. Scott: In my view, the social fund represents good value for money. It provides control over the totality of
    2
    expenditure in the interests of the taxpayer. It is well targeted on those who need most help and the decisions are made with considerable speed.

    Occupational Pensions
    Mrs. Browning: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average value of an occupational pension in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): It is estimated that at 1991 prices, the average value of occupational pensions was £41.90 per week in 1979 and £63.30 per week in 1991—an increase of 51 per cent.
    Mrs. Browning: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that occupational pensions will be made more secure by the proposals set out in his White Paper? Will he also confirm that he will implement in full all the major proposals in the Goode report and that Opposition Members who say otherwise—such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—are simply indulging in scaremongering?
    Mr. Lilley: Yes, I can entirely confirm the points that my hon. Friend makes. The changes introduced in the White Paper, which have been widely accepted, will give the new regulator all the powers that the Goode committee recommended. We have implemented all the major recommendations of the Goode report. I believe that as a result, occupational pensioners can have their confidence in their occupational pension schemes fully restored after the problems caused by the Maxwell scandal. We want occupational pensions to go from strength to strength.
    Mr. Flynn: Then why is the Secretary of State trying to tempt people from the safety and security of occupational pensions and the state earnings-related pensions scheme into the national lottery of personal pensions? Will he tell the House what his Under-Secretary has told the House—that those on money-purchase pensions who bought annuities in 1990 find that those annuities have dropped in

    3
    value by, on average, a quarter? For women, they have dropped in value by a third. If that has happened in four years, what will happen in 20, 30 or 40 years' time? Will the Secretary of State arrange for anyone whom he intends to bribe out of SERPS or occupational pensions to be told of the catastrophic drop in annuity values in the past four years?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman would like everyone to retain nationalised pensions. On the question of people remaining in occupational pensions or moving out of them, we have recently made clear to employers the advice that they can give to their members, which they have found helpful. The advice will make clear the advantages of occupational pensions and the way in which they are, in many cases, superior to private pensions.
    I propose in my White Paper to increase the flexibility of annuities so that if people want to draw out their tax-free capital lump sum, they will still be able to defer taking their annuity, while withdrawing a sum for their on-going income, until the time when they think that they can get the best terms for their future annuity provision.

    Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations his Department has received about the blocking of further progress on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
    Mr. Scott: We have received a large number of representations about the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
    Mr. McAllion: In a personal statement to the House on 10 May, the Minister admitted that his Department had been involved in preparing amendments which were then used to block the Bill. Four days earlier, on 6 May, the Minister had told the House that no one in his Department had been involved in any way in drafting the amendments. Does he accept, therefore, that his statement on 10 May showed clearly that he was peddling untruths to the House on 6 May? Should not he, as the Minister responsible for this tawdry and discreditable denial of civil rights to people with disabilities, take the only honourable course and resign from his high office?
    Mr. Scott: Is that the best that the hon. Gentleman can do? He omitted a key factor in the sequence of events. Immediately I realised that the information that I had given to the House was incorrect, I wrote to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) setting the record straight.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his personal commitment to the support of the disabled is widely recognised? Will he accept congratulations on the Government's commitment to consult with a view to preparing anti-discrimination legislation?
    Mr. Scott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he mentioned, we have made clear our intention to consult on employment; the impact of the building regulations on access to buildings; goods and services and their availability to disabled people; financial services; and the establishment of a national body that the Government could consult on disability issues.
    Mr. Sheerman: Would the Minister accept an invitation to join me and many other hon. Members from both sides of the House at the Trafalgar square rally on Saturday, where he would learn of the bitterness that disabled people and their vast army of supporters feel about the way in which the Government subverted their civil rights Bill? He would further learn that the people who will be there in their many hundreds, if not thousands, on Saturday, believe that they deserve and will get the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill—not a Government milk-and-water, watered-down compromise?
    Mr. Scott: I shall not be able to join the hon. Gentleman at his gathering. However, I am aware, not least from the correspondence that I have received and representations from hon. Members on both sides of the House, of the strength of feeling in favour of the Bill. I happen to believe that the approach represented by the Bill is the wrong one at the moment and that the approach that the Government have suggested represents the right way to tackle the undoubted discrimination against disabled people. We are determined to tackle it in a practical and workmanlike manner.

    Habitual Residence Test
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will announce the details of his proposed habitual residence test.
    Mr. Lilley: I shall shortly lay regulations to prevent benefit tourism by introducing a residence test for people who claim income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. The report from the Social Security Advisory Committee on the proposals, together with the Government's response, will be published at the same time.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that decent folk who pay their taxes to help the needy find it outrageous that foreigners can still come over here and rip off our social security system? Will he confirm that the proposals that the Government intend to implement would bring us into line with the practice of most other European countries?
    Mr. Lilley: I can, indeed, confirm that, as my hon. Friend would expect, the proposal is very communautaire. It will bring us into line with our European colleagues. I have always thought that they were more sensible in requiring a residence test to be met before handing out benefits and I am happy to follow their example. Certainly, they think that we are strange for doing what we do. I have an interesting article here from Le Nouvel Observateur, which I have no doubt is widely read, expressing amazement that young continentals can come here and pick up benefit with the ease with which they do it at present.
    Mr. Rooney: Does the Secretary of State accept that the biggest element of the fraud of so-called benefit tourism is private landlords' exploitation of lax housing laws in Britain that allow hundreds of pounds a week of housing benefit to be paid to private landlords?
    Mr. Lilley: That is certainly an issue which we have addressed. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have changed the system of reimbursing local authorities, which are responsible for handing out benefit, so that they are no

    5
    longer penalised but share in the savings that are made when abuses and frauds are discovered in the housing benefit system. Such abuses can result from collusion between landlords and tenants of the kind that the hon. Gentleman describes. We are determined to stop that.
    Mr. John Marshall: Would my right hon. Friend care to give a draft of his proposals to the Lord Chancellor so that benefit tourism in relation to the legal aid system can also be brought to an end?
    Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly make sure that my hon. Friend's remarks are drawn to the attention of the Lord Chancellor, who I know follows these debates with great assiduity.
    Mr. Dewar: In connection with the habitual residence test, can the Minister say a word or two about his decision as it will apply to citizens of the Irish Republic? It is known that he has had discussions with the Irish Minister for Social Services, Dr. Michael Woods. Did the right hon. Gentleman see the report in the Irish Post in the middle of last month to the effect that a definitive agreement had been reached which meant that the habitual residence test would not apply to citizens of the Irish Republic, those from the Channel islands and those from the Isle of Man? Can he confirm that that is so? I do not want to disturb his genuine reputation for being communautaire, but if it is, can he explain how that will be squared with his earlier statement that no differences would apply in relation to citizens of different countries within the European Union?
    Mr. Lilley: I made it clear in answer to a question at an earlier Social Security Question Time—perhaps it was from the hon. Gentleman—that, in devising the regulations, I did not intend to disrupt the common travel area that exists between ourselves and other parts of the British Isles. Although I do not want to pre-empt my announcement, I hope that it will be possible to ensure that that is the case. The new phenomenon to which I am referring is that of people coming from the continent and taking advantage of regulations whose laxity they can scarcely believe.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend consider that benefit tourism within the United Kingdom seriously disadvantages tourist resorts such as the one that I represent in Blackpool? The "come and claim your dole and housing benefit by the sea" phenomenon is a serious problem. Will my right hon. Friend consider that matter seriously before he decides the final format of his new announcement?
    Mr. Lilley: I know that that issue causes concern in many seaside areas. The Government have endeavoured to deal with it and will keep a close eye on the problem. I have to disappoint my hon. Friend, however, as the regulations will not have a bearing on that problem.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the money paid as a result of maintenance assessments made by the Child Support Agency is benefiting children and families; and what percentage is reducing benefit expenditure for the Treasury.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): All maintenance is of benefit to children. The payment of regular maintenance can transform the lives of parents with care and their families, and that is widely recognised by their representatives.
    A large proportion of maintenance is paid direct to the parent with care by the absent parent. Of the money directly collected, under the Child Support Act 1991, by the Child Support Agency on behalf of parents with care, we estimate that about a third is retained by them and not offset against benefit expenditure.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not that answer reveal to the House a disturbing set of figures, and that the Treasury is benefiting much more than anyone else from the activities of the CSA? Why is the hon. Gentleman so secretive about the full figures—the CSA report published today does not carry the information? Does not he understand that if the CSA is to work properly, it must be seen to be accountable and transparent and to be benefiting families and not the Treasury?
    Mr. Burt: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the House always understood that one of the principles behind the Child Support Act 1991 was that it would ensure that taxpayers supported only those children for whom the state should have responsibility, and that responsibility for children should be passed on to parents, as is proper. That is why it is right that the taxpayer should benefit.
    As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, the report does, indeed, carry figures. During the past year, it became clear that some information was not as readily available as we would have wished it to be and steps have been taken within the agency to improve that situation. The agency knows how much is flowing through its books in relation to offset benefits. It is not possible for it to calculate all the money that is being paid directly by an absent parent to a parent with care of a child, however, although we are trying to get those figures.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the savings are made for the benefit of the taxpayer who, up to now, has been ripped off by some fathers who have paid little or nothing at all? Is not it high time that they took up their responsibilities? Is not that why the Child Support Agency is a thoroughly good thing?
    Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In the past, the system had a tendency to underpin separation agreements—unwittingly—through the taxpayer. That is one of the major reasons why the CSA was introduced—to end that discrimination against other taxpayers.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister acknowledge that earlier written parliamentary answers seemed to suggest that only 2 or 3 per cent. of the money went to children and into the hands of the caring parent, not 33.3 per cent., as he just announced? Would he be prepared to put the documentation that establishes that figure in the House of Commons Library, so that hon. Members can look at it for themselves? While he is at it, will he also say whether he is fighting in the Cabinet to get time for new amendments to the primary legislation in next year's legislative programme, because tinkering with the 1991 Act simply will not do?
    Mr. Burt: I should love to be fighting in the Cabinet, but that opportunity has not yet been made available to me. It would be nice if it was, but I must not anticipate any decisions.
    I am aware that my initial answer perhaps caused some surprise among Opposition Members, who may not have read carefully the letter from the chief executive to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), which he quoted this morning. I was seeking to say that that letter makes it clear that there are some sums that could not be calculated in terms of benefit saved in relation to the amount of money that had gone to the parent with care—crucially, in connection with family credit.
    Now we have those figures and I am able to tell the House and the hon. Member for Garscadden that the figure of £210 million quoted in that letter can now be updated to £310 million, of which some £73 million goes direct to the parents. The increase is due to the calculation of family credit. It was mentioned in the letter that that calculation could not be done, but it is clear that if those family credit figures were not included, the quoted figures would be distorted. Those figures are now available and I am sure that the hon. Member for Garscadden would agree that they make a much better case for the retention of money for parents with care.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning organisations that seek to undermine the good work of the CSA? Is he aware of the appalling behaviour of Network Against the Child Support Agency, which has sent out hate mail and put up defamatory posters? Does he agree that such behaviour is sour grapes on the part of disaffected fathers?
    Mr. Burt: The work of some of the groups that oppose the CSA has, sadly, undermined their cause. There are proper ways of expressing dissent and concern about Acts of Parliament, which many hon. Members have experienced in the form of proper letters from concerned parents. Those groups that have formed themselves deliberately to seek to wreck the work of the agency and which have put intense pressure on individual members of the agency and sent unpleasant and dangerous things through the post should realise that they do their case no good.
    Ms Eagle: Does the Minister appreciate that the chief executive of the CSA does her case no good by taking three or four months to answer letters from Members of Parliament? She then fills those letters with drivel and things that we already know. Will the Minister give an undertaking now that the chief executive will improve the service to Members and will deal with the issues that we raise instead of sending out useless propaganda?
    Mr. Burt: From some of the questions that I hear from Opposition Members, it seems clear that they need more information, not less.
    The chief executive and I acknowledge that the service to Members has not been as good as it should be. Steps are being taken by the agency to ensure that it is improved. The chief executive and I apologise for letters that have been sent out too slowly and we are determined to ensure that the service is better. The provision of information in those letters should be carefully noted by Opposition Members, as it is information which they sometimes badly need.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his plans for housing benefit.
    Mr. Lilley: My Department is conducting a fundamental review of all social security expenditure. No decisions have been taken affecting housing benefit since the changes announced in the social security uprating statement last year.
    Mr. Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that housing benefit is paid in future at levels sufficient both to relieve the current poverty trap whereby families struggling to improve their incomes in work are penalised at rates of up to 97 per cent., and to induce investors to finance more accommodation for rent, which is badly needed to reduce homelessness and to improve the efficiency of the labour market?
    Mr. Lilley: The growth in expenditure on housing benefit has been great. My hon. Friend knows that it covers 100 per cent. of the value of rents and the withdrawal is simply in relation to people's incomes. If the withdrawal rate were alleviated, the cost would be even greater still. A balance must always be struck between the overall cost of the benefit and its impact in terms of disincentives on those who receive it.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the huge growth in expenditure on housing benefit is a direct result of the policies pursued by the Department of the Environment, which has withdrawn subsidy for rented accommodation and forced higher rent levels? Would not it be outrageous if people who were having the greatest difficulty in meeting high rents were to be penalised by cuts in housing benefit, when the Government pledged that housing benefit was there to take the strain of higher rents?
    Mr. Lilley: That is one of the factors, but our policy has been to move from subsidising bricks and mortar to subsidising people. As I said, they receive 100 per cent. of the cost. The hon. Gentleman may prefer to subsidise things rather than help people but our priority is the other way round.
    Mr. Thurnham: In view of the rising cost of housing benefit, will my right hon. Friend look at ways of administering and controlling housing benefit on an area basis rather than paying unlimited personal benefit, which the Opposition love?
    Mr. Lilley: A modest change which I announced in the social security uprating means that, in future, rent officers will be asked to give the level of rents that are too great for housing benefit to be reimbursed if they are given in a particular area. That is to be done on an area-by-area basis and will provide guidance to local authorities on where they should direct housing benefit expenditure.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he estimates the savings will be on his departmental budget arising from the introduction of incapacity benefit in each of the first three years starting with its introduction in April 1995.
    Mr. Scott: Our latest estimates are that the net savings in benefit expenditure will be £415 million in 1995–96; £1.2 billion 1996–97; and £1.7 billion in 1997–98.
    Mr. Pickthall: Is not it contemptible that the Government should make those savings at the expense of the most vulnerable section of our community, especially in the wake of VAT on domestic fuel and changes to vehicle excise duty? Is not it contemptible that, under the changes, a parent under the age of 40 with two children could lose up to £45 for a period of 24 weeks? Is not the Minister ashamed to put such measures through Parliament?
    Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman should be as aware as the rest of the House that expenditure on the present invalidity benefit rose from £2.7 billion to £6.1 billion in real terms over the past decade. It was essential to get that expenditure under control. We are committed to retaining proper provision for genuine long-term sick and disabled people.
    Mr. Bradley: At a time when the Government are trailing measures to reduce unemployment, will the Minister confirm that, on the Government's own estimates, the cuts in invalidity benefit will result in at least another 200,000 people on the dole queues?
    Mr. Scott: I certainly would not deny the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given. I would say that, in the first year, the figure would be about 90,000. It is right, however, that we should have a pattern of benefits that provides back-to-work benefits for those who are unemployed and able to get back into work, and proper benefits for those who are sick and unable to work in the long term.

    Post Offices (Benefits Delivery)
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to maintain the continued delivery of social security benefits through a nationwide network of post offices.
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether benefits will continue to be delivered through post offices.
    Mr. Lilley: Customers will continue to be able to choose to receive their pension or other benefits at the post office. I have three clear objectives for the delivery of benefits: to give our customers the choice of where they receive their benefit; to reduce the cost of delivering that service; and to eliminate fraud.
    Mr. Arnold: Is not that good news, and does not it contradict the scaremongering at the expense of the vulnerable that we have heard from the Opposition? Does not the continued use of sub-post offices by the Department provide a firm base for those sub-post offices further to extend their business and underwrite the future viability of sub-post offices in rural and suburban areas, which are of great importance and have the strong support of Conservative Members?
    Mr. Lilley: The proposals that I announced at the sub-postmasters' conference in Bournemouth to guarantee choice to everyone and automate the payment of benefits through post offices were well received by postmasters there and throughout the country since. They are good for
    10
    post offices and offer the guarantee that we shall continue that help. They will enable post offices to widen their business by building on the back of those automated services. But they are also good for customers and taxpayers because they will help to eliminate costly fraud.
    Dr. Twinn: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his crystal clear commitment to a national network of sub-post offices? Does he agree that the scaremongering by the Opposition serves only further to undermine sub-post offices around the country? Will he now press ahead with automation and identity card systems to make sub-post offices safe places for pensioners and benefit receivers to use?
    Mr. Lilley: I certainly can promise to do that. We are seeking the involvement of the private sector to expedite the process because we believe that it can bring in both finance and expertise to the rapid delivery of these complex systems.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee no closures of sub-post offices in Wales and in my constituency?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that no one can do that. But what we have done is to offer a guarantee that there will continue to be a national automated network of sub-post offices which will be much stronger than it has ever been before.

    DSS Offices (Staff)
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the numbers of staff currently employed in DSS offices in direct contact with the public.
    Mr. Burt: Over 80 per cent. of staff across the Department are in some form of direct contact with the public, providing a caring and efficient service.
    Mrs. Roche: Will the Minister undertake to look at the numbers again, given that the Archway Tower benefits office which serves my constituency is often closed for hours at a time without notice? The complacent attitude to the number of staff is not good enough; there needs to be sufficient staff to meet the needs of the public.
    Mr. Burt: I will, indeed, look at the particular incidence that the hon. Lady mentions. But I would say that there is no complacency in the Benefits Agency, which continues to turn in good results, providing a good service. This year, it has beaten its target of, for instance, clearing income support claims within four days—it is now 3.5 days—and there is a range of other targets which it meets very well. I am sure therefore that the hon. Lady will agree that the agency does a good job serving all of its people.

    Child Support Agency
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further representations he has received concerning the Child Support Agency.
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the implementation of the Child Support Act 1991.
    Mr. Burt: I continue to receive representations from hon. Members, the public and interested organisations covering a wide range of views.
    Ms Quin: Given that the Child Support Agency has failed to apply the principle of ability to pay, is it surprising that it risks becoming the greatest political fiasco since the poll tax? Can the Minister tell the House how, in cases where benefit is reduced to mothers who do not give information about the father's whereabouts, that policy helps the child, who is often the wholly innocent victim in such cases?
    Mr. Burt: There are two points: first, the formula takes account of people's ability to pay, which is why it is weighted in this particular way; and, secondly, although there was a tremendous amount of worry about benefit reductions before the Act came in, the number of such cases has been extremely small. The benefit reduction lasts for only a short period and it need not happen because the provision for good cause enables any woman who fears harm or undue stress to herself or her child to take advantage of that and therefore not suffer the benefit reduction. There have been many more examples of that than of any benefit reduction.
    Mr. Bayley: Why is it right for the Child Support Act 1991 to be retrospective in the sense of setting aside clean-break settlements where, for instance, a home has been passed to the parent with care, but, at the same time, it is wrong for it to be retrospective in the sense of allowing parents with care to have their claim back-dated to the time that they made an application to the Child Support Agency? I have heard of delays of six, eight or even 10 months from the time that an application is made to when the Child Support Agency sends the forms to the absent parent. Who compensates a parent with care for 10 months with no maintenance from the CSA?
    Mr. Burt: The Child Support Agency is determined to provide as efficient a service as it can. We know from today's first report that the agency has not been able in all cases to deal with the application forms coming in and to send assessments out as quickly as it would like. A compensation scheme is available if particular delays have been caused by an error in the department, but every effort is now being made to improve the speed with which applications are dealt with. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will know that in most cases time begins to run from when the maintenance inquiry form is sent out.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that the 11 reputable charities that form the child support monitoring group recently proposed that there should be a form of maintenance disregard as they feel that that would bring the public very much behind the whole concept of the Child Support Agency? Bearing in mind the remarks made at the weekend by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who has indicated that he is attracted by that proposal, has my hon. Friend received any specific figure proposed by the hon. Gentleman as to how much that might cost?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend poses the right question. We have to date received no idea from the hon. Member for Garscadden of how any proposed disregard might be paid for. As my hon. Friend will know, a disregard of £15 a
    12
    week would cost the Exchequer about £450 million a year. So before we take serious note of what Opposition Members say, the idea needs to be properly costed.
    Dr. Spink: Can my hon. Friend confirm that 205,000 cases have been assessed so far, and that in 60 per cent. of them, an absent father was paying absolutely no maintenance for the upbringing of his children? Will he further confirm that 28,000 of those cases related to feckless fathers who had disappeared off the face of the earth, leaving no address with the children's mother; and that in 96 per cent. of cases the children had been left behind on state benefits? Finally, will he confirm that the absent fathers in question were generally enjoying a better life style than the children they had left behind?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend's figures are correct. The point is that much press attention has been paid to certain cases, which have tended to obscure the good work being done by the CSA—which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, is in the main directed towards those who previously did not pay maintenance. We have a record of finding those who, under the former system, would have been able to disappear, not paying the mothers of their children anything and leaving the full burden on the taxpayer.
    The agency needs to be seen for some of the good work that it does, as well as needing to face up to some of the difficulties, which I believe it is responsible enough to face up to.
    Mr. Llwyd: To return to the original question: if the Minister is right, and there is some reckoning of ability to pay in the system, why did the chief executive of the CSA tell the Social Services Select Committee on 2 November 1993—and I quote—
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is not in order to quote during Question Time.
    Mr. Llwyd: Why, then, did the chief executive tell the Committee that she did not have any discretion in the amounts being collected?
    Mr. Burt: She was entirely right. The formula laid down by the House sets out the amounts that people have to pay, and it is based on a percentage of people's earnings. It does not leave discretion in the hands of the agency. That was precisely the point of the changes introduced by the Child Support Act, based on the recognition that a wholly discretionary system had in the past all too often failed the mother of the child and left her with too little money. What the chief executive said was thus entirely consistent with the law.

    Departmental Budget
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the projected growth in his budget; and what plans he has to reduce it.
    Mr. Lilley: Last year, I published "The Growth of Social Security", which showed that spending on social security was set to increase in real terms by 3.3 per cent. a year up to the end of the century. Since then, I have taken steps to curb this growth so that the benefits system does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay for it.
    Mr. Robathan: I am grateful for that response. My right hon. Friend will know that many Conservative

    13
    Members believe that the inexorable growth in his budget is one of the greatest problems facing the Government and the economy today. Will he ensure that vulnerable people are not penalised by his policies, but that we continue to bring the growth in the Department's budget strictly under control?
    Mr. Lilley: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The purpose of our review is to improve the system, to guarantee the position of those who are most in need, and to make sure that the social security system does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay for it.
    Mr. Frank Field: Can the Secretary of State give the House his estimate of what the growth in social security expenditure will be following the cuts that he has announced during the past year?
    Mr. Lilley: In response to the request from the hon. Gentleman, I will certainly be giving the Select Committee figures showing how the figures that I gave last year for the growth of social security spending are modified by the changes that we have announced since. These are not of course cuts; there will be continued growth in social security spending. Still, this is a move in the right direction, and I am glad to say that the figures will show some moderation in the expected growth.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the criteria used by the Child Support Agency for assessing contributions; and what proposals he has for reviewing the current arrangements.
    Mr. Burt: I have said on many occasions that the Government are keeping the child support scheme under close review, and that is still the case. We shall continue to listen to representations from all sources, but we have no specific plans for changes at this stage.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that many fathers find it difficult to understand or accept that clean-break settlements already entered into are not fully taken into account by the Child Support Agency? Is he further aware that many young fathers are troubled because the full cost of contributing to their pension schemes is not properly taken into account and nor is the cost of travelling to work, which is substantial—certainly in my part of the world?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes his points well. We are aware of people's concerns on specific parts of the formula. Each of my hon. Friend's points was answered last year by the Select Committee, which explained that it was difficult to take everything into account in the formula without running the risk of going back to the former system in which priority of payment for the child was low. None the less, I listen carefully to my hon. Friend's points, as do the Government. The commitment to keep the scheme under careful review should also apply to the matters that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Israel (Scientific Links)
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he is taking to improve Britain's scientific links with Israel in areas of mutual interest.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): On 23 June, together with the Israeli Minister for Science, I launched the United Kingdom-Israel Science and Technology Research Fund for joint strategic research projects, for which the UK and Israeli Governments have each made available a sum of £300,000 over a period of three years. These resources are to be matched by another £300,000 from philanthropic sources over the same period.
    Mr. Merchant: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his steps to increase scientific co-operation between Britain and Israel. That is especially appropriate as the peace process gathers strength. May I encourage him to look at ways of extending the present programme beyond its initial three years?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. The scheme will benefit British and Israeli science and many will benefit from the work. The initial calls for proposals were issued today. We had better see how the scheme goes before we extend it beyond three years, but I have every hope that a good start will be made and that co-operation will develop.
    Mr. Gunnell: Can the Chancellor of the Duchy assure me that the areas of mutual interest do not include any aspect of armaments, nuclear or non-nuclear? Can he also assure me that the recent change in the Government's position on the sale of armaments to Israel will not affect that issue as far as scientific co-operation is concerned?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The announcement to which I have referred is about civil science.
    Mr. Batiste: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts in this important initiative. Can he confirm that private sector funding for the scheme has already been made available? Will he also confirm that the initiative, which comes at the end of the arms embargo on Israel, is an important signal to British industry and to academia that this is the right time to enter into new business, trading, research and scientific links with Israel to our mutual benefit?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I should like to pay tribute to the contributors from private philanthropic funds who have joined the two Governments in this. The Hanadiv, the famous Rothschild Foundation, has contributed money, as have others. I think that other hon. Members believe that the stance taken by the current Israeli Government is brave and should be supported. As those who follow these matters know, Mr. Shulamit Aloni, the Israeli Minister of Science, has taken an honourable role in seeking to build bridges in the middle east.

    Civil Service Morale
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what surveys he has made of the morale of the civil service.
    Mr. Waldegrave: None.
    Mr. Enright: Is not the Secretary of State aware that the continual privatisation and quangoisation of the civil service has reduced it from being the envy of the world to being something like a south American banana republic? Does not he realise that in some of the semi-public bodies dishonesty is ticking away like a time bomb and that it is about time he did something about it?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish. The reforms to the British civil service that are being carried through maintain the quality of service but also develop new and much more flexible ways of getting value for money for the taxpayer. That is why people are coming here from all over the world, including the United States, to consult us about taking forward similar reforms.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the civil service code expressly prohibits civil servants from taking part in surveys that reflect their attitudes or opinions of political and policy matters? Is not it right that those rules have been in existence for successive Administrations and that they are essential to maintain the integrity and independence of the civil servant?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that my hon. Friend is right and that the rules, which have been maintained by Governments of both parties, should be respected and maintained.
    Mr. Meacher: But is it surprising that morale in the civil service has now slumped to an all-time low when, for example, only in the past few weeks, it has been reported that there is to be a political crackdown on the Home Office research unit because its research findings do not square with the prejudices of the Home Secretary; when 10,000 jobs are likely to be lost by the administrative transfer of the job seeker's allowance from one Department to another; when consultants are brought in at a cost of £500 million to the taxpayer, because Ministers no longer trust their civil servants; and when senior civil servants are now expected to compromise their neutrality by advising on the political network to rebut criticism, for example, of the Government's Green Paper on homelessness? Are not those the real and shameful reasons why the right hon. Gentleman will not allow a survey of morale and attitudes in the civil service? Is not he making an absolutely farce of his role as Minister for open government?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As on the occasion when he brandished a leaked letter demonstrating the superior confidentiality of the public sector, the hon. Gentleman seems to me to have demonstrated in what he said exactly why the rules, which were originally set out by a Labour Government, are wise, because he would not have the good sense not to exploit any results for party political purposes, thereby putting the civil service right in the middle of the political firing line. He is the exact embodiment of why we are right to stick to the rules that were laid down originally by a Labour Government.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Minister nevertheless agree that fundamental changes are taking place in the role of civil servants and the role of appointed bodies in the way in which the Administration is now run in this country? Is not it time for a commission of some sort to be set up to look at the relationship between those areas and Ministers, the political nature of that relationship and its accountability to the House?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that we need another quango to do that. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee is looking at those matters. It is no secret; we have announced that the Government are about to publish a White Paper that will cover some of the same issues. The House and the Government can deal with the matter without setting up new commissions.

    Engineering
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the Institute of Civil Engineers to discuss the role of engineering in the economy.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): My right hon. Friend last met the institute for discussions of that kind in September 1993.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the success of the civil engineering industry in winning contracts abroad? Is not that good for jobs in Britain and for the balance of payments?
    Mr. Davis: I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to that industry. He referred to its success abroad, but on our doorstep we have an even bigger symbol of that success—the channel tunnel, which is the largest civil engineering project this century. The lion's share of the work was won by the British construction industry. It is because of the success of that industry that we have one of the Foresight panels on construction, with three members of the institute that he mentioned on it.
    Dr. Moonie: Can—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] Can the Minister confirm that it is not the role of the science budget to cover up for deficiencies in spending in the Department of Trade and Industry? Will he confirm, as the Secretary of State did a few weeks ago, that peer review will remain the sole criterion for allocation of resources within the research councils?
    Mr. Davis: In light of the rather desultory cheering from the Benches behind the hon. Gentleman, I am surprised that he is keen on peer review. The answer to his question is certainly yes. The Department of Trade and Industry is changing its emphasis from the generation of new ideas to the exploitation of technology and technology transfer, which is as it should be.

    Charter Mark
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the eligibility of trade unions to receive a charter mark; and how many unions have received them.
    Mr. David Davis: Trade unions are not eligible to apply for the charter mark. Eligibility is confined to public sector organisations and privatised utilities that provide a service to the public.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that as a result of this Government's employment legislation over the past 15 years, trade unions behave in a far less irresponsible way than they did in the dark days of the 1970s? Does he agree that if trade unions could be awarded charter marks, neither the National Union of Teachers, with its disgraceful boycott of school tests, nor the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, which is holding passengers to ransom with its wholly unreasonable demands, would stand a cat's chance in hell of being awarded a charter mark?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend makes his point in his own inimitable way and I do not quarrel with it. Although one hears all the time criticisms from the Opposition about shortfalls here and there, one never hears criticisms from them of the RMT, NUT or any other of their trade union sponsors that mess up the interests of the public and undermine the country's economic interests. That is the best indicator of their commitment to public reform.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it nothing short of disgraceful that 250 Tory Members of Parliament criticise signalmen and others who are fighting for an average wage when many Tory Members have four, five or six jobs moonlighting? They are not satisfied with their £31,000 a year, but prop up tin-pot charter marks and pay Railtrack's boss £120,000 a year for a three-day week. That is nothing short of contemptible.
    Mr. Davis: One can see the sponsorship of the National Union of Mineworkers standing there. The truth is that the RMT is behaving in an irresponsible manner and holding the public to ransom. We never hear criticism of that union—be it from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) or the ever-absent hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

    Public Services League Table
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in what way the introduction of league tables in public services is helping to raise service standards.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Publication of comparative information is of immense value to those seeking to raise standards in their public service organisation, such as schools and colleges. I much welcome the recent publication of tables on the performance of hospitals and ambulance authorities. I am sure that the national health service will respond in a positive way to that important development.
    Mrs. Lait: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all hospitals will respond to that information and improve standards? Does he further agree with a leader that appeared in The Guardian last week, which called the publication of those tables a milestone and commented that both main Opposition parties had made fools of themselves?
    Mr. Meacher: What about The Daily Telegraph?
    Mr. Waldegrave: In spite of the allegation by the distinguished classicist, the hon. Member for Oldham,
    18
    West (Mr. Meacher), I do read The Guardian. I not only read the leader to which my hon. Friend referred but one published the week before, which predicted the Opposition's response:
    "Predictably, MPs from both main Opposition parties (as well as the BMA) are lining up to make fools of themselves."
    As my hon. Friend rightly said, they did make fools of themselves.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is not it ironic that a hospital that received a five-star rating for its waiting list last week has as one of its patients Mrs. Megan Thompson, one of my constituents, who was told that she had to wait until 1999 before she could even get on a waiting list? Does not that imply cheating somewhere?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As usual, such cases need to be looked at extremely closely. If it turns out that that case is as the hon. Lady said, something has gone seriously wrong. As the hon. Lady rightly said, the hospital in question has an extremely good performance record. It is most ironical that, as always, even the hon. Lady—who often knows better—is doing what The Guardian rightly described as seeking to stop patients having important information that they have a democratic right to know. Why does the hon. Lady do that?
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that publishing league tables for hospitals and other services is not about finding winners and losers, but about bringing everyone's standards up to the best standards in that particular service?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. There are many examples that I could cite. Last Friday The Oxford Times said that the health authority's immediate response was to take action to improve the standards in the league tables which, in one or two respects, were not good enough. That is the right response. Information must be published and action taken to put right cases, such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), where standards are inadequate.

    Charters
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many charters there are currently; what plans there are to increase that number; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Davis: Some 39 charters have been published under the citizens charter. New charters covering further and higher education in Northern Ireland and London Buses will be published later this year. We revised three of the existing charters in the past month, and we plan to revise six more by the end of September.
    Mr. Llwyd: Given the current position in the farming industry throughout the United Kingdom, particularly Wales, where many tens of thousands of farmers have their premiums and support payments paid nine and 10 months late, will the Minister agree to have a word with his right hon. and hon. Friends in other Departments to see whether there is a case for a farmers charter?
    Mr. Davis: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the subject. He will find that the agriculture department of the Welsh Office is to publish a charter statement later this year. That statement will include subjects such as the

    19
    administrative turn round on applications for grants and the handling of those grants. I think that that should meet the hon. Gentleman's worries.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the majority of work on charters is done behind the scenes? Does he agree that the raising of standards is often achieved by boards meeting to ensure that they comply with the charters? Will he commend the Kent fire brigade and Kent police for winning charter marks and for their tremendous efforts in trying to persuade other public services to do the same?
    Mr. Davis: I commend my hon. Friend for securing his question earlier than it appears on the Order Paper. He is absolutely right: the people who make the charters work are the public servants who deliver the public service in this country today. He is fortunate in that Kent has at least six charter mark winners who do a good job, not only in improving their own public service, but in running a charter network that enables other people to copy best practice and devise best practices for their own parts of the public service. Kent is an extremely good example for the rest of the country.
    Mr. Winnick: There should be a new charter mark for particular excellence given to the Bishop of Birmingham for his excellent remarks yesterday about the way in which the health service is being constantly undermined. Would not it be appropriate for the Minister in charge of charters to write to the Bishop of Birmingham to congratulate him on the manner in which he stood up for, and spoke in defence of, the health service which, as he said, is being constantly undermined by the Government?
    Mr. Davis: I should be delighted to hear from the said bishop about what he has to say to the 1 million extra patients who have been treated in the health service since the reforms. I should also like to hear what he has to say to the 40,000 people who were waiting more than two years for an operation before the reforms. That figure is now down to fewer than a few hundred. I should be interested to hear what the bishop has to say about that.

    Citizens Charter League Tables
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he has had in relation to league tables provided under the citizens charter initiatives.
    Mr. David Davis: There has been great interest in the tables on the performance of schools and colleges, with more than 1 million copies distributed each year. Parents, pupils and employers value the information and the informed choices that it enables them to make. Patients of the NHS will quickly find the new tables on hospital and ambulance performance similarly useful.
    Those who use or pay for public services are entitled to know the performance of those services. Under the citizens charter, more and better information about the performance of public services in being provided, to make them directly accountable to the people who pay for them.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Financial Times leader which welcomed the league tables and said that they were a spur to a better service and discipline? The Financial Times also stated that the Labour party had no policy on comparisons for customers.
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. So far today, the Financial Times and The Guardian have spoken on our behalf, but I suspect that I should lead with the views of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who has said:
    "parents should have as much information as possible…parents should know how well their kids are doing…the kids should be properly assessed".
    At some point in the future, the hon. Gentleman will have to back that up with some detail—a feature which has been eminently missing in the past few weeks.
    Mr. Barnes: May we have a league table for Ministers? Would any of them score any points, and could they all be relegated in one fell swoop?
    Mr. Davis: The Conservative party does not elect a shadow Cabinet, which is just as well, in view of the results.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the 14 motions—
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was aware of that.
With permission, I shall put together the 14 motions on statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

Statutory Instruments, &c.

  RATING AND VALUATION
  That the draft Alcan Aluminium UK Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft British Gas plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft British Telecommunications plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Forth Ports plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Scottish Power plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  Question agreed to.
  Madam Speaker: Now, let me deal with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Perhaps he will not be so impatient in the future.
  Mr. Banks: I cannot necessarily guarantee that, Madam Speaker.
  On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It actually concerns you: I am rather worried about you. I do not know whether you read in the newspapers over the weekend and today about the alarming deterioration in the quality of London's air. You may have to breathe more central London air than the rest of us, who can retreat to our leafy constituencies in places such as Newham. Given, however, that we have Health questions tomorrow, and given that the matter involves you and your health, could you arrange for an appropriate Minister to make a statement about the quality of the air in London and elsewhere? We should probably all have to be dead before the present Government recognised the existence of even a slight problem.
  Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do his best to catch my eye tomorrow. As far as I am concerned, the air at Wimbledon this weekend was fine for me.

Opposition Day
[16TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Child Support Agency
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Because of the great interest in today's debate, I have had to limit speeches to 10 minutes between 6 pm and 8 pm. I ask hon. Members who speak outside those hours to exercise some voluntary restraint; then I may be able to call them all.
  3.32 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
  That this House believes a parent has a duty to contribute to the maintenance of his or her child, and that duty must be at the heart of any system of child support; recognises the anger and dismay felt by many families whose lives have been adversely affected by the activities of the Child Support Agency in its first year of operation, the collapse of public confidence in the system and the ever-increasing administrative problems besetting the Agency; and calls for an urgent and fundamental review to eliminate injustice by tackling key areas of concern such as the inflexibility of the financial formula, the failure to recognise, in calculating maintenance, financial and property transfers at the time of divorce or separation, the lack of an independent appeal procedure and the need to protect the interests of children in whose name the system was introduced.
  The Opposition tabled the motion, and devoted a day of Opposition time to the Child Support Agency, because we feel—and I suspect that our feeling is widely shared—that we cannot allow the situation to drift. Discontent can be found on every side, in every constituency in the land, and support for the agency is vanishing at an alarming rate. Tolerance is in increasingly short supply; public confidence is collapsing, and public anger is rising. I believe that any Government who pursue a "wait and see" policy at this point are fuelling the crisis and playing a very dangerous game.
  When we have tried repeatedly to raise the matter at Question Time and during debates, the reaction has been unsatisfactory. To be fair, the Under-Secretary of State—who occasionally gives a good impression of the White Rabbit, running around in anxious confusion—has shown worried concern, but in the background has been the glacial silence of the Secretary of State for Social Security.
  This morning, we have seen the agency's annual report and business plan. It is remarkable that it is here at all: on 22 April, the agency's chief executive told me that it would be published by "late summer". It would be extremely unfair, however, to complain about its arriving earlier than expected. I think that there has been some honesty about the report, and credit has been given for that. The agency admits that it has made mistakes, that its performance is substandard and that it will have to do better. Mrs. Ros Hepplewhite writes in the foreword:
  "Many things went well"—
  which is questionable—
  "but there were other areas where we needed to make improvements. Overall our standards of service did not reach acceptable levels and we did not achieve some of our key targets. We apologise to our clients for the difficulties they have experienced because of our shortcomings."
  24
  It is unusual for such a note to be struck in an official report. Indeed, the evening papers carry the headline "Child Agency Says Sorry". Many people will feel that an apology is merited, but that that is not enough in itself and that there must be changes to the way in which the system operates.
  The annual report is unsatisfactory because it gives remarkably little information about what has been happening and, in some ways, adds to the confusion. In a number of areas, it contradicts what we had understood and had been told to be the position. It gives an incomplete picture of the agency's financial results and activities. It is inadequate, and it mirrors the chaos that is convulsing the system. I and, I am sure, many other hon. Members looked for fundamental facts—what one might describe as backbone statistics—such as how much maintenance the agency had collected in its first year of operation and how much had been paid by parents as a result of assessments that had been levied.
  Despite the interesting intervention by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security during Question Time, few of us will have any confidence that we have a clear and definitive picture of the position. It is very much through a glass darkly, and a great deal of confusion reigns. I give notice to the Minister that we will pursue the points that the Under-Secretary made and we shall be looking for a very full response.
  Let us not forget that it was estimated originally that, in the first year of operation, £530 million would be paid in maintenance, £480 million of which would go in benefit reduction to the Treasury. That £530 million collected was translated, rather mysteriously, into £530 million-worth of benefit savings—a fact which was drawn to my attention by a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 28 March.
  In reply to another parliamentary question, this time from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), which appeared in Hansard on 12 May at column 235, we received another set of figures. Benefit savings were to amount to £335 million, but probably more because at least some, to use the jargon of the moment, would be scored retrospectively.
  The scene was further complicated by the fact that £195 million of that £335 million came not from CSA assessments but from assessments carried out by the liable benefits section in the previous year. We now hear that benefit savings will be £418 million. It is important that we know to what extent that hides a figure that is not the responsibility of the agency. I am sure that either the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary can supply the answer.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he was looking for facts, and I agree about the need to do so, but he also condemned the wait-and-see attitude. He has adopted such an attitude. He has been telling many groups that he supports the maintenance disregard. How much would be disregarded by the Labour party? Will he give the House the figure, rather than adopt a wait-and-see attitude?
  Mr. Dewar: I shall deal with the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] The hon. Gentleman thinks that he has made a devastating point, but we shall come to it in a minute or two.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. He said in the House on 2 February:
  "Opposition Members must live with the fact that implementation is not easy and will inevitably cause problems and difficulties. I entirely accept that; there is no way that we can escape from that."—[Official Report, 2 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 949.]
  Does he stand by that, or will his speech amount to an escape from it?
  Mr. Dewar: The answer to the last question is no. I have never retreated from the fact that there would be real difficulties in introducing this system, just as I never retreated from the fact that parents have a duty to contribute to the maintenance of their children. I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulties of being unpopular, and I have been booed off more platforms on this issue than on any other because I have tried to stand by what I have said and the difficulties that I have anticipated. I am not ashamed of that. I accept that there are problems, but it seems that they are being worsened because of a persistence with parts of the system that are clearly causing injustice and difficulty. We must therefore move on constructively to find answers to those problems.
  Mr. Simon Burns rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I owe it to the House to push on.
  As I said, the original prediction was £530 million, which then became £335 million; but the agency's letter of 27 May, which has been in the newspapers a great deal as a result of my activities and which was put there in good faith, suggests that the expected total collected would be £210 million, of which £203 million would be benefit savings—£3 million would go to children, while £4 million was unallocated.
  In my defence, I stress to the House that I spoke twice to the office of the CSA's chief executive, and it stood by the figures. The Minister has now popped up and put a very different complexion on them. I want to examine the matter carefully, but I am still deeply sceptical about the amount of money that is going to children, simply because the system as it stands insists that those children most at risk economically, of whom there are a very large number living in households dependent on income support, are very unlikely—I put it no higher than that—to benefit financially because of the £1 for £1 clawback.
  I recognise that there are a few cases in which the family will be floated off income support and will benefit from the probably small amount of maintenance over and above the income support level which they can retain. I make no apology for saying that I do not know how many are involved, because when I tabled a question to the Secretary of State on this issue, I was told that the figure was not available and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost. I regret that, because it is a fundamental figure, especially as Ministers have repeatedly paraded the fact that a certain number of families are being taken off income support as a primary justification for the system. Against that background, it is especially unfortunate that we are not being provided with figures to illustrate the truth or otherwise of that point.
  I want to finish with the statistics on an important point. I am sure that hon. Members have studied the report that has just been published and will have seen that £210 million—the figure that I was given on 27 May—has suddenly become £310 million. That is still substantially
  26
  below the figure given earlier in May to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). It may be because the £310 million excluded any revenue from assessments under the liable relative section. However, there are many discrepancies, and a better explanation must be given before those figures carry any conviction.
  I ask the House to consider an important point. The report states that not only is the estimate of the amount of money being paid under assessments £310 million—£100 million up on what I had been told so recently—but that only £14.8 million has been handled by the agency itself, which seems an astonishingly small amount when measured against the £310 million. We are also told, without any explanation, that the savings in benefit arising from the £310 million collected amount to £418 million. At the very least, I should have thought it important to explain how £310 million paid in benefit under assessments could result in benefit savings as high as £418 million—it is a saving not just of £1 for £1 but of well over £1 for £1.
  It may be—I want to be fair to Ministers—that the figure refers to the number of assessments that were not completed because of the withdrawal of claims for income support. I accept that some of those may be what, in the jargon of the day, are called collusive desertions, but it seems implausible that the extraordinary gap between the money collected and the benefit savings can be explained in that way. I very much hope that the Minister will make a fist at an explanation, because the figures read peculiarly at the moment.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that there is something wrong in the Department of Social Security being reimbursed out of recoveries made by the Child Support Agency. Surely he accepts that, if a child is on benefit, the right person to support that child is the absent parent and not the taxpayer? As we all know, many taxpayers are themselves on low incomes and have their own children to bring up.
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) is being very kind to me by asking an extremely easy question. I merely have to repeat what I have said on almost every occasion when I have addressed the issue. I accept, of course, that there is a duty to pay maintenance and, as I have always said, there is a legitimate interest on the part of the Treasury, or on the part of the taxpayer, if the hon. Gentleman prefers to put it that way—Ministers do, understandably. What I object to is that the whole pot is scooped—to use a betting term—by the Treasury and little is left, particularly for the children who are most at risk. That is the point that I have repeatedly tried to make.
  The Minister has said today, for the first time, that something short of 30 per cent.—but still a quite significant figure—is being retained by families. I do not believe that that is the right balance, but it is a lot better than any of the figures previously produced. I find it extraordinary that such an important matter was not mentioned, as far as I can recall, at any point in the report published today. It is an absolutely basic factor which we should take into account, and I am sorry that we are considering the matter on the hoof when we had the benefit of the report this morning.
  Mr. David Willetts: The hon. Gentleman has accepted that there is an obligation to pay maintenance. In the light of that, will he take this opportunity to condemn the activities of organisations such as the Network Against

  27
  The Child Support Agency, which clearly engage in intimidation and threats, and undermine the work of the CSA?
  Mr. Dewar: I make it perfectly clear that I have no sympathy with, and offer no comfort to, those who demonstrate violently, those who deface private residences and those who harass staff of the CSA who are only doing their job. None of that conduct has been, or will be, defended by me at any point.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), however, must accept—I suspect that he does—that much of the anger can be traced to difficulties in the system and to areas of concern that are proper and well founded, but which the Government have not addressed. In just a minute, I shall turn to some of those.
  Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No. I realise that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is a very keen interrupter in debates, but in this case, fair shares for all means that he will be excluded.
  The other basic question I ask the Minister to address, for which information is not available, is how much maintenance should have been paid under the assessments that have been levied. That, too, is a fundamental parameter to the argument. I understand—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—that the computer system is being adapted to gather that information at some future stage. I find it remarkable that the information is not available at the moment, and I am sorry that it is not.
  I conclude on the organisational side by saying that a vast organisation has now been built up which employs 5,200 people in Great Britain and 686 in Northern Ireland, who have been missed out of the graph that is provided in the annual report and for whom no figures appear to be supplied. Those figures represent a massive work force and I understand that 700 are to be added. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that.
  I fear that one of the difficulties is that, for many people, dialogue with the CSA has become a dialogue with the deaf or the dead. It certainly is a dialogue that has brought no satisfactory responses. I know that Ministers are seized of the point that we must bring about improvement, but I hope that we shall see that improvement quickly.
  I have no particular importance in these matters, although, tactically, correspondence with me may come to the top of heaps just to save trouble. I have found that letters that I have written in April have been answered in June. I know that that is speedy service compared with the experiences of many of my constituents. The Secretary of State in a radio studio today sitting at my side—a most unlikely scenario into which nothing should be read—described this year as a very difficult year. I think that one can say that again, and say it again.
  Another important matter is the plans for 1994–95 which are attached to the annual report. Ros Hepplewhite described them in the media at lunchtime as challenging. In some ways, I find them a little depressing. I have four points to make about them. First, I notice that the net expenditure this year of £106 million—well below expectations; we ought to be grateful for that—will increase next year to £184 million. That is a spectacular increase in costs by any standards.
  28
  Secondly, the target for client satisfaction remains the same in 1994–95 as it was in 1993–94, at 65 per cent. I note from the report for 1993–94 that the satisfaction index achieved was 61 per cent. I greet that with stark disbelief. Even if it is a genuine figure, 65 per cent. is not exactly a dramatic improvement on it. That is disappointing. Can the Secretary of State assure me that exactly the same basis of calculation of the satisfaction index is used for the CSA and other Government agencies and other parts of the public sector? That is a fairly technical question, but I put it briefly to the Minister. Satisfaction ratings are a common form of machinery. I want to be satisfied that the satisfaction index is calculated in an exactly comparable fashion.
  Thirdly, no more than 40 per cent. of outstanding maintenance applications are to take more than 91 days or 13 weeks. That is a serious matter. At present, 42 per cent. take more than 100 days. So the target for next year is not a dramatic change. The Minister knows that the problem with the extended time limit is that arrears mount up frighteningly. Many people can find themselves setting out on a career as a client of the Child Support Agency with £800, £900 or £1,000 of arrears. I immediately recognise that some of the most difficult cases have an element of non-co-operation which has contributed to the problems. However, it is essential that we get the processing time down if the Minister is to stand by the present arrangements under which the till starts ringing on the day the inquiry form goes out.
  The fourth point is the £460 million benefit saving. It is down from £530 million last year. That is perhaps realistic. Again, there is no target figure for benefit collected and no target figure in percentage or money terms for cash going to the families and children in whose name the system was introduced. I put it to the Minister that that is a sad and important lack.
  I am anxious to move on to some of the changes that we should like to see made to the Act.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No, I intend to move on.
  Ministers are determined to be unhelpful about the changes that we should like to see. Let us make it absolutely clear that the starting point was that the system was designed to help children. Again and again, the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) has referred to more money from more parents for more children. Despite the improved figures that have been thrown into the debate in the past half hour or so, I do not believe that a system advertised as giving help to children is meeting its target.
  I noticed that, in an interview rather wittily called "Doing What Is Right", which the Secretary of State gave to a magazine called Third Way, which aims to present biblical perspectives on a wide range of current issues, he said, I thought rather prophetically and acutely, that the Child Support Agency was
  "not proving as popular as some people imagined."
  I will not fight about that. He went on to say that it is men who are complaining and that
  "a lot of the articles are written by journalists who themselves .. are recipients of demands"
  from the CSA. I thought that that was a little fanciful. He continued:

  29
  "We are now getting protests from the corresponding 30,000 women who receive less money"—
  because of the changes last February. He then said:
  "we hear very little at all from the children, who are the people who have to be our ultimate concern."
  I agree with the Minister. In this system, the children were always to be our ultimate concern. It was to be child-centred—that was the phrase that we heard time and again. It is not child-centred, judging by the figures available to us, and I do not believe that it is child-centred judging by the figures that the Under-Secretary of State just produced.
  Will the Under-Secretary of State say whether he is satisfied? He gave us a figure that was below a third—on the figures that he mentioned, it was probably not much more than 25 per cent. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether he regards that as a sensible and satisfactory equilibrium. We do not, and that is why we have always argued that a disregard should be on the agenda.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dewar: No, I shall not give way. Will hon Members just sit down?
  A disregard should be considered. It is of particular importance to the people whom the Minister looks to for support and help—the Child Poverty Action Group, the National Council for One Parent Families, Gingerbread and a large number of people who want some recognition of children's needs.
  If the Minister is not prepared to consider the principle of the matter, he might at least consider the tactical advantages of making a concession that would make the system seem relevant to the people who are caught up in it, and win him many friends—friends he badly needs.
  In principle, the disregard should be on the agenda and in any package. I do not know what the cost figures will be [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Let me tell the House why.
  Mr. David Shaw: The hon. Member is avoiding stating an amount.
  Mr. Dewar: No, not at all. I cannot get the figures from the Government. The Under-Secretary of State may recall that I got a parliamentary answer, which was presumably based on the assumption that the Child Support Agency was meeting its targets and would ultimately produce a collection of around £900 million. Now, none of us knows what the agency is producing, or the figures.
  Clearly, the smaller the amount of money that it produces, the less the cost of a disregard. If one had a disregard on the basis that everyone on income support and in a position to apply actually applied, and an assessment was levied and paid, one would be in big money—at both ends of the equation. What is ludicrous and intellectually dishonest is to apply that assumption to the figures that are being produced.
  I would certainly be prepared to consider and discuss with the Government the sort of figures that should be forgone, but that would have to be on the basis of practical examples and the reality. That is just one of the matters that should be dealt with, but it is by no means the only one, and I shall mention the others in short order.
  One problem is that in some cases—I am not saying it is an enormous number, but it is an important number—
  30
  there is a growing gap between the demands made in maintenance and a person's ability to pay, which poisons people's perceptions of the whole system.
  I repeat—my views are known to the Government—that we should take a long hard look at how we can make the system a little more flexible. In some cases, charges that have to be met by the parent who does not have care of the child are relevant to the child and to the break-up of the partnership. Those include the cost of access to children; mortgage payments, when the father may be paying for a house in which his children live, but he does not; disability in the family, either of the child or another member of it; and debts incurred jointly during the partnership that have to be met entirely by the father.
  Some more controversial considerations should at least be looked at—including, for example, travel-to-work costs, which I know are of particular importance to Conservative Members, because it is in no one's interests that anyone should be driven from work. Child care costs are also important.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No. I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's constituency problems relating to the CSA, and I hope that he supports many of my points. I am sure that he does. Should he be fortunate enough to catch Madam Speaker's eye, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman expressing his support not just from the Conservative Benches but in the Lobby.
  Certain considerations should be imported into the formula. Apart from that, an independent review system of the kind that is familiar in other systems should also be introduced. It is of basic fundamental importance in terms of justice that those who feel that they have a grievance or have been hard done by should have some form or system of redress. That does not mean, of course, that they will receive redress, but they should have a constitutional right to put it to the test. At present, there is no such right.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Member talks about people who feel hard done by having redress, but, as a taxpayer, I feel hard done by and so does the nation. [Interruption.] It is interesting to note that the Opposition do not want to listen to this. Yesterday, we heard a lot of talk about social and civil responsibilities, but I see little responsibility from fathers who will not pay for their children. They expect everyone who walks the streets or travels on the Clapham omnibus to pay. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that individuals should live up to the responsibility of fathering children?
  Mr. Dewar: I am very sorry to say to the hon. Gentleman that I found that a rather tiresome intervention. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not have the humility required, but it is not too difficult to construct a mainstream CSA case—many of his hon. Friends would agree with me—in which one puts oneself in the place of a man who has been asked to pay, looks at his circumstances and his second family commitments. One can then at least understand that man's feelings of frustration. If the hon. Gentleman cannot do that, he displays a level of intolerance and lack of sympathy that are not much to his credit.
  Mr. David Ashby: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to a review body, for which

  31
  I have a great deal of sympathy. I believe that, to an extent, he is right. Given the inflexibility of the rules, what will that review body be able to do? Are we not talking about going back to a domestic court, which would give a proper decision, having taken everything into account? Surely that is how the review would operate.
  Mr. Dewar: I know that the hon. Member is learned in the law, and he should consider the Australian and New Zealand examples, in which the areas against which an appeal can be tested are defined and criteria laid down that must be met. That could and should be done in this case.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No, I am getting into trouble. I will conclude my speech quickly. I am conscious of the need not to take any further interventions, because it is not fair to the House.
  An independent review procedure is important, but I understand from press speculation and heavy briefing that reform is likely to be granted on what are sometimes inaccurately called "clean break" settlements, under which substantial property or financial transfers are made. They are intended by the parties to influence maintenance, but they must be set aside and ignored by the CSA. That seems to be ludicrous.
  I know that, in his broadcast this morning, the Secretary of State sheltered behind the fact that, in its first report, the Select Committee on Social Security sympathised with him about the difficulties encountered. It is not for me to anticipate what may emerge from the second report, but it is likely that there will be some rethinking on that point—to my mind, for what it is worth, there should be. What has happened to many people has been an offence, and one which could be corrected without too much difficulty.
  I do not suggest that a disregard, an independent appeals procedure or a clean-break settlement will sweep away all the problems that we face. I read the fetching little press release put out by the Under-Secretary of State after his discussions with heads of the CSAs from New Zealand and Australia. It sounded like a comfortable set-up between a collection of old lags, but I know that it was not.
  I recognise all the difficulties and know that, after a reform package, the sun will not shine every day and the Secretary of State will not be everyone's favourite uncle. But I seriously believe that this House has a duty to tackle people's concerns if we believe that they are justified. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have reached that conclusion in large measure and the Government would be extremely unwise to refuse to recognise that point. We should take the complaints seriously.
  I was genuinely surprised to see an article in a local newspaper in the name of the Under-Secretary of State—he may not have written it himself—that produced the pet food theory. It said that there could be no form of discretion because, in the old days when we had discretion, people met the cost of their pet food before meeting the cost of feeding their children. That is not a helpful thing to say. I noticed that, in the subsequent correspondence columns of the same paper, his remarks were described as "offensive". I agree that they are offensive. We do not need to go to those extremes in building a little justice into the system. I hope that we shall make some progress on that.
  32
  The system needs friends, because disenchantment and disillusionment are growing. The Child Support Agency needs allies and must have public confidence if it is to survive. If the Government do not change the rules and the rigid framework in which the agency operates, I fear that it will not survive. Those who have looked for benefit have found none, and many of those who have looked for justice have been left waiting in vain. Too many of the demands that have been made begin to look detached from the ability to pay.
  Laws rely on consent. We are near the point—complaints made by Ministers about non-co-operation make this point—at which consent is being withdrawn and the law will become unworkable. It may surprise Tory Members to know that I do not want to reach that point. I have tabled this motion because I believe that we must make that point forcefully. The worst may still be to come, because the recent interim assessments have the power to reinforce demands. The last figure that I saw showed that only 2,600 deductions from earnings orders have been made. There are thousands more to come and the temperature is likely to rise. The House would be irresponsible if it did not take that into account.
  Action is needed fast. I pressed my colleagues for this debate because of a brief exchange that I had with the Under-Secretary of State in the House on 16 May. I asked him whether there would be a statement about the Government's intentions before we rose for the long summer recess. I asked him whether changes were on the way and whether the Government had decided to introduce a reform package, but he could not assure me on either point. I hope, for the sake of the good order of our maintenance system, that the Secretary of State will be more forthcoming when he replies to this debate.
  I said the other day that there is a danger of an embarrassment becoming a disaster. It need not happen, but it can be prevented only by building confidence and giving a genuine impression that the House and, perhaps, the Government care. I tabled this motion not to be provocative or partisan but as an opportunity to reflect on the concerns felt in every corner of the land and as a chance to press in the House and, I hope, in the Lobbies, for reform which all of us believe is necessary. It would be widely misunderstood if Parliament rose for the summer recess and hon. Members dispersed to their constituencies without debating this subject and expressing our opinions on it.
  There are many people—whether they are parents waiting for news, vocal parents struggling with a formula that they do not trust or children who, as the ultimate beneficiaries, have not yet seen any benefit—who want some sign of hope and some news. I believe that great damage will be done if we do not respond to that. The ultimate price would be if we ended up undermining the very principles of responsible parenting which the system was set up to defend. It is because I do not want that to happen that I commend the motion to the House.
  4.10 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'reaffirms its support for the principle, to which the Child Support Act 1991 and the Child Support Agency give effect, that parents should support their children where they are able to do so; accepts that the taxpayer should only have to provide this support when

  33
  parents cannot afford to; welcomes the help the Agency has already been able to give many parents with care and the support it has received from organisations representing lone parents; condemns deliberate attempts to obstruct the workings of the Agency; recognises the changes introduced in February and the urgent steps being taken to improve the service the Agency gives parents; and acknowledges the continuing concerns over child support issues and therefore welcomes the Government's commitment to continue to keep the scheme under scrutiny and to bring forward further changes should these prove necessary.'.
  I begin by welcoming the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—despite his criticisms and his desire for change—has maintained and reiterated his support for the Child Support Agency and the principles on which it is based. I know that he has been under pressure to abandon that support, and I respect him all the more for sticking to his principles.
  The Child Support Act was passed by the House on 18 July 1991 without a single dissenting vote. It has always had cross-party support. Despite all the controversy over the past year, I am still struck by the broad agreement on two key points: first, virtually everyone now accepts that parents are responsible for supporting their children and that taxpayers should be involved only to the extent that parents do not have the means to support their children; secondly, nearly everyone accepts that we cannot go back to a system which failed children, parents and taxpayers in the past.
  I recognise, however, that there are deep concerns about how the new system has been working in practice—concerns both about the impact of the formula in particular cases and about how the formula has been administered. Because of those concerns, we responded immediately to the first report of the Social Security Select Committee. We accepted the bulk of the recommendations and went further in some respects than the Committee advised, and we implemented those changes as speedily as possible at the beginning of February.
  At the same time, we made it clear that we would keep the new system under review. That is no empty form of words: my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has reaffirmed that we are prepared to make further changes if and when we are persuaded that they are necessary. Moreover, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, whose sensitive handling of this very difficult issue has won universal respect, has been consulting a range of organisations involved in the area of child support.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: Perhaps I may make a little more progress. I will certainly give way in a moment.
  The Select Committee is also carrying out a further review in the light of the first year's experience. I shall not predict the Committee's recommendations or prejudge my response, but I can give hon. Members two assurances today: first, I shall continue to uphold the principles on which the agency is based; secondly, I will consider ways positively to strengthen those principles so as to improve the agency, to ensure that it is fair and to make it more acceptable.
  Mr. William O'Brien: I appreciate the opportunity to intervene. Will the Secretary of State take into account a serious anomaly in cases where an absent father is prepared to maintain his children but is aggrieved because he also has to maintain his former wife in addition to his new
  34
  family? Is the Minister prepared to adjust that to ensure that the absent father does not need to maintain his former wife?
  Mr. Lilley: Obviously, spousal maintenance remains covered by the courts. The changes introduced for the Child Support Agency affect only child maintenance, and the Child Support Act does not cover the issue of spousal maintenance. However, I am happy to look at all the detailed points that hon. Members continue to put to me and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and to approach them in the light of the assurances that I have just given.
  Those assurances apply not least to improving the operational performance of the agency. There is no doubt that the response of our constituents to the requirement to pay maintenance has been aggravated by delays, problems of communication and other difficulties that have arisen in the first year.
  The report published today sets out very frankly the scale of those problems, their origins and the steps that we are taking to set them right. There are three reasons why the problems have arisen. The first is the sheer scale of the task which, after all, had defeated the court system. Every part of the process is new, and we needed to create a wholly new organisation.
  We are not alone in experiencing the difficulties that have cropped up during the first year. The hon. Member for Garscadden lightly dismisses the difficulties that other countries have had, but the director of the New Zealand Child Support Agency said in London last week:
  "Our first year with the Child Support Agency was extremely difficult. Faced with a reluctance on the part of many absent parents to meet their obligations and the difficulties of settling in entirely new business processes, we substantially missed our targets. Only now as we enter our third year are we beginning to turn things around."
  So our problems are not unique.
  The second cause of the delays in Britain was the changes that we introduced in February. I believe that the changes were necessary, and they were widely welcomed, but they inevitably delayed most other work, as the agency had to review every assessment already made.
  There is, however, a third reason for the problems of the agency and one which should shame all those responsible for it. The agency has been the target of organised groups deliberately trying to disrupt its work. I have no objection to people voicing criticisms of the agency and seeking to influence the Government by legitimate means of persuasion. Indeed, I have had constructive talks with groups of absent parents, from Sheffield to Plymouth and from Bradford to Bournemouth. But there are other organisations which do not seek simply to lobby for their cause. Their undisguised aim is to undo the legislation passed by this House by undermining the agency that carries it out. Their weapons are disruption, harassment and intimidation.
  One such organisation is the Network Against the Child Support Act, NACSA. In its January newsletter it called on its members to
  "delay co-operating with the CSA…make it as hard as possible for the organisation to work…fill in the assessment form with information missing…swamp the CSA staff".
  Even worse than non-co-operation are the campaigns of harassment and threatened violence directed against innocent civil servants carrying out the duties laid down by this House. I quote from a leaflet issued by another of these organisations:

  35
  "all CSA and DSS workers are targets…you can hit their homes, cars, personal lives…put them under extreme stress…ring every time you can…remember to harass, insult, swear".
  I pay tribute to the courage and dedication of Ros Hepplewhite and all her staff for carrying on in the face of such attacks. No one can tolerate people who send hypodermic needles, razor blades and excrement through the post to innocent officials.
  I am glad to say that the Select Committee did not stand for it and the hon. Member for Garscadden, to his credit, has not stood for it either. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's repeated opposition to it today and I give the House and CSA staff my promise that we will not stand for it. The Child Support Agency will not be deflected from its task by these groups.
  Ms Liz Lynne: No one would condone the sort of attacks that the right hon. Gentleman has been describing, but I should like some reassurances from the Secretary of State for my constituents. Besides the people who are setting out to destroy the agency, there are many others with perfectly genuine cases. Some of my constituents have been waiting several months for their appeals to be heard. Meanwhile, they are experiencing a great deal of difficulty supporting their second families. One mother has been waiting since October—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that interventions are for asking questions or making brief comments. I fear that she is trying to jump the gun and make a speech. If she wants to catch my eye later, I suggest that she brings her comments to a close.
  Ms Lynne: What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about the Child Support Agency? My constituents are extremely worried.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady is right: a lot of people who are behaving perfectly lawfully have concerns. Those concerns are aggravated by delays, which are made worse by campaigns of non-compliance. Those matters are all interlinked; that is why we are determined to ensure that the campaigns of non-compliance, harassment and intimidation do not work.
  Dr. Spink: Before my right hon. Friend moves away from the subject of non-compliance campaigns and wilful obstructors, may does he agree that we need more interim assessments and attachments of earnings so that we may care better for the mothers and children who are left without maintenance?
  Mr. Lilley: Yes, we certainly want to do anything that will bring about better compliance. We are doing that, and greater use is being made of direct deduction from earnings. I shall explain in full what we are doing to try to cope with the problems.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I shall give way when I have answered the points already raised by hon. Members.
  The emerging operational and compliance problems became increasingly apparent before Christmas. Therefore, with Mrs. Hepplewhite, I took steps to strengthen the management structure, appointing a new senior operations director and senior managers seconded from leading consultants. The agency then developed a plan to get its
  36
  operations back on track. That plan aims to restore to the service the speed, effectiveness and sensitivity that parents and hon. Members have the right to expect. I approved that and secured the necessary resources, and the first steps were implemented in February.
  The plan involves more staff, streamlining the handling of inquiries, and better working practices. It has five main points. First, we are giving staff better information technology support. Secondly, we are hiring new staff and putting 400 staff on a dedicated service to handle telephone inquiries. That will mean a better service for parents and for hon. Members without disrupting maintenance work. Thirdly, we are deferring the take-on this year of 100,000 existing income support cases while we tackle the backlog. Fourthly, we are setting up specialised teams to clear the backlog. Fifthly, and finally, we are copying the best practice in each of the six Child Support Agency centres and making sure that it is used in all of them.
  Mr. Ashby: My right hon. Friend will understand that I should like to dissociate the organised opposition about which he spoke from the opposition in my constituency, which is constructive, helpful and useful to me. A topic which comes up time and again is the benefit fraud by many wives. When fathers reasonably try to tackle that fraud they are told that there is not time to do it now and that it will not be tackled until September. Benefit fraud is not being dealt with at all. Once we tackle that, we shall tackle many of the objections to the Child Support Agency.
  Mr. Lilley: I agree with my hon. Friend and I dissociate ordinary law-abiding people with legitimate and often strongly held complaints from those who indulge in organised disruption. My hon. Friend makes a valuable point about the aggravation of concern in cases in which one parent thinks that the other is fraudulently claiming benefit. In the past two months, 2,200 such cases have been referred by the CSA to the Benefits Agency which says that that is resulting in a significant number of benefit cases being altered or withdrawn. I shall deal with the full scale of that problem in a moment.
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lilley: Perhaps I may be allowed to make a little progress between interventions.
  We have evidence that our changes are beginning to work. We have provisional figures for the first quarter of this year—April, May and June. Compared with last year, they show that we are completing maintenance assessments twice as fast. We have doubled the number of cases in which we are enforcing maintenance. Hon. Members will particularly welcome the fact that we have cleared more parliamentary correspondence in the first quarter of this year than in the whole of last year, although it is still not being cleared as speedily as we would wish. We intend to get back to our targets by the end of this Session.
  The organised campaigns against the Child Support Agency have failed, and such campaigns will not stop us delivering the results that parents deserve and hon. Members expect. We have a long way to go and I am sure that this will not be the last debate before we get there. But performance is improving and more maintenance is at last being paid.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Although I deplore what has happened to members of the Government—people sending things through the post—I am extremely concerned that my constituents cannot afford medicine which keeps them alive. I have letters from constituents who cannot afford the medicine because of the amount of money that the CSA is taking off them. Surely to God that is not right. We should leave people with enough money to survive on and at least have their medication. I will provide the Minister with the letters, but I am sure that I shall still get the same reply: nothing will be done.
  Mr. Lilley: I will certainly look at any correspondence that the hon. Gentleman sends me on that, but he must be aware that, because of the protected income system, virtually every absent parent and his or her second family will be at a standard of living significantly above that of the lone parent caring for his or her children and dependent on income support. Some 1 million lone parents are dependent on income support, and remarkably little concern has been shown by Opposition Members for the steps that we are taking to ensure that those parents receive adequate maintenance in future.
  Mr. John Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree with some of the figures announced recently in The Economist showing that the proportion of lone mothers receiving support from the fathers had halved during the past 10 years, and that that trend shows no sign of tracking the levels in unemployment? Will he say something about free will in all this? If the CSA did not exist, would we not still be seeing in our surgeries the mothers of the first families who do not receive support? Whether the CSA existed or not, going for a second family, having abandoned the first, surely means opting for a life of comparative poverty. We would then see the casualties in a different set of circumstances.
  Mr. Lilley: I agree with all those points, and they should be borne well in mind by those who think that justification inevitably lies with all the complaints that we receive.
  There is no doubt that concerns about the work of the agency have been exacerbated by a number of misconceptions about its work. Some people have claimed that it has been tackling only parents who have been paying maintenance. That is untrue. In some 60 per cent. of cases taken on so far, the absent parent was paying no regular maintenance at all. Others have claimed that we have done nothing to track down the so-called "feckless fathers". That, too, is incorrect. We have traced 85 per cent. of absent parents for whom the parent with care had no address. That is 32,000 people.
  There are, of course, also cases in which we are asking fathers already paying some maintenance to pay more. The 1990 White Paper spelt out the fact that one of the aims of the new system was
  "to produce maintenance payments that are realistically related to the costs of caring for a child."
  That was not happening before the CSA was set up. There is no more conclusive proof of that than the fact that 96 per cent. of the children for whom we are seeking maintenance have been dependent on benefit, whether or not they were receiving a modicum of maintenance.
  As has been mentioned, a number of hon. Members have found that their constituents' resentment of the
  38
  agency is heightened when one parent believes that the other is fraudulently claiming benefit. I can assure the House that the Benefits Agency investigates such claims, but for reasons of confidentially it clearly cannot report the outcome of specific cases to the parents who reported them. Those claims are being investigated at the rate of more than 1,000 a month, which is leading to a significant number of benefit alterations and withdrawals.
  There is no doubt, too, that the agency's work has had a beneficial impact in reducing the level of fraudulent claims in the first place. In the first year, some 44,000 parents withdrew income support claims within a month of being contacted by the agency. In some cases, that would have been just a coincidence. In others, however, the parent may have been claiming as a lone parent while living with the child's father or with someone else, or was receiving adequate but undeclared maintenance and realised that that would emerge if the claim was pursued. It is estimated that those withdrawn claims alone result in savings for the taxpayer of £138 million.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Does the Secretary of State accept that the voice of the absent parent has been slightly louder in this debate than the voice of the parent with care? If the agency is to succeed, there must be a sea change in public attitudes. Too many quite well-meaning absent parents, provided that they saw their children regularly and paid pocket money, were content for income support to bear the brunt of the real costs of bringing up their children.
  Mr. Lilley: I am glad to have the hon. Lady's robust support. She echoes the views of many organisations which represent lone parents. I remind the hon. Lady of their belief that there should be no further changes, and that they would entirely reject the motion. The hon. Lady must consider whether or not she will vote for it.
  Of course, criticisms of the agency are not just the result of misunderstandings or operational difficulties. There has been strong criticism of how the policy bears on particular groups and circumstances. In response to those concerns, I introduced a package of reforms in February. The changes nearly quadrupled the margin above income support below which the income of a second family would not be allowed to fall; they extended phasing so that, normally, no one with a second family would face an increase of more than £20 a week above their previous agreement; they sharply reduced additional payments; and they progressively cut the carer element when the youngest children reached the age of 11 and above.
  Those changes have given more help, more rapidly to more people than many anticipated during our debate at the time. Some 43,000 absent fathers immediately had their maintenance bills reduced. Contrary to what the lobbies assert, those reductions were quite substantial. Maintenance bills previously received reduced on average by 20 per cent., excluding the impact of phasing-in. Typically, that reduction was worth more than £450 a year to the absent parent. A further 4,000 parents will receive small reductions of £50 or less at their annual review. Any assessments starting since February have automatically been at those markedly lower levels.
  Needless to say, the changes have not ended complaints about the system, but the volume of correspondence from

  39
  hon. Members has fallen markedly since the changes were implemented, despite the rapid increase in the number of assessments made and enforced in recent months.
  The Opposition motion seems to want the House to commit itself to specific action now, before the Select Committee has completed its work—but the Opposition have not fleshed out their own proposals. The hon. Member for Garscadden again calls for some sort of discretionary appeals mechanism. He knows that that was considered and rejected when the Bill was going through Parliament—and he knows why. Nobody wanted a return to an open-ended, discretionary system. If a court or tribunal is given open-ended discretion to give other costs priority over the cost of maintaining children, it will do so. It is always easy to transfer the cost of child support back to the taxpayer.
  In our last debate, the hon. Member for Garscadden tacitly recognised that problem and called for narrow gateways and restricted grounds for appeal. Today he suggested that anyone who feels hard done by should be allowed access to the appeal system. The hon. Gentleman had several months to think about how to limit access to the appeals mechanism, but he has not produced any proposals. We need to hear what would be the grounds for appeal and, more importantly, what grounds he would not allow if access were narrowed in the way he previously assured us that he would do.
  Mr. Dewar: I cannot in one intervention canvass my argument in detail, but I am anxious to put the record straight. If I gave the impression that there should be an open-ended, totally discretionary appeal system, which simply second-guessed the formula in every case, I did so unintentionally. I said that there should be grounds against which an appeal should be measured and that those criteria should be defined in statute. It is important to make that point as the Secretary of State has—unintentionally, I believe—misrepresented my position.
  Mr. Lilley: I take the hon. Gentleman's clarification. In the past, he has said that the system should be narrow. I was surprised at his later form of words, and I obviously put the wrong emphasis on it—I accept what he is now saying. We now need some indication of how he intends to keep the system narrow. What grounds will he not include? If he does not give those grounds, he will be suggesting to all absent parents in this country that their cases are open to appeal while saying that in the small print that they will not. If he does that, he will be trying to sell us a pig in a poke.
  Mr. Richard Alexander: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House seek an element of flexibility and a recognition that commitments were entered into between the parties during their marriage and when they divorced. There should be a recognition that the second family is also entitled to a certain standard of living. Provided that that element was built into the reforms, the system would give great benefit.
  Mr. Lilley: I entirely accept the point made by my hon. Friend and the widespread feelings that he expresses. I am not here today in the business of ruling in or ruling out specific proposals. It would be premature for the House to commit itself to vague proposals about an appeal
  40
  mechanism based on experience in New Zealand and Australia, where the gateways are narrow and the formula more rough and ready than here. Such a system could well result in more arbitrary treatment of, for example, housing costs, which are not allowed in the New Zealand and Australian formula. Only very few people there are granted set-aside to allow for high housing costs.
  Mr. David Howell: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is handling the subject with skill and judgment and does not want to be rushed into decisions or to anticipate the Select Committee's report, but will he at least consider that one of the grounds for appeal might be when the Child Support Agency assessment is in excess of the total agreed and established disposable income of the father or mother?
  Mr. Lilley: I find it hard to see how those circumstances could arise, but I will happily consider the point made by my right hon. Friend. It is only possible for the assessment to be 50 per cent. of the assessable income, after deductions have been made from the net income of the household. However, I shall happily consider the point raised by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Wray rose—
  Mr. Jim Lester rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) later.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden suggested that something should be done about past property settlements, but he is unspecific about what he wants done. If Parliament wants to give further recognition—we must remember that the formula automatically gives some recognition, often to a greater extent than is the case under the Australian system, as a result of transfers of housing resulting in increased housing costs and reduced maintenance requirements for the absent parent—some formidable difficulties would first have to be overcome.
  How would the house in the past property settlement be valued—at its present value or its original value? If the latter, what would happen if no valuation was made at the time? How would it be possible to know what trade-off was intended by the court between the transfer of the house and the amount of child maintenance set? If the hon. Gentleman expects his ideas to be taken seriously, he must at least address those questions before further progress can be made.
  Mr. Jim Lester: All of us who have handled many such cases recognise that interpreting the variations requires the wisdom of Solomon. It is possible to fall into the trap which lies between the comparative rigidity of the formula and the difficulty of feeding in the variations involved in individual cases; that applies particularly to retrospective court orders.
  Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree. However, if the Opposition are serious about the narrowness of the grounds for appeal that they propose, and if they are basing their proposal on experience in New Zealand, which is very similar to ours, they should bear in mind that for as long as that system has operated—somewhat longer than ours has—it has allowed only 1,200 appeals to be heard, which have resulted in some 500 departures from the formula. That really is a narrow system. If that is the kind of system that the hon.

  41
  Member for Garscadden is proposing, he should inform those outside who are expecting him to offer an easy way out.
  Mr. Dewar: I have never represented the easy way out to anyone, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I think that I have now been slightly misrepresented at both ends, as it were. Having persuaded the right hon. Gentleman that I did not want a completely "open door" discretionary system, I am now being accused of trying to do a camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle job. In fact, there is a via media, if that is not too much of a mixed metaphor.
  Does the Secretary of State not accept that it is possible to define in statute a number of the grounds that I mentioned as at least serious considerations? I thought one or two of them self-evidently sensible, while one or two others, being controversial, would require discussion. According to the last figures that I saw, 12 per cent. of cases had gone to appeal in Australia and 6 per cent. had resulted in variation of maintenance awards. If we apply those figures to the many hundreds of thousands of cases in our system, it is clear that we are not talking about a negligible number.
  Mr. Lilley: There are rather more cases in Australia, but they tend to result in increased maintenance assessments because many involve parents with care protesting that the income of the absent father is higher than has been suggested.
  Mr. Wray rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, in recognition of his persistence.
  Mr. Wray: The Secretary of State is finding it difficult to convince the House of what he is saying about the Child Support Agency, which has created nothing but havoc and misery. If its purpose is to trace absent parents and make them pay, why did it send out a memo saying that those who have already paid should be targeted? Why are Members of Parliament receiving thousands of letters from people baring their souls about all this misery? Why have the clean break agreements been thrown aside, regardless of the Minton v. Minton agreement?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman must be as much opposed to the views of those on his own Front Bench as he is to mine if he believes that we should abandon the CSA, and if he denies that pursuing our current course is preferable to reverting to the old court system.
  A third change was mooted by the hon. Member for Garscadden, who called for a partial disregard of maintenance in the setting of lone parents' income support. No Opposition speech would be complete without a spending pledge, and there it was. Again, the hon. Gentleman refused to cost his proposals; he now says that he wants to assess the costs not on the basis of a steady rate, but on the basis of the early days when the number of maintenance assessments is smaller.
  Mr. David Shaw: My right hon. Friend may be suggesting that the Opposition could find a way of avoiding the costs. Have not Labour Members been saying that social security benefit rates—on which many payments by absent parents are based—are too low in relation to children? Surely if a Labour Government raised those benefit rates, absent fathers would pay more. Perhaps that is how Labour wants to achieve a "nil savings" result.
  Mr. Lilley: There is certainly a disparity between the attitudes of some Opposition Members to the level of income support received by lone parents and to income support when used to assess the maintenance requirement.
  I question the case for a maintenance disregard because it would cost the taxpayer money. The hon. Member for Garscadden has mentioned a figure of some £340 million for a £10 per week disregard. Not a penny of that would go towards reducing the burden on absent parents; perversely, it would mean that a lone parent receiving maintenance would be better off than a widow looking after children and dependent on income support—and, indeed, better off than other lone parents receiving no maintenance.
  The case is distinctly weakened by the figures given earlier by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, which showed that about a third of the maintenance paid in the past year has increased the incomes of parents with care, many of them on family credit. Low-income households have benefited significantly.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I should like to proceed, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
  From time to time, the hon. Member for Garscadden has claimed that his proposals would be a step towards the Australian system. Australia does indeed have a limited appeals system and a maintenance disregard, and excludes settlements made before the establishment of the agency. The hon. Gentleman, however, should not delude himself—and none of us should imagine—that such a system would empty our surgeries or our postbags.
  When I met the deputy commissioner of the Australian CSA last week, he told me:
  "even after six years, Australian Members of Parliament receive more complaints about child support than any other issue".
  Australia's CSA is also currently the subject of a Select Committee review, as is New Zealand's. The Australian Committee has received more submissions on the subject than have been received by any other Select Committee in the history of the Australian Parliament.
  The lesson is not that we should abandon our principles or our determination to make the Child Support Agency work better, but we should recognise that anything to do with children, family breakdown and money is bound to raise strong emotions. We must handle such matters sensitively and with patience, and we should not imagine that there is a simple cure-all that will make the issues go away.
  It is right to listen to the genuine concerns of absent parents, but we must also remember the 1 million lone parents on income support. Before the agency existed, three out of four could expect to receive no regular maintenance, while others usually received small and uncertain amounts.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: No, I must make progress.
  Lone parents increasingly resent the attention given to complaints from absent parents, almost all of whom have a standard of living well above benefit level. We must be careful that we do not empty our surgeries of absent

  43
  parents, only to fill them with angry lone parents. Mothers have been understandably disappointed by delays which result in part from non-compliance with the agency.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I complete my remarks so as to allow the debate to proceed.
  That is why I place great emphasis on restoring the level of service, and on ensuring effective and speedy payment of maintenance. That is also very much in the interests of absent parents, as it reduces uncertainty, problems with arrears and punitive levels of interim assessment.
  We must not put the improvements in performance that we are achieving at risk by introducing unnecessarily disruptive changes; nor must we revive the belief that those who delay will not have to pay. However, we shall continue to keep the system under review, and we shall study the Select Committee's forthcoming report very closely. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself promised, we are committed to making further changes if we are persuaded that they are necessary, and we shall continue to improve the working of the system. Above all, we shall keep in mind the interests both of absent parents and of lone mothers, of children and of taxpayers—but those of the children most of all.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I have said before, but I say again because it is important, that in discussing the Child Support Agency we are discussing the most significant change in the welfare state since 1945. The House therefore wants answers to a couple of simple questions: is the agency succeeding, or does it look as though it is doing so? If that question cannot be answered, does it appear to be working?
  The plain fact is that we cannot answer either of those two crucial questions, which we need to answer today. At the end of the debate, Conservative Members will have to decide whether to vote with the Opposition or quietly to express their concern about the agency to Ministers. Like Opposition Members, they will be forced to base their judgment not on available information but on what they feel is happening with the agency. They will have to put together the information that they have received from their constituents. They will have to have a feel for what they think is happening to all the people who never complain when something is going well, and they will then have to make a judgment.
  I sympathised with the Secretary of State for Social Security in his efforts to provide us with increased information over the past few days. Despite that, I believe that he feels that a big question mark remains over the working of the agency.
  The Select Committee report will be ready when hon. Members return after the summer recess; it may or may not be radical—that is for the Select Committee to decide. It will be important that hon. Members keep an open mind regarding the extent of reform that may be necessary and that, although they may be loyal to the Government tonight, they make it clear to the Government that they believe that the jury is still out.
  44
  The increased information given in the past few days does not tally with other information that we have received. Hon. Members will have noticed the caveats—"This is estimated" or "The projection says". We can say almost nothing certain about the agency. The crucial information that we want is who is benefiting and how much mothers and families are receiving, but we cannot answer those questions.
  I should like to compare the way in which the debate would have been conducted 100 years ago with the way in which it is being conducted today. Local government board reports in the age of quill pens, before anyone had dreamt of computers, were different from today's. Shortly after the end of each year, the most detailed information was gathered on subjects of interest to hon. Members. I have read reports on the poor law period. Riots in Peckham or Birkenhead were covered in reports at the end of the year. Hon. Members could be told what their constituents in the workhouses were eating on particular days.
  We should compare that with our search for information on how the agency is working. The paucity of data is extraordinary. The unit responsible for establishing the agency, which set the computer programme on what information should be collected, should be sacked very quickly. Ensuring that the unit does not get its sticky fingers on the next project that the Government may establish is in the interests not only of the Government but of all hon. Members.
  I do not want to state my views now because if I did, people might think that I was trying to bounce the Select Committee into making a report—and everyone should know that that is the last thing that I would want to do. I do, however, want to raise two issues. First, we must decide what proportion of income the agency may take from the second family. We are assured that families are left with 70 to 85 per cent. of net income, but none of us has met anyone whose experience tallies with that figure.
  It has been impossible to obtain the most basic information from the agency—such as why a constituent has to fill in six application forms. It takes the chief executive three months to reply to such queries, let alone more detailed questions. If we can obtain information on how much money is being taken from net income, we shall be able to make a judgment in the autumn on whether we should try to get every penny from the second family or whether we should take a more rounded view and have a formula that delivers an appreciable sum that will regularly be paid and which mothers caring for their children will know will be paid, particularly if they have opportunities to work. We need that information badly and we will need to return to that important point in the autumn.
  The second issue relates to the nature of the formula. I know that he is not listening to me, but the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is probably the only person in the Chamber who understands how the formula works. If I asked hon. Members how many of them understood and could explain the formula, no one would ask me to give way. If we do not understand the formula, how can agency officers, constituents and employers cope with it when they try to work out contributions?
  In the autumn, we shall have to make a crucial second decision: do we want to modify the existing formula, which none of us understands, or should we choose a simple formula that exempts income and levies a rate of tax that all of us, including our constituents, can understand?

  45
  The Select Committee has asked the agency to explain the formula. We have been told that we must set aside at least two hours for an explanation. Last week, officials from Australia and New Zealand wanted, sensibly, to speak to the Secretary of State. They managed to explain their formula not in two hours, but in two minutes and most, if not all, the members of the Select Committee, understood it.
  The other question with which we must deal in the autumn is this: will we solve matters by having a byzantine formula, believing that, if we can only add a little bit more to it, it will work, or should we go for a simple formula? We cannot sensibly propose reform until we get the formula right. We cannot think about introducing an appeal system if the formula is believed to be so unworkable that 6 million people will use that system. That would swamp and destroy it.
  Mr. Stephen: We all accept that a simple system is more desirable than a complex one. But does the hon. Gentleman accept that the simpler the system is, the more chance it has of working justly in individual cases?
  Mr. Field: That is a good intervention and it helps to underline the point that, when we debate any proposal for reform of the formula, we shall have to decide how much money will be taken from the first family. When we have set the level, we shall have to decide whether to hold the line on exemptions. We may have to set the figure at a level that will not deliver what we thought the present formula would deliver but that will be workable and accepted in the country. There would then be no sympathy for those who did not pay, because most people would understand the formula and would say that such a proportion of income should be paid.
  I conclude by saying that—
  Mr. Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Field: No. In spite of my respect for the hon. Gentleman, I shall not give way, as many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  It is extraordinary that none of us can answer the crucial questions: does the agency look as though it will be a success, and do we know much about how it is working? We have a feeling about it from our postbags and from what our constituents have told us but, at the end of the day, and in the absence of hard facts, we shall be called on to make a judgment. Even if Conservative Members cannot accept our motion, I hope that they will make it plain to the Secretary of State as they go through the Lobby that the jury is still out on this issue; that we shall have to return to it in the overspill session after the summer recess; and that we shall not act decisively until we have the information that we need to enable us to judge who is being affected, and to what extent, by this important reform.
  5 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: A debate on the Child Support Agency can give the House an important opportunity to discuss fundamental pressures on society and how they can be dealt with; or alternatively it can descend into special pleading and an unconnected string of demands designed to avoid responsibility.
  I believe that, in the face of huge pressure, it is vital that the Government stand firm on the core principles encompassed by the creation of the CSA. There has been
  46
  a campaign of vilification against the agency and especially against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). Both of them have handled the issue with courtesy and care, and I especially congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who has replied to all the questions that I have asked on behalf of my constituents, some of whom I took to see him a few months ago. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend and he will continue the work that they have begun and will not cave in to special pleading and the unparalleled campaign that has been waged against them and their officials.
  I support the principle behind the agency, which is that one cannot evade responsibility for one's own actions; one cannot shuffle off responsibility to some convenient repository of all problems—the state—working on the myth that the state does not comprise other people with a need greater than one's own.
  We all subscribe to the theory that fatherhood is for life, but I want to explore what that means. Do we have the moral courage to accept its literal meaning? Surely it cannot mean that, if a father loses his first family, he is entitled to insist on the state—other people, stranger—taking on a share of the care of the children of his first family because he wishes to start a second and can do so only if other people take on the burden of providing for the first.
  It may not be his fault that he lost his first family—he may be entirely blameless, although other people will perhaps never be able to make an entirely fair assessment of tha—but, whatever the circumstances, the first family remains his complete responsibility.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I know of a case in which a couple divorced after having two children. The young man remarried and took on two of his second wife's children. He and his second wife then had a fifth child between them. But that young man is still only a trainee nurse and manifestly should not have taken on additional responsibilities and placed extra burdens on other parents who are also bringing up children.
  Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention because she makes my point precisely. We have to stand firm on this principle. It would be easy for us to shuffle our responsibility on to the state, but we must not do so. We should support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hilt and not make a series of concessions that will weaken the principles behind the CSA.
  It is often said that a court order should in no circumstances be overruled—a point often put to me by my constituents. I have some sympathy with that view if two equal, separating partners decide to divide their assets and incomes in such a way that the state is not in any way involved. However, I do not believe that a court order can be defended if it is predicated on the fact that the state will take on part of the burden of looking after the first family. I know from my experience of practising in divorce courts many years ago that, in the past, many maintenance orders were finely tuned to ensure that some convenient third party—the taxpayer—picked up a substantial part of the burden.
  Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that in such cases both parties often receive—or used to receive—legal aid and advice in making an agreement directly against the

  47
  interests of the state? Nobody stood up to speak for the ordinary taxpayer who was often on a low income and unable to afford high taxes.
  Mr. Leigh: Again, my hon. Friend makes my point. I well remember that, during my pupillage, my pupil master advanced the same argument, but he was very skilled at ensuring excellent settlements for his clients and used to laugh at how idiotic the state was to pick up the tab.
  At first sight, the philosophy that I am expounding may seem to be pretty hard-nosed as far as the father is concerned; but it is not, because I believe that the full financial responsibility of the father should be balanced by full access, care and control rights. That is central to the debate. Absent but responsible fathers—my constituents—never complain to me about what they are required to pay for their children, but they do complain about what they are required to pay for the carer with whom they no longer live or to whom they are no longer married.
  Philosophically, I want to try to resolve the dispute by making the absent father more responsible and less absent. I regard the absent father—I hate that phrase and would prefer to say simply "the father"—not as a distant sugar daddy required only to pay the bills but as an ever-present part of children's upbringing.
  Parents may regrettably divorce in the sense that they refuse to live together or can no longer do so, but, if they have children, they cannot divorce their lives. Society should state that clearly and boldly. There can be no clean break. Young people must realise that parenthood is a lifetime system of care.
  Of course the Child Support Agency mechanisms need to be reformed—that is inevitable with a new organisation—but not so that fathers are let off the financial hook. They should, if anything, be impaled on it more securely—but only on the basis of continued access to, care of and involvement in their children's lives. If they want to act responsibly, they should be considered equal to the mother in being allowed to bring up the children.
  Equal time may not be feasible or wanted, but children need to be made aware of the traditional concept of their father having to be absent some of the time in order to work to earn money to care for them. Only if the father refuses to act responsibly, takes himself off and refuses to visit his children is the state entitled to view him as the impersonal source of child support and child minder taxation.
  I accept that my argument flies in the face of much modern thinking to the effect that life is entitled to involve nothing but the pursuit of happiness, pleasure and self-fulfilment, and that relationships with other people and their children can be discarded when they cease to be a pleasure or mutually acceptable—with the sole proviso that a bill from some distant impersonal bureaucracy, together with a demand for a cheque, may fall with a thump on one's doorstep. Such a society degenerates into a mechanistic or even a cruel one.
  If what I say is discounted as an unrealisable myth or as romantic poppycock, my reply is that, although it may be difficult, it is true. So many of the problems associated with the CSA are due to the fact that we have lacked the intellectual courage and clarity to state that complete personal divorce between parents is impossible where children are involved. We have required a Government
  48
  agency, based necessarily on inflexible rules and procedures, and necessarily remote, to pick up the pieces that parents working together should have to hand.
  I see the CSA evolving as a much more individualistic and personalised structure, evaluating individual needs and resources and committed to bonding parents more closely to the children whom they have brought into the world. Implicit in that view is that the CSA will have to maintain links between parents who may have fallen out with each other and who may not sleep under the same roof, but who must have a continual and continuing relationship based on the children.
  Society has made divorce far too easy and it has made marriage far too easy. It has fostered the dangerous delusion that relations with children can be dissolved; they cannot.
  The debate about the CSA is an interesting pointer to a wider debate about society as a whole. The 1980s may have been an era of dismantling inefficient, distant state structures. The problem with that was that people drew the wrong moral from the story. They came to believe that individuals could divorce themselves from each other and from society. Society came to be seen as a disparate collection of largely professional and expert groups. That view goes right through society. Business is first regionalised, then internationalised. The Army is seen as a professional elite divorced from society and the Territorial Army. Involvement in the community is downgraded in many parts of our society. It is bureaucratised, and not enough credence is given to individuals.
  The real villain of the piece is social security policy, in assuming that we are all strangers to one another and to society. A vast churning process involving £80 billion of expenditure has erected a vast, rule-ridden, depersonalised bureaucracy in which the CSA is just one particularly painful cog, taxing and dispensing, often to the same people. Social security, including the CSA, is a convenient repository of problems, whether divorce, the underclass or single parents, which we would rather not solve ourselves as individuals.
  When, at some distant date, our social security policy, including the CSA, is debated, it will be looked on in much the same way as we now look on Dickensian England. We should make the CSA and social security generally more personal, more human and more designed to empower people out of dependency and back into family, rather than state support. People will then have more faith in our social security system.
  People may say that the Government and the Opposition lack a vision for the 1990s. Our disputes on the nature of ownership may be coming to an end. Surely one vision that we can share is the restructuring of social security across the board into something that is much more personal and positive, and that will ensure that we provide for our children in the way that they deserve in the next century.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. David Chidgey: I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Stephen Milligan. Stephen's sudden death was a shock to the many people in Eastleigh who had come to know him as a hard-working and enthusiastic Member of Parliament. Stephen and I campaigned against each other in the 1992 general election. Although we disagreed vigorously on many aspects of policy, Stephen always argued on the issues. He

  49
  never tried to gain advantage through personal attacks on his opponents. In this, he set a fine example which is all too rarely followed in political life today.
  Stephen worked hard for his constituents. He was proud of Eastleigh and, I would add, with just cause. Eastleigh is unique among towns along the south coast of England in that it owes its origins to the expansion of heavy industry. With hon. Members' indulgence, I shall follow tradition and take a few minutes to talk about Eastleigh before I come to the points that I want to make about the Child Support Agency.
  In the 1890s, the London and South Western Railway Company moved its wagon and carriage works out of London to a convenient railhead in Hampshire, and thus Eastleigh was born. In the 20 years that followed, Eastleigh's population increased sevenfold. With its excellent rail links, Eastleigh beckoned to industry and so a tradition of a wide range of manufacturing and engineering skills was established.
  In more recent times, Eastleigh's factories have played a major part in the development of Britain's aero industry. Avro, Hawker Siddeley, De Havilland and Supermarine are just some of the famous names in British aviation associated with Eastleigh. Today, Hamble Aero Structures is Eastleigh's major employer. The tradition of railway engineering has continued in the railway maintenance works at Eastleigh, while in Woolston, the most westerly ward in my constituency, Vosper's shipyards continue to lead the world in minesweeper technology. In rail, sea and air transport, Eastleigh's industry continues to play its part.
  Even today, almost a third of Eastleigh's work force are engaged in manufacturing industry. With the M3 and M27 motorways complementing the rail network, more than a quarter of all jobs in Eastleigh are in the distribution sector. If the much needed investment can be found to complete the development of Eastleigh airport, thousands of jobs could be provided to replace those slipping away from our traditional industries. Furthermore, investment in high-quality training for local people could ensure that they grasp these opportunities.
  People in Eastleigh, however, feel insecure, not just about the operation of the CSA. One third of those unemployed have been out of work for more than a year. Many young families who bought their first homes in and around Hedge End in the 1980s' boom are now bust, trapped by negative equity. Energetic, able men and women are unable to move to take up better jobs and advance their careers because they are shackled to houses with values that are now far less than their outstanding mortgages.
  People are worried, not just about the operation of the CSA, but about increasing crime in their area. It has increased by more than 20 per cent. in some places over the past few years. They do not understand why their chief constable's request to recruit 223 more officers just to bring the county force up to strength has been turned down.
  People in Eastleigh are worried about career prospects for their children. They want investment that will guarantee high-quality education and training to provide young people with the skills they will need if they are to make their way in the modern, highly competitive world.
  Hon. Members will know that by-elections bring into sharp focus the mood of the people, and Eastleigh is no exception. The people of Eastleigh have taken the opportunity to tell the Government that they want policies that recognise their concerns. I remind the House that the
  50
  overturning of a Conservative majority of almost 18,000 in the 1992 general election to a Liberal Democrat majority of more than 9,000 just two years later is a powerful message from the voters of Eastleigh. It is a message to the Government that they should listen to the people and change their policies.
  Of all the concerns of my constituents, the need to review and change the operation of the CSA is the greatest. Hon. Members will know from their own constituency postbags the extent of the anxiety and sense of injustice caused by the activities of the CSA. There is broad support from my constituents for the principle of the Child Support Agency—that both parents should be responsible for the maintenance of their children. However, the draconian operations of the CSA and the clear evidence that it is the Treasury—and not the children—that is far and away the major beneficiary only serve to underline the need for urgent and fundamental review of the current system for the collection of maintenance.
  Just such a case concerns a constituent in Eastleigh. He divorced his wife seven years ago. He made a clean break settlement through the courts, with agreed maintenance payments for his two children. Two years later, he remarried, taking on the financial responsibility of two stepchildren as well as caring for his elder child, who by then had decided, again through the courts, that he wished to return to live with his father. Another three years passed. His first wife, who had also been married and then divorced for a second time, was required by the Department of Social Security to seek an increase in the maintenance paid by my constituent for the child still living with her.
  The courts reviewed the case and determined that the original maintenance award was fair and just and should stand. This year, some seven years after his divorce, my constituent was contacted by the CSA. He sought its guidance on how to respond to its questionnaire. He was shocked to receive, instead of guidance, notice through the post that an interim assessment was about to be made. The assessment was estimated to be some seven times greater than the level of child maintenance that he is currently paying. It was some seven times greater than the amount set by the courts, subsequently re-examined by the courts and judged to be just and fair.
  How can it be right for a Government agency to be able to overturn judgments made in the courts with no right of redress and no right of appeal? I believe that to make the CSA acceptable, far more radical reforms than those supported by the Government will be necessary. Formulae will have to take into account the father's necessary expenditure—for example, the cost of travelling to work. Calculations should be based on disposable income rather than gross income. Provision should be made for the costs of absent parents' access to their children. The CSA cannot be in the child's interests if a father's maintenance payments mean that he can no longer afford to visit his children.
  Finally, there must be some mechanism whereby parents can challenge demands. No system can claim to be infallible. The very high number of mistaken demands shows that the CSA is no exception. It has been said that allowing for an appeal would simply mean a return to the previous discretionary system. However, there must be some place for discretion in a system which so directly influences people's lives. The Australians have established a successful appeal system, so there seems no good reason why it should be impossible to do so in this country. To

  51
  provide no possibility for appeal is seen by many, not only in Eastleigh, to be in breach of natural justice. I urge the Government to make the provision of a facility of appeal for parents a top priority when they come to review the operations of the CSA.
  5.23 pm
  Sir Donald Thompson: I did not expect to be called so early in the debate. I am glad that I have been because it gives me a chance to thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) for the gentle way in which he referred to our colleague Stephen Milligan. Both Conservative and Opposition Members thank him most sincerely for that. We are sure that in the next year or two we shall hear one or two more of the hon. Gentleman's speeches. We look forward to that.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh is fortunate to be here on an important but not a cantankerous political day. He has heard the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the Chairman of the Select Committee, make excellent speeches. The hon. Gentleman can be sure that they will read his speech in Hansard tomorrow because they will read their own speeches and will come across his in the course of events.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh has also heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State make a very good speech. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join us in voting for the amendment tonight, which concludes with the words:
  "acknowledges the continuing concerns over child support issues and therefore welcomes the Government's commitment to continue to keep the scheme under scrutiny and to bring forward further changes should these prove necessary."
  I am sure that, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his able Under-Secretary say that, they mean it. I am sure that when the Select Committee has reported, changes will be made.
  Marriage or parenthood is not a limited liability contract. One is not married as a limited company. One cannot put a limit on that. Nor is it an unlimited contract as at Lloyd's of London. When I got married 40 years ago, we were told, and we have been told ever since, that when a man gets married he gives his wife half his property and a third of his income for life. She can cash that in whenever she wants to walk through the door with the children, for whatever reason. That has always been so. It was so under the courts and it is so now.
  Children are the responsibility of us all in the last resort. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said, for the rest of the time they are the responsibility of their parents. Initially, they are the responsibility of their parents and they continue to be the responsibility of their parents whomsoever they live with afterwards.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told us that two thirds of absent parents contacted by the Child Support Agency in the first year had not been making regular payments. He also said that 96 per cent. of the families of those absent parents had been supported by the state. He said that 90 per cent. of the absent parents whose whereabouts were unknown and for whom the agency looked had been found. That is what the House hoped for and it is why we almost unanimously voted for the system.
  52
  However, many of my constituents are unhappy. It is my job to report as succinctly as possible their grievances. They are not violent or nasty. They come to my advice centres as sensible and reasonable men with problems such as the hon. Member for Eastleigh outlined. One young man said, "You daren't even go to t'disco and say owt to do wi't'CSA now." We all know exactly what he means.
  My constituents say that the Child Support Agency must cost more to administer than the old system. I am not sure about that. The old system cost between £230 and £1,000 for every legal aid case. The lawyers are £80 million down, so no wonder they are complaining. I shall mention some of the objections of my constituents, bearing in mind that they will read every word of the Hansard reports that I send them and comb out every word. As we all do, they will agree with what they agree with and pooh-pooh what they disagree with.
  The first thing that my constituents say is that clean-break settlements ought to be accepted or at least taken into account, especially where there is benefit fiddle or perhaps where they say that the wife does not deserve the £40 a week spending money that the formula directs. Secondly, my constituents say that the formula is too rigid and should allow for personal circumstances.
  Most controversially, or perhaps least controversially, they cite the cost of access. No one automatically allows access to children by fathers. It is often, if not always, opposed because people say that access by fathers disturbs the children. It is better if the fathers are not there. My constituents have been advised to complain that their children have been molested by their father rather than to allow access to the children. My constituents also say that the formula ought to include an allowance for the cost of travel to work.
  My constituents ask for more flexibility. I cannot see the difficulty in allowing more flexibility. Everyone in the House of Commons will have a different motor car insurance policy. Those policies will cover a range of special exclusions, special experiences and the lot. They will cover motor bikes, beginners, old people, young men aged under 23 and the rest of it. Such policies are put into being by a computer system with no difficulty. It may take a year or two to achieve flexibility in the CSA, but the systems are already available and could be used.
  My constituents want a faster response to their correspondence and telephone calls. That includes both women appealing to the CSA to be included in the system and men appealing to be excluded. They need to be told more quickly, sharply and precisely where they are and what is going on.
  My constituents say that retrospective legislation is destructive. Often, after a clean-break settlement has been agreed, an ex-wife spends her children's inheritance. The money is not used to support the child, as the lawyers intended five, six or seven years before. She has sold the house, the equity has gone, she has gone back on benefit, and her ex-husband is being asked to pay again. We must look into clean-break settlements, not only when they have endured and been fair and reasonable, but when one or other of the parties has taken advantage of them.
  Finally, the Child Support Agency and its complicated formula are persuading men not to take promotion, move up the ladder or work harder because they know that any extra income will be creamed off. The formula is debilitating for people who are in business because, with

  53
  the CSA as a silent partner, they cannot treat business profits in the same way as they would if it were a family business.
  Those are the matters that my constituents have raised with me and about which I have often written to my right hon. and hon Friends on the Front Bench. The majority of my constituents—about 80 per cent—accept that the CSA is a reasonable and sensible way to ensure that those people who are responsible for children bear that responsibility properly. It would be a disaster if that near-consensus crumbled because of inflexibility and bad administration.
  Since the CSA was set up, the amount of money that has gone to children has increased from about £16 a week to about £40. That increase is welcome to the children. I am sure that this debate and the excellent report of the Select Committee, which is to follow, will help to clear the Government's mind and make the CSA more effective.
  5.31 pm
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: First, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on his excellent speech and the accomplished way in which he made his debut. When I made my maiden speech about two years ago, precisely four other Members of Parliament were present, apart from the Deputy Speaker, and only my mother and my two children were in the Public Gallery. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his obvious ability and look forward to hearing him speak again many times.
  I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) said, but I was somewhat worried about the way in which he began his speech. He said that this is not a controversial debate and that, unusually, there is general agreement today. I warn the Secretary of State, his colleagues and Conservative Members that if they make the subject of this debate party political, it will be to the detriment of the CSA and the children whom we want to help to get through all the mess created by the working of the agency during the past year. I detected a party political tendency in the Secretary of State's speech and in some of the comments his hon. Friends made from the Back Benches—albeit from a sedentary position.
  I spoke on the issue when the House debated the report by the Select Committee on Social Security, so I do not want to be too long as I know that other hon. Members want to contribute. The Child Support Agency was set some targets when it began its work about two years ago. Very few of them appear to have been met, as the agency's report makes clear. It appears almost to have met the target for satisfaction. It claims that 61 per cent. of its customers are satisfied with its work and the target that it set out to achieve was 65 per cent., so it has done well in that respect, if not in any other.
  If hon. Members, irrespective of the side of the Chamber on which they sit, are voicing the concerns of fathers, or absent parents—however one wants to describe them—it is not because they do not recognise the work that the agency is doing to assist those parents who care. For the most part, they are lone mothers, who are feeling the benefits of the agency's work. We want to articulate the real fears of the many constituents who, for the past year, have been plaguing us with their concerns about the way in which the agency works.
  54
  I am one of the luckier Members in this House in that only a small number of constituents have mentioned their worries about the agency to me—four or five at the last count. Other hon. Members have received many more complaints. Judging from those few cases, I am worried about the way in which the agency has been working and must bring one case to the attention of the House—that of Mr. Anthony Howard. I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State about the matter.
  I have been working with Mr. Howard, as his Member of Parliament, and trying to help him understand the way in which the agency has calculated the formula and applied it in his case. He is a systems analyst and works for British Telecom. He is used to dealing with complicated formulae—it is his bread and butter and he knows how such things work. He cannot understand why he is unable to work out how the agency has arrived at its final figures in his case.
  When the original assessment was made, he came to me in real distress because he felt that it was a serious threat to the well-being of his family. In his case, it was not a second family, as he had married only once. He is required to pay maintenance for a 14-year-old son, whom he had in a previous relationship. As soon as he was made aware of his responsibilities, he undertook to pay maintenance, through a court order, and continued to do so until the CSA became involved.
  He was not trying to evade his responsibilities. He took them seriously and still wishes to do so. He is anxious to make the maximum payment that he can afford, without damaging the family that he has created with his wife, which is a long-term commitment. He is worried that the agency's assessment is seriously jeopardising the stability of that marriage and his ability to care for the children he has in that relationship.
  After the agency made its assessment, Mr. Howard followed the work of the Select Committee closely—I was a member of the Committee at that time. He read Hansard and the Committee's report. In December, that report was presented to Parliament and the Secretary of State and his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, accepted many of its recommendations. I agree that they went further and we welcomed many of the changes that were made—especially the changes to the formula.
  I agree entirely with the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who spoke earlier. If we cannot get the formula right and make it work, we cannot save the Child Support Agency in its present form. Things have got so bad that, unless we make the formula workable, easy to understand and simple, it will not stand the test of public support.
  What subsequently happened to Mr. Howard was inexplicable. After he had read the Select Committee report and heard what the Government had decided to do in response, he wrote to tell me how pleased he was with the work that had been done. He genuinely felt that, as far as he was able to understand them, the changes would assist him, especially as the child he was paying maintenance for was 14 years old. He wrote thanking me for my work—not that I did a great deal—and was especially grateful to the Select Committee for its work and for the way in which the Government had responded.
  The CSA wrote to him in terms that I do not understand. I sent a copy of the letter to the Minister. The agency acknowledged that his payments would be reduced. He expected a reduction of about 25 per cent.

  55
  In fact, the agency then started to use vague phrases. In a letter of 13 June, it tried to explain why Mr. Howard would not receive the 25 per cent. reduction in the maintenance assessment that he had expected. It merely offered the following explanation:
  "because a fresh maintenance assessment following Anthony's birthday would not make the maintenance payable significantly different. This is known as the tolerance rule."
  The agency offered no explanation of that rule or how it applied to the formula. Mr. Howard, who could be expected to be able to understand such explanations, began to tear his hair out.
  The agency cited in another letter that, because Mr. Howard's income was regarded as high and
  "in accordance with the principle that children should share in the wealth of the absent parent as if they had continued to live with them",
  that also meant that his maintenance requirement would not be reduced. I do not disagree with that principle, but the CSA offered no figures or any explanation for how it had arrived at its assessment. Mr. Howard felt that the arguments that he had presented to me and to the agency over many months had been entirely disregarded.
  I recognise that agency staff are working under extreme pressure and I agree with those who have said it is unacceptable that those staff should be attacked at work or at home. Such behaviour is entirely unacceptable in a democracy. The House should be aware, however, that Mr. Howard has been on the receiving end of harassment from agency staff. The Government should recognise that it is not acceptable for people who are already suffering from heightened anxiety because of maintenance problems to receive telephone calls at work while going about their daily business. Those calls were not made to ask for information that had not been provided or for clarification of a particular point—they can only be described as abusive telephone calls. Mr. Howard received calls in which he was asked, "Why have you not completed your standing order? What is the matter with you? It is only £400 a month. Get on with it." That is how agency staff responded to Mr. Howard's correspondence and his efforts and mine to get to the bottom of his case.
  I accept that agency staff do not behave like that all the time, but they have done so sufficiently often to cause concern. That is why people get so angry. People are not justified in taking out their frustration on agency staff and I would not seek to condone that, but one must also recognise that such harassment from the staff is also unacceptable.
  I know from talking to staff of the agency that their training is very good, so I do not understand why, once they are back in the workplace, they sometimes adopt unacceptable methods, which cannot be condoned. I can only assume that they have been set unattainable targets and that they are working under such pressure to achieve them that they sometimes stoop to methods of which we would not approve.
  According to some publicity earlier today, the Secretary of State intended to use today's debate to announce changes in the targets. I did not hear him make such an announcement, but perhaps the Under-Secretary will. I believe that those targets should have been changed when the formula was changed as a result of the Select Committee's report. If the formula is not right and CSA
  56
  staff are working towards unachievable targets, the agency will not function in the manner that we all intend it to do. That benefits no one—the people we are trying to help or hon. Members, as we seek to implement legislation that works.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. John Horam: Before the CSA was established, all the relevant matters were handled by the courts. Whatever their particular disadvantages, those courts are concerned with justice and are empowered to take account of individual circumstances. When the Government created the CSA, they transferred that sensitive and personal material to a state bureaucracy, which was required to impose a standardised approach. That was a curious thing for a Conservative Government to do.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will say that the transfer was necessary because the courts were producing unsatisfactory results. That is undoubtedly correct. They were slow, were inconsistent in their approach and, in particular, left the taxpayer to pick up a huge burden. All those problems obviously had to be tackled. Was it not possible, however, to deal with them directly by passing legislation that required the courts to minimise the call on Government funds? In addition, the Government could have seconded people from the Department of Social Security to chase up absent parents to ensure that they paid what the court had said they should pay. If that had been done, we would have adopted a more modest and less expensive approach to the problem.
  I am surprised that that approach was not adopted by the United Kingdom, because it is the basis of the Australian approach, which has been more successful than our own. Stage I of the Australian Child Support Acts of 1988 and 1989 made it clear that the Family Law Act 1975 had been amended to take no account of custodial parents' eligibility for benefit. When the legislation was reviewed—my right hon. and hon. Friends would confirm that that is a continuous process—it was confirmed that the law should not be retrospective in that regard.
  That raises another question about this phalanx of British law—it has been made retrospective. That is another thing about which people rightly complain. It is one thing for a group of people to be told, "From here on, if you do this, the consequences will be such and such." The fact that several years of law have been set aside, in circumstances that people could not have foreseen, is fundamentally opposed to traditional notions of British justice.
  The fact that the legislation to set up the CSA was rushed through the previous Parliament with remarkable speed is one reason that the various alternatives were not explored thoroughly. The then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, made her speech to the Pankhurst group on 18 July 1990, and exactly one year later the relevant legislation received its Royal Assent. No Green Paper was published, so it was not possible to have wider consultation with relevant groups and individuals.
  Many of us on both sides of the House are deeply critical of our legislative procedures, in particular those of the past few years, which have produced over-hasty legislation with many things at fault. The Child Support Act 1991 was passed unanimously, but, given the fact that

  57
  it has had such adverse consequences for many individuals, we must all reconsider it. Individual citizens should not be penalised because of the faults of our legislative procedure.
  I support the principle behind the CSA. I do not deny that parents, even though they live apart, should be responsible for their children. It is the methods about which I am concerned. I should like to relate the story of someone who came to my surgery only the Saturday before last. That young man's wife left him. He looked after their two children for at least a year, before, finally, the mother took the children to live with her and another man, 200 miles away.
  The father earns £127 a week net and out of that he has to pay £40 in rent; £15 for gas and electricity; £30 for food; £5 for car insurance and road tax; for council tax; £3 for various other items and £20 for petrol to get to work. That totals £120 a week. The CSA wanted £28 a week from that man. As a result of my right hon. Friend's changes in the regulations in February, that £28 was reduced to £18.
  In addition, the man is now in arrears and owes the CSA £466. It is demanding a further £5 a week, so he must now pay £23 a week when his net surplus—the money that he has left to pay for everything once he has paid his essential costs—is only £7 a week. No wonder he cannot concentrate at work and breaks down in tears all the time. No wonder he talked about suicide when he came to my surgery only a fortnight ago. I am concerned about such individual cases. Life is now a nightmare for that young man.
  Although I fully recognise that none of that is the fault of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who have taken a consistently concerned approach and been considerate in handling matters—I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for agreeing to meet a group of people from the Croydon, Orpington and Bromley group against the Child Support Agency, COBACSA for short, organised by Mr. Brian Reavill—none the less, it is the essence of the problem which the House must deal with.
  Two or three changes are essential. First, the standard assessment must be widened to take into account other costs such as travel, access and house insurance. Secondly, the formula should, if possible—I agree that a conflict exists—be simplified. It should not take two hours to explain it to the Select Committee on Social Security. Anyone should be able to grasp it quickly.
  Thirdly, payments should begin when the assessment is finally settled. The young man that I mentioned faces a total bill of £466. He is being asked to pay just £5 a week, but other people have much greater bills. Not only should the existing power for people to spread payment over a long period be improved, but some of those debts should be cancelled.
  Although my hon. Friend would say that that is giving in to people who refuse to pay, it would also take account of people who cannot pay. Because of the problems faced by the CSA, the gap between the time when the initial assessment is made or when people are first written to and a final settlement is much longer than was originally envisaged. Ordinary citizens should not be penalised for the mistakes that we make in the House or civil servants make at our behest.
  All those changes should, as far as possible, be made through regulation or administrative order because they need to be made quickly. Obviously, my right hon. Friend
  58
  the Secretary of State will want to wait until the Social Security Select Committee has reported, but once it has had its say, action must follow extremely swiftly.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I am grateful for an opportunity to speak in this debate. From speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House, it is obvious that we needed to have this debate. People outside can be assured that hon. Members on both sides of the House are fighting for a fair and effective system and to make the Government aware that the system of child support maintenance which they set up is close to collapse.
  The country desperately needs a system of securing maintenance for children which works, is fair and takes unusual circumstances into account, which commands the support of parents but which, most of all, benefits children. That children should benefit is essential. The fact that so few have done so is central to the Government's failure.
  In my experience, parents on both sides want a system that works. There will always be people who want to avoid their responsibilities and they should be pursued vigorously. Equally, however, many parents want to pay. They want a fair and efficient system that allows them to make and receive regular payments for the benefit of their children. Most hon. Members have had a crop of cases from constituents who feel aggrieved at how the CSA has treated them or are concerned about their ability to cope on the income which they have left. Concerned parents come from both sides—those with care and those who have left the family home.
  A parent with care who contacted my office was horrified to learn that she would probably be worse off receiving child support maintenance. As a parent on income support, she was told that her income would be the same but that she would lose other benefits to which income support can be a passport. Parents can lose free school meals, which are worth several pounds a week, school clothing grants, and housing and council tax benefits. My constituent's hopes were built up only to be dashed, and she was potentially far worse off than before.
  Many women who have not previously received maintenance but are on income support and receive help from practically no one now find themselves even worse off than before the system was introduced. The Government claim that those were the people they wanted to help. That shows the depth of their failure. Many parents with care on income support, many of whom are women, who may have no savings and manage from week to week, will soon receive no support whatever from the state.
  By taking away their income support, the state is effectively denying them the help to which most people are entitled and throwing them to the mercy of their former partners. That does not represent progress for women in our society. If their former partners default and either do not pay or make payments erratically, they will have no money and will be forced into a crisis.
  The lengthy procedures for reclaiming arrears and forcing people to pay are fine in theory, but how will those parents and children manage to eat in the meantime without the guarantee of regular payments? How can driving struggling families further into insecurity be considered putting children first? The Government are putting families on even lower and far less secure incomes while claiming that they have done so for their benefit.

  59
  That is an appalling attitude. It is little wonder that people have so little respect for the Government when they show so little compassion for individual human circumstances.
  Absent parents and sometimes their second families are finding themselves under pressure from the system, especially when they are in unusual circumstances. A constituent of mine has been left with thousands of pounds' worth of jointly incurred debts, but none of the repayments will be taken into account for maintenance purposes. An official of the Government's quango is now telling one of my constituents, "You must pay that amount of money, even though we know that, in reality, you can't afford to do so." The state is literally asking the impossible, yet that man's children will see not a penny piece of that money, as it will be spent on taking his ex-wife off benefit.
  We are all aware of cases in which the formula has been inflexible and unresponsive to individual circumstances. The Government must respond to that problem and treat those delicate matters with the sensitivity and common sense that they deserve. They have failed to set up a sensitive and effective system of delivering maintenance because they do not have the welfare of the people involved at heart. Their overriding priority has been to save money first, second and last. By setting the £530 million target in the first year of operation, they gave the CSA a licence to pursue soft targets where maintenance was already being paid rather than first trying to help those who receive nothing.
  The £335 million—the figure has now been questioned—that has been saved so far should be benefiting the children, but it is being used as part payment for the Government's economic incompetence. The end result is a system from which many thousands of children will see no benefit at all, and it will take thousands of parents with care—mainly women—out of the income support safety net.
  The Government must review the system so that it guarantees that maintenance will be paid regularly and all children will be better off at the end of the day. They must also ensure that there is a right of appeal on both sides when there are circumstances that need to be examined in more detail. It is not good enough to say to people, "Those are the rules. I know that they do not work and have no relevance to your circumstances, but they are the rules". Yet that is what the Government have sought to do and are doing.
  The Government cannot be short of evidence. With many letters from hon. Members, charities, pressure groups and individuals who are affected, even they should have worked out by now that a fundamental change to the system is needed. As well as the failure of the system, we have also been faced with the chaos of administration which seems to be rife throughout the CSA and which adds insult to injury for many people who are dealing with personal matters that are often urgent.
  In the past few days, one of my constituents found that her case as it stands today has not advanced one iota since November. Last year, when she notified the local office of the change in benefit that she was receiving, the CSA said that the next step was an interim assessment—and the agency said the same thing to my office on the telephone only last week.
  In another case, employers were contacted for information when no approach should have been made at
  60
  all, causing potential problems for the constituent at work. In another case, the new name and address of a constituent and his wife were given to the former partner who had caused a nuisance in the past, despite repeated verbal and written requests that the address should be kept secret.
  A catalogue of similar examples of misinformation, incompetence and delay have characterised the experience of many of my constituents with the CSA. Many hon. Members will have cases on their files which have lingered on for months, and many will have shared my experience of writing to the CSA and not having had a reply for more than three months.
  The system is close to breakdown in terms of both organisation and support, and that is why I want to see a fundamental review of it. A number of positive suggestions about how the system could be changed could be made to the benefit of all those involved. Many hon. Members who attended the lobby on the Child Support Agency last week will have been impressed by some of the proposals raised there. Certainly the south Yorkshire contingent representing absent parents, second families and parents with care produced a persuasive case for change.
  Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because it allows me to put it on the record that, although the Select Committee received about 5,000 submissions in response to its inquiry, the submission from the South Yorkshire group was by far the best.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that intervention.
  It is high time the Government took some notice of the hundreds of letters that they have received on the subject rather than simply passing the buck and evading the issue. They have got the matter dreadfully wrong. They have an absolute duty to act to introduce changes which will address the chaos that they have caused to so many people's lives. The message from my constituents is that we need a fair system but, most importantly, one which delivers benefits to the children and one which can be relied on. I hope that the Government will now hear that message and act on it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I must remind hon. Members that Madam Speaker has declared that speeches between now and 8 pm shall be no longer than 10 minutes.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Like most speakers in the debate so far, I strongly support the principle that we should have the Child Support Agency. It has almost become commonplace to say that we have a society with too many rights and not enough obligations. Of course, it would be completely empty words if we were to say that obligations will simply be achieved through exhortation and never through the bite of the law. There is no more important obligation in the ordinary way in society than caring for one's own children.
  Before I come to some criticisms of the existing system, I shall stress three aspects of which we essentially must keep hold. The first is the principle that, even in the era of artificial insemination and all the other facilities available, every child has two biological parents, and if they are both alive and fit and well, they should both be involved in caring for the child, and not only financially.
  Secondly, we are absolutely right to take the maintenance of children away from the courts. It is

  61
  outrageous that for years the courts were allowed to get away with dumping two thirds of all cases wholly or largely on the taxpayer. Indeed, if the appeal system is expanded—at present there are limited grounds for appeal—it is essential that it should not go back to the courts.
  Thirdly—to reiterate the point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—it is absolutely essential that, if the appeal system is extended, it must be only on a limited number of clearly articulated headings, not some sort of general appeal with weasel words such as "personal circumstances" or whatever, which would simply lead to everyone appealing and the formula being undermined.
  I have four criticisms of the existing system—some of them have been aired already. First, the Child Support Agency must be allowed to take account of genuine working costs. Indeed, that is one area where there is room for appeal, because there is an unavoidable element requiring discretion. As other hon. Members have already mentioned this, I shall not dwell on it, but it would be a bizarre anomaly if, just as the Department of Social Security has made the strongest possible commitment—it was reiterated on the wireless this morning by the Secretary of State—to find ways of easing the unemployment trap, we turned a blind eye to the fact that the formula does not take full account of working costs, especially travel-to-work costs, and many absent parents, of which 10 per cent. are women, find themselves paying such sums of money that they are pushed into an unemployment trap.
  My second concern rests on the agency's lack of legal bite. At present, I am dealing with a constituent whose former husband applied 10 months ago to have his case assessed by the CSA and, as a result, the court maintenance order which he had paid for many years ceased. For 10 months, the woman has been living on income support while her former husband skilfully evades the system by prevaricating over details. If the CSA eventually manages to sort out a payment for him and he then chooses not to pay it, it will still take several months to get an attachment order on his earnings. We must give the CSA some of the powers which the courts used to enjoy, so that it will be a clear offence if someone fails to fill in forms in a timely manner, gives a false statement of earnings and so on.
  My third concern, on which I shall spend a minute or two longer, relates to the failure of the present system, in a different way from that which has been raised by Labour Members, to deliver money to the children. I do not mean the suggestion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that there should be some sort of fixed disregard. It seems to be totally wrong that we should end up with a position in which some people are potentially better off with a family split than with it joined together. It would be wrong that in two neighbouring houses there should be a widow on income support and someone on income support whose marriage has broken down with identical family commitments, but the latter enjoys more money than the former.
  A curious flaw in the present system is that there is nothing in it to say that the money has to go to the children. There is no way even in principle that an absent partner can chase up a case by appealing if he strongly believes that little or none of the money is being spent on the child.
  I know of two almost identical constituency cases of wives running off with other men. Both former husbands were in reasonably well paid jobs, while the women's
  62
  lovers were and remain jobless. Maintenance was being paid in both cases before the CSA was set up; it has substantially increased the maintenance now, with the result that the women's lovers have been able to enhance their life styles—spending more in the boozer and on various other activities.
  In both cases the effect of the increased payments has been that the deserted fathers—at least one of them did not want the marriage to break u—can no longer buy their children the presents and gifts that they used to give them. Both fathers used to give their children clothes, holidays and so on, but they can no longer afford to do that. So the children are suffering, while the new boy friends only stand to gain.
  I would not naively suggest that the state should interfere in the budgets of every household—that would be monstrous and unworkable—but absent parents in these more extreme cases should have access to some appeal procedure when it is clear that little or none of their money is going to their children. An appeal procedure should be able to provide them with an order stipulating that, if they give their children gifts in kind, those can be counted against their cash payments. In that way they can be sure that at least some of the money is spent on the children.
  My fourth and last point relates to custody, but it fits in closely with the subject of this debate. Before the CSA was set up, I dealt with a bad constituency case involving an agricultural worker whose wife had run away with another man, abandoning him with the three children. Some months later, when their money had run out, the wife and lover realised that the way to acquire accommodation was for the wife to claim custody of the children whom she had abandoned—such is the imbalance in this country's laws of custody that she could easily and quickly do that, even though the children begged to stay with their father and have several times run away to see him.
  With other areas of law, most strikingly in the White Paper on housing, it has now been acknowledged that state benefits can create perverse incentives. Teenage pregnancy to gain a council house is offered as an example of this. To some extent, child custody arrangements have always involved a perverse incentive, because they provide an incentive for someone who cynically wants to gain housing. I am sorry to say that I have had to deal with several such cases.
  The downside of the good provisions of the CSA, which do ensure that real payments are made, is that they can sometimes add a second edge to this perverse incentive. I am afraid that I am talking about the woman, not the man, because child custody arrangements are biased towards the woman. On top of this possibility of acquiring the family home—regardless of whose name the home was in—the CSA can provide the added incentive of a large income which the woman and the new man can then spend.
  Here, then, is a second reason for looking again at our child custody laws. I am aware that I am speaking against the White Paper on divorce law. I believe that we must go back to some of the pre-1969 ideas and ask where some of the fault may lie. If one partner has clearly abandoned the marriage and left the children with the other, that should be a prime consideration when subsequently awarding custody of the children.
  I end where I started by expressing strong support for the principle of the CSA. In all the areas that I have described, however, we need reform, and it is important that it comes as early as possible.
  6.14 pm
  Ms Mildred Gordon: One would think, after the fiasco of the poll tax which cost the country dear, that the Government would have learnt the lesson that they cannot operate an Act without the support, or at least the acquiescence, of the majority of people in this country if we are to keep our democracy intact.
  The Secretary of State has tried to demonise the campaigning groups, implying that they consist of nothing but violent, selfish fathers who do not want to pay maintenance for their children. That is totally untrue. There may be some fathers of that sort, but most members of the campaign network are decent men who care about their children and want to maintain them. The networks also contain single mothers with care and second wives—they are a mixture, not just groups of fathers.
  The Government are already trying to reduce the democratic rights of these groups. The latter wanted to hold a rally in Trafalgar square on father's day, but the Heritage Commission banned it on the spurious grounds that large numbers would attend—as, indeed, they would—and that it would be dangerous for the large numbers of children who might be brought across the road. Will that be the pattern for the future when groups who might bring children with them apply to hold rallies in Trafalgar square? I hope not. Will the Government go further, as they did with the poll tax, and bring in bailiffs and imprisonment to deal with the men who cannot find the money to pay the huge debts that have accrued owing to retrospective awards?
  Not only are the campaigning networks mushrooming all over the country and holding rallies of thousands of people who are against the Child Support Act 1991, but the legal profession has declared itself against the Child Support Agency and in favour of a court-based system. Even groups of lawyers who deal with family matters and divorce are of that opinion. I believe that we should take their expertise and advice into account.
  The voluntary organisations which have thus far supported the idea of a formula are getting more and more worried too. Looking through the voluntary organisations' reports from the end of the first year of the CSA's operation, I find that the Child Poverty Action Group's report lists about 34 changes which should be made to make the formula function more fairly, the National Council for One Parent Families lists about 20 changes, and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux wants no fewer than 44 changes. Other organisations could add to that number.
  It is time the Government realised that the agency is not going to work and that what is needed is a court-based system with an organisation to enforce the maintenance on which the court-based system decides. That would be much more efficient than the discredited CSA, but the Government should attempt it only after widespread consultation with the public. By now, millions of people are aware of the problem of child poverty and are discussing it, and thousands of people have been to meetings to suggest what system they would lik—how the Government's system can be improved or done away with and replaced. The Government should therefore consult the public and the campaigning organisations about what can be done, because it is clear that what the Government have done so far is not working at all.
  The central question remains the poverty of children. In
  64
  1990, Breadline Britain showed the true extent and nature of the poverty of many children in this country; 2.5 million children were living without certain basic necessities, such as three meals a day or being able to take a full part in school activities—despite the fact that many parents went hungry to prevent their children from suffering the stigma of poverty in school.
  On Government statistics, 3.9 million, or 30 per cent., of our children were living in households with less than half the average income in 1991. That means that they were living in poverty or on the margins. We need up-to-date figures so that we can compare what happened before the CSA with what has happened afterwards, but the 1992–93 figures have not been published. They have been ready for a long time and the Government have said that they will be released soon. Is it too cynical of me to think that they are being held back until the House rises for the recess? I challenge the Government to publish the figures before the House rises so that we can see what is happening.
  The Government must take account of the fact that a man on average wages cannot keep two families. When the Act tries to make him do so, it simply spreads the poverty so that not only the families of single mothers but also the second families will live in poverty. The Government must face the reality that a low average wage will not keep two families decently.
  The Act was introduced on the pretext that it would alleviate child poverty, but it is doing nothing of the sort. It seems to have become a grubby device to fill the Treasury's coffers. On 2 July the Evening Standard published figures showing that less that 2p in every £1 went to parents with care for the benefit of the children. Most of the money went to the Treasury. That may be good for the public sector borrowing requirement, but it is not alleviating the poverty of this country's youth.
  Many people have come to see me or written to me in distress because of the activities and demands of the CSA. With the 10-minute restriction on speeches, I do not have time to go into these cases, and in any event it might bore the House as I am sure that many hon. Members have had mailbags full of letters too. In many cases, the CSA is acting illegally by not giving women, and especially single mothers, proper information about their rights. It may also give false information about the right to withdraw authorisation if a woman changes her mind.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) spoke of women being forced back into dependence on former partners with whom they wished never to have contact again. Some of them are even forced into financial dependence on their former partners' second wives, whose income is also taken into account. The Act has caused widespread misery and despair. It has disrupted many relationships which had been painfully rebuilt after the bitterness of separation and divorce, where parents had got together and established some kind of modus vivendi for the sake of the children. That has been shattered by the activities of the CSA.
  Single mothers have been threatened with benefit penalties and fathers have often been saddled with huge debts because of the retrospection of maintenance demands. As hon. Members have said, some people have been brought to the point of suicide. The agency has acted with great insensitivity. I have had reports that wives who have been battered by their husbands or threatened by men have been interviewed by a male officer sent by the CSA. That also causes great distress.

  65
  The Child Support Agency has been dilatory and inefficient and it must go. The Child Support Act 1991 must also go. We are all concerned about proper maintenance of children and want to do away with child poverty, but this is not the way. The Government must go back to the drawing board. There must be public consultation and a Government rethink.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, not least because—in common, I am sure, with many hon. Members—I have had a substantial number of letters and surgery visits as a result of the introduction of the Child Support Agency. I have discussed the recent visit of representatives from Australia and New Zealand with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who takes a close interest in these matters. Unfortunately, that discussion gave me little room for hope that, within the next five years or so, matters will improve, as, after six years of the operation of similar legislation in Australia, there are still many complaints about its working.
  That is hardly surprising, however, as we are fighting a whole culture which has built up in this country, not least with the encouragement and support of some Opposition Members. As a result, many people assume that at the heart of the way we run our society is the fact that, if people are not minded to pay for the upkeep of their children, the state will pick up the tab.
  In dealing with correspondence and surgery cases, it is easy to get a slightly slanted view of the reality. I do not think that I am alone in saying that I have not had many representations from single deserted mothers, many of whom already benefit from the legislation. There has been a well organised and well orchestrated campaign against the Child Support Agency. As we have heard, that campaign has sometimes slipped into violence and intimidation and a kind of strike against filling out forms which are needed for assessments.
  Almost all those who visit my surgery or write to me begin with the mantra that of course they support the principle of the CSA, and I am sure that some of them genuinely do, but as one strips away the layers of truth or untruth, one discovers that many do nothing of the sort as they plainly rely on the assumption which has existed until recently that, come what may, there will be state support. The job of hon. Members is to separate the wheat from the chaff before we come here to debate the issue.
  We must remember that the balance must be tilted towards deserted parents, of whom we tend to read little in the newspapers and hear little in these debates. Just as important is the taxpayer. At the moment the average person in work pays £15 each working day towards the cost of maintaining the social security system. Those people have children and mortgages and have chosen a traditional family unit. They may have had their ups and downs, like all families, but they have stayed together and met their obligations; yet they are being called upon to pay such amounts.
  It does no good to talk about the Treasury taking the benefit, as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) did, because the Treasury is another word for the taxpayer. Money clawed back for the benefit of the Treasury benefits the ordinary taxpayer. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social
  66
  Security outlining the extent to which benefit fraud is being exposed as a result of the agency's actions. That has certainly been my experience in several constituency cases, and my right hon. Friend's figure of £138 million already recouped was impressive.
  No modern industrial state can afford to ignore this problem. In a speech made a couple of weeks ago on the welfare system in the USA, President Clinton spoke about
  "the toughest child support enforcement measures in the history of this country".
  President Clinton, a Democrat president, went on to say:
  "How are we going to do that? First, by requiring both parents to be identified at a hospital when a baby's born. Second, by saying, if you don't provide for your children, you should have your wages garnished, your license suspended, you should be tracked across state lines."
  In August last year, the New York Herald Tribune said:
  "Seventeen US States now deny driving, professional, fishing and hunting licenses to divorced men who are behind in their child-support payments. In Maine 18,000 'deadbeat dads' owing a total of $150 million were mailed warnings this week from the…State Department of Human Services. Licenses to drive, fish, practice law, work as a beautician or in any other state-licensed field are at risk."
  [Interruption.] As Opposition Members should know, the problem is not limited to this country, and other countries have different ways of dealing with it.
  The changes in the working of the CSA are welcome and Ministers have not ruled out the prospect of future changes. I shall touch on a couple of problem areas that I have identified in my constituency cases. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will deal with them in his winding-up speech.
  The problem of travel costs is particularly prevalent in the south-east, where people often pay substantial sums to travel to and from their place of work, mainly in London. Some even take out a loan for that purpose, which means that they are doubly penalised. I have some sympathy with those people, and I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the problem again. I appreciate that the general question of loans is a difficult one. Very often a divorced father has to set up a new household and borrow money to buy furniture and other things; yet I understand that those loans are not taken into account.
  At the other end of the scale, a gentleman came to see me recently—he shall remain nameless—who before his marriage broke up was earning £40,000 a year. He had been paying some £1,000 towards child maintenance. After receiving the attentions of the CSA, he has set up a new business, is no longer making voluntary payments and is claiming that he cannot afford anything, because in the nature of starting a new business, his drawings figure is very low indeed. He seemed quite outraged by my suggestion that he was expecting the taxpayer to subsidise the start of a new business enterprise. As for my somewhat tongue-in-cheek suggestion that, when the business eventually took off and succeeded, he should send a retrospective cheque to the Department of Social Security, the thought had clearly not crossed his mind.
  Although that is an extreme example, I appreciate that there are difficult cases. It is difficult to find a rule that would do justice to an extreme case such as that—someone who has given up a well-paid job and is starting a new business—and also to more deserving cases. But the fact remains that the system is necessary and useful. It is a system that is already being applied in a number of other countries. We have heard how Australia and New Zealand

  67
  are still fighting to achieve an acceptable system and to make it as practicable as possible. Our job in the House is to ensure that the system works.
  Some of the contributions that we have heard from Opposition Members suggest that they would like to see the whole system done away with and a return to the bad old days. The bad old days were totally unacceptable, because they involved a consensual burden being placed on the state and on the taxpayer, with the connivance of the courts. That resulted in an enormous bill for the maintenance of children when in many cases the parents were perfectly able to maintain them in the style to which they had become accustomed. If other changes are to be made to the workings of the Child Support Agency, I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will consider their merits in due course.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Like many hon. Members who have spoken today, I recognise the importance of this subject. We are talking about one of the most important issues to have arisen in social policy over the past 10 or 15 years. It is important largely because of the force of family changes that are occurring, as has been acknowledged, in many societies such as our own, which mean that more and more children are being brought up by only one parent rather than two.
  The evidence from the general household survey shows how rapidly some of those changes have occurred. In 1979, 83 per cent. of children under 16 lived with both their natural parents. By 1991, that figure had declined to 71 per cent. So only seven out of 10 of our children under 16 are living with both their natural parents.
  That rapid change, which makes the debate all the more important, is being fuelled by two forces in particular. One is marital breakdown, which probably means that some one in four children under 16 will have mothers and fathers who divorce. The other—a peculiarly British issue in the European context—is the rise of those families headed by the single unmarried mother. It is a particularly vulnerable—certainly very poor—family. The issue of parental responsibility is crucial for the welfare of future generations of children. The futures of literally millions of our children depend on our getting the debate right and fashioning an effective child maintenance policy for children.
  Although my own analysis of family change would not be all doom and gloom—a proper analysis would talk about the strengths associated with some changes as well as the insecurities, and proper social policy should play to strengths and not just recognise insecurities—nevertheless, in the context of the debate, we must acknowledge that the revolution of family change, which we have seen over the past 20 years, has not been a bloodless revolution. Although many are affected, including many men, the major victims of that revolution have been women and children.
  In handling family change, our approach, implicitly, has been women and children last. I say that because, although I am sympathetic, as are many hon. Members, about the position of the many men who find that they have second family responsibilities, there is a sense in which the debate
  68
  is affected by a major hypocrisy—we should be spending most of our time worrying about the position of women and children in one-parent families, the families with care, but the debate is becoming increasingly dominated by the interests of men.
  There is something strange about that, because we know that, in the past, after a marital breakdown, the men were often not only unaffected financially but were better off, because they no longer had to pay the maintenance for their children. Invariably, the women and children have been worse off. If there were any justice in the debate, about the concern that we feel about the position of men—I share that concern, and we need the Select Committee report to show us how we get the right formula for second families—we would hear rather more about the poverty of women and children.
  Although many of those women and children are beginning to come to our surgeries, we are letting the men's agenda dominate the debate. Unless we have the courage—sometimes it requires courage when discussing this with some of those affected by the CSA—as a Parliament to listen hard for the silent voices of poor one-parent families, we will make major mistakes.
  The costs of social change are considerable. We must recognise that the debate is so controversial because it highlights questions about the costs of children. Any parent knows that children are very costly, and are increasingly so when one considers the demands of training, education and higher education. One way or another, our society, through partnerships between the family and the state, and perhaps other institutions, must invest more, rather than less, in our children in future. At the moment, the costs of social change and family disruption are being shouldered in the main by women and children through poverty. They are being shouldered negatively.
  There is no getting away from the fact that children are costly. The York study, which sought to draw up a modern budget, showed that, for children under 11, a modest but adequate budget per week would be about £59. When one thinks of that, perhaps multiplied by two children and a monthly rate, it is not so surprising that so many absent fathers are shocked by the size of their child support bill. I think that, if parents in this country totalled up the costs of clothing, food, shoes and the rest, or had some Government agency doing that and sending the bill every week, they might well feel that they too would want nothing to do with those costs.
  I am making a serious point. The issue highlights the costs of children, and there is no dodging that. The parents should share those costs in an equitable way through a revised formula; the mothers and children pay for it negatively—as I have argued, through poverty—or the state pays it. That is the issue. I am not one of those who talk about the state and the Exchequer—although I was one of the first on the day that the White Paper was published to call it the "Exchequer Support Act"—in some faraway fashion. I know that many poor parents in work in my constituency, struggling on low incomes to bring up their children, have been asked implicitly—perhaps explicitly—to help to pay for other people's children through social security.
  Perhaps I may say something with which Conservative Members would not agree. I am one of those people who want a new formula and believe that major reforms must be made, but I regard the key criterion to be the attack on child poverty. I first studied child support legislation in

  69
  Australia, where I spent several weeks some years ago. I was struck by the fact that, when Brian Howe, Canberra's Social Security Minister, introduced his child support measure, it was part and parcel of a strategy to attack child poverty. That was important. For that reason, there was a disregard.
  In Australia, most of the money collected goes to the mothers and children. When I spoke to Ministers, officials and members of the Australian tax office that does the work of the CSA, I was told that, without the disregard, it would not have been possible to introduce the legislation with the degree of success that it has enjoyed. I know from talking to groups in Australia that it makes a difference to Australian mothers when the dollars come in every week.
  I argue for a disregard, but many Conservative Members—some briefed, no doubt, by strange offices in squares nearby—like to challenge Labour Members, and in particular members of our Front Bench, saying, "Where would you find the money ?" We are debating a policy that is in deep trouble. It may not exist in a year or two unless it is sorted out and it wins public confidence.
  The Government are quibbling about the cost of a disregard—which I acknowledge would be substantial—when that may save the scheme and one day result in a measure that will make sense for children in poverty but also for the taxpayer and other parents. That displays the peculiar short-termism that makes the Treasury so badly fitted to be the lead Department in social policy.
  I urge the Government to think again. It should not always be the story of Mrs. Thatcher and the Treasury. We must find ways of making this a decent piece of social policy. We are about cultural revolution. We are about saying to parents, "Whatever the circumstances, you as parents have a long-term responsibility for your child. Yes, there will be a framework of rights"—such as child benefit and one day, I hope, child care and nursery education—"but you have a responsibility." If we are to succeed with that cultural revolution, there must be urgent reform of child support to make it not Treasury or fiscal policy but decent, child-based social policy.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Michael Stephen: There are two dimensions to this debate—policy, and the administration of the child support system. I will confine my remarks to policy.
  The starting point must be the amount of money each week that the Child Support Agency requires an absent father to contribute. I do not believe that anyone can say that that amount is generous. It is determined by the formula and is much less than the amounts recommended by the National Foster Care Association.
  However, the principle behind the legislation is that the child who is not living with, usually, his father should not be confined to income support level but be entitled to benefit from any increased prosperity enjoyed by his absent father, just as if his father were living with him.
  Having examined the formula and a large number of constituency cases, as have other hon. Members, I do not believe that it can be argued that the agency is asking absent fathers to pay more than is reasonably required for their children's maintenance.
  It is often said that, if a court had been involved in the past and a clean break settlement reached, that should not be disturbed by the CSA. Having practised 15 years at the
  70
  Bar and been involved in a good many such cases, I can let the House into a secret. Most of those cases were not considered by the judicial mind at all. The lawyers for the husband and for the wife got together and worked out an agreement that was acceptable to both parties, and that was rubber-stamped by the court. Neither the advocate for the wife, nor the advocate for the husband, nor the judge had to consider the interests of the taxpayer. Many orders cannot be left undisturbed, because they failed lamentably to take account of the interests of our constituents—the taxpayers—who fund all the social security benefits.
  Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that a concern shared by many of our constituents is the quality of the scheme's administration? That seems a recurring theme in debates on the agency's operation.
  Mr. Stephen: The system's efficient administration is immensely important, but, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have only 10 minutes and want to confine my remarks to policy.
  A major part of a settlement between a husband and wife would usually be the transfer of the marital home to the wife. In effect, the husband usually transferred not the property but a large mortgage. The wife would then expect the state to pay the interest on the mortgage, which accounts for the lion's share of the monthly payment.
  I do not believe that anyone is arguing that we should return to the old system. I remind the House that, under that system, three out of four lone parents received no regular maintenance and where maintenance was paid, it was wholly inadequate. The average payment was £25 a week. Some ex-husbands have come to my constituency surgery and said indignantly, "I have always paid. Why does the CSA expect me to pay more?" When I asked how much they had been paying, one constituent told me that he was paying £25 a week. I replied that I did not think that was very much to support a child these days and he replied, "Three children." Some people have no idea how much it costs to maintain a child these days. If the agency has done one thing, it has brought home to everyone that parenting a child is an expensive business.
  Earlier, the question was asked why absent fathers should be expected to maintain their ex-wives as well as their children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right when he said that there was no obligation as such to maintain an ex-wife, but there is an obligation to maintain an ex-wife in her capacity as the carer of the child. If she is unable to go to work to earn her own living because of the need to care for her child, who is to support her—the father or the taxpayer? Clearly, the father must pay in so far as he has the means to support her.
  It is said also that the agency is a law unto itself. That accusation should be refuted here and now. Clearly, the CSA is not a law unto itself. It can only do what Parliament has authorised by the Child Support Act 1991, and any officer of the agency who sought to step outside his statutory powers would be brought to account by the courts.
  Many absent fathers are, of course, taxpayers, but if everyone who was paying taxes had the right to have his or her children maintained wholly or partly at public expense, the whole system would collapse and no one would get anything.
  Reference was made in a derisory way to cases in which fathers are spending money on pet food and say that they

  71
  do not have the means to pay for their children's maintenance. That is actually a serious point. Does one put the interests of one's dog before those of one's child? Anyone who thinks about that for a moment will know the answer.
  It has been suggested that the formula should be adjusted to include the cost of travelling to see the children. From my experience at the Bar, I know that that formula would be open to abuse. There would be arguments about whether the husband had actually been on that particular day. There would be endless disputes between the husband and the wife as to whether the husband was entitled to deduct an amount from his maintenance payments. Rather than going into specific details such as the travel-to-work costs or the costs of travelling to see the children, it is better to have a simple, basic formula that leaves sufficient income in the hands of the parent who is paying, for him or her to discharge those reasonable expenses.
  I am conscious that any new scheme, particularly one as ambitious as the Child Support Agency, which has social as well as administrative and political consequences, is bound to produce teething troubles. Those problems have perhaps been worse than any of us expected, but we must not be defeated by that. It is, in essence, a sound system. No hon. Member has suggested that the system is not essentially sound and fair. We must get it right.
  I congratulate the Government on responding positively to the Select Committee's report. The Government have made important changes which have benefited absent parents. From the outset, parents with second families whose maintenance liability was less than £60 a week had that liability phased in over 18 months. That phasing has now been applied to people with higher incomes. The protected income level, which ensures that absent parents and their new families stay above income support level, has been increased. Collection fees have been abolished in many cases.
  Absent fathers sometimes ask why the CSA becomes involved when they have a reasonable maintenance agreement with their ex-wife which has been operating well. As I understand it, the CSA does not become involved in those cases. It becomes involved only if a party is on benefit, or asks it to become involved. If I am wrong, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would correct me. Another amendment that has been made is that, as the children become older, the amount payable to maintain the parent with care is progressively reduced. Clearly, the parent who has care of an older child is more able to earn his or her own living than a parent caring for a young child.
  The Select Committee is continuing its valuable work, and we all look forward to reading its report. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give that report serious consideration and bring before the House those changes to the system that he considers necessary.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Mike Hall: My reading of the debates that took place before the Child Support Act 1991 shows that they were based on two discussions: first, that absent non-paying fathers should contribute to the maintenance of their children, with which everyone in the
  72
  House will agree; the second underlying theme of the debate was that we should try to tackle child poverty. I used to think that there was a hidden agenda and that the Child Support Agency might bring money to the Treasury that could be used to reduce either the public purse or taxes. That argument was introduced at a late stage.
  The Government's amendment states that the Government
  "reaffirms its support for the principle, to which the Child Support Act 1991 and the Child Support Agency give effect, that parents should support their children where they are able to do so".
  There is no distinction between non-paying fathers and paying fathers with care of children, but that distinction is important.
  If there were any truth in the suggestion that Conservative Members were concerned about the tax bill on those least able to pay, the Government would not have introduced the 8.5 per cent. value added tax on fuel at the last Budget, and they would not be contemplating increasing it to 15 per cent. in the next one. If the Child Support Agency were targeting non-paying absent fathers, half of today's debate need not have taken place, because that aim has the support of all hon. Members.
  But the fact that the CSA targets parents who have consistently paid generous support for their children has clouded today's debate. That aspect of the CSA is getting in the way of the marginal benefits that could accrue to parents who currently have care of their children. The CSA is clogged up with bureaucracy, because people are using all the means they can to delay its effects. If the Government had tackled absent, non-paying fathers, that would not have happened.
  Mr. Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hall: No, I shall not give way, as I only have 10 minutes and I must make progress.
  The marginal benefits have been stopped.
  When I listened to the Secretary of State today, I waited for him to say that there were still major problems for the CSA and that he was announcing measures to alleviate some of them. However, I heard nothing of that sort from the Secretary of State for Social Security, whose message was the usual one of wait and see—a recipe for doing nothing about the problems of the CSA. The message that the Secretary of State gave to all families and second families facing poverty was that he was not prepared to listen to their arguments and announce changes to CSA today. The message was that the Government are clearly trying to tough it out.
  The Government's amendment states that the House
  "acknowledges the continuing concerns over child support issues and therefore welcomes the Government's commitment to continue to keep the scheme under scrutiny and to bring forward further changes should these prove necessary."
  The hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who is not present now, and for Calder Valley (Sir. D. Thompson, who is also not present at the moment, gave many reasons why action was needed on the CSA.
  The idea of retrospective action is wrong. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I believed that Parliament could not legislate retrospectively on tax issues. But all those involved in the system of paying maintenance to children are having their circumstances looked at again, which is wrong. Fathers who have consistently paid for their children's welfare are finding that the agreements that were reached in court are being ripped up. The CSA is

  73
  replacing agreements made in court with other agreements that ignore the generous financial settlements that were originally made.
  There is one case about which I have written to the Under-Secretary of State—I am glad that he is present. One of my constituents agreed in a clean-break settlement to give all his equity to his wife, together with the contents of the house and the car. He paid the endowment insurance on the mortgage. He pays all the household bills and a second loan for double glazing. On top of that he pays £142 a month in maintenance to his children. The CSA took over the agreement and imposed an increase, bringing the child maintenance up to £250 a month. That father was not avoiding his responsibilities, but was totally committed to the children of his first marriage—a fact that was ignored by the CSA.
  The financial calculation that has been mentioned by other hon. Members is too mechanistic and is not based on ability to pay. Another fundamental problem with the CSA is the false concept that men who are divorced and who have second families or partnerships have disposable income that they can pay to the CSA. There should be a more sophisticated mechanism to deal with the financial calculation. The Government could then say that they had listened to the arguments and were trying to do something to deal with the problem.
  I am extremely worried about current families—to use the jargon, new families. I do not know whether they are new or current, but I know that some of my constituents tell me that, because of the actions of the CSA, they and their partners are unable to provide the basic means of support for their current families. That is clearly causing distress throughout the country, not merely in my constituency of Warrington, South, which is quite affluent and prosperous.
  I know of no other Government policy related to benefit in tax that charges people for the so-called privilege of having their means assessed. One of my constituents, who was already paying maintenance to his former partner, was contacted by the CSA. The agency worked out the calculations and found that my constituent was paying the right maintenance. It charged him £44 for the privilege of knowing that what he was doing was in line with what the CSA had outlined.
  The most fundamental problem, however, is that the agency does not attempt to deal with child poverty, which we should be trying to eradicate; indeed, that concept is completely ignored. The Government's original estimate that the agency would collect some £530 million, of which £480 million would be recycled back into the Treasury, shows how little extra money would have gone back to the children. According to the latest assessments in the agency's annual report, about £418 million has been saved for the Treasury—but how much extra money has gone to children whose parents are divorced and subject to the attentions of the CSA? I can find no mention of that in the report; perhaps the Minister will tell us precisely how much they have been given in this fiasco.
  Let me say directly to the Minister that the system would be much fairer if it were seen to be fair. If an independent appeal tribunal were there at the end of the process, half the Government's current problems would disappear. If that tribunal had the ability and the discretion to re-examine the issue and make a fairer assessment, more people would be willing to go through the process: they would have confidence in the independent tribunal, and would pay what they were eventually asked to pay. That
  74
  would remove the Government's three main problems with the Child Support Act, and by refusing to adopt such a course they do themselves a disservice.
  Families are now considering the possibility of separation because of the bills being forced upon them. My constituents are afraid that they will have to pack in their jobs, or that their businesses will fail, because they cannot afford the settlements. Some tell me that the problems are causing friction between the children of their first and second partnerships. Families are being forced against each other, which surely was not the purpose of the CSA. Men are even contemplating suicide.
  Another issue has not been mentioned. I am convinced that custody hearings following divorces will now be contested because of the CSA's actions. On television this morning, the Secretary of State said that the Government would build on the CSA's successes. I have seen no successes, and I should like to think that the Government would listen, recognise the agency's failures and remedy its problems.
  Conservative Members must make a choice when it is time to vote this evening. They can accept Labour's motion, which asks the Secretary of State to act on the CSA's failures—in other words, they can do something positive—or they can join the Government in the Lobby, and vote to do nothing. Clearly, they should put their constituents' interests first on this occasion and vote with Labour.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), not least because—as frequently happens when we sit on the Public Accounts Committee—I agree with a great deal of what he says. Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have encountered cases in my constituency which lead me to believe that there is a clear choice between the motion and the amendment.
  Many hon. Members have identified failings in the workings of the Act and the formulae adopted by the CSA. The choice is this: do we need to wait for a further indeterminate time for those failings to be corrected, or do we need to send the Government a signal that at least some of them can be corrected now? I feel that some of my constituency cases—which I have been examining for many months, while still awaiting any sign of positive movement to correct the obvious failings of the formula—have already lasted too long.
  I shall refer to cases by initial letters and summary addresses, but I have conveyed the full details in a letter to my hon. Friend the Minister so that they are available to him and his officials. The first—which illustrates a couple of points that are becoming increasingly important—is that of Mr. H of Stoke Gifford. He and his wife separated about three years ago, when they made the great mistake of not being clairvoyant. The arrangements that they made for the care of their children, for who should take over existing debt and for who should pay the costs of the divorce were made under the existing law; the changes introduced by the Child Support Act and the agency have made their lives virtually impossible. Moreover, arrears of payments under the CSA's order now exceed £3,000, which is a great deal for someone on a moderate income.

  75
  That couple made two mistakes. First, they accepted that the legal fees resulting from a fairly acrimonious divorce should be paid by the absent parent—in this case, the father. Unfortunately, such decisions are not acceptable to the CSA. The legal fees for both parties, payable by the absent father, amounted to some £7,000. Although it is possible and, indeed, legal for the CSA to say, "You must reschedule the debt: we come first," the lawyers to whom the money is owed do not necessarily agree.
  I never expected to see such a case, at least under a Conservative Government. I never expected, following the making of a legal contract when the law operated in a particular way, to see the wherewithal to fulfil that contract being retrospectively removed from one party. I do not consider that acceptable in any branch of English law. Indeed, I found myself in a certain amount of trouble when we were debating the Finance Bill last year and—using an only partially transparent device—I exposed the Labour party's desire to introduce retrospection into tax law. I find that no more acceptable than the introduction of retrospection into the contract by means of the Act.
  Mr. Stephen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Stern: I am afraid that I have no time.
  The second mistake made by that couple setting up their settlement before the Act came into force was to assume that the absent parent would look after the children for as many days a year as he could. Unfortunately, because of their circumstances, that amounted to only 87 days. Of course, the husband should have been clairvoyant and realised that anything under 102 days did not count; nevertheless, according to the arrangements that he made with his ex-wife and wishes to observe, he continues to look after the children for 87 days and to bear the costs.
  Indeed, he often bears more than he should. One of the agreements that he made with his ex-wife was that he should purchase more of the children's clothing. Of course, none of that is of the slightest account under the current formula: inevitably, the absent parent builds up arrears on arrears while seeing no hope of doing anything about it under the present law. As I have said, I find it difficult to envisage a Conservative Government introducing what is effectively retrospective legislation.
  The second case to which I want to refer concerns Mr. G of Bradley Stoke, who is a police officer. Regrettably, police officers—like Members of Parliament—are probably more prone to marital difficulties than those in many other professions. I am told that, in the case of police officers, that is due to the stress involved in their work.
  In this case, the officer concerned was presented with a huge bill for arrears and was told that, unless he did something about it fairly quickly, there would be an attachment of earnings order. Inevitably, because of the standards of conduct demanded of police officers, he would have to leave the force: police officers, rightly, are not permitted to get into debt of that nature unless they have serious proposals for dealing with it. The debt was so large that he could not have dealt with it.
  A fortnight before the agency's action was due to take effect, the agency discovered that it had made a mistake and that there was no debt. Fortunately, the police officer did not face that extreme difficulty, but it caused me to wonder why a Conservative Government are putting the
  76
  careers of serving members of the police force—public servants, whom I greatly respect—at the whim of an impersonal and inaccurate agency. That is unacceptable.
  The final case to which I wish to refer involves a Mr. P. of Filton, who received an assessment from the CSA and was foolish enough to calculate, on the basis of that assessment, that he could just about afford to take out a second mortgage to provide an adequate house for his second family and pay his obligations to the first. He duly went ahead and purchased the property, only to discover a few weeks later that the agency had made a mistake. My attempts to get the CSA to acknowledge the horrendous financial tangle that it has created for that gentleman have so far been met with the response, "There is nothing we can do about it."
  We have created a monster and it is not sufficient to say, as the majority of hon. Members have said, that we shall get round to tackling it in time. The agency is causing real hardship and we are entitled to expect the Government to take more radical action to deal with it.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I have some sympathy for the Under-Secretary, who carries the most poisoned chalice in the history of the House. In previous debates, the hon. Gentleman said that he did not think that the investigative powers of, for example, the civil courts are such as to ensure that all available financial and other information could be disclosed to enable the setting of an accurate and fair figure for child maintenance. As I said before, that is a slur on the courts—and I speak as a practising lawyer with more than 15 years' experience in matrimonial law and practice.
  The Government's attitude has rightly outraged lawyers and judges. The Government had previously displayed their mistrust of the legal system, and said that the Child Support Agency brought with it far greater uniformity in terms of approach and results. I venture to suggest that that is a double-edged claim. The sheer inflexibility of the process is bringing it into disrepute. Under the courts system, there were often substantial variations, but—this is the crux of the matter—they reflected the way in which courts considered the minute detail of each couple's circumstances. Naturally, those circumstances varied widely, which produced different results.
  Some absent parents have to spend a good part of their free income on travelling to work and purchasing a vehicle to do so; others do not. Some absent parents will have contact orders that enable them to have weekly contact, with the financial commitments that they bring; others do not. Such variations mean that a substantial charge may be placed on a person's income. A just system, employing the necessary flexibility to meet the requirements of each case, must take those and other factors into account.
  This afternoon, I was interrupted by Madam Speaker when quoting from the report of the Select Committee on Social Security. Let me again quote what the chief executive said:
  "We do not have discretion in relation to the size of the maintenance bill. We operate according to an administrative formula."
  She went on to detail the glorious appeal system, which, to say the least, operates slowly.
  Investigative powers are at a premium under the new system. The husband of a constituent of mine, Mrs. Susan Macnally from Tywyn, left her in August last year, taking

  77
  with him pass books and documents providing access to the family capital. Their investments totalled £12,000 and he had recently benefited to the tune of more than £20,000 as a beneficiary under an insurance policy. He left on 16 August, and on 18 August Mrs. Macnally reported his departure to the Department of Social Security and the Child Support Agency, making it clear that he had access to all their capital. Shortly afterwards, I sent the agency photocopies of the investment books and full details of the case, which would have satisfied any court of law. Incidentally, Mrs. Macnally gave her husband's current whereabouts as well.
  Weeks later, the agency informed me that, when he completed the agency's form, the husband had no capital or investments. I wonder where the investments went. He said that he had no money, and the agency was blissfully satisfied. What a way to run a system! To add insult to injury, in May, the husband was refused a legal aid certificate in relation to the divorce on one of two grounds—either he had too much capital or he had too much income.
  I do not know what the agency is up to or whether it is trying to do the job. I do know, however, that one lady in my constituency is desperately unhappy. She looks after her two teenage children but does not receive a penny piece from her estranged husband. That cannot be right. That is one of many examples that hon. Members can cite.
  Should the current system therefore be preferred to the courts, which have come in for some grotesquely unfair criticism in this debate? I do not speak from any standpoint of vested interest when I say that I have heard time and again that the courts somehow connived at transferring financial responsibility for the family on to the state. To my great surprise, some of the hon. Members who made those allegations professed to be lawyers. If that is so, they should know that registrars in the county courts—latterly, district judges—have long since been subject to practice directions, going back five or six years, which specifically constrained such action. Clean-break orders were introduced to ensure that that did not happen.
  I have previously spoken at length about clean-break orders. I understand that perhaps the Government now propose to take action on that—I certainly hope so. If a person divests herself or himself of all capital to ensure that a child has a roof over its head, the system should take account of it. If recent press reports are to be believed, the Government are at long last dealing with that important anomaly, and it is high time that they did. Will the Under-Secretary give an assurance that there will be movement on that issue?
  In opening the debate, the Secretary of State for Social Security said that he was open to suggestions on how the value of property should be assessed—at the time of transfer or concurrent value. He went on to say that in many cases no valuations had been prepared for clean-break orders. I can enlighten him on the matter. In each and every case involving a clean-break order, a valuation is made and a redemption figure is set for the mortgage—ergo, the figure for the equity. If the Secretary of State's facts are untrue, it makes one wonder about the quality of the latest review.
  As I said, more flexibility should be introduced into the present system. Standard formulae may be fine for many things, but they cannot produce fair results when there are so many individual variants, which may be extremely telling. I question whether the agency is capable of fixing
  78
  maintenance. It has no experience in that matter, and the way in which it has operated leaves a lot to be desired. Clearly, the system is too rigid, and grossly unfair on many thousands of people throughout the United Kingdom.
  Like Members of all parties, I of course do not argue with the principle that, if an absent parent can afford it, he or she should be the first to maintain the children. However, I am also acutely aware of the fact that the present rules discriminate against the children of second marriages or second unions, where fathers or stepfathers have to pay hundreds of pounds a month more than they can afford. Why should the children of those unions suffer when they are as innocent and as deserving as the children left behind? Is it right for second partners' incomes to be taken into account in any event?
  I endorse what the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said about police officers, but would extend it to members of the armed forces who are in a not dissimilar position. They are also having a very difficult time, which, as the hon. Member said, is not of their own creation. I hope that the Government will take on board what has been said and reconsider the position of those serving in the armed forces.
  Why should the Government recover more than they pay out in income support? What is the basis for that?
  I conclude with one or two general points that I hope the Minister will take on board. Full housing costs need to be allowed for, including any endowment assurance element of mortgage payments. The Government have made clear their view on pensions, and I believe that pension payments should be taken into account. It has been said that the cost of transport to work should be considered, especially in the south-east. I can assure the House that it is even more of a problem in rural Wales—and, I am sure, rural Scotland.
  The cost of exercising the right to contact one's children should also be borne in mind, or the children will again be the innocent victims. The carer element should be substantially reduced if an ex-wife remarries, is cohabiting or is caring for an additional child or additional children.
  To their credit, the Government have already made some changes to the Act, largely in response to the report published by the Select Committee on Social Security, but I ask them to consider the Act anew, because many thousands, if not millions, of people throughout the United Kingdom are being hurt by it. Many millions of children are suffering badly at the hands of the Government. The time has surely come—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
  7.21 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I have listened carefully to all the contributions to this debate, from which two major points have emerged. First, this is a highly emotionally charged issue, because we are dealing with the breakdown of relationships between individuals, and one can claim that each will have an axe to grind. Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said, the constant theme that emerges from our deliberations is that most hon. Members appear to support the principle of the Child Support Agency although there is frequently a "but" which then undermines and destroys the whole structure of the scheme.

  79
  During a previous debate on the CSA, I spoke in support of lone carers and their children, because it seemed to me that there was no balance in the arguments being advanced—the voices heard were nearly always those putting the case for the absent parent. I think that the same is true today.
  On 29 March, I sponsored a meeting in the House for the National Council for One Parent Families, to provide an opportunity for the case of the lone carer to be heard and the other side of the story to be considered. I regret that very few colleagues from any party attended, yet when the absent parent lobby took place here some weeks earlier, every Labour Member seemed to pass through. One might conclude that only those who shout the loudest will be heard and believed.
  One of the main concerns of lone parents is that they do not have the resources to organise themselves to mount a campaign in favour of the CSA. They do not have the money or the contacts or the access to telephones, faxes and cars enjoyed by many absent parents. They do not have the time or the means to go on marches and demonstrations; they are on their own, often isolated and vulnerable.
  The threat of suicide by absent parents has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Lone carers are incensed by the media hype of "CSA suicides". They tell me that it is a luxury that is not open to them even though many feel despairing—their children rely on them too much for them to threaten or commit suicide. I draw the House's attention to an article in The Sunday Times on 27 March, which showed that the CSA was cleared of responsibility for suicides which had been blamed on it. Many of the cases outlined in the press were not accurate but wholly misleading.
  There is no doubt that lone parents welcome the CSA and the fact that they might finally receive appropriate maintenance for their offspring. Why? Because all the evidence shows that, whereas lone parents and their children sink deeper into poverty after separation, absent parents quickly recover their former standard of living. Lone carers and families on income support want the CSA to deliver; they do not want the Government to give way any further.
  There has been endless debate about the hardship caused to second and third families, but there has been little or no discussion about the hardship experienced by one-parent families. Many of the huge maintenance payments about which absent parents are worrying are in fact interim assessments that have been imposed because they have failed to co-operate with the agency.
  Lone parents are convinced that the negative effects of the changes last February have not been fully appreciated, and that any further changes to benefit the absent parent will push lone parents and their children further into poverty. For example, in cases where the CSA has effectively delivered higher maintenance to lone parents, it has clearly given them the first opportunity in a long time to return to work and make plans for themselves and their children. Unfortunately, for many, the decision to return to work has now been seriously undermined by the February reforms, all of which resulted in a reduction of the maintenance due to one-parent families.
  80
  Shortly after my contribution to the previous debate in the Chamber on the CSA, I was subjected to a barrage of letters from absent parents and their current spouses or partners. Some politely admonished me for standing up for lone carers, but others were abusive and vicious. It appeared that a carefully contrived campaign was being orchestrated against me, almost to the point of harassment.
  I was therefore interested to read in The Independent of 20 June 1994 an article by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, in which she described the unbelievable persecution that she encountered from absent parents and their friends. She explained that, within 24 hours of starting to research her article, her telephone was virtually jammed with unsolicited calls, mainly from second partners telling her their side of the story. When she asked one caller why she was doing this, the woman said that she had been told to ring her. When asked by whom, the woman said:
  "Well we have this network and this is what we do when we hear when somebody is writing about the CSA and we don't want you to say things like 'These whingeing men' and that."
  The article goes on to describe further persecution tactics inflicted not only on the reporter but on CSA staff. As a result of my own experience, I believe everything that she says. It seems that intimidation and thuggery are par for the course in this business. I think that colleagues should be aware that there are people in the anti-CSA campaign who are determined to get what they want at any price.
  I should like to cite an example of the wholly unacceptable pressure being placed on lone carers by absent parents to destroy the CSA's work. I have here two draft letters recommended by an anti-CSA organisation. The intention is for absent parents to persuade the carers of their children to sign them, thus withdrawing authority for the CSA to continue their application. The first instructs the sender to "Put in own address", "Put in date", and "Put in CSA Address". It reads as follows:
  "Dear Sir
  I hereby withdraw my authority to pursue my ex-husband/wife… Mr./Mrs…for any monies. The reason is the distress that is being caused to my child/children, as he/she/they…are obviously aware of what is happening to their father/mother… This also affects myself and my ex-husband, as we are both upset whenever our child/children…are. This and the fact that the MAF that I filled in was misleading in its content, and asking me to sign under duress.
  I even get comments such as, 'I'm not having children when I grow up, they're too much trouble.' Your actions are actually causing some problems that will only resolve themselves in the future, and who knows what damage this will do to young minds. If you are causing children to blame themselves for what is happening to their parents, then can you really feel you are doing a good job, I no longer can, so I must ask you to stop hounding my ex husband/wife immediately. Yours faithfully."
  The instructions continue:
  "Sign and send…only enter the words applicable…put in ex-partner's name. Send the above as a hand-written letter, but keep a copy. Send it Recorded Delivery, so you have proof of sending. Amend anything that will help explain your own circumstances more clearly."
  The second letter reads:
  "Re: Child Support Act.
  I am writing with reference to the forms which I recently completed, giving authority for the Child Support Agency to review, on my behalf, the maintenance payments made to me by my former partner.
  I now wish to inform you that I am withdrawing this authority with immediate effect, and do not wish the CSA to take any action in my case. This is because I am opposed to the way in which the Act is operating, and believe that the involvement of the CSA will have a detrimental effect on the welfare of my children.

  81
  I understand that this withdrawal of authority may lead to a reduction in my personal benefit of up to 20 per cent. for six months and 10 per cent. for a further 12 months. I am willing to accept this reduction in order to allow my children to continue to have a relationship with their father/mother.
  Please therefore discontinue all action in this case immediately.
  Yours faithfully".
  Those are the draft letters being sent out for absent fathers to get the lone carer to sign.
  With the sample letters goes a briefing which states clearly the way in which an absent parent can manipulate the system. It says that the lone parent, by refusing to give authority, will be at most £8.80 per week worse off and that that can be alleviated by the absent parent helping out by buying more clothes and so on. How very misleading that is! Not every absent parent provides anything like as much as all those extras. In addition, there is no obligation on an absent parent to make up the £8.80 to £9.14 difference, and the parent with care has no comeback on the absent parent if he or she does not do so. It is claimed that this contrived declaration has been used successfully in the Fylde area. Such a tactic should be made known in the Chamber. I hope that those who are perpetrating it will stop doing so.
  7.31 pm
  Ms Rachel Squire: I sympathise with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), but I do not share her belief that the Child Support Agency is addressing the whole area of child poverty in the way that seems to have been her experience. From my experience and contacts with many lone parents, I know that they have certainly not found themselves better off as a result of the CSA, because many of them are on income support and remain at that income level whatever the actions of the CSA. They are not able to come off income support and go out to work because the low wage that they would get from the part-time work available is not sufficient to cover the costs of child care, let alone all the other essentials.
  I too take this opportunity to raise some constituency cases, and to raise them directly in the Minister's hearing, rather than being fobbed off with yet another letter referring me to Ros Hepplewhite. I raise these cases because I too want to emphasise the widespread and justified criticisms of the financial rules and administration of the Child Support Agency.
  Like all hon. Members who have spoken so far, I believe that every parent has a responsibility for his or her child, and that that includes a financial responsibility. I echo the remarks made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), especially those about the armed services. I have a considerable number of armed services personnel and retired service personnel in my constituency.
  I certainly support the points made about the need to reform the CSA, the need to reform the financial formula, the need to introduce an independent appeal procedure, and the need to recognise the contribution made by the parent who no longer has care to the provision of what was once the family home. I also support the points that have been made about the disregard of income support.
  I now raise directly some of the cases with which I have dealt. The first is the case of a gentleman from Rosyth who writes to me:
  "Since my separation I have willingly paid £130 per month, which is the maximum I can afford and still afford to travel to work and keep a roof over my head".
  82
  He is now being asked to pay an extra £114 a month. He continues by saying that if he has to find that money, he will not be able to afford to carry on travelling to work. He feels that he would be better off giving up work in that case.
  The second case is of a constituent from Crombie who contacted me several months ago to tell me that, after he had paid the maintenance being asked for, all essential bills, travel-to-work expenses, housing insurance and heating, he would be left with the princely sum of £6.49 a week on which to live. He was upset that his travel expenses were not taken into account because he had made the deliberate decision, when he and his wife separated and she moved to west Fife, that he, too, would move to west Fife to be close enough to his children to be able to see them during the week after school as well as to have them regularly at weekends. That involved making an 80-mile round trip to work and back every day of the week, but that was not taken into account, and nor was his regular contact with his children, as it did not quite go over the 104 nights level.
  The third case is that of a fireman from one of the west Fife villages. He is being asked to pay £82 a week from a net income of £141 a week. Again, he now has a second family and he is the sole breadwinner in that family. As other hon. Members have said, such cases highlight the immediate need for change to the financial formula. It is not only Opposition Members who are asking for that. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has pressed for several changes to be made to the rules, on which other hon. Members have touched.
  There is also a widespread view about the need to ensure that there is an independent right of appeal. So far, I have had only one constituent who has found the appeal process to be effective, and in his case the assessment was reduced by the grand total of £5 a week. Opposition Members feel that there needs to be an independent appeal procedure.
  Many hon. Members have raised the point about capital settlements. My constituent from Crombie who moved to west Fife to be near his children is one of many who, when the home was sold for £40,000, left his wife £30,000 and the furnishings to try to enable a suitable home to be set up for his children. That has not been taken into account. Other hon. Members have also raised the whole question of the interests of the children and whether the agency is in their interests or whether the operation of deduction from the level of income support is leaving families no better off, if not worse off.
  I have recently come across a case in which the Secretary of State is apparently refusing to use his discretion to involve the Child Support Agency under section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991. A constituent who had separated from his wife and was told that he had a maintenance assessment form to complete found that his ex-wife was both working and claiming income support. He has reported that, but he still finds himself and his actions being apparently disregarded by the Minister and no discretion being exercised.
  I join other hon. Members in expressing my complete dissatisfaction with the administrative delays that have occurred. To mention just one of many, a constituent had a maintenance assessment last February. His wages fluctuate—with performance-related pay, and so on, and overtime. He wrote asking for a review on 28 February. He was told last Thursday—30 June—that the agency had not

  83
  got to the top of that pile yet: it was still dealing with letters from January. In the meantime, deductions are being made from his wages at source on the original assessment.
  I conclude that, while none of us disputes the aims of the Child Support Agency, least of all our constituents—both men and women have largely raised anxieties about the way in which it operates—it is important to ensure that it is seen to operate in a more fair, reasonable and just way than it currently does.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: I can certainly go some way with what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) said about some of the administrative difficulties with the Child Support Agency. There have been problems partly because the agency has been overburdened, partly as a result of the actions of some of those who oppose it and partly because it perhaps needed more staff than it initially had. It is only right to mention to my hon. Friend the Minister two examples of the difficulties which can damage public confidence in what is otherwise a very important and useful system.
  One lady in my constituency had been receiving maintenance regularly. Her former husband arrived on the doorstep with a letter from the CSA saying that he was entitled to £30 repayment. There was a scuffle on the doorstep, the police were called and an unpleasant incident took place. The following morning a letter arrived from the CSA saying that the former husband should have the money repaid to him at the rate of £1 a week. He had thought that he was entitled to his £30 immediately. If the letter had been clearer and a little more thought had been given, that difficulty and the incident on the doorstep would not have occurred.
  Another recent example involved a police constable who had agreed to pay some arrears off at the rate of £19 per month. Two months later he received a letter saying that £300 per month had not been paid for two months. His ordinary monthly payments had been set against the arrears, in breach of the agreement that had been reached. When he took the matter up with the agency he was told that the file had been lost. Such problems do nothing to help the agency to establish itself.
  It is right that the Social Security Select Committee, which is reviewing the issue, should have its report seriously considered by the Government. Its first report showed the way to make some important changes for the better. My constituents who are members of the North Herts Campaign for Fair Maintenance, particularly the two chairmen, Mr. Etienne and Mr. Howe, have submitted evidence to the Select Committee. I am sure that they are confident that their thoughtful contributions will be fully considered by the Committee and also, if those points form part of the recommendations, by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has throughout dealt with the issue with courtesy and great care.
  Having criticised the work of the CSA to some extent, we should recognise that the duty to contribute is a duty to contribute fully: it is not a duty to contribute as much as one feels one can afford, given one's current standard of living. My experience as a lawyer for many years dealing with divorce cases was that there was a difference between the expectations of men and the expectations of women
  84
  when it came to divorce. The women almost invariably expected to have a difficult time and to struggle by on a low income. They expected and always have expected that the man would often be unreliable in paying his maintenance. So the mother always wanted to have the home. In any agreement they always said, "Get me the home because that is some security for me."
  The men had a different attitude. They were always extremely anxious to maximise the income available to them for the future. That was partly because they knew that it was extremely unlikely that they would have the home available to them for the future, so they knew that it was in their direct best interests to maximise their income. We would thus arrive at the court, with both parties on legal aid, and we would cut a deal which satisfied both parties: the wife would get the house and the man would get his income.
  The principle in law is that one can never have a clean break from children, but in practice all too often the husband would receive an order to pay an unrealistically low level of child maintenance and the wife would receive no order, so both parties would achieve their aims at the expense of the state. I see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) semi-nodding: when he said that the old system was a mess and unworkable, he was right. All hon. Members should accept that it was important to go to this new system and to make it work.
  When the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) said so graphically that one income would not satisfy the needs of two families, she was right to an extent. That is particularly so if both parties retain the same high expectations for their living standards. One of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made was that the husband should have a right of appeal on the basis that the money was not being spent on the child. But all husbands say that. In my experience of such cases, they always point to the wife and say, "She has got a video machine." He forgets that the children watch the videos and that he has a video machine in his current home. Both machines are probably on hire purchase. So such a system of appeals would not be a sensible route for us to take.
  It is important that we recognise that the principles behind the CSA and the amounts of money being delivered are right, and that both are equally important. It would be wrong if the result of any review were to reduce the amount of money going to mothers. They require that income. It is wrong to say that we are simply replacing benefit with income. To a mother who wants to go out to work, as so many mothers with small children do, a raft of maintenance at a high level is vital. If we reduce the amounts of maintenance too low, we shall stop women doing what they want to do in many cases, which is to go out and work part time and help to support themselves.
  Nor is it right to make the point which was made by the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) that it is wrong to take mothers out of benefit because they lose their passport to other benefits. It has always been the case that, if the level of maintenance rises above the child support level, certain benefits are lost. However, as I said a moment ago, a raft of substantial maintenance enables women to have options which are not otherwise available to them. It is too easy to forget that.
  I hope that there will be a full and continuing review of the present provision. The principle of the CSA is right, and much of the practice of it has been successful. One has

  85
  only to see the figures announced in the report today to realise that 28,000 fathers who were not paying a penny and were not easily traceable have been traced, which is an achievement.
  Finally, on the way in which some of the groups opposing the CSA behave, I have no criticism of those in my constituency—they have been thoughtful and courteous. One of the organisations most against the CSA, however, has stated:
  "Most separations and divorces are now caused by the women. Changes in family law…have ensured that these women may…continue their lives without responsibility towards anyone."
  The organisation intends to
  "set up a register of women who have abandoned their husbands, sought to cut off fathers from their children or otherwise damaged a father and his children."
  When the organisation's representative was asked to state the purpose of the register, he was unable to do so.
  Hon. Members may accept individual criticisms of the administration—
  Miss Joan Lestor: What was the name of the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, as I would like to deal with it in my reply to the debate?
  Mr. Heald: It is called Families Need Fathers. My quote came from an article by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in The Independent on 20 June 1994.
  Hon. Members will be cautious before they ally themselves with people like that. Dangerous individuals can be drawn into a campaign of that sort and we must be extremely cautious about how much credibility we give them.
  7.50 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: The organisation to which the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) referred in the closing part of his speech is not unknown to many hon. Members. A few years ago, part of its advice to fathers, if they were not allowed access to their children, was to kidnap them. If that failed and nothing else could succeed, it advocated the murder of the mother. There is little doubt that no reasonable person, either within or without this House, would give much credence to that type of fathering.
  The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North spoke of the differing expectations of husbands and wives after the breakdown of their relationship. Judging by the experiences of my constituents, some of whom I shall refer to, their expectations of hardship—as the present caring mother as opposed to the absent father—have been more than confirmed.
  First, I shall quote directly from one constituent's letter to me. She looked to the formation of the Child Support Agency with no small excitement. She believed that it would bring her particular relief and said:
  "As a single parent with a handicapped child, I had hoped to obtain some financial help through the agency. My son is totally blind, and since my separation from my husband, when my son was six months old, he has paid nothing towards his maintenance, despite written undertakings to do so. That was fourteen years ago."
  My constituent, who has only limited financial resources, spent more than £70 to avail herself of the agency's services. There were many months of delay and many hold-ups, as it was unwilling to take any action to enforce its award. Eventually, my constituent received the first payment, with which she was delighted, even though the sum bore no resemblance to the CSA's schedule. I regret
  86
  that that case is still not resolved, as my constituent is receiving neither the full maintenance awarded nor the back payments owed.
  Another mother in my constituency is still awaiting the first payment from her ex-husband. The lack of financial assistance to help with the upbringing of her daughter is causing her great difficulties. Her case echoes what the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North said about single mothers who are desperate to return to work, but who, if the maintenance payments are too low or if there is no disregard and they are claiming benefits, simply cannot provide the necessary quality of child care to enable them so to do. She writes:
  "I am finding it absolutely impossible to hold on to my part-time job for much longer. I am on disciplinary action report for my absence because of taking time off to look after my daughter when she is ill and during school holidays as I can't afford a child-minder. I am also getting deeper and deeper in debt."
  This morning, I received another letter from that constituent in which she expressed her concern about the reply that I had obtained from the CSA on her behalf. The reply said that the agency was going to approach her ex-husband yet again for information that had already been requested, but not provided, on several occasions. Not only did the reply offer no hope of any enforcement action being taken in the near future against her ex-husband: it also got his surname wrong, calling him by the surname that she now uses. I am sure that the Minister will agree that such lapses on the part of the Child Support Agency are not acceptable when the subject being dealt with is of such particular sensitivity.
  In essence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) asked most cogently, why was the Child Support Agency set up, and why was the Child Support Act 1991 brought into being? If one accepts the principle, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House referred, that both parents have a responsibility for caring for their children for as long as they are children, none the less there is surely the other element, which is to alleviate or remove child poverty.
  We are viewing major changes in what constitutes a family in these islands. Ours is not the only society in which two parents and 2.5 children no longer constitute a family. There are increasing numbers of single-parent families, they all experience unacceptable levels of poverty and the problem is becoming more and more serious. That poverty is impacting particularly on the children.
  In the evidence submitted by hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon, the male voice seemed to be the most predominant in the argument. Very often the voice of the single parent—the caring mother—is being ignored. However, the voice that is not heard at all—not even in a whisper—is that of the children. They are consistently placed in the middle of especially brutal and horrifying disputes between their parents, as we have heard from the evidence that has been presented today.
  We are considering not merely the financial costs to our society, but the psychological costs that are being heaped on our children. The House should re-examine not only the formulae and practicalities of the Child Support Agency, but our responsibilities, as a House representing the people of this country, towards our children and their future. That should be the most pressing concern, both in this debate and in any review of the Child Support Agency and its system that the Government undertake.

  87
  When hon. Members present, as a validating argument, statements from male constituents who say that they are perfectly prepared to pay for the cost of their children but not for the cost of the mother, we are clearly in a parlous situation. Perhaps we should tell those fathers, "Very well, don't pay for the upkeep of your child's mother, but we'll ask you to pay for all those jobs that being a mother entails."
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have underlined the increasing cost of raising children and how expensive they are. I am perfectly prepared to accept that many absent fathers, who have paid a minimum amount of maintenance, would be extremely surprised, indeed shocked—and have been shocked—to discover the realities of raising children today.
  The essential matter that we must concern ourselves with is that children are a blessing, not a punishment. We have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the difficulties that have been created, either because the CSA was not set up with sufficient personnel or because the formula is wrong. The arguments between separated parents after the breakdown of their relationship make it seem as though children are a punishment. The definition of their cost, and of what they need to be able to grow and flourish into caring and committed members of their society, has reduced them to the most pitiful level, in that they have been so spitefully and selfishly defined—possibly by both sides.
  My perspective is based, in the main, on a single caring mother who is finding it extremely difficult to raise her children at the moment. In future, because of the problems that she encounters in obtaining the maintenance that is legally hers and the Government's absolute refusal to consider the possibility of disregards for those earning a low income, her difficulties will increase, as her income may fall even lower. That will put an additional strain on her and her children in circumstances that are already too stressful.
  I am pleased to see that the Minister is listening with no small attention to what I am saying. I have no doubt that he has heard similar concerns expressed by many other hon. Members. I strongly urge him to consider the well-being of the children involved; that must be the primary concern. When absent parents are incapable of paying what the CSA has deemed should be their contribution, for whatever reason, surely it should be entirely possible for the Government to find some means to strike a balance between that and the requirements of raising children. They should offer disregards or continuing support from the Benefits Agency. Children are the most important consideration in this issue.
  8 pm
  Dr. Robert Spink: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, unusually, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on their thoughtful contributions to the debate.
  I should like to start by giving some statistics about the CSA, which are necessary to put the issue in context. The agency has now assessed 205,000 cases and, of those, some 60 per cent., almost two thirds, represent absent parents who previously paid not a single brass farthing towards the maintenance of their children. I congratulate Opposition
  88
  Members on joining my hon. Friends in denouncing those people. About 96 per cent. of all cases represent children who were left behind by a parent, for whatever reason, on state handouts, while the vast majority of those absent parents enjoyed a much higher standard of living in their new lives than their children.
  I said earlier today that 28,000 feckless fathers have been tracked down by the CSA. In fact, my right hon. Friend corrected that figure and provided an updated one of 32,000. That is a commendable achievement. The CSA has had an 85 per cent. success rate, on which I congratulate it.
  Those feckless fathers, who leave their wives and children behind, do not leave a contact address; they disappear without trace. One of those feckless fathers even came to my surgery and had the temerity to complain about his loss of personal liberty and his loss of freedom to do as he wished. He saw that loss as a breach of personal liberty. Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I told that feckless father? I think you can.
  Mr. Dewar: Tell us—go on.
  Dr. Spink: Suffice it to say that that gentleman will not be voting for me at the next general election. That does not cause me any concern, because he has never voted for me. I was not surprised, and nor will anyone else be, to learn that he is a lifelong socialist, although I was a little relieved to find that out.
  That man told me that he would work less hard and might even give up work to avoid paying the assessment that he had been given by the CSA. I had to tell him that families who stay together have to decide to work longer and harder to support their increased family commitments. It is a pity that he did not choose to do the same.
  The payment of maintenance helps all parents with care, even those on income support, because they will get that maintenance even if they go back to work. Those parents get a £15 disregard if they work longer than 16 hours and are drawing family credit. That is a good thing.
  Let me consider the Opposition's views on the CSA—I cannot call them policies because, as in most other areas, they have little well-defined or costed policy to review. The Opposition propose a right of appeal to a special independent officer with powers to test special circumstances. The hon. Member for Garscadden should understand that every absent parent in my constituency would appeal, because each one has special circumstances. I would, of course, support their appeals because it is my job to support my constituents against the bureaucracy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I hope that I would not win, but I would help them all I could.
  The Opposition also say that they would limit the grounds of entry to the appeal procedure, but, much as we tried to tease it out of the hon. Member for Garscadden, he has not told us yet how he would limit those entry grounds. Absent parents in my constituency, therefore, need not rejoice quite yet, because it would be a very limited and narrow gate. The Opposition are therefore holding out the hope to all absent parents, in a way dishonestly, that their special circumstances would be considered, although the Opposition know that, in most cases, those circumstances would be given no consideration. That is dishonest and it is typical of Labour policy, but that Labour ploy will cut no ice with my constituents, who are far too clever to fall for that one.

  89
  The Opposition have also called for a benefit disregard to help lone parents on income support, but they refuse to confirm that that is a spending commitment or to say how much it would cost and which taxes they would raise to pay it. The Opposition have been hopelessly inconsistent on this issue because they have changed their mind on whether a father should contribute from his unemployment benefit and on whether well-off people should pay a higher rate of maintenance.
  In fact, Labour's so-called policies would encourage the break-up of families by giving financial inducements to those families that split up. It would pay those families more money than those that decided to stay together. Where is the justice and common sense in that? The Opposition would increase the tax bill as a result of their policy and offer a disincentive to mothers who work, because, under that policy, their income might fall if they decided to work.
  Those are the embarrassing facts behind the Labour party's views on the CSA. Do not hold that too hard against the Opposition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because they are not evil or malicious people; they are simply deeply confused.
  I cannot start to give the Liberal Democrats' policy on the CSA. I see that none of them is gracing us with his or her presence tonight. Their Bench is empty. They claim to support the CSA in principle—and so they should—but, opportunistically, they are seeking short-term political advantage by saying all things to all men—no change there. At their spring conference this year, the Liberal Democrats passed a motion which berated the relative impoverishment of single women parents, who are usually financially worse off than men. Then, illogically, they passed an about-turn amendment, presumably—not clearly—to reduce the amount that men should pay to those women for their offspring. I am frankly embarrassed by the vacuum that we continually meet from the Opposition parties about the CSA.
  I should like to consider a topical and somewhat controversial issue. Last week, we heard about developments regarding lesbians and the CSA. The agency has stated that, if a man makes a woman pregnant, he will be responsible to support financially the subsequent child, even if that woman is a lesbian. That will apply even if the man draws up a legal agreement before conception stating that he wants no involvement in the child's upbringing.
  Will the Minister confirm the CSA's clear policy that only men who give sperm to a properly licensed clinic will be accepted and can therefore avoid paying maintenance for their biological child? That is exactly as it should be. Nature never intended babies to be conceived by way of a legal contract between a man and woman, denying a man's ongoing responsibility for his issue in a wholly perverse way—[Interruption.] Opposition Front-Bench Members find that amusing. Many of my constituents will not find it amusing, because those children are conceived for the amusement and pleasure of a lesbian or lesbian couple. I fear for children brought up by lesbians, without a father.
  Only yesterday, an instance was cited in The Sunday Times of a lesbian couple from Manchester who were receiving £180 benefit a week. Many of my constituents would like to receive that much money each week. Those two unemployed women already have two children-one six-year-old and one eight-year-old—and they now have a 22-month-old baby. Under CSA rules, the father must pay maintenance for that baby, which is absolutely right. If the lesbians refuse to give the father's name, as it is suggested
  90
  they might, their state handouts should be reduced not just by 20 or 10 per cent. for a few months but by a significant amount indefinitely until they reveal the father's name.
  The CSA's ruling is right, but the Government must toughen up their rules to deal with wilful obstructers of the system. By institutionalising long-term state funding arrangements, we must not establish another source of impoverished children simply to deliver the instant and selfish gratification of homosexual couples who want a particular life style but do not accept the physical or financial consequences of their choice to live in that way.
  You will be outraged to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that groups representing lesbians have been vociferous in their opposition to the Child Support Agency. They defend lesbians' right to have children by what they call "private arrangements with male friends", most of whom are homosexuals. Yesterday's issue of The Sunday Times reported that, at a recent London conference, women urged non-co-operation with the CSA and outlined strategies to frustrate its attempts to trace the fathers. Opposition Members appear to agree with the moral of that story, which is that, if taxpayers are daft enough to pay, let them pay. That may be a socialist philosophy, but it is certainly not a Conservative one.
  I understand that two lesbian couples who both want babies are now receiving fertility treatment on the national health service at Leicester Royal infirmary. Who will pay maintenance for those children, and what will be the CSA's policy towards them? That is an abuse of the national health service. The high cost of those two episodes of treatment will rob many old people of much-needed hip replacements, and sick children and babies in special care units of the equipment and nursing they need.
  I acknowledge that the CSA has experienced difficulties in its first year. I have given an insight into how those difficulties have been promoted and aggravated by absent fathers or lesbian groups who either do not want to pay or would like to pay a small amount while the Treasury pays the rest—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) wishes to intervene, I should be delighted to allow him to do so, because I wonder how he will answer that argument.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the whole problem associated with the Child Support Agency has been created by the masses of lesbians in our society. That is not the case. There are many problems associated with how the agency functions. It does not even sign letters which it sends to constituents who have problems. Those constituents are not lesbians but hold responsible positions in society. Why does not the hon. Gentleman face up to the real problems and the fact that lesbianism is a minor issue in this debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman faces up to anything, I remind the House that there are 65 minutes left for this debate before the Front-Bench spokesmen reply. Six hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. With a bit of co-operation from hon. Members, they may do so.
  Dr. Spink: I am indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East made a good intervention. He is right to say that lesbianism is a minor issue, but it is a matter of principle that needs to be

  91
  addressed. No one else has mentioned it, so I thought that I was right to raise the issue so that we can have it cleared up, because it concerns my constituents.
  One of the key charges against the CSA is that the money goes to the Treasury. That misguided concept is promoted ad nauseam by the media and Opposition Members. The Treasury has no money of its own; it has only the people's money, which it simply distributes where it is most needed. If it gives it away unnecessarily to support absent parents' first set of children, the money will not be available for other needs.
  It will therefore be taken from orphans and widows who depend on state benefit, from the sick who need hospital care and from truly vulnerable people—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) is laughing again. She should not laugh, because that money is taken from vulnerable people in my constituency—the old, the mentally ill and the disabled—who need money in the kitty so that they can be cared for.
  My constituents realise, even if the Opposition and the media do not, that there is only so much money in the system. If it is siphoned off by one group, it is not available for another, or for investment in education and fighting crime. Those issues lose if we spend the Treasury's limited resources on benefits for first families so that absent parents—usually men—can choose to support a second family. The only time that the Treasury should pay for child maintenance is when both parents genuinely cannot pay. That is the honest Christian truth, with which all my constituents agree. It is a pity that some of the bishops do not.
  Improvements could be made to the Child Support Agency, and I welcome the Government's continued review. The carers' allowance should be reviewed and the formula changed to recognise the atypical position of my constituents, who often pay more for a season ticket to travel to London to work than for their mortgages. The Government should look at the full cost of pension schemes and many other matters which have already been dealt with in detail and which are so important to my constituents.
  However, the Government must not go too far and impoverish vulnerable people in my constituency by taking too much financial responsibility for children of lone parents when the absent parent has the means to pay.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: We have just heard an appalling contribution, which completely misses the point.
  The size of my file of correspondence on this matter is shocking. It is a disgrace for any hon. Member to have such a file. Ros Hepplewhite said that she has 5,000 letters waiting for a reply. I seem to have the 5,000 here, and I am not too pleased about it—and neither are my constituents.
  I am delighted to note that the Child Support Agency is to create 500 more jobs. However, it is appalling that one of today's newspapers has reported that the CSA is sorry after a flood of complaints. Ros Hepplewhite has announced that there will be an extra 700 staff to improve the body's performance. The agency certainly does not have a head. If it has a head, it is a lunatic who has come up with this type of plan.
  92
  I am not knocking the policy. It is important that absent fathers should contribute to their children. As the Minister said, no hon. Members object to that principle and policy. However, the plan of action to recoup the money is the most crazy and disastrous plan that we have seen in the British way of life for a long time. It is time that the Minister listened. He should plan something which responds decently to the needs of our constituents.
  Tonight, I have heard about lesbians, homosexuals, the whole lot. I do not want to go down that road. I want to talk about the genuine concerns of my constituents and the genuine problems they face because of the Government's planning—or lack of it.
  We should get rid of the head of the Child Support Agency because she is not doing a good job. She is certainly not doing a good job when, suddenly, she decides that the CSA will become a job agency.
  Undoubtedly, the formula is in a mess.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the agency is serious about the work in which it is engaged, it must look at the problem where single mothers cannot be recompensed—the agency has typically failed in this area—if their former husband happens to be in business on his own? The agency has done nothing about that. It continually makes excuses about it.
  Does my hon. Friend also agree—this is my second point—that there are many one-parent families where the wife in particular cannot get a penny from her former husband, and the agency has utterly failed to chase the former husbands whom it was designed to chase in the first place? Does my hon. Friend agree with my two points?
  Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend makes a very telling intervention.
  As I said, I have many cases and many points that I should like to raise. If I raised them all, it would take the time of the House for the remainder of the week and I do not intend to do that. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
  The Minister should look at the mess that we are in. We cannot give decent information to our constituents when they write to us with problems. One constituent wrote to me on 11 October; then, lo and behold, I received a letter from Ros Hepplewhite on 31 March 1994. How in God's name can we act as Members of Parliament and give proper information from the House to our constituents if we have to wait months and people have the sword of Damocles over their heads? It is an appalling state of affairs. In a democratic system, it is totally unfair that people must wait to get information from the House and the appropriate people that the Government put in place.
  I could go on. I have heard comments about organisations which have probably abused the Minister and some Tory Members. I regret that action. I regret that undemocratic methods have been used to put across points of view. But what about the thousands of people who have used the avenue of the parliamentary democracy of these letters? What about the thousands of people who have visited their Members of Parliament? What about the thousands of people who have demonstrated within the context of the law? Are the Government listening? No, they are not listening, because they have not put into operation a plan which at the end of the day could look sensibly at people's problems. As I said, the formula is a mess.

  93
  On many occasions, I have come to the House and read constituents' letters. Every one of them seems to be getting worse. The situation seems to get worse and worse. The Government seem to care less as time goes on. They simply want to fix the balance of payments. They seem to want to take money from every part, but are not too concerned about where it comes from. That is the danger. The Government are fraught with danger when they are supported by hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink). He is totally uncaring. He is not looking for a solution for his constituents, although he must have a postbag similar to mine.
  I have written to the Minister on a number of occasions and the replies are all the same: we will put the plan in place, the plan of action stays, and we will think of it here and there. That does not matter; in the end, my constituents will still live in abject poverty. These are the people whom the Government have always known were making contributions to their children because of court action and levy of the appropriate money.
  I could give many more examples, but I want to get straight to the point. I shall quote from a letter that I received from a constituent of mine. When I read the letter, I asked how we in civilised Britain could treat our men and womenfolk and their children in this way. The agency is called the Child Support Agency. It is a crying shame agency. It is a crying shame to the people it is supposed to help. As far as I know, it is not helping any child in my constituency. With my hand on my heart, I wish I could say that the agency is helping children in my constituency.
  I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I shall read this letter because it epitomises what is happening throughout the country. I am sure that it is similar to the letters that we have all received. I quote:
  "I am writing to you in a last, desperate hope that you may be able to give me some help or advice regarding payments which have recently been assessed for me by the C.S.A.
  I am an ordinary working man"—
  he is not a high flyer—
  "I earn a reasonable wage"—
  he thinks that it is a reasonable wage; I shall explain later—
  "but I cannot cope with the unreasonable increase the C.S.A. has made to my maintenance payments.
  I was divorced in 1990, at which time a court order was raised for a payment of £80 per month to be made in respect of my two sons. I love my two sons dearly and have done all in my power since the divorce to provide as much for them as possible over and above my maintenance payments. Although my two sons live in"
  another part of the country—
  "a 200 mile journey from my home—I drive through and bring them to my home approximately every third weekend and all school holidays. At no time have I ever failed to make regular maintenance payments.
  I have since remarried and now have a stepdaughter and daughter through this marriage. My wife does not work and I am the sole bread-winner for the family.
  My take home pay is £230 per week, but the C.S.A. has assessed my earnings at £270 per week from which they expect me to make payments of £76.76. I have been in contact with a counsellor from the C.S.A. who has agreed that the assessment is too high. She has phoned Falkirk on numerous occasions on my behalf to ask for a reassessment, but the C.S.A. has refused to give one as they say that the difference is not sufficient to warrant a reassessment. If I were to pay the amount the C.S.A. are requesting it would leave me in the position of not being able to provide my present family with even the basic necessities."
  I feel that I must do justice to my constituents who have written to me, but I have not seen any decent replies. The letter goes on:
  94
  "My car is a necessity. If my car were to be repossessed I would neither be able to visit my sons nor would I be able to get to work. I work as a security guard at"
  a well-known company—
  "a job which entails shift work for which I could not rely on public transport"—
  public transport in Scotland has been decimated—
  "I suffer from osteo-arthritis and rely on pain killers to keep going.
  Although I have requested an allowance to be made on my assessment for prescription charges the CSA have denied me this. My wife and I are at the end of our tether. We can see no way around this situation. We have thought of uprooting our family and moving away from Britain, but my sons and I have a close relationship and I do not want to lose contact with them. My company has a policy of dismissal for arrestment of wages, but the only course of action I can see open to me is to continue to pay my £80 and wait for the CSA to arrest my wages. I am 39 years old and am proud to say that I have never claimed any state benefits. Sadly however if I am dismissed from my job, myself, my wife and my two daughters will be forced to be reliant on state benefits. At which point my ex-wife and two sons wouldn't even be receiving my present payment of £80. Our situation has now become desperate and we would be grateful for any help and advice you could give us on this matter."
  I supported the idea of the CSA, but I now regret allowing the Government to put a bad plan into operation just because I accepted the principle.
  For the sake of the thousands of people all over the country who are suffering, I ask the Minister to take some caring action to end the terrible trauma that our constituents are facing-because the Government could not get it right.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: In the first two minutes of his 30-minute speech, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to parental responsibility. He also said that the Child Support Agency had been set up under an Act that enjoyed all-party support. I had no difficulty agreeing with the first two minutes of his speech. Significantly, they showed that there is unanimity at least on the principle and about the fact that an independent and responsible body in the form of the CSA is needed.
  Unfortunately I could not agree with anything else in the remaining 28 minutes—
  Mr. Dewar: What a relief!
  Mr. Shaw: I thought the hon. Gentleman might be relieved. I shall now try to explain why I disagreed with him.
  Most people outside agree with the idea of parental responsibility for children. Most fathers who come to our surgeries start by saying that they think it right that they should be responsible. The issue then boils down to cost. That is the problem. We can tackle it in many different ways; we can talk about the formula, or about whether to include certain factors in it or not. Ultimately, however, the basic problem is that, although many absent fathers are prepared to agree to the principle, they are not prepared to agree to the calculations devised by the DSS.
  The same appears to apply in Australia and New Zealand, and to judge by my observations on Internet, of the child support system in America. One of the hottest debates around the world concerns the costs of bringing up a child. Because we are asking people to pay extra, no wonder the system has proved unpopular with those who have had to pay it.
  It is interesting to contrast the work that the Social Security Select Committee is doing on the CSA with the

  95
  work we did last year on the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance. The systems administering the latter were in difficulties because of the large number of new applicants rushing to claim. Why were they so popular? Because they were paying out more money to more claimants. The CSA is, of course, charging more people money—charging many absent fathers who refuse to contribute more money.
  We should therefore not be surprised by the difficulties that the CSA has faced. We should, however, be disgusted by the campaigns that have been waged against the staff and the agency. I have with me large numbers of documents copied from various organisations opposed to the Child Support Agency. The Minister finds himself on a poster, "Wanted for Murder". The newspapers have attempted to attribute seven suicides to the CSA and the workings of the Act. No one has had a thought for the fact that there may have been human tragedies behind those suicides. Nor has anyone had a thought for the fact that there are 4,900 other suicides each year. Are they all to be blamed on Government or Opposition policies, or on some other policies? The very idea is ludicrous.
  Mr. Wray: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the agency is being used as a rogue body—and that the Government are not worried about children: they are worried about the Treasury, and getting as much as they can for it? Of £210 million, it has been said that only £3 million went to the children. Of £530 million, only £50 million was going to go to the children. If the Government were sincere and compassionate, why did they not give all the money to the children? Why did the agency attack the high-income families who were already paying up? Why did it not target the absent fathers?
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman, having observed me operate on the Select Committee, anticipates me with impeccable timing. I was about to talk about the Treasury. The idea that all this money is going to the Treasury is grossly misleading. I challenge anyone to tell me which room in the Treasury I can find all this money in. Where are all the huge sums collected from absent fathers? I walk the Treasury corridors, and I have to tell hon. Members: the money is not there.
  We are either taking less money from taxpayers or we are paying out more in benefits than we otherwise would. Saying that the money is in the Treasury is the biggest lie about the child support system. Today the BBC, which prides itself on neutral broadcasting, allowed itself, I was distressed to hear, to fall into the trap by referring to the Treasury. The media should not refer to the Treasury unless they accept that they are biased. The true position is that either the taxpayer benefits or the benefits recipient benefits.
  What is wrong with the taxpayer benefiting? The Labour Government in Australia are not upset by that. The evidence to the Select Committee and to the social security committee in Australia showed that the Labour Government were proud that taxpayers were going to benefit. We should be proud of it, too.
  I conclude by taking a look at three proposals from the Labour party. The problem with a disregard is that it gives rewards to certain people; a system based on rewards is not to be found anywhere else in our social security
  96
  arrangements. It has also been suggested that the formula should include more allowances. The experience of the Australian, American and New Zealand systems shows that the formula should be made simpler. There is no worldwide evidence to support more allowances in the formula.
  The evidence from Australia is that the appeals system is tough and limited. There is no evidence to suggest that we should have a broad-based appeals system that would allow hon. Members to argue the case for a few extra pounds for their constituents as opposed to constituents elsewhere. There is no way that Members of Parliament arguing such cases could do so fairly. While some aspects of the system could be examined and, according to the Select Committee, could be made better, the lessons from Australia, New Zealand and the United States show that it is difficult to improve the system to please those who will have to pay more and become more responsible for their children.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) complained about a lack of objectivity and one-sidedness in the BBC, but what he said about Australia in the last few minutes of his speech showed that he is guilty of that to a much greater degree. If he had been honest in presenting the whole story, he would have told the House that in Australia there is a $10 a week disregard. Every parent looking after children gets $10 on top of the income support payment every week, plus 50 cents in every dollar that is paid in child support beyond that.
  The hon. Member for Dover says that Australia has a limited appeals system. He forgot to say that the United Kingdom has no appeals system. If he purports to describe the Australian system fully and fairly and without bias, he should describe the whole situation and not just put those parts that suit his case, ignoring the Australian disregard arrangements.
  Sixty-six of my constituents have raised with me cases of injustice and maladministration. Not one of them has objected to the principle that absent parents should pay, and only one has objected to the fact that she has to pay. She is a woman and lives in a one-roomed flat on invalidity benefit of £68 a week. She is expected to take less than the minimum amount that the Department of Social Security has determined as the required amount for invalids so that she can make a contribution to her ex-husband. He lives in a detached house, has two cars and farms 38 acres. He has horses and rides to hounds and goes fox hunting, but that woman is expected to contribute to him for their child.
  The Minister will nod and say that that was what the Act intended. I wrote to the Minister and the CSA about this matter in March but neither has replied. I wrote again in June asking for a reply and I still have not received one. Throughout the debate the Minister has nodded sadly every time an hon. Member complained about the CSA's inefficiency. But nodding sadly is not enough. Somebody is responsible for the fact that simple answers to straight questions from people on the receiving end of the agency are not being answered. Either the agency is at fault, in which case the Minister should make heads roll over the failure of people to do their job, or he is at fault and he should do the honourable thing.
  Nearly half the 66 constituents who approached me are women who are concerned about the way that the Act has

  97
  worked. They expected to be beneficiaries. In his speech the Secretary of State peddled the myth that the agency champions the needs of deserted women, and that complaints come only from fathers who are being asked to pay. I shall state the initials of one of my constituent's so that the Minister can trace her case by way of the letters that I have written. She is Mrs. W. L. and her husband left her in January 1993.
  Mrs. W. L. applied to court for maintenance but was told that the court no longer dealt with maintenance and was referred to the CSA, which she approached in January last year. The agency refused to act because she was on family credit, and she was told to reapply when the credit ran out. She reapplied in July, and in November she telephoned the agency to ask how her application was being treated. She was told that nothing had happened. As a result of her telephone call early in November, on the 20th of that month the forms were sent to her husband. Thereafter there was silence.
  She approached me in March and I telephoned the agency, to be told that nothing had happened because the file was missing. The agency agreed to set in train a search for the file, and after that things moved quickly. The Child Support Agency can move quickly when it wants to. It approached the former husband, and on 13 April the first payment of the backlog of £1,988 was made. It was paid to my constituent on 21 April.
  Why did it take 15 months from the time that Mrs. W. L. applied to the agency for support for her children and telephone calls from her and from me to numerous people in the agency to get the maintenance for her children? Who is responsible for that delay and what compensation is there for a woman who has been left without the resources to bring up her children because of the agency's incompetence and inefficiency?
  Another of my constituents, Mrs. Susan Arkle, regularly received maintenance for 15 years from her ex-husband. She and her ex-husband tell me that he never missed a payment. In October 1993 the CSA took over the case and the payments ceased. The money was still being paid by Mr. Arkle to the agency but when I telephoned, the agency told me that it had no record of payments. It had mistaken my constituent's husband for another man who was not paying. The upshot was that the agency was getting the money, but my constituent and her children were not.
  The hon. Member for Dover said that money must be piling up somewhere in the Treasury. It is piling up in the agency and I hope that the Minister will tell us how much interest has been earned and whether the interest will be paid to parents for the benefit of children. That was the Act's intention, and when money is not paid to the parent with care, that parent has to go without or raise loans and pay interest.
  The application of interest on money held by the CSA would have a dual benefit: it would help the children and compensate the parent with care who has had to take out loans. It would also give an incentive to the Child Support Agency to shift the money out of its coffers and into the hands of the parents who are caring for children.
  In a letter to me, Mrs. Arkle stated:
  "The CSA now owes me over £363.06 which it has received from my ex-husband and which I need to feed and clothe my children. I have had to go into overdraft, thus incurring bank charges and worsening my financial situation."
  98
  What will the Minister do to recompense my constituent for the suffering that she, and above all her children, have endured because of the agency's inefficiency?
  The problems that have been brought to me by constituents do not just come from those who are having difficulty obtaining the money that is due to their children. They come also from absent parents who are due to pay. A constituent, Graham Lund, came to see me over the weekend and told me that his wife left him some time ago, and that he had given up his job to become a full-time carer for their three children. Later, the children decided to move in with their mother. At that point, he gave her the family home, because he felt that that was the best place for the children. He wanted the children to stay in the home.
  Shortly afterwards, two of the children came back to live with him. He now has care of two of the three children. He has lost his home and is assessed to pay £66 per week on behalf of the third child, who is with the mother. He receives no child support from the absent mother for the two children for whom he cares. Having examined his budget, he is left with £29 per week for food, clothes and other expenses for his family. He now needs dental treatment. That will cost him £150 on the NHS. How is he going to pay for the dental treatment he needs when he does not have enough money under the Child Support Act to look after the two children for whom he is responsible?
  What about when parents have split up and are both on income support? The absent parent loses 5 per cent. of his or her income, which gets paid to the CSA. The parent with care receives no increase, because, unlike Australia, there is no disregard. So the absent parent, who in the past, could perhaps save a little out of his or her income support to buy small treats for the children when they visit now finds that even harder to do. If the intention of the Act is to improve the lot of children, to draw children out of poverty, which is so important, as my hon. Friends the Members for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) and for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) have said, a system that reduces the combined income of both parents when both are on income support must undermine that principle. If a disregard is brought in nowhere else, surely it should be used in cases where a parent has that contribution taken out of his or her income support.
  The principle that parents have a lifetime responsibility for their children is clearly right, but a combination of the inflexibility of the CSA rules and the bungling incompetence of the agency itself—aided, I have to say, by the failure of Ministers to reply to hon. Members on behalf of issues to do with the CSA—threatens to bring the whole structure tumbling down like a pack of cards, destroying a principle that hon. Members on both sides of the House have said is important—that absent parents should pay for their children.
  The agency needs to be either radically reformed or replaced by a new regime, which puts children, and children in poverty, first. A disregard needs to be introduced, as in Australia. Changes need to be brought in to take account of past property settlements, which were often made under clean-break settlements.
  I recently had a case involving somebody whose children stayed with him for 97 days during the course of a year, yet he got no money to provide for them during that period, because they did not stay with him for the 100-day threshold. We need a new formula that realistically has

  99
  regard to the needs of children of second families. Above all, we need a new agency that will operate efficiently and with compassion.
  8.54 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I welcome the opportunity to speak about the current operation of the Child Support Agency. In Northern Ireland, the agency has operated with appalling inefficiency, bringing distress and anguish in its wake. No one in the House is against the principle that was first mooted when the legislation was sponsored—the principle of protecting and providing for children deserted by a parent or parents, and left, in some circumstances, with a single parent who has to cope with inadequate financial support.
  That principle is not questioned, and I deeply resent those who accuse other hon. Members who bring to the House those matters that need to be reformed. The finger seems to be pointed at all who have been advocating reform, and at all who have been bringing forward the matters that need to be dealt with, as though we had weakened on the principle.
  I believe in parental responsibility. I believe that it is for the lifetime of the child. I believe that with all my heart. But that will not keep me silent when I see the gravity of the situation that has developed, and the child for whom this legislation was brought in completely put on the sidelines. Instead of being concerned about the child who was to benefit, we have set estranged wives and husbands against each another. We have broken in two not one but two homes. We have caused great grief, great hardship and great wounds in our society. The Minister must face up to that.
  But, unlike all the other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I am at a serious disadvantage, because the CSA in Northern Ireland is a strange instrument. The report that is before us, "Child Support Agency: The First Two Years" was issued before the debate. It tells us two things about Northern Ireland—first:
  "There is a separate Child Support Agency in Northern Ireland which provides a similar service under Northern Ireland law." Secondly, it says:
  "The Child Support Agency Centre at Belfast is an integral part of the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency. It also provides a service to an area of the mainland on our behalf."
  But at the back of the report, where the places that are served by the agency are listed, no reference whatever is made to Northern Ireland. I want to ask the Minister this question: is it the report of the Child Support Agency for Great Britain or is it the report for the whole of the United Kingdom? If it is not, where is the report for the central agency in Northern Ireland? We have graphs about the people who have been employed. Are they for the United Kingdom or are they for Great Britain? The Minister must come clean with the people of Northern Ireland and tell them exactly what has happened in respect of their system.
  If the situation is bad in Great Britain, it is 10 times worse in Northern Ireland. I refer the House to a hearing by the Social Security Committee in Belfast on 7 March, and to page 49 of the minutes of evidence, when Mr. Pat Devlin, the agency's chief executive, and Mr. John Johnston, director of Northern Ireland operations at the
  100
  Child Support Agency in Belfast, were examined. I urge hon. Members to obtain a copy and to read for themselves what was said by those two individuals.
  Such was the insulting behaviour and the answers given by the people in charge of the agency in Northern Ireland that the Chairman of that Committee said that he thought that they came from the old Russia.
  A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who is also a constituent of mine in another place, received a letter at his home from the agency, stating that he had fathered a child and that he would be levelled with the upkeep of that child. He was absolutely amazed. His wife read the letter, and the House can understand what it was like in that happy home, where there were little children and all was well—before an impudent, arrogant letter arrived that pointed the finger of accusation at the head of that happy household.
  Action was immediately taken to contact the central agency. The two agency people who arrived acted as moral arbiters. The husband said, "I am not the man in question. I did not father that child. I was never with the woman concerned. I know nothing about it." The agency people said, "You needn't lie to us. You're the father of the child and we are taking action against you."
  That happy family was broken up. The wife left the home and took the young children with her. That husband was a broken-hearted man, bereft of his wife and of his children, and his marriage was shattered.
  Later, the agency sent a letter saying, "We are sorry. It was a man in the same town. We got the wrong address." What good was that, when that home had been shattered, the wife's faith in her husband had been destroyed, and he was distraught and broken? How can anyone say that we should not expose such matters on the Floor of the House, so that the Minister knows what is happening? It is happening not only once but all over the country.
  The Minister needs to put on his running shoes. If one does not have the consent of the people, the law breaks down. When the law breaks down, there is anarchy. When there is anarchy, the law will be forced to change its ways. Why not make up our minds tonight to change the procedure, take the arrogance out of those people, and deal with the matter for the sake of the future of our communities and their families?
  I have for 48 years been the pastor of a large congregation in the centre of Belfast. I know what pastoral care and homes are about. There is nothing so devastating as when a well-ordered home that manages its budget suddenly has a colossal demand made on that budget. It is devastating. The agency's actions have devastated people. If the court determined a settlement and decided that so much money should be paid and everyone was working to that budget, why did the agency have the right to overrule the court and say, "No—our law is greater than your law"? The Minister must take into account the amount of damage that has been done.
  When the legislation was passing through the House, I understood that the real offenders would be found out. The real offenders are the parents who have skipped, disappeared and never paid a penny to the children they fathered. I shall ask the Minister a fair question tonight. How many people who were paying the benefit that the courts said they should pay have had their payments increased, and how many who never paid anything have

  101
  been found out and brought to book? Let us have those figures, because it is on those figures, and those alone, that we will judge the success of the legislation.
  The Minister must take on board what has been said today. I do not know how one heals the wounds or makes up for what has gone astray, but I know that the time has come to change gear and to change course in this iniquitous system. Let us not do any more damage: there has been enough damage done and the Minister needs to face up to his responsibilities.
  Please let the people of Northern Ireland have the report of their agency. Please tell us what the agency is doing. Please tell us how many of the people are not interested in Belfast, in our problem, but are doing something in the north of England. We have enough problems to attend to without doing the work for the north of England. With all due respect to the people of the north of England, I think that the agency has enough on its plate.
  The report makes interesting bedside reading. Anyone reading it will become aware of the sort of officials who had weeks to prepare for examination and weeks of tutoring by those who tutor civil servants before they come before a parliamentary Committee. I used to chair the' parliamentary Committee in Stormont that looked after the finances—the Finance Committee. I knew that the people who came to talk to the politicians had been tutored.
  The two men who came before the Committee were tutored and their answers were laughable and disgraceful—so much so that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that he thought they came from old Russia. The Minister had better consider those matters tonight and give us some answers. If he says that he cannot answer for Northern Ireland perhaps he will be good enough to write to me with the answers.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt)indicated assent.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad to see that the Minister is nodding.
  I want the answers. If we cannot get them tonight, we must get them later.
  9.7 pm
  Ms Jean Corston: Having listened to most of today's debate, I do not think that one hon. Member—from either side of the House—has had unqualified praise for the Child Support Agency. There is no disagreement among hon. Members about the fact that there is such a thing as parental responsibility. It lies at the heart of the Children Act 1989, which had all-party support. Everyone accepts that being a parent continues for life. My children are young adults; I am still a parent and I still have a responsibility to them.
  The cross-party concern comes as no surprise to me. I am secretary of the all-party parliamentary Child Support Agency monitoring group, which has been meeting for some time and taking evidence from interested agencies, including the Child Poverty Action Group, the National Council for One Parent Families and women's organisations. We shall meet the Secretary of State tomorrow on a cross-party basis.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said in a thoughtful and analytical speech, the agency is involved in a part of public law that
  102
  is a crucial element of social policy. What does parental responsibility mean? The CSA appears to reduce it solely to pounds and pence.
  There has been much reference to the Australian model. I understand that, in its first year, the CSA in this country tried to deal with twice as many cases as the Australian child support agency, with half the staff. When we consider that fact, it is scarcely surprising that there has been such bureaucratic muddle and maladministration. As several hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, at least Australia's Child Support Agency is concerned with eradicating child poverty. That is what should concern our CSA, but many people still feel that its rationale is to make a Treasury raid on the social security budget.
  Hon. Members have cited constituency cases. That is a valid way of drawing attention not just to the effects of the Child Support Act 1991 and the way in which the formula works, but to the maladministration that people have had to put up with.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned a constituent whose life had been turned upside down. A constituent of mine was telephoned at work one morning by his wife, who was hysterical: she had opened a letter addressed to him, asking him to pay maintenance for a child of whom he had never heard. He had also never heard of, or met, the mother of the child.
  After a great deal of anguish, it was established that he did not know the woman and the child was not his; the child's father had the same name, and lived in the same part of Bristol. I am pleased to say that that marriage survived, but my constituent still does not consider that he has received proper redress from the CSA. It beggars belief that an agency could virtually trawl through the telephone book, find someone with the same name living in the same area and decide, "That must be him."
  Another constituent has received seven different assessment figures from the CSA. To this day, he does not know which amount he is supposed to be paying; meanwhile, the clock is ticking, his arrears are building up and he has been denied access to his children because his wife is distraught at receiving no money at all.
  Yet another constituent, whose income is low—we have a low-wage economy—cannot afford the one trip a year that he used to take to see his daughter in Essex and bring her back to Bristol. His only luxury was his telephone: he could ring his daughter twice a week to ask about her school work and what she was doing. Now he has had to have his telephone disconnected so that he can pay the child support, and his contact with his daughter may—I put it no more strongly than this—be reduced to one visit a year. How will that encourage that man to be a responsible father? How will it encourage a relationship between him and his little girl?
  I have encountered cases in which the agency's procedure of disclosing a second wife's financial means to the first wife—because she is bound to see the correspondence—has caused intolerable anger and disruption when parties to a relationship are trying hard to be responsible and amicable and to get along in new circumstances. Stepchildren, and other children involved in second marriages, are a comparatively new phenomenon, as are the family patterns of which they are part. On many occasions the CSA appears to have tossed a hand grenade into those people's lives, leaving nothing but conflict and misery.

  103
  There has been most misrepresentation over what is termed the clean break. I have heard the Minister try to pretend that we should not take the clean break into consideration, because it has nothing to do with children. Let us consider the divorce jurisdiction. Here I declare an interest, as a former family lawyer.
  When an ancillary relief hearing is in being, the court's paramount consideration must be the welfare of the children. Husbands were frequently leaned on to agree to clean-break settlements, with the result that all the equity in the family home was transferred to the woman. First, that secured a home for the children. Secondly, it took account of the fact that, in general, women were economically disadvantaged compared with men. If an agreement were made that the house would be sold when the youngest child reached 18, women would be too old to obtain a mortgage or would not have the means to do so, thereby causing homelessness in middle and old age.
  The purpose of clean-break agreements was that the man would forgo a huge sum of money. A constituent of mine transferred equity of £51,500 in the former matrimonial home. Rightly, the court said that he would therefore have to pay a smaller sum of maintenance so that he could start again at the age of 44. He now finds that the agreement has been ignored, and he is being asked to pay a considerable sum of maintenance. His second wife has been to see me and is distraught. They believe that they will face repossession because they cannot afford to pay their mortgage. How can that be said to further the interests of family policy, the needs of children or the needs of parents?
  Earlier today, I spoke to a former colleague at the Bristol Bar, a well-respected and experienced family lawyer. I asked him what had been the effect of the Child Support Agency on ancillary relief hearings. He said that it had created unhappy dads and bitter mums. It is now much more difficult to settle cases because men are more reluctant to agree to a clean break. They say, "What is the point of transferring the entire equity in the matrimonial home when it will be ignored by the CSA? I shall never be able to afford to get back on my feet, rehouse myself and begin another relationship."
  That is leading to more problems for women. What used in family law to be called the Martin order, which was disapproved of, is now re-emerging. Under such an order, there is no clean break and the house is sold on death, remarriage of the woman or permanent co-habitation. At half-past 5 o'clock today, I was told by my former colleague in Bristol that the re-emergence of the order is once again leading to old questions like, "Is Mummy still seeing Uncle Bill?" If permanent cohabitation can be proved, the woman can be tipped out of the house, which can then be sold. That is what is happening in family law as a direct result of the agency. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) said that, as a barrister, he recognised that women want to keep the family home. The House must recognise that that is now less likely. I do not see how that can serve the interests of children.
  Yesterday in The Observer, the Secretary of State for Social Security was quoted as saying that it was difficult to persuade the public that parents should be responsible for their children. I do not believe that to be true. Most people agree that parents should be responsible for their children,
  104
  which is why the initial idea of the agency received such widespread support. The bitterness is in the experience. A few months ago, HTV held a phone-in after an hour-long debate asking whether the Child Support Agency should be scrapped. Such phone-ins are a bit hit and miss and anecdotal, but the response was staggering: 71 per cent. of people in the Bristol area thought that the agency should be scrapped, never mind modified.
  The difficulty lies in persuading people that the agency is delivering a system which encourages parental responsibility, which provides that such responsibility is about things other than money—although money is very important—and which supports children. As so many hon. Members have said in the debate, children are so often ignored. The Government's own figures show that 3 million children in this country are living in poverty. They are the people whom we should be concerned about tonight and in the future.
  9.19 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: To conclude a long and interesting debate, I should like to say that I regard this last year as an enormous achievement. I say that deliberately, because this evening we have heard a catalogue of personal disasters. Yes, the administration of the Child Support Agency has gone awry, but let us also consider the other side of the equation.
  There has been an enormous cultural shift, in that parents now realise that maintaining their children is not an option but an obligation. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on bringing the agency into being with a tremendous amount of determination and despite considerable opposition from the Labour party. It was curious that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) tried to steal our clothing. He can try, but the truth is that we have got the CSA on the road.
  Thousands of feckless fathers are being brought to book and are now paying maintenance. We are teaching society, and now society is learning for itself, that a child is for life—one cannot opt out of a child's upbringing and support. The Government should be congratulated on changing the climate in Britain in that way.
  9.20 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: I begin by putting on record exactly what the Labour party said when the Child Support Agency was introduced because, while the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said that we opposed it on all counts, the Secretary of State said that we supported it. The reasoned amendment that we tabled at the time stated
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, while providing that absent parents should contribute to the support of their children, leaves lone parents on Income Support not one penny better off, makes lone parents worse off where they receive maintenance just above Income Support levels and thus lose access to passported benefits, allows maintenance payments to be disrupted if the absent parent defaults, does not take account of property settlements which could lead to an increase in orders for the home to be sold, leaves unclear in which cases the lone parent will be exempt from the requirement to help the Agency trace the absent parent and therefore from the penalty of loss of benefit imposed on the caring parent, and does not tackle more serious problems facing lone parents and their children, notably the provision of better childcare facilities."—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 194.]

  105
  I read that into the record again because I have been here long enough to have heard history being rewritten many times and want to make it clear what our position was.
  It is clear from almost every contribution that we have heard tonight that what we said in our reasoned amendment has come to pass. Some of us also expressed grave concern about the plight of second families and stepchildren, and I hope to have time to comment on them.
  Before I go any further, it is my great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on his maiden speech. Many of us felt that we knew Eastleigh pretty well by the time the by-election was over; but having listened to his detailed information about housing, rising crime and the jobs situation in Eastleigh, we realise that we clearly did not know it as well as he now does. I am also pleased that the hon. Gentleman found time to highlight his constituents' concerns about the CSA. We all look forward to hearing from him again—perhaps next time, he speaks he will not have to compete with the world cup.
  In the reasoned amendment, we expressed our concern, but where do we go from there? One of the difficulties with the Child Support Act 1991 was the way in which it was sold to the House. Many hon. Members who voted for it have since said that, although they agree with the agency in principle, the application is a bit rough. We were told that people would benefit and that most of those who would be contacted would be the Jack-the-lads—
  "the tower block stags who jump from one flat to the other with no responsibility for the children they father".
  That quotation is part of the background to the Child Support Act 1991.
  Mr. David Shaw: Name him.
  Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman knows who said it; I remember it very well. That was some of the language that was used about the Act.
  To be fair to the House, the Act was sold to us. It was a crusade, and hon. Members thought that the people targeted would, in the main, be non-paying people—absconding parents, not absent parents who were already paying. The Minister has said that 60 per cent. of fathers who were contacted were not paying maintenance. If that is true, 40 per cent. were, but the Minister always puts it the other way round. Some 40 per cent, of the men contacted were already paying.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made the important point that one-off settlements have not been taken into consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) said that children have been put against children of new relationships formed before the Child Support Agency came in. Stepchildren have been put against other children in an effort to try to meet the agency's requirements. Women, and especially children—I am very much concerned with the children—have been taken off benefit, as we said in our reasoned amendment. Having lost their passported benefits, they are often worse off; and they are also worse off because the maintenance of the men concerned has often militated against those men keeping contact with the children.
  It has been said—some of this has been documented—that fathers who have previously paid mortgages on homes for their first families will have to choose between meeting the Child Support Agency's assessment and paying the mortgages. The house will then be sold, with dire consequences for the children.
  106
  To show that I am even—handed—I am not making a case for fathers alone—let me tell the House that I am still appalled by the reply I have received which says that fathers who are abroad can get away with it because there is no means of contacting them. If we are concerned with both sides of the argument, we should look at that point a little more carefully.
  People have also asked where the money is. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said that he walked around the Treasury looking for the money, but could not find it. It has gone in administration: it has gone in paying the staff of the Child Support Agency; and it has gone in paying for the buildings, in exactly the same way as the money from the poll tax, which we do not mention any more, went on equipment, buildings and staff. And we know what happened to the poll tax.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: We were right about that, too.
  Miss Lestor: We were.
  Some hon. Members said that they were concerned about the taxpayer. Australia, which started this business, was also concerned about the taxpayer, but in Australia, half the money went to the children and there was a disregard, which we have asked Ministers to consider.
  Several of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have made points that we could all repeat time and again. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is so knowledgeable in these matters and who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, has asked the questions that should be answered tonight. The Minister is not an unfeeling man in these matters. I sat with him during a spirited lobby, and I know that he is under pressure. So let me ask him whether the CSA is working. Is it working for more people than the number for whom it is causing misery? Those questions should be answered.
  Many of us are a little tired of the Government hiding behind the Select Committee. They hold off their hon. Friends who may want to vote with us, saying that they should wait and look at the Select Committee report. They say that they have made a few adjustments and that they will listen again. That should not be necessary, because we all know that many people are suffering under the Act and that few are benefiting. That is what we should consider.
  We have asked how the formula works, but nobody has explained that in the House. I believe that it is computer programmed—that one presses a button and gets something out at the other end. That is why, when we try to deal with the agency, we find it so difficult to get any variation in its decisions.
  It is important that we should consider the Child Support Agency alongside the Children Act 1989. The Children Act rightly seeks, in this year of the family and at all times, to ensure that people keep contact with their children. We all agree with that. The Children Act refers to the necessity at times of residence orders, joint residence orders, joint contact, contact with grandparents and a variety of other matters.
  The CSA does not work as the Children Act works in that respect. The children must spend 102 nights with the father—if the father is the absent parent—before he can claim benefit. That does not take into account the 87 or 85 nights that are set against that. If the Children Act is to work properly and take into account the need for joint residence orders and so forth, the CSA must work with it

  107
  and ensure that the parent without care who wants contact with the children and wants to share responsibility for them does not find that he is financially unable to do so because the CSA does not take into account what it costs him.
  Several hon. Members referred to the difficulties in which we find ourselves in dealing with CSA cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) said that, in one of the cases that she took up with the agency, the harassment and demands continued, even though she had made representations about what she and her constituent considered to be an unfair assessment and application of the principle. I think that that is the experience of many of us here. We take up a constituent's case. It takes a very long time to have the case looked at and at the same time the wheels continue to grind relentlessly. Our constituents think that we are not bothering because it takes such a long time to obtain an answer.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) was right—I never thought that I would have to say that about him—when he said that the legislation was rushed through; that no real consultative process took place; and that we had got ourselves into an unsatisfactory position. He made the point, as did other hon. Members, that arrears were cropping up before the final assessment was reached. That cannot be, and is not, right or fair.
  Other hon. Members have made important points about the passported benefits and where we go from here. We will not go back to the courts. That is clear, because that system was unsatisfactory, but that does not mean that we have got it right now. I should have thought that it would be obvious to anyone that we are calling for a review to see what can be done to mitigate the worst effects. I hope that the Minister will give us some encouragement in that respect.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) and for York (Mr. Bayley) said that the Children Act was supposed to be a child support Act. It was supposed to alleviate poverty among children. Instead, for obvious reasons, it is increasing poverty among many children. I am sure that the House never intended that to take place, but that is what is happening.
  I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks)—we always seem to agree on these matters—that what was needed was a family social policy, and that the Child Support Act 1991 was operating in a vacuum. If one operates in a vacuum and tries to deal with one aspect of child poverty, one is bound to get it wrong. That is exactly what has happened.
  It is also important to consider carefully the way in which men in particular—I am not defending only men; it is usually men, but not always—have been put in a position which makes it difficult for them to continue to visit their children. That should worry the House very much. In these days of increasing divorce and breakdown in relationships, organisations such as Relate and others say that they want things worked out properly. The interests of the children are paramount. They tell the parents that they must work the matter out in the interests of the children, whatever their personal difficulties may be.
  Mostly men, but occasionally women, have said to us, "I cannot afford to visit my children any more. It is a long journey. My travel-to-work expenses are not taken into
  108
  account. The amount that it costs me to visit my children, with all that is associated with a visit, is not taken into account." Rather than enhancing the life of the child, we are making it much worse. That surely cannot be what the House intended. Yet we all know from our surgeries that that is taking place. In some instances, we have created a monster that has got out of hand in that respect.
  I must refer to what the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) said about being harassed and treated unfortunately by people who are against the CSA, as it is important. We cannot be responsible for people who behave badly. I in no way excuse them, as the problem must be worked out through argument and discussion, not by trying to inhibit people who are making another point, and I do not support such action.
  The hon. Members for Broxbourne and for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) quoted Families Need Fathers and some of the things that it has allegedly said. People on the fringes of all organisations can sometimes cause grave embarrassment and behave extremely badly. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and I have met members of Families Need Fathers on several occasions. The members whom we met were not as concerned about the Child Support Act 1991 as they were about access to their children. They have pointed out that, in many instances, the Act militates against access, rather than enhancing it. If some fringe elements are giving foolish advice, most members of the organisation would not go along with it.
  The House should be concerned about changing relationships in this country today and about the number of children who lose contact with one of their parents because of divorce or separation. That is happening to hundreds of children all the time, and if the House has done anything to encourage it, or to make it more difficult for contact to be maintained, the Government should give the matter their urgent attention. The situation is frightening.
  Under the Children Act 1989, contact orders can be made for grandparents to keep in touch with their grandchildren, but for a variety of reasons the courts seldom uphold them. Such contacts are vital for children. If the CSA is assisting the process by unwittingly preventing access to parents—which was never the intention—the matter should be reconsidered as it is very serious.
  When the Government first introduced the Child Support Bill, they said that it would operate on a straightforward principle and that it aimed to improve on the existing court system, which had failed so many children and their mothers, leaving more than 80 per cent. of lone parents on income support. We were told that that was the principle. Many hon. Members who did not support our reasoned amendment at the time thought, "Great—something is going to be done." We have learnt since the enactment of the Bill that family policies are never that straightforward.
  Acts of Parliament—especially those such as the Child Support Act 1991—that have a strong and direct impact on the lives of children and their separated parents, cannot be viewed in isolation from a proper family policy. In this international year of the family, I should have thought that the Government would take that into consideration when studying the way in which the CSA is working.
  I think that the Minister is aware that most sections of the House have expressed disquiet of one sort or another about the operation of the 1991 Act. Knowing the Minister,

  109
  I think that he will have taken to heart some of the criticisms, although we have not seen many changes—there have been some—in the Child Support Agency and the way in which it works. If we are concerned with children's welfare and with keeping them in touch with both parents rather than with driving wedges between new and first families, we need to reconsider. It is a pity that we do not have family courts of the type that some of us have described in the past, as that would be a good way in which to deal with such matters.
  We have tried to be the voice of the child, not that of the father or mother. The agency was sold to us as a Child Support Agency, but we were then told that the money was to go to the Treasury, because, after all, taxpayers should not have to support children when their parents are in a position to do so. That is fine, but many parents are not in a position to do so. The fact that the terms of the Act were made retrospective, when people made arrangements without knowing that that would happen, is indefensible. That is why we have described some of the difficulties that have been encountered.
  Conservative Members have expressed their disquiet about the Act, as they have done before, and said that, although they accept the principle—as we all do—the Act has gone sadly wrong for their constituents. They asked what the Government would do to make life better for their constituents and their children. I hope that those hon. Members will have the courage to join us in the Lobby tonight. I hope that they will not be put off by the Minister saying, as I know he will, that the Government are waiting for the Select Committee report, will consider what has been said today and will, if necessary, make adjustments as they have done in the past.
  This is not a waiting game: it is important for all of us and for the children in our society. I hope, therefore, that some of the Conservative Members who spoke against the CSA will join us in the Lobby.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) is right. I will ask my colleagues to resist the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, to read carefully the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to support it.
  I begin by echoing what the hon. Member for Eccles said about the new hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). On behalf of all my colleagues, may I say how much we appreciated his kind references to Stephen Milligan and the work that he did for all too brief a period in the House. I enjoyed the hon. Member's strong contribution to the debate. He had the luxury of being the only spokesman for his party, and he took that role very well. I am sure that we will hear more from him in the future.
  The debate was led off in fine style by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who conducted the House through the affairs of the Child Support Agency with clarity and precision. He made it clear how difficult it has been to introduce changes in child support throughout the world, whether in the United States, New Zealand or Australia. He put the difficulties in context. I wish that
  110
  more Opposition Members had taken more to heart what he said about the difficulties that were bound to be faced when introducing such legislation.
  My right hon. Friend was supported by strong speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson), for Orpington (Mr. Horam), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). I am grateful to my colleagues for the support they gave, notwithstanding the fact that they all had concerns and issues that they wanted to raise at the same time, which is only fair.
  As the hon. Member for Eccles wanted to put the record straight about Labour's position, let me do just that. She may have read out the Opposition's reasoned amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill, but she did not go on to tell us that the Labour party did not vote against its Third Reading. The Opposition did not vote against the regulations on all the occasions when we discussed the formula in Committee. It is not true that the House has not had an explanation of the formula, because it was considered in regulations dealt with in Committee. To my knowledge, that formula was not voted against.
  I should like to mention the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who was one of the Opposition spokesmen on social security in 1991. He said of the Child Support Bill:
  "The Opposition will adhere to the principle that the responsibility for children rests with the parents, and their welfare will always be paramount in our consideration of these issues. The Bill accepts that principle, and in that sense we accept its main planks."—[Official Report, 18 July 1991; Vol.195, c. 573.]
  I should have thought that we have been discussing those main planks tonight, but, all too often, Opposition Members try to wriggle free of them.
  The debate has centred on administration and policy and I should like to tackle the question of administration first. The debate takes place on the day that the first report of the CSA has been published. It reviews last year's work and its prospects for next year. I believe that it was the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who referred to the report as an honest piece of work, and I am pleased that he did so.
  Mr. Frank Field indicated dissent.
  Mr. Burt: I am sorry; if it was not the hon. Member for Birkenhead, it must have been somebody else.
  It has been a difficult and challenging year for the agency, for a number of reasons which my right hon. Friend mentioned. The project was taken on from scratch and the agency had to do a great deal of work under extremely difficult conditions. I admit that a number of targets have not been met, but the agency has made it clear that it wishes to do better. Ministers must also be responsible for that. I say straightforwardly that the agency has not achieved everything that I wished it to achieve, but it is important to understand the context in which it has worked and recognise not only where it has not done well but what we have done to secure improvements and change.
  The Child Support Agency should not be judged on one year's operation. It was accepted when it was set up that it would take on its case load over four years and be

  111
  evaluated over 10 years. It must change a child support culture in circumstances which the hon. Member for Birkenhead described as the biggest change in social policy since 1945. It should therefore be judged over a longer period than a year, and Ministers have been determined to seek changes in the agency to improve its operation.
  I repeat what my right hon. Friend said: although things were difficult last year, this year we are completing maintenance assessments twice as fast, we have doubled the number of cases in which we are enforcing maintenance, and we are taking steps to deal with the correspondence problems. Errors and delays in correspondence are known to all hon. Members, and I am sorry about all those cases in which the delay has been unacceptable.
  Anyone who wants to know what it is like to be at the receiving end has only to listen to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), who left me in no doubt about what "errors in correspondence", which is an easy phrase to utter from the Dispatch Box, means to constituents and hon. Members who are waiting for something to happen so that they can inform people. The hon. Gentleman put it just right and we are making every effort to improve that system. Of course, I apologise for those cases that have been delayed.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Given that many of the complaints to hon. Members on both sides of the House have been specifically about administration and the delays and mistakes that have caused such anguish to those concerned, should not the Government have adjusted more quickly the targets to which agency staff were working? If staff were working flat out to achieve impossible targets, was it not far easier to make mistakes?
  Mr. Burt: The staff have always been aware of the agency's targets. It was clear from the rearrangement of work that had to be made within three months of setting up the agency and the reaction to changes made in February that certain benefit-saving targets, for example, would not be met. Staff knew that from an early stage. They have always worked as hard as possible and the administration has constantly adjusted to ensure that the work was more efficient. I assure the hon. Lady that adherence to unrealistic targets has not caused the problems.
  The hon. Lady will be aware that the targets set for next year are based, quite properly, on the agency's experience. It is sensible to look at the work that has been done and, allowing for reasonable improvements, set targets on that basis rather than on assumptions that must be made when setting up an organisation with no experience in live running.
  I am happy to reassure hon. Members that the Government take the problems of the agency's administration extremely seriously. A plan is in operation to secure recovery in all aspects of its work and there are already signs of improvement in that work. Standards must continue to improve, and they will.
  The debate revealed a couple of other factors of which we have not seen enough in the past. More voices were raised on behalf of women than we have heard in past debates on this subject. One of the defining moments was when the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said that trying to provide better maintenance,
  112
  which is aimed at helping mothers and children—nine out of 10 parents with care are women—had somehow turned into an argument about men's problems. He pointed out that much of the debate and newspaper coverage had focused on men's concerns.
  All too often in these debates that point of view is not put clearly. However, tonight, it was put across by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), it was put across most clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, and it was put across in an intervention by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). The points that have been made to recognise the importance of women's position in this argument have all too often not been heard, and I was pleased that those points were made.
  It remains a cardinal principle for us that the maintenance system will produce more maintenance for more children over a period, and that maintenance will be a continual source of support to women, often as they go back to work and as their children grow older.
  Another argument that raged in the debate was on the law. Clearly there are two different opinions about how the previous system worked. There was stout defence by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), but that had to be posed in opposition to my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle, for Shoreham and for Hertfordshire, North. They gave their practical experience of how settlements were made in the past, which all too often recognised the position of the taxpayer. The taxpayer was used to underpin settlements and then everyone drifted on.
  It is no wonder that the parties were often happy with the arrangements that were made: the unspoken voice was picking up the bill. On the balance of opinion, and the way in which this matter was looked at before the Act was brought in, it has been proved that there is no going back to the courts.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point raised the sensitive issue of lesbian parents and other such matters. As society changes, my feeling is that such cases are slightly unhappy. But as for responsibility, my hon. Friend was absolutely right. Where there is a biological father and the child has not been produced through sperm donation, which is protected by confidentiality, there can be no private arrangement that will leave the taxpayer picking up the bill. It is right to pursue the biological father, and the Child Support Agency will do that.
  Let me touch on some policy points. The first one—this was the second defining moment of the debate—is the continual discussion that we have with Opposition Members about the role of the taxpayer. I know that the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) has taken a great interest in these matters. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Conversations should take place a little more quietly. I can hear many voices which I can identify.
  Mr. Burt: I would prefer it if conversations did not take place in the remaining nine minutes of the debate.
  The hon. Member for Warrington, South suggested that the taxpayer's interest had been brought in only latterly by the Government, as a side issue. I refer him to both the foreword and page 1 of the White Paper, which set out clearly that the taxpayer's interest was always in our minds

  113
  and must therefore have been in the minds of his colleagues when they voted on the Bill, or when they did not raise it as an issue. I quote from the foreword:
  "While many absent parents make regular payments, 70 per cent. regrettably do not. The inevitable result is that more and more caring parents and their children have become dependent on Income Support. This makes it more difficult for them to achieve greater independence through working. And, at the same time, it places the responsibility for maintaining the children on other taxpayers, many of whom are raising families of their own."
  That was written in October 1990. The hon. Gentleman should not try to tell the House that this is a later issue that the Government have introduced. It is a cardinal point. The hon. Gentleman cannot avoid the importance of returning money to the taxpayer. That is part of the Act—and a part of the Act which he should continue to support.
  It is interesting that the second defining moment of the debate was the silence that came upon the Opposition Benches when the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington referred to the fact that fathers found it all too easy to leave the mothers of their children on income support. The Opposition went very quiet then.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend is saying, I know that he will recognise that there continues to be disquiet among Conservative Members about the operation and policy of the CSA. I shall support him in the Lobbies tonight, but on the basis that we await the report from the Select Committee, and that we shall be looking for a truly serious review in the context of that report.
  Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall cover that in my closing remarks.
  Mr. Dewar: I am sure that the Minister would not like to leave the impression with the House or with those who read reports of our proceedings that the Government have no plans apart from waiting to see what the Select Committee produces. Can he give us any indication of any area in which he believes reform is necessary?
  Mr. Burt: I shall come to that too in my closing remarks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—because it is a serious point.
  A number of hon. Members mentioned certain policy items to do with the formula or with something else about which they were worried. The Government showed by the way in which they introduced reforms in February that they do listen. The words that they used about keeping the agency under review when it came into effect were not empty. When they saw the need to change, and once the need for practical change had been proved, the Government acted.
  A third defining moment in the debate came with the contrast between the speeches by the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Birkenhead. The hon. Member for Garscadden, asking us to support his motion tonight, falls into a trap avoided by his hon. Friend. He does not merely describe the problems with the agency; he defines the solutions, but only in the usual vague and unthought-through way. He talks about an appeal system, but he was unable to answer the crucial question, asked him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, about who should be included in that system.
  Some Opposition Members would take matters further; they urged the repeal of the entire Act. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) clearly took that line. The House, however, should take note of what the hon.
  114
  Member for Birkenhead said. He recognised how far the agency had come. That recognition means that we are in a position to keep it under review and to decide what must be done for the future. As he said, we still lack the information, even after the first year's running, to decide what to do about certain areas of policy.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about keeping an open mind on reform. The Government are clearly committed to responding to the need for change, as indeed they have already responded. That means that hon. Members should vote for the amendment, not for the motion.
  Mr. Frank Field: What I said was that it was difficult for anyone to come to a conclusion because no one knew whether the agency was working or not. The Government have provided no figures to tell us whether it is a success, or whether the chaos is increasing. When will the Government provide us with the data to enable the House to come to a conclusion on these matters?
  Mr. Burt: I do not accept that the issue is as stark as the hon. Gentleman suggests. He, more than most, should be aware of the number of cases being dealt with and of the work being done. Eight hundred and fifty thousand cases have been taken on. So far this year, 163,000 maintenance assessments have been cleared. Crucially, that is almost half the total—336,500—cleared in the whole of the agency's first year. That means that it is picking up speed; its case load is increasing and it is proving some sort of success.
  As for the future, a great many concerns on a variety of issues, to which I have listened carefully, have been raised in the debate. A number of hon. Members know that I have personally spoken to them about those issues. It is still not clear precisely what changes may be needed and when they might be introduced. Our strong commitment was shown by the way that we introduced changes in February. When there is a need for change, the Government will make it. We are committed to keeping the agency under proper review, and we shall consider carefully how that should be done. We are not making vague suggestions and promises. The Opposition cannot suggest concrete ideas, and that is why our amendment should be accepted.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 311.

  Division No. 279]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Berry, Roger

  Ainger, Nick

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Blair, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Blunkett, David

  Alton, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Boyes, Roland

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bradley, Keith

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Austin-Walker, John

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Barnes, Harry

  Burden, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Byers, Stephen

  Battle, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cann, Jamie

  Benton, Joe

  Chidgey, David

  115

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Church, Judith

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hutton, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Cohen, Harry

  Ingram, Adam

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jamieson, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Janner, Greville

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davidson, Ian

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

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

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Denham, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  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

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Eastham, Ken

  Loyden, Eddie

  Enright, Derek

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Etherington, Bill

  McAllion, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McCartney, Ian

  Fatchett, Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Faulds, Andrew

  McFall, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McKelvey, William

  Fisher, Mark

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Flynn, Paul

  McLeish, Henry

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McMaster, Gordon

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  MacShane, Denis

  Foulkes, George

  McWilliam, John

  Fraser, John

  Madden, Max

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Galloway, George

  Mahon, Alice

  Gapes, Mike

  Marek, Dr John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Martlew, Eric

  Godsiff, Roger

  Maxton, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Meacher, Michael

  Gordon, Mildred

  Meale, Alan

  Graham, Thomas

  Michael, Alun

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gunnell, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hain, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Harvey, Nick

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Henderson, Doug

  Mudie, George

  Heppell, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Murphy, Paul

  Hinchliffe, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Home Robertson, John

  Olner, William

  Hood, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  116

  Patchett, Terry

  Snape, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Soley, Clive

  Pickthall, Colin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pike, Peter L.

  Spellar, John

  Pope, Greg

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Prescott, John

  Stern, Michael

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stevenson, George

  Purchase, Ken

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Straw, Jack

  Radice, Giles

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Randall, Stuart

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Timms, Stephen

  Redmond, Martin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Reid, Dr John

  Turner, Dennis

  Rendel, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Walley, Joan

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rogers, Allan

  Watson, Mike

  Rooker, Jeff

  Welsh, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wilson, Brian

  Salmond, Alex

  Winnick, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wise, Audrey

  Sheerman, Barry

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wray, Jimmy

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Short, Clare

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

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

  Mr. John Cummings and

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. Ray Powell.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Burns, Simon

  Alexander, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Butcher, John

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Butler, Peter

  Amess, David

  Butterfill, John

  Ancram, Michael

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Cash, William

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkins, Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Clappison, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Colvin, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Congdon, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Conway, Derek

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Couchman, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cran, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

  Booth, Hartley

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Day, Stephen

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bowis, John

  Devlin, Tim

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brazier, Julian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bright, Graham

  Dover, Den

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan, Alan

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Dunn, Bob

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  117

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Elletson, Harold

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Key, Robert

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evennett, David

  Knapman, Roger

  Faber, David

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knox, Sir David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Forman, Nigel

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Forth, Eric

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Legg, Barry

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  French, Douglas

  Lidington, David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Gale, Roger

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Lord, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Luff, Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  MacKay, Andrew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Maclean, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gorst, Sir John

  Madel, Sir David

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Malone, Gerald

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mans, Keith

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Marlow, Tony

  Hague, William

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mates, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hannam, Sir John

  Merchant, Piers

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Harris, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hawkins, Nick

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hawksley, Warren

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moss, Malcolm

  Heald, Oliver

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Norris, Steve

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Horam, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

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

  Paice, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pickles, Eric

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  118

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Richards, Rod

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Riddick, Graham

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Thomason, Roy

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

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

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tracey, Richard

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Trend, Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Sackville, Tom

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Walden, George

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shersby, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sims, Roger

  Watts, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wells, Bowen

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Whittingdale, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilkinson, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Willetts, David

  Spring, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Steen, Anthony

  Wood, Timothy

  Stephen, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Stewart, Allan

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Streeter, Gary

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Sykes, John

  Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House reaffirms its support for the principle, to which the Child Support Act 1991 and the Child Support Agency give effect, that parents should support their children where they are able to do so; accepts that the taxpayer should only have to provide this support when parents cannot afford to; welcomes the help the Agency has already been able to give many parents with care and the support it has received from organisations representing lone parents; condemns deliberate attempts to obstruct the workings of the Agency; recognises the changes introduced in February and the urgent steps being taken to improve the service the Agency gives parents; and acknowledges the continuing concerns over child support issues and therefore welcomes the Government's commitment to continue to keep the scheme under scrutiny and to bring forward further changes should these prove necessary.'.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Vehicle Excise and Registration Bill [Lords] and the Value Added Tax Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Orders of the Day

  Vehicle Excise and Registration Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.15 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is the first of two consolidation Bills before the House tonight. It was produced by the draftsmen of the Law Commission and consolidates the enactments relating to vehicle excise duty and the registration of vehicles. There is a need for consolidation because provision about the subject has been made by numerous Finance Acts and other Acts since the last major consolidation in 1971.
  In addition, the peculiar history of the provisions has the result that the current law cannot be ascertained by referring to the provisions in the body of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 alone. It is necessary, in addition, to refer to modifications contained in the schedule which had originally been expected to operate transitionally for a few years only. During its passage in another place, the Bill was considered in the usual way by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
  Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Minister sat down, I stood up. Am I entitled to participate in the debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I missed the hon. Gentleman, or he missed me, and I am afraid that it is too late for him to speak now.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Mr. Marlow: I merely wanted to ask a brief question of my hon. Friend the Minister on whether clauses 1 to 20 should stand part of the Bill. An article in today's edition of the Evening Standard suggests that the form sent in when a vehicle passes from one party to another contains a box stating the mileage at the time of transfer. That box is filled in voluntarily, but if people were required to fill it in it would be much easier to prevent the clocking of vehicles. It would be possible for the authorities to assess the mileage as vehicles were transferred from one owner to another. There would also be a record of the mileage on the vehicle when the vendor passed it on to the purchaser. That seems an interesting and positive suggestion and I was wondering how my hon. Friend would react to it.
  The Solicitor-General: As the House knows, this is a consolidation Bill. The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills certified that it was purely a matter of consolidation and did not change the existing law. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is not a matter relating to the consolidation Bill, but out of courtesy to him I shall pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Value Added Tax Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.19 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This, too, is purely a consolidation of the enactments relating to value added tax that are now found in the Value Added Tax Act 1983 and a number of subsequent Finance Acts.
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend what the effect would be if, when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, read out the various clauses on stand part in Committee, the House divided on them? I understand that, as the Bill is a consolidation measure, we could do nothing about it.
  The Solicitor-General: That would be a point of order for the Chair, not a matter for me.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to try your patience. If the House were to vote against any of the clauses on stand part, this being a consolidation measure, what would be the effect?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I thought that the hon. Gentleman was aware that the House was entitled to vote against anything it wishes to vote against.
  Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the House then votes against any of the clauses, the consolidation measure will not be as brought before the House, although the Committee has looked at it in detail. Can the rest of the Bill then go through, with bits struck out because the House has voted against them?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt that whoever is in charge of the Bill will consider the position.
  Bill considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

  PETITION

    Road Traffic, Collingham
    10.23 pm
    Mr. Richard Alexander: I beg to ask leave to present the following petition.
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

    121
    The Humble Petition of the undersigned people of Collingham in the County of Nottingham and elsewhere SHEWETH that:—
    The level of road traffic through the village of Collingham aforesaid is unacceptable and is increasing, and that the need for a bypass is urgent.
    The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that in conjunction with the County Council of the said County of
    And your petitioners, as duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
    I am aware that I am not allowed to make a speech and I do not propose to make one. I merely wish to point out that 854 people from the village of Collingham have signed the petition, which shows the seriousness of their plight and that nothing has been done by the county council or under the guidance and urging of the Department of Transport. I have no alternative, therefore, but to present the petition to Parliament, which I do with pleasure and honour on their behalf.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Apple Industry
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
    10.26 pm
    Sir Roger Moate: I welcome this chance briefly to raise on the Floor of the House the serious problems facing the English apple industry.
    It is now widely understood that the problems facing the industry are indeed serious. The word "crisis" is much over-used in politics, but that is what some growers are facing now and what the whole industry could be facing if, heaven forbid, the 1994–95 season is a repeat of last year's. If some crop forecasts for Europe are correct, this will be the third year in a row in which growers will face serious financial hardship, and many will go out of business altogether. The loss to them, the rural economy, the countryside and the consumer would be great indeed.
    I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the debate. He has, with his personal knowledge of the industry—I say this deliberately—been working phenomenally hard to find answers. I welcome, too, the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Clwyd South-West (Mr. Jones), who, with the Minister's permission, hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and speak for a couple of minutes in the debate; my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), who is secretary of the newly formed all-party parliamentary British industry fruit group; and many other hon. Friends, who have so strongly supported the apple and fruit industry.
    I know that there is tremendous support in both Houses for early action to help the English apple industry to stave off an immediate crisis and to secure long-term viability in a tough free-trade environment. I emphasise that the industry is not looking for subsidy or handouts. It has always had to stand on its own two feet, but it cannot do so in the face of a tidal wave of imports generated by what can reasonably be called, in the broadest terms, unfair competition.
    That unfairness results from the distortions of the intervention system of the European Community, from subsidised growing over long periods in the third world and from predatory pricing. In addition, the United Kingdom is the most open market for fruit in the world, and we grow only 30 per cent. of our total apple consumption. Only 30 per cent. does not sound much, but we should remind ourselves that the figure represents employment—full and part time—for nearly 100,000 people in the rural economy. It represents some of the finest—I would say the best—fruit, with the best flavour, in the world.
    Our orchards are an essential part of our countryside. Figures for 1992 show that the wholesale value of fruit to, as it were, United Kingdom Ltd. was some £257 million, with a retail value of £736 million, so someone in the middle is making a good margin.
    I do not exaggerate when I say that all that is at risk. I think that the Minister and the Ministry could help greatly by publishing authoritative statistics to emphasise the importance of British horticulture in terms of value, employment and the number of people who are dependent on this tremendously important sector. How long can

    123
    growers survive if prices this season, like those last season and the season before, literally cover only half the cost of production?
    Without subsidy, the industry has dramatically improved its marketing, packaging, advertising and grading. It produces the highest quality apples and, given an orderly market and fair competition, can increase its market share in the United Kingdom and move into exports.
    Now is not the time to record all the work that the industry can do and is doing for itself, but it is summed up in the words of David Browning, the executive chairman of English Apples and Pears Ltd. In his latest newsletter, he states that:
    "political support alone will not reverse the fortunes of our industry and we must press on with our measures of self-help."
    I pay tribute to a number of organisations for the work that they have done—English Apples and Pears Ltd, of course; the National Farmers Union; and the British Independent Fruit Growers Association, all of whom are fighting valiantly for the industry in these challenging times.
    Before I deal with political support and the steps that need to be taken, I think that it is right to say something about the supermarket buyers who, to a large extent, hold the answer in their hands.
    I do not doubt the good intentions of the great supermarket chains. As a rule, their support for the industry is genuine. I do not denigrate them in any way, but, if the industry "delivers the goods"—in terms of quality and price—the retailers that dominate the market can surely give better, longer-term contracts for the quality fruit that the British grower can produce. That applies equally to vegetables. One hopes that, in view of the possible political measures and those which the industry can take itself, supermarket buyers can go further and provide longer-term contracts to suppliers.
    What do we want from the Government and the European Economic Community? First, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to tell us the latest on the grubbing grant proposals which were adopted, I understand, by the Council of Ministers on 23 June, but which have yet to receive final approval. We welcome the scheme. It is a crucial step towards reducing the enormous structural surplus in Europe.
    However, I quote verbatim from a note sent out by the National Farmers Union, which has been playing a major role in the fight to protect the industry. A paragraph entitled "Grubbing Up" states:
    "We would like the UK Government to insist that the proposals adopted at the Council of Ministers meeting on 23 June be resubmitted at the Council meeting on 16 July with the following amendment:
    the removal of the age limit for eligible orchards; in the current proposals orchards must be less than 20 years. We suggest that if an age limit is imposed, a derogation be allowed for Bramley trees of up to 75 years to address the issue of poor quality fruit associated with old orchards"
    The UK Government should treat the matter with the utmost urgency and press for an early implementation of the grubbing up scheme by using the fast track method in invoking the appropriate Statutory Instrument".
    It seems illogical to exclude older orchards, which can be highly productive, but produce lower-quality fruit.
    I have a letter from a grower, which makes the point very effectively. It states;
    124
    "Recent financially poor years have caused considerable postponements of our replanting programme and I now find that much of my farm has trees on it that are over twenty years old and will not qualify for grant aid…If the twenty year rule is kept in place it will fail to ensure the reduction of the surplus products the grant was designed to prevent. It will stop those who are willing to get out because they will not be able to afford to."
    I ask the Minister please to seek a derogation or some flexibility for older dessert orchards—perhaps 25 years or more. We must have flexibility if we are to make the scheme work well.
    Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend to say something about the intervention system and where we have got to in trying to reform or, preferably, eliminate it. It is clearly unacceptable, some would say obscene, that in France, for example, more than one third of production was grown to be destroyed, partly at the expense of the British taxpayer. In Greece, 76 per cent. of nectarines and 61 per cent. of the peach crop went into intervention. It is a mad system, and I hope that we shall see the end of it fairly soon.
    Thirdly, I ask my hon. Friend please to tell us, or to press the European Commission to tell us, the full implications for top fruit of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and of the agreements with Chile, which may set the pattern for other third countries. If the agreements, which I understand go beyond GATT obligations, result in a flood of imports during our principal selling season, without any agreements from the countries concerned about orderly marketing, all our efforts, whether political efforts or the internal efforts of the industry, will have been in vain. We have to be strenuous and robust in dealing with any dumping and any unfair competition—and I mean robust.
    Although my hon. Friend has been pretty robust so far, I am not sure whether he completely meets the suggestion from David Browning last year. Mr. Browning says:
    "We are not asking for something which is illegal. We are merely asking our civil servants to take on their new role in Europe on the same basis as our competitors' Governments, which have been more generous, more ingenious and possibly, in some cases, more devious, in using national aids of various kinds to assist their producers."
    Fourthly, there has been talk of more specific help in the form of grants for modernising or completely replacing cold store facilities. This is, I understand, permissible within European Community rules and perhaps my hon. Friend could say a word about that.
    Fifthly, is there any more help that the Government can reasonably give to support new marketing initiatives, such as the encouragement of apple consumption in England? It is odd that we still eat fewer apples than people in most other European countries, although we produce the best. Perhaps the Government could give further help with the encouragement of new varieties. What the English grower can offer, above all, is quality, flavour and greater variety, all of which can help to secure a premium price. Any developments and reasonable help that the Government can give in those aspects of apple development and growing would be very helpful.
    I include there a special note for my hon. Friend to help, if he can, the Brogdale horticultural trust, the home of the national fruit collection in my constituency, of which I am proud to be a trustee. That, too, is the ideal location for the development of other varieties, which will be tremendously helpful to the industry.
    Time does not permit me tonight to develop other questions relating to other aspects of research and development or, for example, the encouragement of

    125
    English apple juice, although most of us feel that that is a tremendous untapped resource which could help to sustain the British apple-growing industry. Again, any assistance that we can direct there to encourage an industry that is already important, but which could be of even greater importance will be helpful, and I believe that it is the right area for the Government to help.
    I stress that the apple industry, so much of which is in Kent, but which is truly a great British industry, is ready to meet the challenge of tough world competition. However, we need the robust political help which, I strongly believe, the Minister is able and willing to give, to ensure that the competition both in Europe and around the world is absolutely fair. That has not been the case so far, but all the efforts that are being made by everyone now can make that come right. I hope that tonight's debate will help in one small respect in that way.
    10.38 pm
    Mr. Martyn Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) on obtaining the debate, and I am grateful to him for allowing me a few minutes to support his case.
    He has highlighted the crisis in the apple industry. The Opposition believes that it is not just a blip in the normal agricultural cycle of production but that there is a structural problem. The apple regime has failed and the Government must ensure that Britain has a level orchard, so to speak. One gets fed up with hearing about level playing fields, and orchards are perhaps more appropriate.
    United Kingdom apple growers receive 2 per cent. of intervention payments, but the United Kingdom pays 12 per cent. of all the costs of intervention. Therefore, by pure mathematics, UK apple growers miss out by 85 per cent. on the funds. The industry has had a good record of standing on its own two feet, as the hon. Member for Faversham said, but it is essential that the Government should now step in.
    I hope that the Minister will tell us that he can give some real assistance to the industry, which employs 100,000 people throughout the United Kingdom, but particularly in Kent, as the hon. Gentleman said. The hon. Member for Faversham also made some real suggestions about how that can be done, and I hope that the Minister will take them on board.
    10.39 pm
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) on gaining this particular debate. It is an important subject and one on which I certainly share his passion, having, as he kindly mentioned, made my living in the horticulture industry and been closely involved in buying apples and building up a packing business that goes with it.
    I am delighted that in the Chamber this evening we have my hon. Friends the Members for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), for. Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). Their presence for an Adjournment debate in which normally
    126
    there is only one hon. Member and the Minister present, shows the importance which is attached to this crucial subject.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham said, the subject is crucial to the rural economy of this country. We often forget that, in addition to the growing of apples, there is the industry of packing, storage, distribution and machinery. All that goes with it and is very important.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham opened the debate by rightly reflecting on some of the problems of last year's season. He mentioned the excellent work done by English Apples and Pears Ltd. I take my hat off to David Browning and others in the industry, because, in a season of great difficulty, they managed to raise about £1.5 million as a fund to promote English apples and to make certain that in spite of problems they did not take the difficulties lying down. In the same newsletter from which my hon. Friend read, he will see that David Browning highlights one area in which the industry intends to help itself.
    I am glad that my hon. Friend took that theme as underlying much of what he said. The industry intends to improve its crop forecasting. If anything went wrong last year, it was that the industry did not properly anticipate the additional stock of apples. Therefore, proper and orderly marketing could not be arranged. The industry has learnt from that. I do not think that the same problem will occur this year.
    My hon. Friend posed several questions, and I shall do my best in the time available to respond to them. He rightly drew the attention of the House to the subject of imports. If the industry has set one positive image, it is that it is not per se against imports. It recognises that southern hemisphere fruit has an important part to play in ensuring that there is a good demand of apples 52 weeks of the year, but it is right to emphasise that difficulties arise when there is unplanned marketing of fruit.
    For example, large quantities may come from South America and Chile in particular. Where the marketing of that fruit is not properly planned, it coincides with the end point of our season and causes difficulty for growers who have incurred cost in long-term storage of some of their very best fruit. That is a matter which requires almost a world solution.
    My hon. Friend asked me to comment on our general agreement on tariffs and trade obligations and the effect that that would have on our prospects for fruit. In coming to an agreement on a more manageable system for controlling southern hemisphere fruit coming into this country at very low prices, the negotiation on the Chilean challenge to the European Union made it possible for Commissioner Brittan to propose a positive date by which he wanted to see the grubbing scheme come before the Council of Agriculture Ministers. That accelerated the whole process of reform of the fruit and vegetable regime, in particular focusing on the subject of grubbing. I shall say a few words about that in a moment.
    The way in which the arrangements work with Chile, through GATT, to control third-country imports will be to the advantage of our industry because the scheme will be more transparent, and it has occasioned the arrival of the grubbing situation. It still means that there is a problem, which we will have to continue to discuss with some senders of fruit from the southern hemisphere.
    My hon. Friend mentioned authoritative statistics and on that subject I am at one with him. I can assure him from this Dispatch Box that, in the work that I am undertaking

    127
    to study the horticultural industry, I have laid special emphasis on trying to ensure that we first deal with some of the problems of the apple industry. Good statistics—produced using our position as a Ministry of overview—are vital so that people can take informed decisions. I will certainly do my best to find out what we can do to respond positively to the point that my hon. Friend made.
    My hon. Friend also mentioned price versus yield. That is crucial for the Cox. One of the results of one thing that the Department has been doing to help the industry—running a seminar for everyone from the inspired individual or independent, who was there at the beginning of the English apple industry, to those representing some of the major co-operative ventures in the industry—was an insight into the way in which new varieties that are being developed may well, under the right circumstances, have yields that will put them on a par with their continental competition. That is a very exciting development.
    In concluding, my hon. Friend mentioned the importance of new varieties, and I side with him about that. In addition to the yield and economics of new varieties, there is a growing recognition that the taste of apples is changing. We rightly place much emphasis on the Cox, which lies at the heart of the English apple industry. It is the very tradition—the essence—of what we call English apples. The industry rightly recognises that there is more work to be done in research and development to ensure that the flavour that is the Cox apple is sustained and maintained.
    In the long term, we have to look to new varieties. Representatives of one of the supermarkets, who saw me during my studies, said that they had recognised a trend towards some of the newer varieties, such as Braeburn and Gala to name but two, especially among younger fruit eaters. The industry is also looking at Fiesta. That development is encouraging, because it seems to be in tune with the way in which the consumer is going. We spend about £2 million a year on research and development, and it will assist the industry in that work.
    My hon. Friend is also a trustee of the Brogdale horticultural trust and I congratulate him on what he does for Brogdale and for the enthusiasm that it shows on the question. The trust made an interesting point. While the search for new varieties continues, it has about 2,300 varieties of apple at Brogdale, which represent an almost untapped potential for looking forward in the industry.
    While the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gives about £200,000 per year to help Brogdale to move forward, I hope that my hon. Friend will not lose sight of the marketing development scheme, which provides grants of up to £150,000 for innovative projects to improve the marketing and operation of large parts of the horticultural industry. I quietly suggest to my hon. Friend a little innovative thought—Brogdale might find the marketing development scheme helpful to it in its wish to exploit its knowledge and resource. I put that on record to show that positive action is available.
    While we are talking of additional resources, I suggest that my hon. Friend reminds members of the industry, who may not have seen the press release that we released a week go, that bids are open for the new scheme of processing and marketing grants—the so-called FEOGA scheme. The
    128
    Commission has not yet come up with the final details of the exact nature of projects that will be supported, but we have a fairly good idea of what they will be.
    Some people have already said that they want to make an advanced start on works. Innovative projects in the processing and marketing field in top fruit could well find that those FEOGA grants, which are serious money—£100 million during the next six years—are an area worth exploiting, to assist the industry positively through some of its difficulties.
    On positive help, my hon. Friend mentioned cold storage. He may be interested to know that in the submission on the reform of the fruit and vegetable regime to the Commission, the United Kingdom has said that it could accept grant aid for improvements of storage facilities, particularly in the apple sector. We have tried to get that debate going, because I recognise from my discussions with industry representatives that cold storage facilities are a source of concern.
    In highlighting research and development, the group marketing scheme, the FEOGA grants and some of the contributions that we have already made to the debate about reforming the fruit and vegetable regime, I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that we have taken matters further by trying to provide ways of giving concrete help to the English industry.
    At the heart of the current debate is an issue on which my hon. Friend rightly concentrated many of his remarks—the grubbing up scheme. It is a sadness to me that I cannot confirm tonight the precise details of that scheme. It was my earnest hope that the matter would have been agreed at the recent meeting of the Agriculture Council. As my hon. Friend will know that, sadly, no final agreement was made on that occasion. I believe, however, that the issue will be discussed at the next meeting of the Agriculture Council, which will be held this month. I firmly hope that it will come to an agreement.
    It is important to put that scheme into context. It is effectively a temporary one, in recognition of Commissioner Brittan's intervention and the needs of the industry. It does not, however, address some of the wider issues of the reform of the fruit and vegetable regime throughout Europe. My hon. Friend was right when he counselled us not to forget the inequities of the intervention scheme. That scheme, which operates throughout Europe, effectively rewards production for no particular end purpose. My hon. Friend was right to say that we gained little advantage from it and that it fuelled the production of apples that are not required.
    To that extent, we have advocated a reform of the fruit and vegetable regime, a removal of intervention, coupled with grubbing, because we believe that the two go together. The interim scheme will enable matters to move forward and I know that that will benefit the industry.
    My hon. Friend asked whether it was possible to address the question of orchards in which the trees are more than 20 years old. I must tell him that it will be extremely difficult to do that. As matters move forward, however, I will undertake to see whether there is anything that can be done. I must emphasise that that may be a long shot and I should not like to say any more at this stage. I will investigate and evaluate that proposal, because I understand its importance to the industry.
    My hon. Friend was right to refer to the consumption of apples. The level of fruit consumption is this country is low. My hon. Friend has highlighted, however, a real

    129
    opportunity for our industry. A real gain can be made in the marketplace by English apples, not only the traditional Cox but new varieties, and by English pears. If we consider such consumption in the wider context of the work undertaken as a result of "The Health of the Nation", we can see that the work of the nutrition task force, as well all the other efforts to encourage a healthier style of eating, in which fruit plays a vital part, our apple industry can play its part. The debate comes almost full circle, because the very fact that the industry was able to raise £1.5 million to assist the promotion of its own fruit shows that it, too, is taking that issue extremely seriously.
    My hon. Friend mentioned English apple juice, which I enjoy drinking. I refer him back to the subject of FEOGA, because it may offer opportunities. It is interesting to consider whether there can be more integration and co-operation within the industry, in which juicing may play a part. I know that the industry is debating that question.
    130
    I hope that my hon. Friend will see that much positive work is being done within that package of measures. He made a salient point about supermarkets' positive support of the industry and the fact that they must take seriously the quality, excellence and safety of English fruit. I guarantee that I will take up that challenge. I intend to invite senior buyers from supermarkets and to underscore that point to them. Although they support the industry, in my humble view they must, on this occasion, put their money where their mouths are and understand that, if they want supplies of the best fruit in Europe, they must continue to give the industry the support that it deserves and recognise the qualities that mean good sales on their shelves and good sales for our apple growers.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recylced paper.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. However, the paper used for press releases and written questions is classified as "environmentally friendly".

  Courts Services Agency
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what amounts have been paid out, and to whom, by way of fees for consultation about the setting up of the Courts Services Agency; what sums he plans to pay out in this respect in the future; and to whom.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Department has paid £15,500 in fees to Dent Lee Witte and KPMG Peat Marwick for work assisting with the setting up of the Court Service Agency. One contract is still continuing, with further costs of £3,000 expected. A further contract to design the launch documents is currently out to tender. There are no other plans to use consultants to assist with establishing the agency, but the Department will assess whether their assistance may be appropriate as work progresses.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his latest estimate of(a) the costs incurred so far and (b) the costs yet to be incurred in the setting up of the Courts Services Agency.

  Mr. John. M. Taylor
  The preparatory work started in July 1992 and has cost £362,000 up to June this year. Costs of £246,000 are expected to be incurred from June this year to the launch of the agency in April 1995.

  Courts and Court Buildings
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to allow notices to be posted with regard to consultation about the proposed closures of courts and court buildings in the public areas of the courts and court buildings concerned.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The consultation procedure for the proposed closure of a court requires the circuit administrator to consult a wide range of local interests. Also, it is open to a circuit administrator to post a notice on the court notice board.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what date the changes announced on 7 July 1993 to the judicial appointments system take effect.
  2
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Clywd, North-West (Mr. Richards) on 19 May,Official Report, column 529. The Lord Chancellor's proposals for implementing the changes announced in his speech were set out in a consultation paper, copies of which were placed in the Library.

  The closing date for responses to the consultation paper was 30 June. The Lord Chancellor is now considering the responses received and will make an announcement as soon as practicable.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of the Law Officers' departments'(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  The Attorney-General
  Nil.

PRIME MINISTER

  "The Downing Street Years"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what clearance the Cabinet Secretary gave to Lady Thatcher's book on the Downing street years in respect of(a) relations with Libya and the 1986 raid and (b) the Falklands War.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and noble Friend, Lady Thatcher, submitted the manuscript of "The Downing Street Years" to the Cabinet Secretary in accordance with the recommendations of the Radcliffe committee on ministerial memoirs. The Cabinet Secretary, acting at my request and on my behalf, examined the manuscript in respect of national security, the preservation of international relations and the treatment of confidential relationships. Exchanges between the Cabinet Secretary and former Ministers in respect of their memoirs are confidential.

  EC Rebate Mechanism
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those statements made by the United Kingdom heads of Government stating that the United Kingdom EC rebate mechanism could not be changed without the consent of the United Kingdom Government.

  The Prime Minister
  The abatement is an integral part of the own resources decision—ORD. The ORD, including the abatement, continues in force unless or until changed or replaced. Change or replacement requires unanimity in the Council followed by adoption of the new arrangements by member states according to their respective constitutional procedures. In the case of the United Kingdom, this means the passage of an Act of Parliament. This has been made clear on many occasions.

  Pensions
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available calling for the
  3
  unfreezing of the British state pensions of those pensioners living in countries where annual upratings are not made by the Department of Social Security; and what is the explanation for the discrimination against such pensioners.

  The Prime Minister
  In the last 12 months, I have received representations from the Governments of Australia and Canada. I have also received numerous letters from pensioners overseas.

  It would cost an additional £230 million a year to uprate British pensions worldwide. In view of the continued need to contain public expenditure, we have no plans to change this long-standing policy.

SCOTLAND

  Enzootic Bovine Leukosis
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) of 22 June,Official Report, column 231, what was the location of the cattle aged 30 months or under with enzootic bovine leukosis.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information requested is as follows:

  Enzootic bovine leukosis reactors (Under 30 months)

  Location

  Number

  Grampian

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  Strathclyde

  6

  Fisheries
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to introduce precautionary limits on the industrial fishery catch permitted on the Wee Bankie.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The industrial fishery on Wee Bankie by non-United Kingdom fishermen is carried out beyond the United Kingdom's 12-mile territorial sea and United Kingdom catch levels in this fishery are minimal. Any limits on catch levels for all member states would require the agreement of the Council of Ministers in Brussels. In the light of further scientific work being carried out on the impact of industrial fishing, the United Kingdom will consider whether further controls on the North sea fishery should be proposed.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion by weight of the the total fish catch in International Council for the Exploration of the Sea area VI,(a) is taken by industrial fishermen and (b) comprises sandeels.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Data on total international catches for all species in sub-area VI—West of Scotland and Rockall—are available in the publication "ICES Fisheries Statistics (Bulletin Statistique des Peches Maritimes)". The most recently available volume is dated November 1992 and is for the year 1988.

  On the basis of the information contained in that publication, figures for the years 1985–88 are as follows:
  4

  "Industrial" catch as percentage of total catch

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Division VIa (West of Scotland)

  Sandeels (per cent)

  2·2

  3·1

  1·9

  3·4

  Norway pout (per cent.)

  1·1

  —

  5·0

  —

  Blue whiting (per cent.)

  24·3

  33·6

  17·8

  14·7

  Total (thousand tonnes)

  857·4

  794·3

  767·4

  719·5

  Division VIb (Rockall)

  Sandells (per cent.)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norway pout (per cent.)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blue whiting (per cent.)

  1·4

  2·5

  30·0

  3·9

  Total (thousand tonnes)

  31·7

  28·4

  44·4

  36·1

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the catch by the industrial fisheries on the Wee Bankie, Firth of Forth, in(a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c) 1993;

  (2) what proportion of the industrial sandeel catch on the Wee Bankie is taken by British fishermen.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Total international catch data are published only for larger areas than Wee Bankie. Available data for the area off the Firth of Forth, however, show that catches in that area totalled 39,000 tonnes in 1991 and 60,000 tonnes in 1992. Published data are not yet available for 1993.

  No United Kingdom vessels landed sandeels from that area in 1991 or 1993. In 1992, United Kingdom vessels landed just over 1,000 tonnes. The precise proportion this comprises of the entire sandeel catch on Wee Bankie in that year is unclear because of the factors explained above; but the information available indicates that the proportion will be less than 2 per cent.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) farmers and (b) holdings there were in (i) each region and (ii) less-favoured areas and non-less-favoured areas in Scotland in 1993.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The figures for main holdings at June 1993 are as follows:

  Region

  Number of holdings

  Number of farmers

  Borders

  1,740

  1,346

  Central

  1,088

  732

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,022

  2,434

  Fife

  1,047

  785

  Grampian

  6,520

  4,708

  Highland

  4,672

  3,063

  Lothian

  1,137

  720

  Strathclyde

  5,706

  4,099

  Tayside

  2,904

  2,087

  Orkney, Shetland, Western Isles

  4,256

  2,796

  Less Favoured Area1

  20,692

  15,081

  Non Less Favoured Area

  11,400

  7,689

  1Holdings where 50 per cent. or more of the land is classified LFA for subsidy purposes.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is(a) the amount of land in hectares in each region, (b) the number of farmers and (c) the cost of the five-year set-aside scheme in Scotland in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95: and if he will make a statement.
  5
  Sir Hector Monro
  The areas and numbers of farmers as reported and the aid paid to date under the five-year set-aside scheme in each region of Scotland in respect of 1993–94—that is, for the set-aside year ending on 30 September 1993—are as follows:

  Region

  Number of farmers

  Area Hectares

  Amount paid £

  Borders

  44

  2,219

  348,309

  Central

  26

  1,042

  201,406

  Dumfries and Galloway

  7

  115

  20,938

  Fife

  34

  1,327

  173,398

  Grampian

  444

  10,301

  1,778,760

  Highland and the Islands Councils

  72

  2,447

  428,603

  Lothian

  23

  1,025

  208,185

  Strathclyde

  44

  615

  119,599

  Tayside

  118

  4,675

  711,533

  TOTALS

  812

  23,766

  3,990,731

  Estimated expenditure for 1994–95 is some £2 million in respect of 350 set-aside agreements covering around

  1993

  1994

  LFA (£/hectares)

  Non-LFA (£/hectares)

  LFA (£/hectares)

  Non-LFA (£/hectares)

  (a) cereals

  114.0746

  131·3893

  156·9785

  181·7817

  (b) oilseeds

  368·8521

  445·6669

  402·8383

  489·3607

  (c) proteins

  296·5939

  341·6122

  291·5314

  337·5946

  (d) linseed1

  (—)

  (—)

  (—)

  (—)

  (e) set-aside

  205·3342

  236·5008

  255·6506

  296·0445

  set-aside reduced rate2

  (—)

  (—)

  179·4040

  207·7505

  (f) simplified scheme

  114·0746

  131·3893

  156·9785

  181·7817

  1Linseed was not incorporated into the Arable Area Payments Scheme u Commission.

  2There is a reduced payment rate for voluntary set-aside in excess of the applicant's cropped area; voluntary set-aside was not available in 1993.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 88, if he will now give (i) the number of hectares taken up and (ii) the number of holdings in Scotland in 1993 for (a) cereals, (b) potatoes, (c) linseed,

  Cereals

  Poratoes

  Linseed

  Horticultural Crops

  Oilseeds

  Region

  Holdings

  Area (ha)

  Holdings

  Area (ha)

  Holdings

  Area (ha)

  Holdings

  Area (ha)

  Holdings

  Area (ha)

  Borders

  838

  53,179

  139

  1,791

  27

  406

  105

  1,341

  220

  6,787

  Central

  375

  10,991

  45

  123

  —1

  —1

  28

  76

  70

  1,209

  Dumfries and Galloway

  902

  16,804

  92

  365

  0

  0

  34

  36

  21

  401

  Fife

  681

  37,495

  260

  2,633

  10

  175

  147

  2,639

  294

  6,339

  Grampian

  4,010

  124,726

  1,139

  5,989

  39

  673

  323

  2,121

  981

  22,961

  Higland

  1,253

  27,679

  573

  927

  —1

  —1

  108

  151

  131

  2,604

  Lothian

  618

  35,853

  138

  2,069

  —1

  —1

  116

  1,016

  185

  4,213

  Strathclyde

  1,303

  21,046

  310

  933

  —1

  —1

  172

  342

  22

  286

  Tayside

  1,758

  78,591

  1,048

  11,451

  32

  513

  496

  5,473

  714

  15,092

  Orkney, Shetland, Western Isles

  1,014

  4,191

  1,012

  317

  —1

  —1

  185

  51

  7

  33

  1Less than 5 holdings.

  Figures for sugar beet are not collected.

  Cereals

  Potatoes

  Linseed

  Horticultural Crops

  Oilseeds

  Holdings

  Area (ha)

  Holdings

  Area (Ha)

  Holdings

  Area (ha)

  Holdings

  Area (ha)

  Holdings

  Area (ha)

  Less Favoured Area1

  5,974

  96,175

  2,213

  2,403

  30

  530

  467

  955

  332

  5,614

  Non Less Favoured Area

  6,778

  314,381

  2,543

  24,196

  89

  1,370

  1,247

  12,290

  2,313

  54,311

  1Holdings where 50 per cent. or more of the land is classified less favoured area for subsidy purposes.

  6
  12,000 hectares. It is not possible to give a regional breakdown as the 1994–95 payments will not commence until after the claims have been received in respect of the set-aside year which ends on 30 September 1994. The difference between the 1993–94 and 1994–95 figures is the result of some farmers having completed their five-year agreements and others having taken advantage of the option to terminate agreements early in order to join the arable area payments scheme.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will give the payment rates made per hectare under the arable area payments scheme for(a) cereals, (b) oilseeds, (c) proteins, (d) linseed, (e) set-aside and (f) the simplified scheme paid in (i) the first year and (ii) the second year of the scheme in both the less-favoured area and the non-less favoured area of Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The payment rates per hectare in Scotland for the first and second year of the scheme are set out below. The actual rates payable in 1994 may be reduced if base areas are exceeded and the rate for oilseeds may be adjusted to reflect changes to the reference price.

  (d) sugar beet, (e) horticultural produce and (f) oilseeds in each region and in the less-favoured area and non-less-favoured areas.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The figures for main holdings at June 1993 are as follows:
  7
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the take-up of the arable area payments scheme in hectares for(a) the simplified scheme, (b) cereals, (c) oilseeds, (d) proteins, (e) linseed and (f) set-aside in (i) the less-favoured areas and (ii) the non-less-favoured areas in Scotland for 1994.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Officials are currently analysing claims made in 1994 by Scottish farmers under the arable area payments scheme. Until this analysis is complete, it is not possible to determine what this year's uptake has been.

  Mineworkings
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the most recent information available to him on the stability of old mineworkings which lie under the town of Johnstone and the village of Elderslie; how many houses have been demolished in the area because of subsidence caused by old mineworkings; if he will give the year of demolition; what measures have been taken to minimise the risk of further subsidence; if he will commission a study into the need for further ground stabilisation measures; which public bodies have responsibility for monitoring the situation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 24 June 1994]: The information the hon. Member seeks is not held centrally. It is not clear from the hon. Member's question what type of mining operations are being referred to. However, in the case of coal mining subsidence where properties suffer damage, British Coal is responsible for repair or compensation, as appropriate, under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act (1991). Following privatisation, claimants' rights regarding coal mining subsidence damage will remain unaffected, although British Coal's responsibilities will pass either to the Coal Authority or to the new mine owner.

  If the hon. Member is concerned about a specific coal mining related matter, he may care to direct his inquiry to British Coal.

  Road Haulage Industry
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the current issues and problems facing the road haulage industry in Scotland;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the current issues and problems facing the excavation and heavy plant hire sector of the road haulage and contracting industry in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: My right hon. Friend and I are not aware of any particular issues and problems that are peculiar to the road haulage industry in Scotland. The road haulage industry in the United Kingdom is generally acknowledged as being one of the most efficient, reliable and cost-effective within the European Union. It has a continuing and important role to play in the economy of Scotland.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average time his Department takes in replying to letters from right hon. and hon. Members; and what is(a) the shortest time and (b) the longest time it has taken to reply in full in the last Session of Parliament.
  8
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: Information is not held currently in precisely the form requested. My Department has a target of issuing replies to correspondence from hon. Members and others within 17 working days of receipt. Statistics of performance are held by calendar year and in 1993, 52 per cent. of replies to hon. Members were within that 17 working day target. The time taken to answer individual items of correspondence in 1993 ranged from fewer than five working days to over 30 working days of receipt of the correspondence. Some 85 per cent. of correspondence warranting a ministerial reply in 1993—10,320 items out of a total of 12,089—received a full reply within 30 working days.

  Renfrewshire Enterprise
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the identifiable(a) capital and (b) revenue or current expenditure by Renfrewshire Enterprise by regional council electoral division, or on any other geographical basis on which the data is collated or accounted, in each year since 1990; how much in both expenditure categories is (i) legally committed and (ii) planned for fiscal years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what is the pro-rata expenditure in each category for each regional council electoral division, expressed as a percentage of the total capital and revenue budgets measured against their respective populations; if he will rank the regional council electoral divisions in decending order by level of expenditure in both categories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: The overall budget allocation for Scottish Enterprise is determined by my right hon. Friend. The distribution of funds from Scottish Enterprise to the local enterprise company network is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise. I shall ask the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what decisions his Department has taken in respect of local enterprise companies over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement with LECs over the same period.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 June 1994]: My right hon. Friend and the Scottish Office set the operating frameworks within which Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise contract with the local enterprise companies, but do not have any direct, formal relationship with the local enterprise companies themselves. Scottish Enterprise requires the approval of the Scottish Office before making material changes to the local enterprise company operating contracts or articles and memoranda of association. One such case has been referred to the Scottish Office in the past year. In addition, there are frequent informal contacts between Scottish Office Ministers and officials and the local enterprise companies.

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to introduce to implement the EC habitats directive 92/43/EEC; and if he will make a statement.
  9
  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for the Environment have today laid before Parliament a set of draft regulations which would, subject to approval by both Houses, give legislative effect to the directive in Great Britain.

  The measures set out in the draft regulations build on our existing nature conservation legislation and provide increased protection on land and at sea for the most internationally important sites for nature conservation in Great Britain. They form part of the Government's wider action to promote nature conservation and biological diversity, as set out in "Biodiversity: The United Kingdom Action Plan", launched by the Prime Minister in January this year.

  The draft regulations also reflect the comments made when the Government consulted a wide range of conservation, farming, fisheries, economic, recreational and other interests in the autumn of 1993 about implementation of the habitats directive. The 94 responses received in Scotland emphasised to the Government both the widespread support for the nature conservation objectives of the directive and the need to implement the directive in partnership with those who earn their living from our countryside and our sea.

  The draft regulations apply to special protection areas designated under the EC wild birds directive and to special areas of conservation to be identified by the Government in accordance with the habitats directive. Together, these sites will contribute to a European network of sites of high biodiversity significance to be known as Natura 2000.

  In brief, the regulations contain the following provisions:
  duties are placed on Ministers and the statutory nature conservation agencies—for Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage—to fulfil the requirements of the habitats directive;
  duties are placed on other statutory authorities to address the requirements of the habitats directive in the exercise of their functions;
  new provisions build on those in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to give additional protection to Natura 2000 sites. Existing restrictions on potentially damaging operations may be toughened where necessary, and farmers and landowners will be compensated for any losses which they sustain because of this. Special nature conservation orders will give indefinite protection to the conservation interests of Natura 2000 sites from proposals to carry out damaging operations. In the last resort, Scottish Natural Heritage would be obliged to use its compulsory purchase powers to protect Natura 2000 sites from deterioration or where no satisfactory management agreements could be concluded following the making of a special nature conservation order. This power should seldom, if ever, be used given that SNH will be seeking to address the inappropriate management of land by the negotiation of voluntary management agreements;
  some technical measures supplement the species protection provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;
  an innovative set of measures is proposed to secure the protection of Natura 2000 sites in the marine environment. Ministers and statutory authorities would be obliged to use their powers to protect the integrity of marine Natura 2000 sites. SNH would advise relevant authorities on the conservation objectives of marine Natura 2000 sites. Where desirable, the relevant authorities concerned would cooperate in drawing up a management scheme for the marine Natura 2000 site. Ministers would have reserve powers to ensure that management schemes were developed where necessary and to ensure these schemes effectively address the issues facing the site;
  provisions are made to ensure that planning authorities, and other authorities giving consent for developments or
  10
  operations potentially damaging to the integrity of Natura 2000 sites, cannot give consent to developments if they would damage the integrity of a Natura 2000 site. Authorities would be required to review, and where necessary modify or revoke, existing permissions whose implementation would be damaging to a Natura 2000 site, and compensatory provisions are established for developers who incur loss because of this. The Government will consider sympathetically requests from planning authorities for reimbursement of the costs of compensation necessarily incurred by them in revoking or modifying planning permissions under these regulations. Provisions governing simplified planning zones and enterprise zones are amended by the draft regulations so as not to give permission for developments damaging to the integrity of a Natura 2000 site. The General Permitted Development Order is being amended similarly following a separate consultation in the late summer of 1993.

  Further minor measures will be introduced after the summer recess bringing the exercise by relevant authorities of powers under specific statutes into line with the requirements of the directive. The Government also expect in the autumn to consult owners, occupiers and other relevant interests on a draft list of proposed special areas of conservation. The Government believe this consultation to be important even though it is not required by the directive.

  The Government intend, subject to the regulations coming into force, to issue a circular to the relevant authorities detailing the effect of the regulations.

  The Government consider that the draft regulations set out before Parliament a balanced and effective range of measures to establish and protect Great Britain's valuable contribution to the Natura 2000 network.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Hospital Services
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what efforts he is making to assist with the marketing abroad of Britain's hospital services in both private and NHS sectors.

  Mr. Needham
  Promotion of health care exports is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, our two Departments work closely together on export promotion and we are currently in the process of setting up a health care sector group under the auspices of the Overseas Projects Board. For my own part, I have sought to promote British health care expertise during my visits abroad, most recently during my programme of calls earlier this month in Asia and the middle east.

  Company Inspections
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what records of time, expenses and costs are kept where his Department's officers act as inspectors under the Companies Acts.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Records are kept of the expenses incurred by departmental inspectors and, since 1991, of the time spent on individual inspections. Time costs are calculated taking into account salaries, associated costs, and general overheads including accommodation costs.

  Indonesia (Trade)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage British manufacturers to export goods and services to Indonesia.

  Mr. Needham
  Indonesia is one of my Department's priority markets. Last year, we effectively doubled the number of staff working on promoting trade to Indonesia and engaged a secondee from industry specifically for that purpose. In 1993, I led three business delegations to Indonesia and the DTI financially supported a further 150 British business visitors: it is likely that a similar number will receive support this year.

  Ernst and Young
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken against Ernst and Young and its partners, following the criticisms made by the inspectors in their report on(a) Rotaprint plc and (b) Sound Diffusion.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In the case of Rotaprint plc, the investigation committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales reprimanded and fined Mr. R. H. Legge FCA, the engagement partner for the audit in question. In the case of Sound Diffusion plc, the investigation committee concluded earlier this month, after taking leading counsels' opinion, that there was no prima facie case against the institute members responsible for auditing the accounts of the company in 1986 and 1987, the years in question. Consequently, the investigation committee decided not to refer formal complaints to the institute's disciplinary committee.

  Staff Surveys
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what surveys of the views, opinions and attitudes of the staff of his Department have been carried out in the last two years; and if he will place copies of the findings in the Library.

  Mr. Eggar
  Few surveys of this kind have been conducted in the DTI during the past two years, and they relate to the operation of internal management procedures. They are confidential to management and to the staff involved.

  Receivers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to proposals for legislation under which receivers would owe a duty of care to(a) the shareholders and (b) the employees of a company in receivership.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  If the hon. Member will detail the proposals to which he refers, I will ensure they are given careful consideration.

  Moizer Report
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what consideration he has given to proposals for the creation of a single independent body to monitor the work of auditors;

  (2) when he will lay Professor Moizer's report before the House.
  12
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I am still considering Professor Moizer's report on audit monitoring.

  Alexander Howden
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken against the auditing firm and partners criticised in the inspectors' reports on Alexander Howden; and what has been the outcome.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A copy of the inspectors' report into the affairs of Alexander Howden Holdings plc—formerly Alexander Howden Group plc—was passed to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales in August 1990. The matter was then referred to the joint disciplinary scheme. In December 1992, a joint disciplinary scheme committee of inquiry, noting that the events which were the subject of the inquiry took place prior to 1982, found that no criticism was made out concerning the conduct, efficiency or competence of two members and, in respect of the others under inquiry, decided that it would not now be able to reach a finding on their conduct, efficiency or competence.

  J. S. Bass and Co.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will appoint inspectors to investigate the liquidation of J. S. Bass and Co.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  WMD Underwriting Agencies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken against the auditing firm and partners criticised in the inspectors' reports on WMD Underwriting Agencies; and what has been the outcome.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A copy of the inspectors' report into the affairs of Minet Holdings plc and WMD Underwriting Agencies Limited was passed to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales in August 1990. The matter was then referred to the joint disciplinary scheme. In December 1992, a joint disciplinary scheme committee of inquiry, noting that the events which were the subject of the inquiry took place prior to 1982, decided it would not now be able to reach a finding on the conduct, efficiency or competence of the members under inquiry.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to impose on the regulatory bodies responsible for insolvency a duty care to individual shareholders, employees and unsecured creditors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no such plans.

  Receivers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to impose on receivers a duty of care to individual shareholders, employees and unsecured creditors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no plans to do so.

  EC Industry Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) of 28 June,Official Report, column 467, what was the voting record of each member state on each item agreed and adopted at the meeting of the European Community's Industry Council held on 22 June.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No votes were taken on any of the issues on the agenda of the Industry Council on 22 June.

  Sanctions (Nigeria)
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact upon British industry of those military and defence sanctions which have already been imposed against Nigeria: when those sanctions will be lifted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 30 June 1994]: It is not the intention of the measures we introduced to damage our economic relations with Nigeria. We and our partners are keeping those measures under review, and will modify them in the light of progress towards democracy in Nigeria.

  Councils of Ministers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all qualified majority votes on the single market programme at European Councils of Ministers since 1989, giving in each case the voting record of each member state.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 29 June 1994]: The information requested by the hon. Member is not readily available. I shall write to him with a substantive reply, giving as much information as possible, in due course and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what importance he attaches to the exchange rate in determining the competitiveness of United Kingdom manufacturers at home and overseas; and if he will publish his estimate of the amount by which unit costs of labour would have to fall in the import-competing and export industries to compensate for an increase of 5 per cent. in the nominal exchange rate;

  (2) what importance the Government attach to the exchange rate in the management of the United Kingdom economy; and for what purposes the exchange rate is managed.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 March 1994,Official Report, column 15. The United Kingdom's price competitiveness depends fundamentally on improving productivity and controlling costs. Policies directed at permanently low inflation and competitive markets provide the best environment in which to achieve this. A policy of continued devaluation would only raise inflation and would be damaging to long-run economic success.
  14
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) to what extent the Government's monetary and exchange rate policies are designed to eliminate the deficit in the balance of payments on current account.

  (2) to what extent the Government's monetary and exchange rate policies are designed to increase (a) employment and (b) output in manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Nelson
  It is the role of monetary policy to deliver low inflation. Decisions are based on an assessment of a range of monetary indicators and other data, in particular the growth of narrow and broad money and movements in the exchange rate and asset prices. Low inflation on permanent basis combined with sound public finances provide the stable and macro-economic framework needed for sustained growth in output and employment.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish a table based on table 7.1A of "CSO Financial Statistics, May 1994", showing the pound sterling exchange rate index against non-European monetary system currencies on a 1985 basis for each year since 1975, the fourth quarter of 1976, the second quarter of 1979, the first quarter of 1981 and each quarter since the fourth quarter of 1986, together with the corresponding figures for the pound sterling exchange rate index;

  (2) whether it is the Government's policy to reverse the fall in the real exchange rate against the ecu between October 1990 and February 1993; and if he will publish a table showing the real exchange rate against the ecu and non-ecu currencies in the fourth quarter of 1976, October 1990, February 1987 and at the latest available date for countries for which figures are available measured in terms of (a) relative unit export values for manufactures and finished manufactures, (b) terms of trade for semi-finished manufactures, finished manufactures and manufactures, (c) relative producer prices and (d) relative average export values for manufactures and finished manufactures;

  (3) if he will publish a table based on table 13.1 of CSO Financial Statistics, July 1988, showing the pound sterling exchange rate index against non-EMS currencies on a 1975 basis for each year since 1975, the fourth quarter of 1976, the second quarter of 1979, the first quarter of 1981 and each quarter since the fourth quarter of 1986 together with the corresponding figures for the pound sterling exchange rate index;

  (4) if he will publish a table based on table 7.1 A of CSO Financial Statistics, May 1994, showing the pound sterling exchange rate index against European monetary system currencies on a 1985 basis for each year since 1975, the fourth quarter of 1976, the second quarter of 1979, the first quarter of 1981 and each quarter since the fourth quarter of 1986;

  (5) if he will publish a table based on table 13.1 of Central Statistical Office financial statistics showing the sterling exchange rate index against European monetary system currencies on a 1975 basis for each year since 1975, the fourth quarter of 1976, the second quarter of 1979, the first quarter of 1981 and each quarter since the fourth quarter of 1986.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answers 28, 29, 30 June 1994]: Single sterling exchange rate indices for EMS and non-EMS currencies are not available. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 January 1994,

  15
  Official Report, column 19, where I gave a reference for the weighted composition and methodological construction of sterlin's exchange rate index.

  The tables to which the hon. Member refers give figures for sterling's exchange rate index. Sterling real exchange rates defined in various ways can be found in "International Financial Statistics", published by the IMF, and in "Economic Trends", published by the CSO. Export and import unit values of manufactures and wholesale prices for the United Kingdom and its main trading partners can be found in "International Financial Statistics". Average export values of manufactures can be found in the "Monthly Bulletin of Statistics", published by the United Nations. The other data needed to calculate the information requested may be available from the national authorities of the countries concerned.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 March 1994, Official Report, column 15, where I made a statement about the role of the exchange rate in monetary policy.

  Hydrocarbon Oil
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 May,Official Report, column 306, what is the annual operating cost of the 17 regional road fuel testing units assigned to control the illegal use of hydrocarbon oil.

  Sir John Cope
  The latest figures available show that the annual operating cost of the regional road fuel testing units assigned to control the illegal use of hydrocarbon oil was some £1.6 million in the year ending 31 March 1993.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 May,Official Report, column 306, how many vehicles were tested by the 17 regional road fuel testing units assigned to control the illegal use of hydrocarbon oil, in each of the last three years; and what proportion were found to have illicit fuel.

  Sir John Cope
  The numbers of vehicles tested by the regional road fuel units, and the numbers found to be running on illicit fuel, are:

  Year ending 31 March 1992 fuel

  84,614 tested and 1,594 on illicit

  Year ending 31 March 1993 fuel

  73,051 tested and 1,607 on illicit

  Year ending 31 March 1994 fuel

  66,259 tested and 1,682 on illicit

  Valuation
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is(a) the average and (b) the maximum time taken between the completion of a new dwelling and the completion of its valuation for council tax purposes.

  Mr. Nelson
  This information is not available.

  Policies
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his speech to the Konrad Adenauer Foundation on 29 June represents Government policy.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Yes.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (ii) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Nelson
  No Treasury press releases or answers to parliamentary questions are currently printed on recycled paper. However, most of the paper used by the Department is environmentally friendly paper which is total chlorine free. The Department's policy on the use of recycled and environmentally friendly paper is reviewed regularly.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many contracts the Inland Revenue has entered into with the computer company EDS-Scion or its predecessor EDS; when the contracts were entered into; what is their total value; and what is the subject matter of each contract.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: On 23 May 1994, the Inland Revenue signed contracts with Electronic Data Systems Ltd. for the supply of information technology services to the Department over the next 10 years, starting on 1 July 1994. Over 100 agreements make up the contracts with EDS covering such matters as the pricing and regulation of the service arrangements, the transfer of assets from the Revenue to EDS, the transfer of staff, the leases and licenses to property which EDS will occupy, services which the Revenue will supply to EDS on shared sites, third party agreements allowing EDS the right to various services already supplied to the Revenue and various other documents and side letters.

  The 10-year contract is estimated to be worth around £1 billion, and is expected to enable the Inland Revenue to make savings of 15 to 20 per cent. in the costs of its information technology support.

ENVIRONMENT

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government;

  (2) if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department what are required to lay their annual reports before Parliament;

  (3) if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to produce annual reports;

  (4) if he will list the advisory bodies he has set up in his Department since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993";

  (5) if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which have a statutory basis;

  (6) if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult prior to legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied by them.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department currently sponsors 14 advisory non-departmental public bodies, information
  17
  about which is in the table below. Publication of advice and reports is usually for the NDPBs and the Department to determine rather than a statutory requirement. "Going for Green" and the Government's panel on sustainable development have yet to determine their working methods. Those two bodies, plus the Assessment Panel for Construction Research and the Local Government Staff Commission (England) have been set up since the qualifying date for "Public Bodies 1993".

  There are statutory requirements for Ministers to consult the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substance,

  Advisory non-departmental public body

  Date set up

  Advice published

  Produces annual report

  Report laid before Parliament

  Statutory basis

  Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment

  1991

  Yes

  Regular progress reports

  Progress reports placed in the Library

  No

  Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances

  1991

  Available for public scrutiny

  Yes

  Placed in the Library

  Environmental Protection Act 1990, s.140

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment

  1990

  Available on public registers

  Yes

  No

  Environmental Protection Act 1990, s.124

  Assessment Panel for Construction Research

  1994

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  Black Country Limestone Advisory Panel

  1983

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  1962

  Some papers available on request

  No.

  n/a

  Building Act 1984, s.14

  Going for Green

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  No

  Government's Panel on Sustainable Development

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  No

  Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council

  1968

  Sometimes

  Yes

  No

  Transport Act 1968, s.110

  Local Government Commission for England

  1992

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Local Government Act 1992, s.12

  Local Government Staff Commission (England)

  1993

  Yes

  No

  n/a

  Local Government Act 1992, s.23

  Property Advisory Group

  1978

  No

  No

  n/a

  No

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee

  1978

  Normally published

  Yes

  Placed in the Library

  No

  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

  1970

  Yes - presented Parliament

  No

  n/a

  Royal Warrant

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines he has issued as to the propriety of(a) chairmen of public bodies with a specific responsibility for the natural environment and (b) the chairman of English Nature in particular, holding paid advisory or managerial positions with (i) private companies involved in waste disposal or (ii) privatised water companies.

  Mr. Atkins
  Revised rules were drawn to the attention of the chief executives of the Department's sponsored bodies and discussed with them in April 1991. Following this, the board or council of each body was asked to review its arrangements and report the results to the Department. The essence of our guidance is that relevant interests should be declared on a register and members should refrain from discussion or decisions when matters affecting such an interest come before the board or council. I wish strongly to repudiate the inference in the hon. Gentleman's question that the chairman of English Nature might be 18
  the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council and the Local Government Commission for England in specified circumstances. In addition, the Government regularly seek advisory NDPBs' views on a range of issues. There are no stautory requirements for the Government to publish responses to advice from advisory bodies, but responses are published, or other action taken, when it is appropriate to do so.

  acting improperly in holding advisory or main board non-executive appointments in private companies. Precisely the reverse—we expect the services of people we appoint to public bodies for their eminence and expertise to be.ought by others in related spheres and I believe that it does nothing for good government to impugn their reputation when they have observed the rules about disclosure of interest in the letter and in the spirit.

  Housing Vacancies
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the vacancy rate in each housing sector.

  Sir George Young
  The latest available information on the numbers and percentages of vacant dwellings in England is set out below. For local authorities and housing associations, figures are also given for management vacants.
  19

  Vacant dwellings at 1 April 1993

  Number

  Percentage of dwellings

  Local authorities2

  Management vacants1

  39,700

  1·1

  All vacant dwellings

  70,900

  1·9

  Housing associations3

  Management vacants1

  17,200

  2·4

  All vacant dwellings

  27,600

  3·9

  Government departments4

  16,000

  15·0

  Private sector5

  765,000

  5·0

  1Those available for letting immediately or after minor repairs.

  Sources:

  2Annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP1) returns.

  3Annual Housing Corporation HAR10/1 returns.

  4Based on data collected from Government Departments by the Task Force on Government Department's empty houses.

  5Annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP1) returns. Local authorities are asked to provide estimates of the number of private sector vacant dwellings in their area on these returns but there are doubts about the quality of the estimates provided by some authorities. Alternative survey information suggests that the numbers of private sector vacants reported on these returns may be an over-estimate.

  The figure for housing association vacant dwellings includes around 10,500 dwellings purchased in the last weeks of the financial year under the housing market package announced in the 1992 Autumn Statement.

  Recycling
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made since his statement in 1991 that the Government intended to bring forward legislation to introduce recycling plans with firm targets.

  Mr. Atkins
  Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which came into force on 1 August 1991, places a duty on waste collection authorities in England, Scotland and Wales to prepare and issue waste recycling plans. The Department's guidance emphasises the value of local targets in those plans, to supplement the Government's national target of recovering 25 per cent. of household waste by 2000. Authorities in England were asked to prepare draft recycling plans by 1 August 1992. Some 98 per cent. of those plans have been approved by the Department as meeting the statutory requirements.

  A new waste management order for Northern Ireland is currently being prepared and will require district councils to provide recycling plans in line with section 49 of the 1990 Act.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government will adopt fully to comply with the international recommendations from the Paris Commission in relation to BNFL THORP at Sellafield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The recommendations of the Paris Commission are not binding. The United Kingdom complies with those recommendations that it accepts. Since 1987, there have been nine Paris recommendations on radioactive issues. The United Kingdom has accepted all of those except for recommendation 93/5.
  20
  The United Kingdom, together with other contracting parties, placed a reserve on recommendation 93/5 because it failed to meet the standard of clarity desirable in an International agreement and sought to give the Paris Commission an inappropriate role in the authorising of individual projects.

  Fuel Emissions
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution makes for testing emissions from the burning of a fuel which has a variable composition.

  Mr. Atkins
  HMIP requires all operators to use appropriate means to monitor emissions from their processes whatever the fuel.

  Cemfuel
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations have taken place on the subject of Cemfuel between the north-west regional office and the midlands regional office of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Atkins
  There have been extensive consultations between the two HMIP regional offices on the subject of Cemfuel.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria will be used by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution when assessing the results of the Cemfuel trials at Ribblesdale, Lancashire to decide whether to grant an authorisation for continued burning of the substance.

  Mr. Atkins
  No authorisation will be granted until HMIP is fully satisfied that the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are complied with.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at how many locations authorisation for trial burning of Cemfuel has been granted; when these authorisations were granted; and how long each of these trials is expected to continue.

  Mr. Atkins
  Only one plant is authorised to undertake trial burning of Cemfuel. An integrated pollution control authorisation for this plant was issued on 30 November 1993. These trials are scheduled to be completed by the end of 1994.

  Hazardous Waste (Burning)
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the permitted level of dioxins which may be produced as a result of burning hazardous waste in(a) an incinerator and (b) a cement kiln.

  Mr. Atkins
  The permitted level of dioxins is lng/m3 for both types of plant.

  Objective 1 Status, Merseyside
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on liaison between his Department and the officials of DGXVI of the European Commission representing the Commission in Merseyside.
  21
  Mr. Baldry
  The lengthy negotiations with DGXVI officials on the Merseyside single programming document were conducted constructively and in a business-like way, and have now been concluded. Liaison with DGXVI will continue, through its membership of the monitoring committee overseeing the objective 1 programme, and its membership of the two technical panels supporting that committee.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make copies of the agreed objective 1 programme for Merseyside available to those entitled to benefit from it.

  Mr. Baldry
  Extensive guidance material on the objective I programme, including simple question/answer sheets, more detailed general guidance, and special guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises is already available through the Government office for Merseyside and other agencies. Copies of the full document will become available once the Commission has completed its legal procedures on the document and a final text is available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the reasons for the refusal on 22 June of the application made by Mr. Peter Johnson, managing director of Rea Metal Windows (Liverpool) Ltd., on behalf of his company to the Merseyside task force for financial support to expand the business and increase its number of employees; and what account was taken in considering the company's application of the company's rights under the agreed objective 1 programme, 1994 to 1999.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Merseyside objective 1 programme agreed with the Commission provides that grants will be paid to the private sector through intermediaries, to be designated by the monitoring committee. That cannot take place until the Commission completes its legal processes on the document. Mr. Johnson was seeking a form of assistance not provided there. Mr. Johnson was therefore encouraged by the objective 1 secretariat to speak to staff more directly concerned with business support, to see how his business might be assisted. He has now been sent an information pack about business support on Merseyside, which he is encouraged to follow-up with the Government office there.

  Coastal Management
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to make a full statement on the outcome of his consideration of his consultation on coastal management.

  Mr. Atkins
  I hope to make a statement shortly.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total capital grant funds to each metropolitan district in England in 1992–93 and 1993–94, and the projected allocation to be completed at the end of the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Baldry
  Capital grants are issued by a number of Government Departments.

  The total amounts of capital grants for the various services for local authorities in England are published
  22
  annually by Her Majesty's Treasury at the conclusion of each public expenditure survey. Outturn information for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94 and the plans for 1994–95 were published in February 1994 in the public expenditure statistical supplement to the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95".

  Information for individual authorities about capital grants is not held centrally and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  County Hall
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers he has to control the display of advertisements on the former County hall.

  Mr. Baldry
  Control over the display of outdoor advertisements is the local planning authority's responsibility. It is for Lambeth borough council to control advertisements on the former County hall.

  Energy Saving Trust
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department is taking to improve funding for the Energy Saving Trust.

  Mr. Atkins
  An inter-departmental group of officials has been asked to review options for the future funding of the Energy Saving Trust and its schemes.

  Dog Fouling
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects his Department's advisory group on litter to make a recommendation on national legislation for dog fouling and the definition of dog mess as litter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Soon.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what weight he will give to the results of the Local Government Commission's current public consultation exercise in Cheshire in deciding the future structure of local government in that county.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is for the Local Government Commission to consider the results of public consultation on its draft proposals for Cheshire when drawing up its final recommendations to the Secretary of State.

  All representations to the Secretary of State on the Commission's final recommendations will be taken into account before decisions about the implementation of any changes are made. Final decisions will be for Parliament.

  Fire Advisory Panel
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many members serve on the fire advisory panel; and how many of those members are also members of the Institute of Fire Safety.

  Mr. Baldry
  The fire advisory panel has 29 members, of whom I understand 10 are also members of the Institute of Fire Safety.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money his Department has provided for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95 for helping homeless people.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 29 June 1994]: My Department's housing expenditure in the years in question is set out in its annual report 1994, Cm 2507. Some £7·4 billion will be spent in 1994–95. The vast majority of that spending goes to help those who are in housing need, who need help with the repair of their housing or who have difficulty paying their local authority rent.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority, housing association and voluntary sector hostel bedspaces for single homeless people there were in England on(a) 31 December 1993 and (b) 31 March 1994, or the most recent figures available.

  Sir George Young
  Information available to my Department relates to bedspaces in hostels owned by registered housing associations. There were a total of 69,500 bedspaces in those hostels on 31 March 1993, the most recent date for which a figure is available. Those hostels cater not solely for single homeless people but for single people with a variety of special needs, many of whom are homeless.

  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy annual homelessness statistics publication includes data on the numbers of local authority hostel bedspaces for single homeless persons. A copy of the latest edition—"Homelessness Statistics 1992/93 Actuals"—is in the Library.

  Information on hostel bedspaces for single homeless people in the voluntary sector is not held centrally.

  Peat Extraction
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to phase out peat extraction.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she is taking to phase out peat extraction.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Government policy in respect of peat extraction is currently under review. The Government recognise the nature conservation value of the peatland resource and wish to encourage the use of suitable alternative materials while recognising the value of peat for some technically demanding uses by the horticultural industry in particular. The working group on peat extraction, 7 July 1992, Official Report, column 158, is considering a range of policies to secure the protection and rehabilitation of the most important sites and limiting new extraction to areas where no damage to nature conservation interests would arise. I will be publishing the outcome from the group's work later this year. My Department has also supported English Nature in safeguarding, for nature conservation, important vegetated areas on some existing peat workings, which were previously planned for extraction.

  Emergency Planning, Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the basis for and outcome of the recent Oscar IV emergency planning exercise held at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  Exercise Oscar IV was the level III—national—civil nuclear emergency exercise for 1993. It was held in November and formed part of an on-going programme to demonstrate the off-site emergency arrangements at each civil nuclear site in the United Kingdom every three years.

  The exercise was a successful demonstration of the off-site emergency planning arrangements for BNFL's Sellafield plant, fulfilling the licensing criteria set by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Habitat and Species Directive
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the measures he proposes to introduce to implement the European habitat and species directive; and if he will make a statement.

  >Mr. Gummer
  I am pleased to say that the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and I have today laid in draft, for approval under the affirmative procedure, the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, to effect transposition of the directive in Great Britain. The regulations mark an important step forward in nature conservation and consolidate our policies and practices in respect of sites and species of international importance.

  On 4 October last year, the Government consulted on the proposed implementation in Great Britain of the Council directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna, the EC habitats directive. I am grateful to all those bodies and individuals who responded to the consultation, of which there were 144 in England and Wales and 94 in Scotland. The responses have been placed in the usual Libraries. Departments are writing to each of the respondents explaining the Government's consideration of the points raised and our detailed conclusions. A copy of this letter will be placed in the House Libraries.

  The Government firmly support the directive's objective to contribute to the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora throughout the European Union. The Government's proposals for implementation reflect that important aim. The legal measures necessary for transposition of the directive into national law contained in the draft regulations are complemented by broader initiatives in the countryside as a whole to respond to the wider objectives of the directive. We shall deliver the latter in the medium and long term through the strategy set out in the biodiversity action plan published in January this year.

  The draft regulations comprise a thorough implementation package. They build largely on the existing extensive legislative basis which provides a strong framework for nature conservation in this country. They introduce some new provisions and apply existing legislation amended as required by the directive's obligations. The EC birds directive is amended by the habitats directive in respect of special protection areas, and the draft regulations also give effect to this. United Kingdom special protection areas and

  25
  special areas of conservation will together contribute to the European Union network of designated areas known as Natura 2000.

  In summary, the draft regulations cover:
  new provisions for site selection and designation;
  new duties on Ministers and nature conservation agencies to use their powers in accordance with the requirements of the Directive;
  application of the present SSSI and NNR legislation amended to ensure that the procedures can be operated in accordance with the Directive;
  a new basis for the conservation of marine sites in which relevant Ministers and local bodies will be under a duty to exercise their existing powers in accordance with the Directive often within the framework of an agreed inter-agency scheme of management;
  a number of technical amendments to the existing species protection legislation;
  application of the Directive's requirements for approval and review of schemes which could significantly adversely affect the conservation value of the sites in respect of the Town and Country Planning, Highways, Transport and Works, Electricity and Pipe-lines Acts as well as pollution control, waste management and water discharge consents in the Environmental Protection and Water Resources Acts.

  Further regulations will be laid before Parliament in due course to ensure that other activities for which statutory consents and permissions are required and which could have a significantly adverse effect on the nature conservation interests of a protected site are brought within the provisions of the directive.

  The Government are committed to consultation on the sites to be proposed under the directive. The regulations make formal provision for designation but the processes leading to that point will be non-statutory. English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage, co-ordinated through the Joint Nature Conservancy Council are working on their advice to Government about the United Kingdom contribution to the Natura 2000 network in the light of the directive's scientific criteria. When the Government have considered the agencies' advice, we shall decide to publish our proposals and the consultation process will begin. Individual owners and occupiers of sites will be fully involved.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sudanese Peace Talks
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the Sudanese peace talks held in Nairobi from 16 to 20 May.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 17 May, the Government of Sudan and SPLA factions signed an agreement on the opening of specific air destinations and surface corridors to humanitarian relief supplies. A draft declaration of principles was circulated to all parties for consideration in advance of the next round of talks scheduled for 18 July.

  Sudan
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are presently being pursued by Her Majesty's Government to curtail the flow of arms to all parties to the Sudanese conflict.
  26
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 8 March, the European Union agreed an arms embargo. This reinforced our own policy of not selling lethal weaponry to Sundan.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Goodlad
  All the press releases and written answers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are currently printed on paper which is manufactured from renewable sources.

  Immigration Cases
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) for what reasons Mrs. Sahib Jee—Ref: V93/21255—was refused a visa to visit the United Kingdom by the High Commission in Islamabad last October; what information she was given at that time on whether the decision to refuse a visa would prejudice a subsequent application at a further date; for what reason Mrs. Sahib Jee was sent away from the post in Islamabad on 30 May 1993 and told that having been refused a visa she could make no further application; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will review urgently the application made to the British High Commissioner in Islamabad by Mrs. Sahib Jee—Ref: V93/21255—to visit the United Kingdom;

  (3) if he will urgently review the refusal by the British High Commission in Islamabad to grant a visa to visit the United Kingdom to Mrs. Maskeena Jan—Ref. V94/9363; TH/I4866; TH/1912/92; IMM/V9005055—and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what recommendations he has sent to the British High Commission in Islamabad regarding applications made to visit the United Kingdom by Mrs. Maskeena Jan—Ref. TH/14866; TH/1912/92; and IMMN9005055—what decision was made on 15 May in relation to Mrs. Jan's latest application to visit the United Kingdom—Ref. V94/9363—and if he will recommend that Mrs. Jan be issued with a visa to visit the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the absence of any information in London about these cases, I have asked the entry clearance officer at the high commission in Islamabad to let me have a report. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible.

  Visas
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in how many cases since the right of appeal was abolished to those refused a visa to visit the United Kingdom second applications made to the British High Commission in Islamabad have been(a) granted, (b) refused or (c) deferred for inquiries to be made; in how many such cases advice has been offered to the applicant or sponsor to make the application acceptable; and in how many cases an applicant wishing to make a second application was turned away and told they were unable to lodge a second application as their first application had been refused.
  27
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The high commission in Islamabad does not keep statistics about the outcome of second applications, nor does it keep statistics on what advice an entry clearance officer may pass on to an applicant following refusal to entry clearance. No applicant will be advised that he is unable to lodge an application. If he wishes to lodge a second application, he is free to do so. In Islamabad, a preliminary assessment of all non-settlement applications is carried out before an application is formally accepted and a visa fee taken. This is done in the interests of both the applicant and the high commission. The ECO may advise that, on the documentary evidence available, an application seems unlikely to succeed. An applicant is not obliged to follow the ECO's advice and if he decides to pursue the application, a formal interview is then arranged.

  Tibet
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about the continuing Chinese occupation of Tibet.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Hon. Members of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet called on me on 28 June to discuss Tibet. Human rights abuses there are a matter of continuing concern to the British Government. We regularly raise the subject with the Chinese authorities.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the British Government have made to the Nigerian Government about the release of Moshood Abida.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We strongly regret the arrest of Chief Abiola and called on the Nigerian military Government to engage all sides in a constructive political dialogue. The European Union issued a statement on 30 June condemning the arrest and urging respect for human rights.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the differences in amounts of protein, casein and fat levels in milk coming from a dairy cow treated with synthetic bovine somatotropin and a dairy cow not treated with synthetic BST.

  Mr. Soames
  Many studies have been carried out to examine the effect of manufactured BST on milk composition. A review of those studies, which includes details of the amounts of protein, casein and fat, is to be found in the proceedings of the BST world-wide symposium held in August 1989 and reproduced in the "Journal of Dairy Science (1991), Volume 74 (Supplement 2), pages 2 to 11, a copy of which I have placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been undertaken into IGF-1 levels in cows treated with synthetic BST; and to what extent these levels are different from those in cows not treated with synthetic BST.
  28
  Mr. Soames
  Considerable research has been undertaken on IGF-1 levels in cows treated with manufactured BST. A review of the published studies is to be found in the 24 August 1990 edition of the journal "Science, Volume 249", pages 875 to 884, a copy of which I have placed in the Library of the House.

  Consultants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by her Department and agencies for which it is responsible to(a) Coopers and Lybrand, (b) KPMG Peat Marwick, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) Price Waterhouse, (e) Arthur Andersen, (f) Touche Ross, (g) Grant Thornton, (h) Robson Rhodes and (i) Pannell Kerr Forster for (i) privatisation, (ii) market testing, (iii) management advice, (iv) accounting, (v) audit, (vi) consultancy and (vii) other services in (1) 1980 to 1983, (2) 1984 to 1987, (3) 1988 to 1991 and (4) 1992–93.

  Mr. Jack
  The table gives the aggregate costs of contracts with each of the nine named consultants for the financial years 1990–91 to 1993–94 let by the Department and its agencies, excluding the Intervention Board executive agency.

  Consultant

  1990–91 to 1993–94 £

  Number of Consultant

  Coopers and Lybrand

  662,065

  18

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  518,343

  6

  Ernst and Young

  2,683,262

  8

  Price Waterhouse

  849,919

  20

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  Touche Ross

  844,580

  10

  Grant Thornton

  1—

  1

  Robson Rhodes

  0

  0

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  0

  1Single contract cost not given for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  The partial cost of some contracts started before 1990 are included in those figures. Neither records relating to individual consultants before 1990 nor breakdowns by type of contract are held centrally and those details could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her estimate of the take-up of the arable area payments scheme in hectares for(a) the simplified scheme, (b) cereals, (c) oilseeds, (d) proteins, (e) linseed and (f) set-aside in England for 1994.

  Mr. Jack
  This information is as follows:

  (hectares)

  Simplified scheme

  158,758

  Cereals (including maize)

  2,142,426

  Oilseeds

  365,000

  Proteins

  239,925

  Linseed

  75,000–80,000

  Set-aside

  624,812

  Estimates based on the area aid applications actually submitted for 1994 are not yet available.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was spent in each European
  29
  Union country in pounds sterling, and what was the take-up in hectares, in 1993 on (a) the set-aside part of the arable area payments scheme or its equivalent and (b) set-aside measures introduced prior to the CAP reform of May 1992; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Provisional European Commission figures for the area of land set aside in each member state in 1993 under the arable area payments scheme and the five-year set-aside scheme are set out below, together with expenditure in ecus to the end of 1993. A sterling equivalent has been included for illustrative purposes.

  Member State

  Area Set Aside ('000 ha)

  Payments ('000 ecu)

  Sterling Equivalent (rounded) (£'000)

  Arable Area Payments Scheme

  Belgium

  19

  6,356

  4,847

  Denmark

  205

  55,963

  42,674

  Fed. Rep. of Germany

  1,063

  320,591

  244,465

  Greece

  17

  2,625

  2,002

  Spain

  909

  115,854

  88,344

  France

  1,589

  516,430

  393,801

  Republic of Ireland

  24

  0

  0

  Italy

  207

  23,742

  18,104

  Luxembourg

  2

  391

  298

  Netherlands

  8

  2,711

  2,067

  Portugal

  78

  877

  669

  United Kingdom

  556

  153,799

  117,279

  Total

  4,674

  1,199,339

  914,550

  Five-Year Set-Aside Scheme

  Belgium

  1

  195

  149

  Denmark

  7

  -2

  -1·5

  Fed. Rep. of Germany

  415

  3,396

  2,590

  Greece

  1

  0

  0

  Spain

  95

  5,101

  3,890

  France

  214

  7,001

  5,339

  Republic of Ireland

  2

  196

  149

  Italy

  639

  3,604

  2,748

  Luxembourg

  0

  0

  0

  Netherlands

  15

  0

  0

  Portugal

  0

  0

  0

  United Kingdom

  133

  30,795

  23,483

  Total

  1,522

  50,286

  38,345

  June 1993 census of agriculture and horticulture results by English counties1 2

  3Area of cereals Hectares

  Number of holdings growing cereals

  Area of potatoes Hectares

  Number of holdings growing potatoes

  Area of sugar beet Hectares

  Number of holdings growing sugar best

  Avon

  11,284

  412

  201

  97

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  38,750

  662

  682

  163

  499

  29

  Berkshire

  24,467

  280

  101

  22

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  32,585

  640

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Cambridgeshire

  133,160

  2,514

  10,725

  980

  23,261

  1,367

  Cheshire

  21,803

  1,114

  4,317

  568

  193

  20

  Cleveland

  11,911

  260

  208

  46

  0

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  34,357

  2,094

  3,952

  733

  110

  8

  Cumbria

  20,060

  1,390

  498

  300

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  25,766

  1,016

  992

  259

  313

  15

  Devon

  52,652

  2,916

  1,576

  602

  51

  3

  Dorset

  40,464

  668

  203

  65

  82

  4

  Durham

  31,533

  773

  841

  124

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  18,105

  455

  288

  73

  0

  0

  Essex

  121,736

  1,744

  5,174

  380

  4,128

  206

  Gloucestershire

  49,521

  995

  815

  160

  157

  10

  Greater London

  3,110

  72

  108

  14

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester

  4,975

  192

  539

  92

  54

  8

  Hampshire

  77,038

  829

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Hereford and Worcester

  70,588

  2,369

  7,150

  750

  4,370

  278

  30
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give the payment rates made per hectare under the arable areas payments scheme for(a) cereals, (b) oilseeds, (c) proteins, (d) linseed, (e) set-aside and (f) the simplified scheme paid in (i) the first year and (ii) the second year of the scheme in England.

  Mr. Jack
  The payment rates per hectare in England for the first and second years of the scheme are set out below. The actual rates payable in 1994 may be reduced if base areas are exceeded. The rate for oilseeds may change subject to the possible penalties resulting from the EC-US oilseeds agreement, and to adjustments dependent on the observed reference price. Set-aside land which is used to grow sugar beet for industrial purposes does not qualify for payment.

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  (a) cereals

  140

  193

  (b) oilseeds

  400

  436

  (c) proteins

  365

  359

  (d) linseed1

  —

  —

  (e) set-aside

  253

  315

  set-aside: reduded rate2

  —

  220

  (f) simplified scheme

  140

  193

  1Linseed was not incorporated into the arable area payments scheme until 1993–94. The payment rate for 1993–94 has not yet been fixed.

  2There is a reduced payment rate for voluntary set-aside in excess of the applicant's cropped area.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 56, if she will now give (i) the number of hectares taken up and (ii) the number of holdings in each county in England in 1993 for (a) cereals, (b) potatoes, (c) linseed, (d) sugar beet, (e) horticultural produce and (f) oilseeds.

  Mr. Jack
  The table gives the requested information.
  31

  3Area of cereals Hectares

  Number of holdings growing cereals

  Area of potatoes Hectares

  Number of holdings growing potatoes

  Area of sugar beet Hectares

  Number of holdings growings sugar best

  Hertfordshire

  45,323

  547

  333

  50

  186

  6

  Humberside

  148,659

  2,402

  7,713

  668

  9,571

  654

  Isle of Wight

  6,142

  135

  237

  29

  0

  0

  Kent

  66,171

  1,238

  3,893

  329

  6

  3

  Lancashire

  14,355

  663

  2,575

  474

  287

  28

  Leicestershire

  64,048

  1,350

  1,263

  154

  982

  46

  Lincolnshire

  236,403

  3,940

  16,964

  1,640

  34,073

  2,015

  Merseyside

  7,630

  239

  859

  133

  230

  25

  Norfolk

  179,750

  3,264

  13,525

  1,022

  57,496

  2,354

  North Yorkshire

  163,031

  3,730

  11,232

  1,117

  12,586

  886

  Northamptonshire

  64,946

  1,012

  660

  70

  406

  24

  Northumberland

  65,827

  1,077

  1,040

  92

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  61,441

  1,241

  5,206

  342

  8,411

  386

  Oxfordshire

  73,325

  1,004

  649

  83

  125

  6

  Shropshire

  70,530

  1,932

  7,737

  489

  10,061

  428

  Somerset

  33,130

  1,202

  1,630

  299

  366

  19

  South Yorkshire

  27,473

  664

  1,620

  218

  1,888

  93

  Staffordshire

  35,425

  1,040

  3,856

  315

  2,498

  104

  Suffolk

  137,376

  2,253

  5,019

  365

  23,717

  945

  Surrey

  8,572

  226

  83

  28

  0

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  5,482

  132

  65

  16

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  47,543

  1,056

  2,251

  236

  139

  5

  West Midlands

  4,046

  139

  289

  57

  173

  7

  West Sussex

  28,923

  501

  883

  76

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  18,469

  492

  948

  175

  396

  31

  Wiltshire

  81,162

  1,045

  666

  111

  89

  4

  1Excluding estimates for minor holdings.

  2Crops grown on set-aside land are not included.

  3Excluding maize.

  4Data suppressed to prevent disclosure of information about individual holdings.

  June 1993 census of agriculture and horticulture results by English counties1 2

  3Area of horticultural crops Hectares

  Number of holdings growing horticultural crops

  Area of oilseed rape Hectares

  Number of holdings growing oilseed rape

  Area of linseed Hectares

  Number of holdings growing linseed

  Avon

  388

  197

  1,192

  60

  720

  49

  Bedfordshire

  1,947

  341

  7,996

  246

  2,233

  100

  Berkshire

  458

  81

  4,270

  91

  2,191

  85

  Buckinghamshire

  507

  133

  8,180

  283

  2,129

  88

  Cambridgeshire

  9,863

  855

  15,301

  552

  7,077

  426

  Cheshire

  1,123

  323

  1,495

  88

  365

  19

  Cleveland

  34

  23

  2,026

  107

  90

  5

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  3,110

  740

  1,036

  64

  2,007

  147

  Cumbria

  203

  116

  334

  17

  61

  3

  Derbyshire

  600

  144

  3,408

  187

  322

  18

  Devon

  1,892

  652

  1,526

  82

  3,424

  267

  Dorset

  512

  223

  1,799

  60

  2,827

  113

  Durham

  133

  57

  5,593

  309

  606

  39

  East Sussex

  1,442

  291

  2,840

  121

  3,418

  149

  Essex

  5,413

  846

  20,623

  722

  7,370

  394

  Gloucestershire

  1,501

  373

  9,201

  299

  6,611

  251

  Greater London

  669

  139

  600

  27

  179

  10

  Greater Manchester

  787

  135

  424

  31

  4—

  4—

  Hampshire

  3,368

  502

  8,229

  244

  7,098

  249

  Hereford and Worcester

  9,406

  1,291

  6,979

  366

  1,745

  132

  Hertfordshire

  388

  199

  6,918

  233

  2,141

  85

  Humberside

  12,408

  711

  16,042

  808

  5,065

  332

  Isle of Wight

  355

  70

  909

  32

  945

  46

  Kent

  21,004

  1,399

  15,080

  449

  7,963

  389

  Lancashire

  5,147

  901

  1,036

  70

  190

  13

  Leicestershire

  423

  135

  13,089

  491

  3,381

  161

  Lincolnshire

  33,778

  1,971

  27,782

  1,072

  14,470

  700

  Merseyside

  1,081

  172

  646

  41

  4—

  4—

  Norfolk

  20,743

  1,293

  5,497

  243

  10,106

  520

  North Yorkshire

  2,152

  384

  15,480

  922

  5,104

  352

  Northamptonshire

  223

  97

  17,819

  515

  3,192

  147

  Northumberland

  434

  62

  11,238

  443

  966

  45

  Nottinghamshire

  2,710

  242

  10,120

  465

  4,648

  221

  32 33

  3Area of horticultural crops Hectares

  Number of holdings growing horticultural crops

  Area of oilseed rape Hectares

  Number of holdings growing oilseed rape

  Area of linseed Hectares

  Number of holdings growing linseed

  Oxfordshire

  897

  151

  15,896

  451

  5,827

  248

  Shropshire

  878

  196

  2,805

  150

  1,393

  91

  Somerset

  2,244

  513

  1,565

  91

  1,831

  134

  South Yorkshire

  626

  112

  4,795

  242

  3,412

  156

  Staffordshire

  1,368

  231

  3,175

  153

  1,116

  61

  Suffolk

  11,295

  702

  11,303

  480

  7,571

  406

  Surrey

  1,223

  275

  1,506

  64

  1,583

  70

  Tyne and Wear

  99

  25

  1,485

  67

  90

  8

  Warwickshire

  1,418

  189

  10,544

  408

  3,268

  143

  West Midlands

  304

  63

  680

  39

  45

  4

  West Sussex

  1,691

  505

  3,295

  134

  4,180

  193

  West Yorkshire

  953

  208

  2,457

  142

  444

  33

  Wiltshire

  542

  164

  10,236

  349

  6,828

  280

  1Excluding estimates for minor holdings.

  2Crops grown on set-aside land are not included.

  3Excluding peas for harvesting dry and mushrooms.

  4Data suppressed to prevent disclosure of information about individual holdings.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was spent in pounds sterling, and what was the take-up in hectares, in 1993 on the arable area payments scheme or its equivalent in each European Union country; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I understand from working papers of the European Commission that the situation was as follows. The sterling figure is for illustrative purposes.

  Member State

  Area In Scheme ('000 ha)

  Payments in 1993 ('000 ecu)

  Sterling Equivalent (rounded) (£'000)

  Belgium

  410

  77,729

  59,272

  Denmark

  1,805

  309,630

  236,107

  Federal Republic of Germany

  9,328

  1,570,326

  1,197,442

  Greece

  1,267

  301,440

  229,861

  Spain

  8,435

  589,182

  449,277

  France

  12,920

  2,627,735

  2,003,763

  Republic of Ireland

  269

  60,182

  45,891

  Italy

  3,701

  520,063

  396,571

  Luxembourg

  36

  4,679

  3,568

  Netherlands

  334

  63,017

  48,053

  Portugal

  684

  28,658

  21,853

  United Kingdom

  3,978

  906,036

  690,892

  Total

  43,166

  7,058,677

  5,382,551

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 391, what estimates she has for the amounts to be paid out for linseed in 1993–94 under the arable area payments scheme in (a) each county and (b) each region in England; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  It will not be possible to produce estimates for the amounts to be paid out for linseed in 1994 until the payment rate has been agreed by the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) farmers and (b) holdings there were in each county in England in 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  34

  Number of holdings and farmers, partners and directors in England1 in 1993

  County

  Number of holdings

  Number of farmers, partners and directors2

  Avon

  2,227

  2,246

  Bedfordshire

  1,244

  1,450

  Berkshire

  886

  829

  Buckinghamshire

  1,937

  2,131

  Cambridgeshire

  3,518

  4,046

  Cheshire

  4,450

  5,003

  Cleveland

  435

  528

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  7,082

  7,758

  Cumbria

  6,544

  7,755

  Derbyshire

  3,963

  4,450

  Devon

  11,453

  12,681

  Dorset

  3,070

  3,412

  Durham

  2,184

  2,664

  East Sussex

  2,328

  2,435

  Essex

  3,796

  4,347

  Gloucestershire

  3,517

  3,674

  Greater London

  463

  492

  Greater Manchester

  1,522

  1,624

  Hampshire

  3,159

  3,267

  Hereford and Worcester

  6,907

  7,691

  Hertfordshire

  1,378

  1,478

  Humberside

  3,632

  4,507

  Isle of Wight

  526

  567

  Kent

  4,288

  4,694

  Lancashire

  5,712

  6,441

  Leicestershire

  3,062

  3,307

  Lincolnshire

  5,970

  7,334

  Merseyside

  493

  596

  Norfolk

  5,321

  5,864

  North Yorkshire

  8,633

  10,621

  Northamptonshire

  2,138

  2,361

  Northumberland

  2,393

  2,925

  Nottinghamshire

  2,097

  2,459

  Oxfordshire

  2,137

  2,314

  Shropshire

  5,034

  5,742

  Somerset

  6,048

  6,360

  South Yorkshire

  1,497

  1,714

  Staffordshire

  4,785

  5,130

  Suffolk

  3,659

  4,205

  Surrey

  1,855

  1,810

  35

  County

  Number of holdings

  Number of farmers, partners and directors2

  Tyne and Wear

  268

  305

  Warwickshire

  2,504

  2,817

  West Midlands

  483

  520

  West Sussex

  2,335

  2,335

  West Yorkshire

  3,297

  3,401

  Wiltshire

  3,192

  3,360

  England

  153,422

  171,650

  Source: 1993 June Agricultural and Horticultural Census.

  1 Excluding minor holdings.

  2 Excludes spouses of farmers, partners and directors though they themselves may be partners or directors.

  Subsidies and Grants
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amount of money was paid out by each of her regional service centres for each(a) agricultural subsidy scheme and (b) grant scheme to farmers in 1992–93.

  Mr. Jack
  Information in the form requested by the hon. Member could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Summaries of the outturn on various grants and subsidy schemes in 1992–93 on a United Kingdom or on an all-England basis are included in the HM Treasury publication "Supply Estimates 1994–95 (Class III Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Intervention Board—Intervention Agency)", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much land in each county in England was under the five-year set-aside scheme in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 at the latest available date; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The latest information on land in the five-year set-aside scheme which is available on a county basis relates to the scheme year 1992–93, which ended on 30 September 1993, and is set out below.

  Five Year Set-Aside Scheme

  1992–93 scheme year Country

  Area Set-aside

  Avon

  1,900

  Bedfordshire

  3,050

  Berkshire

  3,250

  Buckinghamshire

  6,400

  Cambridgeshire

  4,500

  Cheshire

  850

  Cleveland

  100

  Cornwall

  1,800

  Cumbria

  350

  Derbyshire

  1,050

  Devon

  3,300

  Dorset

  1,950

  Durham

  1,200

  East Sussex

  3,900

  Essex

  5,100

  Gloucestershire

  5,250

  Greater London

  550

  Greater Manchester

  100

  Hampshire

  4,450

  36

  1992–93 scheme year Country

  Area Set-aside

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,000

  Hertfordshire

  2,950

  Humberside

  2,450

  Isle of Wight

  50

  Kent

  6,150

  Lancashire

  250

  Leicestershire

  1,600

  Lincolnshire

  3,550

  Merseyside

  400

  Norfolk

  3,250

  North Yorkshire

  3,650

  Northamptonshire

  4,100

  Northumberland

  1,300

  Nottinghamshire

  950

  Oxfordshire

  6,800

  Shropshire

  600

  Somerset

  2,400

  South Yorkshire

  400

  Staffordshire

  1,400

  Suffolk

  4,700

  Surrey

  2,300

  Tyne and Wear

  500

  Warwickshire

  2,750

  West Midlands

  200

  West Yorkshire

  400

  West Sussex

  3,300

  Wiltshire

  4,500

  Total

  111,950

  Note: figures rounded to nearest 50ha.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she is taking to discourage(a) tail docking of piglets and (b) beak trimming of egg-laying hens; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The draft Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994, which were laid before Parliament on 14 June, provide that tail docking of piglets may be carried out routinely only where there is evidence on the farm that injuries to other piglets have occurred or are likely to occur as a result of not carrying out this procedure. In addition, the codes of recommendations for the welfare of pigs and of domestic fowl, made under section 3(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, make it clear that tail docking and beak trimming should be carried out only as a last resort. The Department also addresses means of controlling aggression in pigs and laying hens in its research programme.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the United Kingdom's pig herd was tail-docked in the last 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Soames
  Figures on the number of pigs which have been tail docked are not available.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the United Kingdom's flock of egg-laying hens was beak trimmed in the last 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Soames
  Figures on the number of egg-laying hens which have been beak trimmed are not available.

  Bovine Immuno-deficiency Virus
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what tests for BIV are carried out on imported milk;

  (2) what evidence of BIV infection has been found in (a) British and (b) imported milk supplies; on how many occasions; and what action was taken.

  Mr. Soames
  The Importation of Milk Regulations 1988, as amended, require all imports of milk from member states to be accompanied either by a health certificate certifying that the milk meets specified standards of production and hygiene or a commercial document or EC health mark indicating that it meets requirements in EC directive 92/46 on milk hygiene. All imported drinking milk is pasteurised, sterilised or ultra heat-treated. Imports of milk from third countries are currently prohibited. No tests for bovine immunodeficiency-like virus are carried out on British or imported milk. However, experience with other viruses suggests that pasteurisation would kill BIV. There is no evidence that BIV affects humans.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of beef imported into the United Kingdom per annum originates in Mexico; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 30 June 1994]: There were no recorded United Kingdom imports of beef of Mexican origin during 1993.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many letters are received by her Department each year in respect of the problems encountered by the constituents of hon. Members; what is the average time of response and when the hon. Member for Hereford can expect to receive a reply to the letter he sent on behalf of his constituent Mr. Peter Symonds of Llandinabo on 7 December 1993 and about which follow up letters were sent on 4 March and 10 May 1994.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: The number of letters received from hon. Members enclosing correspondence from their constituents or from noble peers in the last three calendar years and the percentage replied to within MAFF's target of 15 days are set out in the table:

  Year

  Number

  Percentage replied to within 15 days

  1991

  9,976

  76

  1992

  10,974

  81

  1993

  11,141

  67

  Figures are not collected on the average time taken to respond to hon. Members' letters.

  The letter of 7 December 1993 from the hon. Member sent on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Peter Symonds of Llandinabo, concerned a commercial appraisal carried out by ADAS. The correspondence was accordingly forwarded to ADAS for reply. However, neither the letter of 13
  38
  December nor the follow-up letters were received by ADAS and the Chief Executive was therefore unaware that the matter had been delegated until 29 June.

  I understand that the chief executive of ADAS replied to the hon. Member's letter on 30 June.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to produce annual reports.

  Mr. Howard
  The Animal Procedures Committee and the Parole Board.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are required to lay their annual reports before Parliament.

  Mr. Howard
  The Parole Board.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult before legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied by them.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government are required to consult the following advisory non-departmental public bodies before legislation proposals:

  Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

  Animal Procedures Committee

  Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales

  Poisons Board

  Police Advisory Board

  Police Negotiating Board

  In addition, the Government's response to advice supplied by the following bodies must be published:

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the advisory bodies he has set up in his Department since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Howard
  The National Board for Crime Prevention.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department that have a statutory basis.

  Mr. Howard
  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the Animal Procedures Committee, the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, the Local Review Committees, the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England, the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales, the Parole Board, the Poisons Board, the Police Advisory Board, the Police Negotiating Board.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government.
  39
  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is as follows:

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales

  Caravans
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of caravans intended for permanent occupation entering the United Kingdom; and what steps he is taking to stop their entry.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The importation of caravans is not a matter for my Department.

  People travelling to the United Kingdom within the common travel area which comprises the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland do not pass through immigration controls. Nationals of countries in the European Economic Area may enter the United Kingdom from outside the common travel area in accordance with Community law and are subject to a passport and identity card check.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of Ernst and Young on the administration of firearms certification.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the report by Ernst and Young on the administration of the firearms licensing system.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Copies of the Ernst and Young report on the cost of the administration of the firearms licensing system will be made available and a copy placed in the Library when an announcement is made about the current reviews of firearms fees.

  Number of prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (as amended)1 and Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 by type of proceedings 1985–1992

  England and Wales

  Type of Proceedings

  Offence/Year

  Apprehensions

  Summons by Police

  Summons other

  Total

  Protection of Animals Act 19111

  1985

  53

  372

  564

  989

  1986

  71

  316

  638

  1,025

  1987

  59

  288

  684

  1,031

  1988

  91

  278

  655

  1,024

  1989

  117

  264

  669

  1,050

  1990

  88

  300

  779

  1,167

  1991

  82

  255

  865

  1,202

  1992

  83

  276

  795

  1,154

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968—Sections 1, 2 & 6 (relating to welfare of livestock)

  1985

  —

  —

  3

  3

  1986

  —

  1

  10

  11

  1987

  —

  3

  8

  11

  1988

  —

  8

  12

  20

  1989

  —

  3

  12

  15

  1990

  1

  2

  10

  13

  1991

  —

  1

  17

  18

  1992

  —

  2

  14

  16

  1Cannot distinguish between offences involving livestock or other animals.

  Note:—The statistics of court proceedings are based on returns made by the police to the Home Office and although these include offences where there has been no police involvement, such as those prosecutions instigated by government departments, private organisations and individuals, the reporting of these types of offence is known to be incomplete. Where proceedings involve more than one offence, the table records the principal offence.
  40
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as to whether Mr. Joseph Cowlam had a firearms licence.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that Mr. Cowlam did not hold a firearm certificate.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to see that police forces adopt the recommendations of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary concerning the administration of firearms certification.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The administration of firearms licensing is a matter for individual chief officers of police. I understand, however, that the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers crime committee sub-group on the administration of firearms licensing has written to chief constables commending the recommendations of the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to them. In addition, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary will pay particular attention to this subject in its annual inspections of forces.

  Cruelty to Livestock
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for cruelty to livestock were brought in each year since 1985; and how many in each case were brought by(a) the Government and (b) the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information held centrally by the Home Department does not identify the individual summoning body. The table shows the number of prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 by type of proceedings from 1985 to 1992. The 1993 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Community Care
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were imprisoned in each year since 1990 for non-payment of the community charge in each district council area in Wales and for Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available. The available information on where prisoners

  Receptions into Prison Service establishments sentenced by a Welsh Court for non-payment of community charge, 1990–1994

  Number received for non-payment of community charge

  County of Welsh court sentencing

  1990

  1991

  1992

  19931

  199412

  Clwyd

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Dyfed

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  South Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  —

  4

  1

  2

  3

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All Wales

  —

  6

  3

  3

  5

  1Provisional figures.

  2January to May only.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for compensation were made to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board by police officers in each year since 1988; what was the average compensation in each year expressed in constant 1994 prices; and what proportion of total claims in each year were made by police officers.

  Mr. Maclean
  I regret that the available records do not separately identify applications from, or payments made to, the police or other occupational groups.

  Private Prisons
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the heads of agreement between the Home Secretary and Group 4 in respect of The Wolds prison;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the heads of agreement between the Home Secretary and Premier Prison Services Ltd. in respect of Doncaster prison;

  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of the heads of agreement between the Home Secretary and United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. in respect of Blakenhurst prison.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the placing in the Library of a copy of the Heads of Agreement between the Home Secretary and Group 4, Premier Prison Services Limited, and United Kingdom Detention Services for Wolds, Doncaster and Blakenhurst prisons respectively.
  42
  originate is for the county of the sentencing court. The table shows the number of receptions recorded centrally for non-payment of community charge by county in Wales.
  Copies of the Heads of Agreement for Wolds and Blakenhurst will be placed in the Library. No Heads of Agreement were signed in relation to Doncaster prison, because Premier Prison Services Limited did not require them.

  Police (Standard Spending Assessments)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide tables showing(a) the standard spending assessment, (b) the figure his Department estimated as its contribution to spending at standard spending assessment level and (c) the actual figure paid out in respect of each police force in England and Wales for 1993–94 and for each of the previous three financial years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The following table lists the standard spending assessment for each police force in England between 1990–91 and 1993–94. For Wales, provision for the police is included in the overall assessment made for Welsh county councils. Details of the initial estimate of grant and actual grant paid by the Home Office to all forces in England and Wales during the same period are also shown. The outturn figures for 1993–94 are provisional.

  1990–91

  £ thousands

  SSA

  Initial estimate of specific grant

  Actual specific grant paid

  Avon and Somerset

  50,802

  49,157

  52,199

  Bedfordshire

  18,039

  16,836

  18,155

  Cambridgeshire

  19,824

  19,575

  21,606

  Cheshire

  30,911

  29,685

  31,809

  Cleveland

  24,640

  24,100

  26,296

  Cumbria

  19,129

  19,475

  20,380

  Derbyshire

  29,670

  30,038

  31,243

  Devon and Cornwall

  47,096

  50,267

  53,887

  Dorset

  20,801

  22,725

  25,002

  Durham

  22,753

  21,336

  22,932

  Essex

  49,255

  47,233

  53,399

  Gloucestershire

  19,262

  18,191

  20,520

  Hampshire

  54,289

  52,067

  56,688

  Hertfordshire

  29,917

  28,650

  29,959

  Humberside

  32,963

  33,610

  35,545

  Kent

  51,544

  49,767

  55,597

  43

  SSA

  Initial estimate of specific grant

  Actual specific grant paid

  Lancashire

  52,506

  52,802

  55,149

  Leicestershire

  29,124

  30,615

  31,250

  Lincolnshire

  19,576

  20,641

  21,214

  Norfolk

  22,538

  22,496

  24,539

  Northamptonshire

  18,550

  20,159

  20,443

  North Yorkshire

  22,886

  23,721

  24,172

  Nottinghamshire

  38,358

  35,589

  38,612

  Staffordshire

  36,207

  35,203

  37,879

  Suffolk

  19,626

  20,646

  21,934

  Surrey

  30,103

  27,313

  29,134

  Sussex

  50,825

  44,907

  47,425

  Thames Valley

  63,248

  62,976

  68,397

  Warwickshire

  16,415

  16,727

  18,402

  West Mercia

  32,946

  33,311

  35,041

  Wiltshire

  17,954

  19,033

  20,851

  Greater Manchester

  115,636

  112,319

  116,561

  Merseyside

  77,791

  79,681

  81,955

  Northumbria

  58,132

  49,076

  61,896

  South Yorkshire

  49,279

  47,157

  48,337

  West Midlands

  113,021

  109,358

  116,921

  West Yorkshire

  87,025

  91,679

  92,405

  Metropolitan Police

  613,875

  624,636

  622,941

  City of London

  17,983

  18,965

  18,908

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  15,555

  15,748

  Gwent

  —

  16,150

  16,976

  North Wales

  —

  21,837

  22,810

  South Wales

  —

  50,376

  54,191

  1991–92

  £ thousands

  SSA

  Initial estimate of specific grant

  Actual specific grant paid

  Avon and Somerset

  55,443

  57,543

  56,870

  Bedfordshire

  20,238

  19,198

  19,965

  Cambridgeshire

  21,691

  22,218

  24,029

  Cheshire

  33,986

  33,843

  34,150

  Cleveland

  27,037

  25,940

  28,487

  Cumbria

  21,151

  21,825

  22,991

  Derbyshire

  32,276

  34,993

  33,684

  Devon and Cornwall

  51,536

  58,579

  59,892

  Dorset

  22,879

  26,450

  26,523

  Durham

  24,751

  24,344

  24,780

  Essex

  54,851

  56,662

  58,925

  Gloucestershire

  20,953

  21,168

  22,752

  Hampshire

  59,904

  60,706

  63,735

  Hertfordshire

  32,973

  33,238

  32,063

  Humberside

  36,128

  38,749

  39,472

  Kent

  57,435

  59,156

  65,654

  Lancashire

  57,873

  58,383

  62,230

  Leicestershire

  32,636

  34,943

  34,270

  Lincolnshire

  21,547

  22,838

  24,090

  Norfolk

  25,345

  26,127

  27,591

  Northamptonshire

  20,539

  22,408

  23,204

  North Yorkshire

  25,345

  26,077

  26,356

  Nottinghamshire

  42,194

  41,071

  42,141

  Staffordshire

  39,638

  38,839

  41,903

  Suffolk

  21,673

  23,384

  24,515

  Surrey

  33,255

  30,409

  32,344

  Sussex

  56,093

  49,722

  54,151

  Thames Valley

  70,893

  70,881

  76,201

  Warwickshire

  18,451

  19,341

  20,319

  West Mercia

  36,415

  38,589

  39,387

  Wiltshire

  21,115

  21,423

  23,570

  Greater Manchester

  126,349

  124,535

  126,895

  Merseyside

  84,622

  89,383

  91,231

  Northumbria

  63,939

  65,099

  67,741

  South Yorkshire

  53,967

  53,406

  52,615

  West Midlands

  124,080

  120,723

  127,915

  West Yorkshire

  95,027

  102,676

  100,585

  Metropolitan Police

  676,931

  981,979

  696,595

  44

  SSA

  Initial estimate of specific grant

  Actual specific grant paid

  City of London

  20,639

  21,030

  20,818

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  16,732

  17,927

  Gwent

  —

  17,756

  18,708

  North Wales

  —

  25,486

  25,857

  South Wales

  —

  57,446

  60,454

  1992–93

  £ thousands

  SSA

  Initial estimate of specific grant

  Actual specific grant paid

  Avon and Somerset

  63,999

  63,097

  63,404

  Bedfordshire

  25,127

  21,946

  22,547

  Cambridgeshire

  26,516

  26,116

  25,513

  Cheshire

  39,805

  38,449

  37,213

  Cleveland

  31,139

  31,785

  30,499

  Cumbria

  24,609

  24,635

  25,246

  Derbyshire

  38,354

  37,766

  38,653

  Devon and Cornwall

  60,702

  65,137

  65,418

  Dorset

  26,993

  30,222

  28,378

  Durham

  28,796

  27,719

  27,145

  Essex

  64,662

  64,547

  64,175

  Gloucestershire

  24,546

  24,804

  24,514

  Hampshire

  71,551

  68,522

  69,071

  Hertfordshire

  38,803

  36,214

  34,947

  Humberside

  42,168

  42,966

  42,901

  Kent

  68,381

  67,204

  70,225

  Lancashire

  66,943

  66,662

  65,621

  Leicestershire

  38,416

  37,774

  37,120

  Lincolnshire

  25,002

  25,643

  26,043

  Norfolk

  29,978

  29,662

  30,133

  Northamptonshire

  24,671

  24,711

  25,815

  North Yorkshire

  29,398

  29,218

  29,806

  Nottinghamshire

  48,595

  46,673

  45,649

  Staffordshire

  45,921

  45,787

  44,748

  Suffolk

  25,562

  26,513

  25,873

  Surrey

  39,239

  35,216

  36,148

  Sussex

  60,754

  57,327

  58,708

  Thames Valley

  85,179

  82,676

  81,861

  Warwickshire

  21,520

  22,244

  21,669

  West Mercia

  42,562

  42,356

  42,162

  Wiltshire

  26,495

  25,205

  26,214

  Greater Manchester

  144,376

  140,895

  138,817

  Merseyside

  97,563

  99,575

  96,533

  Northumbria

  74,676

  74,818

  69,632

  South Yorkshire

  62,838

  58,428

  59,947

  West Midlands

  143,090

  141,330

  144,980

  West Yorkshire

  109,774

  111,696

  106,449

  Metropolitan Police

  729,511

  751,921

  756,059

  City of London

  23,187

  22,855

  22,565

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  18,826

  19,837

  Gwent

  —

  20,294

  19,872

  North Wales

  —

  27,268

  28,584

  South Wales

  —

  64,783

  64,923

  1993–94

  £ thousands

  SSA

  Initial estimate of specific grant

  Actual specific grant paid

  Avon and Somerset

  66,489

  66,123

  66,215

  Bedfordshire

  26,498

  23,289

  24,494

  Cambridgeshire

  27,457

  27,495

  29,817

  Cheshire

  41,353

  39,272

  40,800

  Cleveland

  32,350

  32,216

  32,255

  Cumbria

  25,566

  25,421

  25,755

  Derbyshire

  39,846

  39,457

  40,959

  Devon and Cornwall

  63,064

  70,144

  68,802

  Dorset

  28,043

  30,072

  30,871

  45

  SSA

  Initial estimate of specific grant

  Actual specific grant paid

  Durham

  29,917

  28,362

  28,519

  Essex

  67,767

  67,815

  68,820

  Gloucestershire

  25,501

  26,113

  27,045

  Hampshire

  75,453

  69,198

  72,382

  Hertfordshire

  40,290

  37,203

  37,582

  Humberside

  43,809

  45,222

  44,899

  Kent

  72,419

  72,994

  76,819

  Lancashire

  69,547

  68,609

  71,298

  Leicestershire

  39,910

  39,068

  38,182

  Lincolnshire

  25,975

  25,855

  27,574

  Norfolk

  31,144

  31,933

  32,064

  Northamptonshire

  25,630

  27,834

  28,306

  North Yorkshire

  30,541

  31,346

  32,201

  Nottinghamshire

  50,485

  48,725

  50,258

  Staffordshire

  47,707

  46,854

  46,413

  Suffolk

  26,557

  27,355

  27,078

  Surrey

  40,503

  38,027

  38,534

  Sussex

  64,004

  63,511

  62,281

  Thames Valley

  90,575

  90,407

  91,106

  Warwickshire

  22,443

  22,477

  24,225

  West Mercia

  44,218

  45,322

  45,200

  Wiltshire

  27,763

  26,926

  28,764

  Greater Manchester

  149,884

  155,736

  152,486

  Merseyside

  101,359

  100,931

  102,285

  Northumbria

  77,581

  79,340

  76,704

  South Yorkshire

  65,282

  64,488

  63,895

  West Midlands

  148,656

  152,480

  151,775

  West Yorkshire

  114,045

  116,843

  118,708

  Metropolitan Police

  761,712

  793,317

  791,091

  City of London

  26,570

  25,125

  26,054

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  20,980

  21,493

  Gwent

  —

  20,330

  20,888

  North Wales

  —

  29,479

  30,590

  South Wales

  —

  68,177

  67,091

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who received the interest on the performance security provided by United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. to his Department under the terms of the contract to manage Blakenhurst prison.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about who received the interest on the performance security provided by United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. to his Depatment under the terms of the contract to manage Blakenhurst prison.
  Under the terms of the contract to manage Blakenhurst prison the contractor is required to provide the Prison Service with performance security. This was provided by means of a Peformance Bond, and therefore the issue of any interest payments does not arise.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been witheld from United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. for loss, destruction or damage to Blakenhurst prison, listing the circumstances and amount of each separate penalty.
  46
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the amount of money witheld from United Kingdom Detention Services Limited for loss, destruction or damage to Blakenhurst prison.
  The only occasion on which money was witheld from UKDS is set out in my letter to you of 29 June (Hansard Col. 627).

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims have been made against the public liability insurance policy held by United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. and his Department in connection with Blakenhurst prison; what were the circumstances in each case; what were the amounts claimed; and how many claims have been successful.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of claims made against the public liability insurance policy held by United Kingdom Detention Services Limited and his department in connection with Blakenhurst prison; the circumstances; the amounts and the success of the claims.
  There have been no claims made against the public liability insurance policy held by United Kingdom Detention Services Limited.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contact(a) the Health and Safety Executive, (b) the environmental health office and (c) the fire service has had with Blakenhurst prison; how many inspections of Blakenhurst prison have been made by each of these bodies; and what were the findings in each case.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what contact (a) The Health and Safety Executive, (b) the Environmental Health Office and (c) the Fire Service has had with Blakenhurst Prison.
  Representatives of the Health and Safety Executive have visited on three occasions. On 19 February 1993 they made seven recommendations, all of which have been actioned. They visited again on the 14 October 1993 when a further seven recommendations were made, including a complaint about cleanliness. Again, all have been actioned. The last visit was on 10 March this year when they expressed general satisfaction in a verbal report.
  The local Environmental Health Officer has visited on two occasions. The report of 19 November 1993 contained twenty recommendations. On 22 April this year the Environmental Health Officer assessed progress and found that nineteen of the original recommendations had been actioned satisfactorily. One recommendation is still outstanding.

  47
  Hereford and Worcester Fire Service have visited eleven times for exercises or familiarisation visits.
  The Fire Service do not carry out full surveys or inspections. These are carried out by the Fire Safety Section of the Prison Service and they have visited on three occasions since Blakenhurst Prison opened.
  A full fire survey was carried out in June 1993 and Fire Safety Section's recommendations are being actioned.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have been made by his Department to the services provided by United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. under the contract to manage Blakenhurst prison.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the changes made by his Department to the services provided by United Kingdom Detention Service Limited (UKDS) under the contract to manage Blakenhurst Prison.
  The only occasion on which changes were made to the services provided by UKDS under the contract to manage Blakenhurst prison is set out in my letter to you of 29 June (Hansard Col. 627).

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been paid by his Department for loss, destruction or damage to Blakenhurst prison, listing the circumstances and amount of each separate payment.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent . Question about the amount of money paid by his Department for loss, destruction or damage to Blakenhurst prison; the circumstances and the amount of each separate payment.
  No money has been paid to United Kingdom Detention Services Limited for damage repair at Blakenhurst prison.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) staff and (b) people applying to become staff, at Blakenhurst prison, have been refused Home Office certification as fit to perform such duties; and, of these, how many have later reapplied and received such certification.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 30 June 1994]: Responsibilty for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of staff and people applying to become staff at Blakenhurst prison that have been refused Home Office certification; and how many have later reapplied and become certificated.
  48
  Twenty people who applied to work at Blakenhurst as prison custody officers (PCO) have been refused Home Office certification. Of these one has been reconsidered and subsequently received certification.
  Non-PCO do not require certification. All people who work at contracted out prisons are, however, subject to routine enquiries similar to those made for applicants for Prison Service employment.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what notification or advice United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. gave the Home Office regarding the buildings, facilities and design at Blakenhurst prison; and what action has been taken as a result.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 30 June 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 Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what notification or advice United Kingdom Detention Services Limited (UKDS) gave the Home Office regarding the buildings, facilities and design at Blakenhurst prison; and what action has been taken as a result.
  UKDS had no involvement in the original buildings, facilities and design at Blakenhurst. Since Blakenhurt became operational, UKDS have recommended changes to the existing conditions at Blackenhurst on a number of occasions. These have included fitting electric gates on house blocks; creating canteens in four house blocks; modifying the sewage system; installing television cameras in the walkways; modifying the holding cells in reception; providing power outlets and drainage in the industrial workshop; altering one spur of a house block to create a Vulnerable Prisoner Unit; changing the majority of spy-holes to polycarbonate; and installing a new bolt system for cell doors.
  All these requests, which have come through the Controller at the prison, have been actioned.
  It is common for modifications to be required in new prisons, especially in the first year of operation. UKDS has paid for a number of the alterations and the remainder have been paid for by the Prison Service.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to respond to the Commission for Racial Equality's second review of the Race Relations Act 1976.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today written to the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality setting out the Government's formal response. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Computer Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts his Department has entered into with the computer company EDS-Scion or its predecessor EDS; when the contracts were entered into; what is their total value; and what is the subject matter of each contract.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: The Home Office has let three contracts to the specified company amounting to a total value of £80,942·23.

  Details of the contracts are given below:
  Date Contract let and Subject matter of Contract
  12 September 1991
  Hardware Maintenance

  49
  10 July 1992
  Software licences for London Fire and Civil Defence Authority
  8 January 1993
  Evaluation of Performance of Classifying Finger Printing Images for Police System Research and Development Group

  United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd.
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions money has been withheld from United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. for giving an unsatisfactory performance or failing to provide the required service; what were the circumstances on each occasion including dates and the nature of the failure; and what were the amounts witheld on each occasion.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 30 June 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 Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of occasions money has been withheld from UKDS for giving an unsatisfactory performance or failing to provide the required service; the circumstances and the amounts withheld.
  The only occasion on which money was withheld from UKDS is set out in my letter to you of 29 June (Hansard Col. 627).

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the rise in pensioners' total average net income since 1979.

  Mr. Hague
  The estimated rise in pensioner's total average net income, in real terms, from 1979 to 1990–91—the latest year for which figures are available—was:Before housing costs:

  42 per cent. in all pensioners

  39 per cent. to pensioner couples; and

  39 per cent. to single pensioners.

  Source: The 1990–91 Family Expenditure Survey.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency has had a challenging first year and this is recognised in the report "The Child Support Agency: The First Two Years" which was placed in the Library today. Despite many difficulties, the agency achieved considerable successes in its first year. Over 850,000 cases were taken on and over 200,000 maintenance assessments were made. Nearly 60 per cent. of cases involved absent parents who were not paying maintenance. In 28,000 cases the agency successfully located absent parents for whom the parents with care of the children did not have an address—a success rate of 85 per cent.

  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the first year of the Child Support Agency's operations and its plans and targets for the second year.
  50
  Mr. Lilley
  The Child Support Agency has today published "The Child Support Agency: The First Two Years". This provides the annual report for the year 1993–94—"Our First Year", and the business plan for the year 1994–95—"The Year Ahead". The agency's national client satisfaction survey 1993 has also been published today. Copies of both those publications have been placed in the Library. The annual report contains details of the agency 1993–94 performance against the standards of service as set out in the agency's customer charter. In addition, all local caller areas will, as from today, display posters detailing this information. The posters will be updated quarterly.

  The targets that I have set the Child Support Agency for 1994–95 are as follows:
  50 per cent. of people with care of children making eligible applications to the Child Support Agency to have maintenance arranged.
  a score of 65 per cent. on an index of client satisfaction with the Agency's service, as determined by an independent national survey.
  annual benefit savings of £460 million.
  to manage the Agency's resources so as to deliver its Business Plan within a total budget of £184 million.
  by the end of March 1995, no more than 40 per cent. of outstanding maintenance applications to be over 13 weeks old, no more than 15 per cent. over 26 weeks old, and no more than 1 per cent. over 52 weeks old.

  The agency is making a number of operational and procedural changes this year which should significantly improve performance. The new targets, which are higher than the agency's achievements last year, take this expected improvement into account.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total cost of information technology investment in the child support scheme; and what were the amounts of funding by(a) the Child Support Agency, (b) the Information Technology Services Agency and (c) his Department.

  Mr. Burt
  Some £52·3 million up to March 1994. All funding of information technology investment is met out of the DSS administration vote.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage availability has been achieved by the Child Support Agency computer system; and what penalty has been levied against(a) EDS and (b) ITSA.

  Mr. Burt
  Over the last six months, 93·5 per cent. availability has been achieved by the Child Support Agency computer system. No penalties have been imposed.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what(a) additional and (b) re-working payments have been made to the information technology contractors EDS in connection with the Child Support Agency computer system.

  Mr. Burt
  A development contract is in place with EDS, the terms of which permit EDS to charge for any additional changes requested. Since April 1993, such changes have resulted from policy requirements and amendments to working practices. The charge for additional development work during the period April 1993 to March 1994 was £1·1 million. Contractual arrangements with EDS provide for resolution of faults which are EDS's responsibility within the fixed price for the contract and at no additional charge.
  51
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the cost of the hardware upgrades which the Child Support Agency computer system's IBM mainframe computer has had to have.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency computer system has had one hardware upgrade at a cost of £5·19 million.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under what circumstances the Child Support Agency opens files for maintenance payments in respect of children who are both living with, and maintained by, both of their parents.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency has no role where children and their parents all live in the same household.

  Where the parents live apart and the children spend on average at least two nights a week with each, the agency may arrange for the parent who provides the lesser amount of care to pay maintenance to the other parent.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what expenditure has been incurred in implementing the programming application on the Child Support Agency computer system.

  Mr. Burt
  Some £13·5 million, including all expenditure for ITSA, EDS and CSA user design.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received in the last month concerning the CSA.

  Mr. Burt
  In the month up to 31 May 2,204 written representations were received by the headquarters of the Department and the Child Support Agency from both hon. Members and members of the public covering a wide range of views.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the social fund is currently spent on administration.

  Mr. Scott
  The cost of administering the social fund was equivalent to 35 per cent. of the gross expenditure, plus recoveries, in 1992–93, the last year for which figures are available. Each application to the discretionary part of the social fund receives a detailed personal assessment whether or not an award is made and recoveries cost money as well. However, the recycling of social fund loans ensures that more help goes to more people.

  Adjudication Officers
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reform the regulations governing appeals against the decisions of adjudication officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  We intend in the near future to consolidate the adjudication regulations. The appeals system is under constant review, but we have no plans at present to reform the regulations any further.

  Mallinson Judgment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement outlining his response to the Mallinson judgment; and what action will be undertaken by his Department resulting from the judgment.
  52
  Mr. Scott
  The judgment in the case of Mallinson v. the Secretary of State for Social Security has extended the scope of attendance allowance and the care component of disability living allowance by allowing a wider range of activities to be considered as
  "attention in connection with bodily functions".
  Independent adjudication officers are applying the terms of the judgment to the decisions that they make.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what date the Government will backdate any changed entitlements to disability living allowance care component and the lower rate of attendance allowance following the Mallinson judgment.

  Mr. Scott
  The earliest date from which the benefit, or additional benefit, could become payable is 21 April 1994.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many existing disability living allowance claimants will be entitled to(a) the middle rate of the disability living allowance care component and (b) the lower rate of attendance allowance as a result of the Mallinson judgment; and what plans his Department has to initiate a review of these cases.

  Mr. Scott
  Reliable information is not available as to the numbers of people who are currently in receipt of disability living allowance or attendance allowance and might gain as a result of the judgment in the House of Lords in the case of Mallinson v. Secretary of State for Social Security. The Department has no current plans to initiate a review of those cases as major administrative disruption could be created in reviewing so many cases and the number of successful awards in the light of the judgment do not indicate that such disruption could be justified.

  Social Security Payments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the level of basic social security payments relative to average income real terms in each member state of the European Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  Member states have different priorities, structures and methods of funding social security. Those differences, variations in definitions and lack of comparable data make comparisons difficult. We are committed to a social security system which is appropriate to modern needs and protects the most vulnerable while not outstripping the nation's ability to pay.

  Post Offices (Benefits Delivery)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether pensioners will be able to choose to have their benefits paid through the Post Office.

  Mr. Hague
  Pensioners and others will continue to be able to choose to collect their pensions and other benefits at the post office. We are well aware of the valuable role played by post offices, particularly in rural areas.

  1994 Benefits Uprating
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the difference between the 1994 uprating of benefits for pensioners and sick and disabled people and the rate of inflation.
  53
  Mr. Hague
  In addition to increases in all major benefits fully in line with inflation, people on income-related benefits received increases based on the Rossi index, which was higher than the retail prices index. Most pensioners and many sick and disabled people will also have received extra help for the effect of VAT on fuel over and above the normal uprating.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reform the present system of housing benefit.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth).

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the total number and proportion of council tenants receiving housing benefit in(a) the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, (b) the London borough of Redbridge, (c) the Greater London area and (d) Great Britain.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 28 June 1994]: The latest available information is in the table.

  Area

  Number of council tenancies

  1Housing benefit rent rebate caseload

  Percentage of council tenancies with housing benefit

  London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

  25,624

  14,382

  56

  London Borough of Redbridge

  8,340

  6,744

  81

  Greater London

  657,096

  2423,173

  64

  Great Britain

  34,581,171

  22,994,184

  65

  1Refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  2Includes estimates for non-responding authorities.

  3The total for Great Britain contains estimates for individual English authorities, and estimates of the totals for Wales and Scotland.

  Data sources:
  The 28 May 1993 Housing Benefit Management Information System Quarterly caseload count.
  The 1 April 1993 Department of the Environment and Welsh Office counts of tenancies.
  The 31 March 1993 Scottish Office count of tenancies.

  Basic State Pension
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the value of the basic state pension as a percentage of male average earnings in 1979 and at the latest available date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hague
  The basic state pension represented 20·4 per cent. of average male adult earnings in November 1979 and 15·9 per cent. in April 1993.
  Sources:

  1. The Abstract of Statistics for Social Security Benefits and Contributions.

  2. The Indices of Retail Prices and average earnings.

  Pensioner Savings
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the percentage of pensioners retiring(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available, who had incomes from savings; and what was the real average level of savings on each of these two dates.
  54
  Mr. Hague
  The percentage of recently retired pensioner units receiving income from savings has grown from 68 per cent. in 1979 to 78 per cent. in 1990–91. Information about the average level of savings is not available, but it is estimated that the average level of income from savings of recently retired pensioner units has risen from £20·40 in 1979 to £49·90 in 1990–91.
  Notes:

  1. Source: 1979 and 1990–91 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  2. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person aged at or above state pensionable age (SPA) or a couple where the husband is aged at or above SPA.

  3. A recently retired pensioner unit is one where a single person, or the husband of a couple, is aged up to five years above state pension age.

  4. The savings income figures are at 1991 prices.

  Pensioner Assets
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the current value of the assets held by the average pensioner household; and what was the comparable position in real terms in 1978–79.

  Mr. Hague
  In 1990–91, 48 per cent. of pensioners owned their own homes outright, compared to 37 per cent. in 1979; the average weekly income for pensioners from savings and investments was £30·30, compared to £11·20 in 1979; and the value of accrued rights in occupational pension schemes had substantially increased compared to 1979.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average weekly value of invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The average amount of invalidity benefit in payment on 4 April 1992, the latest date for which information is available was £75·45.

  Pensioner Incomes, Scotland
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Scotland(a) are dependent on income support and (b) have incomes less than £10 above income support levels.

  Mr. Burt
  The number of pensioners dependant on income support in Scotland is 170,000.

  Using income bought to account for income support purposes, it is estimated that 95,000 pensioners in Scotland have income within £10 of income support thresholds.
  Source:
  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry August 1993.Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand for the first part of the answer and to the nearest five thousand for the second pan.

  2. Pensioners dependant on Income Support are defined as claimants and partners over pensionable age.

  3. The second part of the answer has been modelled from the 1989, 1990 and 1991 Family Expenditure data uprated to 1994–95 prices and benefit levels.

  4. Income Support thresholds include Income Support housing requirements such as mortgage interest.

  Scottish Homes (Successors)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to allowing West Lothian district council and other successor housing authorities to Scottish Homes to operate benefit distribution on behalf of his Department.

  Mr. Hague
  Local authorities have a statutory duty to administer the housing benefit scheme, and we have no plans to alter this.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by local authority the consideration given to receipt of(a) war widows' pension and (b) war disability pension when assessing housing benefit and council tax payments.

  Mr. Hague
  Local authorities have the discretion to disregard up to the full amount of war widows' pensions and war disablement pensions when assessing entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  The information requested with regard to housing benefit has been compiled from the latest information from local authorities for the financial year 1990–91 and is listed in the table. No details are available for council tax benefit.
  Local authorities operating a local scheme in housing benefit to disregard an amount of war disablement or war widow's pension in addition to the £10 statutory disregard.

  Aberconwy

  Aberdeen

  Adur

  Amber Valley

  Angus

  Annandale and Eskdale

  Arfon

  Argyll-Bute

  Arun

  Ashfield

  Ashford

  Aylesbury Vale

  Badenoch

  Banff and Buchan

  Barking

  Barnet

  Basingstoke

  Bassetlaw

  Bath1

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  Berwickshire

  Beverley

  Birmingham

  Blaby1

  Blackburn

  Blackpool

  Blaenau Gwent

  Bolton1

  Boston

  Bournemouth

  Bracknell

  Bradford

  Braintree

  Breckland

  Brent

  Brentwood

  Brighton

  Broadland

  Bromley1

  Bromsgrove

  Broxbourne

  Broxtowe

  Burnley

  Bury1

  Caithness

  56

  Calderdale

  Cambridge1

  Camden

  Cannock Chase

  Canterbury

  Cardiff

  Carlisle

  Carrick

  Castle Morpeth2

  Castle Point

  Ceredigion

  Charnwood

  Chelmsford

  Cheltenham

  Cherwell

  Chester2

  Chesterfield

  Chichester

  Chiltern

  Chorley

  Christchurch

  Clackmannan

  Clydebank

  Clydesdale

  Colchester

  Colwyn

  Congleton

  Copeland

  Corby1

  Cotswold

  Coventry

  Craven

  Crawley

  Crewe and Nantwich

  Cumbernauld

  Cumbernauld (DC)

  Cumnock and Doon

  Cunninghame

  Dacorum

  Darlington1

  Dartford

  Daventry

  Delyn

  Derby1

  Derbyshire Dales

  Doncaster1

  Dover

  Dudley

  Dumbarton

  Dundee

  Dunfermline

  Dwyfor

  Ealing

  East Cambridgeshire

  East Devon

  East Dorset

  East Hampshire

  East Hertfordshire

  East Kilbride

  East Kilbride (DC)

  East Lothian

  East Staffordshire1

  East Yorkshire

  Eastleigh

  Eastwood

  Eden

  Edinburgh

  Ellesmere Port

  Elmbridge

  Epping Forest

  Epsom and Ewell

  Erewash

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  Exeter1

  Falkirk

  Fareham

  Fenland

  Forest Heath

  Forest of Dean

  Gedling

  57

  Gillingham

  Glanford

  Glasgow

  Glenrothes (DC)

  Gloucester

  Glyndwr

  Gordon

  Gosport

  Great Yarmouth

  Grimsby1

  Guildford

  Hackney

  Halton

  Hambleton1

  Hamilton

  Hammersmith

  Harborough

  Haringey

  Harlow

  Harrow

  Hart

  Hartlepool

  Hastings

  Havant

  Havering1

  Hereford

  Hertsmere

  High Peak

  Hillingdon

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  Holderness

  Horsham

  Hounslow

  Hove

  Huntingdon

  Hyndburn

  Inverclyde

  Inverness

  Ipswich

  Irvine (DC)

  Isles of Scilly

  Islington

  Islwyn

  Kennet

  Kilmarnock

  Kincardine and Deeside

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Kingswood

  Kirkcaldy

  Kirklees

  Knowsley

  Kyle and Carrick

  Lambeth

  Lancaster

  Langbaurgh

  Leicester

  Lewes

  Lewisham

  Lichfield

  Lincoln

  Liverpool

  Livingston (DC)

  Llanelli

  Lliw Valley

  Lochaber

  Luton

  Macclesfield

  Maidstone

  Maldon

  Malvern Hills

  Mansfield

  Medina

  Meirionnydd

  Melton

  Mendip

  Merton

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Mid Suffolk

  Mid Sussex

  Middlesbrough1

  58

  Midlothian

  Milton Keynes

  Mole Valley

  Monklands

  Monmouth

  Montgomery

  Moray

  Motherwell

  Nairn

  Neath

  New Forest

  Newark

  Newbury

  Newcastle under Lyme

  Newham

  Newport1

  Nithsdale

  North Bedfordshire

  North Cornwall

  North Dorset

  North East Derby

  North East Fife

  North Hertfordshire

  North Kesteven

  North Shropshire

  North Tyneside

  North Warwickshire

  North West Leicester

  North Wiltshire

  Northampton

  Northavon

  Nottingham

  Nuneaton

  Oadby and Wigston

  OGWR

  Oldham1

  Orkney

  Penwith3

  Perth & Kinross

  Peterborough

  Plymouth

  Poole

  Portsmouth

  Preseli

  Preston

  Purbeck

  Radnor

  Reading

  Redbridge

  Redditch

  Reigate and Banstead

  Renfrew

  Rhondda

  Rhuddlan

  Ribble Valley

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Richmondshire

  Rochdale

  Rochester on Medway

  Rochford

  Ross and Cromarty

  Rossendale

  Rother

  Roxburgh

  Rugby

  Runnymede

  Rushcliffe

  Rushmoor

  Rutland

  Ryedale

  Salford

  Salisbury

  Sandwell

  Scarborough

  Scottish Homes

  Scunthorpe

  Sedgefield

  Sefton

  Selby

  Sevenoaks

  59

  Shepway

  Shetland

  Skye and Lochalsh

  Slough

  Solihull

  South Bedfordshire

  South Bucks

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Derbyshire

  South Herefordshire

  South Holland

  South Lakeland

  South Norfolk

  South Northants

  South Oxfordshire

  South Pembrokeshire

  South Ribble

  South Shropshire

  South Somerset

  South Staffordshire

  South Tyneside

  South Wight

  Southampton

  Southend on Sea

  Southwark

  Spelthorne

  St. Albans

  St. Helens

  Staffs. Moorlands

  Stevenage1

  Stewartry

  Stirling

  Stockport

  Stockton on Tees1

  Stoke on Trent

  Stratford-on-Avon

  Strathkelvin

  Stroud

  Suffolk Coastal

  Surrey Heath

  Sutherland

  Sutton

  Swale

  Swansea

  Tameside

  Tamworth

  Tandridge

  Teignbridge

  Tendring

  Test Valley

  Tewkesbury

  Thamesdown1

  Thanet

  The Wrekin

  Three Rivers

  Thurrock

  Tonbridge and Mailing1

  Torbay1

  Torfaen1

  Tower Hamlets

  Trafford

  Tunbridge Wells1

  Tweeddale

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Vale of White Horse

  Vale Royal

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  Wansbeck

  Wansdyke

  Watford

  Waverley

  Wealden

  Welwyn Hatfield

  West Lothian

  West Norfolk

  West Oxfordshire

  West Wiltshire

  60

  Western Isles

  Westminster

  Wigan

  Wigtown

  Winchester

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Wirral

  Woking

  Wokingham

  Wolverhampton

  Woodspring

  Worcester

  Worthing

  Wycombe

  York1

  1Denotes those authorities who operate a scheme to disregard War Disablement Pensions only.2Denotes those authorities who operate a scheme to disregard War Widows' Pensions only.3Denotes an authority which operates a scheme to disregard War Disablement Pensions and War Widows' Pensions for Housing Benefit rent rebates only.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department's policy is to use recycled paper where possible. The Department does not normally use recycled paper for press releases or written answers, because of cost and quality considerations. However, some replies to hon. Members from agency chief executives are on recycled paper, as are the great majority of letters signed by Ministers. We have also concentrated on ensuring that the paper we use is manufactured in the most environmentally friendly manner possible.

  Pension
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what account is taken of ability to pay in the time scale for recovery of money which has been overpaid in respect of pension provision;

  (2) what is the normal interval between a change occurring in an individual's benefit arrangements and the notification by the DSS to the superannuation fund providing a pension to that individual of that change;

  (3) how many individuals in the calendar years 1991, 1992 and 1993 were paid more than their overall pension entitlement as a result of the failure of the DSS to notify the superannuation funds providing them with a pension of the change in benefit payments made by the DSS.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. John Gunnell, dated 1 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking (i) how many individuals in the calendar years 1991, 1992, and 1993 were paid more than their overall pension entitlement as a result of the failure of the DSS to notify the superannuation funds providing them with a pension of a change in benefit payments made by the DSS and (ii) what is the normal interval between a change occurring in an individuals benefit arrangements and the

  61
  notification by the DSS to the Superannuation Fund providing a pension to that individual of that change and (iii) the repayment of money overpaid in respect of pension provision.
  The arrangements which exist for the DSS to send notifications apply only to public service occupational pension schemes. The notifications are sent to tell the schemes that they do not need to inflation-proof the guaranteed minimum portion of the occupational pension because the DSS is doing so.
  When a change occurs in the rate of Widow's Benefit or State Retirement Pension payable to a public service occupational pensioner, any notification which needs to be sent to the pension scheme will be issued within one week of the change in rate having been entered onto the pensions computer.
  The system is designed to send the notifications automatically. We do not, therefore, have details of the number of notifications which should have been sent but were not. We are aware, however, that there have been instances of delay and recent exercises have been undertaken to identify these cases and ensure that the appropriate notifications are sent.
  Although late notification from DSS can cause an overpayment this would be of occupational pension and as such it would be for the scheme to decide if recovery should be effected and if so, how. This is not a matter over which the Department has any control.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is(a) the amount of land in hectares in each county, (b) the number of farmers and (c) the cost of the five-year set-aside scheme in Northern Ireland in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  In Northern Ireland, the amount of land in each county included in the five-year set-aside scheme and the number of participating farmers in each county are as follows:—

  Hectares

  Farmers

  Co Antrim

  49·904

  7

  Co Armagh

  24·675

  3

  Co Down

  155·419

  13

  Co Fermanagh

  nil

  —

  Co Londonderry

  138·906

  11

  Co Tyrone

  nil

  —

  The cost of the set-aside scheme in Northern Ireland in 1993–94 was £62,865, while the anticipated cost for 1994–95 is £33,364.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the payment rates made per hectare under the arable area payments scheme for(a) cereals, (b) oilseeds, (c) proteins, (d) linseed, (e) set-aside and (f) the simplified scheme paid in (i) the first year and (ii) the second year of the scheme in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The payment rates per hectare in Northern Ireland for the first and second years of the scheme are set out below. The actual rates payable in 1994 62
  may be reduced if base areas are exceeded and the rate for oilseeds may be adjusted to reflect changes in the reference price.

  1992–93 £

  1993–943 £

  (a) Cereals

  112

  [156]

  (b) Oilseeds

  379

  [421]

  (c) Proteins

  290

  [290]

  (d) Linseed1

  —

  —

  (e) Set-aside

  201

  [247]

  Set-aside (reduced rate)2

  —

  [174]

  (f) Simplified Scheme

  112

  [156]

  Notes:

  1Linseed was not incorporated into the arable area payments scheme until 1993–94. The payment rate for 1993–94 has not yet been fixed.

  2There is a reduced rate for voluntary set-aside in excess of the applicant's cropped area.

  3The figures in brackets are provisional.

TRANSPORT

  Motorway Services
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the guidelines for motorway services; and what facilities he will require for(a) women and (b) men truck drivers.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 30 June 1994:
  Mr. Key has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about motorway service areas since this is now a matter for the Highways Agency.
  Roads Circular 1/94, which set out the Department's policy on motorway service areas (MSAs) and specified the minimum requirements for MSAs signposted from the motorway, was published on 9 May. I enclose a copy. The minimum requirements include a specified number of lorry parking spaces, calculated on the basis of the motorway traffic flow.
  Lorry drivers will also benefit from some of the other minimum requirements, such as the availability of 24 hours a day of toilets and fuel, and free access to MSAs for those carrying out emergency repairs to broken down vehicles. Whether to go beyond this and provide other facilities aimed specifically at either male or female lorry drivers is, however, a matter for individual MSA operators.

  Roads Circular

  1/94

  (Department of Transport)

  Circular

  34/94

  (Welsh Office)

  Joint Circular from the

  Department of Transport

  2 Marsham Street

  London SW 1P 3EB

  Welsh Office

  Ty Glas Road

  Llanishen

  Cardiff CF4 5PL

  63 Dear Sir
  Motorway service areas
  1. Circular Roads 4/88 gives advice on the control of development on trunk roads. This Circular supplements that advice so far as the development of motorway service areas is concerned. Further advice on the considerations which local planning authorities should take into account when considering planning applications for service areas on motorways and trunk roads is given in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 "Transport" (PPG13).
  2. Government policy until 1992 was to promote the development of MSAs providing a standard range of minimum requirements on Department of Transport-owned sites at intervals of around thirty miles while operators in Wales have provided single sided sites on private land at intervals of around fifteen miles. A network of MSAs has been provided on this basis on most motorways though, in England, there are still routes with exceptional gaps in services.
  3. In August 1992 the Government announced that in future the private sector should take the initiative in identifying and acquiring MSA sites and seeking planning consent from local planning authorities for these schemes as for any other development.
  4. However, the Departments will continue to have interests in MSAs in relation to motorway safety and traffic management. They will wish to see a balance struck between, on the one hand, the necessary provision of opportunities for motorway travellers to stop and obtain essential services at reasonable intervals; and on the other, the avoidance of unnecessary traffic movements on and off the motorway. This guidance is issued so that potential developers and local planning authorities may have regard to the Departments' policy accordingly.
  Spacing
  5. The Departments will generally not expect to provide signs or (in respect of sites not accessed from an existing motorway junction) to allow access to the motorway for any services development less than fifteen miles from the nearest existing MSA (or MSA site with planning consent and for which signing has been agreed). Exceptions to this minimum interval may be agreed, for example, where existing sites are a little less than thirty miles apart and additional services are proposed roughly half way between them. Where a new MSA is proposed less than fifteen miles from an existing MSA (or MSA site for which signing has been agreed), the Departments will consider the case for signing, but the shorter the gap the stronger the case for an exception to the normal fifteen mile interval will need to be. The Departments will not, in any event, expect to sign more than one additional site between any two existing "thirty mile" MSAs.
  6. This minimum spacing between sites should not be taken to mean that the Departments see a need for MSAs every fifteen miles regardless of local circumstances. Their only prescriptive view is that, for safety and traffic management reasons, drivers should not have to travel for long distances without finding services on the motorway (whether accessed directly or via a junction). Intervals between existing services have not been much more than thirty miles. That remains a desirable general aim from the transport point of view. It cannot be a hard and fast rule, particularly in areas of planning restraint. Local planning authorities should take into account the need for and road safety benefits of MSAs; and the greater the distance between existing facilities and a new proposal, the more weight should be placed on the needs of motorway users.
  Parking
  7. MSAs contribute to road safety by allowing drivers regular opportunities to rest in the course of their journeys. These safety benefits will be lost unless measures are taken to ensure that all sites have sufficient parking capacity to cater for the demands placed on them by motorists needing only to stop and rest as well as those making use of other MSA facilities. In order to qualify for signing from the motorway, therefore, an MSA developer will be expected to demonstrate that he can provide parking for:—64

  cars:

  0·5 per cent.

  of the light vehicle annual average daily traffic flow fifteen years after opening;

  HGVs:

  0·35 per cent.

  of the heavy vehicle annual average daily traffic flow fifteen years after opening;

  coaches:

  0.1 per cent.

  of the heavy vehicle annual average daily traffic flow fifteen years after opening;

  8. Advice on predicted traffic flows is available from Regional Network Management Divisions of the Highways Agency of the Highways Directorate of the Welsh Office.9. Developers need not necessarily provide the full fifteen year parking levels as soon as the site opens, but will be expected to build up to the final provision in suitable stages over the fifteen year period.Other requirements
  10. In addition to the parking quantities specified above, the Department will require MSA operators to provide from the outset at least a standard range of minimum facilities. MSAs which do not meet the minimum requirements will not be signed nor, in the case of sites not reached by way of an existing junction, will they be allowed to take access from the motorway. The minimum requirements are that MSA operators should ensure that:—
  free short term parking for all types of vehicle, free toilets (in sufficient quantity to cater reasonably for the traffic flow on the motorway) and a picnic area are available, and fuel is on sale, 24 hours a day every day of the year;
  access is allowed for up to two hours for those carrying out emergency repairs to broken down vehicles;
  all facilities are available to disabled people; and,
  there is no sale or consumption of alcohol on the site.
  11. Enforcement of these minimum standards will be achieved through a formal signs agreement between the relevant Department and the MSA operator under which signs from the motorway to the MSA will be permitted and maintained so long as the operator continues to meet the minimum requirements in full. Before entering into signs agreements the Departments will need to be satisfied that planning permission has been obtained, that the proposed MSA is capable of meeting all the minimum requirements and that it is acceptable in traffic, safety and spacing terms.Access to motorways
  12. While it will in future be for the private sector to initiate MSA proposals, the Department will maintain their strict policy of restricting access to the motorway to junctions with other roads, MSAs and maintenance compounds. They will not therefore agree to the provision of accesses to the motorway from private developments other than MSAs which meet the standard range of minimum requirements; nor will they permit the development of activities within MSA sites which are unconnected with motorists' use of the road and which would therefore lead to the site becoming a destination in its own right. The Departments will be prepared where necessary to direct refusal of planning applications which would conflict with this principle. To ensure that this policy is maintained it is important that the Departmentss are kept informed of proposals affecting existing and proposed MSAs. Local planning authorities are therefore requested to consult the relevant Regional Network Management Divisions of the Highways Agency, or the Highways Directorate of the Welsh Office, wherever development is proposed of services facilities wholly or partly within 400 metres of the boundary of a motorway. They should consult similarly wherever development is proposed for an area exceeding 2 hectares which includes the provision of fuel and refreshments and lies within 1 kilometre of a motorway junction.
  13. The Departments will also be concerned to ensure that MSAs do not come to be used as routes from the motorway through to other nearby developments; that is, as all purpose motorway junctions. At sites accessed direct from the motorway, therefore, the Departments will be reluctant to agree to the provision of rear access roads connecting to the local road network. Where such accesses may be agreed, the Departments will expect to require developers to enter into arrangements to ensure their use is restricted to staff, deliveries and the emergency services. Other onward access will not be countenanced.

  65
  14. In considering issues affecting the motorway itself, traffic flow and safety considerations are of great importance and good visibility is essential. Any access provided direct to a motorway would need to conform fully to the Departments' standards. At all MSAs, it will be particularly important to avoid the risk of congestion or slowing on the main carriageway. Advice on these aspects should be sought from the relevant Regional Network Management Division of the Highways Agency, or the Highways Directorate of the Welsh Office.
  15. The full cost of any access provided direct to a motorway, or direct to a trunk road at or near a motorway junction, including those elements of the works within the motorway or trunk road boundary, will fall to be met by the developer by means of an agreement with the Secretary of State under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980. Advice on this is provided in Circular Roads 6/91 and Welsh Office Circular 65/91.

  Election Campaigns
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's policy on publishing statistics relating to budgetary restraint within the period of an election campaign; and if he will make a statement on the conventions involved.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Guidance to officials stresses the need to ensure that statistics are presented in an objective and impartial manner and that care is taken on the timing and announcement of sensitive decisions. The convention is that Ministers, too, seek to defer announcing sensitive decisions during an election period.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of his officials attended a meeting with members of the Railtrack board on 9 June; who else was present; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Freeman
  Meetings between the Department and the Government companies and nationalised industries for which it is responsible are frequent, and mostly informal; the substance of any discussions are confidential to the participants. It is not our practice to identify individual officials present at such meetings.

  List of the 20 Contractors receiving the largest share of Motorway and Trunk Road Contracts in the Financial Year April 1991 to April 1992

  Contractor and Scheme name

  Award date

  Award price (£)

  Amey Construction Ltd.

  A 34 Between A4130 Junction—A417 Overbridge

  22 August 1991

  1,613,206·00

  A421 Bicester Bypass

  18 September 1991

  3,904,118·00

  A 41 Berkhamstead Bypass, Contract 4B

  11 December 1991

  18,139,479·00

  Total

  23,656,803·00

  Associated Asphalt Ltd.

  M5 Between Junctions 24–25—Huntworth—Blackbrook

  3 April 1991

  730,869·00

  A3 Reconstruction, Eshep Bypass

  24 May 1991

  1,420,897·00

  M25 Junctions 13–14

  5 August 1991

  3,559,223·00

  M3 Junctions 4–5 Overlay, Frimley to Hook, Hampshire

  14 August 1991

  2,236,246·00

  A30 Pearces Hill to Cutteridge

  9 October 1991

  2,470,273·00

  M5 Junctions 24–25, Stage 7, Huntsworth—Blackbrook

  28 October 1991

  545,488·00

  A27 Crossbush, 2km East of Arundel

  2 January 1992

  2,951,714·00

  A27 Lewes Bypass Maintenance

  14 January 1992

  1,529,660·00

  A40 Oxford Northern Bypass, Banbury Road—Green LA

  25 March 1992

  1,169,854·00

  Total

  16,614,224·00

  Road-building Contracts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the 20 contractors who have received the largest share of motorway and trunk road contracts in the financial year April 1991 to April 1992, giving for each contractor the value of the contracts received.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 30 June 1994
  You put down a Parliamentary Question for answer by the Secretary of State for Transport asking him to list the 20 contractors who received the largest share of motorway and trunk road contracts in the financial year April 1991 to April 1992, giving for each contractor the value of the contracts received.
  As the information you asked for concerns operational matters for which the Highways Agency is now responsible, as promised by the Minister, Robert Key, I am replying to your Question.
  The information requested (but excluding contracts below £1m in value for which records are not currently held centrally) is set out in the attached tables.

  List of top 20 contractors for financial year April 1991 to April 1992

  £

  1. Balfour Beatty Limited

  95,813,750

  2. Tarmac Construction Limited

  95,395,774

  3. John Laing Construction Limited

  59,368,900

  4. Tarmac Quarry Products Limited

  38,209,542

  5. Costain Civil Engineering Limited

  37,534,578

  6. Amey Construction Limited

  23,656,803

  7. Norwest Holst Construction Limited

  21,684,567

  8. Birse Construction Limited

  21,040,596

  9. A F Budge (Contractors) Limited

  19,967,881

  10. Associated Asphalt Limited

  16,614,224

  11. Fitzpatrick Contractors Limited

  14,882,556

  12. Lilley Construction Limited

  12,175,042

  13. Galliford (UK) Limited

  10,767,262

  14. Alfred McAlpine Construction Limited

  10,719,283

  15. Edmund Nuttall Limited

  10,219,417

  16. Eden Construction Limited

  8,504,752

  17. Miller Construction Limited

  7,908,250

  18. Colas Roads Limited

  7,052,620

  19. Henry Boot (Southern) Limited

  7,042,636

  20. Fairclough Civil Engineering Limited

  6,923,494

  67

  Contractor and Scheme name

  Award date

  Award price (£)

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  M62 Widening, Junctions 17–18, Manchester

  17 April 1991

  3,752,243·00

  M25 Junctions 23–25

  3 May 1991

  5,207,194·00

  M61 Junctions 9–6, Southbound

  28 June 1991

  2,412,919·00

  M20 Junctions 5–8, Improvement

  4 July 1991

  68,304,939·00

  M1 Junctions 5–6A

  13 August 1991

  1,936,854·00

  A39 Waderbridge Bypass

  27 September 1991

  8,305,268·00

  A38 Plympton Bypass (Northbound)

  7 February 1992

  970,683·00

  M1 Junction 9—Southbound, Hertfordshire

  13 March 1992

  3,188,861·00

  M5 Cullompton—Hele Straight

  28 March 1992

  1,234,789·00

  Total

  95,813,750·00

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  M25 Sevenoaks—Godstone, Junctions 5–6, Clacket Lane

  5 November 1991

  3,896,152·00

  A20 Folkestone—Courtwood, Contract 2 (Viaduct)

  5 December 1991

  11,550,041·00

  A638 Doncaster, North Bridge Relief Road

  21 February 1992

  5,594,403·00

  Total

  21,040,596·00

  Boot, Henry, (Southern) Ltd.

  M1–A1 Link, Thrapston—Brampton, Contract 8

  5 July 1991

  7,042,636·00

  Total

  7,042,636·00

  Budge, A. F. (Contractors) Ltd.

  A41 Kings Langley Bypass, Contract 3

  19 June 1991

  19,967,881·00

  Total

  19,967,881·00

  Colas Roads Ltd.

  M27 Between Junctions 9–10

  10 April 1991

  1,158,123·00

  M27 Between Junctions 5–7

  19 June 1991

  868,773·00

  M23 London—Crawley Junctions 9–10

  2 September 1991

  2,913,705·00

  A40 Steppe House Farm to A4137, Reconstruction

  13 December 1991

  2,112,019·00

  Total

  7,052,620·00

  Costain Civil Engineering Ltd.

  A3 West of Milford, Carriageway Construction

  4 October 1991

  7,889,074·00

  A23 Warninglid Flyover to Sayers Common

  9 October 1991

  15,685,563·00

  A1 Apex Corner to Stirling Corner

  14 October 1991

  2,920,040·00

  A339 North of Basingstoke, Hampshire

  2 January 1992

  8,597,625·00

  M6 Junctions 9–10 Marker Posts 196/4–199/3

  5 March 1992

  2,442,270·00

  Total

  37,534,578·00

  Eden Construction Ltd.

  A1 Barnsdale Bar to Red House

  11 April 1991

  4,394,771·00

  A1 (M) Blind Lane to Blackfell, Reconstruction

  1 August 1991

  1,882,572·00

  M6 Junctions 42–39, Southbound Carriageway

  14 August 1991

  2,227,409·00

  Total

  8,504,752·00

  Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd.

  A27 South East of Westhampnett

  19 February 1992

  6,923,494·00

  Total

  6,923,494·00

  Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd.

  A47 East Dereham to North Tuddenham

  21 June 1991

  6,895,877·00

  M1–A1 Link, Contract 5(N), A43 North of Kettering

  26 November 1991

  3,752,253·00

  A2 Whitfield to Guston, Contract 11

  13 March 1992

  1,097,862·00

  M20 Junction 3 (M26)—Junction 4 (A228)

  20 March 1992

  3,136,564·00

  Total

  14,882,556·00

  GallifOrd (U.K.) Ltd.

  A5 Little Brickhill Bypass

  28 June 1991

  5,837,410·00

  M56 Junctions 10–11

  13 August 1991

  3,229,856·00

  M1 Junctions 21–22 between Leicester Forest and Rathby

  1 October 1991

  1,699,996·00

  Total

  10,767,262·00

  Laing, John, Construction Ltd.

  M5 Widening, Junctions 6–8

  6 June 1991

  59,368,900·00

  Total

  59,368,900·00

  Lilley Construction Ltd.

  A1 Blyth Bypass

  14 August 1991

  1,412,961·00

  A500 Potteries D Road between Etruria and Talke

  3 October 1991

  1,045,105·00

  A11 Trunk Road between Four Went Ways and Newmarket Bypass

  27 February 1992

  9,716,976·00

  Total

  12,175,042·00

  68 69

  Contractor and Scheme name

  Award date

  Award price (£)

  McAlpine, Alfred, Construction Ltd.

  A595 Egremont Bypass

  10 July 1991

  6,666,666·00

  A596 Wigton Bypass

  10 July 1991

  4,052,617·00

  Total

  10,719,283·00

  Miller Construction Ltd.

  A590 Dalton-in-Furness Bypass

  11 November 1991

  7,908,250·00

  Total

  7,908,250·00

  Norwest Holst Construction Ltd.

  A20 Courtwood—Dover, Contract 3

  14 May 1991

  21,684,567·00

  Total

  21,684,567·00

  Nuttall, Edmund, Ltd.

  M6 Reconstruction at Junction 20–21A (widening)

  30 April 1991

  1,812,266·00

  A40(M) Westway, M41 Junction—Marylebone Flyover

  20 August 1991

  2,612,555·00

  A420 Kingston Bagpuize Bypass

  31 January 1992

  4,296,787·00

  M5 Oldbury Viaduct, R37

  6 March 1992

  1,497,809·00

  Total

  10,219,417·00

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  M25 Kent Boundary to Marker Post 37/0

  18 April 1991

  3,524,959·00

  M40 London—Oxford, Junctions 1–2, Buckinghamshire

  21 May 1991

  6,610,000·00

  M26 Between Junction 5—Junction 2A

  29 August 1991

  3,124,576·00

  A30 Okehampton—Launceston

  29 August 1991

  26,809,215·00

  A38 Swinfen Island to Cappers Lane

  29 August 1991

  1,827,919·00

  M4 Junction 12, Theale Interchange

  3 September 1991

  1,516,553·00

  M1–A1 Link, Thrapston—Brampton, Contract 9

  9 October 1991

  16,364,732·00

  M1–A1 Link, Contracts 2 and 3, East of Naseby

  19 November 1991

  35,617,820·00

  Total

  95,395,774·00

  Tarmac Quarry Products Ltd.

  M61 Junctions 5 and 6 North West of Manchester

  5 April 1991

  5,929,014·00

  M181 Interchange with M180 to A18

  10 April 1991

  2,197,728·00

  A1 Grantham Bypass, Lincolnshire (Gorse Lane-A52)

  15 May 1991

  1,047,267·00

  A1(M) Major maintenance, Wadworth

  22 May 1991

  1,836,153·00

  M180 Junctions 1–2

  5 June 1991

  1,142,648·00

  A38 Little Eaton to Coxbench, North East of Derby

  18 June 1991

  1,378,150·00

  M11 Junctions 11–12

  26 June 1991

  1,383,682·00

  M1 Junctions 41–43

  15 July 1991

  8,787,070·00

  M6 Stafford Bypass

  24 September 1991

  3,150,544·00

  M62 Junction 34 (Langham)—Junction 35 (Pollington)

  1 October 1991

  1,840,781·00

  A1(M) Doncaster Bypass—Hayworth of Tickhill

  25 November 1991

  1,566,762·00

  M1 Junctions 38–39, 16 km South of Leeds

  31 January 1992

  2,307,460·00

  M55 Junction 3—Resurfacing, Contract No. M610

  7 February 1992

  1,362,954·00

  M56 Junctions 3–4, South of Manchester

  27 February 1992

  4,283,329·00

  Total

  38,209,542·00

  Traffic Flow Study
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake a study of the traffic flow consequences in the United States of allowing car drivers to proceed through red lights in order to turn right at specified junctions provided there is no car approaching the green light at that junction and the junction is not displaying a no right turn red sign; and if he will consider a further study of the traffic flow implications in the United Kingdom of allowing drivers in the United Kingdom to cross a red light to turn left in the equivalent circumstances.

  Mr. Key
  Differences in operating conditions between junctions in the United States and United Kingdom—particularly the use of vehicle-actuated signals in the United Kingdom—mean that, at best, only small improvements could be gained in junction efficiency by allowing drivers to turn left against a red light, and only at
  70
  the risk of an increase in the number of accidents. We shall continue to monitor United States experience as it is reported.

  Motorway Use
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made as to trends in lane discipline on motorways.

  Mr. Key
  Poor lane discipline on motoways is a long-standing problem. Last autumn I discussed it with representatives of the police, the motoring organisations, commercial interests and others. It was agreed that our policy on lane discipline should remain broadly the same.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (I) if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to produce annual reports;

  (2) if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government;

  (3) if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult before legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied by them;

  (4) which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are required to lay their annual reports before Parliament; and if he will list them;

  (5) which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory basis; and if he will list them;

  (6) if he will list the advisory bodies which he has set up in his Department since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport has two active advisory non-departmental public bodies, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and the Street Works Advisory Committee. Both committees are required to make annual reports to the Secretary of State. Neither is required to lay them before Parliament. There is no requirement for the Government to consult them on legislation proposals and they are not required to publish their advice. The DPTAC has a statutory basis under the Transport Act 1985. The SWAC is a non-statutory body.

  Cycle Routes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce more cycle routes in(a) London and (b) the royal parks.

  Mr. Norris
  Responsibility for the provision of cycle routes in London rests primarily with the 33 London local authorities. The Government are supporting provision of the 1,000 mile cycle network in London which is being developed by the London Cycling Forum. Approximately a third of the network is in existence or in preparation. We are also supporting Sustrans' promotion of a "Thames cycle route" between Hampton Court and Dartford.

  The royal parks are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Fatalities)
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatalities resulted from persons being struck by reversing heavy goods vehicles in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Key
  The information is shown in the table.

  Fatalities resulting from accidents involving a reversing HGV1: GB 1983–93 Casualties

  Killed

  1983

  8

  1984

  10

  1985

  6

  72

  Killed

  1986

  7

  1987

  6

  1988

  7

  1989

  12

  1990

  4

  1991

  5

  1992

  8

  1993

  2

  1Goods vehicles with an unladen weight over 1·52 tonnes.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (ii) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Norris
  None. My Department will examine the scope to use recycled paper.

EDUCATION

  Private Health Insurance Schemes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines he has issued in respect of the use of education funds for payment of contributions to private health insurance schemes for staff members and their families by colleges of further and higher education.

  Mr. Boswell
  It is for individual colleges to decide what they will pay their staff, within the resources available to them and within the framework of the Government's policy on public sector pay.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects the results of the monitoring requirement contained in the Higher Education Funding Council for England circular "Access Funds: Terms and Conditions for Payment" and notes of guidance for the academic year 1993–94 to be published.

  Mr. Boswell
  There are no plans to publish the results of the monitoring returns from higher education institutions on their use of discretionary access funds in 1993–94. In issuing revised guidance on access funds annually, my Department takes into account the report it receives each year from the funding council on the results of its monitoring exercise.

  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education why the publication of the Higher Education Funding Council for England circular "Access Funds: Terms and Conditions for Payment" and notes of guidance for the academic year 1993–94 was delayed until April.

  Mr. Boswell
  In sending guidance on access funds to the Higher Education Funding Council for England in November 1993, we advised that an amendment was likely to be required following the European Economic Area agreement. The funding council decided to delay issue of its circular until details of the amendment were received, at the end of January 1994, so as to incorporate them. The council then issued its circular as soon as the high priority
  73
  work on the 1994–95 funding allocations allowed. It is its intention that allocations and conditions circulars for 1994–95 will be issued at the beginning of the new academic year.

  New Schools
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will state the names and location of recently completed secondary schools, without sixth form provision, of eight or more form entries per year, distinguishing between(a) county schools, (b) voluntary-aided schools, (c) grant-maintained schools and (d) city technology colleges together with their costs, exclusive of site.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on capital projects since 1987 indicates that the only secondary school, without sixth form provision, of eight or more forms of entry to have recently been completed is Tanbridge school—a county comprehensive—in Horsham, West Sussex. The cost of the school, exclusive of site, was £12·1 million.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what account he takes of the likely proportion of statemented children attending newly built schools to which his cost and other regulations apply.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend judges each case for a new school on its merits. Before approving new accommodation, the Secretary of State takes into account the extent to which the accommodation is consistent with his building guidelines and whether, in the case of accommodation for pupils with special educational needs, it is appropriate for those needs. The need for special accommodation for pupils with statements of special educational needs may form part of that consideration.

  Staff Surveys
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what surveys of the views, opinions and attitudes of the staff of his Department have been carried out in the last two years; and if he will place copies of the findings in the Library.

  Mr. Forth
  The most recent staff attitude survey carried out in my Department took place in 1991. A copy of the findings was placed in the Department's library. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Efficiency Grants
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance he has given to the Higher Education Funding Council for England to protect research resources in the allocation of planned efficiency grants.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 24 June at column 339.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his latest estimate of the cost(a) to public funds and (b) to private funds of the city technology colleges.
  74
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Total spending on city technology colleges by the Department since 1987–88 and projected expenditure to 1994–95 are shown in the following table. This includes both capital and recurrent expenditure, the latter is broadly equivalent to that incurred in other secondary schools.

  Financial Year

  DFE expenditure Cash (£m)

  1987–88

  1

  1988–89

  14

  1989–90

  30

  1990–91

  58

  1991–92

  56

  1992–93

  50

  11993–94

  50

  21994–95

  52

  1estimated outturn.

  2plans.

  Private sector contributions received by city technology colleges amount to £36·8 million.

  Voluntary-aided Schools
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (I) what arrangements are in place to enable a school to which he grants voluntary-aided status to repay private loans made to enable urgent capital works to be undertaken before his decision on the school's voluntary-aided status application was announced;

  (2) what discretion he has to make loans to voluntary aided schools in respect of initial capital expenditure; what discretion he has to make loans to schools applying for voluntary aided status where applications are regarded by his Department as viable and deserving approval; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no power to provide a loan to promoters of proposed new voluntary aided schools to assist with costs incurred on capital work carried out before the decision on the statutory proposals has been made.

  If proposals to establish a new voluntary aided school are approved, the promoters may apply for a loan under section 105 of the Education Act 1994 to assist them with their share of capital costs to provide the site or buildings for the new school. The site and buildings project plans and costs, which would be scrutinised by the Department's architects, would require the prior approval of the Secretary of State. A loan may be granted subject to availability of funds, the approval of building plans and the acceptance of a statisfactory loan agreement.

  Teacher Education
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will provide figures on admissions to courses of initial teacher education starting in autumn 1994, broken down by gender for primary and secondary schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on these courses will not be available to the Department until next year.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the admission targets for initial teacher
  75
  education for 1994, 1995 and 1996, for school based and non-school based training; and what difficulties are expected in meeting the targets.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following recruitment targets for higher education institutions were notified to the Higher Education Funding Council for England—HEFCE—in January 1993.

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Primary

  12,930

  12,115

  10,855

  Secondary

  16,050

  17,000

  17,935

  TOTAL

  28,980

  29,115

  28,790

  In addition, some 460 places are expected to be provided on approved courses of school-centred ITT—SCITT—in 1994–95. The targets are based on the best available information about the needs of the system and are reviewed annually.

  Targets for 1995–96 and later years will be reviewed and notified to the Teacher Training Agency—TTA—in the autumn, subject to the passage of the Education Bill. It will be for the TTA to determine the allocation of places, both on SCITT courses and those in higher education institutions.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department's policy is to use recycled paper wherever possible. It is used for all headed paper, enveloped, file covers and forms. For printing purposes recycled paper is best suited to conventional printing processes and not to high speed electronic machines. The Department's press releases and written answers are printed using high speed electronic machines using environmentally friendly—chlorine free—paper.

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education' if he will list pupil to teacher ratios, average class sizes and the percentage of classes with more than 30 pupils for each year since 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to tables 3 and 7 in "Statistical Bulletin 8/94" published in June 1994, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what evidence his Department has on the relationship between class size and pupil attainment.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has no evidence of a link between class size and pupil attainment in the United Kingdom. The Government agree with the authors of "Curriculum Organisation and Classroom Practice in Primary Schools that quality of teaching is of paramount importance.

  Teacher Statistics
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the gender profile, average length of service and average age of the teaching profession.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The tables show the distribution by gender, the average age and the distribution by length of service of full-time teachers in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector in March 1992. It is not possible to calculate accurately the average length of service.

  Table 1: Distribution of full-time teachers by gender in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools

  England and Wales: March 1992

  Percentages

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Nursery and Primary Schools

  Headteachers

  6

  6

  12

  Deputy heads

  3

  7

  10

  Standard scale

  9

  68

  78

  Total teachers

  19

  81

  100

  Secondary Schools

  Headteachers

  2

  1

  2

  Deputy heads

  3

  2

  5

  Standard scale

  46

  47

  93

  Total teachers

  51

  49

  100

  Nursery, Primary and Secondary Schools

  Headteachers

  4

  3

  7

  Deputy heads

  3

  4

  8

  Standard scale

  28

  57

  85

  Total teachers

  36

  64

  100

  Table 2: Mean age of teachers in full-time maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools England and Wales: March 1992

  Mean age

  Men

  42

  Women

  41

  All teachers

  41

  Table 3: Distribution of full-time teachers by length of service in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools

  England and Wales: March 1992

  Percentages

  Length of service in years

  Men

  Women

  All teachers

  Under 5

  13

  21

  18

  5 to 9

  10

  19

  16

  10 to 14

  16

  21

  19

  15 to 19

  25

  19

  21

  20 to 24

  16

  11

  13

  25 to 29

  14

  7

  9

  30 and over

  6

  2

  4

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action he intends to take to correct mistakes in the parents charter relating to parents' legal duty to provide education for their children; what additional cost will be incurred; and if he will make a statement.
  77
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The updated parents charter is a brief introduction to the operation of the school system, and explains many of the important changes that have taken place. It is a popular summary for parents and the general public as a whole, not a definitive guide to the law. My right hon. Friend sees no need to issue a correction in respect of parent's duty to provide education for their children.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about teachers' pay in 1994–95.

  Mr. Patten
  I have today laid before Parliament a pay and conditions order bringing the provisions of the school teachers' pay and conditions document 1994 into force from 1 September 1994. Copies of this order are being sent to local education authorities, the chairmen of governors of grant-maintained schools and the teachers' and employers' associations.

  The school teachers' pay and conditions document 1994 was published on 6 June following detailed consultation with the teachers' and employers' associations and representatives of the governors of voluntary schools and grant-maintained schools. The document sets out the statutory pay and conditions of service for teachers in maintained schools in England and Wales which will apply from 1 September.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Debt Forgiveness
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which financial year Her Majesty's Government began including debt forgiveness in relation to officially supported export credits in the United Kingdom's total official development assistance figures.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1988–89. The country involved was Mali.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the World Health Organisation about the adequacy of its services in sub-saharan Africa; and what undertakings he has received about improvements.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The World Health Organisation's activities in Africa, in common with its activities elsewhere, are examined each year by the WHO executive board, of which the United Kingdom is a member.

  At World Health Assembly and WHO executive board meetings, we have supported WHO's efforts to improve the health conditions of the people in sub-Saharan Africa. At the May 1994 assembly, we supported resolutions requesting WHO to give special assistance to the peoples of Rwanda, and to continue its assistance to the peoples of Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland and to those countries in sub-Saharan Africa affected by drought.
  78
  In reacting to a United Kingdom-chaired working group on WHO's response to global change, the organisation has undertaken to review the role of its country representatives—a matter of particular relevance to sub-Saharan Africa.

  Aid Contributions
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of gross national product in rank order was contributed in aid by each member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's development assistance committee in 1979.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Net Official Development Assistance as a percentage of Gross National Product—1979

  DAC countries in rank order

  Percentage

  Sweden

  0·94

  Netherlands

  0·93

  Norway

  0·93

  Denmark

  0·75

  France

  0·59

  Belgium

  0·56

  Australia

  0·52

  United Kingdom

  0·51

  Canada

  0·46

  Germany

  0·44

  New Zealand

  0·33

  Japan

  0·26

  Finland

  0·21

  Switzerland

  0·21

  United States

  0·20

  Austria

  0·19

  Italy

  0·08

  Sudan
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part of the further tranche of the £15 million provided for relief aid to the Horn of Africa will be spent in those areas under the jurisdiction of the Sudanese Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) on 29 April,Official Report, column 368. The funds are available to meet emergency humanitarian needs in rebel and Government-held areas.

  Statistics
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 322, what was the source or sources of the information that (a) Britain's overseas aid expenditure in 1992 on basic needs was 10 per cent. of bilateral aid and (b) the United Kingdom is better than the average of all donors in that area; and if he will place the relevant statistics in the Library.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  (a) The 10 per cent. figure is an estimate based on 1992–93 figures and is calculated as follows:

  Expenditure £ million

  Water and Sanitation1

  25·8

  Health and Population1

  48·9

  Block Grants to Non-Governmental Organisations1

  12·8

  79

  Expenditure £ million

  Grant to International Planned Parenthood Federation1

  8·0

  Basic Education2

  15·8

  Total

  111·3

  1Source: British Aid Statistics 1988–89 to 1992–93, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  2Estimated 15 per cent. of total education spending.

  This represents 10·7 per cent. of ODA's bilaterial aid to developing countries. A more useful measure is aid for basic needs as a percentage of aid which is allocable by sector, estimated to be 16 per cent. in 1992–93. Neither estimate includes £150 million of bilateral emergency aid, most of which goes to meet basic human needs in times of crisis. In addition, much of the 46 per cent. of United Kingdom aid which is channelled through multilateral agencies is for basic needs.

  (b) The average percentage of bilateral aid for human priorities among 15 development assitance committee countries was 7 per cent. between 1989 and 1991.

  Statistics on aid for human priorities can be found in table 4.4 of the "Human Development Report 1994", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 253, what was the source or sources of the information given (a) that Britain has one of the best records among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's development assistance committee donors of allocating aid to the poorest countries and (b) that in each of the past five years between 80 per cent. and 85 per cent. of Britain's bilateral aid which is allocatable by income group has been spent in low-income countries defined as those with an income per capita of less than $765; and if he will place the relevant statistics in the Library.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  (a) The source of this information is table 37 of the development co-operation 1993 report published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. This shows that the United Kingdom ranks fourth among DAC donors in the percentage of total aid to low income countries.

  (b) This information is taken from Table A2 of "British Aid Statistics 1988–89 to 1992–93", published by the ODA.
  Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Service League Tables
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans the Government have to provide more league tables to assess the standards of public service.

  Mr. David Davis
  Publication of comparative information on the performance of schools and colleges is already well established. The first national tables on the performance of hospitals and ambulance authorities have just been published.

  Later this year, the revised passengers charter will be published containing comparative information on the
  80
  performance of railway routes. This will supplement the information on local performance already displayed monthly at each station.

  Next year, the first national tables on the performance of local authorities, including the police, will be published.

  Japan (Co-operation)
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to increase co-operation with Japan in science and technology.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am happy to say that I visited Tokyo on 13 June where I signed a formal science and technology agreement with the Japanese Foreign Minister. This marks a further step in our excellent science and technology co-operation with Japan.

  Charter Mark Winners
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what charter mark winners are doing to help advance charter principles in the public sector.

  Mr. David Davis
  Charter mark winners are a constant example to others in the public sector of the successful application of the citizens charter principles. The eight winners in Kent have been particularly helpful in acting as an inspiration to other organisations to implement the charter principles and improve services.

  On a national basis, I am pleased to be able to say that 520 applications have been received for this year's charter mark scheme.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made through his Department's initiatives in obtaining best value for money in central Government expenditure.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Department co-ordinates a wide range of initiatives to improve value for money across Government, including the citizens charter, next steps, and competing for quality programmes. They have played their part in achieving a reduction in civil service numbers of nearly 30,000 since 1990, with savings of £150 million now estimated from the competing for quality initiative alone.

  Citizens Charter
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what he estimates to be the total cost of the citizens charter initiative.

  Mr. David Davis
  The citizens charter initiative applies to all public services, and this is reflected in their individual expenditure programmes. Centrally, the cost of the charter unit between the inception of the citizens charter and 31 March 1994 was £8,005,980.

  Duchy Benevolent Fund
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total of charity donations made within the County Palatine from the Duchy Benevolent Fund during the last financial year.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  For the Duchy year ending 29 September 1993, donations from the Duchy Benevolent Fund made within the County Palatine totalled £127,444.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his latest assessment of the progress that has been made in the Government's market testing exercise; and what are his plans for the future.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On the basis of the provisional information which is currently available, I am able to estimate that approximately £1·3 billion of activities have been market tested or otherwise examined. Annual savings from the competing for quality programme will be at least £150 million. I expect to report in more detail in the autumn.

  Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what guidance was sought from his Department, and what advice was given, in regard to the request made by the Financial Times for details of decisions taken by qualified majority vote at ministerial meetings of the Foreign Affairs, Internal Market, Social Affairs and Agriculture Councils since 1989, under the EU code of conduct on public access to information.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government have argued in the Council that the response to the Financial Times should be as helpful as possible. This position took account of advice provided by the Cabinet Office.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Department does not at present use recycled paper for press releases or written answers. However, in accordance with Government policy to use recycled and environmentally friendly paper wherever this is available, of adequate quality and where it represents value for money, all copy paper used by the Department is environmentally friendly. That includes paper used for the issue of press releases and for written answers.

  Electronic Data
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will outline work which is currently within his Department to ensure that all Government Departments and their agencies maximise the use of electronic data interchange.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Department recognises the significant benefits afforded by electronic data interchange, especially where those can improve the efficiency and quality of public services. The OPSS has been actively promoting the use of electronic data interchange through the activities of CCTA, the Government Centre for Information Systems. That work encourages Departments to use EDI as a strategic business tool.

  The CCTA has recently published a best practice guide called "EDI in Government: the Business Opportunities" which draws on the experience collected from the Government interest section run jointly with EDI Association. I hope my hon. Friend will endorse its contents.
  82
  Ministerial colleagues and I are actively considering further ways to exploit the use of EDI in order to maximise the benefits to public service.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the implications of the open government initiative in relation to the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The open government initiative does not override or disturb the existing arrangements for disclosure in legal proceedings.

DEFENCE

  Aviation Medicine
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the future of the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine;

  (2) what are his plans for the future of the speciality of aviation medicine;

  (3) if the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine will continue with its present range of activities with particular reference to the full extent of its research work.

  Mr. Aitken
  In March this year, I endorsed a decision to bring together under the management of the chief executive of the Defence Research Agency all elements in the Ministry of Defence dealing with human factors research, including the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine.

  The RAF speciality of aviation medicine will continue under the control of the Director General of Medical Services (RAF).

  The DRA has formed these elements into a new centre for human sciences which will seek to preserve the already well-established reputation and skill of establishments including the Institute of Aviation Medicine and build on these to offer a comprehensive and expert service to customers both inside and outside my Department.

  These activities remain vote funded by my Department and staff conditions of service remain unchanged. It is planned, however, that by 1 April 1996 at the latest, all human factors research will be formally absorbed into the DRA's trading fund and under this regime it is for customers ultimately to decide what research they are prepared to pay for, although a strong demand and continued support of current activities is anticipated. No decisions have yet been taken about the final location of such work, although staff will be fully consulted before any changes are made.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United States Department of Energy informed his Department in advance of its intention to release information on 27 June that it had used reactor-grade plutonium imported from the United Kingdom in a test nuclear explosion conducted in 1962 at the Nevada test site.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department was consulted about the announcement by the United States Energy Secretary on 27 June that the United States had conducted in 1962 a
  83
  nuclear test explosion using reactor-grade plutonium of British origin. We agreed to this information being released.

  Our general policy is not to release information on the use of nuclear material for weapons purposes nor to comment on the details of any tests that may have been carried out. The 1962 test confirmed the technical feasibility of constructing a nuclear explosive device using reactor-grade plutonium. This fact was declassified by the United States in 1977. There are, though, significant technical difficulties which would complicate the manufacture and storage of any weapon based on reactor-grade plutonium.

  It remains our policy that all grades of plutonium should be rigorously protected, and in accordance with our international non-proliferation obligations, stringent controls are applied to all forms of plutonium.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received from the United States Government regarding the use to which plutonium exported to the United States under the United States-United Kingdom mutual defence agreement on

  Service married quarters

  MOD civilian houses

  Former married quarters in the process of sale

  Total

  North Devon

  27

  0

  0

  27

  Exeter

  7

  0

  0

  7

  Honiton

  14

  0

  3

  17

  Plymouth Devonport

  182

  5

  17

  204

  Plymouth Drake

  52

  0

  0

  52

  Plymouth Sutton

  54

  0

  0

  54

  Torridge and West Devon

  11

  0

  0

  11

  Falmouth and Camborne

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Cornwall

  173

  0

  0

  173

  St. Ives

  83

  0

  0

  83

  South East Cornwall

  6

  0

  0

  6

  A large number of the vacant married quarters were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation or were already allotted to service families due to move in shortly.

  Royal Marines
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to move the Royal Marines from Seaton barracks in Plymouth to Chivenor in north Devon; and when he expects to make an announcement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department is currently considering alternative defence uses of the Chivenor estate, including possible use by units of the Royal Marines. We hope to make an announcement soon.

  Boarding School Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce funding for the boarding school allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no current plans to change the rules concerning eligibility for my Department's boarding school allowance scheme. The rates at which the allowance is paid are reviewed annually. The hon. Member will be
  84
  atomic energy matters dated 1958, as amended in 1959, has been put since 1964 according to information provided by the United States Government.

  Mr. Aitken
  The assurance given in 1964 by the United States Government to the United Kingdom Government, that plutonium produced in United Kingdom civil reactors and supplied to the United States under the 1958 agreement would not be used for weapons purposes, remains valid. No such restrictions apply to plutonium originating from the United Kingdom military reactors at Calder Hall and Chapelcross. The use to which this plutonium has been put is a matter for the United States Government.

  Departmental Accommodation
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vacant dwellings are owned by his Department in each parliamentary constituency in Devon and Cornwall.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 31 March 1994, my Department owned the following vacant dwellings in each parliamentary constituency in Devon and Cornwall:

  aware that service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service are the subject of an independent review which I announced on 30 March, Official Report, column 752.

  Devonport Dockyard
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer of 21 June,Official Report, columns 111–12, how many of the 850 job losses announced recently by the management of Devonport dockyard his Department estimates were due to efficiency measures.

  Mr. Aitken
  Employment levels at Devonport dockyard are primarily a matter for Devonport Management Ltd.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is departmental policy for recycled paper to be used wherever it can be obtained at reasonable cost and is adequate to the task. Press releases and written answers are almost invariably printed on recycled paper.

  Procurement Contracts
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the annual value of defence procurement contracts placed into small and medium-sized enterprises since 1979 expressed in constant 1994 prices;

  (2) what percentage of defence procurement contracts were placed by his Department with small and medium sized enterprises in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Aitken
  I regret that the information could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department intends to take to increase the number of defence procurement contracts placed into small and medium-sized enterprises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Our aim in placing contracts is to secure best value for money for the defence budget. My Department's defence suppliers service has a specific remit to advise smaller firms on how to sell their products and services to the MOD.

  Haymes Garth
  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further information he has on the total cost of rebuilding and refurbishing Haymes Garth near Cheltenham, the official residence of the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, RAF Personnel and Training Command, Innsworth.

  Mr. Hanley
  A detailed internal investigation of the recent refurbishment of Haymes Garth has been carried out. This has shown that the total cost of the restructuring and refurbishment programme is likely to be some £387,000 during the two financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94, not £260,000 as indicated in my previous answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 732. The exact figure will be dependent on the final settlement of some minor bills still outstanding. In addition, in 1993–94, some £9,000 was spent on routine maintenance. I very much regret that the figure given to the House in my earlier answer was incorrect; the full figures had not been reported to me at the time.

  The circumstances in which the expenditure was authorised, incurred and notified have yet to be fully clarified. A high-level independent external investigation has been commissioned to look urgently into the apparent failure of the financial control system and to recommend appropriate action to ensure that there is no repeat.

  We have also set in hand a separate audit of expeniditure on official service residences to ensure that in other instances financial control mechanisms have functioned as they should.

  I intend to make a full report to the House on the conclusions of all this work, and any action found necessary, as soon as possible after the House returns in the autumn. At the same time, I will reort to the House on the wider question of official service residences.

  Danger Areas (Air Space)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the(a) statutory requirements and (b) requirements set out in service orders, for the operating authorities of military firing ranges and training areas to report infringements of danger area air space.
  86
  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the advisory council for the Royal Navy engineering college, Manadon.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: The members of the advisory council for the Royal Navy Engineering College are as follows:

  Professor Sir Hermann Bondi KCB FRS (Chairman)

  R. J. Bull BSc FCCA

  Dr. J. Daniel

  Professor M. G. Farley CEng FRAeS FIMechE FIProdE DBIM

  Dr. A. F. Frodsham CBE

  Professor W. Gosling DSc FIEE FInstD

  Sir Richard Morris CBE

  Sir Alistair Pilkington FRS

  Professor G. S. Sims OBE MSc PhD DSc LID FIEE FCGI FEng

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The current members of the Review Body are as follows:

  Gordon Hourston (Chairman)

  Michael Bolton

  John Cox CBE

  John Crosby

  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde

  Dorothy Venables

  Air Chief Marshal Sir Roger Palin KCB OBE

WALES

  Unemployment (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has taken to find work for the long-term unemployed of Alyn and Deeside.

  Mr. Redwood
  The North-East Wales training and enterprise council and the Employment Service provide a range of services to help the long-term unemployed of Alyn and Deeside back into work. These include the training for work programme, which offers the widest-ever range of measures available and focuses specifically on providing help to the long-term unemployed.

  My Department and the Welsh Development Agency also provide a diverse range of measures aimed at combating unemployment through stimulation of the local economy.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to take to deal with those councils which are using council reserves to undertake a general regrading of local authority staff in advance of consideration of staff transfer orders for the new unitary authorities elected under the local Government (Wales) Bill[Lords].

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Shadow Staff Commission for Wales is consulting local authorities about a draft circular on regrading in the period before local government reorganisation. If the commission decides to issue advice on this matter after Royal Assent to the Local Government (Wales) Bill[Lords], it would be open to my right hon. Friend to direct authorities to comply with the advice.
  87
  I informed the Association of District Councils at its conference on 29 June that my right hon. Friend and I are concerned about the marked increase in use of reserves by Welsh local authorities. Use of reserves is a matter for councillors. We do not propose to give special help to any new authority which finds that it has inherited only limited reserves from its predecessors.

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet representatives of the teaching unions in Wales before drawing up a parents charter for Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend and I are always ready to consider requests from teaching unions for

  Table 1: Crop areas at June 1993

  Hectares taken up by:

  Cereals

  Potatoes

  Linseed

  Sugar beet

  Horticultural produce

  Oilseeds

  Clwyd

  8,019

  251

  194

  66

  371

  220

  Dyfed

  17,156

  2,097

  679

  1—

  366

  325

  Gwent

  5,544

  488

  202

  1—

  265

  268

  Gwynedd

  4,371

  270

  0

  1—

  98

  1—

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,555

  65

  64

  0

  69

  125

  Powys

  8,837

  333

  86

  1—

  73

  248

  South Glamorgan

  3,344

  64

  97

  0

  62

  110

  West Glamorgan

  1,019

  281

  0

  0

  210

  1—

  Wales

  49,845

  3,849

  1,322

  104

  1,512

  1,358

  Source: June Agricultural and Horticultural Census.

  Note.—Figures exclude minor holdings. County figures may not sum to Wales total due to rounding.

  1Data withheld to avoid disclosure of information relating to any particular land or business.

  Table 2: Holdings at June 1993

  Number of holdings growing:

  Cereals

  Potatoes

  Linseed

  Sugar beet

  Horticultural produce

  Oilseeds

  Clwyd

  583

  124

  13

  8

  89

  12

  Dyfed

  1,535

  526

  54

  1—

  203

  26

  Gwent

  294

  141

  14

  1—

  71

  15

  Gwynedd

  461

  218

  0

  1—

  57

  1—

  Mid Glamorgan

  50

  25

  3

  0

  18

  4

  Powys

  629

  131

  8

  1—

  46

  13

  South Glamorgan

  117

  28

  9

  0

  25

  9

  West Glamorgan

  115

  112

  0

  0

  69

  1—

  Wales

  3,784

  1,305

  101

  15

  578

  85

  Source: June Agricultural and Horticultural Census.

  Note.—Figures exclude minor holdings.

  1Data withheld to avoid disclosure of information relating to any particular land or business.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the payment rates made per hectare under the arable area payments scheme for(a) cereals, (b) oilseeds, (c) proteins, (d) linseed, (e) set-aside and (f) the simplified scheme paid in (i) the first year and (ii) the second year of the scheme in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Payment rates under the arable area payments scheme in 1992–93 and 1993–94 are as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  (£)

  LFA (£)

  Non-LFA (£)

  Cereals

  110·28

  108·35

  168·73

  Oilseeds

  453·12

  445·39

  445·39

  Protein

  286·73

  201·22

  313·35

  88
  discussions about matters of common interest, but it is not always necessary to meet for views to be made known to us and we always welcome written comments from teaching unions and others.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 92, if he will now give (i) the number of hectares taken up and (ii) the number of holdings in each county in Wales in 1993 for (a) cereals, (b) potatoes, (c) linseed, (d) sugar beet, (e) horticultural produce and (f) oilseeds.

  Mr. Redwood
  The requested information, derived from the final results of the June 1993 agricultural census, is shown in the following tables.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  (£)

  LFA (£)

  Non-LEA (£)

  Set-Aside

  198·50

  176·46

  274·78

  Simplified Scheme

  110·28

  108·35

  168·73

  Linseed was not included in the 1992–93 scheme and the rate for 1993–94 is not yet available. The rates payable in 1994 may be reduced if base areas are exceeded and the rate for oilseeds may be adjusted to reflect changes in the reference price.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the take-up of the arable area
  89
  payments scheme in hectares for (a) the simplifed scheme, (b) cereals, (c) oilseeds, (d) proteins, (e) linseed and (f) set-aside in Wales for 1994.

  Mr. Redwood
  The estimated take up of arable area payments in hectares for 1994 arable area payments scheme in Wales is as follows:

  Hectares

  (a) Simplified Scheme

  22,289

  (b) Cereals

  15,231

  (c) Oilseeds

  1,365

  (d) Protein

  843

  (e) Linseed

  2,250

  (f) Set-Aside

  3,474

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is(a) the amount of land in hectares in each county, (b) the number of farmers and (c) the cost of the five-year set-aside scheme in Wales in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Payments made to farmers in Wales under the five-year set-aside schemes for the financial year

  Scheme

  Caernarfon £

  Carmarthen £

  Llandrindod Wells £

  (a) subsidy schemes

  Sheep Annual Premium

  32,054,660

  19,837,965

  42,422,627

  HLCA

  10,680,187

  7,034,460

  16,430,743

  Suckler Cow Premium

  3,016,226

  2,343,353

  5,832,802

  Farm Woodland Scheme

  12,239

  10,081

  17,162

  Milk Community Outgoers

  23,262

  41,298

  2,220

  (b) grants

  Farm Conservation

  32,597

  80,297

  78,416

  Grants scheme (1991) EC (1989): National

  1,129,559

  2,297,080

  1,144,240

  (1989): EC

  161,591

  238,493

  374,595

  Agricultural Improvement Scheme: EC

  268,812

  779,219

  332,479

  National

  7,366

  9,315

  22,290

  Agricultural and Horticultural Development Scheme

  319,237

  249,167

  377,633

  Farm Diversification:

  Capital

  47,443

  154,953

  72,190

  Marketing and feasibility

  4,500

  3,980

  9,978

  ESA

  395,663

  576,282

  533,548

  5 Year Set Aside

  36,914

  196,177

  167,062

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) farmers and (b) holdings there were in each county in Wales in 1993.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is shown in the following table.

  Farmers and farm holdings in Wales, June 1993

  Farmers, partners and directors1

  Holdings

  Clwyd

  4,376

  3,780

  Dyfed

  12,099

  11,064

  Gwent

  2,439

  2,185

  Gwynedd

  5,169

  4,885

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,046

  943

  Powys

  6,758

  5,685

  South Glamorgan

  618

  498

  West Glamorgan

  974

  876

  Wales

  33,479

  29,916

  1Farmers, partners and directors working whole-time or part-time on farm holdings on 1 June 1993. Excludes wives/husbands of farmers, of partners and of directors, even if the wives/husbands themselves may be partners or directors

  90
  1993–94 amounted to £349,937. Those payments relate primarily to land set aside during the scheme year October 1993 to September 1994 under 61 agreements covering some 1,936 hectares. Estimated expenditure for 1994–95 is about £286,000 based on 52 agreements for the 1993–94 scheme year covering about 1,608 hectares. The reduction is the result of some farmers completing their five-year agreements and others taking advantage of the option to terminate early in order to join the arable area payments scheme. It is not possible to give a breakdown to county level without disclosing information relating to any particular land or business.

  Subsidies and Grants
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of money was paid out by each of his divisional offices for each(a) agricultural subsidy scheme and (b) grant scheme to farmers in 1992–93.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is set out in the following table.
  Note: Excludes minor holdings.Source: June Agricultural and Horticultural Census.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 554, what was the purpose of each of his visits to the Bridgend constituency.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have made three official and three political visits to the Bridgend constituency since I became Welsh Secretary.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has given to the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and to the board of the Development Board for Rural Wales concerning the co-ordination of policy and resources management in the present financial year and during 1995–96.
  91
  Mr. Redwood
  I discuss a wide range of issues with the chairmen and the boards of the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. I have considered with each of them their objectives and priorities and set targets for 1994–95. I will be making a statement about this matter shortly.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with(a) the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation and (b) the Balfour Beatty/Costain consortium in relation to the commencement of construction of the Cardiff bay barrage indemnities sought and given thereto in respect of European environmental infraction proceedings under article 169 of the treaty of Rome; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I myself have had no such discussions with either the chairman of the Development Corporation or the Balfour Beatty/Costain consortium.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Redwood
  The answers are(a) 100 per cent.; (b) nil. Recycled paper suitable for general use, which includes the preparation of written answers, could not be found at reasonable cost. The position is kept under review.

  Bed Provision
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospitals in Wales which have had to refer patients elsewhere because beds were not available during the last year, giving the number of days on which this has occurred and the places to which patients were referred in each case.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not held centrally but could be provided by the hospitals concerned.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 516, if he has received information from NHS trusts about changes in the number of people whom they employ.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As there is no requirement on trusts to provide such information, the position across Wales is not known.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the standard spending assessment for each police force in Wales for 1994–95 and for each financial year since 1990, together with the police components of grant-related expenditure assessments for the years 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are no standard spending assessments for police authorities in Wales. The 92
  assessments for county councils include provision for police services. Assessments are unhypothecated as were grant-related expenditure assessments. Expenditure on police and other services is determined by county councils in the light of their statutory responsibilities, local needs and available resources.

EMPLOYMENT

  National Union of Teachers
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 27 June, column 450, what are the appropriate qualifications to be an auditor of a return of trade union numbers to the certification officer; and if he will list the names of the auditors used by the National Union of Teachers in its returns in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Eligibility for an appointment as an auditor of a trade union is set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 34(1) provides that a person is not qualified to be the auditor, or one of the auditors, of a trade union unless he is eligible for appointment as a company auditor under section 25 of the Companies Act 1989.

  Before the commencement of the provisions in the 1992 Act in October 1992, the eligibility qualifications were set out in part I, schedule 2 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. This provided that a person would not be qualified to be the auditor, or one of the auditors of a trade union unless he is either:

  a. a member of one or more specified bodies (ie the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales; the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland; the Association of Certified Accountants; the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland; and any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of the Companies Act 1985 by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State); or

  b. a person who is for the time being authorised by the Secretary of State under the 1985 Act as being a person with similar qualifications obtained outside the United Kingdom.

  I understand from the certification officer, an independent statutory officer, that since 1985 the auditors of the accounts contained in the annual returns submitted by the National Union of Teachers have been Knox Cropper of 16 New Bridge street, London EC4V 6AZ, chartered accountants and registered auditor.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 27 June, column 450, in which years each of the late returns of the National Union of Teachers were made; what were the reasons given in each case; and what penalties are imposed on trade unions making late returns.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand from the certification officer, an independent statutory officer, that the annual returns by the National Union of Teachers were submitted after the due date of 1 June in 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  I also understand from the certification officer that he will consider representations from a trade union where circumstances make it difficult for a return to be submitted, in any year, by the statutory date. However, any reasons given at the time for the delay in making any of the NUT returns are not now available.

  Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, any trade union that refuses or

  93
  wilfully neglects to submit an annual return by the due date is liable for prosecution and, on conviction, a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 27 June, column 450, how many of the members of the National Union of Teachers in the annual returns to the certification officer are retired teachers; and what figures his Department keeps on the numbers of people employed as teachers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand from the certification officer, an independent statutory officer, that information regarding the number of members of the National Union of Teachers who are retired teachers is not available from the annual return submitted to him by that union.

  Information on the number of people who are employed in teaching occupations is available from the quarterly labour force survey. Latest estimates from this show that there were 997,000 teaching professionals in Great Britain at winter 1993–94.

  It is possible to perform detailed analysis of LFS data by a number of demographic characteristics including region of residence, age, sex and ethnic origin. All this information can be accessed via the Quantime LFS service available in the Library.

  Sunday Trading
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the changes in respect of Sunday trading on the employment rights of workers who deliver food and drink supplies to stores which will open seven days a week; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The employment rights of workers who deliver food and drink to stores which will open seven days a week will not be altered by the changes in respect of Sunday trading.

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the incidence and geographical distribution of deaths from asbestosis and related diseases for the last 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of death certificates mentioning asbestosis or the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma in each of the last 10 years is shown in the following table:

  Year

  Asbestosis

  Mesothelioma

  1982

  128

  504

  1983

  121

  578

  1984

  129

  626

  1985

  140

  615

  1986

  166

  703

  1987

  144

  809

  1988

  152

  862

  1989

  157

  899

  1990

  164

  880

  1991

  163

  1,018

  Total

  1,464

  7,494

  The geographical breakdown of these deaths was as follows:
  94

  Region

  Asbestosis

  Mesothelioma

  North

  267

  811

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  155

  604

  North West

  170

  839

  West Midlands

  83

  343

  East Midlands

  50

  381

  South West

  114

  704

  East Anglia

  30

  231

  South East

  380

  2,561

  Wales

  63

  217

  Scotland

  152

  803

  Total (Great Britain)

  1,464

  7,494

  Exposure to asbestos can also lead to lung cancer. Industrial cases cannot be distinguished medically from lung cancers due to other causes, principally smoking. The total of such cases is estimated from epidemiological evidence to be roughly twice the number of mesotheliomas.

  Job Seekers Allowance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the proposed job seekers allowance as it will affect north-east Wales.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  From 1996, job seekers allowance will replace unemployment benefit and income support for the unemployed. It will encourage wider and more effective job search, and bring improvements in the delivery of benefit to unemployed people throughout the United Kingdom.

  Employment Service (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in Alyn and Deeside have been placed in work by the Employment Service in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. G. Johnson to Mr. Barry Jones, dated 4 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about how many people in Alyn and Deeside have been placed into work by the Employment Service in the last 12 months. I am replying in the Chief Executive's absence.
  There were 2,605 job placings made by the Employment Service in Alyn and Deeside in the 12 month period ending 3 June 1994. 2,300 of these were placings of unemployed people, 341 of which were people unemployed for more than six months and 52 of which were unemployed people with disabilities.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the Government's policy on the implementation of the acquired rights directive, following the recent decision of the European Court of Justice on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981; and what steps he will take to ensure that the terms of the directive are being complied with when a transfer of work from the public to the private sector takes place.
  95
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The directive was implemented by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Amendments to the regulations in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 had already dealt with all but one of the points in the European Court of Justice judgment of 8 June. The Government are presently considering what changes need to be made in respect of the outstanding issue which concerns consultation arrangements.

  Detailed guidance on the application of TUPE to market testing was issued by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the note entitled "Guidance on the Relevance of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations to Market Testing of Public Services", published on 11 March 1993, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In line with Government policy, all the Department's(a) press notices and (b) parliamentary questions are printed on environmentally friendly paper.

HEALTH

  Official Secrets Act 1989
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons were bound by, or required to sign declarations relating to, the Official Secrets Act 1989 in her Department and the NHS management executive in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  All employees of the Department, including people seconded into the Department, are subject to the terms of the Official Secrets Act 1989. The amendments made in the 1989 Act mean that employees are no longer required to sign an "Official Secrets Act Declaration". They do sign an acknowledgement that they understand the terms and conditions on which they are employed including the terms of the Official Secrets Act.

  Paramedics
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified paramedics there are per head of population in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland, (d) England and (e) the United Kingdom as a whole; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  These figures are not routinely collected centrally, but an informal survey in England showed that there were approximately 4,380 paramedics at the end of 1993–0·91 per 10,000 population. Comparative figures for other countries and the United Kingdom are not available. A target has been set of, having an extended trained paramedic on every front-line ambulance by 1995.

  Mental Health Task Force
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the mental health task force reported about its work in London; and when she expects to publish its report.

  Mr. Bowis
  The mental health task force is due to report to Ministers later this summer.

  Skin Cancer
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from Dr. Julian Verbov, consultant dermatologist, skin cancer co-ordinator Liverpool and Sefton, Broadgreen Hospital NHS trust concerning skin cancer; when those representations were received; and when she expects to reply.

  Mr. Sackville
  A number of letters were received from Dr. Verbov this year. A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 8 June which addressed the issues raised by Dr. Verbov.

  Surgeons (Guidance)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that surgeons adhere to the guidance issued by the Royal College of Surgeons regarding the training of specialists in minimally invasive techniques.

  Mr. Sackville
  Chief executives of national health service trusts and general managers of directly managed units are responsible for ensuring high standards of practice within hospitals. District health authorities also have a responsibility, through the contracting process, to ensure that their populations have access to high quality care.

  Standards of postgraduate and continuing medical education are the responsibility of the medical royal colleges, which are independent bodies. A representative of the appropriate royal college sits on consultant appointment advisory committees. We have welcomed the Senate of Royal Surgical Colleges' statement on quality assurance. This will provide useful support for NHS management and dovetails well with our current initiative on continuing medical education.

  Complementary Medicine Policy Unit
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the role, manpower and budget of the complementary medicine policy unit; when the unit was established; and what work it has undertaken to date.

  Mr. Sackville
  A complementary medicines unit has existed in the Medicines Control Agency since it was established as an executive agency in April 1989, and before this was part of the former medicines division of the Department of Health. The unit does not have a separate budget, and its staffing varies according to the resource requirements of work being undertaken. Principal tasks carried out by the unit in the past year include the implementation of the EC homoeopathics directive and the introduction of a new registration scheme for homoeopathic products. The unit provides the secretariat to the Advisory Board on the Registration of Homoeopathic Products and it also forms a focus for advice and expertise
  97
  on questions relating to complementary medicines. Other units within the agency have been responsible for major tasks in recent years, including a review of all herbal medicinal products covered by product licences of right.

  National Health Service Managers
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to publish a strategy for training and retraining NHS managers throughout their career.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The management development strategy for the national health service was launched by Sir Duncan Nichol in 1991, and copies are available in the Library.

  Comfrey
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to review the ban on the sale of comfrey products;

  (2) what recent representations she has received concerning the ban on the availability of comfrey products; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans at present to reconsider the withdrawal of certain comfrey products. We are currently considering the results of a survey received recently from the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy.

  Pharmaceuticals
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that practitioners will adhere to the guidelines published in conjunction with the association of the British pharmaceutical industry regarding economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals; and how national health service purchasers will be trained to ensure that they can distinguish good from bad practice in economic evaluations of pharmaceuticals.

  Mr. Sackville
  If claims are made about the cost-effectiveness of a pharmaceutical product any doctor may call on the company to produce the full study justifying those claims. If they remain dissatisfied, they may refer the matter to the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority, which has agreed to take note of the guidelines. The Department has established a centre for reviews and dissemination at the university of York whose functions include maintaining a register of quality assured cost-effectiveness studies and communicating the results to relevant audiences, including national health service purchasers. In addition, purchasers are able to seek advice on the availability and quality of research through regional research and development networks facilitated by regional directors of research and development.

  Research and Development
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were employed directly or indirectly to administer research and development in the national health service in 1992–93 and 1993–94; and what was the cost of employing these staff.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil servants were employed in the 98
  administration of her Department's research and development programme in (a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92, (c) 1992–93, (d) 1993–94 and (e) at the latest available date; how many contract staff were employed in research and development administration in each of those years; and what was the expenditure on these staff in each year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The numbers of civil servants and contract staff employed in the Department's research and development division, and the expenditure on these staff are as follows:

  Civil Servants

  Contract stuff

  Year

  Number

  Cost £ million

  Number

  Cost £

  1990–91

  56

  1·18

  1

  4,165

  1991–92

  70

  1·68

  1

  16,827

  1992–93

  85

  2·04

  4

  83,105

  1993–94

  78

  2·32

  3

  40,523

  Current year

  76

  12·36

  2

  9,050

  1Planned spend for 1994–95.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health service researchers are funded by(a) departmental and (b) national health service research and development expenditure; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No central record is kept of the number of researchers engaged in health service research across the 230 contracts of the Department's centrally commissioned programme of health and social services research. Some 57 health service researchers are currently involved in national health service executive centrally funded research and development projects under the national health service research and development programme. No central records are kept of the number of health service researchers employed by the national health service itself.

  Cancer Treatment
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the evidence supporting the conclusion that the creation of specialist centres for cancer treatment produce better outcomes than non-specialist centres.

  Mr. Sackville
  The recommendations set out in the consultation document "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services" produced by the Chief Medical Officers' expert advisory group on cancer, were based on the knowledge and experience of the advisory group members and research findings, published and unpublished. Copies of the framework document are available in the Library.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of her Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department's policy is to use only paper manufactured by elemental chlorine free—ECF—and totally chlorine free—TCF—processes, from countries who operate a tree farming policy, that is, planting two trees for every one used to make paper. All paper used for the Department's press releases and written answers is ECF.
  99
  Letterhead stationery is produced on pure recycled paper.

  Confidentiality
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue guidance to ensure that case material and photographs gained by pathologists are subject to the same rules of confidentiality as medical records.

  Mr. Sackville
  All health information held by the national health service, including case material and photographs, is confidential and must be treated as such by all NHS personnel.

  Patient Transport
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what vetting procedures are operated on the staff of taxi firms which operate patient transport services.

  Mr. Sackville
  The purchaser of any patient transport service should satisfy itself that the private contractor will employ staff who are sufficiently qualified and of good character. The competence required of staff can be specified in the contract conditions. Further guidance is in the code of practice for private ambulance operators—EL(93)109—and revised guidance on market testing in the national health service—EL(93)55. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accidents have occurred involving patient transport services operated other than by ambulance services.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specialist training is given to staff of non-ambulance service passenger transport services.

  Mr. Sackville
  The purchasers of non-ambulance service patient transport services should identify their requirements and satisfy themselves that the staff providing the service are suitably trained to meet the standard expected. The Department's code of practice for private ambulance operators—EL(93)109—copies of which are available in the Library, gives further guidance to prospective purchasers.

  London Ambulance Service
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what effect the overtime ban in the passenger transport operations of the London ambulance service is having on the ability of the service to meet contractual targets;

  (2) how much money the patient transport operations of the London ambulance service received for new vehicles in each of the last three years; and how many vehicles were purchased in each year;

  (3) what is the annual cost of management accommodation for the London ambulance service; what new buildings have been bought or leased in the last 12 months; and what was the cost of each building or lease.

  Mr. Sackville
  South Thames regional health authority has management responsibility for the London Ambulance 100
  Service. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. William Wells, chairman of the authority, for the information required.

  Car Parking
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance she has issued or intends to issue on the matters national health service trusts and health authorities should consider before introducing car parking charges;

  (2) what the policy of her Department is regarding the introduction of charges for car parking at hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  Charges for car parking on national health service premises are a matter for local determination in the light of local circumstances, including the needs of patients, visitors and staff and the availability and cost of providing such facilities.

  Community Nurses
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the current staffing plans for community nurses for each self-governing trust in the Greater London area for 1994–95, broken down by occupation of district nurses, health visitors, school nurses and community psychiatric nurses.

  Mr. Sackville
  Trusts are responsible for the deployment of staff to meet their contracts.

  Transport
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has carried out on the modes of transport used by patients, visitors and staff to reach hospitals and other NHS facilities.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department funded a research project on "Outpatients and their Doctors", which included a section on transport arrangements, and was published by HMSO in 1993. Copies of the project are available in the Library.

  Breastfeeding
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policy initiatives her Department is undertaking to encourage an improvement in the uptake of breastfeeding; and what plans she has to set targets for rates of breastfeeding at three and six months among mothers of new babies.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department continues to support breastfeeding as the best way of feeding a baby. The national breastfeeding working group set up as part of the "Health of the Nation" strategy is working on a number of initiatives aimed to promote and protect breastfeeding including the drafting of guidance to the national health service which is likely to encourage district health authorities to consider setting local targets for breastfeeding rates.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether her Department submitted evidence to the Health and Safety Commission in response to the consultative document on proposals to implement the health and safety aspects of the EC pregnant workers directive; and what effect she expects the proposed amendments to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations to have on breastfeeding rates among mothers of new babies.
  101
  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has had discussions with the Health and Safety Executive about the proposals in its consultation document.

  We do not foresee that those amendments will have any significant effect on the breastfeeding rates.

  Non-medical Income
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total income to the national health service was from(a) car parking, (b) patient television hire and (c) other non-medical services in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The net income received from car parking charges was £1,238,000 in 1991–92, the only year for which figures are available centrally. Information on the net income for patient television hire and other non-medical services is not available centrally.

  Transport Infrastructure
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has issued or intends to issue on taking into account the local transport infrastructure when considering the relocation, siting or closure of services.

  Mr. Sackville
  In considering the location of health services both purchasers and providers are required to consider accessibility to the local population. Guidance is contained in the capital investment manual, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  "Making London Better"
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the expected savings in the acute sector in the current financial year from the implementation of "Making London Better"; what increases in resources in the primary health care sector she expects to result in the current financial year; and if she will identify the main categories of spending expected to benefit from the implementation of "Making London Better".

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the breakdown of planned expenditure for the current year between acute and other services is not available centrally. Changes to the pattern of expenditure will depend on purchasing decisions taken locally by health authorities and general practitioner fundholders. As stated in "Making London Better", significant additional investment in primary and community services is taking place, including an additional £170 million capital investment over six years and an extra £7·5 million over three years for voluntary sector initiatives.

  Lee Review
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she plans to announce the findings of the Lee review of the Health Education Authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  An announcement will be made when we have completed our consideration of the report.

  Bath Community NHS Trust
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the recent reorganisation of community health services within Bath Community NHS 102
  trust, the implications for child protection advice and relations with general practitioner fundholders arising from it.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The organisation of services in the Bath area is a local matter.

  Hospital League Tables
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to include(a) the hours worked by junior doctors, (b) the number of patients dying on the waiting list for heart surgery, (c) the percentage of patients seen and treated by consultants and (d) the readmission rate after day surgery in the hospital league tables.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We will consider what indicators to include in future national health service performance tables in the light of discussions with the professions, the NHS and the general public.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each NHS trust in the former South West Thames region, those chairman and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Some 131 out of the 154—85 per cent.—chairmen and non-executive directors appointed to national health service trusts within the former South West Thames region live within the boundaries of the district health authorities in which that trust is situated. The names of the appointees who live outside the relevant district health authority boundaries are listed.

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. Rowan Cole

  Mr. Peter Jarvis

  Mr. Alan Skinner

  Mrs. Maureen Ekberg

  Mr. David Heyworth

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mrs. Elizabeth Vallance

  Ms Fiona Colquhoun

  Sir William Asscher

  Surrey Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Mr. Colin Pincombe

  St. Helier NHS Trust

  Mr. Ralph Hill

  Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. Ian McCutcheon

  Homewood NHS Trust

  Mr. Paul Klinger

  Mr. Paul Dickensen

  Dr. Nan Carle

  Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust

  Mrs. Pauline Sennett

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust

  Professor Michael Whiting

  Ms Barbara Myers

  Royal West Sussex NHS Trust

  Mrs. Susan Snowden

  Mrs. Elizabeth Davis

  Mr. David Watts

  Chichester Priority Cure NHS Trust

  103

  Sir Patrick Symons

  Mrs. Jacqueline Kennett

  Mr. Richard Paine

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each NHS trust in the former Oxford region those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: Some 99 out of the 128—77 per cent.—chairmen and non-executive directors appointed to national health service trusts within the former Oxford region live within the boundaries of the district health authorities in which that trust is situated. The names of the appointees who live outside the relevant district health authority boundaries are listed.

  Aylesbury Vale Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. D. Childs

  Churchill John Radcliffe NHS Trust

  Professor M. Benwell

  East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust

  Mr. M. Northeast

  Mr. J. Eskdale

  Mrs. C. McEwan

  East Berkshire Learning Disabilities NHS Trust

  Mr. R. Worrall

  Mr. W. Probert

  Horton General Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. P. Hornby

  Ms. A. Grove

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust
  104

  Mr. L. M. Saunders Watson

  Mrs. S. Spence

  Milton Keynes Community Health NHS Trust

  Mr. R. Glover

  Northants Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. P. Cardy

  Mrs. J. Firrell

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust

  Mrs. M. Heaney

  Oxfordshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  Mr. S. Kirby

  Oxfordshire Learning Disabilities NHS Trust

  Mr. J. Burchfield

  Mr. P. Smith

  Radcliffe Infirmary NHS Trust

  Mr. K. Berry

  Rockingham Forest NHS Trust

  Professor J. Knibbs

  Mr. A. P. Connolly

  Royal Berkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Mrs. R. V. Monbiot

  Mrs. S. Hodson

  Dr. W. Taylor

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust

  Dr. R. Duthie

  Mr. G. Stevenson

  Dr. A. Furnham

  Mr. J. Brockwell

  Two Shires Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Mr. K. Cooper

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

A Levels
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following their recent pronouncements on post-16 year-old education, what are their current plans for the future of A levels.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government are committed to maintaining GCE A levels and A level standards, and to retaining the fundamental features of the GCE system. GCE A levels are tried, tested and popular. They serve well those for whom they were designed and provide an essential underpinning for higher education. They have a central role to play in the new post-16 qualifications framework, alongside AS qualifications, GNVQs and NVQs.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply. However, will she agree that in any relevant system of education, education in depth in understanding and the humanities is every bit as important for a strong economy as is functional education, and that we need a balance? Can she indicate how the learning credits would interact with the existing funding mechanisms for schools, sixth form colleges and further education; how and from which budgets they would be funded; which agency or agencies would administer them; and how the value of the credit would be fixed and maintained? Can the Minister also indicate the implications for small sixth forms, to which I know she attaches great importance?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is yes. The second part does not seem to have a great deal to do with the reform of A levels. As the noble Lord knows, local education authorities fund school-based sixth form education, and the Further Education Funding Council funds further education-based 16-plus learning. We have no plans to change that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not very difficult for my noble friend to deal with this enormously important and complex matter within the permitted time of a Starred Question? Is it not a matter for full debate?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is certainly a subject for a longer debate. But the answer as to whether we intend to retain them is unequivocal. The answer is very definitely yes.
Baroness Young: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the high standards that are achieved by those taking the current A level examinations enable the
984
university system to offer a three-year undergraduate course; and that any lowering of the standards might mean that we would require a four-year university course ultimately to reach the same standard?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give my noble friend a positive answer. She is absolutely right. This is one baby that we must not throw out with the bath water. It is essential that we sustain the standards of A levels. It is also essential that, alongside those, we develop high quality vocational qualifications in order that the abilities, aptitudes and skills of young people may be developed.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister accept that on these Benches we agree that these far-reaching proposals certainly deserve a full debate; and that we believe that they are of such significance that that debate should certainly be in government time? Will the Minister agree that one of the points that we must make clear to the whole world of education is that we are not going to drift into an either/or polarised situation and that we see an essential interrelationship in the whole education system between functional learning and the humanities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, whether there should be a debate and when it should take place is of course a matter for people other than the noble Lord and myself. I believe that this Government have done more than any other to make sure that young people are well served through the academic: route and the vocational route, and to help those young people who wish to straddle both and have a mix of both. We aim to make sure that the framework is in place for all young people to pursue wherever their talents take them.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that, despite the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to the humanities, A levels are of equal importance in relation to the natural sciences; and that to maintain the standard of A levels in the separate scientific subjects is a key factor in enabling universities to provide courses in engineering and related subjects?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend. Indeed, his point is linked to the one that was made by my noble friend Lady Young.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say why we have had so many reports, like the Higginson Report and the National Commission report, which think that A levels do not give the person taking them a nearly wide enough knowledge?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I profoundly disagree with what the noble Baroness said. A single framework would be a melting-pot and would not sustain high standards. We have in place distinct but equally accessible routes from school into further and higher education and the world of work. We have no intention whatever of having a single system of qualifications, and we have every intention of retaining A levels and their standards.

Dementia: Community Care
2.43 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received from the Alzheimer's Disease Society concerning community care services for people with dementia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health has received a number of representations from the Alzheimer's Disease Society to which he has responded.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I had hoped that the response would be more positive. Is the noble Baroness aware that this is the beginning of national Alzheimer's Awareness Week, which highlights the problems of people suffering from dementia who live alone in the community? Some 154,000 people with dementia live alone in our community. They will need continuing care sooner rather than later. Can the Minister give any indication of the Government's intentions regarding how they will provide that continuing care, given the growing number of people who will need it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is provided through district health authorities and social services departments assessing the health needs of their population, setting contracts as to quality and quantity of service with trusts, mostly, mental health trusts, and other agencies and ensuring that monitoring systems are in place to see that those services are delivered.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm whether or not the excellent Alzheimer's disease research unit in London has been closed and part of the staff transferred to the United States? In those circumstances can she say where research into this terrible disease is now being undertaken in this country?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that the Alzheimer's Research Trust —if that is the unit referred to by the noble Lord—has recently launched an appeal to establish a multi-disciplinary research centre in Cambridge dedicated to finding a way to ameliorate the effect of the disease. There is also a lot of national research going on, principally under Professor Anthony Mann, who is looking at the quality of homes for people with Alzheimer's disease. The Medical Research Council is also conducting a large multi-centre study into the needs of elderly people.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can the Minister say what is the position when a serious case of Alzheimer's disease reaches the stage when residential care is necessary but relations who cannot manage in the home are unable to pay the costs of an Alzheimer's hostel?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, first there is an assessment made jointly with the social services and National Health Service professionals involved. If the requirement is that the person should go into residential
986
care not under the auspices of the National Health Service, an assessment is made of the family's means and whether it can support that person in the home. Assessment of means and ability to pay are a requirement on the social services department before it levies a charge.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the Minister agree mat her answer to that question reveals that the crux of the matter—as shown in last Thursday's debate on this very topic—is that those cases of very severe dementia who receive care through the National Health Service will receive a better and more appropriate service without any penalty at all to their families and without having to go through the assessment process? Will she accept that I can testify to how amazingly relieved those relatives are when what is in fact a subtle form of torture is lifted from them, whereas those who receive care in the community, however good that may be, will often be penalised financially? Will she further accept that that is happening at a time when National Health Service provision is not keeping pace with the increase in demand? Is it not an example of what was criticised by the Bishop of Birmingham as being uncharitable and unchristian National Health Service reforms?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not want to go into what the Bishop of Birmingham said except to say mat I think he misunderstood the purpose of the reforms and what they are achieving. With regard to the charges that the social services make for residential care, if the assessment reveals that a person needs health care under the National Health Service that person receives it, whether it is in a nursing home or hospital facility. Also, if the person lives in the community and needs community psychiatric nursing help or NHS support, that clearly is free. But the general principle of local authorities charging for residential care has been established since 1948. We have not in any way altered that as a result of the community care changes. It is reasonable that people should pay for the provision of services in accordance with their means. Otherwise, people with assets would be unnecessarily maintained at the expense of the taxpayer.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that recent research in the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands indicates that nicotine has an ameliorating effect on Alzheimer's disease and that smokers are 50 per cent. less likely than non-smokers to develop symptoms of the disease? In the light of that finding, will the Government consider easing up on their anti-tobacco campaign, certainly so far as concerns the over-60s?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there may be an element of wishful thinking in what the noble Lord says. There is also an element of research. But that is for debate on another day, a day which I believe will be upon us quite shortly.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the fifth report of the Mental Health Act Commission asks for a serious review of the early discharge of patients and calls for urgent action as

987
regards in-patient beds in urban areas? Will she accept that one of the comments made by the Bishop of Birmingham, which may relate to that issue, has been wildly applauded in the city?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, every year we put more and more resources into community care. The figure stands at £1.2 billion this year; it will rise to £1.8 billion next year. Of course we look at the residential provision. But many new schemes enable people with dementia, who are very dependent, to be kept at home with enough support from social services and the NHS. Some schemes are extremely imaginative. We must get away from judging the National Health Service and the social services by the number of residential places available. We know that many alternatives are being produced by which people benefit enormously.
Lord Annan: My Lords, have the Government any plans for reviewing priorities in medical research? Enormous quantities of money are spent on research into heart disease and cancer. Well, we all have to die. But there are people who, from the age of 40, live in agony due to arthritis and related diseases. Should not more money be put into orthopaedic research rather than into research of diseases which in the end are bound to be mortal?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the director of research and development of the NHS Executive agrees with the noble Lord and is trying to ensure that more research goes into mental illness—in the past, we believe, a neglected area—and also research generally into conditions that affect elderly people.

Opencast Mining: Planning Permission
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any of the reserves at the prospective opencast sites included in the portfolios for the proposed regional coal companies have previously been the subject of unsuccessful planning applications for opencast coal mining.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, there are some sites where planning applications have been unsuccessful and that has been made clear to potential bidders. Planning permission will remain a matter for the planning authorities.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Are those sites being sold on the understanding that in the future a different approach may be taken to environmental standards on the sites? Can the Minister reassure us that environmental standards are not in any way to be weakened in order to achieve a better price when the sites go on the market?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness by confirming that there is no intention or desire to reduce the amount of environmental protection. In my Answer I said that planning permission is a responsibility of the planning
988
authorities and it is up to them to make decisions. It will still be possible to devise acceptable proposals for mining even though in the past planning permission was rejected. It will be up to the bidders to decide on the basis of the information provided.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the coalfield communities will once again suffer because of the planning expansion of opencast coal mining? It is the worst polluter in the land with noise, dust and the blighting of property. I wish to ask two specific questions. First, what is the extent of the opencast reserves offered for sale in the five regional portfolios under privatisation? Secondly, what is the total annual tonnage allowed by government legislation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Lord into a debate on whether or not the opencast industry is the worst polluter of all time. I understand his anxiety, which is why we make sure that planning authorities have the final say. They can impose all sorts of conditions on the expansion of opencast mining. There are 110 opencast sites across the five regions. I cannot tell the noble Lord what the tonnage may be. The amount extracted will depend either on planning permission or on the free market.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if, through the lack of the prospect of a good financial return, some of the sites are not wanted, and bearing in mind the scarring of large areas of the country by slagheaps from earlier coalmines, will the Minister undertake to ensure that, if the sites need to be landscaped to remove the eyesores, the cost will not fall on the communities in which they are situated? It cost the people of Lancashire, Yorkshire, North Wales and the Midlands an enormous amount to remove some of the scars left by previous private mine owners.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that in the privatisation process there is a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to make sure that those taking part in the privatised coal industry are financially viable, and therefore the anxieties mentioned by the noble Lord will not arise.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say why the memorandum issued by the Government was compiled by Rothschild without any consultation with the mineral planning authorities? They are still unaware of the extent of what is on offer.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, any mineral planning authority with a specific problem can write to the Department of Trade and Industry, which no doubt will be extremely helpful.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the mineral planning authorities are extremely puzzled about where the opencast reserves may be? Instead of asking them to write to him, can he say on behalf of the Government when and how he will let them know?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I can reconfirm that there is no question of pre-empting the planning process. It is a difficult question to answer— where will planning permission be requested?—when we have not yet decided to whom we shall sell the rights to the coal. That is a question which must be decided by the private buyers.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can give me an answer. I must be a very simple person. I thought we were closing down the coal mines —the pits—because we did not need the coal. If we do not need the mine coal, why do we need opencast coal?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness is not a simple person and has shown her wisdom on several occasions. We believe that the best future for the coal industry is in private sector hands. We accept that there is substantial potential for opencast mining; but it must be for the private buyers, the shareholders and the market to decide from where the coal should come.

Anglo-Swiss Discussions
2.57 p.m.
Lord Finsberg Lord Finsberg asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had recently with the Government of Switzerland.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, since the beginning of this year we have had high-level bilateral discussions with the Swiss Government on issues relating to transport, European Union and Swiss relations, defence and security policy and trade and commercial matters.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Has she recently had an opportunity of conveying to the Government of Switzerland the anger and disappointment of many people at the decision of the Swiss in a referendum not to supply troops to the United Nations for humanitarian purposes? Will she suggest to the United Nations, when next she is in touch with them, that they might remove some of their institutions from Switzerland and thus deprive the Swiss of the income?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know that the Swiss Government share the anger and disappointment of my noble friend in this matter. We must realise that the referendum was demanded by 50,000 signatories. There was only a 45 per cent. turnout and the result of a 14 per cent. majority rejecting the request is not thought to be what would have happened with a larger turnout. However, given that the Swiss are still sending civilians and keep a great deal of effort going into the international organisations, his suggestion that UN offices should disappear from Geneva is inappropriate. Some of them originate in Geneva since before the founding of the United Nations. They have a good working relationship with the Swiss authorities, who have a most accessible and efficient local administration. One must realise also that it would
990
be hugely expensive and disruptive to move UN agencies out of Geneva because of one referendum. Other referenda which change the situation may occur in Switzerland. We must remember that Switzerland is the fifth largest per capita contributor to the UN programmes.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, can the Minister give the House an indication of what prospects there are for a reconsideration of this matter by the Swiss Government? The decision clearly has given rise to disappointment among other European countries. Can she also tell the House what part the UK Government will be playing in encouraging the Swiss Government to see whether they can find another way of making a contribution towards UN peace-keeping?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it must be for the Swiss Government and certainly not for us to see whether there would be an appropriate time to reconsider this matter. But, given the record of other Swiss referenda, the Swiss Government might feel it wise to leave things well alone at the present time. When it comes to Swiss policy, I understand that Switzerland will continue to provide medical staff, observers, civilian policemen and many people in other fields to the UN peace-keeping, humanitarian and observer missions. Certainly, the Swiss Government, who give invaluable support across the world, are not about to run away from their UN contributions in any way whatsoever.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, would it not be an advantage to extend the dialogue in order to find out from the Swiss Government more about the working of their constitution? Is it not a stringently decentralised federation firmly based on the principle of subsidiarity,, which the Prime Minister so valuably inscribed in the Maastricht Treaty?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am very tempted to follow the noble and learned Lord down that path but it runs quite wide of the specific Question on the Order Paper. The important point about Switzerland is that, rather than just having a system of subsidiarity which works extremely well for the people of the cantons, the whole of the government process can sometimes be thrown out by this demand for 50,000 or more signatories for a referendum. While we will continue to support the concept of subsidiarity, particularly in relation to the European Union, I do not think any of us would be in favour of referenda demanded by 50,000 or more signatories.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one Swiss organisation—namely, the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is a Swiss and not an international organisation—deserves considerable congratulations on the fact that it was until recently the only organisation which maintained its humanitarian efforts in Rwanda?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in saying that the ICRC has played an invaluable role in Rwanda. It has had members of the

991
British Red Cross working alongside it and Action Aid, another British NGO, working with it, although perhaps more on the fringes and not in central Rwanda. The whole House knows that I am always in admiration of the very brave and thoroughly effective work done by the ICRC.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in the discussions with the Swiss on security policy which the noble Baroness mentioned, was anything said by them about the French decision not to extradite to stand trial in Switzerland two alleged Iranian terrorists who are wanted for the murder of Dr. Kazem Rajavi in Switzerland? Does she not agree that if we are to counter Iranian Government terrorism effectively there has to be a common stand by all the countries of Europe, including the whole of the European Union, against the use of this technique by the Iranians and that we should insist on the extradition of these two wanted terrorists to Switzerland as a condition of any normalisation of our relations with Iran?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is no. I agree with him about a common stand against terrorism from wherever it may come—whether or not it be perpetrated by the Iranians. When it comes to extraditing people, one would hope that all nations would stand together in the sense of justice which is demanded in these circumstances.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will not tell me that the question I am going to ask is wide of the Question on the Order Paper because it asks what discussions the Government have recently had with the government of Switzerland. I wonder whether during those discussions the Government discussed the economic performance of Switzerland as compared with our own. Did they ask the Swiss Government how they achieved an unemployment rate of only 2.5 per cent., the evasion of a slump, a continuing rise in their productivity and a national income per head twice as great as that in Britain? Did they congratulate the Swiss on their grand decision not to join the European Union?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it hurts me to give the noble Lord the following answer because one of the reasons why unemployment in Switzerland is so low is that women have not traditionally had the opportunities that they have in Britain to take up professions. Though the younger ones are now doing so, far fewer of the older generation of women are in paid employment. That makes a very big difference. Switzerland has always had a vibrant economy but Switzerland also has its own bank accounts. It gets the benefit of that even if we may not always approve of the way that is done. On the noble Lord's final point, Switzerland still very much hopes to join the European Union. It will be a changed European Union when it joins because by then there will be other members who joined earlier and who have widened the European Union. Perhaps then it will be more acceptable to the Swiss people.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as a life member of the Swiss Alpine Club, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that one of the features of the Swiss situation is that they took part in neither of the two world wars which have taken place in my lifetime.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble and learned friend always manages to give excellent answers hidden within his own question—but not so hidden. That of course is one of the reasons but it is also that Switzerland has never been tied in quite the same way as others are to the national economic performance of some of the weaker countries of the world.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, while it may be true that in this one instance the democratic system of Switzerland has not pleased the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, I think on the other hand that the general feeling of the House is in favour of the Swiss. When I look back at the position prior to the setting up of the United Nations at the time of the League of Nations —of which my father was the first Secretary General —the International Labour Office and the World Health Organisation, I believe that the record of Switzerland for international co-operation is almost unequalled.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is absolutely right. We are all very much in favour of the great support Switzerland gives to all her neighbours and particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, said, through the ICRC in so many ways. I hope that Switzerland will continue to give that valuable support, throughout our lifetime and far beyond.

Drug Trafficking Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved. That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on recommitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to
Clause 3 [Postponed determinations]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 14, at end insert:
("( ) Where the court has sentenced the defendant under subsection (7) above during the specified period it may, after the end of that period, vary the sentence by imposing a fine or making any such order as is mentioned in section 2(5) (b) (ii) or (iii) of this Act, so long as it does so within a period corresponding to that allowed by section 47(2) or (3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (time allowed for varying a sentence) but beginning with the end of the specified period.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment and Amendment No. 2 are necessary to bring into the consolidation an amendment made to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill during its Committee stage in your Lordships' House. That amends Section 1A of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, to remove a practical difficulty which may prevent the court from passing certain kinds of sentences on a defendant after it has decided to exercise its power under Section 1A to postpone making a determination under Section 1 as to whether a defendant has benefited from drug trafficking or as to the amount to be recovered from him, so that further information can be obtained. The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills was informed that the Government would move amendments in the same terms to this consolidation Bill.
The second amendment to the third schedule is, as I have said, a consequential amendment to repeal the amending provision in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which will be spent when the consolidation comes into force. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 69 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 61, line 13, at end insert:

("1994 c.00.

The Criminal and Public Order Act1994.

Justice In Schedule 9, para- graph 26.")

The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Coal Industry Bill
3.12 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reason be now considered.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO ONE OF
THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, AND COMMONS
AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF SOME OF THE LORDS
AMENDMENTS, AND A COMMONS AMENDMENT TO
ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill 42 as first printed by the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 12, page 12, line 46. leave out from first ("that") to end of line 47 and insert:
("(i) that person consented to the provisions of the Scheme so far as they relate to him;
(ii) no persons to whom obligations are owed, whether in respect of contamination or other liabilities arising out of the occupation of any property used in connection with coal-mining operations by the Corporation or its predecessors, is likely to sustain loss as a consequence of the Scheme.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
1A Page 13, line 7, at end insert:
"(5A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, in exercising his powers under this section to make a restructuring scheme in accordance with which any person other than—

(a) a person mentioned in subsection (4) (a) to (d) above, or

(b) a body of whom all the members are appointed by a Minister of the Crown,

is to become subject to any liabilities, to have regard to the fact that it would not be appropriate for the scheme to provide for the transfer of any of those liabilities to any person except where it is reasonable to believe that that person is a person who will be able to finance their discharge.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1A in lieu thereof.
As I made clear when we discussed the matter of British Coal's obligations and liabilities at the Third Reading of this Bill, the Government are sympathetic to the concerns which lay behind the amendment to Clause 12 which was passed by this House. We have given a clear assurance that we could not consider using the restructuring powers to make a transfer to a body we considered was not likely to be able to meet its obligations.
Where the transfers include mining licences, the Secretary of State will clearly be obliged to take into account the duties of the Coal Authority set out in Clause 2. Those duties include a test of financial security of mining companies. However, the drafting of the amendment which was passed by this House could have given rise to serious problems. The obligation it imposed on the Secretary of State was very wide and it would have been difficult in practice to be sure that it had been properly discharged. There would therefore have been great scope for judicial review and this would have created great uncertainty for all concerned.
As I said, the Government fully recognise the need to exercise the powers in this Bill responsibly and to protect the interests of third parties. An amendment was therefore brought forward in the other place. Like the noble Lords' amendment, this applies to transfers to bodies outside the Crown. It places a clear obligation on the Secretary of State, before he makes a restructuring scheme, to have regard to the fact that it would not be appropriate to transfer liabilities to a body which cannot reasonably be expected to be able to pay for their discharge. The Secretary of State will have to satisfy himself that the transferee would, on the basis of all the information available at that time, be in a sufficiently robust financial position to meet its obligations in the future.

995
I very much hope that the House will agree with the other place on this matter. I commend Amendment No. 1A to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is unable to be here this afternoon. He has asked me to apologise to your Lordships for his absence and to express his appreciation—to which I would like to add mine—to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for the trouble which he has taken to consider this matter. We were very anxious that, when under the restructuring scheme the transferee was given the opportunities which the scheme would afford, he should also accept the liabilities. The amendment was not drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, or by me. However, I accept the explanation which my noble friend has given. I believe that your Lordships will readily accept the alternative which he has now put forward.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, even to the very last gasp of this benighted Bill, the Opposition, in both Houses, and of all parties and of none, has attempted to persuade the Government to place somewhere, anywhere, on the face of the Bill, some clear statement about liabilities. But all to no avail. I yield to no one in my admiration for the skill with which the noble Lord the Minister has ducked, weaved, slipped, evaded or countered every effort we have made, every chance that we have offered, to come to some accommodation with us on this issue.
I now read, with deepening gloom but rising understanding, the final words of his right honourable friend who described the debate in another place as,
"a re-run of a re-run of a re-run of a re-run of previous debates". — [Official Report, Commons, 28/6/94; col. 699]
The fact is that nothing that anyone, anywhere, ever, could or might have said was going to alter his invincible opinion that on the question of liabilities he had, from the very beginning, got it right. This nation has had many rulers, through many centuries, and some few have achieved the immortality of a cognomen. We have had Edward the Confessor, Aethelred the Unready, and to these we may now add Eggar the Intransigent.
To the very end, in col. 700 of the Official Report, he was reiterating that the situation was so translucent, so simple that an unweaned child could comprehend it. Yet he still refused to include any statement whatever on this central issue on the face of the Bill, and sought refuge in the generality of Clause 7(3), which, by the way, appears in the Official Report as Clause 73, and which gave me a momentary pause—I nearly said "a heart attack"—because I thought that I knew my way round this Bill by now. It seemed to me to end round about Clause 65.
We have given the Government every chance to get the question of liability right. They have declined to do so. We believe in the ultimate supremacy of the elected Chamber over the Chamber, which is not elected and
996
which is, as yet, unreformed. Therefore we shall not continue to oppose the position which the Government have refused to desert. Liabilities must continue to be a matter of vague promises and ministerial statements and! guidelines; they will be written not in tablets of stone but, like John Keats's epitaph, in water, and the successor companies will have to sort it out as best they can. So be it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
2 After Clause 22, insert the following' new clause:
Designated mining museums
(". The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report on the administration of the financial assistance provided by him for coal mining museums during the period of three years following the restructuring date, within six months of the end of that period.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
2A After Clause 22, insert the following Clause after Clause 59—
Report on financial assistance for coal-mining museums
'.As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period of three years beginning with the restructuring date, the Secretary of State shall prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out particulars of

(a) the financial assistance provided during that period to coal-mining museums, so far as it has involved the making of payments for that purpose to any person by the Secretary of State;

(b) the manner in which the provision of that financial assistance has been administered; and

(c) the use to which that financial assistance has been put by the coal-mining museums which have received it.'.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2A in lieu thereof.
Noble Lords will recall that when we last debated the Bill the Government accepted the substance of an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on the subject of mining museums. At that time we entered a proviso that the drafting may have to be altered. That has now happened, and I hope that the House will accept the new clause which reflects the substance of that moved by the noble Baroness. I commend Amendment No. 2A to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I have examined the Commons amendment to your Lordships' amendment, Amendment No. 5.I have collated the two versions as if they were separate witnesses to a common hyparchetype in the manuscript tradition of a classical text. Indeed, it has been said of classical Greek that it is a language so subtle that it is capable grammatically of

997
creating a distinction where in meaning and function there is no difference. So it is with this proposed amendment to your Lordships' amendment.
The only possible change which might be inferred or induced by preferring Amendment No. 2A above Amendment No. 2 is that the process of report might begin a few months later by virtue of the one rather than the other—that is, a few months before the three-year period ends. Given that the three-year period is widely believed in the museum profession to be too short anyway, and given that in three years' time from the point at which the Bill becomes an Act we shall have a Labour Government, the legal maxim de minimis non curat lex—the law does not concern itself with tiny things—is well applied in this case. In three years' time we shall see that these museums—which have fought so valiantly for their future under the tireless and intelligent leadership of Dr. Margaret Faull—will be appropriately supported and properly funded, as they so richly deserve.
It is unfortunately typical of the Government's attitude to the social and cultural aspects of this unnecessary Bill that they could not be bothered to ascertain and rule upon the differences in the income needs and possibilities of these three museums. Two have expensive and extensive underground workings; the other does not. It needs no ghost come from the grave to tell us that museums with large underground activities need a higher annual income than those which do not. It does not need Price Waterhouse or KPMG to conduct an expensive survey for the Government to learn that each of these museums is likely to raise about the same percentage of its income from other than government sources. It is obvious to anyone. Thus it is careless and feckless and ludicrous to award them equal shares of the Government's last-minute bounty.
Above all, there is a certain pathos in watching Her Majesty's Government rush for cover when asked why they did not, from the beginning, seek the advice of the Museums and Galleries Commission and bleating that the commission is not a statutory body. It needed only some such phrase as, "After consulting the Museums and Galleries Commission", or, "Upon the advice of the Museums and Galleries Commission", to allow the Government to act in this matter of distribution on the best advice that they could possibly get, which they are now paying quite expensively to ignore.
So it will cost Her Majesty's Government £1 million to climb out of a hole that they stumbled into by their original ignorance and subsequent inadvertence. I feel perfectly justified in looking this gift horse in the mouth, and pronouncing that its teeth are not good, and that preventive dentistry would have saved us all a lot of trouble.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, when Amendment No. 2 was passed by your Lordships, it was made clear by the Government that they might want to amend it for technical reasons. We have the amendment before us and I can see nothing wrong with it. However, I should like to read into it rather more than it says. It states that at the end of a three-year period there will be a report
998
telling us how the museums have fared. I hope that that means that the whole issue will be kept under review for the whole of that period and that the Government are well aware of strong feelings that were exhibited by noble Lords on all sides of the House about the importance of the museums and of their achieving the necessary funding to allow them to continue with their very valuable work.
Baroness White: My Lords, what irritates me about the new clause that we are now asked to accept is the phrase,
"As soon as reasonably practicable".
Those of us who have suffered from the Government's ideas of what is "reasonably practicable" in their handling of, for example, the national parks, feel very doubtful about how long it will really take the Government—should they by any chance still be in office—to produce the report in what they consider to be a "reasonably practicable" time, which to most of us will mean an intolerable delay.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I sense an interesting confusion among the Opposition. They say either that the Conservative Party will still be the party of government, in which case they believe that we shall not come forward smartly with our proposals, or that we shall not be the party of government, in which case the party opposite will deal with all these problems with great munificence.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for declaring his support for the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady White, says that she has been stung in the past by the phrase,
"As soon as reasonably practicable",
particularly on the matter of the national parks. I must advise the noble Baroness that the national parks issue needed primary legislation and I venture to suggest that nothing here will require primary legislation. I sensed that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, was enjoying himself. His language has certainly been colourful—and I mean "colourful" in the purest sense of that word.
I hope that I can leave the House in no doubt as to the Government's great concern and commitment towards the museums, not least because of the fact that we have made available a substantial amount of money. We shall discuss with the museums exactly how the money is to be spent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
23 Schedule 5, page 102, line 50, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert:
("(3A) The modifications of an existing scheme that may be made by regulations under this paragraph shall include modifications making such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for cases where either—

(a) there are assets of the scheme representing a relevant surplus, or

(b) the assets of the scheme are insufficient for meeting pension obligations under the scheme.

(3B) The modifications mentioned in sub-paragraph (3A) above may contain—

(a) provision for a relevant surplus, and the assets representing it, to be apportioned between—

(i) the part (if any) of the surplus which is to be retained in a reserve ("an investment reserve") as an asset of the scheme, and

999

(ii) the remainder ("the distributable part") of the surplus;

(b) provision for the management of assets representing an investment reserve and for the manner in which any such assets are to be applied;

(c) provision for income accruing in respect of assets representing an investment reserve to be added to the reserve;

(d) provision for the manner in which assets representing the distributable part of a relevant surplus are to be applied; and

(e) provision, for the purposes of any provision under paragraphs (a) to (d) above, for modifying any decisions as to the way in which relevant surpluses determined as at times before the restructuring date, and the assets representing any such surpluses, are to be treated.

(3C) The provision as to the apportionment of any surplus or assets to an investment reserve that may be contained in modifications made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3A) above shall not include any provision authorising the allocation to such a reserve of any part of a surplus determined as at a time after 31st March 1994, or of any assets representing any part of such a surplus, except where the allocation is made for making good amounts that would have been comprised in the value of the reserve if assets representing any part of it had not been applied from the reserve in meeting a deficiency that arose as at any time by reason of the other assets of the scheme having been insufficient as at that time for meeting pension obligations under the scheme.
(3D) The provision as to the application of assets representing an investment reserve that may be contained in modifications made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3A) above shall include provision for the Secretary of State to become entitled where—

(a) any such arrangements as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below have been entered into in relation to pension obligations under the scheme in question, and

(b) the value of the assets representing the reserve exceeds the aggregate amount required for the purposes for which the reserve has been retained,

to assets of the scheme representing the amount of the excess or, where those purposes have ceased, the value of the reserve.

(3E) The provision as to the application of assets representing the distributable part of a relevant surplus that may be contained in modifications made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3A) above shall include provision for the Secretary of State to become entitled where—

(a) the surplus is one determined as at a time on or after 31st March 1994, and

(b) any such arrangements as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below have been entered into in relation to pension obligations under the scheme in question,

to assets of the scheme representing no more than one half of the distributable part of that surplus.")

The Commons agreed to this amendment and proposed the following amendment to it—
23A Schedule 5, line 33, leave out 'that' and insert 'which (apart from any entitlement for which provision is made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3D) below)'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23A to Lords Amendment No. 23. Amendment No. 23A clarifies the operation of the investment reserve under the guarantee arrangements for the coal pension schemes. The amendment is consistent with policies agreed with the trustees and has their support. It provides that any payments from fund surpluses into the investment reserve to make good previous deficiency payments made out of the reserve should be set equal to those deficiency payments plus or minus any gains or
1000
losses which would have accrued to the reserve if (he deficiency payments had not been made. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23A to Lords Amendment No. 23.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, those noble Lords, and those right honourable and honourable ladies and gentlemen in another place who worked so tirelessly and vigilantly for the protection of pensioners when the rail transport Bill recently endured such a rough ride through the Houses of Parliament, have placed the miners considerably in their debt. For I have heard it said in private, and from a wide variety of sources, that after the prolonged and savage mauling the Government took on the question of pension provision for railway workers, the word went out that this must never be endured again, especially on the matter of coal privatisation. The note was, "We cannot go through that again, so, whatever they want, give it to them''.
Nevertheless, even supposing that such behind-the-scenes orders were ever issued, it has taken the trustees of the two main pension funds in the mining industry a long time and a great deal of effort to ensure that just and proper provisions are enshrined in law for all workers in the mining industry. The Government's negotiators did not give in easily or soon.
When this Bill left your Lordships' House we thought the clauses relating to pensions were sufficient, agreed and watertight. It seems that in this one particular we were wrong, and the Government have come back to your Lordships with a correction in the drafting. None of us picked it up last time; we are all equally to blame; this amendment to your Lordships' amendment puts things right. We support it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I should like to add that I think that the way in which the pensions issue has been dealt with in the case of the coal industry has been a model for such discussions. I hope that it will be followed in the future, should such similar circumstances arise, as opposed to the unfortunate altercations that we had over the railway pension scheme, in which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, played such a part. I should like to feel that one aspect at any rate of this privatisation measure which will fill people with satisfaction will be the way with which the pensioners have been dealt.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, those words of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, must be music in the ears of my noble friend. My noble friend deserves more credit than he was given by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I feel sure that my noble friend played a major role—perhaps enlightened self-interest had some part to play—having listened to protracted and what should have been unnecessary debates on railway pensions, in saying that such a thing would not recur. We owe him a debt of gratitude.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
37 Schedule 8, page 117, line 29, at end insert:
("Terms on which orders to be exercised

.—(1) The owner of the interest against whom the compulsory rights order (in this paragraph referred to as "the owner") has been made shall be entitled to—

(a) payment on the basis of either—

(i) the open market value of the rights granted as would have been fair and reasonable if the agreement had been made between a willing grantor and a willing grantee, or

(ii) the compensation for the losses caused to him assessed in accordance with sections 17 to 23 of this Act,

whichever is the higher, and

(b) secure such terms, guarantees and other security from the person entitled to occupy the land in respect of which the compulsory rights order is conferred (in this paragraph referred to as "the operator") as are necessary to protect the owner from any loss, damage, claims or other costs related to the exercise of the compulsory rights order.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (a) (i) of this paragraph, the assessment of the open market value shall take into account—

(a) the basis on which the operator has entered into agreements with the owners of other interests to permit the working of the same coal deposit, and

(b) the basis on which the owners of other interests have entered into agreements with the operator or other mining companies for the extraction of coal on comparable sites.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (a) (i) of this paragraph, the fact that the operator is in or to be in, a special position by reason of his having secured the licence under Part II of this Act to the exclusion of others shall be ignored.")

The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu there of—
37A Schedule 8,page 126, line 16, after 'section' insert:

'(a) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words 'Subject to subsection (3A) of this section,"; and

(b)".

37B Page 126, line 17, at end insert:
'(5) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(3A) Where—

(a) any compensation is payable for any year by virtue of this section in respect of any holding, and

(b) the amount of that compensation falls to be calculated in accordance with section 18 of this Act by reference to the market value of rights which, if the compulsory rights order were not in force, could not be conferred for that year or any part of it except by or with the consent of one or more persons who are included in the persons directly concerned but do not fall within subsection (3) of this section,

the entitlement to that compensation shall be apportioned, according to the extent to which those rights could not be conferred for that year or part of a year without their participation or consent, between those persons and any person falling within that subsection.

(3B) Subject to subsection (3C) of this section, the persons entitled under subsection (3A) of this section to a share of any compensation shall include persons whose participation in or consent to the conferring of any right would be required if the right were conferred at some time after the beginning of the year or part of a year in question; and any apportionment under subsection (3A) of this section shall take account of the length of the period for which any person is, during that year or part of a year, a person without whose participation or consent any right could not be conferred.
(3C) No person shall be entitled under subsection (3A) of this section to any share of any compensation in respect of any such easement or right as might give rise to an entitlement to compensation under section 31 of this Act."
(6) Subsection (4) of that section shall cease to have effect.
(7) Sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) above shall not apply in relation to any compulsory rights order confirmed before the restructuring date.
Calculation of compensation
15A. In relation to any compulsory rights order confirmed on or after the restructuring date the following section shall be substituted for section 18, that is to say—
"Calculation of compensation under section 17.
18 .—(1) The compensation payable for any year in respect of a holding to which section 17 of this Act applies shall be a sum equal to the annual borrowing cost for that year of the market value of the rights conferred by the compulsory rights order in relation to the holding.
(2) For the purposes of this section the market value of any rights conferred by a compulsory rights order shall be equal to the amount which, as at the date of entry, would (apart from the order) represent the fair market price, as between willing and independent parties, for the grant of those rights by a person entitled to grant them and for the period for which the order is to have effect.
(3) In calculating for the purposes of this section the fair market price for the grant of any rights, due allowance shall be made for any entitlement to compensation which may arise, otherwise than by virtue of section 17, under any of the provisions of this Act.
(4) For the purposes of this section the annual borrowing cost for any year of any amount ('the market price') is the aggregate sum which would fall to be paid in that year by way of payments of interest and re-payments of capital if the market price had been borrowed on the date of entry on terms which—

(a) required interest to be paid and capital to be repaid by way of the relevant number of equal annual instalments; and

(b) provided for interest on outstanding capital to become due immediately before the time for the payment of each instalment, at an annual rate equal, as at the entry date, to the rate prescribed under section 35(8) of this Act;

and in this subsection 'the relevant number' means the number of years for which, when it was confirmed, the compulsory rights order was to have effect.

(5) Nothing in section 17 of this Act or this section shall confer any entitlement to compensation in respect of the annual borrowing cost of—

(a) any amount representing the value of any person's interest in coal, or

(b) any amount representing the value of any opportunity arising by virtue of an interest or right in or in relation to any land to obtain or make use of any rights to win, work or get any coal.

(6) Where the period for which a compulsory rights order is to have effect is extended under this Act, section 17 of this Act and this section shall have effect in relation to the additional period as if the rights conferred for that period had been conferred by a new compulsory rights order."
15B. Sections 19 and 20 (additional annual compensation and special compensation for cost of removal) shall not have effect in relation to any compulsory rights order confirmed on or after the restructuring date.'.
37C Page 126, line 24, leave out 'In section 23A(4)' and insert:
'(1) In section 23A'.
37D Page 126, line 25, after 'agriculture)' insert:

'(a) for the words "sections 18 and 19", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted "section 17"; and

(b) in subsection (4)'.

37E Page 126, line 27, at end insert:
'(2) Sub-paragraph (1) (a) above does not apply in relation to any compulsory rights order confirmed before the restructuring date.'.
37F Page 127, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert:
'(2) In subsection (2) of that section, for "(3) and (4) of section seventeen of this Act, the provisions of sections eighteen to twenty of this Act" there shall be substituted "(lA)and(3) to (3B) of section 17 of this Act and the provisions of section 18 of this Act".'.
37G Page 128, line 6, leave out second 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'
37H Page 128, line 11, after 'order' insert:
'(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section the annual value of any land for any year shall be taken to be an amount equal to the annual rent at which, immediately before the beginning of that year, that land, in the appropriate circumstances, might reasonably have been expected to be let from year to year under a contract of tenancy whereby the tenant undertook—

(a) to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes and to bear the cost of the repairs and insurance and the other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the land in a state to command that rent, and

(b) not to carry out any operations on the land, or to make any change in the use thereof, for which permission would be required under Part III of the Act of 1990 or Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, except any operations for which such permission has been granted and is in force immediately before the beginning of that year.'

371 Page 128, line 12, leave out from 'section,' to end of line 13 and insert for the words before paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—
"(3) For the purposes of subsection (2B) of this section, the appropriate circumstances—".'.
37J Page 134, line 10, leave out 'In paragraph 31 of Schedule 6' and insert:

'(l)In paragraph 1 (2) of Schedule 6 (changes in right of occupation), for "seventeen to nineteen" there shall be substituted "17 and 18".

(2) In paragraph 2 of that Schedule (new tenancies), for "seventeen to twenty" there shall be substituted "17 and 18".

(3) Paragraphs 8 and 9 of that Schedule (which relate to compensation under section 19 but are applied in relation to compensation under Schedule 5) shall cease to have effect except so far as applied by paragraph 10 of that Schedule.

(4) In paragraph 26 of that Schedule (apportionment in respect of parts of a year) after sub-paragraph (4) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

"(5) This paragraph shall not apply in relation to any compensation the entitlement to which is apportioned in accordance with section 17(3A) of this Act."

(5) In paragraph 31 of that Schedule'.

37K Page 134, line 13, at end insert:
'(6) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (4) above shall not apply in relation to any compulsory rights order confirmed ' before the restructuring date.'.
37L Page 156, line 51, at end insert:

'6 &7 Eliz. 2.C.69.

The Opencast Coal Act 1958.

Section 17(4). Sections 19 and 20. In Schedule 6, para-graphs 3, 7, 12 and 22.'

37M Page 158, line 11, at end insert:

'1986 c. 63.

The Housing and Planning Act 1986.

In Schedule 8, paragraph 8.'

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 37 to which the Commons have disagreed but do do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37A to 37M in lieu thereof.
Amendment No. 37 seeks to provide that compensa-tion for compulsory rights orders made under the provisions of the Opencast Coal Act 1958, as amended by this Bill, should be based on market values. In view of the strong support for that amendment, the Government have accepted the principle. But the specific amendment approved by this House would have been very difficult to put into practice within the framework of the Opencast Coal Act, and the amendments in lieu which have been agreed by another place in our view provide a practical and effective replacement. I hope that that meets with the approval of the House. I commend to the House Amendments Nos. 37A to 37M.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 37, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37A to 37M in lieu thereof.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, when we debated the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, at Third Reading and I saw the Government Benches steadily filling as the day wore on with noble Lords, not all of whom were immediately recognisable to me either by face or name, I felt, as did Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth, when, in Act V, scene in of Shakespeare's play, he says:
"What says Lord Stanley? will he bring his power?"
For he did, and they came. And they won a famous victory by 83 votes to 72 and gave us an agreeable climax to what had been a moderately satisfying day.
So we hoped it might be when your Lordships' amendments were discussed in another place on 28th June. Alas, it was not to be: as I read the account of the debate in the official record I found myself steadily relapsing into my usual gloom about the Bill, and, in particular, about the prospects for our countryside, threatened by opencast mining as it is now visually despoiled by acres of oilseed rape.
In speaking to Amendments Nos. 37 and 37A to 37M, I should like, with the permission of the House, to include what few things I have to say about Amendments Nos. 38 and 38A and get them out of the way. I note that the Minister in another place, in tones which suggested that he was giving us the crown jewels, announced the few sad compromises he was mindful to make. "This afternoon", he cried,
"my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning announced his intention—in the light of the response that he has received"—
we waited with breath that could not have been more bated—
"of removing the reference to the national interest in MPG3".

1005
The official record does not record any spontaneous outburst of applause, Order Papers were not waved. Honourable Members were not assisted from the Chamber in a state of shock. So much is clear from the Minister's next sentence:
"I am sure that that announcement will be widely welcomed"—
an obvious feed line to his own supporters, which seems to have been ignored, for he went on with increasing desperation:
"and I consider it a useful clarification".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/6/94; cols. 712–3].
Well, he had to say something, I suppose. But it is thin, and weak, and watery. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, provided for compensation based on market values and made clear and simple arrangements for it. The Minister was not having any of that. At col. 713 he stated,
"We have accepted the principle that lies behind that amendment, but we have sought to table a practical and effective replacement for it".
Brisk and bracing words, my Lords, are they not? But the Minister omitted to show us in what ways the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, were impractical or effective. He assured us that the coal in the ground belongs not to the landowner but to the nation. That part of his amendment is consistent with the principles established by the decision of BP v. Ryder in 1988. He ignored the obvious facts that in the future opencasting will be a continuing and growing problem in this country, that he was offering a few concessions to landowners but none at all to the public who will have to suffer the dirt, the dust, the noise, the destruction and the inconvenience, and none at all either to the local authorities which will have to pick up the bill for the road repairs.
Your Lordships' House will not be surprised that I find that view less than totally agreeable. But soon after that the Minister sat down; and so shall I.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
38 Schedule 8, Page 117, line 29, at end insert:
("Conditions to be satisfied before a compulsory
rights order is made
. A compulsory rights order shall not be made or confirmed unless it is shown that it has not proved practicable to obtain the right by private arrangement because the owner has acted unreasonably and that —
(a)(i) the coal in the relevant land is required to supply a market which cannot adequately be met from other sources which are currently being worked or capable of being worked where a coal-mining company has secured all the relevant planning consents and has acquired the necessary interests in land, and
(ii) the amount of marketable coal to be extracted as a result of the compulsory rights order being made exceeds 250,000 tonnes; or
(b) there is a present likelihood that the coal will remain unworked on account of other development proposed on the relevant land; or
(c) the persons with power to grant the right, or any of them, cannot be ascertained or cannot be found; or
(d) the persons from whom the right must be obtained or any of them, have not the necessary powers of disposition, whether by reason of defect on title, legal disability or otherwise.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
38A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate that the circumstances in which a compulsory rights order may be made or confirmed should be confined to those set out in the said Amendment made by the Lords.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 38 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 38A. Amendment No. 38 would have the effect that no CRO could be made so long as other sources of supply were available, and as it does not distinguish properly between UK coal and imports it might well have the effect that no CRO could be made so long as imports were available. As there is a ready availability of all grades of coal on world markets, that is as much as to say that no CRO could ever be made.
The question is the circumstances in which compulsory rights orders might be made. The Government have provided strong safeguards to ensure that the interests of landowners will be properly taken into account, in each case, before that action can be taken. The intention is that CROs will not be made unless all reasonable efforts have been made to secure the rights by agreement. We have set out the framework which we think is appropriate to govern the availability of CROs in the transitional period, while we review the existing regime for compulsory rights. We think that provides adequate safeguards for the making of CROs. Together with the intention of the Secretaries of State not to confirm orders unless, in each case, it would be in the public interest for them to do so, we think that the Government have taken the right steps to ensure that the proper balance will be struck in the use of those powers between private and public interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, was reminded of King Richard. I must say that when the vote on the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley was lost, I felt more like King Lear:
"As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods;
They kill us for their sport".
The gods in this case were our Back Benchers.
I hope that those who voted for the amendment are appeased; I hope that they are content with the safeguards. I therefore commend the Motion to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 38, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 38A.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
3.40 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair]
Clause 24 [Controls on London lorries: replacement of discretionary exceptions]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 176C:
Page 21, line 37, after ("applies") insert ("provided that the Secretary of State has consulted the London borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London").
The noble Baroness said: With Clause 24, we come to a debate on the London lorry ban. On Second Reading, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, spoke some welcome words. He said:
"We propose to maintain the ban on lorries in the London area at night and during weekends".—[Official Report, 6/6/94; col. 1048.)
Those words were welcome to your Lordships and to those outside this Chamber who are affected by heavy lorries in London. They fear that, although the words on the face of the Bill do not provide for the abolition of the scheme, that will be the effect; or, if not its abolition, at least its severe emasculation. Unless the scheme is easily enforced, it is unlikely that the ban will be effective.
What is the problem with heavy lorries? In 1983, the report of the committee investigating heavy lorries in London, under the chairmanship of Derek Wood, asked:
"If lorries provide the service the public wants",
which refers to bringing goods into our shops and so forth,
"why should people dislike them so much?".
That is an interesting question. The report went on to state:
"The heavy lorry is regarded by many as an alien intruder … From what we saw and heard we are quite satisfied that there is a number of areas in London where the nuisance and disruption caused by heavy lorry traffic is such as to reduce living conditions to a level well below what most people would regard as acceptable. This observation is not confined to one or two notorious roads which are constantly referred to in debates on this subject. There are many similar roads, particularly in inner London, and the problem cannot be lightly dismissed".
The report further stated that there is an impression that complaints about lorries come from a handful of unrepresentative environmentalists and politicians—I am happy to be lumped with the environmentalists— and added:
"In this they are seriously and badly wrong".
Indeed. Only yesterday I was contacted by a councillor in a north London borough whose ward covers a major through-route. Her residents are deeply worried about the spread of lorries from the trunk road. Spontaneously —by which I mean without the instigation of a politician or, indeed, an environmentalist—several hundred signatures were put to a petition against a change to the ban; and that within a very short time. That is only one example of the public's anxiety about lorries in London.
Perhaps I may take a moment of the Committee's time to explain the scheme. A number of the amendments on today's Marshalled List relate to the
1008
ban, and I promise that I shall not speak at such length on others that stand in my name. However, I wish to set the context.
The London Boroughs Transport Scheme is operated and financed by 20 of the 32 London boroughs and by the City of London. Boroughs which are sandwiched between those that subscribe also benefit from the scheme. It administers a traffic order made in 1985—the: so-called "London lorry ban"—whose objective is to reduce nuisance, pollution and the hazards brought about by heavy goods vehicles which travel through London. The order restricts heavy goods vehicles without exemption permits from the excluded roads, which are mainly trunk roads, from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. on weekdays and from 1 p.m. on Saturday for the rest of the weekend. The order allows; for fines of up to £1,000.
The scheme covers vehicles above 16½ tonnes, and exempted vehicles must have permits fixed in the cab and exemption plates fitted. The scheme issues permits to allow vehicles into the restricted areas. It currently covers 30,000 vehicles operated by 3,300 hauliers. The scheme has only five enforcement officers but, in co-operation with the Metropolitan and City police forces, it brings about 2,000 prosecutions per year. Boroughs which are not in the scheme administer the traffic order using their own system or they accept the LBTS permits. One of the requirements of the permit scheme is that vehicles, excluding vehicles plated at 17T, must be fitted with air brake silencers where practicable.
In January this year, the Department: of Transport announced that it intended to abolish the permit scheme but to retain the requirement that heavy vehicles which enter London at night must not use restricted streets unless they have necessary business there. The Government's stated policy is to reduce the burden on the haulage industry which is imposed by the permit system and to release those resources for better enforcement. If the permit scheme were abolished, enforcement of the traffic order would thus depend on the police stopping lorries for investigation by the LBTS enforcement staff. We shall discuss enforcement later.
The London Boroughs Transport Scheme commissioned a survey by Touche Ross. It found that most haulage firms disliked the bureaucracy of the scheme but did not object to the scheme per se because they appreciated the underlying reason for its existence. Rather than being negative, the hauliers made a number of suggestions to improve the scheme. They included, for instance, issuing permits lasting two or three years to operators who have a good compliance record and allowing more flexibility on routing, perhaps allowing non-approved routes away from the trunk roads and permitted roads by prior arrangements where special circumstances exist. That does not amount to the abolition of the permit scheme.
Furthermore, Touche Ross found that if the permit system were abolished the total sum that would be saved each year by the haulage industry would be some £437,000.I ask Members of the Committee to consider whether, across the whole industry, that sum is of such concern when set against the benefits of the scheme.
Having explained briefly how the permit scheme operates, perhaps I may refer to Amendment No. 176C. It requires the Secretary of State to consult with the London borough councils and with the City of London. I hope that, of all the amendments tabled today, this is one which the Minister can readily accept.
Earlier this year, I tabled a number of Questions for Written Answer. On 15th March I was informed that:
"full consultation … will take place in due course".—[Official Report, 15/3/94; col. WA6]
In another Answer I was also informed that:
"Formal consultation with the police and other interested parties … will take place in due course".—[Official Report, 15/3/94; col. WA6.]
On 10th February I was informed that:
"If the Secretary of State for Transport were to propose to use the powers contained in Clause 24 … he would do so only after full consultation with all interested parties".—[Official Report, 10/2/94; col. WA135.]
I do not for one moment doubt the integrity of the Minister who gave that Answer and I hope that we shall be given similar assurances today. However, I believe that the matter should be contained on the face of the Bill. As was said previously, consultation means listening and perhaps changing one's mind in the light of representations. It is not a mere cosmetic exercise.
I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee that the Government will accept the amendment and the fact that the ban is an environmental success. I hope that they will not look to the police, whose scarce resources need to be used in fighting crime, but will allow the boroughs cost-effectively to continue their efforts to protect their own residents and to seek the balance between the interests of the freight industry and the peace and quiet of Londoners. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I speak also to Amendment No. 177M which stands in my name.
I believe that it is essential to have very specific provisions relating to consultation on the face of the Bill for a number of reasons, partly connected with the Government's history of opposition to that scheme back in 1986; partly because of the way in which they have gone about the business of producing the provisions that are now before the Committee; and partly because I do not accept that this Government have an immaculate record with regard to the desirability of full consultation.
Of course, I accept the basic proposition advanced by the noble Baroness. The Committee will be indebted to her for her explanation of the scheme which means that the rest of us do not have to go into that specific detail. I believe that she was absolutely right to give that explanation as the backcloth to this debate and, indeed, to the others which are to follow.
The Minister will have to explain why the Government opposed the ban in 1986. That is absolutely crucial, because the Minister will be asking us to accept the Government's bona fides at this stage. But in fact it took a judicial review, in which the Secretary of State was found to have acted outside his powers in trying to stop the ban, before the scheme could come into effect on 31st January 1986. Therefore, we want to know why
1010
the Government, acting complicitly of course, in those days as now, with the road haulage industry wanted to oppose the ban.
That ban was the result of an outstanding piece of work on the part of a committee chaired by Mr. Derek Wood, QC, the report of which was published in 1983. Unlike the way in which the Government have gone about consultations in this case—if one can deign to call them that—the committee received written representations from more than 2,500 people, mainly individual householders or members of residential or environmental groups. Before the committee published its report, it sat in public for 39 days and received evidence from 153 witnesses. That was the way in which the night and weekend lorry ban was perceived and eventually acted upon.
That ban has been acclaimed widely because it has met the requirements of Londoners. They are unlikely to be moved by the considerations which have moved the heavily biased task force. That task force was dominated overwhelmingly by the road haulage industry, the Freight Transport Association and building and roadbuilding construction people. Did the Minister expect them to say that they are now in favour of a ban which they have opposed vigorously over the years; that they now wish to see it become a great success; and that they wish to improve it? That is not at all consistent with what has happened. The Minister well knows that.
The agenda was set very clearly by the task force because mat is what the Government wanted. As I have already indicated, the Government did not favour that ban. I part company from the noble Baroness in one respect; namely, that she seemed to accept the Government's bona fides in that regard, while, frankly, I do not. It is true that she went on to say that the effect of the Government's proposals would be to emasculate the scheme. That is precisely what they have in mind because it does not suit their paymasters. Many of the people who sat on the task force are representative of organisations which donated very heavily to the Conservative Party and which are biased in favour of doing away with the scheme.
Secondly, why did the Government not think it appropriate to consult the London boroughs? Why were those issues, with their manifestly important considerations which are wider than the burden on industry— concerning safety, the environment and a whole host of matters which are highly germane to residents in London—not addressed before the Government decided to put this clause before Parliament? They did not consult the London boroughs; and they did not consult anybody else. Now they are prepared to consult, but they have made up their minds.
I should have thought that those employed in the industry are entitled to some passing recognition; but not at all. Environmental groups have not been considered. For that reason it is extremely important that the question of consultation should be addressed specifically on the face of the Bill.
I do not trust the Government. I believe that if this Bill were to pass through Parliament, the Government would go through some process of consultation. But their opinions will be immovable. It is extremely

1011
important indeed to be very specific about the nature of the consultations upon which we wish to embark. The noble Baroness is right to say that we shall later discuss issues affecting environmental matters and enforcement, but in many ways this issue goes to the heart of the Government's bona fides. I believe that they will be found wanting.
Lord Monson: I support this amendment moved so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I should perhaps say in passing that, from conversations that I have had with a wide range of people in my neighbourhood, I know that a considerable number of the people who normally vote Conservative are unlikely to do so at the next general election if they believe their peace and quiet, their health and safety and the health and safety of their children stand to be menaced once again by heavy lorries. Of course the Government are free to disregard those sentiments; that is entirely up to them.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: This amendment was moved beguilingly by the noble Baroness. There was almost nothing in what she said with which I felt it possible to disagree. The heavy lorry has long been detested. It has few champions outside the industry. That is only half the story. Of course the other half of the story is that what we are pleased to call civilised life can hardly continue without the heavy lorry. The noble Baroness made it quite clear that she is aware of that. In the cities more than in the countryside the heavy lorry is essential if sophisticated populations living in densely populated areas are to have the necessary supplies. It is also true to say that the vehicles tend to become bigger and bigger and the streets, for very obvious reasons, do not.
I have always felt disappointed that during the days when I had something to do with such problems such matters were handled, in London at any rate, by a committee of the GLC. I do not believe that it was particularly effective. However, what I do regret is the fact that there has been no long-term effort to deal with the problem. Indeed, planning on the whole has not been used as it might have been where new premises are being erected or old ones modified to insist that proper facilities for loading and unloading are provided. No major effort has been made, as has been the case in other countries, to have limited times for delivery of goods. I do not believe that it is a party issue. It indicates a certain sloppiness of mind on the part of all of us who very much wish to have our cake and eat it and not become involved in a rather difficult situation.
I am somewhat worried about the provision in the Bill. The replacement of one exception with another, or perhaps with none at all—even if by doing so we would remove or reduce the burden—seems to me to be giving Ministers very considerable powers. Such an amendment to Clause 24 can be dealt with by negative proceedings and that in this Chamber means very little, if anything. I hope that the Government will take the matter away and give it some further thought, especially in view of the way that the noble Baroness moved the
1012
amendment. As I saw it, there was no desire on her part to make party points or to put any undue blame upon the Government.
Quite rightly, the noble Baroness drew attention to a very real problem which has been growing at an intolerable rate for a long time. She expressed concern —and I am sure she is not alone in that feeling—that if Ministers are given powers that are too wide to do away with inconvenient rules which have become incon-venient to a particular section, they will come under very heavy pressure to use them. I believe that that could result in considerable injury to the environment. It would also provide an excuse for not taking the long-term policy decisions which are required.
4 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may add just a few words on the matter. There are a good number of amendments to the Bill tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with which we shall no doubt deal. However, it seems to me to be sensible for us to have a more general debate on the amendment about consultation. I should like to endorse the points just made by my noble friend Lord Peyton. It is not really a party issue. I am president of the London Boroughs Association and, I am happy and grateful to say, I still am despite the change in control of that body.
However, the association has been divided on the merits of the so-called lorry ban—that is, the night and weekend lorry ban—but certainly not on party grounds. If I had a complaint about the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I would say that he seemed to elevate the matter into a party battle. It is not. Different representatives of the boroughs in London have, for good and valid reasons, different points of view. For example, the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea has been in touch with me on the matter. The borough is unhappy with the suggestion that the permit system should be abolished because it is regarded as the most effective way to enforce the ban. It has expressed the anxiety that perhaps the savings and costs to the hauliers have been somewhat exaggerated and has called in aid the report by Touche Ross referred to by the noble Baroness.
The London Boroughs Association has drawn my attention to new estimates prepared by Oscar Faber plc, which is a firm of transport engineering consultants, on the costs of enforcement. Neither the association nor I has yet had a sight of the findings. However, I have been told that, after taking into account savings arising from the abolition of permits, the enforcement: measures proposed by my noble friend would increase the haulage industry's costs by over £300,000 a year. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am much obliged. The noble Lord said that I made a partisan speech. It was indeed a partisan speech against the Government. However, what the noble Lord is now saying —namely, that: the views of borough councils in the LBA before the local council elections were of great significance—is something of which the Government failed to take notice. That was; one of the major points that I made in my speech.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Lord has now made his speech twice. I believe that we now understand what he said. However, as I was saying, there is a variety of opinions on the merits of the issue and on the merits of the permit scheme as a means of enforcing the rule. As I already mentioned, the Royal London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which on the whole does not have a majority that supports the noble Lord opposite, has especially drawn my attention to that fact.
I return to the Oscar Faber study, which found that the costs of the haulage industry might increase by over £300,000 a year and that police and local authority enforcement costs would rise by an estimated £160,000 a year. The supporters of the scheme point out that the alleged burden of minimal administrative costs would be replaced by a larger burden on the unwieldy enforcement system.
I should stress to my noble friend that I believe that the latter enhances the case for consultation. It would have to be consultation with the individual boroughs. I am advised that it is not possible, even under the new disposition, to expect a single view to come from the representative bodies, and certainly not from the London Boroughs Association. It is quite clear to me that there is now a good deal of support for the ban and a good deal of anxiety about the suggestion that the permit scheme should be abolished. I do not believe that such opinions are merely confined to the other side of the Committee. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to take note of that fact.
Lord Finsberg: I am disturbed by the remarks just made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I was involved with the fight against the ban in the 1980s when it was the brain child of a weird man called Dave Wetzel who lived across the road from here in County Hall. On that occasion, he was motivated by a bias against the road haulage industry. I declare no interest in the latter. I tried to reason on behalf of the Multiple Shops Federation, on whose council I sat in those days. One of the difficulties about the large lorry ban is that, if you ban the large lorry, you then split the load into three smaller lorries. No one has yet found an answer to that problem. Moreover, if you go too far, you will increase the cost of transportation and the customer pays more.
I can see that there is a case for consultation. However, my noble friend Lord Jenkin will remember that we once had one voice speaking for London local authorities; namely, the London Boroughs Association. It decided, like an amoeba, to become a spin-off, second body and one basically controlled by the Labour Party. That meant that the Government had to consult two organisations. When I was a Minister in the Department of the Environment, I tried to persuade London authorities that their voices would be heard rather more strongly if they came from one body.
However, now my noble friend has said that our noble friend the Minister would probably have to consult all the London boroughs. That, I suggest, is an impossibility. I would hope that if there is to be any consultation, it will take place with the organisations that represent local authorities in London. I still express
1014
the hope that those organisations might decide that they would have a more powerful voice if they were to join together.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: It seems to me that there is some danger in confusing the two issues: that of the lorry ban and that of the permit system. The Government propose to abolish the permit system which has proved to be not effective. In fact, my understanding is that at the outset only 20 of the London boroughs took part in that permit scheme. The first two amendments that are before us this afternoon are designed to create a bigger talking shop with regard to a matter which has proved to be ineffective.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Why?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Why is it ineffective? My noble friend Lord Peyton gave one reason; my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding gave another. It is quite impossible to ban lorries 24 hours a day for the reasons just given; namely, that if one splits up the load of one large lorry, one will encourage people to replace it with four smaller lorries. By and large, one is as aggravating as another, particularly late at night. Surely in a deregulation Bill, we do not wish to add more discussion with other bodies. I have a letter which was addressed to the Freight Transport Association from the headquarters traffic superintendent of the Metropolitan Police. The letter is dated 9th March. I shall quote one paragraph in which the superintendent writes:
"As I said, we do not regard the proposal to abolish the permit system as presenting any particular difficulties for Police. We shall continue to respond to requests for assistance from the Lorry Control Unit of the London Transport Boroughs Scheme".
He writes in his final paragraph:
"We agreed that deregulation is likely to result in more vehicles being stopped than at present. Because it is often during such stops that other, unrelated, offences tend to come to light…"
Therefore it will be in the interests of the police to make those further checks. To discuss this matter with a great many other bodies seems to be totally and absolutely counter-productive. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will resist that.
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): We have had an interesting little debate on this part. I shall refrain from answering all of the points because I rather suspect that some of them are more related to other amendments and I do not wish to be accused of repeating myself, although I suspect that I am in danger of doing so this afternoon. For example, I will leave the question of the costs to the road haulage industry of the permit system until we reach the appropriate amendment, where I believe that will be the subject of the discussion.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, like my noble friend Lord Finsberg, laid bare the dilemma we all have in the kind of modern society in which we live, whether that arises from the pollution or the noise caused by vehicles, and whether the vehicles concerned be lorries, cars, or—dare I even mention it?— aeroplanes. The simple fact of the matter is that they are all important parts of modern living and without them

1015
our lives and our standard of living would be significantly the poorer. But we must try to make sure, as far as we possibly can, that we gain the advantages of these transport systems and at the same time that we lessen the disadvantages in environmental terms and in other respects. One of the problems is the need to try to reduce the impact of lorries, whether they be large or small—some of my noble friends have referred to this —in residential areas. Some people might suggest that we should ban those lorries. However, as my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil pointed out, if one bans those lorries, the shops and supermarkets, for example, in central London, would not have the supplies the customer wants when the customer enters the shop at nine o'clock in the morning. Therefore I think everyone is agreed that some heavy lorries need to enter areas such as central London.
I believe everyone is also agreed—although the listener might be forgiven for thinking otherwise—that the ban, as it is currently constituted should stay; namely, that during the hours of darkness and at the weekends lorries should not enter London when they do not need to be there. The Government have no proposals at all—nor would this clause give them such a power —to do anything to alter that ban. It is not the ban that we are discussing: we are all at one on the need to have the ban with, of course, the proviso that those people who need to make deliveries may do so but they must use the shortest possible route when they drive on non-exempt roads.
In this clause we are discussing whether the bureaucratic system which has been devised in London is in the best interests of both the ban, and businesses and local authorities themselves. Therefore this discussion should not be a tirade—as I thought it was going to become—against the usual shibboleths of the freight transport industry, road builders, hauliers and all the other evil ghosts raised from the past that the party opposite used to love to hate. However, as I understand it, as modernisers, they are no longer supposed to hate those ghosts.
We also heard about the Touche Ross report from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I have not had a chance to study that report, as it came into the hands of staff in my department about half an hour ago. However, I listened with interest to her point that the road haulage industry disliked the bureaucracy but not the ban. That is my position entirely. I dislike the bureaucracy: I do not dislike the ban.
Clause 24 will give the Secretary of State for Transport the power, exercisable by order, to amend local authority traffic orders in Greater London which impose a prohibition or restriction on the use of a road by heavy lorries unless a permit is granted. It is just the permit system in London at which this clause is aimed. We believe—and I believe —that this will allow the removal of the red tape and bureaucracy involved in the present permit scheme operated in relation to the London wide night-time and weekend lorry ban. I should again make it absolutely clear to prevent any doubt that we are in no way attempting to change the ban itself. It is the permit system which we consider to
1016
be highly bureaucratic. The clause would enable us to retain the ban while reducing the bureaucracy. Under subsection (9) of the clause—
Lord Peston: I hope I may interrupt the noble Lord. I have listened attentively to what he has had to say to try to understand the Government's pasition. The Minister's noble friend Lord Peyton put the point clearly; that we want to find goods in our shops but we do not like the lorries that put them there. I have listened as carefully as I can to the Minister, but when the Minister said that the Government do not want to change the ban, I took him to mean also that we do not want any more lorries in central London causing congestion and pollution. Therefore I am not clear what the effect of the clause is. If it leads to no more lorries and if it does not lead to any changes whatever, what does it actually do? That seems to me to be the central question. At no point does the Minister tell us what the clause actually does. What makes me fearful—I speak entirely as a layman—is that if one makes it easier and if one gets rid of what is called the bureaucracy, one will end up with more lorries. I am afraid that that is what troubles some of us. Will the Minister at least explain that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is not bureaucracy which stops lorries coming into London; it is the ban. The ban means that one can only enter London within the M.25 at night or at the weekend if one has to deliver or load within that area. If one is going from north to south or east to west, the M.25—which some people did not like either—allows one to go round London. One does not have to go into central London.
The ban stays. It minimises the number of vehicles which come into central London. It bans those which are simply transiting central London. We are not attacking that ban at all. We believe that it strikes a perfectly reasonable balance between the needs of transport to enter central London to deliver and the needs of people in London not to be disturbed at night or at weekends.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. It may be that I have not understood the matter correctly. However, in the notes on Clause 24 in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum the words used are:
"The orders affected are those which impose prohibitions or restrictions on the use of heavy commercial vehicles in London".
Does that tell only half the story?:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall obviously not have time to read the note that my noble friend quoted. Clause 24 empowers the Secretary of State for Transport, after he has consulted, to remove the permit system. Under the present system, if one has to deliver in London one does not merely say to oneself, "I must go down these routes so that I minimise the amount of time that I am on the roads that I am not supposed to be on but am allowed to be on only if I am delivering". In addition to thinking about the route and being conscious of the ban, one has to approach the bureaucracy for a permit. The permit does not specify the route to be taken in respect of the application actually made. To the outsider, the permit looks the same for every lorry. It is

1017
displayed on the windscreen and then the lorry can go into central London. It is that system of permits which the Government consider an unnecessary bureaucracy. The purpose of the clause is to give the Secretary of State powers to remove it.
Lord Peston: I know that the noble Lord wants to move on to the question of consultation. However, those of us who do not know much about this matter are simple people. We want to know whether there will be more or fewer lorries in London as a result of going ahead with what the Government want. Will there be lorries in London at more or less attractive times? That is the kind of question that we are concerned about.
Will the Minister say categorically that, in his judgment, all that will happen as a result of the clause is that there will be no more lorries in London, no lorries at worse times, and no more congestion—in other words, all of the things that we hate? Can he tell us that that is the outcome, and that whatever else happens there will be no deterioration in the environment? Can he say that in terms?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I can say that this clause in the Bill will not have any of the impacts which the noble Lord mentioned. Indeed, it might just have a positive impact. If the money saved by the London boroughs is used for enforcement, then some lorries which are cheating the system or which do not have permits may be caught and the certainty of being caught may increase. Therefore, if anything, there may be a reduction in the number of lorries in London. There will be elimination of the need to obtain a form.
I come now to consultation, which the amendments are concerned with. Under subsection (9) of the clause the Secretary of State is obliged to consult representative organisations before making an order. That provision—which is set out in the second line of the subsection—was inserted in the Bill in another place after concern had been expressed that such consultation should be required. Indeed, I understand that it was welcomed by the Opposition.
Everybody who has been involved in legislation knows that, whenever one sees the word "consultation", one puts down amendments with a few names in order to get a debate going. One says that if these names are not included there will not be proper consultation. In fact, most legislation is framed roughly on the lines of this provision, which states that the Secretary of State:
"shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit".
We all know that one could not possibly encompass all the organisations which may need to be consulted. Therefore, a wider power ensures that the Secretary of State consults those he thinks ought to be consulted. Of course that will include bodies such as the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association, both of which represent local authorities in London. In addition, the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police would also be consulted.
Therefore, as Ministers of both parties have said time without number, we do not need to list specific bodies
1018
which ought to be consulted or to draw up a list which embraces all the people and organisations which should be consulted.
Lord Clinton-Davis: If we are to believe what the Government say on this subject, why did they make no effort to obtain the views of those organisations before they decided to go into print with this particular provision?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have been discussing for some time the various aspects of the way in which the London lorry ban works rather than the ban itself. We came to the conclusion that we should take this particular power. When we have a power which requires consultation we shall then consult. I think that that is the right way to go about it.
I was just about to turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, which go rather further than those of the noble Baroness. They encompass residents' associations and the like. That would draw consultation so wide that the consultation would never end. Once one had consulted one group of residents' associations, they could simply re-form or a new one could spring up wanting to be consulted. I believe that one has to undertake one's consultation with the local authority associations. After all, they are supposed to represent the collective view of the various communities they represent, as the Association of London Authorities represents the collective view of the local authorities. I have little doubt that when consultation takes place, if the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association put in a collective view which some boroughs do not agree with, then those boroughs will not be slow to send letters to my right honourable friends saying that they do not agree and giving their view.
As Ministers have probably said from this Dispatch Box and from the Dispatch Box in the other place time without number, I believe that it is not necessary to list either in full or in part the organisations which ought to be consulted. I believe that the phrase inserted in the other place properly meets the concerns of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the representative organisations most involved in this issue will be consulted by the Secretary of State for Transport.
I hope that after this interesting debate and having listened to what I have said the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw their amendments and rest confident in the amendment made to subsection (9) in the other place.
Baroness Hamwee: I cannot say that at the end of this debate I have any more confidence, as the Minister suggested that I might. However, I shall try to confine my remarks to the particular amendment rather than range too widely.
To suggest that the democratically elected representatives of local government should not be consulted, as if they had no status, is a very odd state of affairs. To resist an amendment requiring consultation of individual directly-elected local authorities, which are grouped in the associations, on the grounds that that

1019
would mean that everybody would have to be consulted is extremely odd. Indeed, it will become the Government to accept that consultation on such a matter should be wide and should encompass environmental groups, residents groups and so on.
Perhaps I may answer a few points. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, correctly analysed the situation. Although it is becoming harder as the moments go by, I do not approach the issue as a party political matter. I accept that lorries are necessary. I do not accept the Minister's stance that roads and lorries are either a very good thing or a very bad thing. I seek a balance. A permit scheme, because it is enforceable, provides a ban which, although not applying to all lorries for 24 hours a day seven days a week, seeks to maintain the ban on heavy lorries at night and at weekends. This and subsequent amendments are directed to that issue.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, to this extent. In the absence of a strategic authority, a single association would be a good system and would make everyone's life easier. We have heard a variety of views. Despite what I said about the Minister's comments, I shall not push the matter to a vote today, although consultation is a matter to which we may return. The Minister has been somewhat dismissive on that. On reflection, perhaps we may all consider—I am happy to do so—how consultation can best be carried out. The Government have committed themselves to consultation. Perhaps in the future we may consider some mechanisms for its implementation. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 176D:
Page 22, line 15, leave out ("a") and insert ("an undue").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to relate the provisions of Clause 24 to the thrust of the Bill by providing that any burden which the Government seek to "derestrict" (if I may so put it) is an undue burden. In moving the amendment, I put forward a similar argument on Amendment No. 177F.
When the Department of Transport announced its proposal to alter the permit scheme, it stated that powers under the section could be used only where an undue burden on business was imposed. The press release issued at that time used the same term, stating that such powers could only be used where an undue burden on business was imposed. That is not provided by the wording in the Bill. The Bill refers to "a burden". Filling in a form of three lines could be regarded as a burden. It is in order to describe the evil to which the Government address themselves that I move the amendment.
Subsections (4) and (7) of Clause 24 give the Secretary of State very wide powers. Despite what the Minister said earlier, the provisions give the Secretary of State power to destroy the lorry ban if he is so minded. In moving the amendment, I seek to limit the exercise of the Minister's discretion so that the burden is in commonsense language a real burden.
I am concerned at the burden falling the other way. I refer to the amount of enforcement, the need for
1020
enforcement and the difficulties of enforcement if there is no permit scheme. One must balance the efficiency of the scheme against what has to be done by operators who apply for permits. Enforcement staff would need powers equivalent to those under the traffic order relating to vehicles which justifiably use restricted streets. The enforcement staff would have to write to the operators requiring the production of journey records. Operators whose vehicles are currently exempt would have to justify the necessity for their journeys. I suggest that such requirements would impose an additional burden if the current scheme were radically altered. Detection of unjustified journeys would be impaired; and detection would be a good deal more costly. The: London Boroughs Transport Scheme would have to increase the number of requests to the licensing authorities. Inquiries would have to be made of vehicle rental companies which are registered as the keepers as well as the operators. At present, failure to have a permit is an absolute offence. Prosecuting for offending journeys—which requires proof of journeys on restricted streets during controlled hours—is quite clearly a more complex matter.
The operation of the permit scheme overlooks the benefits to those who have permits. Ending the scheme would increase the relatively minor administrative work of filling in extremely short forms which the operators have to undertake in renewing permits. Each time the vehicle was stopped, these operators would be required to go through the same rigmaroles as those who were quite blatantly flouting the scheme.
If the clause is to follow the thrust of the Bill, it is entirely appropriate that the term "undue" should be attached to the reference to "a burden". I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. There is a clear logic to the matter. Simply to insert "a burden" into the Bill is obviously completely and utterly unsatisfactory. Anything can be a burden, as the noble Baroness said. Simply writing out a form is a burden. But we are referring to burdens which are absolutely unnecessary —undue burdens—implying that there is also an interest which has to be encompassed elsewhere. When we talk about "a burden", how does one relate it to safer)' issues, environmental issues and the rest? That is why the word "undue" is of great importance.
Moreover, the burden of proof—I use the word "burden" in another sense—in establishing that industry is greatly prejudiced by reason of the scheme must rest on the industry itself. Industry must establish that there are huge and wasteful administrative costs which have a major deleterious effect on the way in which it can operate. But that argument must be considered against the backcloth of other prices which have to be paid. I do not have any sense of that consideration in the provisions in the Bill.
Perhaps I may put the matter into some context. I understand that Sainsbury's has argued in favour of doing away with the permit scheme because it says that it is unduly burdensome. Even if one were to accept the figures Sainsbury's has put forward in relation to this issue as being accurate—they may or may not be—one

1021
has to measure them against the group profits of the company which in 1992–93 were of the order of £732 million before tax. The company's estimate of the operating cost of the scheme is £1,000 a week, about 0.005 per cent. of the totality of its profits. That is hardly a huge burden when looked at in context.
Why is it that Sainsbury's finds the whole matter so unsavoury and so burdensome whereas Tesco does not? Tesco, I understand, has found nothing to complain about regarding the permit scheme. I should have thought that the two companies pursue rather similar businesses and similar operations. I stand to be corrected, as this is anecdotal evidence; perhaps the Minister is in a position to confute what I say. But if I am right and there is an evident conflict of view between Sainsbury's and Tesco, carrying on very similar businesses, it seems strange that one should argue that there is an alarming burden upon it and that therefore the permit scheme ought to be scrapped. I wholly support what the noble Baroness said.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: To add the words "an undue", as the amendment proposes, will simply make the Bill rather more difficult to interpret. What is "an undue" burden? What indeed is a "due" burden? To insert the phrase "an undue" will simply produce an area of confusion. It is difficult enough to assess the effect of particular burdens in this type of administration; to add the complication that one can add a "due" burden but not an "undue" burden really does seem to add confusion. I hope very much that my noble friend will not accept the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I tend to support my noble friend on that point. Is there any legal interpretation of "undue"? We know that in law generally the words that are used normally mean certain things in normal exchanges. In law, does "undue" mean anything? If it means that, as the subsection says,
"The Secretary of State shall only exercise the power conferred by subsection (3) … if he is satisfied that its exercise will have the effect of removing or reducing a burden"—
then, if the Secretary of State is to interfere at all, he will have to think that the matter is worthy of being dealt with and will therefore say that the burden was undue and that that is why he has reached that conclusion. Why does the phrase have to include another word which, as my noble friend said, leaves room for further argument when the matter is being interpreted? The point is not sound. If someone can tell me that in law "undue" has a meaning that extends the area that one has to take into account when one is dealing with a matter—
Lord Clinton-Davis: Will the noble Lord give way? The word "unreasonable" is not unknown to the law. It has similar connotations, I would have thought, to the word "undue". My worry is: what does the word "burden" mean?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I do not believe that that intervention has altered my point. I do not care whether "undue" is in or out. From my reading, I do not think it makes any difference—unless it is that "undue" has a legal meaning that I know nothing about and gives
1022
ammunition to someone who may wish to question a decision. For those reasons I would have thought that it is an unnecessary addition.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have listened to the debate with a view to trying to learn about this problem while waiting for what seems to me an extremely important amendment to be discussed later; namely, that relating to the degree of parliamentary control over the actions of the Secretary of State under this clause. I intervene to presume to say that I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I do not believe that in law there would be the smallest difficulty in putting a meaning on "undue". As the noble Lord said, English and Scottish law are full of the words "reasonable" and "unreasonable". By the use of those words a standard is set, and the tribunal is not just to say: is X and Y proved? And the result follows. Rather, it is to say: have facts been proved? That brings about a certain degree which is the one drawn by the law. If the word "undue" is not in the provision, I would take it to mean that any burden is sufficient. Thinking rapidly, as one has to on one's feet, I would have thought an "undue" burden is one whose benefit is incommensurate with any other benefit that is countervailed by it. So far as this amendment is concerned, I personally would like to see the word "undue" put in. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, does not think that it makes any difference. I hope that he will defer to me when I say that it does make a difference to me.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I was surprised to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, say that applying for a permit was only a minor inconvenience. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has made an application for a permit. The form happens to be a 10-page document—hardly a minor inconvenience. Not only does a commercial company, or indeed a local authority which operates vehicles of the "16.5 tonne and above" class, have to apply. A permit is required for each and every vehicle which it is intended should run into London during the hours of the ban. Either that means a designated fleet of lorries (which in its turn provides for inflexibility) or, alternatively, an emergency permit, which normally takes 48 hours to acquire. The permit office works normal office hours whereas industry operates 24 hours round the clock to make deliveries to its customers. It seems to me that that is a burden; indeed, a significant burden.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for some extraordinary reason, picked out the firm of Sainsbury's. He described that company's profits, compared that with the cost of the permit applications and put his argument in graphic percentage terms. That really is not the point. The point is a £3 million burden on industry as a whole. It is totally invidious to pick out one firm as against any other.
Lord Monson: I support the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Unless the Committee qualifies the word "burden" with the word "undue", or something very like it, a haulier could legitimately argue that a

1023
restriction that added, say, 0.01 per cent. to his costs constituted a burden and ought to be removed. I suggest that that is not what the Committee wants.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We seem to have managed to stimulate a very interesting debate about the word "undue". The noble Baroness would like to attach it to the burden and also to the bureaucracy. My problem with the word "undue" is that I do not know what the qualification does to the burden. An "undue burden" depends just as much on one's view of the burden as does the simple, straightforward word, "burden". If the burden is unnecessary, the size of the burden does not much matter. It is quite a different matter if the burden is necessary.
Some burdens in this particular case are necessary. I have already made perfectly clear that the Government consider that the burden of living with a London lorry ban is one which the industry should accept. We believe that it should also accept the burden of having to carry around delivery notes or other evidence of where the lorry is going on a journey undertaken during the banned period in the restricted area. We accept that as a burden which is necessary. But whatever the unnecessary burdens are, and whatever size they are, they are burdens which should be removed.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Surely he has argued that the word "undue" is necessary. He has enumerated certain burdens which he says are necessary. They are due burdens. It is the other ones he wants to sweep away; I sympathise with him in that. They are the undue burdens.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is becoming a debate on semantics. If we consider the burden to be unnecessary, it is by definition undue. The problem with the word "undue", as the noble Baroness would attach it in the amendment, is that it somehow qualifies the size of the burden. That is where I take leave of her. I do not think that the size of the burden much matters. I believe —though other Members of the Committee may not do so—that if it is a burden, it is right and proper that it should be removed.
As the amendment stands, I have to ask whether there is some kind of trigger level. Does it not matter if it costs the industry £400,000, the figure the noble Baroness gave as that in the Touche Ross report whereas it does matter if it costs £3 million, as my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth suggested? Do we then get into an argument about the level of cost and about a trigger point? While that is probably an argument all the time, what is much more important is whether the burden is necessary or unnecessary. I believe that the word "undue" does not add anything of importance other than to make the interpretation of the words more difficult. Perhaps that is the real motivation behind the proposed addition of this nice little innocent word: it will perhaps make everything more argumentative and more difficult. I believe that the wording, as it is, with "burden" unqualified, is understood by most people. They understand what a burden is and whether or not that burden is worth undertaking.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Will the Minister ponder on what he has just said? After all, the Minister has to decide whether or not something is a burden. He said that there are necessary and unnecessary burdens. Surely, in the light of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, which I support, the amendment would be helpful to the Minister. Certainly, it would be helpful in terms of parliamentary accountability. The Minister then would have to consider very carefully the meaning of "undue" in this context. That is absolutely critical and can be picked up from what the Minister himself said.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not believe that it can be picked up from what I said. The point is that one has to argue about the burden. It is the burden that is important. Whether or not the word "undue" is added, it is still the burden that is considered. As I pointed out, everybody knows—or perhaps I am the only suspicious person in the Chamber—that a simple argument can be put forward about the burden itself and whether it is necessary or not necessary. As I explained, to add the word "undue" is simply a qualification which is not necessary. I do not believe that it will be a helpful addition to the clause or add to the need of the Secretary of State to carry out the consultation to which we agreed and come to a sensible conclusion. I believe that it is unnecessary and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister is not the only suspicious Member of this Chamber. That is precisely why I should like to provide in the Bill an objective test in place of the Government's assessment of whether the burden is an appropriate one. Perhaps I may introduce a term that has not yet been used. The Minister has given many assurances. The word "undue" may not be the right word but if a word such as that were written into the Bill there would be an objectivity which I believe the courts would have no trouble in assessing.
I did not use the word "undue" because I thought it was necessarily the right word—indeed, I like the term "commensurate" used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, which precisely describes what I mean. I used it because it was the word used by the Minister for Transport in London when he introduced the proposal in January. It is the word in his press release and the word used in his letter to the London Boroughs Transport Scheme. It was out of courtesy, if one likes to call it that, that I used the same word. I hoped that there would be no difficulty in the Government accepting that if they used the word in one place they should use it in the Bill. Otherwise, it might suggest that it was used very casually.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to the 10-page document. To answer his point, I do not believe that the Committee is in a position to assess whether that 10-page document is inappropriate, burden or not. I suggest that the filling out of a form has to be set against the benefits to be obtained by the application of the permit scheme. That is the first of the application forms and renewal is a very simple matter. Touche Ross,

1025
whose report has been mentioned, estimates that as regards the permit scheme we are talking of a sum in the order of £14 per lorry.
I fear that I have not been persuaded by the Minister. I am grateful to those Members who have joined in the debate. It is a matter on which I shall seek the opinion of the Committee.
4.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 176D) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bancroft, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Bonbam-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Monkswell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monson, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Richard, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Foot, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shannon, E.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howell, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cadman, L.

Addison, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ailsa, M.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Aldington, L.

Carnock, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cawley, L.

Annaly, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Arran, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Astor, V.

Chesham, L.

Attlee, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Balfour, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Blatch, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blyth, L.

Courtown, E.

Boardman, L.

Craigavon, V.

Borthwick, L.

Cranborne, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Davidson, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Denham, L.

Burnham, L.

Dilhorne, V.

1026

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Moyne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Munster, E.

Elles, B.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Nelson, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Newall, L.

Elton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Faithfull, B.

Norrie, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northesk, E.

Finsberg, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Geddes, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Goschen, V.

Pender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harraar-Nicholls, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Renwick, L.

Howe, E.

Rodger of Earisferry, L.

Huntly, M.

Seccombe, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

St. Davids, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Stewartby, L.

Kenyon, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kimball, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kintore, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

[Teller.]

Layton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Swinfen, L.

Liverpool, E.

Teviot, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Aidbrecknish, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Chancellor.]

Vivian, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Merrivale, L.

Waverley, V.

Mersey, V.

Weatherill, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wedgwood, L.

Milverton, L.

Wynford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 22, line 15, at end insert ("and will not result in placing upon the police and the local authorities concerned an increase in the costs of enforcement of the order.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 177, for the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 177A, 177B, 177D, 177G, 177H and 177K. The amendment deals with the issue of enforcement, which is highly critical. In another place —and indeed here—the Minister said that the Government are seeking a strengthening of traffic controls and better enforcement within the resources released by reason of the discontinuation of the permit system. I believe that that is what the Minister said earlier. The question we are now considering is whether the Government's proposals will have that effect; and whether the permit system had the disastrous effect asserted, not simply inferred, by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It is perhaps as well to start from the proposition that the permit system worked.
The permit system was not widely welcomed by the industry. It appears that the Government were a late convert to the idea. They did not welcome it and did their best to frustrate it—a point the Minister totally averted when I mentioned the matter earlier—but I am

1027
glad that they are now converted to the scheme. In effect they are saying that it did not work. With the greatest respect, that is not accurate. Something like 2,000 prosecutions a year have taken place in recent years and well over 90 per cent. of them resulted in conviction. The reason for that is that the test is a simple one; that is, whether or not the permit was breached.
It is for the Minister to determine why it is necessary to change a system which, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, worked effectively. The maximum fines are £1,000. It had a deterrent effect. There is no suggestion of an upsurge of opinion among the public against the system. If there is, perhaps the Minister could elucidate upon that point. From where does the pressure come? It comes from the road haulage industry—people who set their face against the scheme in the first place and have sought to undermine it ever since. This is the most effective way in which they can undermine it. At the end of the day I suggest that what the Government are proposing to do will render it pretty well impossible effectively to enforce the scheme.
The Government's proposals rely almost entirely on the provision of additional support from the police for enforcement. What happened previously is that the London Boroughs Transport Scheme, with a very small bureaucracy—five people were actually supervising the matter—had this considerable success. The success has to be measured not only in terms of the number of prosecutions but the way in which lorries which would have offended the purpose of the lorry ban have been deterred from entering within these prohibited periods and from entering these prohibited places. That has been done with some, but relatively little, input from the police. That is an important consideration. If the police are now supposed to provide this additional effort in order to supervise the scheme, where should it rank in their priorities in policing London? If the police wanted this duty they would have said so unequivocally to the Minister.
The contrary is the case. The police do not want to assume this duty, and with good cause. On any sensible understanding of the position, who would place this anywhere near the top of their priorities, particularly when the scheme has been supervised effectively in the past; and the police know that just as well as anyone else? The corollary to this is that, if the burden is to be passed to the police to carry out virtually the entire responsibility, have the Government any plans to ensure that additional police resources will be available? What the Minister has implied today is, "Oh no, it is nothing to do with us. It is the local authorities which will have to assume that burden". One must also take into account the whole question of proportionality. The local authorities have some high priorities as well. If they are to embark on a system which is very uncertain indeed in its efficacy, as I shall seek to demonstrate, it is a little unfair to expect them to accept these responsibilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the Oscar Faber Report and to the Touche Ross Report. It is suggested in the reports that there would be a net increase of £160,000 per annum in police and local authority enforcement costs as a result of the Government's scheme. Why do the Government dispute

1028
that? The Committee is entitled to an answer from the Minister because it goes to the very heart of what is being asserted in the advice being received by the London Boroughs Transport Scheme. What would happen regarding the administration of the scheme is that the police would have to stop lorries. In the absence of the plating requirements —as I understand it, they would go as well—a far higher number of lorries would have to be stopped, with concomitant delays in journey and essential business time. I wonder how the Government calculated that expenditure. What is the estimated number of police stops compared with the present system? What police resources would have to be provided? What about weekends, when the resources of the police are at their lowest ebb? When it comes to night-time activities on the part of the police, I hardly think that they would very much welcome this additional work.
The Government say that they would apply these spot checks and that they would be targeted on areas of high sensitivity and lorry intrusion. That would not provide the same level of protection as is afforded by the present scheme. The Government also assert that the multi-agency checks—the checks carried out by the police, the London Boroughs Transport Scheme, the Department of Transport, local authorities and so on —would be most effective. But most of those checks take place outside the prohibited hours of the ban. It is for the Minister to indicate to the Committee why he asserts that that proposition is accurate.
I come to the question of evidential difficulties in bringing prosecutions under the Government's scheme. First, as I understand it, delivery notes would be the most substantial part of the evidence against defendants in circumstances of this kind. Delivery notes, as the Minister should know, are not in any standardised form. There is a considerable variation of information in them. There is no requirement by law for drivers to produce their delivery notes and no penalties if they do not. Do the Government intend, as a result of that lacuna, to introduce such requirements into the law? What would happen is that an investigating officer would have to be satisfied that a lorry journey was legitimate. In all probability he would have to follow up, or others would have to follow up, the investigations that he had started. That does not have to be undertaken at the moment. The present system is all very simple by comparison. The burden on the police will be immensely heavier. To establish a case the prosecution would need to show that the journey of the vehicle was unnecessary on a particular street during the prohibited hours. Currently, all the prosecution is required to establish is a failure to display the permit. If we are talking about burdens, it seems to me, against the background of that situation, that the Government have got their thinking in a rather parlous state.
My conclusion is that it will be easier for the operators to evade prosecution under the Government's scheme and to avoid conviction. There will be considerably less success in the enforcement procedures that will be undertaken than is provided in the current system. Therefore, the protection that is afforded to the

1029
people of London by reason of the efficacy of the present permit system will be obviated by reason of the Government's alternative scheme. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I referred earlier to the fact that some local authorities in London are apprehensive that the maintenance of the ban without the maintenance of the permit system will lead both to an increase in the cost of enforcement and, more importantly, to a reduction in the effectiveness of the ban. I am told that in ordinary circumstances compliance with the ban on lorries at certain times of the day from certain streets can well be less than 50 per cent. In London under the permit system compliance has been more than 70 per cent. That represents a considerable reduction in the nuisance by noise, vibration and so on during the silent hours for the people of London.
I say again that boroughs such as the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea are genuinely concerned about this. The borough makes the point that it has supported the scheme since its inception. There have been 554 prosecutions by the borough in the past few years. The ban has without doubt achieved a substantial reduction in the number of heavy vehicles using the borough's streets. Residents' associations have stressed the need for a high level of enforcement. The ban and its enforcement are seen as a critical tool in securing a suitable environment for borough residents to live in. That is a point of view of which my noble friend should take great cognisance in considering whether to maintain the ban. On the first amendment this afternoon, my noble friend made it perfectly clear that he was in favour of continuing the ban, and so am I. Like him, I am a late convert to the scheme. I was very suspicious of it, not least because of its provenance which was referred to earlier by my noble friend Lord Finsberg in regard to the notorious Mr. Dave Wetzel of the GLC. The fact is that it is a scheme which has worked and has produced undoubted benefits. I suspect that without the permit scheme the ban will become much less effective.
The amendment refers to the cost of enforcement without the permit scheme, and that goes to the nub of the case. I hope that my noble friend will be able to consult more widely on this before deciding to go down the road of ending the permit scheme. I have considerable doubts as to whether the cost savings as a result of ending the permit scheme will bring sufficient advantage to offset the undoubted loss of effectiveness of a ban.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Sadly, I find myself opposed to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and against the amendment. The ban scheme, together with the permit scheme, came into effect before the M.25 was completed. The general position has changed immensely. Without a permit scheme the same number of lorries will require access to London for that essential business which the permit would afford them. I suggest that the remainder will continue, as they do now, to use the
1030
M.25. There is no advantage to a haulier to come through a congested city when there is the M.25 to get around it.
I suggest that the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, quoted are somewhat misleading. He said that about 2,000 prosecutions have taken place. I am advised that in many instances the "no permit" prosecution figures relate to technical, "no permit" offences and not particularly to vehicles without any business in London at that time. Companies which have permits for those vehicles in their fleets and likely to have business, have been prosecuted when substituting a non-permit vehicle. Equally, permits do not relate to individual journeys. There is no guarantee that a lorry with a permit is engaged on an exempt journey. Therefore, in some respects there is a contradiction in terms.
In any event enforcement would require clarification that a vehicle with or without a permit is in fact on exempt business. That can only be carried out by the enforcement officers making inquiries as to what exactly the lorry is doing at that particular time and place. If one released the resources currently used in this rather bureaucratic permit system, which many local authorities accept is not very effective, one could bring to bear a greater amount of enforcement power.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that there is any suggestion in the Bill, or from any other quarter, that the police themselves will be charged with an additional duty. I cannot remember exactly how much I quoted earlier from the letter. Perhaps Members of the Committee will forgive me if there is a little repetition. The superintendent of the Headquarters Traffic Unit of the Metropolitan Police Service says:
"We agreed that deregulation is likely to result in more vehicles being stopped than at present. Because it is often during such stops that other, unrelated, offences tend to come to light, it will, of course, be in our interests to co-operate as fully as possible with the LBTS, commensurate with our other operational commitments".
It has always been the case that the responsibilities placed on the police authorities should be commensurate with their operational responsibilities. I cannot understand where the noble Lord opposite sees an additional responsibility being placed on the police.
Lord Clinton-Davis: If the noble Lord's arguments are right, why have not the police voluntarily assumed a greater role on the issue of enforcement in order to achieve the ends to which he referred earlier—namely, the disclosure of possible other offences? There is nothing to stop them doing that.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I do not know very much about police operational duties or responsibilities. I believe that this is an element of priority—that is to say, the abandonment of a permit system does not alter in any shape or form that order of priority.
Lord Tordoff: But it makes it more difficult to spot people who are offending. Therefore, in order to catch the offenders, you have to stop more people rather than just the people who are not carrying a licence. Surely that is where the extra cost comes in.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, ought to be fairly reasonable about this. We are talking about a permit stuck on a windscreen; we are not talking about a whacking great number plate. Surely the evidence is self-evident. For example, if a 16.5 tonne lorry is standing in a street at a certain time where there is a ban, that is all the evidence that is needed; it is not for somebody to walk up to the vehicle to see what certification or badges are stuck inside the windscreen. In any event, there is no difficulty with local authorities imposing and enforcing bans on a 7.5 tonne vehicle. Very similar restrictions could be placed on the larger lorry by traffic management schemes.
Baroness Hamwee: One might think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was in support of a total ban across London. In fact, the scheme as it now operates provides lorry operators, who have acceptable reasons within the scheme, with permits to use particular roads during hours when otherwise they would be banned. To suggest that the ban is being infringed simply because a lorry of a certain size is parked in a street, is a more stringent position for the operators than the ban we are currently discussing.
The noble Lord said that many boroughs claim that the scheme is not effective. There is no requirement on the boroughs to join the scheme, but the fact is that the majority of them have. It is accepted both tacitly and explicitly by other boroughs which are sandwiched between those areas which operate the scheme, that they themselves benefit. If you cannot go on either side of an area, then you are unable to go through the middle of it. The noble Lord also said that with the M.25 there is no need for the permit scheme. For those operators who use the M.25 the scheme should be no problem.
By these proposals, we seem almost to be reducing the whole of London to one big lorry ban area. I cannot imagine anything more difficult to enforce. Indeed, the Department of Transport's guidance manual states that area lorry bans are particularly difficult to enforce.
In supporting this amendment, which is grouped with a number of others to which I have put my name also, I shall not repeat the arguments that have already been made, which is not to say that I do not agree with them, but I am aware that there are many other important matters to be discussed before the day is out. However, I should say that if the deterrent effect of the scheme is reduced, it is likely that there will be more opportunistic journeys across London, an increasing level of ignorance of the controls, the enforcement teams will have to cope with a much higher level of infringement than currently, and the scheme will be in danger of coming into disrepute.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As I have explained in my previous interventions in the debate, we believe that the abolition of the permit system, with its incumbent bureaucracy, will generate substantial savings—not just for the industry, but also for the London boroughs—which could then be used by the boroughs to enhance the enforcement effort.
1032
As the system works at present, permits are issued and lorries display plates when driving in London. But, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, the plate does nor. guarantee that the vehicle is complying with the relevant conditions of the ban. Thus at present to enforce the: scheme even lorries with permits have to be stopped to check that they are complying with the requirements of the ban. Once the permit system has been removed, the ban, as I have explained, will continue to operate. Checks on vehicles will establish whether they are on a journey that is allowed under the exemptions. The existing roadside checks which are carried out by the London Boroughs Transport Scheme, with the support of the police, will continue.
We estimate that removing the bureaucracy of the permit system will save the London Boroughs Transport Scheme in the region of £400,000 based on the costs in this financial year. This is equivalent to the cost of an additional eight full-time police officers. Enforcement could thus be substantially increased at no extra cost above that already incurred by the scheme.
On the question of roadside checks, it has been suggested that documentation would not be available on the lorry for scrutiny by the authorities when they stop vehicles. However, the simple fact is that most lorry drivers carry delivery notes. Indeed, I suggest that they all carry delivery notes and consignment notes otherwise they would be driving around in circles until somebody stopped them saying, "I think what you're carrying is bound for me". Of course they carry delivery notes. The operators of the vehicles are not in the least concerned about the need to carry documentation. As I have said, some documentation is already carried. Furthermore, as part of the consultation that we discussed earlier, there will be consultation on the form of the documentation that will be needed by each lorry.
If one accepts—as I and my noble friend Lord Lucas accept —that many lorries can be on what one might term "illegal journeys", even if they have a permit, one realises that the carrying and checking of documentation will enforce the ban not only on those people who currently "take a flyer", if I may so describe it, and drive in without a permit, but on those who currently, under the cover of having a permit, make other journeys which might not be consistent with the ban.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was sceptical about various schemes such as the multi-agency checks. I advise the noble Lord that most multi-agency checks begin at 6 a.m. Lorries that are pulled in between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. from restricted streets would be subject to the ban and would have to explain why they were there. Checks could be started earlier, but there is little doubt that there will be a time in the early morning—between, say, 6 a.m. and 7 a.m.—when a great many vehicles will be moving about in a restricted area to make the deliveries that we discussed earlier.
As I have said, we believe that the savings that the London Boroughs Transport Scheme would gain from the removal of the bureaucracy could be used to enhance the enforcement effort. It is, of course, for LETS to determine what it would do to increase the level of enforcement and what level of enforcement would be appropriate in the circumstances. We believe that an

1033
improvement in enforcement could lead to a better situation for the residents of London than the London lorry ban.
The amendments would prevent the Secretary of State using the order-making power where it would increase enforcement costs even if they were offset by administrative savings of some £400,000 from the abolition of the permit scheme. I do not believe that that would be a sensible way to go. I hope that I have managed to persuade the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on at least that issue.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding raised his concerns lest the removal of the permit scheme means that the ban will be less effective. I have tried to explain that increased enforcement of lorries—both those with permits and those which currently take a flyer without a permit—must help the ban. If people who might be prepared to take a chance knew that enforcement had been increased and that the chance of being caught and fined had increased, I suggest that they might be discouraged from taking that chance.
A number of the issues that have been raised will clearly arise in consultation and will then be considered by the Secretary of State when he comes to decide whether or not to make the order. I suggest that the amendments in this group would not do what they are intended to do, which is to improve the situation with regard to the ban by increasing enforcement. As I have said, enforcement can be increased by LBTS if it decides to use the money saved for that purpose. For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, responds to that, I should say that the Minister seems to be living in a fantasy land. He talked about eight extra policemen. That is one per five boroughs yet he says that that will provide a huge deterrent to those people who might want to take a flyer and come in when the permit has been removed. The whole point about the permit is that it is a coarse filter. It is not perfect, but somebody spotting a lorry in the wrong place and without a permit knows that it should not be there. A lorry in a certain place with a permit may or not have the right to be there, and clearly will have to be checked. The provision of an additional eight policemen throughout the whole of Greater London seems less of a deterrent than the Minister suggests.
Baroness Hamwee: As I do not think that the Minister is seeking to respond to my noble friend, perhaps I may ask him a question about the consultation that the department is to have with various authorities. I refer to a problem that arises when lorries are stopped for multi-agency checks. I agree that that prospect must be a great deterrent as it involves the Department of Transport, the police and Customs. However, are not those multi-agency stops easily avoided or even evaded by the use of CB radio messages, to which many of the lorries have access and by which they may be able to warn their friends? I simply ask the Minister whether he will bring that point into his consultations.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I had not thought about CB radios, but clearly that is a way round any legislation. If the spotters were there and the CB radio operators were on the ball, they could warn their friends. That is one of the problems about the advent of CB radios. Speed traps also encounter that problem with heavy vehicles.
However, perhaps I may advise the noble Baroness that the enforcement teams pick up a great many lorries when carrying out such stops. I have a note of one exercise recently in east London where the LBTC declined the invitation to attend. Many faults and irregularities were detected on the vehicles that were stopped. Some 17 vehicles were prohibited from the roads immediately, 273 warnings were issued and 140 offences prosecuted subsequently. That suggests that they do not use CB radios or that they did not have them. I do not know which.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have some reservations on one matter which is in a way fundamental to the amendment: whether we have drafted the amendment correctly. To deal with the principle, which is the all important matter here, the Minister has made a number of assertions but has not coupled them with any evidence. He has said that there will be substantial savings for local authorities, among others. He has said that over and over again. What are the substantial savings? What amount does he have in mind? To what extent therefore can additional resources be ploughed back into enforcement? He did not say a word about that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought that I did mention that. I thought I mentioned the figure of £400,000 which will be saved by the LBTC in bureaucracy costs alone. That is the figure to which I was referring.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I of course accept what the Minister is asserting, although I challenge what he is saying, because I challenge the fundamental assertion that the cost to the industry is anything like that which the Minister has asserted, wholly on the basis of course of anecdotal information which has been provided for him by the industry itself. They are issues which are challenged strongly, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, by the Touche Ross and Oscar Faber reports and so on. The Minster said that he has not had an opportunity to consider those reports but that they have arrived on his desk. One of the reasons why I shall not press the matter to a Division tonight is to enable the Minister to consider carefully what is in those reports so that there might be—I am not terribly optimistic that anything will change the Government's mind on the matter—an outside chance that what has been reported could commend itself to the Minister.
I take it from what the Minister has said that he will consider those reports before we debate the issues on Report. I see that he is nodding in approbation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should have happily considered them before the Committee stage had they been sent, as I said, more than just half-an-hour before we started this afternoon's proceedings.
Lord Clinton-Davis: As I think the Minister will concede, that is not my responsibility. I did not commission the reports. I am not responsible for the reports, but I accept that it may have been better, from the point of view of his consideration of the matter, had they arrived earlier. But that does not diminish the importance of what is said in them. I am glad that the Minister has said that he will consider those issues.
Dependence upon the police will rely heavily upon their assessments of the order of priorities. If it is eight extra police officers in London, that will not add much to the scheme's effectiveness. In fact, it cannot begin to compete with what we already have. A substantial increase in police resourcing would be needed for an effective system to be achieved.
I should like to hear much more from the Minister about police reaction to the proposal. It is not enough merely to provide a bit of anecdotal evidence as to what one police officer has said. We need to have some authoritative evidence as to how the police regard the issue, because my information, which could be wrong —again it is hearsay—is that the police do not welcome the increased powers which will fall to them. They do not accept that eight additional police officers can begin to carry out those requirements.
As to delivery notes, the Minister seems to think that delivery notes are the complete answer to everything. They are not. I beg him in the interim period to have a look at examples of different forms of delivery note. I hope that he will see from that that the evidence necessary for a successful prosecution will be difficult to procure on the basis of some of the delivery notes used currently. I ask him to reconsider what I said earlier —I shall not repeat it—about the efficacy of the evidence that would have to be procured in the courts.
On the question of enforcement strategy cost comparisons, that is a matter to which I shall not refer again. It is dealt with effectively in the Oscar Faber report. I thank those Members of the Committee who have participated in the debate. I should like to conclude with a comment that I noted made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He and I have agreed and disagreed on transport matters frequently. I think that we have agreed on this, because what he said about the police—this was the nub of the argument—related to the element of priority. They are not willing to give to the policing and monitoring of this scheme the priority that will be required to render it enforceable and effective. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 177A and 177B not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwce Baroness Hamwce moved Amendment No. 177C:
Page 22, line 15, at end insert ("while being consistent with the principle that the polluter should pay.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 177E, 177J and 177L which are grouped with Amendment No. 177C. I shall be brief, although the matter is important. This group of amendments deals directly with environmental issues. The subject of traffic on London streets is one which I am sure will be on the minds of many Members of the
1036
Committee. We have the advantage in the Chamber of, I hope, filtered air but certainly cool air. The atmospheric quality outside the building over the past weekend and today has been poor. I am sure that many Members of the Committee who have been in London over the weekend will have felt the effects.
This group of amendments seeks to add to the Bill the requirement that any alteration to the scheme made by the Secretary of State will protect the environment as effectively as is the current situation and will be consistent with the principle that the polluter should pay. The enforcement of the ban has assisted the environment in London in that it has reduced the number of heavy lorries which damage our roads and pavements; it has reduced noise and vibration at night; and it has reduced light pollution. That is no small matter. The intrusion of powerful headlights into residential properties is disturbing. The Minister has told us that there will be consultations. I hope that, consistent with the Government's own words generally about protecting the environment, those considerations will be taken into account. I should like to see them on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkinof Roding: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned noise pollution and I was reminded of a study that was carried out in Paris. It related to a motorcycle, but a large lorry makes every bit as much noise. It was calculated that if, in the small hours of the morning, a motorcyclist drove from one side of Paris to the other, going straight through the middle, 400,000 people would be woken up in the course of him doing so. That impressed me mightily because it is a measure of the disturbance caused by vehicles using cities at night. Their populations are dense and people do not like sleeping with their windows shut, particularly in weather such as this.
I hope that my noble friend is right in saying that the new enforcement measures will be more economical and effective. I gave that example in order to reinforce my plea that the consultation that we must have with local authorities and others, which his right honourable friend has promised, will examine those points thoroughly before an order is made.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I support the amendment. Someone will have to pay a heavy price for what I believe will be the less rigorous enforcement of these rules, and it will be the London resident. I well remember that when I was a Member of the House of Commons representing Hackney, an area that was particularly prejudiced by reason of what was; happening, the problem was not one about which I received the most mail but there was always a regular flow of letters. People were being disturbed at night and during weekends and that was one of the reasons that the London lorry ban came into operation. I believe that we shall return to that situation and I am appalled by the prospect. If this scheme comes into effect, I hope that I shall be proved wrong.
The air-brake silencers have particular relevance to the environment and I believe that they should be fitted as standard equipment. However, the Minister is proposing that there is no need for their fitting because

1037
a new European standard will come into effect in 1996. That standard will not come into effect immediately. The Minister would say, "That does not matter because, for the most part, all new vehicles are fitted with the new air-brake silencers and therefore there is no need to impose that". It will be well into the next century before all lorries have air-brake silencers fitted as standard components. That is highly germane to environmental issues and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is overloaded with good intentions and I do not believe that it would be wise to insert them all on the statute book. I do not believe that the phrase "the polluter should pay" originated with the noble Baroness. It is a glib phrase with which some politicians are happy, but I do not believe that it will fit well on to the pages of our statute book. I have no great respect for the statute book as it is, but one does not want to mess it up with any more such glib phrases. I am reasonably confident that on this occasion my noble friend on the Front Bench will agree with me.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I believe that this is the wrong provision for the discussion of vehicle noise. Notwithstanding any EC directive on the matter, it would be wrong to suppose that the vehicle industry is not aware of its responsibilities in regard to pollution, whether it relates to a motorcycle or to a heavy goods vehicle, or to road damage, springing and suspension, chassis noise, engine noise or silencer noise. A good deal of effort, research and resources are being put into that problem. I suggest that it would be wrong to introduce a specific reference to that aspect of the lorry ban or to the absence of a permit. Therefore, I subscribe to the views put forward by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil.
Earl Attlee: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, advocated the use of air-brake silencers, as does the London boroughs lorry ban scheme. Is he aware that it is most dangerous to retrofit anything to the air-braking system of commercial vehicles? Is he further aware that within the industry there is a great deal of concern that less sophisticated operators may be tempted to avoid the air-brake noise by not fitting suitable air-brakes?
Is the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, aware that the industry has gone to great expense to manufacture diesel engines to the new Euro 2 standards, which produce a great deal less pollution? As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, a great deal of effort is paid to making lorries quiet. I believe that the noble Baroness must agree that the modern large lorry is very quiet indeed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Again, I am happy to reassure the Committee that we attach the greatest importance to the environmental protection offered by the London lorry ban. We have no intention of weakening its provisions. I reiterate that lorries with no business in London at the time of the ban will be liable to enforcement action. They will have to continue to make the maximum use of routes exempt from the ban
1038
and drivers will be expected to carry documentary evidence to justify their journeys on the restricted network. As regards carrying documentary evidence, the burden of proof will be on the defendant to establish that he had the benefit of an exemption from the ban because of the nature of the journey that he was undertaking on the restricted network. There will be no relaxation of the existing strict requirements.
Enhanced roadside enforcement of the ban can protect Londoners from those vehicles tempted to "rat run" or to make improper use of the restricted network. This protection will be fully maintained in the future under any revised order. As I have explained, there will be some savings on the LBTS, and I am not sure whether the Committee was disputing that £400,000. What appears to be disputed is the £400,000 which the LBTS consultants placed on the saving to industry and the figure of up to £3 million which, from our inquiries, we suspect is a better estimate of the saving to industry.
I do not believe that Amendment No. 177E is appropriate. Circumstances can change, meaning that the level of environmental disturbance caused by lorries will change. For instance, new roads, such as the M.25, can be built which considerably affect traffic route patterns. The completion of the M.25 has done much to relieve London of lorry traffic both during the daytime and at night. Therefore, it is inappropriate to have the test proposed in the amendment because it would mean that no account could be taken of improvements in environmental protection afforded by extraneous or unrelated developments.
Some of those developments have been mentioned. The technology with regard to lorries has improved; for example, vehicle suspensions have been improved, which reduces the amount of body rattle. Technology with regard to engines has improved, which not only reduces atmospheric pollution but also reduces the pollution caused by noise. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned air-brake silencers. As he said, under the EC directive, they have to be fitted to all new vehicles in 1996. Clearly, as fleets are updated, all vehicles will eventually be fitted with such silencers. That will greatly improve the position. In changing what we expect from the design of motor vehicles, the improvements take time to work through as elderly vehicles that do not have the advanced technology move out of the fleet and the vehicles with advanced technology move in.
It is not clear what legal effect Amendments Nos. 177C and 177J would have. The principle that the polluter should pay is useful generally as a basis for considering policy and in particular, taxation policy. But I am not clear what it would achieve here. If the noble Baroness suggests that lorries driving through London should in some way compensate residents for the pollution caused, I should remind her that, apart from the complications involved in doing that, many of those vehicles are entering London legitimately to carry essential goods and to do important work for the ultimate benefit of local communities. Therefore, I believe that the amendments are unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I accept that the term "the polluter should pay" is slightly glib and perhaps more useful in general speeches than as a matter for legislation. Nevertheless, an acceptance of the need to protect the environment is important. In his response, the Minister has more or less drafted for me the amendment which I may table at the next stage; namely, to allow account to be taken of technical and other developments. I accept that point. In the circumstances, I do not seek to press the matter and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. J77D to 177M not moved.]
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 22, leave out from beginning of line 42 to end of line 44 and insert ("no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a Resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has already given notice to the Committee that he intends to join our discussions on this matter and he will be welcome so to do.
The amendment takes us back to the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. Paragraph 7 on page 2 of the report sets out the argument. To put the matter simply—and I do not believe that I need go beyond that—there was discussion with the department as to whether it was appropriate to use the negative instrument procedure. The department said that it was appropriate because orders will provide for changes to existing subordinate legislation which itself is not subject to parliamentary procedure. The Select Committee's reply to that was:
'The Committee urges the House to consider whether this is a sufficient justification for the negative procedure in this case, given the potentially wide extent of the powers, or whether the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate for orders made under Clause 24".
No one can pretend that the clause is not wide ranging. We have already spent two and a half hours debating various aspects of it. It seems to me that orders made under this clause should receive the positive scrutiny of your Lordships. I know about the problems that we have with any orders and I do not wish to become involved this evening in an argument about that. It is hoped that the procedure with regard to those may improve in the future. But at present we have a better opportunity to debate these matters if they come before us by way of the affirmative rather than the negative procedure.
I remind the Committee that these matters are not subject to the safeguards provided under Clause 1 and subsequent clauses of the Bill. Orders made under Clause 1 will be subject to the procedural safeguards which we have discussed already. But orders made under this clause will not be subject to those procedures because this is a piece of primary legislation.
I am arguing that this matter is sufficiently serious for it to be dealt with by the affirmative procedure. It should not be left to the negative procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I support the amendment as strongly as I can. It concerns parliamentary control over a very important provision that has been debated now for two hours and more.
When I first saw the clause, I was filled with apprehension. I thought that it fitted in with the supply side concepts of the rest of the Bill, which are none the worse for being supply side concepts. I thought that it proposed to remove, in the interests of business, the ban on lorries in London. That particular apprehension has been dispelled totally but, in its dispelling, a number of very puzzling matters have emerged. The Minister, who has been so clear and forceful and in such command of his brief, has made it absolutely clear that the ban remains. So far as I can see, the only difference is that the permit system is to be obviated and something that is not very clear is to be put in its place.
The noble Lord repeatedly used the word "bureaucracy". He said that the Government are sweeping away bureaucracy. But with all his abilities, he failed to explain why obtaining and showing a permit is more bureaucratic than carrying the documentation which is apparently now required. Of course, they are both bureaucratic provisions and the first question is whether they are necessary. Obviously they are necessary because if there is to be a ban, it must be policed in some way.
Secondly, it is quite clear that a power that is at present vested in the local authorities is to be transferred to the department. Again, I do not see why Whitehall is less bureaucratic than town hall. Nor do I see that the centralising feature can be justified in any way. As I understand the scheme, the ban is to remain. The present ban is, in its incidence, considered by local authorities. They know the needs for provisioning of their shops, on the one hand; on the other hand, they know the needs of their constituents to have freedom from pollution and noise. They are in a very good position to weigh that balance, which lies at the heart of the Bill.
The ministry is in nothing like such a good position. As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said In his memorable speech on Second Reading, every department has its own agenda. I venture to put it rather more unfavourably: a department necessarily has something of a tunnel vision. The Department of Trade and Industry is concerned with the supply side. It is concerned with businessmen and enabling them to fulfil their functions as efficiently as possible to satisfy the wants of the consumer. That is its concern. The department is nothing like so concerned with the various matters which the noble Baroness mentioned during the debate on the last amendment and which were certainly endorsed by the Minister.
That is how the Bill stands at present. However, it gives the Minister those powers which are to be taken away from local authorities and states that they are subject only to the negative resolution procedure. If there was ever a case where parliamentary control is required, it is where a department with its agenda, its tunnel vision, sees only one side primarily of the balance. Parliament is needed to restore the balance— or, if not Parliament, some other institution. But in this case it is only Parliament.

1041
What is offered is the negative resolution procedure, the defects of which are well known. So far as concerns the other place, more often than not the negative resolution is never reached at all because time has run out. However, as for this place, there is the additional disadvantage that the Government recently invented a completely spurious parliamentary convention; namely, that Members of this Chamber do not vote against a subordinate resolution a fortiori, of course, when it is a negative procedure which may not come before this place.
In this case, it is of the first importance that the affirmative resolution procedure should apply. Members of the Committee should make it abundantly plain that there is no such spurious convention precluding Members of this Chamber from performing their proper parliamentary role. In its memorandum to the scrutiny committee, the department said that the Minister's draft orders would be concerned with secondary legislation, meaning the present scheme. Indeed, so it would. But the Minister is assuming very wide powers under the Bill and the proper way to scrutinise them is by the affirmative resolution procedure.
The scrutiny committee has signalled that in its accustomed way with the utmost clarity. Quite clearly, members of that committee believe that this is a case which calls for the affirmative procedure. The scrutiny committee has been an enormous success, partly because it has been so moderate in its recommendations. In many cases, it has accepted the negative resolution procedure, even in respect of Henry VIII provisions. However, when members of that committee signal as clearly as they have in the passage cited by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, we are virtually abandoning them and that machinery if we disregard what they clearly think.
As I said, the scrutiny committee has been an enormous success. It has abundantly justified the recommendation of the Jellicoe Committee and that of the procedure committee which brushed aside the understandable reservations of the Government. The Government are now engaged in trying to downgrade those recommendations and in downgrading parliamentary control. If parliamentary control is negative in this case, it is largely in the hands of Members of this Chamber. However, what is desired is to vindicate the right of Parliament as a whole—that is, both places—to scrutinise the legislation now before us. It cannot be amended; but it can be debated, disapproved in debate, withdrawn and then perhaps relaid. Members of the Committee have the opportunity to maintain the role of Parliament at a time when Parliament is coming under some criticism. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will avoid any embarrassment by saying that he accepts the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am much relieved to find that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has, as indeed I have, misunderstood the meaning of the clause. Like the noble and learned Lord, I misunderstood it because I had obviously misread the
1042
relevant section in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. The latter gave me the impression that Ministers would subsequently be able to remove not only the permit system but also the ban on heavy lorries in London. However, I have learnt with some relief from my noble friend the Minister that there is no power in the Bill to enable Ministers so to do.
My second point has already been referred to, and I do not wish to repeat everything just said by the noble and learned Lord. However, for myself, I can recall Ministers constantly objecting to amendments on the grounds that they would be meaningless and that they would add nothing to the legislation. There is no point whatever in saying that this Chamber should have the right to use the negative resolution procedure because that is never used here. Therefore, what is the point of having it? We must have an affirmative resolution procedure because the negative one is absolutely meaningless and of no value to this place; indeed, it adds nothing to parliamentary control. I agree with the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I hope that the Government will look again at the matter. If we are to have any faith at all in the parliamentary system for scrutinising legislation when we have given powers to a Minister, the evidence of the past two hours has proved that, on this clause, the affirmative resolution procedure is the only one that would meet the requirements of the Bill. That is especially so if we accept the convention that in this Chamber we do not proceed on the negative resolution.
The noble and learned Lord said that Members of another place usually put such matters at the end of their agenda and that, therefore, they are dealt with rather cursorily. But in this Chamber we hardly ever deal at all with the negative procedure. In the circumstances, and in view of the arguments that have been put on the record this afternoon, I hope that this is an occasion when either we can alter our convention and be as active on the negative procedure as we could if we did not have that convention in our mind, or, better still, have the affirmative resolution where, when a measure is beginning, Parliament can give its views on it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We come to an amendment which is, of course, not directly involved with the detail of the permit system and the London lorry ban, but rather about the parliamentary scrutiny of any order which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport might bring forward. As a founder member of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee— I was plucked out of it by an invitation to join the Government—I fully recognise the arguments which have been made, and in particular the, as usual, powerful argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am not sure whether I do my case any good by admitting to him—he mentioned that every department had tunnel vision—that tomorrow morning I am to address a conference entitled "Tunnelling '94". I am not sure whether that will enhance his suspicions.
I suggest that there are two aspects of the particular order referred to in this clause which perhaps the Committee ought to consider before pressing on me the

1043
need to use the affirmative procedure. The first is that the Secretary of State's power under this clause is deliberately restricted. As my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil pointed out, he is empowered only to amend the permit-based lorry restrictions in London where an undue burden on business is imposed. Only the London-wide ban operating—
Baroness Hamwee: I think I heard that aright—an undue burden? We will return to that on Report.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Obviously the words of the noble Baroness are ringing in my mind with regard to burden. The moment that slipped out from the previous debate I realised that the noble Baroness would be on her feet. This shows of course —I was testing to make sure of this—that she was not asleep.
I turn to the main point of this serious argument. The London-wide ban on vehicles remains in place. This clause deals only with the permit system. Some Members of the Committee would not agree with my use of the word "only" with regard to the permit system because they clearly think it is a key part of the system. However, I shall use the word "only". It is only the London-wide ban operated by the London Boroughs Transport Scheme and a similar restriction in the City of Westminster which would fall under this clause. It is very narrowly drawn and it does not include other prohibitions or restrictions on the movement of lorries either in London or in other parts of the country. I suggest to the Committee that one of the reasons the negative procedure is, in my view, sufficient is that the clause itself is tightly drawn. The other—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord is always most courteous in giving way and I am extremely grateful. He has recommended the negative procedure as appropriate. Will he accept that your Lordships' House has an untrammelled freedom to vote when a resolution is put forward that is liable to be annulled?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was going to deal with that point in a second or two. Perhaps I can move into it by referring to the second part of my argument. The first part of my argument in favour of the negative proceedings is the one I have made. The second part of my argument is that on any definition—no one has suggested these are so defined—this is not a Henry VIII provision. It does not give the Executive power by secondary legislation to amend primary legislation. What it does do is give the Secretary of State power to amend traffic orders made by local authorities, which are of course themselves subordinate legislation and not subject to any parliamentary scrutiny.
Under the negative resolution procedure it is of course possible for a noble Lord, or noble Lords, to pray against a particular order if they consider it justified, although I fully recognise the arguments put forward so forcefully on this occasion, both in the intervention a moment or two ago, and in his speech, and on other occasions, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the way the procedures of the House, or the conventions of the House, interact with these matters.
1044
I am not hugely convinced about the need to change from a negative to an affirmative resolution and I am certainly not convinced that this particular amendment is the one we ought even to consider because of course if the Committee looks at the Bill itself, it will see that the very words "statutory instrument" would be removed. There would be no provision that the order should be made by statutory instrument. Clearly, even to attain the objectives we are discussing, the amendment before the Committee is defective.
However, I recognise the strength of the argument and, as I said, I am not unmindful of the fact that I was on the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee when it commenced its role of considering legislation from the point of view of delegated powers. If the noble Baroness would like to consider what I have said in response, I shall certainly consider what she and other Members of the Committee have said in this debate, and I have no doubt we can return to it at Report stage.
Lord Tordoff: Having moved the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, obviously in disguise—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Tordoff: —or that sort of thing, I should say that I am grateful to the Minister for what appears to be an undertaking to have another look at the measure. One accepts that the drafting is not necessarily all it might be, but I think that the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, cannot be overlooked. Also, the support which was given to this amendment from the Benches behind the Minister is something that he should certainly weigh in the balance.
The fact that this is a narrowly drawn clause might be disputed but, even if it were, I believe that there is sufficient matter of importance here for Parliament to have the opportunity of scrutinising properly orders which are made under this clause. To go merely down the negative procedure does not seem to me—and obviously does not appear to a number of other Members of the Committee—sufficient scrutiny lor the seriousness of the case. Having said that, and in hoping that the Minister will be prepared to discuss these matters between now and the next stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Employment agencies etc.: replacement of licensing]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 178A:
Page 23, line 30, at end insert:
("(2) Nothing in Schedule 9 or in Chapter I of Part I of this Act shall be taken to allow any amendment or repeal, in whole or in part, of the Nursing Agencies Act 1954.").
The noble Baroness said: With Clause 25 we now come to an entirely different issue because it seeks to remove the necessity for employment agencies to go through a licensing procedure. I hope that the Minister will feel that he can accept my amendment. I believe it has long been accepted that nursing agencies require separate regulation. Under the Nurses Agencies Act 1957, a number of requirements set them apart from the

1045
general run. Agencies providing qualified nurses must hold a licence under the Act and pay an annual fee. Those providing non-qualified staff must also hold a licence under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and pay a different annual fee.
The role of the agency is to ensure that the level of competence of staff matches the competence requirements of the client. Recruitment to the agency must be carried out by a qualified nurse who must assess clinical competence and check the work record and personal health record of applicants. To maintain the licence the agency must undergo regular inspections to demonstrate that it is working to acceptable levels of health care.
I cannot emphasise too strongly that health services are not the same as other employment services. The public expects that those who provide health services will have reached a level of competence that they can trust. This is becoming increasingly important with the development of care in the community which means that people will be choosing care assistants and carers from a variety of sources to care for the sick or the elderly disabled, sometimes in their own homes. The regulation of employment agencies providing staff to give that service is therefore a necessary measure of consumer protection and one about which the Royal College of Nursing feels very strongly. Indeed, I am indebted to the RCN for my briefing this evening. I therefore hope that whatever happens to this clause in the Bill, which I do not like and to which I shall return in a moment, the Government will at least accept that health services are different and regulation is a necessary element of public protection.
Of course, sometimes public protection in this area is found to be defective, but not often. However, when there is a breakdown, as there was recently in the Beverly Allitt case, there is an enormous public outcry, and quite rightly so. We have to ensure in so far as we can that cases of that kind do not recur. The existence of the Nurses Agencies Act and the requirement to license under it is a part of that protection. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): We can deal with the amendment fairly quickly. We shall deal with the clause itself later. We shall be dealing with the question of theatres. At the moment we are dealing with operating theatres. I apologise for the feebleness of that joke.
Perhaps I may give an assurance to the noble Baroness that agencies subject to the Nurses Agencies Act 1957 are not subject to the 1973 Act or the 1981 order and therefore the present law on nursing agencies in the 1957 Act will remain unaffected by Schedule 9.
With this amendment the noble Baroness seeks to exclude from the ambit of the deregulation order-making power legislation which serves an important purpose in the employment of nursing staff. But, as was made clear during the Committee stage debate on Chapter I, the Government have no intention of removing necessary protection for any group in society or protection of other kinds such as for public health or
1046
the environment. The way we have drawn the provisions in Chapter I means that the deregulation order-making power could not be used to remove any necessary protection. In our previous debates the strong consultation and special scrutiny procedures for the use of the Chapter I power were fully explained. I do not think that the noble Baroness would wish me to go into that in detail.
I suspect that the noble Baroness wants to know whether we have any future plans to include the regulation relating to nursing agencies. The first and most important point to make clear is that we do not wish at the moment to exclude any specific categories of legislation, or indeed, any specific Acts, from the operation of Chapter I but to leave the powers in Chapter I, which include the necessary safeguards to deal with these matters should that be necessary.
However, I should say to the noble Baroness that as part of a wide-ranging review of regulations across government my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health reviewed the Nurses Agencies Act and its 1961 regulations. They considered that the Act continued to serve a useful purpose in protecting the public and decided against total repeal at this stage.
However, the legislation has been in place for a very long time. Ministers decided to invite views on the desirability of simplifying the legislation by removing elements which are out of date or impose needless burdens on agencies. A consultation paper was issued in August 1993 to interested organisations, including the agencies, the professions, patients and the service itself. My colleagues in the Department of Health are still considering the results of that consultation exercise. It may be that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may wish to consult further if she decides in the light of the responses to change the legislation.
I therefore feel that it would be premature for the noble Baroness to press ahead with her amendment to exclude the possibility of making further amendments to that legislation by means of the powers available in Chapter I. I hope, therefore, that she will consider withdrawing her amendment, whatever she feels about the rest of the clause, which we shall debate in due course.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. Obviously I shall not press the amendment this evening. He said that consideration was being given to the Act to which the amendment refers. Can he give an undertaking that before any alterations are made to the present provisions the RCN will be consulted? The RCN is very concerned about the matter and has provided the briefing for this evening.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness will know that, as I made clear, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is considering further consultation. Obviously, before we proceeded with any proposals under Chapter I consultation would be necessary. That is why my noble friend Lord Strathclyde made it quite clear when we debated Chapter I some days ago exactly what the procedures were. I said that I did not think that it was necessary for me to go through the whole of the Chapter I debate again, but there are procedures and they must

1047
include consultation with the relevant bodies. I can give a fairly categoric assurance that the RCN, as the noble Baroness mentioned, would be such a relevant body.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord is a mine of information. He now tells us about the 1957 Act, which affects nurses. So we now have three categories: nurses, seamen and everybody else. Can he tell us why it is that we are going to change the procedure for seamen and for everybody else but at this moment the Government do not come forward with changes in respect of nurses? Presumably the people who run nursing agencies have to have licences. What is the system which will remain in place for nurses but has been done away with for seamen and everybody else? Why are the Government making this distinction?
Lord Henley: Nurses have a different licensing regime, as I made quite clear. I also made it quite clear that these matters had been considered in relation to whether there was appropriate protection under the Nurses Agencies Act and the 1961 regulations. My colleagues in the Department of Health consider that at the moment the provisions serve a useful purpose. However, as I said, because the regulations are fairly dated they will continue to review the matter to see whether any amendments are necessary. They will consult further as appropriate.
As regards the other parts of the clause, it would be better if we dealt with those issues when we debate the Motion that the clause shall stand part of the Bill. At the moment we are dealing simply with the question of nurses, which we see as a slightly different case.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his explanation and for his assurance that the RCN would certainly be one of the organisations to be consulted should it be decided to make any alteration to the Nurses Agencies Act 1957 and the relevant legislation. In the circumstances I do not intend to press the amendment this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: On behalf of my noble friends and myself I rise to oppose the Motion that Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill. In that I include the schedule to the clause because the clause merely enacts the schedule.
I speak mainly to urge the retention of the licensing of employment agents in the field of entertainment. My noble friend Lady Turner will speak on other aspects and point out other undesirable consequences of the clause and its schedule.
I am concerned primarily with the performance arts, with employment agents in the field of entertainment, the employers in that industry or art, the actors, dancers, musicians, writers and others, those who present and perform plays, who appear in television drama, serials, soaps and in the cinema, and who provide the music, singing and dancing in opera, ballet, musicals and so on. Employment in entertainment is normally irregular and often non-existent. Professional performers seldom
1048
work for a single employer. Their life is often one of auditions and unemployment. The performers are almost always represented by an agent; they have to be.
The role of the agent varies from the personal manager at the highest monetary artistic level— although the two factors are not always synonymous —to the agent who specialises in certain types of performer with specific skills and qualities or the agent who finds newcomers their first job. They are all necessary to the proper conduct of the business whether one refers to the provinces, the West End, the BBC, ITV or any other of the multi-faces of the entertainment business.
The duties of the agents vary and have become more complex in recent years as performance is no longer a performer to audience affair but increasingly has become a recorded product—a video recorded by someone. The sale and the remuneration for current and future use of that product must be negotiated by people who know what they are talking about, by experts on both sides. The product must be safeguarded and terms must be agreed on precisely what is allowed to happen to the product, its limitation or extension. That is a new issue. The present complexity did not exist even in 1979 when the licensed agent was created. The issue is becoming more complex all the time; and that is likely to continue. The licensed agent is an accepted part of the business—I believe an essential part.
The negotiations are normally carried out by the licensed agent on behalf of his client. Moneys arising are paid through the agent, who at any one time, like a solicitor, may hold in trust a large sum for his client. The agent has become a key figure. He must be: knowledgeable, skilled and a person of absolute integrity.
Malpractice cannot be dealt with after the event, as the Government propose in the, I believe, impracticable schedule linked to the clause. The licence requirement precedes trading and must continue to do so, for that is still an area of work which attracts the most vulnerable and exploitable people in the world. Not only that—it also attracts those who believe that they can make easy money by exploiting that attraction. They believe that they may enjoy a glamorous and even luxurious life in the process. I would not go so far as to refer to the government proposal as a "thieves' and perverts' charter", as the leaflet that I hold suggests. However, the fears expressed in the leaflet —I refer to it because a number of other noble Lords may have received it—are not mistaken. The fear exists, and rightly so. The casting couch is now a theatrical joke. Once it was even less funny; and that concept could return with the abolition of licensing. The damage which would follow the removal of the licensing system would be catastrophic; and licensing would have to be reinstated after a period of chaos.
Before 1973 brought agency licensing, the entertainment economy was a jungle in which the crook, the con man and the lecher roamed free, undeterred by the occasional prosecution. Licensing arrived out of necessity. That necessity is not less but greater today. Without licensing, bad practice—never entirely eradi-cated—would return in force.

1049
That is why the employers support licensing. They are negotiating with agents not chosen and paid by them but by those they employ. The commission is paid by the performer, not by the theatrical manager. But the theatrical manager needs to know that contracts will be honoured and that money paid to the agent will reach the performer. That is why pre-licensing is necessary. Malpractice is not a matter which can be tackled after the event, as the Government propose.
Some Members of the Committee will have received a letter from Equity. I shall not quote it in full but perhaps I may refer to it in a moment. However, without licensing, the present increasingly complex system will collapse and the damage done in the absence of licensing might be irreparable. The damage certainly could not be repaired by dealing with individual cases after the event, as is now proposed.
Some Members of the Committee who received the letter written on Equity paper may ask, "Does it come just from the performers' side?". Not at all. Ian McGarry, the General Secretary, is a highly respected man. He signs the letter and states that he represents ITV, Channel 4, the Producers' Alliance for Cinema and Television, which covers the whole range of employers, the Theatrical Management Association, the Society of London Theatre, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, the Personal Management Association, the Association of Model Agents, the Musicians' Union, the Writers' Guild of Great Britain and the Film Artistes' Association. Are all those people off their heads? They are not. They know the business. They know the dependency on licensing and that they cannot do without licensing.
The letter states four reasons why licensing should remain. First, performers exist in a very competitive environment and are vulnerable to exploitation at the hands of disreputable and dishonest practitioners. Star-struck, youngsters, desperate for the so-called glamorous life of an actor or model, are particularly at risk. Secondly, the current licensing requirements were hard won in the early 1970s and seen as a necessary deterrent to bad practice in a labour market which has been described as a jungle. If anything, performers are even more vulnerable now. Thirdly, unlike any other workers, performers, not employers, pay commission to the agent on a fixed percentage. That is an additional area of vulnerability. Fourthly, there was no consultation on the proposal with any relevant industry bodies prior to its inclusion in the Bill. The Committee may consider those powerful reasons.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Rix will shortly add some colour to this somewhat bald statement. However, I am absolutely convinced that if the Government had conducted the usual consultation, or even if the measure had been referred to a task force, the clause would not be in the Bill. It would have been seen to be crazy to remove a protection for integrity which everyone in the business seeks to retain.
Why did the Government uniquely avoid consultation in this area? Not only do they recommend consultation in their copious literature, but with their task forces they have actually practised it to a degree as
1050
regards other parts of the Bill. Was it because they knew that the survival of their intent was dependent upon depriving themselves of knowledge?
There was no White Paper (white or coloured) and there was no task force. Did the Government simply want to be rid of the chore of licensing? If so, in London they could have devolved the matter to the Greater London Council—if, of course, they had not abolished the Greater London Council. Did they know that if they consulted almost everyone in the business—the BBC, ITV, all the independent television companies and all the others, together with performers, they would say with one voice: "No, for God's sake don't do it. Don't send us back to the jungle. If you do, you'll ruin the business".
Employment agents in entertainment before 1973 had a poor reputation, as the Government would have been reminded had they bothered to ask. Even the good ones carried around with them the stigma of the casting couch, of the runaways who took with them money that was entrusted for clients, of the show girls exported into prostitution.
The unlicensed agent was a menace before 1973. In 1994, he would be a disaster, bringing down with him the better standards that have gradually been established since licensing, not without effort and not without some failures, but with determination and perhaps some sacrifice. Those standards must not be taken for granted. They have helped to make this country celebrated in the performance arts and in entertainment. Here we have one of our greatest assets in a world in which we have lost our lead in many ways. The Government could have done more to help but until now they have not actually gone out of their way to hinder, obstruct and destroy.
During to the proceedings on this Bill in another place, the Government replied to the points made here by saying that misdemeanours had taken place since licensing and on the part of licensed agents. Of course that must sometimes happen. The cure is to enforce licensing fully and eject the offender from the business. It is certainly not to abandon licensing. This clause does just that, and that is why it must come out of the Bill.
The Act of 1973 was introduced by a Conservative Private Member, Mr. Lewis, now Sir Kenneth Lewis, who has retired from the fray. He paid generous tribute to my own previous failed attempt and to the support that I was able to bring in another place to his successful measure, which was piloted skilfully and without opposition in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, whom I am very happy to see in his place. I do not know whether the noble Lord may also have certain points to make. He will, however, agree with me that he received every support from his Government at the time when he introduced the measure and that it met with no opposition from any part of the House. I believe I am right in saying that his Government at the time was under the premiership of Sir Edward Heath. It is that measure that I am talking about now, which that government's mistaken successor now seek to emasculate by abolishing the licensing of employment agents.
The Act of 1973 removed the casting couch from the agent's escutcheon and allowed his rehabilitation and

1051
establishment as an essential, private and honoured link in an operation of increasing complexity. I have received a mild suggestion that it would be welcome if I were to draw matters to a conclusion. I shall do just that. I hope that perhaps on reflection the Committee and even the Government will agree that they are about to do harm—perhaps even to themselves. If the Government cannot withdraw the clause I urge Peers on all sides to vote in the Lobbies to rectify this prodigious error. If there are government supporters who cannot vote against the Motion, I ask them at least to abstain and not to give their support to a clause containing a mistake which would wreak havoc and lower standards over a wider area than may now be fully apparent.
Lord Moyne: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has spoken very, very persuasively. But he has not spoken quite persuasively enough. I am sure that the organisations that the noble Lord quoted were not off their heads. But I suggest that perhaps they were accustomed to the nanny state. It is a good thing that as far as possible the Government should withdraw from the regulation of everything that they can withdraw from and encourage the industries concerned to regulate themselves. I should have thought that this was a case where that could apply. It is also not quite true to say that actors are the only people who pay fixed percentages to their agents. So of course do writers, whose industry, so far as I know, operates perfectly well without any government interference.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: A few days ago I discussed this clause outside the House with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. As a consequence of that discussion I thought that this was to be one of the rare occasions when the noble Lord and I would be in the same Lobby. But, as he has done so often in the past, the noble Lord has overdone it. He has blown the whole thing by extreme exaggeration. This is a good clause, covering most of the areas that it intends to cover. The noble Lord argued on the one section where he knows something about the matter, and on that part of it I have a lot of sympathy. That was the purpose of our conversation. But to remove the whole clause—which is what the noble Lord now wants to do —on those grounds is an absolute nonsense. I tried to deal with the matter by putting down two minor amendments to the clause which achieve a part of it that would be beneficial without ruining the whole of the Bill.
I believe that this clause forms a very important segment of the Bill. The Minister, Neil Hamilton, who has worked so hard on this and has carried out so much research, deserves our support and congratulation. The problem certainly does not call for the whole thing to be ruined by the removal of a clause which is one of the most important in the Bill. I hope that later on, when we come to my amendment, I can persuade the Committee to say that there is an exemption that could be given and that to give it would be the right thing to do. But at this stage to contemplate removing the whole of the clause is a nonsense. It is unnecessarily damaging, and it would undermine the whole purpose underlying the Bill.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Jenkins in his opposition to this clause standing part of the Bill. I disagree profoundly with what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has just said. I do not know why the Government are pursuing this idea. Why is it necessary to do away with licensing for employment agencies? So far as I am aware the whole thing has worked quite successfully in the past, and since as long ago as 1973. I am not aware of any pressure from anywhere to persuade the Government to take this course—quite the contrary. These agencies exist to provide an employment service and, as we have heard, many operate in specialised areas. There are about 14,500 licensed firms at the present time. It must be to the advantage of employers and prospective employers to know that the people operating a service of this kind are individuals of probity and with some professional expertise. This is not a field that we want to open up to a lot of cowboy operators who are anxious to turn a quick buck by claiming to offer a better and cheaper service. Let us make no mistake. Those people are already out there waiting to utilise whatever opportunity the Government give them with the Bill.
A recent newspaper article attempted to show that even now a growing number of bogus employment agencies are deceiving unemployed people by promising access to well paid jobs overseas in return for a registration fee. We are told that victims—many of them in the building industry—have their cheques cashed and their hopes raised by offers of job interviews which do not materialise. The legitimate agencies, which currently have to be licensed, are not allowed to charge potential employees a signing-on fee. There are people out there simply waiting to prey on the vulnerable—the unemployed who want a job no matter what —whose money is taken from them on entirely false premises.
If the Government succeed in getting this Bill through unamended, such individuals will be able to go on making false promises. The only remedy which will be open—and not to individuals who have been defrauded—is to the Secretary of State who may then utilise the intensely complex procedures in the schedule to try to persuade an industrial tribunal to prohibit the individual agency from trading again.
It seems quite absurd to involve industrial tribunals, which already have very heavy and even unacceptably heavy workloads. As for the employment arbitration tribunals, I understand that it can take as long as two years to have the case heard anyway. How many cases of complaint will the Secretary of State's department have to receive before an application is made to an industrial tribunal? How long will it all take? Will such an outfit be able to continue trading in the meantime?
I am advised that there was no consultation before this part of the Bill was written. That point has already been made by my noble friend Lord Jenkins. It is a very important issue in the Bill. A great many people could be adversely affected and they are not just in the entertainment industry. There are entertainment unions —the Musicians' Union, Equity and others—whose members are threatened by the Government's proposals. But clerical and secretarial workers, who are mostly

1053
women, for a long time have relied on employment agencies to obtain work opportunities for them. The Transport and General Workers' Union tells me that it now has problems in agriculture following the abolition of a licensing requirement as a result of the operation of gangmasters. There has been widespread exploitation of agricultural workers as a result of the growth of the gangmaster system which has grown up since licensing has not been necessary. It is an example of what can happen across the board when licensing controls are no longer there.
Therefore this evening I hope that the Committee will tell the Government that they should not proceed with this inappropriate clause of the Bill.
7 p.m.
Lord Rochester: Having had long experience of the frustrating effects of restrictive regulations on industry, I start from the position of feeling considerable sympathy with the Government's aim in introducing deregulatory legislation. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, I am at a loss to understand why this particular clause has been included in the Bill. From his experience, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, voiced the misgivings of Equity and other organisations about the likely effects of the clause. Clearly, no one in the relevant task force asked for it and, as has been pointed out, there has been no consultation at all about it.
It has been suggested that the Government stand to achieve savings of some £300,000 from eliminating licensing employment agencies. I have no objection to such savings. But I am concerned about the effects of the proposed change, under which employment agencies may be prohibited by an industrial tribunal from operating only after abuses have been uncovered and complaints made.
The Government may say that in recent years the number of licences refused or revoked has been small and therefore there is no need for the present system to be retained. On the contrary, that fact may be regarded as evidence of the effective way in which the present system has succeeded in weeding out malpractice before it could do excessive damage.
However, I am mainly concerned about the effect of the proposed arrangements on the administration of justice in this area. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, pointed out, there is widespread concern about the delays that now occur in the hearing of cases before industrial tribunals. In the year to March 1993—I have been unable to find more up-to-date figures—no more than 56 per cent. of cases in England and Wales came to a hearing within 26 weeks. The effect of Schedule 9 will be to add to those delays. The Government have given no indication that they are thinking of increasing the resources to be made available to tribunals in compensation.
The Minister will need to produce much better reasons than any of which I am aware to convince me that Clause 25 and Schedule 9 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord McCarthy: One must defend the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, because he is a victim of a procedural mix-up. He tabled notice of an intention to oppose Clause 25, which it was thought would take place after all the amendments had been considered. Somehow it seems that the debate on Clause 25 is taking place before the amendments.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. The debate is on whether Clause 25 should stand part of the Bill. We have already dealt with the one amendment on Clause 25. That is the way in which we normally proceed.
Lord McCarthy: Are we not going to deal with Schedule 9?
Lord Henley: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. He knows full well that we have a list of groupings of amendments. The groupings are purely advisory to the Committee. If the noble Lord wishes to take Schedule 9 later, he is perfectly entitled to do so. At the moment we are debating Clause 25 and it has been found convenient to group it with Schedule 9.
Lord McCarthy: It is inconvenient, but it has been done now. It is perfectly reasonable for people on the other side, like the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, to say that we are debating the whole issue before we have considered certain minor amendments, including his own, which deal with part of the issue. That is not the noble Lord's fault.
I should like to say very quickly that, since it is in front of us, even at this unfortunate point we should undertake the general debate. For example, it is not enough to say, as was said by the other side, that if we do what the Government want to do, the industries concerned, and in particular the entertainment industry, could return to self-regulation. The fact is that they tried self-regulation for years and in the end statutory regulation was needed. That statutory regulation has worked extremely well. It worked for seamen who also tried self-regulation and did not succeed. For all I know, nurses tried self-regulation and needed statutory regulation.
Here we have dogma. It is a dogma which says that irrespective of what happened in the past, we will abolish every piece of statutory regulation that we can find. It is very recent dogma. In this case, as people who read the debates in the other place will know, as recently as March 1992, in answer to questions, Ministers said that this general provision was necessary. They defended it and spoke as though they had absolutely no desire to introduce deregulation in this area. Yet they have done so, and done it without any consultation at all. There was no demand from the task force or from any of the employers. As for the broad scope of the clause, there has never been any demand from the shipping employers. There has never been any demand from the professional associations or the unions —though we do not expect the Government to take any notice of that. In fact, there has been no demand from anybody.
It is absolutely clear—I challenge the Government to deny it—that their proposals are not a substitute for what we have. As the noble Lord said, there will be no

1055
regulation and no prevention until the case has become so bad that a number of people have written to the Secretary of State, he has found one or two inspectors (if he has any left) who have investigated and enough stuff has been built up. There may then be a case for an industrial tribunal.
Let me make one last point about industrial tribunals. We all know that industrial tribunals survive and become acceptable in a modest way only because of the conciliation process. Nine out of 10 cases which come forward on unfair dismissal, or on most other aspects dealt with by industrial tribunals, go into conciliation. They go to ACAS and nine out of 10 cases do not reach the tribunals because they are settled by ACAS.
In this case there cannot be conciliation. Every case will have to go to a tribunal and the effect on the case-load will be disastrous in that regard. We are saying that for pure dogma we shall abolish the regulations; people will have to wait until the situation becomes so bad that the Secretary of State takes action. Nobody wants this except the Government and they want it only because of dogma.
Lord Rix: I rise to support the amendment. There seems to be some confusion. First, I am not sure whether we are past the dinner hour; and, secondly, I am not sure which part of the amendment I am supporting. I am speaking to support the part of the amendment which will ensure that employment agencies for actors and artists continue to be registered.
Lord Henley: I can assure the noble Lord that the amendment has only one part; that is, to take out the entire clause, whether it relates to actors or whoever.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that my two amendments are designed to achieve exactly what he says he wants.
Lord Rix: Perhaps it would be more suitable for me to speak to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, after the dinner break rather than at present on the current amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I submit that it is not right that carnal appetites should govern the proceedings of this so-called legislative Chamber. This is one of the most important clauses, and one of the most important schedules, in the Bill for ordinary working people. It is right that points should be placed on record. If they fail to register tonight, at least they can be taken up on Report.
I shall make two points briefly. Were there sufficient time I should try to seduce the coy Ministers who put the Bill forward, but I am told that there is not time. First, I support my noble friend Lord Jenkins. With his enormous experience of industry and human affairs his case is overwhelming. But in saying that, I must perhaps disclose my interest. I have a little experience of industry, employers, trade unions and employees. For 19 years I was independent chairman of the joint councils of the London Theatre Council and the Provincial Theatre Council. Everything that I saw confirmed what my noble friend has said. If nothing else, the clause and the schedule must not destroy the
1056
arrangements which are in the interests of both employers and employees because, as my noble friend said, both sides will register.
I make a specific plea and if it means supporting the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, then so be it. But I would prefer to take out the whole schedule, for this reason. The enforcement mechanism of the industrial tribunals is complete nonsense. Those: less charitable than I may say that it was included in the Bill to be a nonsense because it will not protect ordinary people. First, if it were a suitable mechanism it would be wrong for the Secretary of State to be the only possible applicant. Secondly, on the judgments that are supposed to be made by tribunals on the unsuitability of directors and managers, the schedule was drawn up with no reference to and experience of the difficulties in which the High Court found itself in relation to the unsuitability of directors under the Companies Act as amended in 1989. Many people with a wealth of experience would not draft the schedule in anything like this crude form.
Thirdly, the problems of the tribunals are compounded by the fact that in this unusual and rare case their judgments will be the foundation, if there is not suitable performance and acquiescence in place of it, of a criminal offence. The industrial tribunals are not at their best when associated with criminal sanctions. It is a flaw which goes to the core of the schedule.
Fourthly, among a list of objections that could be much longer—the general case-load problem, the problem of delay spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and my noble friend Lord McCarthy—the absence of conciliation, leading to delays, will l be quite unacceptable as a normal method of enforcement. The Government should go away and consult, especially with those who know of the High Court problems in relation to unsuitability of company directors under the Companies Acts; they should look at the procedures of industrial tribunals and come back with something different that does not use them as the central part of an enforcement mechanism, if they must have one.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that it was not my carnal desires that led me to intervene. Rather it was the look on the face of his noble friend, the Opposition Chief Whip, that encouraged me to try to bring the debate to a head.
The licensing of employment agencies is a typical example of unnecessary regulation. It does little to protect people who use agency services. It is a very bureaucratic exercise and imposes on the industry— many members of which are small concerns—both licence fees and administrative costs.
The main purpose of Clause 25 and Schedule 9 is to relieve the industry of those burdens while ensuring that controls exist which offer agency users protection from malpractice and abuse. We believe that the repeal will save the industry over £2 million per year. Licensing no longer plays a significant role in maintaining standards in the modern recruitment industry. This sector makes an important contribution to the labour market, and its conduct is generally good. Cases of serious misconduct

1057
affecting users of agency services are rare. It does not need licensing. Few licences are refused or revoked each year and there can no longer be any justification for this onerous regime. It is therefore right that it should be removed.
One should perhaps make the point which was made by my honourable friends in another place but which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, did not accept—that even with the licensing system cases have arisen of people charging fees to potential actors, models, film extras and so forth with no intention of finding them a job. Some of the cases involved people without licences and some arose through licensed agencies. However, none of the cases was deterred by the existence of a licensing system. Generally speaking, those cases are simply fraud and are therefore liable to be dealt with by the police under the Theft Act or common law. But obviously with employment agency law a large majority of the breaches discovered were committed by licensed agencies. Out of nine prosecutions which arose from breaches over the past two years, only three involved unlicensed agencies and in those cases the offences were solely of operating an agency without a licence.
If the licensing system is so effective at preventing wrongdoers from entering the business, how can examples of wrongdoing, whether of licensed or unlicensed agencies, be cited? The fact is that the licensing system is not an effective means of controlling this risk. That does not mean that we are removing standards of conduct for agencies. We are committed to the maintenance of minimum standards of conduct in the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and its regulations and the similar requirements in the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. Experience has shown that it is those requirements, rather than the licensing system, which are effective in securing good behaviour.
It is of course right that users of agency services should be protected from the harmful activities of a very small minority of unscrupulous agencies or unsuitable people who run them. We must still be able to deal with them. Clause 25 and Schedule 9 enable us to do that by replacing the current powers in the 1973 Act and 1981 order to refuse or revoke licences with new powers to prohibit people from operating agencies when necessary. That will provide a strong deterrent and effective means to deal with abuse. These powers will complement the continuing enforcement activities of the Employment Department's inspectors. The repeal of licensing will enable them to concentrate their efforts on investigating complaints and other indications of possible breaches of the statutory standards of conduct.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, principally desires this case not for the generality but for the particular position of employment agencies in the entertainments world. We shall probably deal with that in somewhat greater detail after the adjournment. Although users may be at some risk from some agencies of this kind, just as users of agencies in other sectors may be, we do not believe that the licensing system has proved that effective a
1058
means of controlling those risks. We are not persuaded that licensing should be retained purely for entertainment agencies.
We believe that the present legislation distinguishes the entertainment agencies from other agencies in one respect only: the regulations allowing them to charge fees to artists. The sole purpose of those regulations was to recognise the very traditional fee-charging practices in the entertainments industry. The repeal of licensing will not affect the statutory requirements under the 1973 Act and there will still be those same safeguards. I am confident that those same safeguards, with the continuing enforcement activity of inspectors and the new prohibition power, will offer continued protection from malpractice and abuse to users of those services.
Perhaps I may also make it clear that, although there has been criticism of the lack of consultation, the Government made no secret of their concern to reduce the number of licences involved in business activities wherever possible or to keep the operation of the employment agency licensing system under review. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment said as much in answer to a Written Question in another place in November 1992. Despite the impression we got from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and others, there has been strong support for the Government's position on licensing. It has recently come from the industry's main representative body, the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services. Although the noble Lord may have tried to give the impression that the entire entertainments industry is against us on this, I can also say that there has been a report recently from the Agents Association, one of the representative bodies of entertainment agencies.
We believe that the provisions currently in the Bill provide the best of both worlds. Burdens will be removed from industry. Protection for agency users will still be in place. It is a move that has been welcomed by those particular bodies. I believe that it should be welcomed by others in this Chamber. I invite the Committee to allow Clause 25 to stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of Dudley: Before my noble friend sits down, I apologise that I missed this point and failed to pick it up in the course of his explanation. Who will enforce the minimum standards under the Government's proposals?
Lord Henley: I can give an assurance to my noble friend that it will be the inspectors employed by my department—the Department of Employment. But it will then be a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to seek the appropriate permission. Schedule 9 states:
"On application … an industrial tribunal may by order prohibit a person from carrying on, or being concerned with the carrying on of,
any employment agency or employment business.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: The agents' body to which the noble Lord referred is the least important of a number of agents' associations in this business. All of them and the employers and the unions firmly take the view which I have expressed.

1059
I wish I had been more impressed with the noble Lord's response. In fact, I was not impressed at all. I think that that was because he was landed with an impossible brief. Noble Lords with knowledge of the business will agree with me, when we go into the Lobbies in a moment as we must, that it would be right for all those who have at heart the interests of the entertainments world and the arts, which rank very highly in the world, to say, "No, we cannot get rid of employment agency licensing. If we do, it will be a disaster". I hope that we shall be followed into the Lobby and, as an inducement, we shall not then have to go over the same ground after the break. Let us vote that we have an easier time after we have had our break.
7.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 48.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Addition, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Aldington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Annaly, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Arran, E.

Kenyon, L.

Astor, V.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E.

Lindsay, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord

Brentford, V.

Chancellor.]

Brigstocke, B.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Mersey, V.

Bumham, L.

Monson, L.

Cadman, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Moyne, L.

Chesham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Norrie, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Northesk, E.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Courtown, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigavon, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cranbome, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rodney, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Seccombe, B.

Denharn, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

St. Davids, V.

Dudley, E.

Stewartby, L.

Elles, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Elton, L.

[Teller.]

Faithful1, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Finsberg, L.

Trumpington, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Goschen, V.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Vivian, L.

Halsbury, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Henley, L.

Wakeham, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Hesketh, L.

Wynford, L.

Howe, E.

Young, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Airedale, L.

Barnett, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

1060

Bonham-Carter, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monks well, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nelson, E.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Geraint, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rix, L.

[Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swmdon, L.

Haskel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton. L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 25 agreed to accordingly.
7.33 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that we return to Committee stage not before half-past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Land Drainage Bill [H.L.]
7.34 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. I am pleased to bring the Bill before your Lordships for its Third Reading. The Bill aims to reinforce the current trend towards more environmentally friendly flood defence and land drainage policies and practices. The measures it contains have attracted support from the drainage authorities and conservation bodies alike and, I believe, from all sides of your Lordships' House as well.
There is now a greater spirit of co-operation and consensus in the countryside on environmental matters. As a fanner and landowner, I am keen to see that trend continue, especially as a large part of it is based on common sense and sound practice. The debates we have had have demonstrated that farmers and landowners have nothing to fear from the Bill. I firmly believe that the three modest and simple proposals it contains will further foster that constructive co-operation, by helping to ensure that flood defence operations take due account of both conservation interests and economic interests.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Bill and those who at Second Reading, Committee and Report stages helped me to explain the principles behind it. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and my noble friend Lord Addison. Noble Lords have been assiduous in searching for the principles which lie behind the Bill. My noble friend Lord Howe has also been most helpful in providing assurances of the Government's intention with regard to

1061
the Bill, particularly in connection with the proposed ministerial power of direction over internal drainage boards. I am grateful to him and to the Government for their active support.
With the support of the Government and, I hope, of the other parties, and with backing from a wide range of outside organisations, having both economic and conservation interests in the countryside, I very much hope that the Bill will be successful both in this House and in another place. In that spirit, I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lindsay on the way he has handled the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. He has taken great pains to ensure that there is the widest possible consensus behind the Bill and to see that the issues it raises have been aired thoroughly and openly. The very useful debates we have had at Committee and Report stages have, I believe, clarified the Bill's purpose and effect most usefully. The Bill has had full scrutiny in your Lordships' House.
As I said at an earlier stage, the measures in the Bill have the whole-hearted support of the Government. The Bill strengthens the role played by internal drainage boards and local authorities in maintaining and enhancing conservation while carrying out their flood defence and land drainage activities and so is fully in line with the Government's flood and coastal defence strategy. It builds on the tremendous progress made in recent years by IDBs and local councils in balancing the requirements of flood defence, economic activity and conservation. And it complements other initiatives such as the negotiation of water level management plans locally in areas of special drainage need.
I have been heartened by the welcome that the Bill has received from all sides of the House and from many outside organisations. I know that anxieties have been expressed by noble Lords as regards the future of the Bill in another place. I can assure the House that the Government will do all that they can to assist its progress there.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl on piloting the Bill through this House and assure him and the Government that we on these Benches are thoroughly behind it. Our only regret is that although the Government intend to give it all the support they can in another place it is not a government Bill and therefore not necessarily assured of a safe passage immediately.
As I have said before and doubtless will say again, if, instead of some of the Bills which are sponsored by the Government, we got from them Bills which have universal support in the House we would all be a lot happier and the country might be much better off. Having said that, we very much welcome the Bill and the way in which it has passed through your Lordships' House with full scrutiny and assurances given.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont and my noble friend the Minister for their support. I thank also noble Lords who spoke at earlier stages of the Bill. I am sure that the measures the Bill contains will be of benefit to local communities and to the public interest generally. I welcome what my noble friend the Minister said about the Government's continued support for the measure in another place. I hope very much that it will soon reach the statute book. I commend the Bill to the House and ask that it be given a Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education (National Curriculum) (Foundation Subjects at Key Stage 4) Order 1994
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move, that the draft Education (National Curriculum) (Foundation Subjects at Key Stage 4) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 9th May, be approved. This order has already been approved in Standing Committee in another place on 18th May.
The order currently before your Lordships for debate affects the curriculum for 14 to 16 year-olds (that is, Key Stage 4). In England, it will remove history and geography as compulsory subjects for this age group; suspend technology for pupils entering Key Stage 4 in 1994 and 1995; and suspend modern foreign languages for pupils entering Key Stage 4 in 1995.
For pupils in Wales, the order will remove history, geography, technology and modern foreign languages from the statutory curriculum for this age group.
This order follows on from the Government's acceptance of the recommendations made by Sir Ron Dearing and the Curriculum Council for Wales in their final reports on the review of the national curriculum. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State accepted Sir Ron Dearing's advice that the mandatory curriculum for five to 14 year-olds should be significantly streamlined, especially outside the core subjects of English, mathematics, and science. Furthermore, it has been accepted that there should be greater flexibility in the options which schools can choose to offer to 14–16 year-olds.
The order which we are debating today takes the first steps towards addressing these points. This process will continue with the proposed revisions to the national curriculum upon which the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales (the successor body to

1063
the Curriculum Council) are currently consulting. Those proposals bearing on the curriculum for 14–16 year-olds are for implementation in 1996. But, to bring the benefits of these recommendations to schools as soon as possible, this order now before your Lordships for debate takes effect on 1st August this year.
The order itself was the subject of a consultation exercise. It puts into effect the Government's objective, already announced and well known to schools and others involved in education, to increase the flexibility available to schools for 14–16 year-olds. There will be greater scope for schools to respond to the particular skills and interests of their pupils through a wider range of academic or vocational courses. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications are advising the Government on the scope for a new Part One GNVQ qualification, designed specifically for Key Stage 4. We are looking carefully at their proposals with a view to piloting these courses in 1995 as announced in the "Competitiveness" White Paper.
We must be sure that any vocational qualifications offered at this stage in schools are high quality, accessible courses. They must open up pathways to progression for pupils, not close them off. They must be rigorously assessed, clearly structured and effectively supported. And they must be qualifications that are comparable in intellectual rigour with academic school subjects—not a refuge for lower achievers.
Vocational qualifications at Key Stage 4 have the potential to raise our nation's skills base and to motivate young people.
The order is a joint order between England and Wales. It removes history and geography from the list of mandatory subjects for 14–16 year-olds in both countries. Sir Ron Dearing, in his final report, observed that these are of course absorbing and valuable subjects. But there is no obvious reason why history and geography, as a matter of law, should be given priority for pupils nearing the end of their compulsory schooling over other subjects which pupils might find equally compelling—over, for example, classics, creative arts, business studies, other vocational options or even further languages.
When we consulted on this proposal a majority of respondents expressed support, as a way of increasing flexibility, reducing curriculum overload, and enabling schools to meet pupils' needs, including special needs. There was some concern that there would be a diminution of breadth and balance in the curriculum for 14 to 16 year-olds. But that misses the point—this very reduction in the mandatory curriculum allows schools to respond to the particular abilities of individual pupils through differing combinations of subjects and studies. The Government expect that history and geography will continue to be among the subjects on offer to all 14–16 year-olds. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that pupils will have acquired a solid foundation of historical and geographical knowledge through earlier experience of the national curriculum, on which to build further study if they so wish.
In England, in the interregnum before the introduction of the revised overall curriculum for this
1064
age group in 1996, the order also suspends the requirement to study technology for those 14 year-olds entering Key Stage 4 in 1994 and 1995. Again, consultation showed broad support for this proposal, which is intended to give schools time to plan for the introduction of the revised curriculum in 1996. We know that there are schools which have made substantial advances in implementing the technology curriculum for this age group. We would not want to impede developments in these schools. They will still benefit from the development work which they have carried out. We hope that schools such as these will continue to offer technology to their 14 to 16 year-olds. All the signs are that they will continue to do so. To ensure that pupils do not suffer unnecessary disruption to courses already under way, we have provided in the order for 14 year-olds who started Key Stage 4 technology in 1993 not to be affected by these provisions. They will complete their studies.
In England the order suspends the introduction of the requirement for 14 to 16 year-olds to study a modern foreign language until 1996, when the revised modern foreign language curriculum will be introduced. Equipping our children for proficiency in foreign languages is a priority. But it would not have been sensible to force schools to teach different versions of a modern foreign language curriculum. That would have been the effect if schools had been obliged to introduce the existing national curriculum in modern foreign languages in 1995, and then the revised national curriculum in 1996. It is of course still open to schools to offer modern foreign languages for 14 to 16 year-olds before 1996 if they wish.
In Wales the Curriculum Council for Wales made different recommendations on technology and modern foreign languages. In the light of the views expressed in consultation, it recommended the mandatory requirement for pupils aged 14 to 16 should be reduced to the subjects of English, mathematics, science, physical education and, of course, Welsh—the subject which is distinctive to Wales. It also supported further work in technology and modern foreign languages but recommended against making them mandatory. This will allow scope to include vocational qualifications as well as for pupil choice. The order therefore lifts permanently the requirement that all pupils in Wales must take technology and modern foreign languages.
Before concluding, I should like to add a short word on the other, equally important, aspect to the national curriculum —the assessment and testing of pupils. Alongside the slimming of the subject curricula, the Government have streamlined the assessment arrangements. Statutory assessment for seven and 14 year-olds has been restricted to the core subjects in 1994. The time taken to administer these arrangements has been reduced by roughly half since 1993. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently announced his proposals for further streamlining of the assessment arrangements for seven, 11 and 14 year-olds in 1995 and associated reductions in teacher workload.
To conclude, overall, the Government believe that, by freeing up the curriculum for 14 to 16 year-olds in this way, we are giving schools greater scope to match

1065
the particular skills and interests of their pupils through academic and/or vocational courses. These proposals have been widely welcomed by those consulted. I therefore commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Judd: My Lords, the Minister will no doubt have studied the proceedings of the second Standing Committee in another place and will realise that we do not intend to oppose the order. Despite all its characteristics of, I suggest, improvisation, we are not opposing it because we recognise that it brings greater flexibility and that, in the curriculum for 14 to 16 year-olds, it will give schools an opportunity to bring in more of what they see to be important. But in saying that we do not intend to oppose the order—to some extent we welcome it—we must qualify our welcome. We qualify it because of several anxieties.
First, just how much consultation was there before the order was compiled? For example, were the conclusions of the regional conferences for secondary head teachers run by the NCC, taken fully into account? If they were not, why not? After all the disruptive, impetuous, trial and error of recent years, would not it have perhaps been better to have had a full open debate on the future of Key Stage 4 in order to build a healthy, positive consensus? That would obviously have been particularly valuable, because of the Government's favoured "academic", "vocational" and "occupational" pathways at Key Stage 4, and the implications for secondary school organisation.
I must take the opportunity to say that I despair at the Government's failure to see that in education, of all the areas of our national life where success depends so much upon the goodwill of all involved, it should always be at a premium to build positive consensus in favour of what is being done. In the event, I am afraid that it seems that Sir Ron Dealing's final report is based on pretty limited consultation and observation. I find it a matter of some regret that it does not take the opportunity to give more rigorous justification for any of its proposals.
On technology, there appear to be differing reactions to the proposal. However, what is clear is that there is genuine, fairly widespread concern about the loss of momentum which may result from suspending the requirement to teach technology for those entering Key Stage 4 in 1994 and 1995. Schools have already made substantial changes to their timetabling, staffing, accommodation and resources in order to teach technology, and the removal of the requirement could involve significant changes to school planning and the potential loss of a broad and balanced curriculum for two years. Of course, the likelihood is that many schools will continue to teach technology, even without the statutory basis of a curriculum order, provided—this is an important proviso—that appropriate syllabuses are available. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Secretary of State uses the influence he has in his role of approving syllabuses to ensure that that happens.
1066
On the proposal to suspend the introduction of the modern foreign languages curriculum, I am sure that the Minister will understand that there is again fairly widespread anxiety about any loss of continuity for schools and any apparent downgrading of the discipline as a result of its temporary suspension. That would indeed be a paradoxical effect when foreign language ability is crucially important to strengthening Britain's performance in the international economy—the stated objective of so many of the Government's reforms. However, having said that, on balance I recognise that the suspension is probably justifiable, given that a new MFL curriculum will be introduced by 1996.
For Wales—not for the first time—there is an intriguing contrast with England. The proposal there is to suspend indefinitely technology and modern foreign languages for Key Stage 4. But why is Wales different from England in that respect? Again, what exactly is the rationale? And on the MFL, if the teaching of Welsh and English, which we on these Benches see as imperative, is given as the reason for there being no MFL in future, that seems to me to be unconvincing, because Wales, like England, has to be able and ready to participate in the international economy. It seems to me that that is depriving the Welsh of something that will be available to the English.
I come now to the proposals on history and geography. I realise that we cannot slim down the curriculum without in fact slimming it down, but we must consider very carefully the possible dangerous effects of what we are doing if we fail to see the pitfalls and do not take steps to avoid them. Perhaps I may quote what I see as one wise response which came from the London Borough of Harrow:
"The emphasis on basic skills training at Key Stage 4 and the proposal to offer a variety of routes through the 14–16 curriculum undermines the principles informing a broad and balanced learning experience. History and geography make a significant, possibly unique, contribution to the development of critical and analytical thinking. Both subjects are also central to supporting cross-curricular themes and dimensions, in particular, those of citizenship, environmental education and economic and industrial understanding. In any curriculum which is intended to equip young people to contribute to the society of the future, the omission of these aspects of learning represents a considerable flaw".
Indeed, my wife teaches history, and we often reflect together upon the insecurity and instability of an age in which there is so little perspective—so little understanding of humanity on an evolutionary road, learning from the past, or, in Britain, of our total interdependence with the world as a whole, which is so central to the modern teaching of geography. Without such perspective, shared by the widest possible social cross-section of people in this country, what are the prospects for a healthy democracy? If, in those respects, our children leave school unprepared for the demands of the challenging decades ahead, we shall all have failed.
The argument in Sir Ron Dealing's report has a superficially seductive ring to it; namely, why should history and geography be more important than the creative arts, a second foreign language, home economics, the classics, and so forth? But those changes mean that we shall no longer have a prescribed, broad and balanced national curriculum for 14 to 16 year-olds,

1067
and we must face that. Any downgrading of the qualitative humanities as compared with the undeniably important quantitive subjects that are assumed to relate directly to future employment must inevitably have adverse implications for the health of our education system. There is a serious risk that all the pressures of league tables, as currently applied, could mean that history and geography will not be taught if they are not seen to be contributing equally with other subjects to a school's measured performance.
Obviously, the LEA will be able to encourage LEA-maintained schools through its curricular policies, as required by the 1986 Act, to ensure that young people in the 14–16 age group continue to enjoy a broad and balanced curriculum. It would be immensely reassuring if the Minister could tell noble Lords tonight that her department will emphasise that point in its publicity on the new national curriculum.
Before I conclude I must underline that with the removal of music and art in 1992, and the present proposal to remove history and geography, the original intention of a broad and balanced national curriculum could be jeopardised for Key Stage 4. Already, the national curriculum is under some attack for being too insular and national in its limitations and for failing totally to grasp the reality of international interdependence. We must therefore all combine our efforts to ensure that the dangers are avoided. If we do not, far from the classless society about which the Prime Minister likes to talk, we could be rapidly on a road to an educated and understanding elite and a functionally trained, subservient underclass, ill-equipped to understand the world by which they will be buffeted, and destined seldom to reason why, let alone play a positive part in democracy: an underclass prepared as functionaries rather than to be living, creative, analytical individuals in a healthy democracy. Education is about understanding. It is not just about instruction.
As Tony. Lloyd said in the other place, the structure that the Minister is bringing before the House— although we shall not oppose it tonight for the reasons I gave—on the back of these changes to the national curriculum is still not adequate for a modern society. We need to take a calmer and longer look and to consult more widely with interested parties in industry, commerce, the professions and education. We can then bring forward a proper 14 to 18 curriculum in order to establish a relevant education system for a modern society that will raise the standards of all our young people rather than fail the majority, as does still, I fear, the present system.
8 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as the Education Reform Bill went through your Lordships' House I was one of a number of Members who was worried that the requirements were too rigid. They left too little flexibility and judgment for schools to decide what would be most appropriate to teach. I had a strong feeling that studying fewer subjects well was more educational than studying a larger number superficially. It is the experience of studying in depth and thoroughly which is most educative.
1068
I started in history school. While I sympathise with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the danger of reducing the number of subjects, I cannot combine that attitude with the attitude that I expressed when the Education Bill was going through this House. I believe that flexibility and ability to choose subjects are more suitable and can lead to better educational results than the requirement for everyone to study a range of subjects.
I understand the proposals to mean that, within a given school, it is possible for all the subjects to be taught but that individual pupils, under the guidance of their teachers, will choose which subjects to take. That appears to me to be defensible. It is better that some youngsters take an additional science subject and that others take an additional modern language. I was never happy that everyone should be pushed through the same grid, regardless of their interests and abilities. By the time that children reach the 14 to 16 level those interests and abilities should be obvious. Pupils should be encouraged to go down the path in which they are showing an interest and a potential for deeper study. Deeper study is the educational experience that youngsters need to have. It gives teachers the opportunity to help students to choose what they can do most effectively and to encourage them along that path.
I should be the first to say that it would be a great pity for a pupil to have to drop history, and for all the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. However, one cannot at the same time say, "You must not drop everything and you must study some subjects more thoroughly". It is undesirable to have a rigid programme for every youngster in every school.
I wish to raise two further issues with the Minister. I welcome the idea that vocational subjects will be included together with traditional academic subjects. It will be possible for all pupils to mix their choice of subjects so that all do not fall into a vocational or academic stream, and that is a desirable objective. Students will have a choice of subjects from the academic and the vocational, which will be extremely good for them. It also means that the old divide, which most Members of your Lordships' House deplore, will be eliminated. There is no better way of getting rid of it than that the academic high flyers should choose some vocational subjects and vice versa.
However, while I welcome the inclusion of the vocational subjects, I wish to make the following point. I needed to look into the requirements of the syllabuses of the GNVQ subjects, which will be the. subjects included in the schools' curriculum. As I looked in detail at the requirements I was struck by the fact that they were strong on what should be done and how it should be done. However, they were very weak on why it should be done. That will not do. A subject may have a strong applied bias and there is nothing uneducational about that in itself. If one wants the study of them to rank with the study of the humanities and pure science, for example, it is of the greatest importance that students understand the "why" that lies behind what they are required to do and how they are required to do it.

1069
Otherwise, there will be the acquisition of a mechanical skill and no real understanding of why that skill must be used.
I was not aware that I should have the opportunity to raise the matter with the Minister because I have only recently looked at the GNVQ requirements. I ask her to make a special point of ensuring that they are not passed and accepted unless they necessitate the underlying understanding of what is needed, not merely the application. Without that underlying understanding, the whole idea of trying to meld the two together will be missing. People will not accept those subjects as they now appear to be taught.
I realise that the second point that I wish to raise with the Minister is perhaps a King Charles's head of mine. I am concerned that few schools are providing for the international baccalaureate. Surely in the kind of world we are moving into more schools should be doing so. Will the Minister tell the House whether the greater flexibility that we are now being offered will make it easier for schools to move towards the international baccalaureate? I remember raising the question when the Education Bill was going through this House. The national curriculum was not drawn up with a movement towards the international baccalaureate in mind. The requirements of the national curriculum did not appropriately line up with the requirements of that qualification. Under the new arrangements, will schools which are alert to the advantages of the IBA be able easily to move in that direction? Many people would welcome that.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wish to comment briefly on some of the proposals that we are discussing tonight. At Key Stage 4 the statutory curriculum will be reduced to some 60 per cent. of the timetable. There appears to be a consensus tonight that this is a good thing and that teachers should have a greater degree of flexibility in deciding what they teach and how they teach it. However, it means that, with the removal of music and art in 1992 and the present proposal to remove history and geography, the original intention of the broad-based national curriculum will no longer apply to Key Stage 4.
Obviously, the local education authorities will be able to encourage LEA-maintained schools to ensure that young people in this age group continue to be provided with a broad-based and balanced curriculum. The department should make that point in its publicity on the new national curriculum.
I agree with Sir Ron Dearing that one must be prescriptive about what is to come out of the national curriculum if one is to reduce its size. That is a difficult problem. However, I would like to make a special plea and express my regret about the reduction of compulsory technology for students commencing Key Stage 4 in 1994–95.
Today, science, technology and design are perhaps the key—and I use that word deliberately—subjects that will contribute towards our country's future economic success. It is not an exaggeration to say that in almost every office and workplace in the country people are

1070
learning new technological skills as they grapple with the new software packages that are coming onto the market almost every day. I say that as an office worker and technologist, although I am fearful to admit that in case my noble friend describes me as a member of the functionally trained underclass. It is true that in my experience, people who have some exposure to dealing with technology from an early age pick up the new technologies far quicker. To expose them in a systematic way to the new technologies and software can only do us good economically, and of course individuals will not be tearing their hair out as much as some of them are at present.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on some of the comments made this evening and that she will not regard this consultation exercise as merely fulfilling the requirements of the 1993 Act.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that the order has received, albeit with the qualifications of the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Perhaps I may respond to one or two of the points raised in this short but important debate. First, the removal of history and geography will not restrict the national curriculum. It will open up and give way to a very rich menu of options for young people. Therefore, I am not sure that I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. He spoke so passionately about the removal of history and geography that I thought that he was going to oppose the order and suggest that they should be made compulsory. That would be restrictive.
We have already been reminded of the original debate in 1988 when many of those points were made. In fact, I believe that many noble Lords opposite used the word "straitjacket". They said that flexibility in the curriculum was needed. Some flexibility has been introduced. It has already been mentioned that art and music have been removed from the curriculum. That has not meant at all the disappearance of art and music in schools. Indeed, many young people are doing art and music and the performing arts in our schools. Therefore, I do not believe that there are any grounds to believe that the disappearance of history and geography as compulsory subjects will lead to the deficit about which noble Lords opposite are concerned. Accordingly, it is my view that, far from limiting breadth and balance, a much better range of options will be open to young people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, quite rightly reminded us of what she said in 1988. But she also posed what I believe was a rhetorical question as to whether all pupils would be free to mix subjects. Not only will they be free to do so, we want to see them do just that. I see the vocational subjects coming into the curriculum and the opening up of choices for young people rather as pure and applied learning. It may be better for young people going to university to read engineering to take practical science and vocational technology while for others it may be better for students to do pure science or pure academic subjects. There is no reason why they should not mix the two and as I have said, I hope that they will do just that.

1071
It is right for the noble Baroness to emphasise the importance of the underlying understanding in the GNVQs. We regard that as crucial. More work must be done on the GNVQs. They are not so rigorous as they should be and the quality is not quite right. A great deal is said about parity of esteem; and that must be an aim. But esteem and parity of esteem do not come from government fiat. They will develop when the qualifications are recognised to be quality qualifications and when young people know that a real impact on their understanding, knowledge and skills will be achieved by working towards those qualifications.
The noble Baroness asked about the international baccalaureate. The answer is that the most recent changes will free up time for schools to regard that as an option, and some schools are already beginning to do so. Alongside the international baccalaureate the technological baccalaureate is also being undertaken by one or two schools. Schools are also linking with and talking to the higher education institutions, in particular admissions tutors, about making sure that they are open minded when considering young people for higher education.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was concerned about how much consultation there had been. There has been an enormous amount of consultation. If Sir Ron Dearing is known for anything in the enormous amount of work that he has done in the past year, it is for going to great lengths to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to feed into the consultative process. The conferences referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, have been taken into account and Sir Ron has drawn up the advice to my right honourable friend on the basis of all that input from the professions, from the teaching associations and from anybody who has wanted to write to him, contact him or meet him through the conferences. Therefore, I can give an absolutely unequivocal assurance in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, proffered a definition of education. I believe that he perceived that to be my definition and he felt that that was rather limiting. My view and definition of education is that it is about liberating talents in all their guises. Those talents will be different for different young people. Some people will have strength in the vocational areas and some will have strength in academic areas. We hope that there will be a good intermixing of the two which will result in the development of the vocational and intellectual abilities and skills of young people. We need a system which responds to their aptitudes as well as to their intellectual abilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to Wales. Again following extensive consultation, the Curriculum Council for Wales recommended against the inclusion of a half course minimum in technology and modern foreign languages as part of the statutory core. It took the view—and we have accepted it—that to include any more compulsory subjects would significantly restrict pupil choice at that age and it would also make it more difficult to take full advantage of the opportunities to introduce the new vocational courses for that age group. That approach has won substantial support in responses
1072
to consultations on the draft order. Given the extra subject of Welsh, there is a difference between the number of compulsory subjects at Key Stage 4 in Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is concerned about disruption that may occur as a result of technology being suspended for two years. First, that was done as a result of the anxieties expressed by teachers. There will be no disruption in those schools which wish to continue and courses will remain available in the schools which choose to provide them. But some schools need more time to adjust their resources and the skills of their teachers. They need more time to prepare. Other schools wish to study in accordance with the new revised order rather than the original order. Therefore, although the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, regrets the removal of technology, I believe that he will find that there is a great deal of support for that among teachers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the "why" in relation to GNVQs. I have alluded to that in part. I agree that general national vocational qualifications must be academically rigorous and should entail an underlying understanding of what is needed. My honourable friend Mr. Boswell, the junior Minister in another place, announced recently a six-point plan which should ensure that GNVQs are high quality relevant qualifications. They must be meaningful and must be a proper educational experience for young people studying for them. We shall be vigilant in making sure that those six points are taken very seriously.
If I have omitted to deal with any points raised, I shall deal with them in writing. The order will help to streamline the national curriculum and will give schools greater freedom to offer 14 to 16 year-olds a range of academic and vocational options. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until half past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended front 8.19 to 8.30 p.m.]

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
House again in Committee.
Schedule 9 [Employment Agencies etc.: Replacement of Licensing]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 178B:
Page 93, line 35, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 3AA below").
The noble Lord said: As Members of the Committee will appreciate, the above is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 178E. I suggest that the amendments be debated together. I supported the Government in the Division just before the dinner break because, as was said by several of my noble friends, we are discussing a most valuable clause and schedule. In any act of deregulation it seems to me to be entirely right that such provisions which have been in force for many years should be challenged.
I believe that I should perhaps declare an interest. I am not a member of the trade union of which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was a distinguished luminary for a number of years. However, one of my daughters who is a professional singer is a member and she is chairman of her branch of Equity. I have a second daughter who is also a professional singer. Therefore, the Committee will understand my interest in the schedule.
I do not believe that I need to repeat all the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, when he spoke in the clause stand part debate as to why the entertainment industry is different. However, perhaps I may sum it up in the following words. The relationship of an actor or a singer with his or her agent is very different from that of almost every other employment agency client. Actors and singers depend on their agents to find them work and they pay them commission. Very often the money is paid by the theatre, the concert promoter or whoever it may be to the agent. The agent then deducts his commission from the amount and passes the remainder on to the client. If there is remuneration to come from, shall we say, royalties or from abroad for such work, that money will frequently be sent to the agent.
A great deal of money passes through the hands of entertainment agencies. It is one of the reasons that makes their clients particularly vulnerable. My amendment is aimed to achieve protection for such clients. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, made the fair point that many theatrical and entertainment agencies do a fantastic job for their clients; indeed, there is no questioning that fact. They act as intermediaries, as protectors, as advisers, as negotiators, and they ensure that the performer is working on a proper contractual basis. Moreover, so far as they are able—and bearing in mind the very competitive nature of the profession— they ensure that their clients work under decent conditions.
However, it must be remembered that people who enter such professions are in a most vulnerable and exposed position. They often depend entirely on what in other professions and occupations would be called "casual work"; that is, the one-off, the small tour. In particular, if it is an actor, it may be a matter of touring for a few weeks in the provinces. In the case of a singer, it may be a single performance for which he or she is hired. The client is hired, he or she gives the performance and that is it. Alternatively, it may be a tour of work on several occasions at three or four different centres around Europe and then that will be finished.
A performer may be able to establish a link with a particular conductor or group which can give him or her greater assurance. However, for many of the people involved, their livelihood depends on a constant flow of new, fresh work, most of which will come via their agent. Moreover, a great many more people seek such work than is actually available. Indeed, I have been given a figure in that respect which shows that, of 45,000 professional performers who are members of Equity, perhaps 80 per cent. are unemployed at any one time. There are long periods when an actor is said to be "resting" or when a singer is said to be "rehearsing".
There are also many other would-be performers outside the business who are not yet established and who are desperate to get into the profession. They are often very young and enormously ambitious. Many of them are stage-struck young girls; indeed, there is no shortage of stage-struck youngsters. That is why I believe that the profession is different.
There is a further unique point, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, regarding entertainment agents and it is one that has long been recognised by all governments. I refer to the fact that, unlike any other kind of employment agency where the agent is paid by the employer, entertainment agents are paid by the artist, the actor or the singer. That factor introduces yet a further vulnerability into the performer's situation.
The Committee has already decided that the clause and the schedule will stand. I must say that that has my support. We shall have an opportunity in a few moments to consider the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls as to whether in some way entertainment agencies might be taken out of the Bill. My amendment is a simple one. The point has already been made—indeed, I believe that it was made either by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, or the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy—that it is only the Secretary of State who can refer a complaint to the industrial tribunal. I happen to believe that that is right. If we left every aggrieved client with the right to rush off to the industrial tribunal, the system would become gummed up. It is not at all unreasonable that such a case should go through the filter, bearing in mind that the penalty will be the removal of the livelihood of the offending agent.
However, I believe that there is something that people in such vulnerable professions might reasonably expect. If a performer has made a complaint to the Secretary of State about the oppressive or unfair behaviour of a particular agent and the Secretary of State then declines to make a reference to the industrial tribunal, I believe that the least that can be expected is that the complainant shall be entitled to a written explanation of the basis upon which that decision was made. According to my advice, I understand that that would then be justiciable under the procedure, the name of which escapes me, whereby the complainant could take the matter to court—
Lord Henley: I believe that my noble friend is referring to a judicial review.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am most grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. As always, he is a source of infinite wisdom.
However, without a reason being given in the letter of notification, I am told that it would be much more difficult to get such a decision reviewed. My amendment would give those often young but always vulnerable professional people some additional protec-tion in that they would ultimately have the safeguard of a court of law. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is quite a simple one. It simply states that if the Secretary of State:

1075
"declines to exercise his power to refer the complaint to an industrial tribunal under section 3A(1), above, the Secretary of State shall furnish the complainant with a written statement of the reason for his decision".
I think this is a very reasonable amendment and I hope that my noble friend will smile upon it. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The amendment is an improvement but only, I fear, a slight one. Amendment No. 178E, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has explained, gives some status to a complainant, which does not appear in the Government's version. However, it is only very slight and the individual who complains then has no access, so far as I can see, to any means of redress except when the Secretary of State sends him a statement of the reason for his not proceeding with a complaint.
Then there is the complicated and expensive provision, as the noble Lord has indicated, of judicial review. My objection to it is that I think that the whole system of industrial tribunals is not appropriate for this particular set of conditions. I really do not see why an individual should have to go through these procedures, particularly if at the end of it the only way of proceeding is by means of judicial review. It seems to me to be very complicated.
It would be very much better if an entirely different system were provided than the one proposed in Schedule 9. However, I accept that the noble Lord has attempted to make some sort of provision to give protection to very vulnerable people. Everyone who has spoken in this debate has accepted that a number of the people we are attempting to protect are exceptionally vulnerable, and that is particularly true of the entertainment industry. I would therefore be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response, although I must say that I would much prefer an entire rewriting of Schedule 9, which perhaps we shall have the opportunity to do when we reach Report stage.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I was interested to hear the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Unfortunately I am bound to say—I say this with some reluctance because I think in itself it was a good amendment and extremely well moved—that it is the famous case of the attendant shifting the chairs on the 'Titanic". The ship will sink without the licensing system and therefore I prefer the amendment which we shall discuss shortly in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, which attempts to preserve, as regards the entertainment and theatre business, the licensing system itself. That seems to me to be an amendment which goes to the heart of things. The other amendment would still have resulted in Noel Coward saying to the noble Lord,
"Don't put your daughter on the stage Mrs. Worthington",
—or rather Lord Worthington—without the licensing system.
Baroness Hamwee: I, too, am a little reluctant, particularly given the support from the noble Lord opposite to debates which I introduced earlier this afternoon, to introduce a note of questioning to this matter. I accept, as do other Members of the Committee, that there are problems in the entertainment industry. I
1076
do not quite have an interest to declare, but I work professionally as a solicitor on entertainment matters with a number of reputable agents. I had better say mat in case any of my clients get to know that I have spoken on this matter.
However, I am aware that it is a business where there are far too many people out for very fast and very easy bucks. It is not merely the innocent young girls who are star struck and attracted into the theatrical profession who are affected. Certainly in the music industry many people give no real thought to the finance or business side of their careers. They just want to get on with making music. They may enter the profession at the age of 18 and they see those in the profession as very grown up and authoritative. They expect those people to take care of them. It is because I see the vital need in the industry for a climate of trust to be fostered and to be maintained that I will support the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I have risen to speak on this amendment to ask the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, a question. As I read his amendment, it is about a cure of a particular problem rather than general prevention. I wonder whether he has received advice from the industry bodies as to the effectiveness of a cure, and indeed as regards how widespread the problem is.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I might respond immediately to the question of the noble Baroness. I was lobbied very close to home just before the weekend. I consulted Equity. I rang up that body and asked it what it thought of this measure. Equity thought it was rather a good idea. Since then I have received some briefing from that body. But I have to say that I have not attempted to go outside the entertainment industry.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I wish to raise a brief point and to put on record a point about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, to which one's heart easily responds. However, there is a problem as regards the head in one respect. As he rightly recognised, the ultimate sanction would be judicial review. It would be on that High Court procedure that this amendment would really rely. Of course judicial review can nullify the decision of the Secretary of State. It is questionable whether it can force him to take action in an industrial tribunal and the results of judicial review should always be remembered in the context of the coal mines. We nullified the Secretary of State's decision to close them down but I would not like the theatrical profession to face the same consequences as that particular judicial review proceeding.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may intervene. My noble friend asked whether I would smile upon his amendment. I am afraid that noble Lords opposite do not seem to have smiled quite as much as my noble friend was hoping. I wonder whether I can give a sort of weakish smile and say that I see what my noble friend is getting at but for reasons that I will go on to explain, I do not think that I can actually accept his amendment. As my noble friend explained, the amendment seeks to place the Secretary of State under a duty, in any case where he has received a written complaint from a person

1077
who believes he or she has been unfairly treated through improper conduct by an agency in the entertainment industry, to give detailed reasons to the complainant if he decides not to apply for a prohibition order to an industrial tribunal.
It may help if I explain briefly the department's policy. It is to investigate as a matter of priority any complaint against an employment agency or employment business operating in any sector of the agency industry. The department's objective in these cases is to establish whether there is evidence to substantiate the matters complained of. If there is such evidence, then there are obviously a number of options for action which are available to the department according to the circumstances of the case. Obviously in the case of minor or very isolated cases which are unlikely to be repeated, the department may simply warn the agency against further misbehaviour and subsequently keep a close eye on that agency's activities to ensure all is well. That is true whether one is talking about a licence, as in the old system, or about the new powers that we are proposing.
Obviously in more serious cases of breaches of employment agency law, the department may prosecute the agency in a magistrates' court. Anyone who is found guilty of an offence under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, or regulations made under it, would be liable to a fine, which in most cases can be up to £5,000. In cases where there is evidence to show that a person is unsuitable to carry on, or be concerned with the carrying on of an agency, whether because of misconduct or some other relevant reason, a proposal to refuse or revoke a licence may be made. Under the new arrangements set out in this Bill, the option of refusing or revoking a licence will obviously be replaced by an application for a prohibition order to an industrial tribunal.
As part of its service standards under the Citizen's Charter initiative, the department promises to keep complainants in touch with developments and to provide a written explanation of the result of the investigation. It therefore seems to me that in those circumstances my noble friend's amendments are unnecessary. I believe that if they were accepted, they would be unnecessarily onerous, given that the results of the investigation of a complaint may properly be enforcement actions other than making application to an industrial tribunal for a prohibition order.
The department intends to continue with its complaint investigation policy after the powers of prohibition in the Bill replace the current powers to refuse or revoke licences. It also intends to continue to fulfil its promise to provide complainants with written explanation of the results of its investigations.
The last point my noble friend made, with a little support from me, concerned the question of judicial review. It is my recollection—and I look opposite at those much more learned in the law than myself—that any decision made by the Secretary of State would be open to judicial review whether or not it was in writing in the manner suggested by my noble friend. It is a question of whether a decision has been made. I do not
1078
know whether that is sufficient to satisfy my noble friend. It is a matter on which I would prefer to take more expert advice before pronouncing on it with any authority. I hope that with that assurance my noble friend will accept that it is not necessary to put his amendment on the face of the Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am grateful to my noble friend. He has given a valuable explanation of how he envisages his department will operate the provisions of Schedule 9. That was certainly part of my intention in moving the amendment. He also said that reasons will be given to complainants. In that case I can accept entirely his suggestion that the amendment is unnecessary.
I am grateful to my noble friend. I shall want to examine his words with care, perhaps with the advisers who consulted me. If necessary we can return to the matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 178C:
Page 93, line 40, at end insert ("provided that no such order shall be made to prohibit the carrying of the business of a theatrical or entertainment agency.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 178C, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 178F. Several times, in resisting amendments which have been well argued, my noble friend has said that if people do not meet the standards that we require and desire, then we shall deal with the matter in other ways. I note that in the explanatory notes it is stated that agencies would still have to comply with the statutory requirements setting out standards of conduct and that they could be visited by inspectors. Licence requirements for those agencies would be vetted and would have to be maintained. However, that is after the damage we have in mind may have been done.
The purpose of my amendments—it appears from the comments that have been made that they have support on all sides of the Chamber—is to retain parts of the present system. The proposals would bring about the standards that the Bill seeks rather better than the alterations that are envisaged by removing licensing.
I do not want to sound pompous, but as I see it the purpose of a Committee stage is not to maintain every word and comma of an original draft Bill. If the experience of Members of either House shows there to be a weakness in the Bill it is not weakness on the part of the Government to recognise that and to amend the Bill.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, wasted his excellent ammunition on the wrong amendment. He is always doing that. That does not alter the fact that in this case his evidence is sound. What makes it particularly worth listening to is the fact that it is based on practical experience of the item under discussion. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Rix—I hope that he will join in the debate on these amendments —we are listening to someone with experience who knows what he is talking about. The Government should

1079
listen; they should not be so wedded to their own words and their own approach that under no circumstances will they deviate from them.
Lord Henley: Perhaps in order to save time my noble friend will give way. I was going to tell him that his amendments are not satisfactory and do not achieve what he intends. But I was certainly not going to base my arguments on that. I was going to argue against the amendments on the merits of my noble friend's intention. Therefore, at this stage there is no need for us to go into arguments about whether the amendments do what my noble friend intends. We all have some ideas as to what is intended. If my noble friend feels that they are not satisfactory he can come forward with more satisfactory amendments at a later stage.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I was not going to refer to the point my noble friend has just made. That was a private conversation. I was merely speaking in general terms about how we should do our job as parliamentarians. On that issue there is enough evidence to show that this Government are no more perfect than the 11 other governments I have supported in one House or another in terms of being certain that their own point of view is the right one. On too many occasions they are reluctant to deviate, even in the face of evidence which should cause them to do so. I argue that if there is a case for deviating from the wording in the Bill in this instance it should be done. There are good reasons why it should be done.
I have mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. I believe that I can talk reasonably authoritatively. Here is a case where there is a possibility of licences being removed from people who had previously been judged worthy of having a licence. I have businesses which involve many licences. In the case of pubs, hotels and other companies with which I have been connected, the licence has been a very valuable tool. If one deviates from the standards which the licence is intended to uphold one goes to court and if one is found guilty of deviating from those standards one is fined.
On the basis of considerable experience, I wanted to impress upon my noble friend that if one wants to ensure that people uphold the standard, the one way to achieve that is if they think that there is a risk of losing their licence. People are not frightened of being fined. They may be very well defended, perhaps by the noble Baroness, and may get away with a lesser fine than would otherwise be the case. That is no deterrent. But the thought that they are likely to lose their licence is one way of ensuring that they maintain the standards laid down in statute.
The same applies to driving. As a magistrate I have found that if one wants people to recognise the dangers of exceeding the speed limit or deviating from driving standards, the risk of losing their licence is the deterrent which brings about the results we all want. A fine— although nobody enjoys paying fines—will not achieve that.
I suggest to my noble friend that in this category— the entertainment and theatrical industry—there is a real

1080
need to retain the licensed agents. Their great power has already been explained. I have no doubt that other speakers will produce more detailed evidence. However, those agents are proud to obtain the licence; indeed it is the very basis of their business. To remove the possibility of achieving the standards that we all want by removing the deterrent would be a grievous mistake.
I have a daughter who has been in the entertainment industry for a number of years, I believe with some considerable success according to all that one reads or hears. We know that many others have not had that good fortune. Many are attracted by the glamour—to use that word, although it often does not exist. We know that very often vulnerable young people are convinced that they can sing or dance or have a dramatic talent that ought to be taken into account. They are easy meat for the sleazy agent.
In 1973 licensing provisions were tightened up. We have had many examples of advantage being taken of those vulnerable young people. They have entered that glamorous, attractive profession but not to their advantage. In recent cases in the courts we have seen how differences arise with accredited agents who are beyond any suspicion. Such difficulties are not in anyone's best interests.
I believe that it is a good Bill. I believe that its main aim can only help those of us who seek to run small and medium-sized businesses. It will be easier to bring prosperity to the country if some of the brakes are removed. That is what the Bill does. My noble friend has already stated that he wishes to support the Bill because he has views similar to mine. I should like to believe that other noble Lards in other parts of the Chamber felt the same. However, on this specific item —it is only a small item—we recognise that the provisions in any Bill produced by any government are capable of improvement if the experiences of those in Parliament who have knowledge on the subject are shared.
The noble Lord repeated what I had looked on as a private conversation. If my amendment is defective in some way and cuts across an important part of the Bill, of which I was not aware, that is fair enough. Under those circumstances perhaps the noble Lord will indicate that he will give further thought to the matter in the light of evidence that he will receive. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend have already put their qualifications on record. Whether we consider the matter as parliamentarians or as the Government, nothing but good can come if the Government listen to the evidence that Parliament brings and are prepared to amend to some minor degree. That will avoid removing a deterrent and will make the standards that we wish to attain more certain.
I hope that my noble friend will consider the matter in that light. Perhaps we can avoid a vote on this occasion. If my noble friend gives us hope, we can produce an amendment at a later stage of the Bill which will not cut across any purity in the wording of the statute. If he can do so, he will help a Bill that we wish overwhelmingly to support. In doing so, he will

1081
recognise that even with the most carefully thought out ideas, there are occasions when one little segment is worthy of different treatment. I hope that my noble friend will accept that view. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Rix: At long last I can rise to support an amendment. Even though the amendment may well be defective in the Minister's eyes, I trust that an amendment with a similar effect—that is, the non-deregulation of employment agency licences for performing art performers—will be put forward at Report stage.
I am in perhaps a unique position in this Chamber since I am probably the only life member of Equity present. I have been a member of Equity for 52 years, since 1942. The number that I was given in those days was 9,800. I am afraid that the sands of time now indicate that well over 250,000 have entered the profession, and many have left. By a strange irony, those who suffered most from regulations over the centuries—actors, proscribed by parliaments and patents, censored by chamberlains and councillors, rejected as rogues and vagabonds—are as one in their opposition to the deregulation and abolition of the entertainment agents' licences. In that firm conviction they are supported by the employers and by the agents themselves who do not wish to see their licences cease to have effect. Only one body—it has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henley —is in favour of deregulation; that is the Agents Association, which I believe is a quite small association. Its support is based on its fear of registration fees rising, nothing more, although the idea that an application to the Secretary of State, an industrial tribunal, a judicial review, and so on, is a cheap option stretches credulity to beyond reasonable limits; and the job would still not be available at the end of that time in this never-never land.
Put simply, all the performers' and employers' organisations, with the one exception that I have mentioned, plus others that I know not of, are very concerned that the abolition of licence requirements will, as we have heard, lead to the influx of a further number of cowboy agencies whose sole purpose is to set up bogus businesses, exploit youngsters and, if I may say so, actors as a whole. It has to be remembered that there are 45,000 members of Equity at this precise moment, 82 per cent. of whom are always out of work. I know Members of the Committee may say that that is their own silly fault for entering that particular profession. Unfortunately, it happens to be the profession that they have entered and that happens to be the unemployment level that they have to face.
Actors would probably be happier under Schedule 8 of this Bill. At least the slaughterhouses and knackers' yards enforcement functions ensure humane conditions of slaughter. Those for whom Equity and others are concerned would be fleeced and then slaughtered by cowboys, with humane conditions a last consideration.
Does the current licence system work? Well, clearly, as has already been indicated, there are problems. There
1082
will always be those who offend against regulations and the law, and the Department of Employment has never made available sufficient resources to track down all the offenders. There are about 2,500 licensed agents but only a handful of inspectors, and no spot checks are ever carried out. Nevertheless, the licensing system does at the very least allow some regulation for actors and is a deterrent to unscrupulous operators. It is a simple and effective method of control. After all, we have accepted the bans of marriage since the 11th canon of the synod of Westminster in 1200 A.D. We have only had to put up with the Employment Agencies Act and the notice of application for a licence since the year of our Lord 1973.
The Government's argument that the obligation to apply for and maintain a licence places a great burden on small businesses is so much hogwash—if Members of the Committee will forgive this further indirect reference to cowboys—for the fee is currently £114 and has not been increased for the past 12 years.
The Committee has already heard that, unlike in any other kind of employment, the agent is paid commission directly by the client: the actor, not the employer. Often too, payment is sent directly to an agent, who will deduct commission and then pass on the money to the client. I hate to detain the Committee with a personal story, but when I first became an actor-manager way back in 1950, I employed a booking agent (who is long out of the business and long dead, I hasten to add) who operated under those conditions. He and I lasted the first week, for I discovered that he and the manager had agreed terms 10 per cent. higher than those on my copy of the contract. The ill-gotten money would have been paid to the agent with no questions asked and the lower amount, less agent's commission, would have been sent on to me. Fortunately, because I was broke I had to go forward and ask for some money in advance. I had sight of the manager's contract and saw the fraud that had taken place. Even though I blackened the agent's name as much as possible, I did not have the financial resources to resort to litigation. If the agent concerned had been licensed though at that time—which of course he was not—that licence could easily have been revoked. To appeal to an industrial tribunal would have been expensive, cumbersome, ludicrously complicated and totally outdated by the time the decision had been reached.
Many other abuses will also be possible under the new system. At present it is illegal for agents to charge fees in advance of work unless they are licensed. Even now the law is often broken, but it will be flouted to excess once registration is no more. Crooked agents will be able to travel from town to town, offer so-called glamorous work to gullible "hopefuls", take the agency fee up front, and then scarper. Employers of actors will once again be able to become their agents too.
Again, I have a story for the Committee. Years ago, my predecessor at the Whitehall, a Mr. H.J. Barlow, who was in reality a nuts and bolts manufacturer in Wolverhampton, put up the money for and presented the play which preceded "Reluctant Heroes" called "Worm's Eye View". He also happened to back an artists' agency at the same time, and the majority of the actors then working at the Whitehall in "Worm's Eye

1083
View" were employed through that agency, which meant that the manager and the agent negotiated terms that were acceptable to them and not to the actor. It brings new meaning to that old feed-line addressed by an actor to a landlady: "What are your lowest terms for actors?". I will not repeat the response in this Chamber, but certainly Equity became involved in a monumental battle with Mr. Barlow and the agent concerned when all had doubts cast upon their parentage.
I have the following questions to put to the Minister. I hope that he will answer them in his response to this amendment. How many more inspectors will there be to investigate misconduct once the licence requirements have been repealed? What new powers will they have? Paragraph 12(2) of the 1973 Employment Agencies Act specifies that before repeal the Secretary of State is required to consult with the representative bodies of the industry. Why has no such consultation taken place? What guarantees will the Government give that the new system will be at least as effective as the old one? If the department does not have the resources to police the industry at present, why remove the only deterrent that there is? Will the Government accept that very specialised conditions pertain in the entertainment industry and in traditional arrangements between actors and their agents which require different considerations from those which pertain in other types of employment agencies?
Earlier this afternoon we debated an amendment on nurses. Perhaps I may suggest that a similar amendment for actors and artists generally might well fit the bill. At the turn of the century acts used to walk up and down the Waterloo Road passing managers and agents who were sitting in the windows of cafes working in collusion and discussing the artist's merits. If they wanted to engage him or her, the agent would hold up two fingers or three fingers, indicating £2 or £3 as the agreed sum for a week's engagement. The artist would turn up on Monday morning, play his week and at the weekend receive his pittance, less the agent's commission.
I hope that, even if this foolish Schedule 9 so far as the theatrical profession is concerned is finally accepted, it will not mean a return to those bad old days. However, it seems likely that cowboy agents may well hold up two fingers then to actors, industrial tribunals and the Secretary of State alike, only this time the gesture might well have a very different connotation.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: No one who has spoken so far has disagreed with the intentions of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. The problem is that not only is the amendment defective, but it does something entirely different. First, it adds that no such prohibition shall be applied in the case of a theatrical agency. So there cannot be prohibitions, according to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. But also we cannot have licences, because he does not do anything about the earlier part of the schedule which states that:
"Sections 1 to 3 (licences) shall cease to have effect".

1084
So in the context of the schedule the effect of the amendment would be to abolish licences and abolish prohibitions. There would be no regulation of the entertainment profession at all.
Surely it is critical, if there is to be an amendment on Report, as I hope there will be, to face the fact that licences must be retained. There are only two ways forward so far as we can see: prohibitions, which are of no use, and licences, which are of very considerable use. I hope that the Minister, even now, will agree with us.
Lord Henley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for explaining to the Committee so coherently how inadequately drafted the amendments were. As I made quite clear in my comments to my noble friend, I have no intention of arguing against them purely on drafting grounds. I am sure that the Committee is well aware of the intention behind my noble friend's amendments—though when I looked at them this morning, I did not have the first idea as to whether, in opposing the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, he was to some extent supporting me or whether he was trying to do what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, wanted to do with regard to theatrical agents.
It may help to repeat what I said before; namely, that we do not believe that the licensing system has proved as effective a means of controlling risks as it might have done. It is worth reminding the Committee that licensing itself does not establish the licence holder's honesty or reliability and it is not a guarantee of future good behaviour. The great majority of serious breaches of law—there are relatively few and we must be grateful for that—are committed by licensed agencies.
Furthermore, I believe that the minimum standards in the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and its regulations have been far more effective than the licensing system in protecting the agencies' users. Certainly we are retaining those standards with the new prohibition controls which will continue to offer continued protection from malpractice and abuse.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls argued that we propose to act after the damage has been done, whereas in the case of licensing he suggests—I dispute it—that what happens does so before any damage has been done. As I made clear, there have been many cases where licensed bodies have committed such damage. So my noble friend's point does not stand up. The situation is not quite so simple at the moment. The position at the moment is such that if a noble Lord, say, as such an agency, breaks the rules, that noble Lord as an agency would be subject to the various remedies that I repeated earlier when I responded to the amendments of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding: there would be the possibility of losing the licence.
At the moment we cannot deny a licence because the licensing authority—the department—happens to think that the person seeking the licence is a bad lot. There must be evidence. That is not so very different from the position we are proposing; that is, that the Secretary of State shall have power to go to the tribunal. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that it is not a question of a poor, impoverished and possibly

1085
unemployed actor or actress going to the tribunal; it is my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who has the resources of the Government behind him, who will go to the industrial tribunal. If there are complaints about the use of the industrial tribunal we can discuss that on a later amendment.
My right honourable friend goes to the industrial tribunal to seek powers for a prohibition; to take away the licence from the person who has either behaved badly or who is unsuitable,
"on account of his misconduct or for any other sufficient reason, to do what the order prohibits".
In other words, he has the same powers to seek a prohibition as my right honourable friend would have at the moment to deny a licence. All we are doing is saying that for the vast majority of worthy, reputable and honest agencies there is no need to go through the burden of seeking a licence.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, also asked, quite rightly, about the number of inspectors and their new powers. With all due respect to the noble Lord, that is slightly beyond the question we are discussing at the moment. Even at the moment whether or not the number of inspectors is adequate is a matter for argument. Merely changing the procedure whereby we seek a prohibition rather than deny a licence does not affect the question. The noble Lord may have a perfectly valid point that there are insufficient inspectors. There may be a case for increasing the number of inspectors. But that is not the issue at the moment. I do not believe that the position is so different under our new procedures and it is not necessary to retain licensing just for one specific class of people. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rix: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may make one point clear. At the moment when applying for a licence putative agents must advertise before they cause anyone to be employed or taken into the agency. In other words, that is "pre"-employing people through the agency, not "post". Objections to them as agents can be immediately reacted to by Equity —Equity has an endless blacklist—possibly before too much damage is done.
Lord Henley: I appreciate the noble Lord's anxiety. My point is that we cannot refuse a licence merely on suspicion that an agency is a bad lot. We would be in the same position if the noble Lord heard that one of his noble friends was setting up an employment agency. There is no reason he could not come to us to seek prohibition if he had appropriate evidence.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the Minister resumes his seat perhaps I may put to him a specific point in the schedule in relation to the argument on which he rests his case. He says that the prohibition procedures are equivalent to the licence, without the licence, and will be as effective. Will he then turn his attention to the schedule?
It is not possible in the industrial tribunal, if one ever reaches that point, to make a prohibition order for longer than 10 years. The tribunal appears to have a discretion as to how long the prohibition shall last. The period of

1086
10 years puts one on inquiry immediately about the parallel provisions in the Companies Act. It is almost impossible to read the schedule without seeing that the draftsman has obviously taken certain ideas from the Companies Act in relation to the disqualification of directors, as I mentioned earlier.
The noble Lord must say that either that has no application and tell us why, or he must agree that the procedure and discretion will be similar. Vast numbers of discretionary prohibition orders for company directors are for periods less than 10 years. It is obvious that tribunals will usually apply their discretion for imposing less than the maximum.
Once those factors are placed in the balance, can the Minister really say that this limited jurisdiction to the tribunal, even when one obtains a final decision—if the Secretary of State decides to bring any case at all—is the equivalent of a licensing section? As so many noble Lords have made clear, including the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, the fear is of losing one's licence; for example, if one drives a car one does not want to lose one's licence. Is he really saying that these are parallel procedures in the light of the specifics of the schedule?
Lord Henley: If you drive a car, you do not want to lose your licence. Similarly if you drive a car, you do not want to be prohibited from driving. I honestly do not see the distinction. My noble friend talked about the likelihood of fines not working and people not minding paying fines. We are not talking about fines. We are talking about prohibition. I really do not see that an analogy between this and the Companies Act, or whatever the noble Lord cited, is relevant. We have given the tribunal a maximum of 10 years. It is then up to the tribunal to decide what is the appropriate amount. Obviously in the most severe case it can be 10 years. But one can seek further prohibition later on if necessary. Similarly, under the current licensing system, one can come back and reapply for a licence in the following year.
Lord McCarthy: If the noble Lord says that it is as much like the existing system as possible, and bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has said, will he accept an amendment on Report to put into the Bill a parallel to the advertising procedure whereby any new person who wanted a licence or wanted to go into this profession would have to have a public advertisement to which Equity could object?
Lord Henley: I shall not give an assurance of that kind. It is certainly something I would be prepared to take away and consider, but no more than that. One has to be very careful about bringing in the kind of regulatory process that the noble Lord is suggesting— the vast process of advertising—without considering the consequences. I shall, however, give an assurance that I will at least look at that but with, dare I say it, not the strongest hope of coming back to the noble Lord at Report stage with a satisfactory response.
Lord Rix: As I said in my speech, the department has not apparently had consultations with employers, employees and the agencies, as was laid down in the 1973 Act. Would it be appropriate if Equity, the TMA,

1087
the Society of West End Theatre and so on wrote to the Minister with some form of evidence so that he could consider an amendment at Report stage which would be acceptable in this area?
Lord Henley: We shall take note of any representations that we receive between now and Report stage, which is obviously some time off. I have to repeat, however, that I do not see any evidence that publication of the licence application as we have at the moment is the effective method of control which the noble Lord suggests. Perhaps I may give him some figures. Last year 4,513 new licence applications were received. Three hundred and one representations were made against those licence applications. None of those representations resulted in the refusal of a licence. That is quite a procedure to go through when I am suggesting an alternative procedure which will have the same effect and which will remove the burdens of the licensing procedure.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may make one small point which may be important if the matter comes back at a later stage. I have indicated that I support the thrust of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, but it refers to,
"the carrying of the business of a theatrical or entertainment agency".
I wonder whether the noble Lord might consider the terms "theatrical" and "entertainment". As I read "entertainment" it encompasses "theatrical". Perhaps if one uses both terms it may suggest that areas such as music, film and so on are excluded. Will the noble Lord have that in mind if he does bring the matter back at a later stage?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Having listened to my noble friend I had it in mind to withdraw the amendment. In doing so I had it in mind to suggest something similar to what was suggested by the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Rix. If my noble friend will allow me to say so, the real thrust of his answer was that the licensing system itself does not do what we say it should do. If that is the weakness, that means that we should strengthen the system for the issuing of the licence. If we can state in the Bill that the licence can be issued only when people have passed some test to show that they are worthy of holding it, perhaps that would get us out of the difficulty. However, in the light of all that has been said, and as there is plenty for us to get on with—
9.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, I had better put on record that the suggestions which he makes fill me with even greater horror.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: That means that we will not have much of a chance if my noble friend is answering at Report stage. We had better get a new "answerer". In order to get this matter over and move on to the next business, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 178D:
Page 94, line 32, at end insert:
("(6A) An industrial tribunal shall reach a decision on an application by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above within the period of 60 days beginning with the date on which the application is received by the tribunal.
(6B) An industrial tribunal reaches a decision for the purposes of subsection (7A) above when—

(a) it makes a prohibition order under subsection (1) above, or

(b) it decides to refrain from making such an order.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 178G with which it is grouped. In deciding that they want to do away with the licensing of employment agencies, the Government have produced a very strange schedule designed to allow the Secretary of State to prohibit an agency from operating after a cumbersome procedure, including reference to an industrial tribunal and onward to an EAT. I find that quite an incredible suggestion. We already have a system of licensing and to the best of my knowledge there has been no campaign or pressure from any quarter to depart from it. We are to have deregulation, but the Government seem reluctant to leave everything to the untrammelled market so we have this cumbersome schedule.
There are many reasons that I believe industrial tribunals are not the most appropriate bodies to handle this new function. Perhaps the most compelling and the one to which many Members of the Committee have already made reference in debate this afternoon and which I hope will cause the Government to think again, is that industrial tribunals are currently overwhelmed with work. I can well remember when industrial tribunals were first established. They were to provide a quick and easy remedy for employees; the proceedings were to be as informal as possible and employees should be able to represent themselves so that legal costs would not be incurred.
But we all know that things have changed since then: proceedings are now much more formal and legalistic since the volume of legislation in the employment field has grown, and the individual who goes along unrepresented by either a union official or a lawyer is at a disadvantage. In the meantime the system itself is under incredible strain with the number of cases before it growing each year. Nor is there an indication that the much-awaited end of the recession will bring about a reduction in the case load. There will still be redundancies and people who feel that they have been unfairly "sorted out". Moreover, individuals seem much more ready to assert their rights on the ground that there is now so much unemployment that they have little to lose by attempting to take on the employers through the industrial tribunal system.
As it is, 80 per cent. of the cases take up to 26 weeks to be heard and, if there is an appeal to the EAT, the case may not be heard for two years. Clearly, to put more onto an already overloaded system is simply not sensible. I am surprised that the Government should even try to do so. The president of the EAT has already complained strongly to the Government about the system, claiming that industrial tribunals are grossly overburdened and that the EAT itself is being swamped.
If the Government persist with this idea and we are unable to stop them doing that, at least they should put some time limit in the Bill. That will mean that the Government will have to put in more resources if they want the schedule to work. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: In opposing the Motion that Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill, I said that I was mainly concerned about the effect of the proposed arrangements on the administration of justice. I shall not repeat all that I said then. I believe that it is enough to reiterate that, unless the resources available to industrial tribunals are increased—the noble Lord, Lord Henley, gave no indication at an earlier stage that they would be— implementation of Schedule 9 is bound to add considerably to the delays already being experienced in the hearing of cases. It follows that I am sympathetic to the aim of this amendment in seeking to limit those delays.
Lord Henley: I do not believe that the need for the time limit for which the noble Baroness asks has been demonstrated by experience of the provisions. The industrial tribunals are independent bodies and it is for them to decide the appropriate time period for dealing with the proceedings before them.
The statutory procedural rules for industrial tribunals allow for respondents in proceedings to be given adequate time to notify whether or not they wish to contest a case and for all parties to be given notice of hearings. We believe that the tribunals must be permitted discretion to determine how much time should be allowed for these matters in particular circumstances.
We accept that it may be desirable for an industrial tribunal to hear an application for a prohibition order under these new provisions particularly speedily. I understand that the tribunals are well aware of the need for speedy hearings in such cases and I am confident that they will ensure that prohibition cases are dealt with as promptly as is consistent with fairness.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is right to say that he raised the matter in earlier amendments. I did not respond then because I thought that it could be better dealt with on this amendment. In a sense, the noble Lord was asking how long it can take industrial tribunals to hear particular cases and what we are doing—I regret to have to say that I shall give the noble Lord figures—to reduce the delays inherent in the system at the moment. I can tell the noble Lord that for the period from 1st April 1993 to the end of March 1994, 54 per cent. of cases came to a hearing within 26 weeks in England and Wales. The figure for Scotland was 80 per cent. We accept that it is a disappointing percentage in England and Wales. That is due to the rapid increase in tribunal caseloads in recent years. Last year there were a record 72,000 applications nationally, a 145 per cent. increase on the 1988–89 figure.
What are we doing to reduce delays? We have increased the number of chairmen and administrative staff. We have expanded premises. We are enabling chairmen to sit alone in some cases. We have amended tribunal rules to encourage a more investigative

1090
approach. There have also been a number of efficiency improvements, including substantial investment in new technology. Tribunals are now able to start earlier and to sit for longer in the day. The chairmen are now sitting more days in the year than previously. We are also streamlining the administration. In addition, another seven full-time chairmen are being recruited for those regions where the delays are most severe. At our request, the Lord Chancellor has agreed to raise, for a limited period, the number of days for which part-time chairmen may sit—from 50 days to 70 days for those in practice and from 70 to 100 days for those retired from practice.
Perhaps I may also point out that expenditure on industrial tribunals has gone up from £12 million in 1988–89 to £25 million last year. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked for an increase in resources. In addition, extra money is being made available for the recruitment of the seven extra chairmen mentioned earlier. We are confident that these measures will soon lead to a considerable improvement in the time taken for cases to come to hearing. Obviously, we shall keep matters under review.
Lastly, I believe that there is no precedent for limiting the time in which a tribunal must come to a decision on applications of this type. We see no good reason for creating one here. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: What the Minister said simply confirms me in my view that the industrial tribunal system is not the appropriate system for proceeding to deal with prohibitions under the proposed legislation. I am glad that further resources are being made available, but I have to point out that industrial tribunals were not originally intended to deal with such work. It seems to me that imposing a time limit for cases that are quite different from the normal type of industrial tribunal case would have been appropriate in the circumstances.
I do not intend to press the amendment now, but since the Government, although accepting that speedy decisions are necessary, are apparently unwilling to put in time limits, accept the amendment, or even say that they will take it away and think about it, we have no alternative but to look closely on Report at the schedule to see whether we can come up with some amendments which will provide a different means of enforcement from the industrial tribunal system, because that is inappropriate in the circumstances. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 178E to 178G not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 178H:
Page 97, leave out lines 14 to 21.
The noble Baroness said: I move the amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. The amendment is designed to remove from the Bill the provision that would repeal the licensing requirements for seamen's employment agencies. I gather that the Department of Trade and Industry says that the aim is to

1091
remove financial and administrative burdens from agencies while retaining protection from malpractice and abuse. I have a briefing from NUMAST, the union representing seamen, which states that it has not been aware that the section of the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act relating to seafarers' agencies has caused any unacceptable burdens to be placed on such enterprises. Indeed, it indicates that there seem to be more agencies than ever before. It is aware of some one-person agencies which are operated from private residential homes.
Clearly such agencies may not be inherently poor or any more likely than larger agencies to commit abuses. Nevertheless, they can be considered to indicate a sector which needs basic safeguards and a fair regulatory regime in place. Any deregulatory proposals affecting seafarers' employment agencies must ensure that any changes do not foster a climate in which abuses become more "prevalent and where—again we have this word —more cowboys are attracted into the sector. The union says, and I agree, that it goes without saying that supplying seafarers is different from supplying employees for shore-based work. The need to supply quality seafarers to vessels cannot be over-emphasised. It is important to note that the world shipping industry already suffers from low standards of employment and employment agencies.
In certain parts of the world some agencies still continue the practice of charging seafarers a fee to find work. In such instances, that can include taking a cut directly from seafarers' earnings. Such practices were outlawed by the UK in the Act to which I have referred. I gather that the union would strongly oppose any changes to the regulatory regime for agencies which could in any way enable less scrupulous agencies to use such practices. I am also informed that such practices are outlawed by ILO conventions to which the UK Government are a party. For those reasons, I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis.
Lord McCarthy: While supporting the amendment, I want to ask the Minister for some information. I cannot find out, so I ask the Government because they know everything, what is the position in relation to merchant seamen and whether it is lawful for them to be supplied from an agency which then charges them a fee. That point is important, because the Government are not going to abolish Section 6 of the 1973 Act, which of course does not cover merchant seamen. Section 6 of the 1973 Act states that agencies shall not be able to charge except in such cases or classes as the Secretary of State may prescribe.
I do not know, and I shall be interested to hear from the Minister, what are the cases under Section 6 of the 1973 Act where the Secretary of State allows charges to be made and how they relate to the existing position under the Merchant Shipping Act, where Section 111, as I understand it, provides that there should be no charges at all.
Unless that provision has been subsequently amended, we could get into a situation in which outside the merchant service it will still be the case that there is

1092
some control over the charges that are made, whereas if Section 111 has been abolished there will be no limitation on charges within the merchant service. Will the Minister clarify the position?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has made an important and interesting point. He will not be at all surprised if I seek advice on the matter, and I hope that that materialises before I finish speaking.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, which was moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, seeks to continue the: special licensing requirements for employment agencies which supply seafarers for merchant ships in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord appears to believe that these agencies are a special case and that without licensing their standards will drop.
We can see no justification for retaining separate legislation for seafarers' agencies. We do not accept that the licensing arrangements act as a deterrent to cowboy operators, either in the seafaring sector or, as I made clear earlier, elsewhere. Users of agencies may be at risk from some people in any sector of the agency industry, but we do not believe that licensing is not an effective means of protection.
The treatment of seafarers' agencies separately from the requirements of the Employment Agencies Act has long been regarded as an anomaly. Over half the 80 or so agencies licensed under the Merchant Shipping Act are also licensed under the Employment Agencies Act because of their agency activities other than for seafarers. We think it is right that they should need to comply with only one set of agency legislation.
The mere possession of a licence is not a guarantee of good behaviour or reliable conduct. We believe that the minimum standards of conduct in the Employment Agencies Act and its regulations, together with the enforcement activities of the Department of Employment's agency inspectors and the availability of the new prohibition power, will be far more effective than either of the present licensing systems in protecting the users of agencies.
The provisions in the Bill will not affect the training or manning of vessels. Shipowners are required by the Merchant Shipping (Safe Manning Document) Regulations 1992 to employ seafarers with sufficient training, qualifications and experience to ensure safe manning. Various Department of Transport recommendations take that further.
The repeal of licensing will also not affect current welfare arrangements. The existing merchant shipping legislation, which covers aspects of safety involving both ships and seafarers, is an effective means of protecting the welfare of seafarers.
Curiously, the noble Lord's amendment does not extend to the provision in the Bill which brings seafarers' agencies in Northern Ireland within the general provisions governing employment agencies in the Province. Why the noble Lord has excluded Northern Ireland is not for me to answer. However, it is

1093
worth bringing that to the attention of the Committee, and the noble Lord and noble Baroness can consider whether they wish to come back to the matter.
A licensing system which does not itself protect agency users can no longer be justified. I believe it is right that all the licensing requirements should be removed, but it is equally right that agency users should continue to be protected from harm. The provisions in the Bill, together with the existing standards for agencies and the continuation of enforcement, will provide a strong deterrent and an effective means to deal with any abuse across the agency industry as a whole.
Perhaps I may respond briefly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. Under the new regime, Section 6 of 1973 Act will prevent charging in all cases except in the entertainment industry. Obviously that will now apply to seamen, and there are no plans to exempt seamen from Section 6 of the 1973 Act by regulation. I hope that that—
Lord McCarthy: Do I understand the Minister to say that under Section 6 of the 1973 Act the only classes for which one is allowed to charge are those in the entertainment industry, and that that will be main-tained? Therefore, after the abolition of the necessary sections in the 1984 Act, merchant seamen will be covered by Section 6 and any charges that are made will continue to be illegal. Is that correct?
Lord Henley: That is my understanding. I believe that there is one other group—namely au pairs—in respect of which (I believe but I speak off the record) a charge of £40 may be made. But it will not be legal to make a charge in respect of seamen. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that explanation. In particular, I thank him for the response that he made to the point raised by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. Quite clearly, the union organising seamen is concerned about that because it raised the issue of charging quite specifically with me. We are very glad to have the assurance that merchant seamen will not be subject to charges by employment agencies operating on their behalf in the future.
I should like to study carefully what the Minister said about the enhanced protection that he believes will still be available. Quite clearly, very special conditions apply to this section of the workforce. There is a need for a high level of quality and expertise because it is a fairly dangerous occupation. The need for people to be properly trained and competent in the exercise of their craft is extremely important.
Having said that, I thank the Minister for the assurances that he gave, particularly in relation to charging, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Unfair dismissal: selection for redundancy]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 178J:
Page 23, line 35, leave out ("omitted") and insert ("amended by inserting at the beginning the words "in the case of an undertaking in receivership'"').
The noble Baroness said: Clause 6 relates to employee rights in redundancy. I do not like this clause and I may well say so in more detail when we discuss the Motion, That the clause stand part.
Nevertheless, I have tabled Amendment No. 178J because I am anxious to highlight a particular situation which can arise in the case of insolvency. The rights of employees in insolvencies are meant to be protected under Section 122 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. That provides that the Secretary of State will meet the following debts to employees upon insolvency: arrears of pay up to eight weeks; notice pay; holiday pay up to six weeks; and any basic award of compensation for unfair dismissal. Section 106 of the Act also permits the Secretary of State to make a redundancy payment to the employees where the employer is insolvent.
But—and this is really surprising—the law does not, apparently, protect individual employees so that their basic employment rights are respected in the event of a receivership. As I understand it, the insolvency of an employer automatically terminates an employee's contract of employment where there is the appointment of a receiver. It is then up to the receiver who shall be dismissed and who retained. The receiver has no obligation to consult anyone, including the unions, or to abide by an existing agreement.
I gather that there have been some bad examples of what can happen in such cases. For example, at Leyland Daf several hundred employees were made redundant at very short notice and no explanation was given as to how individuals were selected. No respect was given to the agreement which provided for enhanced redundancy terms. Individuals were simply told to contact the Department of Employment so that their minimum redundancy rights would be respected.
The amendment ensures that, following the appointment of a receiver, the receiver is bound to respect existing rights of employees. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be willing to agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The amendment would amend Section 59(1) (b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 so that it did not apply generally, but would still apply to redundancy dismissals effected by receivers of an insolvent business; that is to say, redundancies effected by a receiver in contravention of any customary agreement or agreed procedure would be automatically unfair.
I believe that the amendment would create an unneccessary distinction between the rights of employees made redundant by insolvent businesses and those made redundant by solvent businesses. I do not believe that it is right, in principle, that such a distinction should exist; nor is it necessary. The law on unfair dismissal applies equally to businesses in receivership as it does to other businesses. Why then should it be automatically unfair for a business in

1095
receivership to dismiss in contravention of a customary arrangement or agreed procedure, but not for other businesses to do so? I do not believe that there are any reasons why it should.
Moreover, I would suggest that the position of insolvent businesses is a prime illustration of a situation where Section 59(1) (b) of the 1978 Act is outmoded and unduly rigid and why it is right that we should repeal it. Receivers of a business need to assess quickly the strengths and weaknesses of the company, including its workforce. They may need to reduce costs very quickly if the business is to continue to trade at all. That may and often will, sadly, mean redundancies. But it will be essential for the company and its remaining employees that the business has the best possible chance of recovery. To that end, I believe that the receiver needs the maximum flexibility to restructure the business, subject to him acting fairly in all the circumstances.
To constrain the receiver to make redundancies in accordance with an agreement or customary practice which may be outdated or totally unsuited to the insolvent business's immediate and future needs, would be folly. I do not believe that it would benefit anyone if, as a result, the business were to fail.
I would not want it to be thought that the Government believe that receivers should be free to act in an arbitrary or unfair manner. Of course, that is not the case. As I have already made clear, the law on unfair dismissal applies to insolvent businesses just as it does to others. Receivers will, therefore, continue to be under a duty to act fairly in all the circumstances. I believe that that is the right approach. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that her amendment is undesirable and that she will consider withdrawing it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Members of the Committee will not be surprised to learn that I do not find the Minister's response very acceptable. He said that the receiver is expected to act in a fair but not arbitrary manner. Of course, the receiver takes over from the employer in the event of insolvency and fills in, so to speak, for the employer in those circumstances. I fail to see why, in such instances, the receiver should not be equally bound by whatever agreement the employer has entered into. That is really all that we are asking for by way of the amendment. However, I suppose that that is really a little too much to ask, as the Bill seeks to remove agreement rights in another context. I also find that unacceptable as, indeed, I indicated in my opening remarks.
However, at this point in the evening there is little point in pressing the amendment. Therefore, I do not intend to do so. I shall, nevertheless, read most carefully the Minister's response to my amendment because it arises from certain situations which have been perceived to be unfair in the past. Indeed, I made specific reference to the Leyland Daf situation. I happen to know that the workers involved in that affair were very badly treated and that they felt most strongly about what happened to them. But, in the circumstances, it simply remains for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 178K:
Page 23, line 35, at end insert ("where it can be shown that the customary arrangement or agreed procedure is no longer appropriate to economic circumstances or business needs.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 178K I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 178L. These two amendments are, in a way, probing amendments or perhaps revealing amendments. Their aim is to reveal the slender nature of the Government's case. They seek to replace the, as it were, total abolition of the protection provided by Section 59(1) (b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 with a kind of waiver. The waiver of the present protection depends upon establishing before a tribunal that an agreed procedure or custom,
"is no longer appropriate to economic circumstances or business needs".
I obtained that phrase from the Government's Notes on Clauses which constitute by far the clearest defence —the Committee will note how thin the document is —that the Government have put up for what they wish to do in the Bill. The Notes on Clauses state:
"Section 59(1) (b) makes it difficult for employers to change outdated redundancy selection procedures without consultation and agreement"—
one might ask why they should want to do that without consultation and agreement; nevertheless it makes it difficult—
"even when no redundancies are in prospect. Even though they may withdraw from an agreement it may nevertheless he unclear whether they have succeeded in changing a customary arrangement".
The Committee will note that there is no further explanation as to how it becomes unclear or why it should be unclear if in fact it has been done. Never mind that! The Notes on Clauses state:
"whether they have succeeded in changing a customary arrangement. Accordingly they cannot with confidence"—
of course, they must have confidence—
"select employees under the new arrangements they have instituted rather than old arrangements"—
here it comes—
"which may no longer be appropriate to their economic circumstances or business needs".
It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that if the Government had stated on the face of the Bill that employers could welsh on agreements or ignore established arrangements which they could establish before a tribunal were no longer appropriate, "to their economic circumstances or business needs" then they, presumably, would regard that as much more advantageous from their point of view than the special circumstances which they have to argue now. I cannot see any reason why the Government should not accept the amendment. If the Government cannot accept either of the amendments—one is a general one and the other applies to Northern Ireland—we have to come to the reluctant conclusion that they have certain other reasons for acting as they have. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for assuring the Committee that his amendments are merely probing amendments. My view when I saw the amendments was that they would undo all the good that the clause aims to bring about. They are undesirable and unnecessary.

1097
There remains a misconstruction of the objectives —quite obviously—and effect of Clause 26. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, appears to believe that it will enable employers to ride roughshod over agreements they have made with their employees about redundancy selection procedures. He seems to think that employers will be able to ignore traditional selection methods at whim for no apparent reason. That is very far from the truth and very far from the Government's intention as any employer who attempted to act in such a way would find out to his cost.
The general unfair dismissal provisions provide strong protection for employees who are dismissed in such a cavalier fashion. They require an employer to act fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances. Where there are agreed or customary ways of going about dismissals, the industrial tribunal will look very carefully at why those have been ignored. In practice, employers will have to show that if they followed different procedures they had good reasons for doing so.
Section 59(1) (b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which Clause 26 repeals, already contains an exemption where there are special reasons justifying a departure from the agreed or customary procedures. The noble Lord's amendments would effectively reiterate the present position. Nor, as I indicated, is the position the clause aims to introduce so very different. However, there is one difference which individual employees are likely to find of great importance. It is that the new regime will protect them as individuals on their own merits whereas the old regime protected the system. It meant that a hard-working, skilful and effective employee could be dismissed in preference to his or her less able colleague who had worked a little longer for the employer.
The employee who is dismissed in those circumstances would find no comfort in the protection of the present remedies. Nor would the employer, who could be inhibited by out-of-date procedures from ensuring a proper skills balance in the workforce and might find himself in the position of making redundant those very workers he most needed to ensure the success of his struggling business. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that that would be an undesirable state of affairs suited to the old days of trade union intervention, which no doubt the noble Lord hankers after, but not to the present day, when individuals should be free to be judged and rewarded on their own merits. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his probing amendment.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord gets worse. I asked him a very simple question: what is wrong with my amendment? He said that the trouble with the amendment, like the trouble with not having an amendment and with not having this clause, is that it would make it possible for poor individuals to be sacked when they are working very hard and the skills balance would be upset.
I asked what is the problem if an employer wants legitimately to stop a first-in-last-out agreement. The Government have always tried to tell us that there is a

1098
mystery and that it cannot be done. They say that there is this terrible first-in-last-out understanding which penalises individuals and it cannot be removed. It appears to be like a swamp. It sticks. Even if you consult and give people notice it seems that the damn thing is still there, hanging round your neck. The Government never tell us why that is the case. They never cite examples of cases where the employer went through all the procedures, gave notice and negotiated in an attempt to do away with this terrible first-in-last-out procedure, but somehow the swamp got him in the end. It is a phantom.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of first-in-last-out agreements have escape clauses. It is possible to say that, in special circumstances very similar to the present circumstances in the employment Act, you can break out of this wicked, vicious first-in-last-out system. It is only in the concept of the swamp, which is never specified and which looms everywhere, that the Government give any plausibility at all to this ridiculous clause.
Since it is so late at night I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Lord responds, perhaps I may put to him a parallel point. There is an escape clause not only in virtually all collective agreements, but there is an escape clause in the section, to which the Government made scarcely any reference in the debates in another place—namely, that the agreement does not apply if there are special reasons justifying a departure.
My noble friend's amendment seems to meet not only the Government's point but also the requirements of the section as it stands. The latest precedent in the employment appeals tribunal held that where a last-in-first-out agreement could well defeat the objective of carrying forward the company's business there was a special reason for it not to apply. Do the Government want to go beyond that? In rejecting my noble friend's amendments, do they want to go to a point where the agreement to which the employer has given his word does not defeat the objective of carrying on the business but is merely something that the employer does not want to observe? If that is so, the clause takes on a new light. That seemed to be the case in debates in another place. I wonder whether the noble Lord will maintain the Government's position on that point.
Baroness Seear: Will the noble Lord quote to us any known agreement of any responsible company that did not have an escape clause? I have never heard of a negotiated redundancy programme which merely accepted the last-in-first-out principle with no qualification whatsoever. Does the noble Lord know of any such agreement?
Lord Henley: Without notice, I cannot satisfy the noble Baroness.
Baroness Seear: I should be grateful if the noble Lord could do so.
Lord Henley: Perhaps we may leave that matter aside for one moment. With their references to swamps and other such matters, the two noble Lords seek to cloud the issue. Quite frankly, by means of his amendment the noble Lord more or less seeks to put us back into the position that we were in with the 1978 Act. As I made clear, the new regime proposes to protect, and will protect, those individuals as individuals on their own merits; whereas the old regime merely protected the system. I do not believe that I can take the noble Lord any further than that.
Lord McCarthy: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 178L not moved.]
[Amendment No. 179 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Turner of Camden: I oppose the Motion that Clause 26 stand part of the Bill. In my view, we have had enough legislation designed to remove rights from employees. We must now have, I would imagine, the least protected workforce in Europe. Section 59(1) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act makes a dismissal unfair if an employer chooses employees for redundancy outside the terms of an agreement or of custom and practice. Presumably the Government argue that the need to behave in accordance with a freely negotiated agreement imposes restrictions on employers which prevent them from acting in a sufficiently flexible manner. But in other connections, of course, the Government are very willing to talk about the sanctity of freely entered into agreements. Now we are to have legislation which specifically gives the right to ignore such agreements.
What that does to industrial relations in practice one can imagine, although of course the Government are not in favour of any measure, no matter how slight, which appears to give some protection to employees against unfair practices by employers. They are interested only in protecting employees against the unions which they themselves have chosen to join. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was intended to give effect to an EC directive on the need for consultation in order to reach agreement with unions on how to avoid or reduce the number of dismissals and to mitigate their consequences. The Government will no doubt argue that this specific provision in the Bill does not interfere with that since it is simply about selection for redundancy. But it is difficult to envisage how one can operate one without the other. I predict that if the Bill leaves both Houses unamended in this respect, there will be a number of cases before the courts; and those may even end up at the European Court of Justice.
However, that is the legal argument against the provision. There are other arguments which I should like to advance. Redundancy is for most people an unmitigated disaster. Gone are the days when people would willingly opt for redundancy, take their compensation and cheerfully go off to another job. That flexibility, so important for workers and even, I think,

1100
for many employers has now disappeared. The flexibility now talked of simply envisages that yet more people will find their way on to the dole queue. So everything must be done to mitigate the effects of redundancy for individuals. Consultation must take place with the relevant unions. Redeployment must be seriously considered as an alternative. If redundancy has to happen, the criteria must be seen to be fair and reasonable. At present an individual who feels that he or she has been unfairly selected for redundancy may go to an industrial tribunal with that plea and may even win the case and some compensation. The removal of the clause in the 1978 Act to which this clause of the Bill refers will very much reduce the opportunity for individuals to do that since whatever agreement over criteria existed will have been automatically expunged. I cannot see that the provision is at all reasonable. Again, I am not aware of any agitation for that to happen.
I suppose that the Government will advance their usual argument. We have already heard it advanced that the existence of the provision in the 1978 Act constitutes a burden on business, and that it prevents an employer from doing what he wants to do in the flexible way in which he wants to operate. But that does not ring with much sincerity to me, coming from a Government who have continued to pile social costs upon employers despite strong objections. Earlier this year we saw the Statutory Sick Pay Act; 8 per cent. of statutory maternity pay has now been made the responsibility of the employer; and earlier this year we had the decision about insurance premium tax, which every employer will have to pay on his employers' liability insurance. That is a tax on employment if ever there was one. So I do not believe this cry about anything that involves employee protection being a burden on business.
This particular clause gives a little bit of protection and some opportunity for unions to intervene in line with negotiated agreements. I hope that the Minister will not talk, as his honourable friend did in the other place, about having to do this because of "last in, first out" union agreements, particularly in view of the discussion that we have just had on the amendments of my noble friend Lord McCarthy. As has already been said, there are escape clauses in "last in, first out" union agreements. Agreements tend to be a great deal more flexible anyway than they used to be, since it is in everyone's interest to keep operations as cost-effective as possible. No, this is another anti-union, anti-employee proposition that has been slipped into this Bill —which has aptly been described as a total Henry VIII clause made into a Bill. I really do not think that we should let the Government get away with slipping this clause into the Bill in this way. I therefore oppose the Motion that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: I, too, am seriously concerned about this clause. On a number of occasions in the past I have gone out of my way to speak in favour of the extended use of procedure agreements as a means of making industrial action a weapon only of last resort. If henceforth methods of selecting people for dismissal as

1101
redundant are to be disregarded even though they form part of agreed procedures, that seems to me to be a retrograde step in terms of the need to maintain good industrial relations.
The effect of this clause is that where redundancy selection procedures form part of an individual's contract of employment, they will remain legally binding. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has already in effect confirmed that. It is only where the procedures are not part of the contract that they may be overturned by the clause. The Government's intention is apparently to do away with collective agreements requiring selection on the basis of formulas such as "last in, first out" which hamper employers in selecting employees for redundancy according to the needs of the business unless there are special reasons to the contrary.
But surely in those circumstances a right course is for employers to seek in good time to enter into new agreements with employee representatives that accord with their needs. After all, employers possess very strong bargaining counters in this matter if they are confronted with recalcitrant trade unions, including the ultimate sanction of withdrawing union recognition—a policy that can be readily adopted under current legislation.
That brings me to a related point. The European Court of Justice recently criticised the United Kingdom for its failure to require consultation, not with trade unions but with employee representatives when collective redundancies are contemplated. The court said that the UK had failed to implement fully the acquired rights directive of 1977 and the collective redundancies directive of 1975.I had quite a lot to say on that matter when we debated what is now the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. Current UK legislation enacting those directives guarantees consultation only where there are recognised trade unions. As I see it, that legislation will now have to be amended. Employers will have to consult with employee representatives with a view to seeking agreement where multiple redundancies (probably more than 10) are envisaged.
In the face of that situation, what on earth do the Government hope to gain from insisting on the retention of Clause 26 when they will shortly have to introduce legislation of a completely different kind? The Committee will see that so far from supporting a clause which invites employers to renege on jointly agreed procedures, in my view there are compelling reasons why this clause should not form part of the Bill.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I have come to expect penetrating and logical speeches from noble Lords and I have not been disappointed tonight. I also oppose the clause. I believe that it is a dangerous clause which sends the wrong signals to indifferent or bad employers and discourages them from acting in an intelligent way.
At Second Reading I declared my trade union interest in the Bill. I should now like to declare my personal interest in this clause. Many years ago I was a chief shop steward in a very tough company. I learned then what a free-for-all means. That is precisely what this clause

1102
creates: a free-for-all in which workers will suffer very badly. In consequence employers will suffer because industrial relations will be seriously damaged.
Today most companies strive to be efficient. That is welcomed. But if they do it by leaning on vulnerable employees, the efficiency of the organisation will suffer as a result of the ill will that is created. Unfortunately, redundancy is commonplace today but how it is handled can either preserve or destroy good industrial relations. I believe that the problem with this clause is that the impression that it creates is that it is permissible to slash the workforce at the whim of employers. Not all employers would interpret the clause that way. There are some very good employers. But the bad and indifferent employers will take advantage of the licence that this clause gives them.
Some employers are hostile to trade union activists; some of them always have been. Those trade union activists would be the first to go; older workers would stand very little chance of retaining their jobs; and disabled workers would be vulnerable. Those are three very important groups, trade union activists, older people and disabled workers. They will all suffer if this clause remains. I hope that the Government will be able to think again on the matter.
The Minister will remember that in the other place Members spoke eloquently about the personal tragedies of redundancy. Most noble Lords in this Chamber are more familiar with the management side of industry. Some may sympathise with their friends who have suffered financial disaster through Lloyd's. But we should be equally concerned about the tragedies suffered by the millions of ordinary workers who have lost their livelihoods and treat them with consideration. Ignoring arguments and refusing to consult with the unions will be not only deplorable; it will be an industrial relations disaster.
Good businessmen are already aware of the need for consultation and co-operation with the trade unions. They are sensitive to the fact that good industrial relations are crucial today, especially when other developed countries are developing their own. For the Government to dive backwards to the Victorian age of deference and touching forelocks is a disastrous move. If changes and agreements for redundancy are necessary, they can and should be made in consultation with the interests of both the firm and the workers. If agreements are broken and redundancies are bulldozed through, there will be tears all round and ultimately the employers will shed more tears than anyone.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: In support of my noble friend Lord Ashley, I must say that on this occasion the Minister's suggestion that the clause is one which promotes the individual against the collective is little more than a merry prank. First, Section 59(1) (b) of the 1978 Act is not concerned only with collective agreements; it is concerned with any arrangements or custom on which the employer is expected to make his selection for redundancy. It is in that respect that the Government's legislation would now give the employer

1103
the right not to behave reasonably, but in relation to the matter of selection to behave in any way that he sees fit, even if it means breaking his word.
This is another step back to master and servant law as anyone will understand who has looked at the way that other jurisdictions not so many miles away arrange these matters. They are not necessarily to be copied. But it is in marked contrast to almost every continental system that develops the flexibility of its labour law and does so by virtue of agreement with trade unions and employers or through tripartite institutions. This Administration is alone in western Europe in insisting that the only route to competitiveness is a repeated attack upon the rights of workers and their representatives at work. That is why they recently came to such a difficult pass in Luxembourg. Today the Government's motto has moved one step further: pacta suntexceptis dominis servanda; the master is to be given the freedom of his house.
I have two main objections to the clause and the arguments used in favour of it. The first in brief is this: in another place, in Committee on 24th March at columns 791 and 756, the Minister for Corporate Affairs —a somewhat odd title in this Government—said that we must get rid of the section and agreements such as LIFO (though LIFO is by no means the only arrangement caught) in order to keep the business going.
In relation to my noble friend's amendment, I put to the Minister the fact that the present Section 59(1) (b) does not operate if there are special reasons justifying a departure from the arrangement or procedure in the case of the employee in question. The individual employee is protected unless there are special reasons, because it is he who was chosen in breach of the selection procedure. If ever a section was about individuals unfairly and improperly selected, it is this section.
But the proviso in the section was recently upheld in the case of Rolls Royce v Price in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, 1993, where the court said that "special reasons" meant reasons which would,
"defeat the object of carrying forward the business in difficult times".
One may think that if the present section did not allow for that, there may be something to be said for amending it. But it already covers that. All that Ministers have said so far, except for this evening which we will read with interest because the Minister has been going even further, is that such an agreement,
"may have been right for the time when it was negotiated but may be entirely inappropriate for current circumstances".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 24/3/94; col. 719.]
Perhaps the Committee can imagine a Bill which allowed the purchaser of goods to escape from his obligations because the price at which he contracted to purchase the goods had become inappropriate to his current circumstances. That would not be acceptable. Why is this situation different? Because it is about the sale of labour power. To the Government labour power rests on different principles. We must always give the master the control of labour power whereas in other contracts normal principles would be upheld.
That is the first line of attack on this notion in Clause 26. The second, like Gaul, can be divided into three parts. The Government claimed, and the Minister

1104
claimed again tonight, that the rest of the law will be unaffected. That is a serious point. If the Government can make that statement, they will have a trench in which to retreat. But this is the case only in the most formal sense. Section 59(1) (b) has been a most important buttress of workers' rights where other sanctions are less effective.
I give three examples. First, where the procedure agreement on redundancy is incorporated into tide employee's contract of employment—the individual contract of employment—there are some remedies for breach of that contract but they are markedly inferior to the remedies which exist where at the same moment that employee is chosen, in breach of the procedure agreement, as the person to be made redundant and to be sent home to say, "I've lost my job". The Government Front Bench seems to regard the clause as something of a pleasant surprise that it can be happy with. If someone came to the Minister (who knows what will happen in the next few months?) and said to him, "I'm sorry, but in breach of all the promises I made to you, you have lost your job", I think he would feel a little aggrieved. Of course, we all know that it will not happen. But do the Government intend to restore any equivalent protection in these cases?
The second example is one to which the Rolls Royce case adverts as well. The application of special reasons in that case exempting the employer from his breach of agreement nevertheless left the employee—the Minister is quite right—able to show that the employer had acted unreasonably overall and was therefore liable for an unfair dismissal. I quote the principle from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, in the Judicial Committee of this House in the Polkey case in 1987:
"In the case of redundancy the employer will normally not act reasonably unless he warns and consults any employees affected or their representative, adopts a fair basis on which to select for redundancy and takes such steps as may be reasonable to avoid or minimise redundancy by redeployment within his own organisation".
Those principles will still stand, but a message will go to the courts that it is not necessarily unreasonable for an employer to go back on his word without any reason That must be the message that will be put to the tribunals, to the EAT and to the Court of Appeal. It is part of the legislative development, and the courts today will look at Hansard as well. If the Minister is going to say that that will not be the effect for the tribunals and the Court of Appeal, let him put it on record tonight and we shall see whether they accept that rather illogical position. Once Section 59(1) (b) is repealed the courts will be told that an employer can go back on his word yet still act reasonably. The Minister says that it all depends on what is fair and reasonable under Section 57(3), and, of course, that is right.
The problem of consultation also involves the European directive to which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, adverted. On 8th June the Government lost a major piece of litigation in regard to workers' representatives, but I do not wish to address that aspect of the case tonight. I make that quite clear. I merely point out that under the directive and now under our own law, because the Government amended the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act before

1105
the case was adjudicated, it is necessary for the employer not merely to consult about the reasons for the redundancy, the numbers, the methods and so on, but he must, and I quote from the directive,
"begin consultations with the workers' representatives in good time with a view to reaching an agreement".
The Government's amendment to the Act says,
"with a view to reaching agreement",
which is not quite the same.
Nevertheless, let us assume that they are the same. What is the position if Clause 26 is passed? First, the domestic law on unfair dismissal will require consultation, although an employer may go back on his word and still be reasonable. Secondly, the central obligation of the European directive goes further. The employer must act,
"in good time with a view to reaching an agreement".
Yet his lawyers will be saying, "Don't worry too much about that. Any agreement you make you can go back on as far as concerns selection of workers for redundancy". I ask the Minister to take this point centrally on board because it is very serious for the Government if they get it wrong. How is that compatible with a genuine implementation of the directive? Such a state of law renders the phrase that you must,
"consult with a view to reaching an agreement",
devoid of serious meaning. It is only Section 59(1) (b) which stands behind the provision through the special circumstances of our industrial relations system, where the collective agreement is normally not binding between the employer and the trade union. It is therefore only this section and paragraph which stand behind the arrangement and which can give some assurance of certainty where an agreement has been made. To urge an employer to consult with a view to agreement and yet to repeal one of the major protections not for the trade union but for the individual worker is to assure the employer that he has little to fear if he decides to break the agreement if it is concluded. That flies in the face of the directive, which does not mean an agreement which the employer can put aside. I here advert to the decision on 8th June. There is a parallel that the Luxembourg court will not have an implementation, which in practice means that you may refuse to carry out the directive if you so feel fit.
This is a most serious section. For those Members of the Committee who are litigious, my interim view is that someone might well get an injunction to stop this breach of Community law. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has said, most good employers will abide by their agreements. Why give the macho-management an easy evasion of consultation with a view to real agreement? That is what the Government are doing. I hope that they will think again.
Lord McCarthy: I merely want to ask the noble Lord a question. If he cannot answer it tonight, I want him to write to me or answer it on Report. I have read very carefully through all the statements of the Government and I can find only two cases, namely, Copeland v. Bennet in 1984 and International v. Reed in 1985, in which this Government allege that there has

1106
been any difficulty or problem about establishing, in effect, a special reason. Those cases do not prove the case.
I want the Government now or later, or to write later, to say what is the evidence in terms of specific cases in front of tribunals —because it must be there —where they have found employers who have been unable to use the special reasons excuse?
Lord Henley: I shall respond to that in due course. I was more than amused at the long speech from the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, where he touched on the acquired rights directive. The noble Lord was probably here the other day when I responded to a question from his noble friend Lady Castle on the directive. I made it quite clear that we would consider what action was necessary and that we would respond in due course.
What amused me was that the noble Lord made absolutely no mention of the proposals that came from the last Labour Government —I appreciate that that was many, many years ago —when they proposed in their draft TUPE regulations to implement the 1977 directive excluding the entire public sector. Does the noble Lord deny that?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I shall not deny anything which the Minister says at this time of night. I was not referring to the acquired rights directive. I was referring to Judgment 383/92 which refers to Directive 75/129, 1975 which deals with consultation on redundancy, which is what this matter is about. I was not referring to acquired rights and transfer of undertakings at all.
Lord Henley: We shall be getting to that in due course. I believe that the noble Lord was referring to acquired rights—certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, did. I thought that out of interest Members of the Committee might like to be reminded yet again that it was the noble Lord's party—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, can confirm this, and I can probably quote him—which was going to implement that directive excluding the entire public sector.
Lord McCarthy: Is the noble Lord saying that what we did once the Government can do 35 times?
Lord Henley: I am not saying that. I am pointing out a tiny piece of hypocrisy in the party of the noble Lord opposite. They accuse us of implementating the acquired rights directive 1977, yet they were proposing to do so excluding the entire public sector. The noble Lord cannot deny that. I can refer him to a speech he made to that effect in 1981.
Lord McCarthy: Is the noble Lord referring to a speech that I made?
Lord Henley: Yes, in Hansard in 1981.
Lord McCarthy: I should like to check that out. I do not happen to have that report with me and I doubt it very much.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: And anyway, it is irrelevant.
Lord Henley: Well, we have to have our fun!
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: At this time of the night?
Lord Henley: If I may, my Lords, let me turn to the provision before us. The provision will in fact help employers by removing uncertainty. I shall refer to some examples in due course. It was the deregulation task force which drew our attention to this outdated piece of legislation because at the moment employers are not clear where they stand in relation to the outdated procedures, even if they have withdrawn from them or changed them long before redundancies were in prospect. Some industrial tribunals have found cases one way; others have found the other way. Because of differing circumstances, employers cannot be confident that they can judge which way a tribunal would rule. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, quoted earlier the example of an industrial tribunal complaint in which the economic circumstances justified departure from customary agreements, but other cases have gone the other way.
Perhaps I may quote an example of which the noble Lord may be aware. I refer to the tribunal case of Cross International v. Reed where the loss of an order constituting some 75 per cent. of the employer's anticipated turnover did not qualify as such a reason. The company had set aside LIFO so as to retain the best employees, but the tribunal had been entitled to find that the situation was not so catastrophic or special. Despite the fact that there was the possibility of losing an order constituting 75 per cent. of the employer's turnover, that was held to be not so special as to justify that breach of procedure.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am glad that the Minister has quoted that case, but does he not accept that in the case of Rolls Royce v. Price in 1993 the law was developed in such a way that one can look at the special circumstances of the Cross case and see that the test is now whether the business will be prevented from keeping going? That case was in 1993.
Lord HenleyThe noble Lord rightly quotes a later case. What I am trying to make clear is that there is still uncertainty in the case of the employers. The clause will remove that uncertainty and will mean that the employers will be clear that they can act in the interests of the business provided that they act reasonably. I emphasise that they will still be open to a employee's claim of unfair dismissal if he or she believes that the dismissal was unfair.
Where the measure allows employers to make better business decisions, I believe that it will help to improve performance and ensure the job security of those who are retained. The employers would be able to keep their best employees rather than be obliged to dismiss those workers who are most valuable to their businesses while having to continue to employ others who did not possess the qualifications, experience and levels of competence needed to restore business success.
I believe that the clause will reduce worries and uncertainties which may distract employers going through difficult times. It will also reduce the time that

1108
employers have to spend defending the decision before an industrial tribunal. All those effects will improve the employer's ability to act in the interests of the business, which will be in the long-term interests of the economy as a whole. As a result, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I really do find what the Minister has said quite unacceptable. I shall not follow him down the path of the acquired rights directive because, frankly, it is irrelevant to the point that we are discussing in relation to this clause.
The Minister referred to the need to end uncertainty for employers, but what about the employees? Surely the employees will face a great deal more uncertainty if they are not aware of whether or not the agreements or the custom and practice that have operated in their place of work will be followed. It is all very well to talk about the uncertainties faced by employers in such situations, but as I and a number of my noble friends have already indicated, redundancy is often a total and absolute disaster for employees. They have a right to have some knowledge that agreements entered into on their behalf either by their unions or as a result of the custom and practice applying in their place of work will be followed where redundancy may unfortunately threaten them and that attempts will be made to find them alternative employment and perhaps to redeploy them within the enterprise. Of course, they are also faced with increasing uncertainty as to what may be their fate if they go to an industrial tribunal, because industrial tribunals may in future, once the legislation is on the statute book, be less inclined to find for employees when they claim to be sorted out unfairly, if there are no procedures against which those decisions can be judged.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn is right when he points out that such situations could well result in cases coming before the courts, and, as I said in my opening remarks, I should not be at all surprised if in due course cases were not heard before the ECJ in which the decision may eventually turn out to be in favour of the employee. At this time of the evening, I am afraid that there is not much point in pressing this matter to a vote, but it is totally unsatisfactory. We shall have to come back on Report to see whether there is anything that we can do in this area of the Bill, which I find unfair and another attempt to remove from employees a decreasing number of employment rights.
Clause 26 agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 27 [Power to repeal certain health and safety provisions]:
Baroness Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 24, line 11, at end insert:
("(1A) Regulations made under subsection (1) above shall in no way derogate from or revoke any provision maintaining or improving standards of health, safety and welfare of employees and the public").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment deals with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the part of the Bill that seeks to give power to the Minister to deregulate. I hope that the long debate that we have had,

1109
which appears to have evoked a negative response from the Government Benches, will not be reflected in a similar result for this amendment. I say that because there is not a matter of great principle between us. It is a matter of government responsibility in an area which covers about 16 million employees and self-employed people.
It is said that the clause is in the Bill because there was a need to repeal out-of-date health and safety laws and regulations. In doing that, the wording of the Bill gives sweeping powers to the Minister, if he so chooses, to eliminate the effects of Section 1(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974. Last year the Minister responsible asked the HSC to conduct a review. He drew its attention to that section in particular. That section places a legal requirement on the HSC to maintain and improve health and safety standards for people at work.
Having conducted its review, the commission returned to the Minister and said that it could recommend no changes to that section of the Act. In response the Minister accepted the recommendations, and said that the Government would not do anything which would undermine necessary—I put a question mark after necessary, because that is subject to discussion about what is and is not necessary— standards of health and safety.
I said that I did not feel that this was a matter of great principle, because the Government are on record as saying—indeed the Minister said it in this Chamber this evening—that it is not the Government's intention to interfere with health and safety provisions. Indeed it is true that due to the 1974 Act people at work in Britain have a better standard of health and safety than those of a number of our partners in the European Union. Of course, the provisions of the Act, and that legal requirement to ensure that good health and safety provision is not just maintained but is improved, are essential. We cannot be complacent about this matter. Last year, 1.6 million accidents occurred at work in the UK; there were 2 million health-related cases; and 143,000 serious accidents were reported to the HSE in the 1992–93 period. Even with that number reported, the HSE itself estimates that as many as two thirds of all non-fatal accidents go unreported.
It is against that background that I move this amendment. In the next three years the Government's health and safety budget will reduce by about 17.5 per cent. That alone is the cause of great anxiety. In addition, Sir John Bourn of the National Audit Office told Parliament about the concerns of the office in respect of the work that it carries out. Its report shows that approximately 1,500 inspectors are responsible for the enforcement of health and safety legislation in 650,000 workplaces. Last year in Britain 430 people lost their lives at work.
Against that background we cannot afford to be complacent, nor can we afford to rely on the assurances or statements of Ministers. We need to have provisions in the Bill so that workers in Britain—be they directly employed or self-employed—know that there is a legal

1110
requirement that cannot be to be overridden or eliminated which ensures the maintenance of good health and safety and an improvement in standards.
The Minister is on record as saying that the Government will do nothing to undermine necessary standards. In a letter dated 24th June to my colleagues in the TUC, the President of the Board of Trade stated something similar. The Health and Safety Commission, which is made up of employers and trade unionists, stated that it wants to see the full effect of Section 1(2) maintained.
Unless there is a hidden agenda, and unless the Government in using the phrase "necessary standards" really mean that the present protections are too stringent, there should be no problem about their accepting the amendment tonight. The hour is late and I have made my case; it has been debated in this Chamber many times. I hope that the Minister gives us some good news—better news than we had earlier tonight. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. This clause is very important. It gives the Government power to repeal provisions in the area of health and safety at work which have already been established in legislation; notably the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Like other industrial countries, the UK aims to regulate health and safety at work within a legal framework. In recent years a series of European directives has been designed to strengthen employee protection in this area. There has also been a series of ILO conventions, which also provide for inspection. The body responsible in the UK is the Health and Safety Commission, a tripartite body which has earned great respect throughout industry and commerce.
Of course, things could be better and it is that which the Government should be addressing rather than seeking wholesale deregulation. As my noble friend pointed out, in 1992–93 there were 485 deaths resulting from industrial injuries. More than 27,000 major injuries and 138,000 minor injuries were sustained at work. As we know—because it keeps coming up before this House one way or another—the Government have substantially eroded the industrial injuries scheme. Public interest is aroused by disasters such as the "Piper Alpha" catastrophe, which led to a report by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, and further tightening up in legislation. Nevertheless, who doubts that things would be a great deal worse without a framework and without enforcement?
I do not believe that the Government have made out an adequate case for the wholesale deregulation proposed in the clause. They state—and of course in this respect they are right—that there is a great deal of outdated legislation and that it should go. We do not quarrel with that. Presumably that is what the Government had in mind when in December 1992 they invited the Health and Safety Commission to review workplace health and safety legislation. The commis-sion was urged to pay special attention to the needs of small business, about which we often hear in this Chamber, and for which,

1111
"unnecessary red tape is especially damaging".
The commission undertook a review and, unsurprising-ly, its findings were that the current system of regulation has widespread support. Given the toll of death, illness and injury at work, few argue that it imposes inappropriate burdens on business. The document issued by the commission accepts that many regulations may be outdated, but it is firmly of the view, contrary to the ideas of the then Minister, that there is no particular burden on small firms. The document goes on to express the view that it would be neither right nor practicable to apply different health and safety standards to small firms, many of which would create high levels of risk for workers and the public.
Moreover, briefing that I have received from organisations representing inspectors—those who work at the sharp end —suggests that small-scale operations are often not low-risk areas. Indeed, small manufacturing firms have been found to have significantly higher major injury/accident rates than their larger counter-parts, even before their higher level of under-reporting is taken into account.
This amendment would enable the Government to deal with those aspects of legislation felt to be out of date. But it stipulates that the repeal of regulations should not have the effect of diminishing standards. Without such a requirement, the clause simply gives a blank cheque to the Secretary of State to do away with regulations which have been designed to protect employees.
It is true that it will be argued that there will need to be consultation with the Health and Safety Commission, but consultation does not imply agreement. The final word will still rest with the Secretary of State who may proceed to remove primary legislation from the statute book and then simply proceed or not by way of regulation. That is unsatisfactory and it is not surprising that it has aroused a great deal of suspicion and hostility among unions and those representative of professionals working in that area.
Hitherto, the Government have been anxious to assure everyone that they support absolutely measures designed to protect and improve health and safety at work. A few years ago they were prepared to facilitate the passage through this House of a Private Member's Bill, sponsored by myself and supported by my noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy, to protect against unfair dismissal or discrimination those engaged off shore who blew the whistle on unsafe practices. That has now been subsumed in more comprehensive legislation. Therefore, on that occasion the Government were very anxious to demonstrate their support for improved health and safety at work.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendment this evening. I took the liberty of writing to the Minister in advance of this debate to indicate to him what we had in mind. I hope that he is prepared to accept what we are saying this evening.
Lord Rochester: On the face of it, this seems to me to be a reasonable amendment which the Government should accept.

1112
However, in Standing Committee in another place, for reasons which I do not fully understand, it was claimed by the Minister that the effect of an amendment couched in somewhat similar terms would be to negate the clause. That is clearly not the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, in moving it. I hope that the Minister will not oppose the amendment on the ground that it too is technically deficient. If he does, I hope that he will at least agree to look again at the question between now and Report stage and if necessary, bring forward a government amendment which accords with the principle underlying Amendment No. 180 so that we can achieve the consensus which is clearly desirable in matters affecting health and safety.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: Perhaps I may say a few words in support of the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend. It is not a laughing matter; it is a very important matter.
It seems centuries since the insensitive and selfish employers advanced their businesses with a complete disregard for the health and safety of their workers. In fact, it is not all that long ago since health and safety legislation was introduced. As we have appreciated the risks more in industry, so employers and the community have accepted the trust of health and safety legislation; indeed, we have worked along with it and it has become an integral part of management. What we need now is for that process to be strengthened rather than weakened.
Legislation is necessary because it is individual workers who are vulnerable if new processes are introduced without caution or if employers start impulsive cost cutting to help profits. It is not the bosses' limbs, their lives or their health which is at risk; it is always that of the workers.
Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill are a potential threat to health and safety legislation. Clause 27 adds to that threat. The Government claim that they need the clause to remove the dead wood of legislation, as my noble friend said a moment ago. Like all other legislation, health and safety legislation needs modernising and improving and no one would object to any changes, provided—and this is crucial—that they maintain and improve existing standards as is required by Section 1(2) of the 1974 Act and by my noble friend's amendment.
Frankly, it is very hard to take seriously the Government's claim that the clause only has limited powers of repeal because the detail of out-dated requirements has to be replaced by fresh detail. Indeed, that is a most remarkable claim. I say that because it does not seem to be borne out by current practice. There are suspicions that that is but an excuse to weaken health and safety legislation. However, the need for continued strong legislation is beyond dispute in view of the fact outlined by my noble friend regarding the number of accidents. The UK's record is very far from outstanding. I shall not go into the figures again at this late hour, but they are most disturbing. Moreover, the cost of accidents is estimated at some £10 billion to £15 billion a year. That is the burden on the country as a whole.

1113
It is simply not good enough for the Government to be obsessed with "burdens" on employers. The burden is on workers with severe injury or illness, or on the widows of those who are killed—and many of us know those widows—and simply must be taken into account by any responsible government.
I hope that the Government will remember the lesson from the Chichester Sainsbury fire, and especially their role in that incident. In that case, local building regulations called for sprinklers and other safety devices on the roof of the new building. The company's appeal against that was upheld by the Department of the Environment. As a result, the fire burned down the building. The Government's role in that fire is typical of their attitude to the whole of industry. I believe that there will be similar consequences unless Ministers think again about this and other clauses in the Bill.
The Minister has tried to be helpful. I hope that he will also try to be helpful on Clause 27.I know that the noble Lord does not make the decisions, but I believe that the Government should reconsider the matter. This Chamber cannot initiate a change in attitude by employers with no improvements in monitoring, which are badly needed. However, it can ensure that legislation contains the essential requirement that there should be no change unless it maintains or improves standards of health, safety and welfare. That is crucial and it is the purpose of my noble friend's amendment. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
11 p.m.
Lord Monson: The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, spoke of the importance of employee protection. That is certainly something with which one would not wish to quarrel. However, the 1974 legislation extends somewhat paternalistically to the self-employed. Can we not assume that self-employed adults are perfectly capable of looking after themselves? Perhaps it was excessive restrictions upon the self-employed that the Government had in mind when they framed the clause.
Earl Attlee: Is the noble Lord aware that if the self-employed become successful, they then start to employ other people, even if it is only a matter of one or two employees?
Lord Strathclyde: I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, when she says there is no great matter of principle between us. Of course there is not; we are both interested in providing for good quality health and safety legislation to help people in business. That is why both Ministers and the Health and Safety Commission have already made it abundantly clear that the power we are introducing in this clause is about removing outdated law, not about reducing necessary safety standards. It is designed simply to give Ministers the same powers with respect to pre-1974 legislation that they have already for post-1974 legislation.
In the Health and Safety Commission's recent Review of Regulation, carried out after extensive consultation with both sides of industry, about 50 regulations which predate the 1974 Act, were identified

1114
as being outdated and unnecessary. However, even though in many cases those provisions seek to regulate working practices which have long since been abandoned they cannot currently be repealed because of a technical deficiency in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. While the Act allows the repeal without replacement of post-1974 legislation, it does not allow repeal of pre-1974 legislation. The Health and Safety Commission alerted us to the deficiency and we are proposing Clause 27 to remedy that technical fault. I should remind the Committee that the majority of health and safety legislation can already be replaced or removed by secondary legislation under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
The amendment proposes that any use of the power should not derogate from, or revoke, any provision maintaining or improving standards of health, safety and welfare of employees and the public. If a particular provision could be said to contribute in any way— however small and however outdated—to health and safety, then in practice, the power could not be used to repeal it. That is the effect of the amendment of the noble Baroness. I should remind the Committee that this would be the case even where the HSC itself advised that the provision should be repealed. Perhaps I can give an example. One of the provisions which has been proposed is the Cotton Cloth Factories Regulations of 1929. Most of the requirements of those prescriptive regulations, which now apply to a mere 20 factories in the United Kingdom, have already been replaced by modern legislation. The Health and Safety Commission has recommended that the remaining provisions would be better subsumed in the goal-setting requirements of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations which cover all aspects of the physical working environment. It has therefore proposed the regulations for repeal under the new power. If the amendment was carried, I am advised that we could not use the power to repeal the regulations because they require specific standards to be maintained.
It must be true that cluttering up the statute book and employers' shelves with such legislation does nothing to reduce the human and financial toll of accidents and occupational ill-health. Indeed, the confusion that extra redundant legislation can create among employers can hinder compliance with measures essential to safety which both sides of this Chamber entirely agree we should maintain. A simpler legislative framework aids compliance and enforcement and has to result in better standards of health and safety for employees and the public.
Use of the new power is subject to consultation with the Health and Safety Commission and any others Ministers consider appropriate. This is in line with what is provided by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act for repeal of post-1974 requirements. The clause in addition provides for the affirmative resolution procedure. These safeguards are important and substantial. I felt that in the speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, there was more about how the Health and Safety Commission works in practice. I am advised that the latest HSE annual report shows an expected overall fatal

1115
injury rate which has dropped to the lowest levels ever reported. If we are genuinely interested in health and safety—and I take the noble Baroness and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, at their word—we should be interested in minimising the amount of legislation and maximising knowledge, information and the implementation of legislation which genuinely improves safety.
I have to tell the noble Baroness that her amendment would not promote successful health and safety legislation. On that basis I very much hope that she will withdraw it.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I am obliged to the Minister for the detail of his answer but dissatisfied with the content. We are talking about legislation which covers 16 million people. That is a lot of people. The fact is that the health and safety legislation that we have had on the statute book since 1974 has helped to reduce the number of fatal injuries to which the Minister rightly referred. Even if the figures have been reduced, everyone goes to work in the morning expecting to go home that evening. When even a handful of people in Britain do not go home from work there is a need for legislation.
The Minister conceded that there was no difference in principle and that both sides of the Chamber are interested in good quality health and safety. The difference between us is that we on these Benches want to do something to maintain the legislative guarantees that people at work have.
I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister is now on record as saying at the Dispatch Box that it is the Government's intention to improve and maintain standards. However, while I do not intend to press the amendment this evening, I intend to return to it at the Report stage. I hope that the points that the Minister made about the technicalities and the difficulties that the amendment may present—which I do not necessarily accept—will be overcome at the Report stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 180A to 181 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: One good thing has come out of the debate at this stage. At least we know which side we are on. For years, ever since this Government began to introduce legislation about labour law, they have always sought to make an exception for health and safety. They have always tried to argue that health and safety was different and that on health and safety we were together. We have always said that unfortunately that is not the case, because everything in the Government's philosophy relating to cost, price and efficiency affects health and safety. Health and safety is one of the most expensive issues that you can ask an employer to take care of.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. I think that he is wrong. That is certainly not the Government's position. The Government believe that good and effective legislation

1116
on health and safety saves. It produces more efficient and productive companies. Investment in the health and safety of employees is positively beneficial. That is why we have supported the HSE in the way that we have.
Lord McCarthy: When the noble Lord says such things I wonder whether he can actually believe them. I suppose that he can.
The fact is that every time a union or an interest group proposes that a particular disease should be scheduled, all the employers oppose it because they know that it will be very expensive. You have to fight for every improvement in health and safety because it is extremely costly. It is as costly as wages, and sometimes more so. The employer has a case because it is sometimes difficult to substantiate that this highly expensive protection—a health guard, a safety precaution, or a fire protection; perhaps I may refer to the Torrey Canyon case—will protect. Health and safety is a highly controversial, extremely expensive factor. In that sense, it is good that the Government have at last got round to telling us honestly that they want to cut back existing health and safety standards because they cost too much. This very clause is the best example of that attitude.
What does the Health and Safety Commission say? ft did not ask what the Government are doing. The Government have made a great deal of fuss about the fact that they are only doing what the Health and Safety Commission ask them to do. The Health and Safety Commission pointed out that there was a technical difficulty which made it difficult to repeal what it regarded as outdated legislation without replacement. It did not ask the Government to take it away and to cut the Health and Safety Commission out altogether; but that is what the Government have done. The Government have taken the matter on themselves. Instead of the fountain-head of health and safety legislation coming from the commission or from the agency, it comes from the Government. The Health and Safety Commission has the residual role of being consulted.
The Government were asked on 24th March in Committee in another place whether they would say that the health and safety regulations which they proposed to repeal would be only those agreed by the Health and Safety Commission. The Government would not agree. They were asked whether they would repeal regulations if the Health and Safety Commission objected, and they would not agree. They said that if there were a burden on business those regulations would have to go.
The reason why we oppose the Motion, That the clause stand part is that the Government have come out from cover. They have accepted, as the task force said, that professional business-based costs must be taken into consideration. They must minimise the principle of extreme caution. They must have regard for the insubstantial benefit. In other words, health and safety can be too expensive. It can be a burden on business and if it is they do not want anything to do with it. As a result, we oppose the Motion.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I did not originally put my name down to oppose the Motion, That the clause stand part of the Bill. I did not do so because I thought that the first amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Dean was so reasonable that it was highly likely that the Minister would accept it. In fact, I wrote to him thinking that he might well be prepared to do so. After all, what are our main concerns? We absolutely agree that out-of-date legislation should go. We are afraid that in the process good protective legislation will also disappear. Therefore the first amendment, while allowing for deregulation, simply made it clear that deregulation could not diminish the degree of protection already existing. But, if the Government refuse to accept that very reasonable proposition, we have no alternative but to oppose the Motion, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
I have already spoken at length about the need for legislation and the level of industrial injuries and deaths, which clearly represent a problem that the Government should be addressing. As the Minister said, of course there have been improvements; and I think that that is very much due to the legislation and the fact that the Health and Safety Commission has operated since 1974. But, quite frankly, total deregulation as proposed in the Bill, even with some rather nebulous safeguards, does not seem to me to be the answer to the problem of outdated legislation. Surely the issue could be dealt with in some other more reasonable way which did not have the effect of arousing the suspicions of many people working in the health and safety area who fear very much that the government proposals will mean a diminution of the standards that have already been established. I therefore support my noble friend.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: While on balance supporting my noble friends in their position on this clause, I do so rather more in relation to what the Minister said in another place than what the noble Lord the Minister said tonight. I am not prone to find elements of flexibility in the Government, but what he said —and we shall read his remarks very carefully— seemed to suggest that the need to put health and safety into this compass of new powers to deregulate by regulation was born of a passionate zeal for the archaeology of the law and jurisprudence on safety. What we heard about was a large number of regulations that were very old and had been missed out. The noble Lord nods his head. I am glad that I have thus far got it right. There are regulations on textiles which apply to only a few factories. In 1989, when there was deregulation all over the place in regard to this kind of law (regulations that had aspects of safety in them) those were missed out. The legislation failed to catch them. If we are merely giving the Minister new powers to pursue his zeal for archaeology, then my noble friend Lady Dean is right in thinking that he has agreed that these new powers will be used to remove outdated regulations and will continue to improve or maintain safety standards. I take it that tonight we have an element of

1118
the Government saying yes, that is just what we mean. If that is right, it is just a question of finding a form of words at Report.
Lord Strathclyde: I am deeply distressed by the debate we have had on Clause stand part, apart perhaps from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who, I believe, has grasped the truth of the Government's intention. I was particularly disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, should say that the matter is controversial. It is only controversial because the noble Lord makes it so. I have no desire to make the matter controversial; in fact, I think that it should be non-partisan. We should go together and decide that health and safety matters are important. So it is in Clause 27. We ask for a very simple power, designed to enable Ministers to repeal pre-1974 legislation. Similar powers already exist for post-1974 legislation under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, correctly recognised, this was as a result of a request from the HSE.
The power is narrowly drawn. It is subject to extensive consultation; it is subject to approval by Parliament; and it will enable the removal of outdated and unnecessary health and safety legislation. At present those provisions cannot be repealed unless they are replaced, even if the risks that they seek to regulate no longer exist.
In providing for repeals without replacement the clause will enable further judicious pruning—the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, called it archaeology; I call it judicious pruning—of the legislation while not undermining the standards of health and safety. There is clear evidence from the HSE's review of regulation and the DTI's deregulation task force that the volume and complexity of legislation in health and safety and other fields is a legitimate concern of employers and workers alike.
Pruning legislation not only reduces the burdens on business. If people find it easier to understand their legal obligations they will be better able to comply, because they can focus more clearly on those requirements that are essential. Simpler legislation will also be easier to enforce. All this has to result in improved health and safety standards for workers, and I very much commend the clause.
I hope that following this debate we shall not be returning to the matter at Report. I believe that there should be no distance between us. The clause is based on common sense and on sound health and safety procedure.
Lord McCarthy: The Minister says that the measure is not controversial. Yet he will not accept a single one of our amendments. We have put down amendment after amendment after amendment. The noble Lord stands pat and will not accept any of them. He does not even suggest that perhaps he will come back at a subsequent stage, having moved a little. No. The Minister stands exactly where he is and says, "I am the reasonable man. Anybody who disagrees with me by an inch is unreasonable. There should not be disagreement because we are all on the same side".

1119
Ever since the Plimsoll line, and ever since the very beginning of working hours legislation, there has been a debate about the cost of health and safety. Of course there are areas of common interest - there are in wage bargaining —but there are also areas of disagreement. More and more we know where the Government stand. They are on the side of the employers, as my noble friend said. The Government are against any extension. They stand pat where they are and because of their policy of burdens on business, they introduce legislation such as this to try to chip away at the existing standards of health and safety.
We do not accept that we do not have a disagreement. But we shall not divide the Committee tonight. We merely say that we do not believe that this clause is fair and equitable and that we disagree.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 181A:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Uncompetitive practices

.—(1) No local authority shall act in a manner having the effect or intended or likely to have the effect of restricting, preventing or distorting competition between local authorities, approved inspectors and persons approved for the purposes of section 16(9) of the 1984 Act in the exercise of functions conferred by or under that Act.

(2) The Secretary of State may issue guidance as to how conduct restricting, preventing or distorting competition in the exercise of functions conferred by or under the 1984 Act is to be avoided in the doing of anything relating to building or building control.").

The noble Lord said: The explanation for the amendment is that, following the Building Act 1984, building control has been conducted by local authorities and one approved inspector, which is the National House Building Council. The purpose of there being those two bodies was that they should act in equal competition over the development of building control activities.
In practice, it has turned out that in many instances local authorities take advantage of their position by preventing competition between the two organisations. They take advantage through the regulations concerning other building activities, by being difficult on occasion with the builders and drawing attention to the other powers that they may have to control activities. That takes away the competitive option which should apply within the 1984 Act. The purpose of the amendment is to deal with those matters by making sure that no local authority shall act in a manner:
"having the effect or intended or likely to have the effect of restricting, preventing or distorting competition".
It also draws attention to the fact that the Secretary of State may issue guidance to make it clear that anything "restricting, preventing or distorting competition" would be an offence. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: Let me say at the outset how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Wade that local authorities or indeed approved inspectors should not indulge in uncompetitive practices. The question is whether the inclusion of a provision such as this one in primary legislation is the best way to tackle any problems that might exist.

1120
The clause has arisen from complaints that local authorities have sought to put pressure on builders to use their building control services in preference to those of the competition, the NHBC. That complaint is not new. The Hansard report of 17th December 1987 records a written Parliamentary Question in another place and the response of the Minister concerning just such issues.
The Government do indeed deplore the concept that pressure might be brought to bear to distort competition. However, I am advised that no challenge to such practices has been brought to the courts and I cannot see that we have sufficient evidence to support the rather bureaucratic requirements of the new clause.
However, I should like to be helpful to my noble friend. The Department of the Environment already has discretion to issue guidance in matters relating to local authorities. If clear evidence of uncompetitive practices were forthcoming, guidance, possibly in the form of a departmental circular, would be issued without the necessity of additional legislation such as that proposed.
Therefore, I agree with my noble friend that local authorities should not indulge in uncompetitive practices. In view of those assurances and my request to my noble friend that he and his advisers should perhaps furnish us with further evidence, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for being so helpful and understanding of this proposal. I should be grateful if I could take advantage of his suggestion that we should talk further about it. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 181B:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Prosecution of offences under the Building Act 1984.
.At the end of section 113 of the Building Act 1984 (prosecution of offences) there shall be inserted the following:-
"(2) A local authority shall not take proceedings in respect of an offence under section 57 above except with the consent of the Secretary of State." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment follows from the previous amendment. It is possible for the local authority to prosecute or bring proceedings against an approved inspector and it is noted that on occasions that can be used to cause the approved inspector to think again or feel under pressure from the suggestions of the local authority.
The purpose of the clause is to disallow a local authority from taking proceedings unless it has the consent of the Secretary of State, the purpose being that it would make such an authority think again before taking action. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: The purpose of the building regulations is to ensure the health and safety of people in and around buildings. I am sure that the Committee will agree that, where an approved inspector knowingly and falsely claims that the building regulations have

1121
been complied with when they have not, it is right that he should be prosecuted in this way and prevented from practising for a substantial period.
Amendment No. 181B provides a filter before any such prosecution can be brought by a local authority. It is the Government's view that such a filter is not an appropriate response to alleged biased prosecution practices. Further, I am given to understand that there has been but one prosecution under Section 57 of the Building Act and so I cannot see that the problem of prosecutions is a significant one. Again, if my noble friend has some specific worries to erase, I shall be delighted to hear them.
It may be that this kind of provision would fit in with the appeals procedure mentioned by my noble friend Lord Vinson at an earlier stage of the Bill. However, I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I am grateful to my noble friend for his helpful and careful reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 181C:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Limitation of inspection functions: independent schools

.—(1) The Children Act 1989 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 87 (welfare of children accommodated in independent schools), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) Subsections (3) to (8) below have effect subject to section 87A."

(3) After section 87 there shall be inserted the following section—

"Limitation of functions under section 87.
87A..—(1) The following functions, namely—

(a) the duties imposed by section 87 on a local authority, and

(b) the powers conferred and duties imposed by that section and regulations made under it on a person authorised by such an authority,

shall not apply in relation to a school if the school falls within subsection (2) below.

(2) A school falls within this subsection if—

(a) the school is one as regards which the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is (apart from section 87) a procedure for inspection which is sufficient to determine whether the welfare of children at the school is adequately safeguarded and promoted, and

(b) the Secretary of State has notified the local authority concerned that he is so satisfied." ").

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 181C is to remove the requirement under Section 87 of the Children Act for the annual inspection of independent schools by social service departments of local authorities. Perhaps I may explain at the beginning that it only applies to schools that fall under the umbrella of the Independent Schools Joint Council. The Independent Schools Joint Council is made up of schools belonging to the Headmasters' Conference, the Girls' School Association, the Independent Association of Preparatory Schools, the Independent Schools Associated Incorporated, the Society of Headmasters and Headmistresses of Independent Schools and the Association of Governing Bodies. Subsection (2) of the amendment I hope makes clear the distinction which I draw between those schools and other independent schools. Under the amendment,

1122
all other independent schools outside the Independent Schools Joint Council will continue to be subject to inspection.
The Committee may well ask how the clause came to be included in the Children Act. The reason was that it was included in the Children Act at a late stage in its progress through Parliament because of a very serious case of abuse at a school called Crookham Court. No one defends what happened at that school. But it was an over-reaction by Parliament to suggest that because there was malpractice in an untypical school all other independent schools should be covered by this blanket legislation. Incidentally, Crookham Court School is outside the Independent Schools Joint Council and therefore would not be subject to my amendment.
Perhaps I may say at the outset how grateful I have been for the constructive discussions that I have had with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mrs. Bottomley, my honourable friend Mr. Bowis and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. The principal reason for the amendment is that I believe social service inspections are unnecessary. As this is a deregulation Bill it was appropriate to table the amendment at this time.
When I say that I believe the inspections to be unnecessary, let me tell the Committee to what inspections independent schools are currently subject. First, all independent schools must be registered with the Department for Education. They are subject to inspection by Ofsted and expect that to happen every 10 years. All ISJC schools are inspected every 10 years by ISJC itself, so every independent school covered by the amendment is inspected every five years.
The ISJC inspection teams are always led by a former member of HMI. Within the school itself all teachers are checked against list 99, all non-teaching staff are checked against the Department of Health list, and checks are made on peripatetic teachers. But, most important, if parents are not satisfied, they can always remove their children; and some of course do. It is important to remember that boarding is a private contract between parents and the school. Interestingly, these social service inspections do not happen in Scotland. Not for the first time, and no doubt not for the last, the Scots are wiser than we are in other parts of the United Kingdom.
There are other checks. There is hardly an independent school now without a telephone line where children can make private telephone calls home. I am quite certain that within a measured length of time many children will have their own hand-held telephones. Many schools also employ counsellors who are there to help over children's problems. But what makes a good school, whether independent or maintained, is the absolute commitment of the head and the staff—all the staff—to the highest professional standards. That is what schools strive for. Unless there is that real commitment, legislation, no matter of what kind, will not be as effective as it should be. I believe very strongly in individual and personal responsibility in the high standards of self-regulation and discipline within the area of education.
I would go further and say that independent schools today are not the remote and cloistered places of the past. They have to supply what parents want. And what working mothers above all want is flexibility. So most boarding schools offer full boarding—and usually the pupils can go out most weekends—weekly boarding for those who want it, and flexible arrangements for boarding lasting two or three weeks or even just for one night. Today's parents, who take great care over their children's future education, almost invariably inspect the boarding arrangements of their chosen school. When they conduct those inspections they are armed with a list of 20 questions supplied by ISIS so that you can make quite sure you are asking the right questions. Most schools will ask a senior pupil to show prospective parents around the school. Anyone who has had this experience knows that children can be extremely frank about the circumstances of their school. The whole boarding sector has altered over the past 20 years to meet the needs of today's children and their parents. Openness in all aspects of school life is a major consideration.
Noble Lords may well ask what happens when a case of abuse comes to light. Under the Children Act this must be reported to social service departments. The procedure to be adopted has been agreed jointly by the ISJC and officials in the Department of Health. That would continue under my amendment. I understand that the Social Service Inspectorate is to publish its findings as a result of some 200 inspections of independent schools. As far as the ISJC is concerned, there has not been a single case of a school reporting an allegation of abuse as a result of social service inspection. To the best of my knowledge, a number of suggestions for the improvement of the fabric of the buildings have been made, and those have been carried out.
I understand that social service departments have had a positive feedback from the schools and that is what I would have expected. Independent schools will keep the law and professional teachers would wish to work constructively with other professionals. No one can be complacent about abuse. In 1991 the ISJC was sufficiently concerned to fund jointly with the Department for Education the boarding school line experiment. This project, for which there was immense publicity in the media, enabled children to telephone Childline in complete confidence and speak to a trained counsellor. An independent study of the experiment revealed scarcely any cause for alarm in ISJC schools; fewer than 1 per cent. of all boarding pupils asked for counselling of any kind and not a single case of sexual abuse came to light.
No one would dispute that all sensible measures should be taken to combat child abuse. All schools should be subject to scrutiny, but, let us face it, not even social service departments can abolish sin. The amendment is designed simply to bring a sense of proportion to this inspection, recognising that where appropriate procedures are already in place, as we believe they are, there is absolutely no reason to add to them. To do so is simply expensive duplication, which this amendment is designed to remove.
I find it difficult to believe that, with all the problems which social service departments have to face and which we so frequently hear about in your Lordships' House —whether it is the complications of people coining out of long-stay mental homes and being helped back into the community; whether it is young people aged 16 leaving the care of social service departments and possibly finding themselves sleeping out under the arches of Waterloo—inspections of independent schools can rank as a high priority in all the problems that they have to face.
I hope very much that my noble friend, having listened to what I have to say, will be able to accept this amendment which I believe is based on common sense and a practical arrangement for dealing with independent schools in particular. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: At this late hour perhaps I may say a word against this amendment which worries me more than a little. As the noble Baroness said, the provision is very new. The Children Act is not so old and the system has been in effect only since about 1991. I understand that the Department of Health has produced draft guidance on the inspection process and it is either now finishing or is about to finish a consultation process. Perhaps the Minister can explain the position to the Committee when responding to the amendment. If the position is that there is a consultation process either coming to an end or shortly to do so, I suggest that, among other matters, it would be sensible to await the outcome of that process.
The noble Baroness talked of what she described as an "over-reaction". Although the reaction of applying an inspection process may appear to be extreme, the problems to which it is addressed are, one hopes, very rare but where they occur they are extreme. I do not suggest that everything which may be uncovered may be abuse of the most extreme kind, but while there can be any suspicion that it may occur —I do not believe that the independent sector is any more or less liable to this sort of problem than the maintained sector —we should be certain that the inspection process is a good one.
I am not a normal reader of the News of the World, but I mention to the Committee that there is a report in fairly typically extreme language in that newspaper of 19th June of what it calls a "Probe at toffs' school". I do not know that the language is particularly helpful. The paper refers to the school in question as being described in the Daily Telegraph's Schools Guide as "the best in boarding education". I understand that the head is a member of the ISJC accreditation unit. If the article is a "probe", it is matter that is not yet determined and I am in no position to allege that what is suggested in the News of the World is entirely a matter of fact. Nevertheless, there is clearly some cause for concern.
The noble Baroness referred to inspections by Ofsted and the ISJC on a 10-yearly basis—in other words, between them, every five years. That does not seem to me to be terribly frequent. A child will pretty well pass through a sector of the system in that period. The noble Baroness also said that parents can remove a child if they are not satisfied.

1125
My concern is that problems may not come to light or may take time in coming to light. Children who are at school away from their family may not, despite the provision of telephones and so on, quickly express or explain problems. There can be many reasons why a child would fail to report abuse: recrimination; guilt; fear that adults will not believe what is said; and perhaps not immediately knowing whether what is going on is normal and is a matter of right or wrong.
I have been contacted by the NSPCC—I do not know whether other noble Lords have been similarly contacted. I have also spoken to the National Children's Bureau which is concerned about the amendment and which told me that the NSPCC was also concerned. Both organisations have expressed their anxiety that the consultation process, to which I have referred, is concluded. They have also expressed their concern that the ISJC would probably be able to carry out an inspection on average only about every 10 years or so. I spoke to the head of the inspection unit in my own authority at the end of last week to get his view. He told me—it did not surprise me—that he felt that inspections should be as frequent as every year and perhaps even more frequent —not in order to disrupt the school (or whatever the establishment) but in order to build a relationship with those working in the school who would have the same interest as the inspectors in making sure that all was in order.
It is late but this is an important matter. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment and that she will accept that in making these comments I am suggesting that an inspection is not an intrusion. I agree with her that one cannot abolish sin, but I think that there is an obligation on society to seek it out.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Aldington: After what my noble friend said in moving this valuable, useful and excellent amendment, I do not think that there is much that needs to be added by anyone on this side of the Committee or even by myself whose name is on the amendment.
I should like to refer to some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who said that it was important that the inspection process should be a proven process. That is what the amendment provides for. The noble Baroness cannot have grasped the importance of subsection (2). The noble Baroness spoke about the need to have inspections very frequently, but seemed to overlook altogether what my noble friend told the Committee about the way in which independent schools are run, and about the responsibility of the head and of all those who work under the head for pastoral care.
The system of inspection is only part of the process of ensuring the welfare of the children who are the responsibility of the head and the governing body. It is a good idea to have some system of inspection for each school. How frequent the inspection should be is best judged by experience. The NSPCC was quoted by the noble Baroness. It has drawn the attention of those who read that remarkable document, which I found lacking in common sense, to a 10-year period. My noble friend

1126
dealt with 10 years, and, alternatively, five years, but that is not the period of control and vigilance needed for these important matters.
There was a reference to the story reported in the News of the World, with which I am not well acquainted. I make the obvious point that that story has arisen under a system of inspection by a social services department. So I hope that my noble friend the Minister will feel inclined to accept the amendment tonight, or say that action along the lines suggested will follow. It is entirely in accord with the spirit of the Bill to remove burdens from those who run the schools, and to remove the burdens and unnecessary effort and cost from local authorities. That is what the Bill is about. If the proposal had been discussed properly instead of in the middle of the night on Report in the other place —it was never discussed here—it would not have been enacted in the form that it has been. I hope that my noble friend will accept this amendment, or something like it, which will get rid of the requirement.
Lord Beloff: Perhaps I may join in hoping for the same thing from my noble friend. We have here something at which a government should jump. Here is a proposal to reduce public expenditure without reducing an important service. It is clear that the service which is provided for independent schools by inspections by people with serious educational experience, enabling them to judge the schools, is likely to be as good as, or better than anything else that could be provided. It would cost the taxpayer nothing, and, as my noble friend Lord Aldington said, it would reduce the heavy burdens which at present lie upon social services departments.
Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I gained the impression that two things were hopelessly confused. The purpose of inspection of an institution —a school in this case—is to see whether it, as a whole, is working properly, whether the people running it are qualified, doing their job, and devoted to the purposes of the institution. It has nothing to do, and could not in fact deal, with the occasional abuse or misfortune that may happen, even in a well run institution. If a child is unhappy for any reason, that has to be dealt with immediately. That child will not wait. It is not a question of five years. It is much too long if it has to wait for just one year.
What is needed, as my noble friend Lady Young said, is the provision, which is now increasingly available, for children to communicate immediately with their parents if something goes wrong, and for them to have someone in the school to whom they can turn. The idea of waiting, that some sort of fairy godmother from the social services department will turn up, and that all the children with problems will rush and cling to her skirts is a wild fantasy.
The business of inspection is to keep the schools running properly. It is to ensure that their heads regard themselves as in loco parentis. It has nothing whatever to do with the occasional abuse or misfortune which the best run institution may well experience.
Lord Boardman: At this time of night I shall not detain the Committee by repeating the argument in

1127
favour of the amendment, which I strongly support. The argument was clearly put by my noble friend Lady Young. However, I wish to make two points. First, the objective of the Bill is precisely that which is contained in the amendment; to remove from our system an expensive and bureaucratic form of resolution which is unnecessary and costly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to inspections taking place annually. I understand that the current inspections, which take place at five or 10 years, bear an annual cost in excess of £100 million. Annual inspections would cost £1 billion. There would be a vast expenditure of £100 million—let alone £1,000 million —on doing something which is already adequately and well covered by the system to which my noble friend referred. It is highly desirable that that should be cancelled out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that the inspection of independent schools should be the same as that for maintained schools. She missed the whole point of the argument. My noble friend Lady Young made clear that the inspections which take place under the existing system of independent schools do not apply to maintained schools. It would be wrong to say that because maintained schools have a system of inspection that must be duplicated for independent schools and added to their system.
The amendment achieves the objective of the Bill to reduce unnecessary public expenditure—at least £100 million per year—and to remove a bureaucratic nonsense which slipped in in another place late at night. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I am immensely grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for moving her amendment and for the way she did so. The Government recognise that there has been considerable concern among independent boarding schools about inspections by social services departments under the Children Act. To fulfil a commitment made at the time of implementation of the Children Act, the Departments of Health and Education issued a consultation paper in April this year. That took into account the views expressed by the various interests in the light of their experiences of the early operation of Section 87 inspections.
The main changes proposed in the consultation paper were less frequent inspections and further clarification of what was required in relation to inspection duties. In particular, social services departments were advised to conduct their inspections in a more targeted and focused way. I know that these were welcomed by many of the leading schools in the country. But we have been asked to go further.
The Government accept the need for change and are very sympathetic to some of the objectives of my noble friend's amendment, particularly in relation to the role of other bodies in the inspection process and to the frequency of their inspections. I recognise the enormous amount of good practice that exists in independent schools. I have to say, however, that there has been evidence providing grounds for welfare concerns in

1128
relation to a few schools and it is important that suitable systems are in place to ensure that children are properly protected.
However, I suggest to my noble friend Lady Young that we would like to consider further the proposals and consult urgently with the welfare and educational interests. I hope that that gives my noble friend the necessary reassurance so that she will not press her amendment further. I hope that we will have reached a conclusion on the subject by the next stage of the Bill.
Midnight
Baroness Young: I thank my noble friends Lord Aldington, Lord Beloff and Lord Boardman for their support for the amendment. I should say to the Minister that, but for the lateness of the hour —I see that midnight is about to chime—many other noble. Lords would have been only too happy to support it. It commands a large measure of support both in this Chamber and outside it.
I was very disappointed that it did not have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am very surprised if that is the considered view of the Liberal Democrat Party on this matter. I too received a copy of the brief sent by the NSPCC. It was sent to me by a friend. As somebody who has supported the NSPCC both nationally and locally, I was absolutely astonished by its content and tone.
If that is the considered view of anybody working in a social services department, I hope that this will be borne in mind. The brief implied two things: first, that child abuse is rife in independent schools. That is an outrageous allegation, with the implication that everybody is guilty until proved to be innocent. Secondly, it implied that abuse goes undetected because children fail to report it for fear of not being believed.
As I have indicated, the ISJC, with the Department for Education, conducted that piece of research through Childline to demonstrate that there is no truth at all in that. Evidence has emerged both from Sweden and America which demonstrates that through persistent questioning children sometimes come to believe in events that have not happened at all. Swedish research suggests that, as a consequence, the burden of proof often becomes reversed, with the accused having to prove his innocence rather than the prosecution having to prove guilt. It is quite mistaken to suppose that routine inspections at intervals make any kind of significant contribution to the uncovering of abuse.
I shall not accept allegations that come from the News of the World. This is a very serious subject. I do not suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, based her argument on that, but we must not be led astray by newspaper allegations. One of the most dangerous aspects of this whole matter is that allegations are bandied about by various people. I have been astonished by the quite unsubstantiated allegations that I have heard. No school is named but allegations are made. That is extremely damaging and unprofessional.
The noble Baroness said that she thought and hoped very much —and forgive me if I misunderstood her— that people in the schools would have the same interests in the welfare of children as social services departments.

1129
Again, I am astonished that there should be any doubt about that. Independent schools and, indeed, maintained schools—all schools—have a vested interest in providing the highest standards of behaviour among the staff, in whichever part of the school they are employed. The suggestion that somehow independent schools regard that as being less important than do social services departments would be quite incorrect. Even if they were minded so to do, which of course they are not, parents would object. The market with regard to independent schools operates very quickly if there is trouble in the school. We should get that straight.
Baroness Hamwee: I must make it clear that I was not suggesting that those who run or teach in independent schools have any less concern for the welfare of their pupils than people in maintained schools. I was referring to the relationship between those who operate the school and the inspection unit. I believe that those interests would coincide and need to be developed. There is also a relationship in that respect.
Baroness Young: I take the noble Baroness's point. However, what is very important to remember within independent schools is the value that is attached to the pastoral care arrangements. Indeed, great care is taken in that particular matter.
However, to conclude the argument about social service inspections, I must say that one of the most unhappy features involved has been the repetition of the now politically correct thought that no teacher should ever touch a child. That is now taught to all teachers in training thanks to the modern view that came from the Children Act and other social service practices. It is regarded as dangerous.
When the social service department repeated the latter to the head of one girls' school known to me personally, she said that under no circumstances would she obey that injunction. She asked, "What if one of my young boarders comes to me with a real tragedy—for example, the death of her mother or father—am I not going to comfort that child?". If we are not very careful we shall be going down the path of having one-to-one questioning with children involving questions which often set parents against children and children against teachers. Indeed, that is a very doubtful path. In consideration of all such matters, I hope that such practices will be looked at and reconsidered as a matter applying not just to independent schools but also to anyone else. They are also happening in the maintained system and I believe that people will be just as worried about them as we are in the independent sector.
My noble friend the Minister asked whether I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. Quite frankly, I must tell him that I had intended to press it to a Division. I regard it as a very serious matter. Perhaps I may just reiterate the point made by my noble friends: it is a classic case of deregulation and something which we regard as being a quite unnecessary burden on schools and involving an enormous cost to public expenditure.
My noble friend the Minister raised various points. I am aware of the consultation paper and the suggestion that social services departments should inspect every

1130
four years. I should like to make it quite clear that we do not believe that that would serve a very useful exercise. In the course of a 10-year cycle, it would mean that there would be four inspections of schools—say, one every three years. Again, it does not seem to me to be a very sensible exercise. Moreover, it would be extremely disrupting to the school.
Further, under the consultation paper the prep schools—that is, the IAPS schools—would be subject to inspection every year. For all the arguments that I have given, I do not believe that that is necessary. However, my noble friend has said that both he and his colleagues would be prepared to look again at the matter. For my part, I would be prepared to tell him and his colleagues that, in the training sessions for the ISJC inspection teams, we would be happy to have a session from social workers talking about their work and giving additional information to the team if that was considered to be helpful.
However, having said that, I would not want my noble friend the Minister to be under the impression that I would be likely to settle for more than that. For all the reasons that I have advanced, I believe that my amendment makes quite clear the fact that such inspections are unnecessary. But with my noble friend's assurance that he will look again very carefully at the matter, I am prepared at this late hour to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Miscellaneous Deregulatory Provisions: Consequential Amendments]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 99, line 36, at end insert:
("Charities Act 1993 (c. 10)
12. In section 47(3) of the Charities Act 1993—

(a) paragraph (a) shall be omitted, and

(b) in paragraph (b), for the words from "such" to "46(3) above" there shall be substituted "a charity other than one falling within paragraph (c) or (d) below".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Extent of Chapter II]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 183 to 191:
Page 24, line 44, after ("16,") insert ("(Sporting events and activities on Sundays),").
Page 24, line 44, after ("16,") insert ("17(3),").
Page 24, line 44, after ("20,") insert ("(Offences under section 63 of the Charities Act 1992: creation of statutory defence),").
Page 24, line 44, after ("20,") insert ("(Applications for permits to conduct public charitable collections: time-limits),").
Page 24, line 44, after ("20,") insert ("(Annual audit or examination of charity accounts),").
Page 24, line 44, after ("20,") insert ("(Annual reports of charities),").
Page 24, line 44, after ("20,") insert ("(Annual returns by charities),").
Page 25, line 1, leave out ("Schedule") and insert ("Schedules").
Page 25, line 1, after ("6") insert ("and 7").
The noble Viscount said: These amendments have all already been spoken to. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 183 to 191 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past midnight.

  FIRE SAFETY LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENT REVIEW
  FIRE SAFETY LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENT REVIEW
  VEXATIONS LITIGATION
  VEXATIONS LITIGATION
  AIR POLLUTION CONTROL: GUIDANCE NOTES REVISION
  AIR POLLUTION CONTROL: GUIDANCE NOTES REVISION
  SERVICE PERSONNEL: COMPENSATION FOR DISCHARGE
  SERVICE PERSONNEL: COMPENSATION FOR DISCHARGE
  MARITIME RESEARCH
  MARITIME RESEARCH
  MARITIME POLICY
  MARITIME POLICY
  SOUTH GLAMORGAN: YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT, 1993
  SOUTH GLAMORGAN: YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT, 1993
  ISRAEL: ACQUISITION OF US BOMBERS
  ISRAEL: ACQUISITION OF US BOMBERS
  ISRAEL: US INTELLIGENCE AND TARGETING INFORMATION
  ISRAEL: US INTELLIGENCE AND TARGETING INFORMATION
  A. 12 MARLESFORD TO BENHALL: SPEED LIMIT
  A. 12 MARLESFORD TO BENHALL: SPEED LIMIT
  AIRCRAFT BAGGAGE SECURITY MEASURES
  AIRCRAFT BAGGAGE SECURITY MEASURES
  JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 20th JUNE
  JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 20th JUNE